4 ms·

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. It's only not falsifiable because nobody has devised a test. It's a hypothesis without an experiment. That do

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. It's only not falsifiable because nobody has devised a test. It's a hypothesis without an experiment. That doesn't mean that people aren't trying [0]. If it is a simulation, you're not going to clip through the wall by running against a corner and jumping for an hour. The thing is, we don't know where this line of reasoning would even lead. I mean, people used to think that light had to travel in little packets through luminiferous aether [1] and look where that investigation led: Einstein, special relativity, atomic weapons and power, nuclear medicine, etc. Let's say the universe is fundamentally indistinguishable from a computer simulation. What consequences does that have? What does that say about the types of math that can be used to describe the universe? Or, perhaps better, the types of math that shouldn't be used to describe the universe? What does that say about our ability to model a portion of the universe and therefore predict outcomes? Does it have implications for stochastic processes? Indeed, where is the stochasticism coming from? Is everything predictable or is there some fundamental randomness? On the other hand, what if we can show that the universe is distinguishable from a computer simulation. What does that mean for our understanding of the universe as it exists? Does it reveal a fundamental aspect of reality that we have missed, or a limitation of our mathematics, or a fault in our computer models or design, etc.? We're dogs learning calculus here, and the universe isn't obligated to make sense. Even if we can never find a useful test for this hypothesis, the line of thinking itself potentially leads us into new areas of discovery. [0]: https://gizmodo.com/5950832/how-to-tell-if-the-universe-is-a-computer-simulation https://gizmodo.com/5950832/how-to-tell-if-the-universe-is-a... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

olavk 8y ago
The problem is...you can even define what it means for the universe to be a simulation. You might as well argue like George Berkely that all sensations are signs and symbols directly from God - it is not even wrong. It is fundamentally unknowable - unless God or The Simulator choose to reveal themselves directly to us. The luminiferous ether was a falsifiable theory - indeed it was a breakthrough for physics because it was falsified (experiments failed to detect it) so new theories had to be developed. So this is completely different from unfalsifiable metaphysics.
- freeloop10 8y ago
  It is falsifiable if you consider that a simulation would have limited resources allocated to it. The null hypothesis would be the universe runs in a way where a simulation couldn't cheat by performing a rough calculation at the hard parts, thereby spending a tiny fraction of what would be needed and produce the same observable result. The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, since a simulator could be deferring calculations on things not observed. Also, the very program this article is referring to could be considered as evidence for it, since if a rough simulation can be made where the observable result is indistinguishable from a result where every atomic element in the entire universe was simulated, then, again, a simulator with limited resources would make do. The law of conservation of energy is built the same way. There is no way we can test ways that energy is transferred that we don't yet know about, but this law is still considered true, because we have so many examples of it working.
  - olavk 8y ago
    Well I guess you can disprove particular forms of simulation - e.g. since a computer with 16GB RAM can be adequately simulated, we can reject the notion that the current universe is simulated on a computer with 16GB RAM or less. > The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, How is that evidence? Current physics can model that without relying on a simulation hypothesis. Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.
    - freeloop10 8y ago
      Why did you quote half my sentence, leaving out the part where I explain why, and then ask why? > Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable. I explain this. It's falsifiable if it can be shown there is some extremely large and complicated process that be observed to be different than any possible rough calculation that could be accomplished by a simulator with very constrained resources (constrained in comparison to all the supposed atomic particles in the universe) The notion that all forms of energy must be conserved, even undiscovered ones, has been used as the basis for the theory of Hawking radiation, isn't it? Yet claiming that undiscovered forms of energy are conserved, just as known ones, is unfalsifiable, too. The law of conservation of energy, including undiscovered ones, is in the same boat as the theory that the universe is a simulation. Until we find a form of energy that isn't conserved, it is simpler to assume all types of energy are conserved. Similarly, until we find a process that is of large enough scale that it couldn't be simulated on a computer with resources much more limited than the size of the universe, and be observable identical to a process taking much more resources, it is simpler to assume it all is being simulated in such a way.

olavk 8y ago

The problem is...you can even define what it means for the universe to be a simulation. You might as well argue like George Berkely that all sensations are signs and symbols directly from God - it is not even wrong. It is fundamentally unknowable - unless God or The Simulator choose to reveal themselves directly to us. The luminiferous ether was a falsifiable theory - indeed it was a breakthrough for physics because it was falsified (experiments failed to detect it) so new theories had to be developed. So this is completely different from unfalsifiable metaphysics.

freeloop10 8y ago
It is falsifiable if you consider that a simulation would have limited resources allocated to it. The null hypothesis would be the universe runs in a way where a simulation couldn't cheat by performing a rough calculation at the hard parts, thereby spending a tiny fraction of what would be needed and produce the same observable result. The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, since a simulator could be deferring calculations on things not observed. Also, the very program this article is referring to could be considered as evidence for it, since if a rough simulation can be made where the observable result is indistinguishable from a result where every atomic element in the entire universe was simulated, then, again, a simulator with limited resources would make do. The law of conservation of energy is built the same way. There is no way we can test ways that energy is transferred that we don't yet know about, but this law is still considered true, because we have so many examples of it working.
- olavk 8y ago
  Well I guess you can disprove particular forms of simulation - e.g. since a computer with 16GB RAM can be adequately simulated, we can reject the notion that the current universe is simulated on a computer with 16GB RAM or less. > The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, How is that evidence? Current physics can model that without relying on a simulation hypothesis. Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.
  - freeloop10 8y ago
    Why did you quote half my sentence, leaving out the part where I explain why, and then ask why? > Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable. I explain this. It's falsifiable if it can be shown there is some extremely large and complicated process that be observed to be different than any possible rough calculation that could be accomplished by a simulator with very constrained resources (constrained in comparison to all the supposed atomic particles in the universe) The notion that all forms of energy must be conserved, even undiscovered ones, has been used as the basis for the theory of Hawking radiation, isn't it? Yet claiming that undiscovered forms of energy are conserved, just as known ones, is unfalsifiable, too. The law of conservation of energy, including undiscovered ones, is in the same boat as the theory that the universe is a simulation. Until we find a form of energy that isn't conserved, it is simpler to assume all types of energy are conserved. Similarly, until we find a process that is of large enough scale that it couldn't be simulated on a computer with resources much more limited than the size of the universe, and be observable identical to a process taking much more resources, it is simpler to assume it all is being simulated in such a way.