3 ms·

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 sign

by 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
      > Why did you quote half my sentence, leaving out the part where I explain why, and then ask why? Sorry I just didn't want to quote the whole comment, didn't mean to imply I was only responding to the first part of the sentence. I understand you can hypothetically prove that a simulation of the universe would require a simulation engine of at least a certain complexity. But since the simulation engine does not exist in this universe, we have no idea about what limitations or laws of nature (if any) it is subject to. You will never be able to prove or disprove the existence if this hypothetical simulator.
      - freeloop10 8y ago
        Well, a Turing complete computer is about as abstract as you can get, and so is the concept of memory, regardless of the natural laws of some outer universe, it'd probably be a good starting point to consider a turing computer except with limited memory. The point is not to prove one way or another whether the universe is a simulation, just like there is no point trying to prove the law of conservation of energy as universal for all forms of phenomena, discovered and undiscovered. It's just if we can show that all known phenomena can be the result of a very limited simulation, then when analyzing new phenomena, we can also expect it to be runnable on a very limited simulation, too. It's the same as assuming that the law of conservation of energy would apply to any new phenomena we discover. There is no proof, but it's a good starting point.
da_chicken 8y ago
> The luminiferous ether was a falsifiable theory But it effectively wasn't for the first 150 years of it's existence. The theory originated in 1720 and it wasn't disproven until 1887. It took that long for someone to come up with a conclusive experiment. Nevertheless, for those 150 years the luminiferous ether theory was widely held, shaped the field of physics, and the research had to go into finding an experiment to test the theory. Similarly, the idea that atoms might do things when high energy particles hit them was all theory until Wilson's cloud chamber became the first particle detector and suddenly physicists could see what these particles were doing when they hit things. > The problem is...you can even define what it means for the universe to be a simulation. You're confusing something that hasn't been done with something that can't be done. Indeed, what they're trying to do is exactly trying to define criteria to test that the universe is a simulation. It's the first day of school and you're complaining that Newton doesn't have his Principia and Gilbert doesn't have his De Magnete. Theories often predate the knowledge of how to test them. This isn't weird.
- olavk 8y ago
  In order for a theory to be falsifiable it first have to be a theory! The simulation hypothesis is not even a theory (i.e. it makes no verifiable predictions), so it is not even falsifiable in principle.

by olavk 8y ago

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
    > Why did you quote half my sentence, leaving out the part where I explain why, and then ask why? Sorry I just didn't want to quote the whole comment, didn't mean to imply I was only responding to the first part of the sentence. I understand you can hypothetically prove that a simulation of the universe would require a simulation engine of at least a certain complexity. But since the simulation engine does not exist in this universe, we have no idea about what limitations or laws of nature (if any) it is subject to. You will never be able to prove or disprove the existence if this hypothetical simulator.
    - freeloop10 8y ago
      Well, a Turing complete computer is about as abstract as you can get, and so is the concept of memory, regardless of the natural laws of some outer universe, it'd probably be a good starting point to consider a turing computer except with limited memory. The point is not to prove one way or another whether the universe is a simulation, just like there is no point trying to prove the law of conservation of energy as universal for all forms of phenomena, discovered and undiscovered. It's just if we can show that all known phenomena can be the result of a very limited simulation, then when analyzing new phenomena, we can also expect it to be runnable on a very limited simulation, too. It's the same as assuming that the law of conservation of energy would apply to any new phenomena we discover. There is no proof, but it's a good starting point.

da_chicken 8y ago

> The luminiferous ether was a falsifiable theory But it effectively wasn't for the first 150 years of it's existence. The theory originated in 1720 and it wasn't disproven until 1887. It took that long for someone to come up with a conclusive experiment. Nevertheless, for those 150 years the luminiferous ether theory was widely held, shaped the field of physics, and the research had to go into finding an experiment to test the theory. Similarly, the idea that atoms might do things when high energy particles hit them was all theory until Wilson's cloud chamber became the first particle detector and suddenly physicists could see what these particles were doing when they hit things. > The problem is...you can even define what it means for the universe to be a simulation. You're confusing something that hasn't been done with something that can't be done. Indeed, what they're trying to do is exactly trying to define criteria to test that the universe is a simulation. It's the first day of school and you're complaining that Newton doesn't have his Principia and Gilbert doesn't have his De Magnete. Theories often predate the knowledge of how to test them. This isn't weird.

olavk 8y ago
In order for a theory to be falsifiable it first have to be a theory! The simulation hypothesis is not even a theory (i.e. it makes no verifiable predictions), so it is not even falsifiable in principle.