14 ms·
The whole thing feels like encroachment of some kind of bizarre secular theology into physics. Grandiose and mostly non-falsifiable claims that can't be used t
by gambler 8y ago
The whole thing feels like encroachment of some kind of bizarre secular theology into physics. Grandiose and mostly non-falsifiable claims that can't be used to make any specific predictions. Thinking by analogy (with computers) rather then by deduction or induction. What makes this fundamentally different from, let's say, talks about the astral plane?
We don't have AI in GTA. We don't have strong AI at all. Our computing is running into all kinds of physical limitations right now. Moreover, the only thing that distinguishes GTA from accounting software is that we built it in such a way that it can be interpreted as a cruder version of the real world. There is no fundamental difference.
- visarga 8y agoAccounting software is also a crude version (partial model) of our economy.
- n-exploit 8y agoAnd the blockchain is a real time distributed ledger.
- jeletonskelly 8y agoIt's just a probability thought experiment. If there is only one real universe and there are (hypothetical) at least 2 simulations of universes (regardless of their fidelity) then the odds that you, an inhabitant of a universe, is in one of the simulated universes is 66%.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoThis can go wrong so fast. If there are only two kinds of people, winners of lotteries and losers of lotteries, it doesn't mean I have a 50% chance of winning the lottery. The simulation has to be 'good enough' to make a thinking person (win the lottery); my mind has to be only smart enough to think of multiple universes but not perceive the obvious simulation artifacts; I have to be written (as a simulation myself) to be capable of accepting multiple universes. Since we even ask ourselves "Are we a limited simulation artifact, or a real thinking person?" the answer is right there in the question.
- ohyes 8y agoIf you were a puddle, you would be prone to think “gee, this hole is the perfect shape for me.” When it turns out you’d fit any shape hole we put you in given sufficient quantity of water. Because the hole determines your shape, not an intrinsic property of you.
- CPLX 8y agoIf you were said puddle, however, what’s the difference?
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoWhether or not the puddle was made for you
- Razengan 8y agoIf you had said “the hole” instead of puddle and this was Reddit, I would have linked that Junji Ito short story [0]. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/ZNSaq https://imgur.com/gallery/ZNSaq
- longerthoughts 8y agoThe lottery analogy is compelling as an argument against the parents' specific assignment of probability but I would challenge you on a couple of things: > The simulation has to be 'good enough' to make a thinking person (win the lottery); my mind has to be only smart enough to think of multiple universes but not perceive the obvious simulation artifacts Why is it necessarily true that the creator of a simulation would want to indefinitely prevent people in the simulation from recognizing that their universe is simulated? > Since we even ask ourselves "Are we a limited simulation artifact, or a real thinking person?" the answer is right there in the question. Let's go along with the notion that the simulation would want to avoid discovery of the simulation. How are you sure that you're really asking the question if you're so convinced of the answer? Is it crazy to imagine that in the hypothetical simulation a person's consciousness would be given degrees of freedom but have imposed constraints?
- simonh 8y agoThe problem for me is the fidelity of the simulation. It’s like running a simulation of the hardware of a computer on the computer itself. eeven if you devote all of the computer’s resources, the simulation will run incredibly slowly. If you run the simulation in a fraction of the real hardware’s resources, the simulation will either have to be extremely crude and unrealistic, or equally extremely slowly. At which point, why would anyone do this? A simulation like GTA is only useful because it is staggeringly crude, but the goals of the simulation are commensurately staggeringly modest. I just don’t see how running a simulation of our universe, in our universe, at high enough fidelity to appear real even under detailed scientific analysis, could be useful or worthwhile. I’d like to see a more credible and compelling proposal than hand waved ‘history simulation’. What’s the point of a history simulation that runs many times slower than real time? If it’s low fidelity, it will also be low accuracy, so why simulating at the physics level at all? I don’t see how it would give useful results.
- kernaussage 8y agoTime is relative, our perceived time must not necessarily be the same as the one the inhabitants of the simulation feel.
- b_tterc_p 8y agoAdditionally our perception of time as moving does not demand a simulation is moving. This could be a flat file, our experiencing of reality merely being a series of pre calculated frames with an illusory sense of self. The fact that we experience things does not mean things have happened. You can’t guarantee time hasn’t literally just started at even given moment. Every frame of existence may just be a single slice now opened up, and everything else you perceived as happening to you in some concept of recent time may be sitting in a database- not actually called upon ever.
- vidarh 8y ago> At which point, why would anyone do this? A game is a perfectly valid reason to do this. We're running millions of crude, low level simulations today. > I’d like to see a more credible and compelling proposal than hand waved ‘history simulation’ Civilization is a crude, low level "history simulation" that doesn't try to be accurate. Our world might be equally low level and crude by the standard of a future with vastly more computational capability. Also consider that if you're in a simulation, then you have no basis for saying anything about the size or scope of the simulation: it's not a given many people are simulated at full fidelity, for example.
- Retric 8y agoAn actual universe contains vastly more computational power than all simulated universes with that universe. Which means a thinking being is vastly more likely to be in the real universe.
- davorb 8y agoI don't think this follows. What you are saying is basically "All Bs must be a subset of A. Therefore dogs like the sun."
- Retric 8y agoSimulations are more computationally bound than the root universe. Simulating a full being vs just a mind takes a lot more computation than simply simulating a mind. Therefore from an optimization standpoint simulations are unlikely to simulate worlds nearly as complex as the real one. Either they are going to simulate minds, or they will simulate tiny subsets of the real world, or vastly less complex worlds. We are not operating as minds without body's which rules out the pure mind simulation leaving far less efficient options which must therefore simulate smaller spaces, less complex universes, and or shorter periods of time. ED: And by complexity I mean in terms of building blocks useful for simulating a universe or hosting life. Complexity that's not useful for either purpose is useless.
- jeletonskelly 8y agoThe bounds of the computing power isn't even worth considering because we have no knowledge of the resources, let alone the nature of the reality, in either a parent universe or parent simulation. Sure, fidelity must drop in each nested simulation, but we have no idea if we are 2 levels deep, 1000 levels deep, or in the actual real universe.
- Retric 8y agoThat's irrelevant as Life and computation both take resources. In a more complex universe the bacteria equivalent could be more intelligent than humans. But it does not go the other way simulations of a life form will always be less efficient than the least complex lifeforms in a parent universe.
- cc-d 8y agoWhen we're discussing things at the level of 'higher than our own universe', there is no reason to assume the concept of probability even exists.
- coldtea 8y ago>The whole thing feels like encroachment of some kind of bizarre secular theology into physics. Grandiose and mostly non-falsifiable claims that can't be used to make any specific predictions. Did you miss the part where they are doing just the opposite of that? The post's title is about scientists "looking for ways to put the hypothesis to the test...
- twtw 8y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences
- gambler 8y agoThe problem is that those experiments would invalidate only their assumption about the supposed structure of the supposed simulation, not the overall idea of the simulation. So the statement overall actually is non-falsifiable. This is like saying "there are invisible elephants walking everywhere, let's try to see if they are made of neutrinos".
- coldtea 8y ago>So the statement overall actually is non-falsifiable. Except if all possible structures of all possible simulations must by necessity fit those assumptions. Which is their fuller argument.
- recursive 8y agoIt seems like a silly argument. The physics of the outer universe are not bound by the rules of the inner universe. From the perspective of the inner universe, we can never hope to deduce facts about the outer universe based on out observations.
- coldtea 8y agoAnd yet we already impose other rules onto our own universe not deducible by the universe itself, like e.g. logical consistency. Why not expand them to any possible external universe?
- UpshotKnothole 8y agoThe whole thing feels like encroachment of some kind of bizarre secular theology into physics. Yeah, people really really want to believe that they’re not just an accident, that hasn’t changed. “Simulation” is the new creation myth, and no more rigorous or convincing. It doesn’t even pretend to answer fundamental questions, it just puts them off by one level. It literally does nothing except make people rephrase the question slightly, a la “Ok then, how did the simulators’ universe come to exist?” It’s as boring and inconclusive as religion, without the self-awareness in many of its adherents of it being explicitly religious. It has all of the characteristics of a religious belief, from the lack of falsifiability, to the existence of potentially interventionist powers beyond our reality, creators, a higher purpose, etc.
- cc-d 8y ago>The whole thing feels like encroachment of some kind of bizarre secular theology into physics. Grandiose and mostly non-falsifiable claims that can't be used to make any specific predictions. Even though we have disproved many of the fundamental axioms which serve as basis for many religions, the human tendency towards religious thought remains. It's just currently in vogue to portray such tendencies as '(unfalsifiable) science' instead of 'divine word'.
- nsxwolf 8y agoWhat are the many fundamental axioms we have disproved? We have proved that some creation myths cannot be literally true. What else?
- neuronic 8y agoI don't think it's quite that simple. The human brain is constantly building stories to explain context. A lot of studies have shown numerous ways in which the brain diverts from objective reality to make it fit whatever subjective reality fits its story best. Such studies range from simple recall exercise to analyses of witness reliability. Juicy bits like: "Bias creeps into memory without our knowledge, without our awareness. While confidence and accuracy are generally correlated, when misleading information is given, witness confidence is often higher for the incorrect information than for the correct information. This leads many to question the competence of the average person to determine credibility issues." [1] "R.T. first heard about the Challenger explosion as she and her roommate sat watching television in their Emory University dorm room. A news flash came across the screen, shocking them both. R. T., visibly upset, raced upstairs to tell another friend the news. Then she called her parents. Two and a half years after the event, she remembered it as if it were yesterday: the TV, the terrible news, the call home. She could say with absolute certainty that that’s precisely how it happened. Except, it turns out, none of what she remembered was accurate." [2] Also, this is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation Now imagine that story-telling reality-justifying part of the brain as intersubjective phenomenon in a large network of humans. What do you get? Concepts like "the nation", corporations and the kingdom of God. [1] https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.h... [2] https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happened-memory-recollection https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happe...
- ohyes 8y agoThis is basically scientists re-discovering the "evil demon" / "brain in a vat" and not realizing it's kind of a tautological fallacy. If life is a simulation, you can set an arbitrary boundary on how good you assume the simulation is, so any test you do would naturally be inadequate to confirm or deny the simulationness of life.
- meowface 8y agoCouldn't it be the case that a lot of the scientists investigating this hypothesis are very philosophically-minded and are aware of all of these things and know it's probably non-falsifiable and futile? Even if you believe that, it still can't hurt to try. Science is all about testing things. If there are some things we can check, why not check them, just in case? And even if we don't get any closer to knowing whether or not we're in a simulation (which we probably won't), we could still learn other things in the process.
- newsbinator 8y agoYou can't disprove that you're in a simulation (e.g. "brain in a vat"). But it might be possible to prove (or at least provide strong evidence) that you're in one.
- compelledToken 8y agoBut that really isn't the problem at hand. There's a big difference between a real brain perceiving artificial stilumation as if it were authentic sensation, versus a virtual simulation of a sentient entity that only exists as data in motion within a volatile memory store. It's a far greater deception, for an entire universe of distinct sentient entities to exist as a stream of oscillations in a digital circuit, imagining themselves as mortal flesh, than it is for ten, or a thousand, or one billion fleshy organs to imagine a vicarious life unfolding before them, when they can't even move because they're suspended in brine, hooked up to fluid drips, and stimulated by electrodes. On the one hand, you have a universe brimming with ephemeral entities that need not live as mortals, and on the other, you have limited fleshy blobs, easily placated by limitless sensation, that would have been miserable fleshy blobs whether they had arms and legs and a face or not. The individual brain in a vat is better of in the vat, while the simulated universe is utterly tragic and should be destroyed immediately for all the undue suffering it needlessly replicates. The universe in a VM can never know it's not a faithful replication of a higher genuine reality trying to predict future events by fast forwarding the simulation under an array of probabilities. Mostly because it wouldn't be a useful simulation if it could. Let's say you can simulate planet earth with 100% fidelity, and you want to know if you should drive to work, or telecommute. So you fire up the simulation, and it shows you a fatal car accident. So you telecommute that day, and work from home. Are you ever going to let the simulated version of yourself learn that it's a simulation? Nevermind that you could simulate bank robberies until you get away with one, or lotto tickets until you win. The point being that, you'd force your simulated self to look at the simulation that says "drive to work" and then watch what happens, while running it parallel alongside the version that stays home. You run it in fast forward, and 9 out of 10 times a freeway pile up kills you, but you score a million dollar bonus that day, based on an opportunity only available from the office. The saty home version misses out on the bonus that gets snapped up by someone else. You now know that starting the car is 90% dangerous, according to high fidelity simulations that are fully sentient copies of yourself, forbidden from realizing that fact, because their deception is essential to the risks they must verify. How do you know you aren't a deeper layer simulation to a higher version of your true self consulting a virtualized oracle of future events?
- RichardCA 8y agoThe thing humans seem to fear most is that our existence is just as ephemeral as that of the mayfly or some other being that is not troubled by self awareness. How far will we go in avoidance of that idea? This is the point of Buddhism, the work of Alan Watts, etc. It's nothing new.