6 ms·

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is n

Didn't we learn from past experiences that humanity isn't (and shouldn't) the center of anything? Earth is not the center of the solar system, solar system is not the center of galaxy and the universe don't care about us? Why assume that we're the "center of the simulation"? Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Maybe they are saying: - hey, look, there is this tiny little simulation quirk here and they found out about the simulation. - can that little error affect the universe expansion simulation? - no, they are very marginal, small and useless. - so keep going. So, that said: Nick's ideas and books are awesome. Everbody should read it. But I just don't think we are that special, even if we're part of a simulation.

cgriswald 7y ago
I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. This means that such a high percentage of humans are simulated, that you'd have nearly infinitely better odds of winning the lottery than being a non-simulated human. To me, this means we should conclude we are the center of the simulation, since the fact that we exist implies we are probably in an ancestor-simulation. > Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? > Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate the expansion/contraction? There seems to be little need for conscious beings (or life at all), unless life and/or conscious beings is required in some way to explain expansion/contraction. (But if so, wouldn't that mean we ARE in fact the 'center of the simulation'?
- dmichulke 7y ago
  > His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. I read somewhere that the smallest computer to simulate the universe necessarily has the size of the universe. This would that either the real universe contains much more information (likely more than a few orders of magnitude more so that a trivial part of that Ur-universe can be allocated to simulate our universe), or recursion is not possible.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    Even if humans were to colonize the entire Milky Way, the interactions between two neutrons 13 billion light years away would still be completely outside the scope of the simulation, because those interactions would have no hope of being detected by a human. So you'll always have massive savings versus simulating the entire universe. It's really human computing where it all falls apart.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  Doesn't that imply that it needs to be physically possible to simulate a universe that is as complex as your own universe. I would think that it should be possible to prove that isn't true.
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    See my response to the sibling comment. You don't need to simulate the entire universe. You only need to simulate those parts that can possibly affect a human being. There's no need, for instance, to simulate photometry for stars in the Andromeda galaxy because we lack the resolution to measure the movement of those stars.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  I think that if your metric is not total number of universes, but available quantity of causal interactions, then Bostrom's argument falls apart on probability as well. More stuff can happen in the top level universe, unless you are dedicating more than half the top level universe to simulation, so you are more likely to exist there.
lowkeyokay 7y ago
I think of it this way: We are already running simulations of the universe with very simple models. Imagine 1000 years from now what type of models we could be using. Perhaps models where every known law of physics is precisely modeled. Then let it run from Big Bang and fast forward 14 billion years. Maybe the simulation would create some lifeforms. Even if that was not the intention. If that's not too far a stretch then maybe some civilization exists where their top notch model will create the world we experience. Maybe they don't care or aren't aware that the simulation simulate life. Maybe they just care about how the universe evolves, and we are a biproduct of that.
mikeash 7y ago
My pet idea is that we’re just the idle thoughts of some incomprehensibly vast intelligence. Imagine a world of intelligent ants. You might picture them working in their colonies. You might imagine their social interactions. Imagine a world where magic works according to certain rules. You’d think about how society functions, what sort of jobs people would have, you might even imagine some specific people. You might do this spontaneously, or in response to reading some random idea in an Internet comment. You are, in effect, running simulations. They are really basic and extremely low fidelity because the brain isn’t very good at it. But consider a vast intelligence capable of imagining our entire universe the way we might casually imagine the appearance of a zebra with a giraffe neck. For such a being, this act of imagination might not even be intentional. They might not even realize they’re doing it. Of course there’s no particular reason to think this is actually true, but I like the idea.

cgriswald 7y ago

I don't agree with Bostrom's argument and wrote an undergrad paper arguing against it. I argued it from a physical point of view and I don't think we are in a Bostrom-style simulation. That said, if you accept that a Bostrom-style simulation is physically possible, I think Bostrom is still right, and we would most likely be the center of the simulation. His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. This means that such a high percentage of humans are simulated, that you'd have nearly infinitely better odds of winning the lottery than being a non-simulated human. To me, this means we should conclude we are the center of the simulation, since the fact that we exist implies we are probably in an ancestor-simulation. > Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate us? > Maybe this is about simulate the universe expansion/contraction. Why simulate the whole universe just to simulate the expansion/contraction? There seems to be little need for conscious beings (or life at all), unless life and/or conscious beings is required in some way to explain expansion/contraction. (But if so, wouldn't that mean we ARE in fact the 'center of the simulation'?

dmichulke 7y ago
> His basic argument is that if there is an original universe with humans, they might like to simulate their ancestors. And they are likely to run many such simulations, in at least some of which, humans survive. Those survivors, in turn, are also likely to run many such simulations, etc. on down the line. I read somewhere that the smallest computer to simulate the universe necessarily has the size of the universe. This would that either the real universe contains much more information (likely more than a few orders of magnitude more so that a trivial part of that Ur-universe can be allocated to simulate our universe), or recursion is not possible.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  Even if humans were to colonize the entire Milky Way, the interactions between two neutrons 13 billion light years away would still be completely outside the scope of the simulation, because those interactions would have no hope of being detected by a human. So you'll always have massive savings versus simulating the entire universe. It's really human computing where it all falls apart.
RHSeeger 7y ago
Doesn't that imply that it needs to be physically possible to simulate a universe that is as complex as your own universe. I would think that it should be possible to prove that isn't true.
- cgriswald 7y ago
  See my response to the sibling comment. You don't need to simulate the entire universe. You only need to simulate those parts that can possibly affect a human being. There's no need, for instance, to simulate photometry for stars in the Andromeda galaxy because we lack the resolution to measure the movement of those stars.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
I think that if your metric is not total number of universes, but available quantity of causal interactions, then Bostrom's argument falls apart on probability as well. More stuff can happen in the top level universe, unless you are dedicating more than half the top level universe to simulation, so you are more likely to exist there.

lowkeyokay 7y ago

I think of it this way: We are already running simulations of the universe with very simple models. Imagine 1000 years from now what type of models we could be using. Perhaps models where every known law of physics is precisely modeled. Then let it run from Big Bang and fast forward 14 billion years. Maybe the simulation would create some lifeforms. Even if that was not the intention. If that's not too far a stretch then maybe some civilization exists where their top notch model will create the world we experience. Maybe they don't care or aren't aware that the simulation simulate life. Maybe they just care about how the universe evolves, and we are a biproduct of that.

mikeash 7y ago

My pet idea is that we’re just the idle thoughts of some incomprehensibly vast intelligence. Imagine a world of intelligent ants. You might picture them working in their colonies. You might imagine their social interactions. Imagine a world where magic works according to certain rules. You’d think about how society functions, what sort of jobs people would have, you might even imagine some specific people. You might do this spontaneously, or in response to reading some random idea in an Internet comment. You are, in effect, running simulations. They are really basic and extremely low fidelity because the brain isn’t very good at it. But consider a vast intelligence capable of imagining our entire universe the way we might casually imagine the appearance of a zebra with a giraffe neck. For such a being, this act of imagination might not even be intentional. They might not even realize they’re doing it. Of course there’s no particular reason to think this is actually true, but I like the idea.