4 ms·

But a digital computer at present in this world may not be a good reference to the capability of the computer that supposedly simulate this world. We know nothi

But a digital computer at present in this world may not be a good reference to the capability of the computer that supposedly simulate this world. We know nothing about the "real" world that computer resided, and nothing about that computer.

joe_the_user 7y ago
If we have posited a thing with unknown properties and say maybe that is generating our universe, we've pretty much taken the opposite position to Occam's Razor, which is often stated as "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- andrewon 7y ago
  Occam's Razor is a good principle for choosing scientific hypotheses. But I think when it comes to studying big questions like fundamental fabric of this physical world, we are at a lost here. Essentially we elect to believe, without justification, that the world got to follow a reductionist paradigm - if the world can be made simpler, it must not be more complex.
roywiggins 7y ago
Right, but that is then a totally unfalsifiable idea. You can't prove the non-existence of something you can't begin to define.
- andrewon 7y ago
  I guess that's the gist of all these arguments -- they are ideas not something we can prove or disprove.
stromgo 7y ago
We do know that the real world is richer than the simulated world, since it holds a computer that runs the simulated world. Therefore if you exist, then it's more likely that you're the result of evolution in the real world than the result of evolution in the simulated world. Imagine the warehouse-size computer that is needed to simulate a bacterium here on Earth. Computers are dusty, and dust contains bacteria, so if you're a bacterium, then it's more likely that you're one of the billions of bacteria in the dust on the computer, than the bacterium being simulated by the computer. The same reasoning should hold for other worlds.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Unless I misunderstand what your conception of a simulation is, I don't see why a virtual world is limited by the constraints of the parent world, any more than video games are limited by the constraints of our world? I would think this would apply to the individual molecule tracking requirement above as well.
- fpoling 7y ago
  The assumption that real world is richer than simulated world is just that, an assumption. For one it assumes that both are finite.
  - pegasus 7y ago
    It's logically necessary, not just an assumption. The simulated world with all its richness is by definition a strict subset of the simulating world. So the latter must be richer than the former.
    - fpoling 7y ago
      This is not true for infinite sets where a subset can be equivalent to the whole.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      Could you possibly explain/reason why this must be, without using "by definition"? Many people in this thread agree with you on this, but I don't understand it (see my other comment using a video game analogy). Is the richness you describe in your comment implicitly constrained to that which exists physically perhaps?
    - andrewon 7y ago
      I believe it is not correct. You can put new features that do not exist in the physical world in a simulation. For example, you can double the number of quarks in a proton as long as you define a mathematically consistent interaction to allow so. Then you created a richer simulated world.
    - 7y ago
yyyk 7y ago
If we don't know anything about the "real" (or at least, "realer") world, I don't see how we can argue for a simulation either. If we don't know the "real" rules, how can we make any proposition? At best we might argue that our world is inconsistent, but we cannot say that's any more or less likely than a simulation (who says the world has to make any sense?). The only semi-useful simulation arguments have to assume the "real" world is sorta like our world or at least functioning according to math. But that returns us to the simulation cost problem.

joe_the_user 7y ago

If we have posited a thing with unknown properties and say maybe that is generating our universe, we've pretty much taken the opposite position to Occam's Razor, which is often stated as "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

andrewon 7y ago
Occam's Razor is a good principle for choosing scientific hypotheses. But I think when it comes to studying big questions like fundamental fabric of this physical world, we are at a lost here. Essentially we elect to believe, without justification, that the world got to follow a reductionist paradigm - if the world can be made simpler, it must not be more complex.

roywiggins 7y ago

Right, but that is then a totally unfalsifiable idea. You can't prove the non-existence of something you can't begin to define.

andrewon 7y ago
I guess that's the gist of all these arguments -- they are ideas not something we can prove or disprove.

stromgo 7y ago

We do know that the real world is richer than the simulated world, since it holds a computer that runs the simulated world. Therefore if you exist, then it's more likely that you're the result of evolution in the real world than the result of evolution in the simulated world. Imagine the warehouse-size computer that is needed to simulate a bacterium here on Earth. Computers are dusty, and dust contains bacteria, so if you're a bacterium, then it's more likely that you're one of the billions of bacteria in the dust on the computer, than the bacterium being simulated by the computer. The same reasoning should hold for other worlds.

mistermann 7y ago
Unless I misunderstand what your conception of a simulation is, I don't see why a virtual world is limited by the constraints of the parent world, any more than video games are limited by the constraints of our world? I would think this would apply to the individual molecule tracking requirement above as well.
fpoling 7y ago
The assumption that real world is richer than simulated world is just that, an assumption. For one it assumes that both are finite.
- pegasus 7y ago
  It's logically necessary, not just an assumption. The simulated world with all its richness is by definition a strict subset of the simulating world. So the latter must be richer than the former.
  - fpoling 7y ago
    This is not true for infinite sets where a subset can be equivalent to the whole.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Could you possibly explain/reason why this must be, without using "by definition"? Many people in this thread agree with you on this, but I don't understand it (see my other comment using a video game analogy). Is the richness you describe in your comment implicitly constrained to that which exists physically perhaps?
  - andrewon 7y ago
    I believe it is not correct. You can put new features that do not exist in the physical world in a simulation. For example, you can double the number of quarks in a proton as long as you define a mathematically consistent interaction to allow so. Then you created a richer simulated world.
  - 7y ago

yyyk 7y ago

If we don't know anything about the "real" (or at least, "realer") world, I don't see how we can argue for a simulation either. If we don't know the "real" rules, how can we make any proposition? At best we might argue that our world is inconsistent, but we cannot say that's any more or less likely than a simulation (who says the world has to make any sense?). The only semi-useful simulation arguments have to assume the "real" world is sorta like our world or at least functioning according to math. But that returns us to the simulation cost problem.