3 ms·

Can anyone explain why the simulation argument isn't just a meme? - By very definition, we will never be able to prove or disprove the claim. - Whether or not

by qsort 6y ago

Can anyone explain why the simulation argument isn't just a meme? - By very definition, we will never be able to prove or disprove the claim. - Whether or not it is the case, it makes no difference. Why even bother? Why does this matter?

usgroup 6y ago
> By very definition, we will never be able to prove or disprove the claim. I don't think thats necessarily true. Here is a neat example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl's_tile_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl's_tile_argument To simulate continuous space and/or time would be impossible, so if you could show that space/time is continuous then it could not be simulated. Its interesting because the implications are interesting. Or rather, the implications of most other things are less interesting.
- qsort 6y ago
  A continuous simulation of a finite collection of objects is absolutely possible (even computably so). In general, I don't find this breed of arguments convincing: even if you found a feature X of the universe which simulation isn't computably possible, you could imagine a Turing machine augmented with an oracle that makes use of X to simulate the effects of X itself. It's really unclear how you can turn "we live in a simulation" into a testable prediction.
- lupire 6y ago
  We'll never be able to prove the Universe is continuous (and non-discrete, which is the case that matters).
smitty1e 6y ago
Because metaphysical speculation is the curse of the soul, or, Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
exo-pla-net 6y ago
The simulation might not be faithful to what it's simulating. SimCity versus actual cities. One can imagine scenarios wherein you, as a mind being simulated, could discover the nature of the simulation. And that would be interesting, to say the least.
fogof 6y ago
In Bostrom's words > Apart form (sic) the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.
meroes 6y ago
It is disgusting that it is part of science or physics. It IS a meme. It's a topic for philosophy and scifi, not science. It is not scientific. If someone can make it scientific great! But Bostrom and Bayesian arguments are not doing science. It could be true, but we have no empirical reason to suspect so currently.

by qsort 6y ago

usgroup 6y ago

> By very definition, we will never be able to prove or disprove the claim. I don't think thats necessarily true. Here is a neat example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl's_tile_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl's_tile_argument To simulate continuous space and/or time would be impossible, so if you could show that space/time is continuous then it could not be simulated. Its interesting because the implications are interesting. Or rather, the implications of most other things are less interesting.

qsort 6y ago
A continuous simulation of a finite collection of objects is absolutely possible (even computably so). In general, I don't find this breed of arguments convincing: even if you found a feature X of the universe which simulation isn't computably possible, you could imagine a Turing machine augmented with an oracle that makes use of X to simulate the effects of X itself. It's really unclear how you can turn "we live in a simulation" into a testable prediction.
lupire 6y ago
We'll never be able to prove the Universe is continuous (and non-discrete, which is the case that matters).

smitty1e 6y ago

Because metaphysical speculation is the curse of the soul, or, Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

exo-pla-net 6y ago

The simulation might not be faithful to what it's simulating. SimCity versus actual cities. One can imagine scenarios wherein you, as a mind being simulated, could discover the nature of the simulation. And that would be interesting, to say the least.

fogof 6y ago

In Bostrom's words > Apart form (sic) the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.

meroes 6y ago

It is disgusting that it is part of science or physics. It IS a meme. It's a topic for philosophy and scifi, not science. It is not scientific. If someone can make it scientific great! But Bostrom and Bayesian arguments are not doing science. It could be true, but we have no empirical reason to suspect so currently.