6 ms·

The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis

29 points by bezvn 5y ago

maxbaines 5y ago
Very interesting the links to quantum theory, specifically entanglement.
- messe 5y ago
  The author doesn't know what they're talking about. If you're interested in learning QM or other physics, I'd recommend the reading list from an old comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24209318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24209318 EDIT: s/mind/mine
- contravariant 5y ago
  Well entanglement very much is the interesting part, as it is with any hidden variable theory. This version is disapointingly shallow though: >It is also a natural result of a peer-to-peer network that single objects can “split in two”, becoming entangled He does describe a process whereby an object can split into two, but as for how this is the same as two entangled particles I've no clue. Just sounds like superposition to me to be honest.
berndi 5y ago
The author clearly does not have a basic understanding of (quantum) physics, yet makes the bold assertion that his "theory" explains quantum mechanics and relativity. For example, his distributed simulation idea is obviously incompatible with basic results of quantum mechanics [1]. An actual theory would make quantitative predictions beyond drawing heuristic connections in a prosaic wall of text. Its truly impressive that you can build an academic career in philosophy by producing such content. The days where GPT-4 will advance to a faculty position in this field are probably not that far ahead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
- dandanua 5y ago
  I had some laughs when I skipped through his text. He claims that his theory > 1. Is based on serious scientific and philosophical hypothesies. The reference is his own paper where he writes > I show that existing MMORPGs (online simulations we have already created) actually reproduce every general feature of quantum mechanics within their simulated-world reference-frames. Second, I show that existing MMORPGs also replicate (and so explain) many philosophical problems we face in the philosophy of mind, time, personal identity, and free will – all while conforming to the Libertarian Compatibilist model of reality I guess he does "science" between raids in WoW.
  - CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
    This is the first time I've heard "Libertarian" not mean something political. TIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
yummypaint 5y ago
Yeah this is throwing red flags left and right. The author does not appear to know what the scientific method is. It would be right at home in the "crackpot session" at an APS conference where people who can't do algebra claim to have a theory of everything. What an embarrasment for the university.
User23 5y ago
It’s funny how simulationism is a subset of creationism. After all, if our existence is running in a computer system, some party or parties must have created that system.
- meowface 5y ago
  Not necessarily. It's a subset of deism, but deism doesn't imply creationism. Evolution by natural selection could still occur in a universe with one or more deities who don't interfere with reality at all. And even if they did interfere with it, it still doesn't by itself imply creationism.
- vidarh 5y ago
  For a definition of creationism no creationist would be pleased with. E.g. there's nothing incompatible between a simulation and the big bang occurring. The universe would be created, but we'd be unable to know how big or small (in both time and space) portion of it was "designed" versus left to evolve by itself. Another key difference is that most people who find the idea of the simulation argument interesting seems to approach it as either a philosophical curiosity that gives us avenues to explore or as something that needs some massive further steps to get to something testable, not as dogma. I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits. But there is also the possibility of all kinds of implementation artefacts. To me at least a whole lot of the appeal of the simulation hypothesis (unlike the nonsense linked to here) is that there's a whole lot of room for actual testable hypotheses here. I have no interest in taking anything on faith. Also it's fun to speculate about. But I don't need to believe something to speculate about it.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits. Ultimately though there'd be no way to tell bugs apart from legitimate physics because we lack a basis for comparison. If we discover that we can, with enough trickery, generate infinite free energy or something, that's not evidence of anything other than our model of the universe being incomplete.
sktrdie 5y ago
Given it's p2p it's weird they don't mention blockchains. They clearly describe the physics of global warming (Ba dum tss!).
- sva_ 5y ago
  Right at the end: >For additional work related to the P2P Hypothesis, see: >Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer. So you can cross that off your bingo card.
messe 5y ago
If the author truly believes that this "explains" QM and special relativity, I'd like to see the him demonstrate that his model gives rise to Lorentz invariance, and the Schrödinger equation. Did the author think to speak to a single physicist or mathematician when coming up with this hypothesis? Also: > Explaining the mind-body problem: It's a curious fact that it seems to many of us that no matter how complete a physical explanation might be, such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul"). The P2P hypothesis predicts and explains this problem. Observers trapped in a P2P simulation would be convinced--just as many of us are--that there is something about their subjective point-of-view that cannot be captured in the physics of their world. And they would be right. The hardware upon which the simulation is running--the processing apparatus (viz. DVD laser apparatus/processor)--would comprise their subjective point-of-view, and be inaccessible to them within the simulation. More generally, the P2P model holds a reality like ours is comprised by two fundamentally different types of things: (A) "hardware" (i.e. consciousness/measurement appartus), and (B) "software" (i.e. physical information) interacting. Surely that's just shifting the mind-body problem into the universe simulating us. Does the author propose that the mind body problem doesn't apply to conscious observers in the universe above us? Or that conscious observers can't exist there? Or does the problem get punted down yet another layer to the universe simulating the universe simulating us, so that it's turtle minds all the way down? > such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul"). Citation needed.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  One solution to that is to assert that consciousness itself is the "outside" universe and what we perceive as reality is more like a communication protocol conscious entities use to interact with each other. I think this is similar to what Donald Hoffman talks about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
  - Sanzig 5y ago
    The straightforward solution is to simply reject dualism and accept physicalism. There is no scientific evidence pointing to the mind being anything other than an emergent property of the structure of the neurons in the brain. It doesn't matter if that structure is made up of "real matter" or simulated matter running in a computer: the emergent result is the same. A simulation hypothesis is not needed to resolve the mind-body problem - presumably, intelligent life can evolve just as readily in a simulated universe as a real one.
frankenst1 5y ago
> It makes predictions about our world, and so may be confirmed or falsified. Bold, let's see: > We should be able to reproduce/witness the 4-dimensional wave-like aspects of reality in real-time by feeding the superimposed outputs of a large number peer-to-peer Microsoft Hololens unites into a single Hololens. What? This sounds like GPT-2.
vidarh 5y ago
I like the "headline idea" - and have been writing scifi stories based on it, and have a long list of stories in planning based on variations over this concept. E.g. things like the necessity for a "speed limit" and time dilation can fall out pretty neatly if you assume a distributed network of simulations. But this thing is all over the place and makes a whole bunch of pretty ridiculous claims it does not support. E.g. the "problem of free will" section doesn't solve anything - all it does is present infinite regress and call it a solution (if "free will" comes from "outside", then the "problem" has not been solved, just lifted up one level in a way that if you keep giving the same answer will just keep on going without a resolution). The same applies to its purported "solution" to the mind-body problem. Others, like the "problem of personal identity" does not need a physical explanation, and there's no reason to assume that physical reality has a bearing one way or the other on it. But it falls apart also with respect to it's explanation of the basics. E.g. there's absolutely no physical reason why recording or simulation of physical data needs to be limited, and using it as an explanation is a weakness. It makes presumptions about the nature of such a simulation that we can't make. Now, there are efficiency reasons why one might conceivably do things this way, and to me a lot of the appeal of writing sci-fi about this subject is that I get to speculate a lot about how I'd try to implement such a simulation. But as written this isn't even good scifi.
elil17 5y ago
Somewhere in the dimension Zorp a network engineer’s Slack messages are going wild right now.
AntiImperialist 5y ago
Tries too hard to fit into the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is simply wrong. All we need to do is wait for the Copenhagen interpretation fundamentalists to die and re-run the Bell tests with open minds.
gremlinsinc 5y ago
I'm not a quantum mechanic expert or scientist. I have become a believer in multiple realities through personal experience. (Edit: I'm not usually conspiracy theorist, I don't believe in god/religion, I believe in science, global warming, wearing masks, etc...but sometimes your eyes see things you can't unsee). You read about how Apollo 13 the movie with Tom Hanks has a calm Tom Hanks saying: "Houston, We've Had a Problem", then you read a list of Mandela Effects a few days later and it says that the actual lines are "Houston, we HAVE a problem", you verify with your wife who watched the clip all 10 times last week, and you watch it with her another 10 times just to make sure, you have her pinch you... Lo and behold, reality has changed. No idea how, others agree with you, but that's irrelevant since you don't need to believe them or not because you now how personal proof, which most people will say is not proof it's just "Mis-remembering" but have you ever watched something with full awareness and intention with another person to see what the actual "fact" is at the time? Did you forget the outcome 3 days later? Most people would say empatically no, they did not. So if 3 days later you have not forgotten the fact, but the fact has changed via sources online that are trusted (often the same sources), is it not suggestive that something has changed? Or that perhaps reality is really some-part subjective? Is it hard to consider that reality could be partially dependent on those in the reality? what if reality is consensus based? If 10 people have a fact and 6 people believe chartreuse is maroon, and 4 people believe chartreuse is green, then it's really green. In fact I'd say a lot of facts in life are based on consensus. Colors are labels, and if the majority think blue is green and green is blue, then seems like people will be calling green blue and vice versa. That's more though about a group-think decision on what something means. When a literal historical fact or video changes almost before your very eyes, it's very hard to dispute...
- messe 5y ago
  > You read about how Apollo 13 the movie with Tom Hanks has a calm Tom Hanks saying: "Houston, We've Had a Problem", That's what was said in the actual Apollo 13 mission, which might be the source of confusion. Surely "multiple realities" is a bit more far fetched than "sometimes people are wrong in similar ways"?

29 points by bezvn 5y ago

maxbaines 5y ago

Very interesting the links to quantum theory, specifically entanglement.

messe 5y ago
The author doesn't know what they're talking about. If you're interested in learning QM or other physics, I'd recommend the reading list from an old comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24209318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24209318 EDIT: s/mind/mine
contravariant 5y ago
Well entanglement very much is the interesting part, as it is with any hidden variable theory. This version is disapointingly shallow though: >It is also a natural result of a peer-to-peer network that single objects can “split in two”, becoming entangled He does describe a process whereby an object can split into two, but as for how this is the same as two entangled particles I've no clue. Just sounds like superposition to me to be honest.

berndi 5y ago

The author clearly does not have a basic understanding of (quantum) physics, yet makes the bold assertion that his "theory" explains quantum mechanics and relativity. For example, his distributed simulation idea is obviously incompatible with basic results of quantum mechanics [1]. An actual theory would make quantitative predictions beyond drawing heuristic connections in a prosaic wall of text. Its truly impressive that you can build an academic career in philosophy by producing such content. The days where GPT-4 will advance to a faculty position in this field are probably not that far ahead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

dandanua 5y ago
I had some laughs when I skipped through his text. He claims that his theory > 1. Is based on serious scientific and philosophical hypothesies. The reference is his own paper where he writes > I show that existing MMORPGs (online simulations we have already created) actually reproduce every general feature of quantum mechanics within their simulated-world reference-frames. Second, I show that existing MMORPGs also replicate (and so explain) many philosophical problems we face in the philosophy of mind, time, personal identity, and free will – all while conforming to the Libertarian Compatibilist model of reality I guess he does "science" between raids in WoW.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago
  This is the first time I've heard "Libertarian" not mean something political. TIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

yummypaint 5y ago

Yeah this is throwing red flags left and right. The author does not appear to know what the scientific method is. It would be right at home in the "crackpot session" at an APS conference where people who can't do algebra claim to have a theory of everything. What an embarrasment for the university.

User23 5y ago

It’s funny how simulationism is a subset of creationism. After all, if our existence is running in a computer system, some party or parties must have created that system.

meowface 5y ago
Not necessarily. It's a subset of deism, but deism doesn't imply creationism. Evolution by natural selection could still occur in a universe with one or more deities who don't interfere with reality at all. And even if they did interfere with it, it still doesn't by itself imply creationism.
vidarh 5y ago
For a definition of creationism no creationist would be pleased with. E.g. there's nothing incompatible between a simulation and the big bang occurring. The universe would be created, but we'd be unable to know how big or small (in both time and space) portion of it was "designed" versus left to evolve by itself. Another key difference is that most people who find the idea of the simulation argument interesting seems to approach it as either a philosophical curiosity that gives us avenues to explore or as something that needs some massive further steps to get to something testable, not as dogma. I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits. But there is also the possibility of all kinds of implementation artefacts. To me at least a whole lot of the appeal of the simulation hypothesis (unlike the nonsense linked to here) is that there's a whole lot of room for actual testable hypotheses here. I have no interest in taking anything on faith. Also it's fun to speculate about. But I don't need to believe something to speculate about it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits. Ultimately though there'd be no way to tell bugs apart from legitimate physics because we lack a basis for comparison. If we discover that we can, with enough trickery, generate infinite free energy or something, that's not evidence of anything other than our model of the universe being incomplete.

sktrdie 5y ago

Given it's p2p it's weird they don't mention blockchains. They clearly describe the physics of global warming (Ba dum tss!).

sva_ 5y ago
Right at the end: >For additional work related to the P2P Hypothesis, see: >Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer. So you can cross that off your bingo card.

messe 5y ago

If the author truly believes that this "explains" QM and special relativity, I'd like to see the him demonstrate that his model gives rise to Lorentz invariance, and the Schrödinger equation. Did the author think to speak to a single physicist or mathematician when coming up with this hypothesis? Also: > Explaining the mind-body problem: It's a curious fact that it seems to many of us that no matter how complete a physical explanation might be, such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul"). The P2P hypothesis predicts and explains this problem. Observers trapped in a P2P simulation would be convinced--just as many of us are--that there is something about their subjective point-of-view that cannot be captured in the physics of their world. And they would be right. The hardware upon which the simulation is running--the processing apparatus (viz. DVD laser apparatus/processor)--would comprise their subjective point-of-view, and be inaccessible to them within the simulation. More generally, the P2P model holds a reality like ours is comprised by two fundamentally different types of things: (A) "hardware" (i.e. consciousness/measurement appartus), and (B) "software" (i.e. physical information) interacting. Surely that's just shifting the mind-body problem into the universe simulating us. Does the author propose that the mind body problem doesn't apply to conscious observers in the universe above us? Or that conscious observers can't exist there? Or does the problem get punted down yet another layer to the universe simulating the universe simulating us, so that it's turtle minds all the way down? > such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul"). Citation needed.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
One solution to that is to assert that consciousness itself is the "outside" universe and what we perceive as reality is more like a communication protocol conscious entities use to interact with each other. I think this is similar to what Donald Hoffman talks about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
- Sanzig 5y ago
  The straightforward solution is to simply reject dualism and accept physicalism. There is no scientific evidence pointing to the mind being anything other than an emergent property of the structure of the neurons in the brain. It doesn't matter if that structure is made up of "real matter" or simulated matter running in a computer: the emergent result is the same. A simulation hypothesis is not needed to resolve the mind-body problem - presumably, intelligent life can evolve just as readily in a simulated universe as a real one.

frankenst1 5y ago

> It makes predictions about our world, and so may be confirmed or falsified. Bold, let's see: > We should be able to reproduce/witness the 4-dimensional wave-like aspects of reality in real-time by feeding the superimposed outputs of a large number peer-to-peer Microsoft Hololens unites into a single Hololens. What? This sounds like GPT-2.

vidarh 5y ago

I like the "headline idea" - and have been writing scifi stories based on it, and have a long list of stories in planning based on variations over this concept. E.g. things like the necessity for a "speed limit" and time dilation can fall out pretty neatly if you assume a distributed network of simulations. But this thing is all over the place and makes a whole bunch of pretty ridiculous claims it does not support. E.g. the "problem of free will" section doesn't solve anything - all it does is present infinite regress and call it a solution (if "free will" comes from "outside", then the "problem" has not been solved, just lifted up one level in a way that if you keep giving the same answer will just keep on going without a resolution). The same applies to its purported "solution" to the mind-body problem. Others, like the "problem of personal identity" does not need a physical explanation, and there's no reason to assume that physical reality has a bearing one way or the other on it. But it falls apart also with respect to it's explanation of the basics. E.g. there's absolutely no physical reason why recording or simulation of physical data needs to be limited, and using it as an explanation is a weakness. It makes presumptions about the nature of such a simulation that we can't make. Now, there are efficiency reasons why one might conceivably do things this way, and to me a lot of the appeal of writing sci-fi about this subject is that I get to speculate a lot about how I'd try to implement such a simulation. But as written this isn't even good scifi.

elil17 5y ago

Somewhere in the dimension Zorp a network engineer’s Slack messages are going wild right now.

AntiImperialist 5y ago

Tries too hard to fit into the Copenhagen Interpretation, which is simply wrong. All we need to do is wait for the Copenhagen interpretation fundamentalists to die and re-run the Bell tests with open minds.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

I'm not a quantum mechanic expert or scientist. I have become a believer in multiple realities through personal experience. (Edit: I'm not usually conspiracy theorist, I don't believe in god/religion, I believe in science, global warming, wearing masks, etc...but sometimes your eyes see things you can't unsee). You read about how Apollo 13 the movie with Tom Hanks has a calm Tom Hanks saying: "Houston, We've Had a Problem", then you read a list of Mandela Effects a few days later and it says that the actual lines are "Houston, we HAVE a problem", you verify with your wife who watched the clip all 10 times last week, and you watch it with her another 10 times just to make sure, you have her pinch you... Lo and behold, reality has changed. No idea how, others agree with you, but that's irrelevant since you don't need to believe them or not because you now how personal proof, which most people will say is not proof it's just "Mis-remembering" but have you ever watched something with full awareness and intention with another person to see what the actual "fact" is at the time? Did you forget the outcome 3 days later? Most people would say empatically no, they did not. So if 3 days later you have not forgotten the fact, but the fact has changed via sources online that are trusted (often the same sources), is it not suggestive that something has changed? Or that perhaps reality is really some-part subjective? Is it hard to consider that reality could be partially dependent on those in the reality? what if reality is consensus based? If 10 people have a fact and 6 people believe chartreuse is maroon, and 4 people believe chartreuse is green, then it's really green. In fact I'd say a lot of facts in life are based on consensus. Colors are labels, and if the majority think blue is green and green is blue, then seems like people will be calling green blue and vice versa. That's more though about a group-think decision on what something means. When a literal historical fact or video changes almost before your very eyes, it's very hard to dispute...

messe 5y ago
> You read about how Apollo 13 the movie with Tom Hanks has a calm Tom Hanks saying: "Houston, We've Had a Problem", That's what was said in the actual Apollo 13 mission, which might be the source of confusion. Surely "multiple realities" is a bit more far fetched than "sometimes people are wrong in similar ways"?