3 ms·

Either this question would have to phrased in a precise mathematical form, or its hopelessly in the realm of metaphysics, where you can't get anywhere beyond sp

by mapehe 5y ago

Either this question would have to phrased in a precise mathematical form, or its hopelessly in the realm of metaphysics, where you can't get anywhere beyond speculation. Without precise formulation, it's impossible to be sure that we are even talking about the same thing. It's not unheard of that a seemingly metaphysical question can be made testable with some ingenuity. Local realism is a great example: Local realism used to be subject to metaphysical debate, but since the 60's the Bell inequalities demonstrate a contradiction between practically testable predictions of the quantum theory and local realism. These days empirically measured Bell inequality violations are standard stuff that appear in physics journals (see e.g. [1]). Unless we get something we can measure, the simulation theory has no better basis than the existence of an invisible pink unicorn whose job is to produce the quantum effects by disturbing our lab equipment. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0507-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0507-7

nobody9999 5y ago
>Either this question would have to phrased in a precise mathematical form, or its hopelessly in the realm of metaphysics, where you can't get anywhere beyond speculation. Assuming reality is a simulation (again, as I explicitly assumed in posing this topic) is at best firmly in the realm of the metaphysical. Whether or not we live in such a simulation as Bostrum (and others) fantasize is not falsifiable and, as such, not science. It's all speculation. In fact, I explicitly said so. I'm not looking for science here, as none of it is science in the first place. We can have logic without science or even reality, can't we? It just struck me that the ambiguities surrounding wave function collapse (the Measurement Problem[0]) could be an artifact of speculative execution on the part of a computing core(s) running such a simulation. Consider it a speculative dive into a metaphysical concept. I'm not looking for answers. Rather, I'm interested in thoughtful discussion of what implications such a scenario might have. If you must have a precise mathematical formulation (although why that might be is unclear), how about this one[1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem [1] https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/63847726e284004a822be0b4d8210a8a713392c8 https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6384...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Rather, I'm interested in thoughtful discussion of what implications such a scenario might have. If it had material implications it would be “science that is currently impractical to proceed beyond the stage of hypotheses”; but it’s not, and is instead, as you note, untestable in principal. This is equivalent to having no differentiating material consequences.
- shoo 5y ago
  (ignoring reality, assuming we're limiting ourselves to arguing logically from axioms & assumptions) It might be easier to attract interest after first putting in the work to show that this proposed relationship can actually happen in theory for at least one hypothetical cpu architecture and some hypothetical quantum mechanics simulator that runs inside the machine. Maybe the relationship is impossible or cannot be made well defined, even in theory.

by mapehe 5y ago

nobody9999 5y ago

>Either this question would have to phrased in a precise mathematical form, or its hopelessly in the realm of metaphysics, where you can't get anywhere beyond speculation. Assuming reality is a simulation (again, as I explicitly assumed in posing this topic) is at best firmly in the realm of the metaphysical. Whether or not we live in such a simulation as Bostrum (and others) fantasize is not falsifiable and, as such, not science. It's all speculation. In fact, I explicitly said so. I'm not looking for science here, as none of it is science in the first place. We can have logic without science or even reality, can't we? It just struck me that the ambiguities surrounding wave function collapse (the Measurement Problem[0]) could be an artifact of speculative execution on the part of a computing core(s) running such a simulation. Consider it a speculative dive into a metaphysical concept. I'm not looking for answers. Rather, I'm interested in thoughtful discussion of what implications such a scenario might have. If you must have a precise mathematical formulation (although why that might be is unclear), how about this one[1]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem [1] https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/63847726e284004a822be0b4d8210a8a713392c8 https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6384...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Rather, I'm interested in thoughtful discussion of what implications such a scenario might have. If it had material implications it would be “science that is currently impractical to proceed beyond the stage of hypotheses”; but it’s not, and is instead, as you note, untestable in principal. This is equivalent to having no differentiating material consequences.
shoo 5y ago
(ignoring reality, assuming we're limiting ourselves to arguing logically from axioms & assumptions) It might be easier to attract interest after first putting in the work to show that this proposed relationship can actually happen in theory for at least one hypothetical cpu architecture and some hypothetical quantum mechanics simulator that runs inside the machine. Maybe the relationship is impossible or cannot be made well defined, even in theory.