4 ms·

Size, speed, position, composition are physical properties of real objects. When you speak of memory, you're referring to either computers or memories in the br

by Flankk 5y ago

Size, speed, position, composition are physical properties of real objects. When you speak of memory, you're referring to either computers or memories in the brain, which are both virtual representations of real objects. If Bostrom's simulation argument is correct, then it stands to reason that some form of memory exists to store the "physical" representation. I find that people make the mistake of thinking you would need massive storage for this. You would only need some minimal representation of the world and the physical properties would be derived based on your observation. In other words, only render what is in your field of view. If you aren't looking at the atoms, then the atoms don't exist.

techdragon 5y ago
As someone who’s opinion on the simulation hypothesis is “we are either a solipsistic allegory of the cave style input response simulation and everything is fake, or we are a physical simulation of the emergent results from basic energy/particles/waves constraint with the entire rules of physics known and unknown, anything between these two is unlikely otherwise you are either cheating or risk the subject discovering the simulation” With the solipsistic simulation everything is fake, don’t worry about it, the input to the visual cortex simulation doesn’t even need to be what we think it is, because as a fake simulation of a mind, not even a brain just a mind… in a virtual box I’m being told all this exists by right down to the latest results at CERN it makes sense because the entire set of inputs is wired for me to make sense of this reality. With a physical simulation however you can’t “forget” fundamental properties when simulating a universe of wave/particles. The atoms do “exist” when you aren’t looking at them otherwise how does the simulation know precisely what to show you when you look back? How does it know how those atoms are part of a ribosome, involved in an intricate quantum mechanical dance as they fold a protein and contribute to the growth of the plant on the shelf behind me. Unless your suggesting somehow we’re in some weird middle ground when the simulation is full of shortcuts like we program into gamers today to save cpu or memory and somehow we haven’t noticed while probing the intricate workings of the universe via particle accelerators and other cutting edge experimental physics.
- Flankk 5y ago
  As I said, all kinds of shortcuts would be taken. Video games only render what is in your field of view. How do video games know precisely what to show you when you look back? The computer has all the physics equations and what you see is just a function of your field of view at that frame in time. So the microscopic world is not physically operating, it is simulated using some heuristics and upon observation the generated microbes are saved to memory. Outer space is empty. When we look out with the Hubble telescope, galaxies are procedurally generated and saved to memory. Once again, only the minimal visual representation is needed. The actual planets and asteroids would only be generated on observation, etc.

by Flankk 5y ago

techdragon 5y ago

As someone who’s opinion on the simulation hypothesis is “we are either a solipsistic allegory of the cave style input response simulation and everything is fake, or we are a physical simulation of the emergent results from basic energy/particles/waves constraint with the entire rules of physics known and unknown, anything between these two is unlikely otherwise you are either cheating or risk the subject discovering the simulation” With the solipsistic simulation everything is fake, don’t worry about it, the input to the visual cortex simulation doesn’t even need to be what we think it is, because as a fake simulation of a mind, not even a brain just a mind… in a virtual box I’m being told all this exists by right down to the latest results at CERN it makes sense because the entire set of inputs is wired for me to make sense of this reality. With a physical simulation however you can’t “forget” fundamental properties when simulating a universe of wave/particles. The atoms do “exist” when you aren’t looking at them otherwise how does the simulation know precisely what to show you when you look back? How does it know how those atoms are part of a ribosome, involved in an intricate quantum mechanical dance as they fold a protein and contribute to the growth of the plant on the shelf behind me. Unless your suggesting somehow we’re in some weird middle ground when the simulation is full of shortcuts like we program into gamers today to save cpu or memory and somehow we haven’t noticed while probing the intricate workings of the universe via particle accelerators and other cutting edge experimental physics.

Flankk 5y ago
As I said, all kinds of shortcuts would be taken. Video games only render what is in your field of view. How do video games know precisely what to show you when you look back? The computer has all the physics equations and what you see is just a function of your field of view at that frame in time. So the microscopic world is not physically operating, it is simulated using some heuristics and upon observation the generated microbes are saved to memory. Outer space is empty. When we look out with the Hubble telescope, galaxies are procedurally generated and saved to memory. Once again, only the minimal visual representation is needed. The actual planets and asteroids would only be generated on observation, etc.