8 ms·

The Simulated World According to David Chalmers

13 points by martinlaz 5y ago

nickt 5y ago
The following website is a good place to read more, based on Nick Bostroms original paper. https://www.simulation-argument.com/ https://www.simulation-argument.com/ https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
JohnJamesRambo 5y ago
I like the simulation idea. But if we are in a simulation wouldn’t the computer have to be mind bogglingly huge, bigger than our universe? I’m just trying to wrap my head around the computing power needed to calculate even something as simple as pouring a glass of sand into another glass and getting all the collisions and final locations of the particles right in the new glass. And this goes on everywhere at all times, unless you think the simulators fudge a lot of it. :)
- dvh 5y ago
  Not if they are higher dimensional. We live in 3d but our CPUs are 2d because we need at least one dimension to radiate heat effectively. If they are 10 dimensional there will be plenty of space to spare. Hack, given how weird higher dimensions are (spiky spheres etc) I wouldn't be surprised if the simulation became exponentially simpler in higher dimensions to a point where higher dimensional IT uni graduates casually simulates our universe in their equivalent of electronic pregnancy test (Show HN: I simulated toy 3d universe, it has some limitations - I had to limit the information exchange speed to 300kkm/s, it has fixed size of 93 Gly and smallest feature resolution is 1.616255e−35m).
- lukebuehler 5y ago
  Not necessarily. You could just model the world/universe, and provide high enough resolution only when needed, just like in a game. On the other hand, you could also truly simulate each particle and molecule and then let higher-order phenomena emerge from that. For example, the universe might be an immense cellular automata.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  The universe is already mind-bogglingly huge. Another order or two of boggling doesn't make a huge difference to the boggle factor. But you could also simulate with varying precision depending on POV, which would eliminate many orders of boggle.
  - lanstin 5y ago
    Not sure how that works with consciousness emerging from the substrate. There is no formal notion of consciousness in the simulation, it emerges after intelligence evolves or whatever. You don’t want to cartoonize entire galaxies after the first intelligence evolves because you don’t yet detect consciousness in those other galaxies, because then they won’t get consciousness. On the other hand, Chalmers seems to allow for consciousness of varying degrees, in the additional quality or factor that is consciousness, so maybe the whole universe is watching itself a lot of the time. (Based on the interview with him on Sean Carroll’s podcast, not reading this latest book.)
bsedlm 5y ago
the simulation is in each of our heads, is how we consciously interact with the rest of the world (reality). the simulation is the entire body of scientific understanding. the simulation is how we can do something in order to get an expected outcome, we've simulated our surroundings in order to know this.
mark_l_watson 5y ago
I am about 1/4 done reading Chalmers’ new book “Reality+” and so far I like it. While I may dislike FB, I am a huge fan of Oculus VR gear, and I helped setup a VR lab at SAIC about 25 years ago, so I am a fan of the technology but not a current expert. I think that high quality immersive VR will be useful, lots of fun, and transformative - as long as it is used sparingly. For myself, I feel comfortable using one of my Oculus devices two or three times a day for about 5 or 6 minutes a session. Sometime, like when getting a new volume in the Star Wars Vader Immortal trilogy, my play sessions would be 30 minutes. My point is, good VR can be great, if used in moderation. I live about 75 meters from a national forest trailhead, and even a 10 minute walk in nature is a great way to round out a short VR session. I am horrified, however, to think of people spending many hours at a time in VR or augmented reality. Nope. Off topic, but even though I have only had one good talk with Chalmers in person, I feel some personal connection because he got his PhD with the same advisor as my friend Pei Wang, and he clashed professionally with my childhood friend Tony Brueckner (who, until he died, was chairman of the philosophy department at UCSB). I find that my enjoyment of reading books increases if I have met and talked with the author. This argues against the meta verse :-)
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  I met Chalmers once back in the 90s, and despite being dazzled by his intellect and verbal style, I find the direction he is taking with "Reality+" extremely disappointing. The impression I had of him from Usenet in the 90s and that one encounter at UWashington gave me the sense of a person who would not be suspectible to what I view as a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature, purpose and meaning of life. Ah well. I'm wrong, it seems, about at least one of those two things.
  - mark_l_watson 5y ago
    Paul, maybe you are not wrong. The meaning of life is love, kindness to others, enjoyment of nature, etc. Chalmers is a smart guy, and I don't have to agree with people to enjoy talking to them, or reading their stuff.
KineticLensman 5y ago
> I’m not putting it forward as a scientific hypothesis right now. It’s a thought experiment for how reality could be. This is a key point. The simulated universe is unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no experiment we can (currently, perhaps forever) perform that could prove it true or false. Even if we could conceive of such an experiment, simulation advocates could argue that the simulation was set up to produce the results we see. Also, it's worth bearing in mind that simulation is really hard and computationally expensive: we cannot yet model a single human neuron at the atomic level, let alone at the quark level. You can try to get around this detail by saying that the simulation focusses computation / resolution on where we are looking, but this again seems to be moving the goalposts. I would like a simulation proponent to propose a credible laws of physics for the host universe, as well as making some comments about how computation (i.e. simulation) works in that universe. For example, is the host computation subject to the same theoretical constraints that our computers are, e.g. the halting problem, and P versus NP. [Edit] minor rewording for clarity.
- bmitc 5y ago
  > Also, it's worth bearing in mind that simulation is really hard and computationally expensive With computation as we know it. Is our computation universal? Also, nature "computes" in some way, whether it's simulated or not. Somehow it "knows" how to manage everything, across billions of light years.
  - KineticLensman 5y ago
    > With computation as we know it. Hence my next point , where I'm looking for more detail about how the host universe actually supports and runs the simulation.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      You don't really need more detail. Just consider (hypothetically, if you wish) one of our own simulations. Were there conscious, reasoning agents within it, who developed access to computation, the resources that they would have to create their own simulations would necessarily be limited by the scale and scope of the simulation we created. It would be almost inconceivable to most of them that it could be possible to "simulate" their entire world, given their understanding of physics and computation within the bounds we set up. Then there's the matter of time. It doesn't matter very much in a discrete universe whether or not time runs "fast" or "slow" ... each discrete state is the same either way (because there is no "in between"). Just as right now it would task vast computational resources for us to simulate anything remotely like the universe we seem to live in, and it would likely not run "real time", nothing inside the simulation would be aware of the computational costs and duration in our world.
robwwilliams 5y ago
This is a false dichotomy—simulation versus Reality. When Neo woke to reality was it Reality or another higher order simulation? Could we not just redefine our capital R reality as a damn fine simulation? Isn’t that the message behind almost all spirituality and religion? This pseudo-question belongs in the trash heap of philosophy along with mind-brain dualism. It is a question generated by murky thinking—-credit to Wittgenstein for pointing out the obvious. Read Richard Rorty—any thing really but “Truth and Progress” a good place to start. If you want way more insight than Chalmers will ever provide then read either “The Quantum Thief” by Hannu Rajaniemi, or hardcore neuroscience: “Principles of Neural Design” by Sterling and Laughlin.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pfkurtz 5y ago
Well before I started learning to program, I was carefully reading David Chalmers' early magnum opus The Conscious Mind. I still find myself convinced by the argument: consciousness is a basic ontological feature of reality, the part of reality that constitutes my existence. I am horrified that we're taking that Cartesian insight to mean we should actually put our consciousnesses inside little boxes that simulate the rest of the grand mystery of reality—because what's the difference if the lie is good enough? It makes this atheist want to go out into nature and find the Goddess.
- robwwilliams 5y ago
  Hmm: read another philosopher—a pragmatist like Rorty. First you have to get beyond the notion of Truth and Reality with capital letters. Those are now regarded by many philosophers (and by me) as quaint historical residues. 1931 and Gödel’s proof plus 90 years of quantum carpet bombing has left us with dust and mud rather than grand edifices in philosophy or even physics. How appropriate for a post-Darwinian era ;-) Accept life as a beautiful mess to fill with kindness when possible. That is pretty much Rorty’s pragmatic message.

13 points by martinlaz 5y ago

The following website is a good place to read more, based on Nick Bostroms original paper. https://www.simulation-argument.com/ https://www.simulation-argument.com/ https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

JohnJamesRambo 5y ago

I like the simulation idea. But if we are in a simulation wouldn’t the computer have to be mind bogglingly huge, bigger than our universe? I’m just trying to wrap my head around the computing power needed to calculate even something as simple as pouring a glass of sand into another glass and getting all the collisions and final locations of the particles right in the new glass. And this goes on everywhere at all times, unless you think the simulators fudge a lot of it. :)

dvh 5y ago
Not if they are higher dimensional. We live in 3d but our CPUs are 2d because we need at least one dimension to radiate heat effectively. If they are 10 dimensional there will be plenty of space to spare. Hack, given how weird higher dimensions are (spiky spheres etc) I wouldn't be surprised if the simulation became exponentially simpler in higher dimensions to a point where higher dimensional IT uni graduates casually simulates our universe in their equivalent of electronic pregnancy test (Show HN: I simulated toy 3d universe, it has some limitations - I had to limit the information exchange speed to 300kkm/s, it has fixed size of 93 Gly and smallest feature resolution is 1.616255e−35m).
lukebuehler 5y ago
Not necessarily. You could just model the world/universe, and provide high enough resolution only when needed, just like in a game. On the other hand, you could also truly simulate each particle and molecule and then let higher-order phenomena emerge from that. For example, the universe might be an immense cellular automata.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
The universe is already mind-bogglingly huge. Another order or two of boggling doesn't make a huge difference to the boggle factor. But you could also simulate with varying precision depending on POV, which would eliminate many orders of boggle.
- lanstin 5y ago
  Not sure how that works with consciousness emerging from the substrate. There is no formal notion of consciousness in the simulation, it emerges after intelligence evolves or whatever. You don’t want to cartoonize entire galaxies after the first intelligence evolves because you don’t yet detect consciousness in those other galaxies, because then they won’t get consciousness. On the other hand, Chalmers seems to allow for consciousness of varying degrees, in the additional quality or factor that is consciousness, so maybe the whole universe is watching itself a lot of the time. (Based on the interview with him on Sean Carroll’s podcast, not reading this latest book.)

bsedlm 5y ago

the simulation is in each of our heads, is how we consciously interact with the rest of the world (reality). the simulation is the entire body of scientific understanding. the simulation is how we can do something in order to get an expected outcome, we've simulated our surroundings in order to know this.

mark_l_watson 5y ago

I am about 1/4 done reading Chalmers’ new book “Reality+” and so far I like it. While I may dislike FB, I am a huge fan of Oculus VR gear, and I helped setup a VR lab at SAIC about 25 years ago, so I am a fan of the technology but not a current expert. I think that high quality immersive VR will be useful, lots of fun, and transformative - as long as it is used sparingly. For myself, I feel comfortable using one of my Oculus devices two or three times a day for about 5 or 6 minutes a session. Sometime, like when getting a new volume in the Star Wars Vader Immortal trilogy, my play sessions would be 30 minutes. My point is, good VR can be great, if used in moderation. I live about 75 meters from a national forest trailhead, and even a 10 minute walk in nature is a great way to round out a short VR session. I am horrified, however, to think of people spending many hours at a time in VR or augmented reality. Nope. Off topic, but even though I have only had one good talk with Chalmers in person, I feel some personal connection because he got his PhD with the same advisor as my friend Pei Wang, and he clashed professionally with my childhood friend Tony Brueckner (who, until he died, was chairman of the philosophy department at UCSB). I find that my enjoyment of reading books increases if I have met and talked with the author. This argues against the meta verse :-)

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
I met Chalmers once back in the 90s, and despite being dazzled by his intellect and verbal style, I find the direction he is taking with "Reality+" extremely disappointing. The impression I had of him from Usenet in the 90s and that one encounter at UWashington gave me the sense of a person who would not be suspectible to what I view as a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature, purpose and meaning of life. Ah well. I'm wrong, it seems, about at least one of those two things.
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  Paul, maybe you are not wrong. The meaning of life is love, kindness to others, enjoyment of nature, etc. Chalmers is a smart guy, and I don't have to agree with people to enjoy talking to them, or reading their stuff.

KineticLensman 5y ago

> I’m not putting it forward as a scientific hypothesis right now. It’s a thought experiment for how reality could be. This is a key point. The simulated universe is unfalsifiable, meaning that there is no experiment we can (currently, perhaps forever) perform that could prove it true or false. Even if we could conceive of such an experiment, simulation advocates could argue that the simulation was set up to produce the results we see. Also, it's worth bearing in mind that simulation is really hard and computationally expensive: we cannot yet model a single human neuron at the atomic level, let alone at the quark level. You can try to get around this detail by saying that the simulation focusses computation / resolution on where we are looking, but this again seems to be moving the goalposts. I would like a simulation proponent to propose a credible laws of physics for the host universe, as well as making some comments about how computation (i.e. simulation) works in that universe. For example, is the host computation subject to the same theoretical constraints that our computers are, e.g. the halting problem, and P versus NP. [Edit] minor rewording for clarity.

bmitc 5y ago
> Also, it's worth bearing in mind that simulation is really hard and computationally expensive With computation as we know it. Is our computation universal? Also, nature "computes" in some way, whether it's simulated or not. Somehow it "knows" how to manage everything, across billions of light years.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > With computation as we know it. Hence my next point , where I'm looking for more detail about how the host universe actually supports and runs the simulation.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    You don't really need more detail. Just consider (hypothetically, if you wish) one of our own simulations. Were there conscious, reasoning agents within it, who developed access to computation, the resources that they would have to create their own simulations would necessarily be limited by the scale and scope of the simulation we created. It would be almost inconceivable to most of them that it could be possible to "simulate" their entire world, given their understanding of physics and computation within the bounds we set up. Then there's the matter of time. It doesn't matter very much in a discrete universe whether or not time runs "fast" or "slow" ... each discrete state is the same either way (because there is no "in between"). Just as right now it would task vast computational resources for us to simulate anything remotely like the universe we seem to live in, and it would likely not run "real time", nothing inside the simulation would be aware of the computational costs and duration in our world.

robwwilliams 5y ago

This is a false dichotomy—simulation versus Reality. When Neo woke to reality was it Reality or another higher order simulation? Could we not just redefine our capital R reality as a damn fine simulation? Isn’t that the message behind almost all spirituality and religion? This pseudo-question belongs in the trash heap of philosophy along with mind-brain dualism. It is a question generated by murky thinking—-credit to Wittgenstein for pointing out the obvious. Read Richard Rorty—any thing really but “Truth and Progress” a good place to start. If you want way more insight than Chalmers will ever provide then read either “The Quantum Thief” by Hannu Rajaniemi, or hardcore neuroscience: “Principles of Neural Design” by Sterling and Laughlin.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pfkurtz 5y ago

Well before I started learning to program, I was carefully reading David Chalmers' early magnum opus The Conscious Mind. I still find myself convinced by the argument: consciousness is a basic ontological feature of reality, the part of reality that constitutes my existence. I am horrified that we're taking that Cartesian insight to mean we should actually put our consciousnesses inside little boxes that simulate the rest of the grand mystery of reality—because what's the difference if the lie is good enough? It makes this atheist want to go out into nature and find the Goddess.

robwwilliams 5y ago
Hmm: read another philosopher—a pragmatist like Rorty. First you have to get beyond the notion of Truth and Reality with capital letters. Those are now regarded by many philosophers (and by me) as quaint historical residues. 1931 and Gödel’s proof plus 90 years of quantum carpet bombing has left us with dust and mud rather than grand edifices in philosophy or even physics. How appropriate for a post-Darwinian era ;-) Accept life as a beautiful mess to fill with kindness when possible. That is pretty much Rorty’s pragmatic message.