4 ms·

Of Course We’re Living in a Simulation

1 points by mizzao 5y ago

clove 5y ago
The theory that we are living in a simulation is primarily based on Bayesian statistics, so I find the article's claim that those who disagree most strongly are scientists - the very people most likely to understand and apply Bayesian statistics - incredible. The subheading seems like an attempt to dupe the audience into thinking science opposes the theory, but I don't understand the author's intention. I've read through this article twice but still do not understand the point.
- eimrine 5y ago
  > The theory that we are living in a simulation is primarily based on Bayesian statistics May I see those equations or formulas or whatever? > I find the article's claim that those who disagree most strongly are scientists - the very people most likely to understand and apply Bayesian statistics - incredible. Scientists have another great instrument called Occam's razor. You know, if the claim about "we are living in simulation" or maybe "there is a small kettle on Earth's orbit" has no outcomes then why to believe it?
beardyw 5y ago
"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is untrue, it is impossible to refute it. I shall never forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it,– "I refute it thus." Boswell 1763
fallingfrog 5y ago
The simulation argument is very, very, very silly. Here's why: Suppose you have some universe with volume V, and some number of simulations inside it with volumes v1, v2, v3. Now if you naively count the number of "universes", as proponents of the simulation idea appear to be doing, then yes, 1 + 1 + 1 > 1. By integer count there are more simulated universes. Congratulations, you can add. This, is stupid. Because no matter how many simulations are contained in the parent universe, by volume, v1 + v2 + v3 + ... + vn < V. The total amount of available space in the real universe is much, much greater. For example, let's say you have a supercomputer somewhere performing a detailed simulation of a hydrogen atom. Now let's say you are given a hydrogen atom and are asked to guess whether it's the simulated one or one of the real ones. Well, the number of simulated atoms is one. But the number of real ones is around 10^82. Even though there is one real universe and one simulated "universe", that does not imply that the hydrogen atom is equally likely to come from either one. Not even remotely close to it. And that's true always and obviously. (Note: by "volume" here I would mean specifically the amount of information contained or the degrees of freedom, as I do realize the physics can be different in the simulated universe).
- thfuran 5y ago
  >And that's true always and obviously. Is it obviously always true under arbitrarily different laws of physics?
  - fallingfrog 5y ago
    Because there must exist at least one bit of information in the real universe for every simulated bit of information. And unless virtually all matter in the universe is dedicated to running simulations (an absurd assumption to make) and unless the simulation is preposterously efficient, the ratio will be nowhere near 1:1 Which laws of physics you choose are irrelevant; information is information.

1 points by mizzao 5y ago

The theory that we are living in a simulation is primarily based on Bayesian statistics, so I find the article's claim that those who disagree most strongly are scientists - the very people most likely to understand and apply Bayesian statistics - incredible. The subheading seems like an attempt to dupe the audience into thinking science opposes the theory, but I don't understand the author's intention. I've read through this article twice but still do not understand the point.

eimrine 5y ago
> The theory that we are living in a simulation is primarily based on Bayesian statistics May I see those equations or formulas or whatever? > I find the article's claim that those who disagree most strongly are scientists - the very people most likely to understand and apply Bayesian statistics - incredible. Scientists have another great instrument called Occam's razor. You know, if the claim about "we are living in simulation" or maybe "there is a small kettle on Earth's orbit" has no outcomes then why to believe it?

beardyw 5y ago

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is untrue, it is impossible to refute it. I shall never forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it,– "I refute it thus." Boswell 1763

fallingfrog 5y ago

The simulation argument is very, very, very silly. Here's why: Suppose you have some universe with volume V, and some number of simulations inside it with volumes v1, v2, v3. Now if you naively count the number of "universes", as proponents of the simulation idea appear to be doing, then yes, 1 + 1 + 1 > 1. By integer count there are more simulated universes. Congratulations, you can add. This, is stupid. Because no matter how many simulations are contained in the parent universe, by volume, v1 + v2 + v3 + ... + vn < V. The total amount of available space in the real universe is much, much greater. For example, let's say you have a supercomputer somewhere performing a detailed simulation of a hydrogen atom. Now let's say you are given a hydrogen atom and are asked to guess whether it's the simulated one or one of the real ones. Well, the number of simulated atoms is one. But the number of real ones is around 10^82. Even though there is one real universe and one simulated "universe", that does not imply that the hydrogen atom is equally likely to come from either one. Not even remotely close to it. And that's true always and obviously. (Note: by "volume" here I would mean specifically the amount of information contained or the degrees of freedom, as I do realize the physics can be different in the simulated universe).

thfuran 5y ago
>And that's true always and obviously. Is it obviously always true under arbitrarily different laws of physics?
- fallingfrog 5y ago
  Because there must exist at least one bit of information in the real universe for every simulated bit of information. And unless virtually all matter in the universe is dedicated to running simulations (an absurd assumption to make) and unless the simulation is preposterously efficient, the ratio will be nowhere near 1:1 Which laws of physics you choose are irrelevant; information is information.