5 ms·
> "We’ve learned that at least one American plutocrat (almost certainly Elon Musk, who believes the odds are a billion to one against us living in "base reality
by galacticaactual 3y ago
> "We’ve learned that at least one American plutocrat (almost certainly Elon Musk, who believes the odds are a billion to one against us living in "base reality") has hired a pair of coders to try to hack the simulation."
Source?
- saurik 3y agoI know nothing about this, but I do know how type the question into Google, and I got this back, which sounds like what Maciej is talking about (if maybe ever so slightly corrupted). https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-billionaires-want-to-break-humans-out-of-a-computer-simulation-2016-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-billionaires-want-to-br...
- crosen99 3y agoThat article links to the below article where Musk lays out his version of the simulation argument. His version is fraught to the brim with confused thinking and non sequiturs, and yet I’ve never seen him called out on it. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-question-elon-musk-refuses-to-talk-about-in-hot-tubs-2016-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-question-elon-musk-refus...
- voidfunc 3y agoI like how there is an assumption that any simulation we run inside even follows rules, physics, or mathematics we can comprehend. If this is actually a simulation it's quite possible the outside world is so completely different it basically breaks everything we think we know.
- kirubakaran 3y agoI think the idea is that *if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Lot of IFs based on our view of their values, I know... I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning... just stating how I understand the argument.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> the idea is that if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources?* This always struck me as the most WTF simulationist assumption. To the degree we simulate our ancestors, today, it’s in games. Given an infinity to ponder and simulate, it strikes me as ludicrous to assume even a significant fraction of computer power would go to ancestor simulations.
- alwaysbeconsing 3y agoWe're still at the very dawn of our computational age, though. There are still humans alive now who were born before digital computers. We have hardly any experience with them. It's very, very difficult to predict what we might be doing with them in a millenium or two.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> very, very difficult to predict what we might be doing with them in a millenium or two Sure. But why that? I’m not debating that some people wouldn’t obsess over, I don’t know, their personal lineages or old military battles. But I can’t see devoting most resources backwards versus probing forward for opportunity.
- p_j_w 3y ago>Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Why the assumption that it takes a significant amount of their resources to run our simulation?
- kirubakaran 3y agoLimits like speed of light, planck length, etc might indicate some resource constraint in the simulator
- 3y ago
- zmgsabst 3y agoAnd yet, in Minecraft you can build devices that detect features of the underlying software — eg, the update policy, circuit cache size, and server lag. Perhaps we won’t understand the reality “out there”, but attempting to may nevertheless produce tangible benefits for us “in here”, eg, like wireless communication in Minecraft arises from detecting subtle variations in updates.
- galacticaactual 3y agoStrong agree. It's like expecting video game characters (however sentient they may eventually / theoretically become) to understand the hardware instructions that power the assembly language that is running the process within which their reality exists.
- voidfunc 3y agoMore depressing is what happens if you do realize you're living in a simulation... You can't escape it unless the creator has the means to convert a sim to something real. You're just some shitty fake bits in a snowglobe.
- ok_dad 3y agoWhat’s the real difference between what we think now, and if we knew for a fact we lived on a computer? Still feels real to me. I guess I would just go on with my life, what else could I do?
- PlunderBunny 3y agoExactly. To some people, it’s an excuse to act in an immoral or amoral way - those people seem to me to be the “sounds smart at first but aren’t really” type.
- fzeroracer 3y agoThis is one of the reasons why I hate the whole simulation argument. It doesn't make a bit or byte of difference if it's true or not. If in theory you could escape or 'abuse' the simulation there's no way for us to divine the intent that it is in fact an exploit or something intended by whatever is running the simulation. It's a thought terminator. It's a way to seem smart while not being smart at all.
- donkeybeer 3y agoIts the "god made it" argument, to which the next question should be "who made god?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_Go...
- akomtu 3y agoThe public thought got fixated on the VM style simulation. Consider another idea. The baseline reality is spacetime that can form any configuration with any number of space and time dimensions and everything in between. We live in the 3+1 layer, which doesn't exclude the existence of other 3+1 layers, just like one flat valley doesn't prevent the existence of other valleys. Those who know how to work with that spacetime can create arbitrary worlds, e.g. a toroidal 4+3 world. These world can be connected to each other in strange ways and transition between them may or may not be possible. Some local spacetime can be nested into bigger soacetimes with different configuration.
- adamisom 3y agoI think it's fair to say that obviously, anybody who explores 'breaking' the simulation is also aware of this and all their hopes are pinned on the admittedly infinitesemal chance that we're in a simulation that can be broken
- anothernewdude 3y agoWe are living in a base reality by definition.
- adastra22 3y agoNo, we are not? I am confused what definition you are using. If the Matrix were real, you would say the Matrix is base reality?
- NateEag 3y agoI think his point is that even if we're technically in a simulation, we very likely do not have access to any exterior world. Thus, in some sense, this is base reality "by definition" - that reality beyond which you cannot find anything else. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable way to think about it (if that is in fact what OP meant).
- swader999 3y agoWe do though. It's pretty easy to have an out of body experience within about twenty days of trying. NDE phenomena has just too much data to dismiss if you give it a fair consideration. We get glimpses that there's more when you dig into the latest from Nima Arkani-Hamed. Donald Hoffman is a bit more of a stretch but his assertion that there's no way we can percieve true reality is solid.