4 ms·

> turtles all the way down was literal Was it? What evidence do you have for that? If anything it sounds like the kind of verbal slapdown someone in authority

> turtles all the way down was literal Was it? What evidence do you have for that? If anything it sounds like the kind of verbal slapdown someone in authority would subject someone trying to be a smart alec. It is short. Easy to understand. And closes the kind of questioning. I would be very surprised if someone have considered it the literal truth, but of course have seen stranger things. > heavenly clockwork and computer program perspectives are clear metaphors. I don’t know about the clockwork. You will need to find someone who talks about that and ask them if they meant as a metaphor or not. On the other hand I know about the computer simulation one. That for me is not a metaphor. I seriously think that it is within the realm of possibilities that this universe we live in (including us) is a literal simulation. There would be possible physical experiments which depending on their results could make me increase or decrease my confidence in that statement. But I don’t consider it a metaphor. Now of course that is only the viewpoint of a single human, at a single point of time. So it might not matter much. But it shows that it is not that “clear” that everyone considers that view only as a metaphor.

civilitty 3y ago
> I seriously think that it is within the realm of possibilities that this universe we live in (including us) is a literal simulation. Notice how you dropped the “computer” part. Without that qualifier, the “universe is a simulation” hypothesis goes back at least to Descartes and his evil demon [1]. That’s the GP’s point. The “demon,” “clockwork,” and “computer” are just metaphors to help illustrate the point. Hundreds of years ago it was a trickster demon, now it’s computers - the simulation part is the same. (The world floating on a turtle idea traces to the world turtle and several different creation myths, so it’s safe to say their believers took them a bit more literally) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  Pretty funny to see a constructive comment downvoted faster than sweaty blather. Not a good day for HN.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > now it’s computers - the simulation part is the same. I don't think so. I do understand this lineage of thought, and I agree with you that they are somewhat similar. But I must insist in saying that what I'm talking about is different. The trickster demon metaphor talks about a being (you) whose senses are replaced by the demon. But that means there is a you outside of the demon/computer simulation. I believe if this universe is a simulation, then I am part of that simulation. My mind is not an external observer hooked up to the simulation, but just matter simulated by the simulation according to the rules of the simulation. The thing Descartes was talking about is a Matrix situation. (Or rather to say the creators of Matrix were paraphrasing Descartes) Neo thinks he is living his life, but in truth his body is laying in a pod in the goo. I don't believe in that. I don't think that is likely true. If this is a simulation then me (and you, and this computer, and all of the people, and the butterflies and the stars) are in the simulation. And not the way how Neo is in there, but the way a cubic meter of minecraft sand is inside a minecraft world. Inside the minecraft world it is a cubic meter of sand, outside of it is just a few bytes in the memory of some program. Let me illustrate what I mean when I say that I don't speak about the universe being a computer simulation as a metaphor. Imagine that it is a simulation. What does this computer simulation have to do? Well, it seems that there are particles, and there are forces between them (gravity, electric, weak/strong nuclear force) In every iteration of this simulation it would seem that you need to calculate which particles are close to others so you can update the forces on them, so you can calculate their new state. To do this you need to inspect the distance between every two particle. That scales with ordo N^2 with the number of particles N. If the universe is a computer simulation it probably runs on a computer of immense power. But even then N^2 scaling is not good news in a hot path. Funny thing is that if the universe you want to simulate is relatively sparse (as is ours), and has an absolute speed limit (as ours seems to have), then you can shard your workload into parallel processes. And then you can run the separate shards relatively independently, and you only need to pass information from one shard to an other periodically. Now if our universe is a simulation, and it is sharded this way, then you would expect anomalies to crop up on the shard boundaries. Where the simulated mater is moved from one executor "node" to an other. We could construct small spacecraft and send them far away (perhaps other solar systems?). We would furnish these small automated spacecraft with sensitive experiments. Microscopic versions of a Newton's cradle, or some sort of subatomic oscillator, or a very precisely measured interferometric experiment. And the craft would autonomously check constantly that the laws of physics are unchanged, and work without glitches. If we don't see any glitches, then we shrug. Either we don't live in a computer simulation, or the computer simulation is not sharded this way, or the edge cases are very well handled, or the instruments were not sensitive enough, or the shards are even bigger (perhaps we should have sent the same experiments to a different galaxy?) If we see glitching, then we should try to map out exactly where they happen, and how they happen, and that would be very interesting. And if we see glitching of this kind that would increase my confidence in us living in a computer simulation. Does this make sense? You cannot design an experiment to test a metaphor. It doesn't even make sense. But I think of this as a possible literal truth, in which case you can formulate hypothesises based on it and you can check those with experiments. > so it’s safe to say their believers took them a bit more literally I believe you. Did anyone ever propose to solve a famine by sending a hunting party to cut a chunk of the turtle's flesh? Or to send gatherer's to collect the dung of the turtle to fertilise the land? Or to send holly people to the edge of the world, to peer down at the turtle to predict earthquakes? If the turtles are meant to be literal turtles these are all straightforward consequences. If nobody ever proposed anything like these, then perhaps the turtles were more of a metaphor?
waitwhathu 3y ago
[flagged]
- sebastiennight 3y ago
  That comment was a wild ride. I'm curious if there is a way that I could phrase a polite request to you to ask if you're a human (that just happened to create your account 30 minutes ago to post this within the same minute) or if this comment was auto-generated.
detourdog 3y ago
I believe the universe we live right now is no different than a simulation. Subtle difference in belief but I think it might have a big implication.
- milesvp 3y ago
  There is one key difference between reality and simulation. In reality you have to spend energy to remove noise. In simulation you have to spend energy to add noise. Or perhaps more accurately, all objects interact in reality and energy needs to be spent to prevent interaction, while simulation requires energy to make objects interact. But it’s even worse than it sounds at first, because you need to spend energy not just on calculating the interactions which is super linear with the number of objects, you must also spend the energy to make it possible for the objects to interact in the first place.
  - kian 3y ago
    This is an incredibly deep observation that essentially points to the problem with the representations we use to understand the Universe. It feels like the universe is essentially showing us that there is a non-supra-linear representation it uses (based on the kinds or fields of interactions?), and that calculating within this representation (between fields?) is somehow equivalent to calculating all of the interactions for the objects across all of the fields simultaneously. Almost feels like it's related to P=NP or logic and meta-logic. Is it fundamentally impossible to use the same 'Universe'-al representation inside the Universe, a Gödel-like result limiting us only to the real? Or can we represent and run subsets of smaller universes within without a computational explosion? If so, does it eventually revert back to becoming fundamentally impossible at some limit, and if so, are we there yet? Can we measure how far from the limit we are, somehow? Fun questions. Thanks for the provocative clarification.
  - incongruity 3y ago
    Perhaps a foolish question but does “simulation” necessarily imply calculation or is that just an extension of our current evolution of computing technology as an analogy for what a simulation would be? I’m not convinced the one necessitates the other.
DonHopkins 3y ago
The "we're living in a simulation" theory is silly and self indulgent. If it's a simulation, then a simulation of WHAT that is REAL and exists OUTSIDE of a simulation? You still have to explain THAT. It's just as stupid and self-justifying and needlessly complex and arbitrarily made-up as any religion. That is different from "we're living in a computational medium", which doesn't claim it's simulating something else, and is the only level of existence. (i.e. Fredkin et al)
- krisoft 3y ago
  I’m sorry. Writing select words with all-caps and calling the idea names is not making your point more persuasive. > You still have to explain THAT. I see your point there. Sadly the universe is not obliged to be easy to understood. “If X then I have further questions, therefore not X.” Is not a logical reasoning I recognise. What I am saying is that you can’t argue that we are not in a computer because that would bring up a host of questions. > That is different from "we're living in a computational medium" which doesn't claim it's simulating something else Interesting. The way I use these they are synonymous in my mind. I don’t claim that there is something else out there which the simulation mimics. If you have some state representation and some rules to describe how the state propagates then I would describe a computer program which calculates new states based on the old one a simulator. This is the sense how I use the word when I say “we might be living in a simulation”. If this bothers you feel free to just imagine that I am saying “we might be living in a computational medium”. > and is the only level of existence Now, why exactly do you belive that? Why not 2 levels? Or 3? Why do you feel believing that there is only one level of existence is more justified than those other arbitrary numbers?

civilitty 3y ago

> I seriously think that it is within the realm of possibilities that this universe we live in (including us) is a literal simulation. Notice how you dropped the “computer” part. Without that qualifier, the “universe is a simulation” hypothesis goes back at least to Descartes and his evil demon [1]. That’s the GP’s point. The “demon,” “clockwork,” and “computer” are just metaphors to help illustrate the point. Hundreds of years ago it was a trickster demon, now it’s computers - the simulation part is the same. (The world floating on a turtle idea traces to the world turtle and several different creation myths, so it’s safe to say their believers took them a bit more literally) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon

CuriouslyC 3y ago
Pretty funny to see a constructive comment downvoted faster than sweaty blather. Not a good day for HN.
krisoft 3y ago
> now it’s computers - the simulation part is the same. I don't think so. I do understand this lineage of thought, and I agree with you that they are somewhat similar. But I must insist in saying that what I'm talking about is different. The trickster demon metaphor talks about a being (you) whose senses are replaced by the demon. But that means there is a you outside of the demon/computer simulation. I believe if this universe is a simulation, then I am part of that simulation. My mind is not an external observer hooked up to the simulation, but just matter simulated by the simulation according to the rules of the simulation. The thing Descartes was talking about is a Matrix situation. (Or rather to say the creators of Matrix were paraphrasing Descartes) Neo thinks he is living his life, but in truth his body is laying in a pod in the goo. I don't believe in that. I don't think that is likely true. If this is a simulation then me (and you, and this computer, and all of the people, and the butterflies and the stars) are in the simulation. And not the way how Neo is in there, but the way a cubic meter of minecraft sand is inside a minecraft world. Inside the minecraft world it is a cubic meter of sand, outside of it is just a few bytes in the memory of some program. Let me illustrate what I mean when I say that I don't speak about the universe being a computer simulation as a metaphor. Imagine that it is a simulation. What does this computer simulation have to do? Well, it seems that there are particles, and there are forces between them (gravity, electric, weak/strong nuclear force) In every iteration of this simulation it would seem that you need to calculate which particles are close to others so you can update the forces on them, so you can calculate their new state. To do this you need to inspect the distance between every two particle. That scales with ordo N^2 with the number of particles N. If the universe is a computer simulation it probably runs on a computer of immense power. But even then N^2 scaling is not good news in a hot path. Funny thing is that if the universe you want to simulate is relatively sparse (as is ours), and has an absolute speed limit (as ours seems to have), then you can shard your workload into parallel processes. And then you can run the separate shards relatively independently, and you only need to pass information from one shard to an other periodically. Now if our universe is a simulation, and it is sharded this way, then you would expect anomalies to crop up on the shard boundaries. Where the simulated mater is moved from one executor "node" to an other. We could construct small spacecraft and send them far away (perhaps other solar systems?). We would furnish these small automated spacecraft with sensitive experiments. Microscopic versions of a Newton's cradle, or some sort of subatomic oscillator, or a very precisely measured interferometric experiment. And the craft would autonomously check constantly that the laws of physics are unchanged, and work without glitches. If we don't see any glitches, then we shrug. Either we don't live in a computer simulation, or the computer simulation is not sharded this way, or the edge cases are very well handled, or the instruments were not sensitive enough, or the shards are even bigger (perhaps we should have sent the same experiments to a different galaxy?) If we see glitching, then we should try to map out exactly where they happen, and how they happen, and that would be very interesting. And if we see glitching of this kind that would increase my confidence in us living in a computer simulation. Does this make sense? You cannot design an experiment to test a metaphor. It doesn't even make sense. But I think of this as a possible literal truth, in which case you can formulate hypothesises based on it and you can check those with experiments. > so it’s safe to say their believers took them a bit more literally I believe you. Did anyone ever propose to solve a famine by sending a hunting party to cut a chunk of the turtle's flesh? Or to send gatherer's to collect the dung of the turtle to fertilise the land? Or to send holly people to the edge of the world, to peer down at the turtle to predict earthquakes? If the turtles are meant to be literal turtles these are all straightforward consequences. If nobody ever proposed anything like these, then perhaps the turtles were more of a metaphor?

waitwhathu 3y ago

[flagged]

sebastiennight 3y ago
That comment was a wild ride. I'm curious if there is a way that I could phrase a polite request to you to ask if you're a human (that just happened to create your account 30 minutes ago to post this within the same minute) or if this comment was auto-generated.

detourdog 3y ago

I believe the universe we live right now is no different than a simulation. Subtle difference in belief but I think it might have a big implication.

milesvp 3y ago
There is one key difference between reality and simulation. In reality you have to spend energy to remove noise. In simulation you have to spend energy to add noise. Or perhaps more accurately, all objects interact in reality and energy needs to be spent to prevent interaction, while simulation requires energy to make objects interact. But it’s even worse than it sounds at first, because you need to spend energy not just on calculating the interactions which is super linear with the number of objects, you must also spend the energy to make it possible for the objects to interact in the first place.
- kian 3y ago
  This is an incredibly deep observation that essentially points to the problem with the representations we use to understand the Universe. It feels like the universe is essentially showing us that there is a non-supra-linear representation it uses (based on the kinds or fields of interactions?), and that calculating within this representation (between fields?) is somehow equivalent to calculating all of the interactions for the objects across all of the fields simultaneously. Almost feels like it's related to P=NP or logic and meta-logic. Is it fundamentally impossible to use the same 'Universe'-al representation inside the Universe, a Gödel-like result limiting us only to the real? Or can we represent and run subsets of smaller universes within without a computational explosion? If so, does it eventually revert back to becoming fundamentally impossible at some limit, and if so, are we there yet? Can we measure how far from the limit we are, somehow? Fun questions. Thanks for the provocative clarification.
- incongruity 3y ago
  Perhaps a foolish question but does “simulation” necessarily imply calculation or is that just an extension of our current evolution of computing technology as an analogy for what a simulation would be? I’m not convinced the one necessitates the other.

DonHopkins 3y ago

The "we're living in a simulation" theory is silly and self indulgent. If it's a simulation, then a simulation of WHAT that is REAL and exists OUTSIDE of a simulation? You still have to explain THAT. It's just as stupid and self-justifying and needlessly complex and arbitrarily made-up as any religion. That is different from "we're living in a computational medium", which doesn't claim it's simulating something else, and is the only level of existence. (i.e. Fredkin et al)

krisoft 3y ago
I’m sorry. Writing select words with all-caps and calling the idea names is not making your point more persuasive. > You still have to explain THAT. I see your point there. Sadly the universe is not obliged to be easy to understood. “If X then I have further questions, therefore not X.” Is not a logical reasoning I recognise. What I am saying is that you can’t argue that we are not in a computer because that would bring up a host of questions. > That is different from "we're living in a computational medium" which doesn't claim it's simulating something else Interesting. The way I use these they are synonymous in my mind. I don’t claim that there is something else out there which the simulation mimics. If you have some state representation and some rules to describe how the state propagates then I would describe a computer program which calculates new states based on the old one a simulator. This is the sense how I use the word when I say “we might be living in a simulation”. If this bothers you feel free to just imagine that I am saying “we might be living in a computational medium”. > and is the only level of existence Now, why exactly do you belive that? Why not 2 levels? Or 3? Why do you feel believing that there is only one level of existence is more justified than those other arbitrary numbers?