3 ms·

It also shows total ignorance of what we've learned about computing, namely that P vs NP and various Big O challenges mean it is not feasible to simulate some p

It also shows total ignorance of what we've learned about computing, namely that P vs NP and various Big O challenges mean it is not feasible to simulate some physical space without either cutting corners and not doing a complete simulation or using a computer in some sense "larger" (or slower) than the physical space.

wongarsu 3y ago
What makes you confident that no corners were cut, that the simulation is complete, or that the world simulating us isn't larger or slower? Physical laws might be greatly simplified, anything you can't observe might not be simulated at all until necessary, the simulation might not be real-time, and the world running the simulation might have 6-dimensional spacetime (after all we love simulating 2d worlds).
- vidarh 3y ago
  Indeed, one of the reasons for speculating about this is that looking at physics through the lense of "does this make sense as an implementation artefact" is fairly interesting. E.g. a system might apply a computational "budget" per entity per time step in terms of "in universe operations", in which case time dilation could naturally fall out (more time spent simulating motion translating into less time available to simulate local subjective time) That doesn't prove that is how our universe works, but it's fascinating all the same.
- rendall 3y ago
  Why would you apply the word "simulation" to the activities of 6th-dimensional (or 67th-dimensional or googolplexth-dimensional) entities? Assuming you could even apply human concepts to them like intention, consciousness, or research, why would these proposed creatures be "simulating". Why couldn't the Universe just be some by-product of some kind of industrial process? Or something else? At what remove do you start to say "yeah that's too weird to be called a simulation"?
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    You are right, "simulation" might narrow it unnecessarily, it could as well be a side effect of something entirely else. Going with "simulation" comes from humans running lots of simulations. Humanity has a $350 billion/year industry dedicated to making simulations for recreational use (aka video games), and then there's all the simulations we run for industry and research. And many simulations are simplified models of our world, with compressed time, space and sometimes fewer dimensions, and greatly simplified physics. So that's a natural starting point, but it's of course far from the only scenario.
    - rendall 3y ago
      Then I think we agree more than we disagree. My objection to the simulation hypothesis is precisely that it lacks imagination. It's boring. Given all of the infinite imaginative possibilities, that our Universe is simply an instance of our latest nerd obsession is as unlikely as its being the 6,000 year old side project of a cranky sky giant. Those two explanations come from exactly the same impulse: explaining the weird fact of our existence in terms that are reducibly familiar to us.

wongarsu 3y ago

What makes you confident that no corners were cut, that the simulation is complete, or that the world simulating us isn't larger or slower? Physical laws might be greatly simplified, anything you can't observe might not be simulated at all until necessary, the simulation might not be real-time, and the world running the simulation might have 6-dimensional spacetime (after all we love simulating 2d worlds).

vidarh 3y ago
Indeed, one of the reasons for speculating about this is that looking at physics through the lense of "does this make sense as an implementation artefact" is fairly interesting. E.g. a system might apply a computational "budget" per entity per time step in terms of "in universe operations", in which case time dilation could naturally fall out (more time spent simulating motion translating into less time available to simulate local subjective time) That doesn't prove that is how our universe works, but it's fascinating all the same.
rendall 3y ago
Why would you apply the word "simulation" to the activities of 6th-dimensional (or 67th-dimensional or googolplexth-dimensional) entities? Assuming you could even apply human concepts to them like intention, consciousness, or research, why would these proposed creatures be "simulating". Why couldn't the Universe just be some by-product of some kind of industrial process? Or something else? At what remove do you start to say "yeah that's too weird to be called a simulation"?
- wongarsu 3y ago
  You are right, "simulation" might narrow it unnecessarily, it could as well be a side effect of something entirely else. Going with "simulation" comes from humans running lots of simulations. Humanity has a $350 billion/year industry dedicated to making simulations for recreational use (aka video games), and then there's all the simulations we run for industry and research. And many simulations are simplified models of our world, with compressed time, space and sometimes fewer dimensions, and greatly simplified physics. So that's a natural starting point, but it's of course far from the only scenario.
  - rendall 3y ago
    Then I think we agree more than we disagree. My objection to the simulation hypothesis is precisely that it lacks imagination. It's boring. Given all of the infinite imaginative possibilities, that our Universe is simply an instance of our latest nerd obsession is as unlikely as its being the 6,000 year old side project of a cranky sky giant. Those two explanations come from exactly the same impulse: explaining the weird fact of our existence in terms that are reducibly familiar to us.