4 ms·

A seemingly off topic question, but with enough compute and optimization, could you eventually simulate “reality”? Like, at this point, what are the technical

by spaceman_2020 3y ago

A seemingly off topic question, but with enough compute and optimization, could you eventually simulate “reality”? Like, at this point, what are the technical counters to the assertion that our world is a simulation?

refulgentis 3y ago
A little too freshman's first bit off a bong for me. There is, of course, substantial differences between video and reality. Let's steel-man — you mean 3D VR. Let's stipulate there's a headset today that renders 3D visually indistinguishable from reality. We're still short the other 4 senses Much like faith, there's always a way to sort of escape the traps here and say "can you PROVE this is base reality" The general technical argument against "brain in a vat being stimulated" would be the computation expense of doing such, but you can also write that off with the equivalent of foveated rendering but for all senses / entities
2-718-281-828 3y ago
> Like, at this point, what are the technical counters to the assertion that our world is a simulation? How about this theory is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
- vidarh 3y ago
  The general concept is not falsifiable, but many variations might be, or their inverse might be. E.g. the theory that we are not in a simulation would in general be falsifiable by finding an "escape" from a simulation and so showing we are in one (but not finding an escape of course tells us nothing). It's not a very useful endeavour to worry about, but it can be fun to speculate about what might give rise to testable hypotheses and what that might tell us about the world.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
tracerbulletx 3y ago
The brain does simulate reality in the sense that what you experience isn't direct sensory input, but more like a dream being generated to predict what it thinks is happening based on conflicting and imperfect sensory input.
- accrual 3y ago
  To illustrate your point, an easily accessible example of this is how the second hand on clocks appears to freeze for longer than a second when you quickly glance at it. The brain is predicting/interpolating what it expects to see, creating the illusion of a delay. https://www.popsci.com/how-time-seems-to-stop/ https://www.popsci.com/how-time-seems-to-stop/
- danielbln 3y ago
  Example vision: comes in from the optic nerve warped and upside down and as small patches of high resolution captured by the eyes zigzagging across the visual field (saccades), all of which is assembled and integrated into a coherent field of vision by our trusty old grey blob.
beepbooptheory 3y ago
Why does it matter? Not trying to dismiss, but truly, what would it mean to you if you could somehow verify the "simulation"? If it would mean something drastic to you, I would be very curious to hear your preexisting existential beliefs/commitments. People say this sometimes and its kind of slowly revealed to me that its just a new kind of geocentrism: its not just a simulation people have in mind, but one where earth/humans are centered, and the rest of the universe is just for the benefit of "our" part of the simulation. Which is a fine theory I guess, but is also just essentially wanting God to exist with extra steps!
KineticLensman 3y ago
(disclaimer: worked in the sim industry for 25 years, still active in terms of physics-based rendering). First off, there are zero technical proofs that we are in a sim, just a number of philosophical arguments. In practical terms, we cannot yet simulate a single human cell at the molecular level, given the massive number of interactions that occur every microsecond. Simulating our entire universe is not technically possible within the lifetime of our universe, according to our current understanding of computation and physics. You either have to assume that ‘the sim’ is very narrowly focussed in scope and fidelity, and / or that the outer universe that hosts ‘the sim’ has laws of physics that are essentially magic from our perspective. In which case the simulation hypothesis is essentially a religious argument, where the creator typed 'let there be light' into his computer. If there isn't such a creator, the sim hypothesis 'merely' suggests that our universe, at its lowest levels, looks somewhat computational, which is an entirely different argument.
- freedomben 3y ago
  I don't think you would need to simulate the entire universe, just enough of it that the consciousness receiving sense data can't encounter any missing info or "glitches" in the metaphorical matrix. Still hard of course, but substantially less compute intensive than every molecule in the universe.
  - gcanyon 3y ago
    And if you’re in charge of the simulation, you get to decide how many “consciousnesses” there are, constraining them to be within your available compute. Maybe that’s ~8 billion — maybe it’s 1. Yeah, I’m feeling pretty Boltzmann-ish right now…
  - KineticLensman 3y ago
    > but substantially less compute intensive than every molecule in the universe Very true, but to me this view of the universe and one's existence within it as a sort of second-rate solipsist bodge isn't a satisfyingly profound answer to the question of life the universe and everything. Although put like that it explains quite a lot. [Edit] There is also a sense in which the sim-as-a-focussed-mini-universe view is even less falsifiable, because sim proponents address any doubt about the sim by moving the goal posts to accommodate what they claim is actually achievable by the putative creator/hacker on Planet Tharg or similar.
SXX 3y ago
Actually it was already done by sentdex with GAN Theft Auto: https://youtu.be/udPY5rQVoW0 https://youtu.be/udPY5rQVoW0 To an extent... PS: Video is 2 years old, but still really impressive.
justanotherjoe 3y ago
That theory was never meant to be so airtight such that it 'needs' to be refuted.
sesm 3y ago
There can be no technical counters to the assertion that our world is a simulation. If our world is a simulation, then hardware/software that simulates it is outside of our world and it's technical constitution is inaccessible to us. It's purely a religious question. When humanity invented the wheel, religion described the world as a giant wheel rotating in cycles. When humanity invented books, religion described the world as a book, and God as a it's writer. When humanity invented complex mechanism, religion described the world as giant mechanism and God as a watchmaker. Then computers where invented, and you can guess what happened next.

refulgentis 3y ago

A little too freshman's first bit off a bong for me. There is, of course, substantial differences between video and reality. Let's steel-man — you mean 3D VR. Let's stipulate there's a headset today that renders 3D visually indistinguishable from reality. We're still short the other 4 senses Much like faith, there's always a way to sort of escape the traps here and say "can you PROVE this is base reality" The general technical argument against "brain in a vat being stimulated" would be the computation expense of doing such, but you can also write that off with the equivalent of foveated rendering but for all senses / entities

2-718-281-828 3y ago

> Like, at this point, what are the technical counters to the assertion that our world is a simulation? How about this theory is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

vidarh 3y ago
The general concept is not falsifiable, but many variations might be, or their inverse might be. E.g. the theory that we are not in a simulation would in general be falsifiable by finding an "escape" from a simulation and so showing we are in one (but not finding an escape of course tells us nothing). It's not a very useful endeavour to worry about, but it can be fun to speculate about what might give rise to testable hypotheses and what that might tell us about the world.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

tracerbulletx 3y ago

The brain does simulate reality in the sense that what you experience isn't direct sensory input, but more like a dream being generated to predict what it thinks is happening based on conflicting and imperfect sensory input.

accrual 3y ago
To illustrate your point, an easily accessible example of this is how the second hand on clocks appears to freeze for longer than a second when you quickly glance at it. The brain is predicting/interpolating what it expects to see, creating the illusion of a delay. https://www.popsci.com/how-time-seems-to-stop/ https://www.popsci.com/how-time-seems-to-stop/
danielbln 3y ago
Example vision: comes in from the optic nerve warped and upside down and as small patches of high resolution captured by the eyes zigzagging across the visual field (saccades), all of which is assembled and integrated into a coherent field of vision by our trusty old grey blob.

beepbooptheory 3y ago

Why does it matter? Not trying to dismiss, but truly, what would it mean to you if you could somehow verify the "simulation"? If it would mean something drastic to you, I would be very curious to hear your preexisting existential beliefs/commitments. People say this sometimes and its kind of slowly revealed to me that its just a new kind of geocentrism: its not just a simulation people have in mind, but one where earth/humans are centered, and the rest of the universe is just for the benefit of "our" part of the simulation. Which is a fine theory I guess, but is also just essentially wanting God to exist with extra steps!

KineticLensman 3y ago

(disclaimer: worked in the sim industry for 25 years, still active in terms of physics-based rendering). First off, there are zero technical proofs that we are in a sim, just a number of philosophical arguments. In practical terms, we cannot yet simulate a single human cell at the molecular level, given the massive number of interactions that occur every microsecond. Simulating our entire universe is not technically possible within the lifetime of our universe, according to our current understanding of computation and physics. You either have to assume that ‘the sim’ is very narrowly focussed in scope and fidelity, and / or that the outer universe that hosts ‘the sim’ has laws of physics that are essentially magic from our perspective. In which case the simulation hypothesis is essentially a religious argument, where the creator typed 'let there be light' into his computer. If there isn't such a creator, the sim hypothesis 'merely' suggests that our universe, at its lowest levels, looks somewhat computational, which is an entirely different argument.

freedomben 3y ago
I don't think you would need to simulate the entire universe, just enough of it that the consciousness receiving sense data can't encounter any missing info or "glitches" in the metaphorical matrix. Still hard of course, but substantially less compute intensive than every molecule in the universe.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  And if you’re in charge of the simulation, you get to decide how many “consciousnesses” there are, constraining them to be within your available compute. Maybe that’s ~8 billion — maybe it’s 1. Yeah, I’m feeling pretty Boltzmann-ish right now…
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > but substantially less compute intensive than every molecule in the universe Very true, but to me this view of the universe and one's existence within it as a sort of second-rate solipsist bodge isn't a satisfyingly profound answer to the question of life the universe and everything. Although put like that it explains quite a lot. [Edit] There is also a sense in which the sim-as-a-focussed-mini-universe view is even less falsifiable, because sim proponents address any doubt about the sim by moving the goal posts to accommodate what they claim is actually achievable by the putative creator/hacker on Planet Tharg or similar.

SXX 3y ago

Actually it was already done by sentdex with GAN Theft Auto: https://youtu.be/udPY5rQVoW0 https://youtu.be/udPY5rQVoW0 To an extent... PS: Video is 2 years old, but still really impressive.

justanotherjoe 3y ago

That theory was never meant to be so airtight such that it 'needs' to be refuted.

sesm 3y ago

There can be no technical counters to the assertion that our world is a simulation. If our world is a simulation, then hardware/software that simulates it is outside of our world and it's technical constitution is inaccessible to us. It's purely a religious question. When humanity invented the wheel, religion described the world as a giant wheel rotating in cycles. When humanity invented books, religion described the world as a book, and God as a it's writer. When humanity invented complex mechanism, religion described the world as giant mechanism and God as a watchmaker. Then computers where invented, and you can guess what happened next.