3 ms·

> How are you implementing a simulation using constructions that can not be described mathematically? They could be instructions not constructions and rely on

> How are you implementing a simulation using constructions that can not be described mathematically? They could be instructions not constructions and rely on any number of data not in the descriptions themselves. > If it can't be described mathematically, it can't be simulated mathematically. You're missing the point. You can say everything running on your PC right now can be described mathematically, and that's fine. But it's also highly dependent on how you have used it, configured it, what you have installed at. The initial mathematical description wouldn't account for the things that are a result of environment and your input.

jstanley 3y ago
I mean, I think you're just wrong here. The entire state of the computer can be encoded and manipulated using mathematics. If that weren't possible, the computer wouldn't work.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  I'm not wrong, you are misunderstanding my point. > The entire state of the computer can be encoded and manipulated using mathematics. If that weren't possible, the computer wouldn't work. I don't disagree, but 'can' is not the same as 'is'. Absolutely everything can be modeled and described mathematically with enough variables, but that isn't always feasible, and describing all modeling all instances of something with practically infinite permutations probably isn't. Besides, if they already had that information they wouldn't really need to simulate anything. The point is that the simulation gives the parameters for the simulation but then lets it go its own way and doesn't already have all that information of the path it ended up taking. The path it ends up taking is the result of numerous complex variables, (i.e. all the choices we make in the simulation) which were not and could not be modeled ahead of time (unless you want to argue that infinity would not be so in some kind of higher dimension). Thus, actually running the simulation, to generate that flesh and meat, is the point of running the simulation, and why I think your original point that anything that can be simulated need not be simulated is wrong.
  - jstanley 3y ago
    > Absolutely everything can be modeled and described mathematically with enough variables, but that isn't always feasible, and describing all modeling all instances of something with practically infinite permutations probably isn't. My point is that you don't need someone to actively describe it. The fact that it can be described mathematically (even if it's infinite!) means it already exists within the structure of mathematics. > The point is that the simulation gives the parameters for the simulation but then lets it go its own way and doesn't already have all that information of the path it ended up taking. Everything that is implied mathematically from the starting state is implied just as well even if you never evaluate it. You're taking the natural numbers to be your starting state, and declaring that the results of arithmetic operations on them are created by the simulation, whereas I'm saying the results of arithmetic operations were always there, because they can be defined by rules. Running the simulation doesn't create anything inside the simulation that wasn't already implied by the initial configuration. Running the simulation "generates the flesh and meat", only in the sense that it makes it visible to someone outside the simulation. Inside the simulation, it is impossible to tell whether it has been evaluated or not.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > The fact that it can be described mathematically (even if it's infinite!) means it already exists within the structure of mathematics. This is absolutely meaningless though. The structure of mathematics is infinite. Just because it exists as something unrealized does not at all mean it is equivalent to something manifested with substance as you suggest. > Everything that is implied mathematically from the starting state is implied just as well even if you never evaluate it. Well that's kind of horseshit, because you don't know what input to give. And you can't practically compute all outcomes for all possible inputs since it's an infinite address space. So the point you're trying to make, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, and the premise while technically true is completely irrelevant for any and all practical purposes. > Running the simulation doesn't create anything inside the simulation that wasn't already implied by the initial configuration. When you play an FPS game, nothing that happens in the game isn't "implied by the initial configuration", yet you can't have an accurate output of how each match will go. > whereas I'm saying the results of arithmetic operations were always there, because they can be defined by rules. You're saying it is not a simulation at all but a detailed description where every outcome is already known. Nothing is being simulated. That's quite a different argument and proposal from considering if the universe is a simulation or not.

jstanley 3y ago

I mean, I think you're just wrong here. The entire state of the computer can be encoded and manipulated using mathematics. If that weren't possible, the computer wouldn't work.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
I'm not wrong, you are misunderstanding my point. > The entire state of the computer can be encoded and manipulated using mathematics. If that weren't possible, the computer wouldn't work. I don't disagree, but 'can' is not the same as 'is'. Absolutely everything can be modeled and described mathematically with enough variables, but that isn't always feasible, and describing all modeling all instances of something with practically infinite permutations probably isn't. Besides, if they already had that information they wouldn't really need to simulate anything. The point is that the simulation gives the parameters for the simulation but then lets it go its own way and doesn't already have all that information of the path it ended up taking. The path it ends up taking is the result of numerous complex variables, (i.e. all the choices we make in the simulation) which were not and could not be modeled ahead of time (unless you want to argue that infinity would not be so in some kind of higher dimension). Thus, actually running the simulation, to generate that flesh and meat, is the point of running the simulation, and why I think your original point that anything that can be simulated need not be simulated is wrong.
- jstanley 3y ago
  > Absolutely everything can be modeled and described mathematically with enough variables, but that isn't always feasible, and describing all modeling all instances of something with practically infinite permutations probably isn't. My point is that you don't need someone to actively describe it. The fact that it can be described mathematically (even if it's infinite!) means it already exists within the structure of mathematics. > The point is that the simulation gives the parameters for the simulation but then lets it go its own way and doesn't already have all that information of the path it ended up taking. Everything that is implied mathematically from the starting state is implied just as well even if you never evaluate it. You're taking the natural numbers to be your starting state, and declaring that the results of arithmetic operations on them are created by the simulation, whereas I'm saying the results of arithmetic operations were always there, because they can be defined by rules. Running the simulation doesn't create anything inside the simulation that wasn't already implied by the initial configuration. Running the simulation "generates the flesh and meat", only in the sense that it makes it visible to someone outside the simulation. Inside the simulation, it is impossible to tell whether it has been evaluated or not.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > The fact that it can be described mathematically (even if it's infinite!) means it already exists within the structure of mathematics. This is absolutely meaningless though. The structure of mathematics is infinite. Just because it exists as something unrealized does not at all mean it is equivalent to something manifested with substance as you suggest. > Everything that is implied mathematically from the starting state is implied just as well even if you never evaluate it. Well that's kind of horseshit, because you don't know what input to give. And you can't practically compute all outcomes for all possible inputs since it's an infinite address space. So the point you're trying to make, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, and the premise while technically true is completely irrelevant for any and all practical purposes. > Running the simulation doesn't create anything inside the simulation that wasn't already implied by the initial configuration. When you play an FPS game, nothing that happens in the game isn't "implied by the initial configuration", yet you can't have an accurate output of how each match will go. > whereas I'm saying the results of arithmetic operations were always there, because they can be defined by rules. You're saying it is not a simulation at all but a detailed description where every outcome is already known. Nothing is being simulated. That's quite a different argument and proposal from considering if the universe is a simulation or not.