2 ms·

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 possibl

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 really appreciate you taking the time to reply to this, because the argument is crystal clear in my head, I just struggle to convey it to others. > 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. Being "manifested with substance" is something you experience from the inside of the universe. How do you know there is substance? Because you experience it with your senses, that's all. > you don't know what input to give. You don't have to. Nobody needs to give any input. It's enough that if a given input were given then a given output would arise. The output would arise from the input regardless of whether anyone ran the simulation. It is true that 123+456=789, even if nobody ever calculates it. > you can't practically compute all outcomes for all possible inputs since it's an infinite address space. It doesn't matter that it's infinite. I'm saying you don't need to compute it, the outcomes were already there. Computing the function doesn't change anything. That's why if the universe can be simulated it doesn't have to be. > 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. You don't know how any individual match will go because it is non-deterministic (like the coin-flipping example), but the set of all possible outcomes can be inferred from the starting state based on the rules. They're all already there in the vast structure of all that is possible in the game. You just only simuulate one path. (The main caveat in my argument is that it begins with "IF the universe can be simulated" -- if you don't think it is possible to define a computable function that would simulate the universe given arbitrary time and space etc., then the rest of my argument is irrelevant).

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 really appreciate you taking the time to reply to this, because the argument is crystal clear in my head, I just struggle to convey it to others. > 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. Being "manifested with substance" is something you experience from the inside of the universe. How do you know there is substance? Because you experience it with your senses, that's all. > you don't know what input to give. You don't have to. Nobody needs to give any input. It's enough that if a given input were given then a given output would arise. The output would arise from the input regardless of whether anyone ran the simulation. It is true that 123+456=789, even if nobody ever calculates it. > you can't practically compute all outcomes for all possible inputs since it's an infinite address space. It doesn't matter that it's infinite. I'm saying you don't need to compute it, the outcomes were already there. Computing the function doesn't change anything. That's why if the universe can be simulated it doesn't have to be. > 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. You don't know how any individual match will go because it is non-deterministic (like the coin-flipping example), but the set of all possible outcomes can be inferred from the starting state based on the rules. They're all already there in the vast structure of all that is possible in the game. You just only simuulate one path. (The main caveat in my argument is that it begins with "IF the universe can be simulated" -- if you don't think it is possible to define a computable function that would simulate the universe given arbitrary time and space etc., then the rest of my argument is irrelevant).