11 ms·
On whether we're living in a simulation
- midzer 3y agohttps://simulation-argument.com/ https://simulation-argument.com/
- grav 3y ago(swap! state update :co2-level (partial * 0.8))
- great_thanks 3y ago(swap! state update :justice inc)
- k__ 3y agoWhat's the reason for the simulation to be smaller than the simulator? Can't it just be the same but slower? This wouldn't be perceivable from the inside.
- azornathogron 3y agoRegardless of speed, presumably the simulator must hold at least as much state as the simulation has, and that would put some kind of bound on "size".
- k__ 3y agoI see. So, the universe is assumed to be finite in either time or space?
- PeterisP 3y agoQuantity of information - a simulator whose state itself can be expressed in X bits can't possibly have a simulation with X+1 bits of incompressible state.
- vidarh 3y agoYes, but assuming much incompressible state is already assuming to know a lot about the nature of the simulation, ranging from size, longevity, to the extent which the structure of our perceived universe is the way it is to enable an outside simulator to take shortcuts we don't know about.
- FartyMcFarter 3y agoThat assumption is baked into the question being asked though. When we talk about X bits of storage it's generally accepted that this means being able to store any bit string of length X, not just compressible ones.
- vidarh 3y agoThe question was: > What's the reason for the simulation to be smaller than the simulator? And the answer to that is that there's no reason. There's no reason to assume the state of a simulation isn't compressible, because have no knowledge about whether or not it is, and we do have plenty of knowledge of how to create simulations that appear complex but that reduces to easily computable sequences "from the outside". The more restricted question isn't meaningful because we have no basis for assuming we can restrict ourselves to consider incompressible state, because we have no way of determining if the state is incompressible. There would be any number of sets of possible simulations that would indeed be smaller than their simulators, but given that within two similarly sized universes, you would be able to fit more simulations that are reducible, the probability that any given simulation is an approximation that allows for shortcuts ought to be higher than that it is a simulation of an irreducible set of data. So much so, that perhaps if we were able to somehow demonstrate aspects that would prove incompressibility (and I'm not convinced that is possible, or even meaningful) that might indicate that we're more likely to be in the "outer" universe. Conversely, the more compressible our universe looks, the more we might want to consider that it's an indication that we're more likely to be in a simulation.
- PeterisP 3y ago
- Karellen 3y ago> > But because their simulations will have to run on computers that fit in our universe, presumably the simulated universes will be smaller than ours—in the sense of fewer bits and operations needed to describe them. > Can't it just be the same but slower? The number of bits needed to simulate another universe can't be larger than the number of bits we can store in this universe - there isn't enough space to store them! It's not a matter of simulation speed. Theoretically, we could simulate another universe with the same number of bits that exist in this universe, but then there wouldn't be enough bits to store you in this universe. It's the paperclip problem all over again - the simulator doesn't want to destroy you, but your existence uses up bits that the simulator needs for its own purposes.
- WithinReason 3y agomany algorithms allow trading space for time
- Karellen 3y agoEven if you don't run the simulation at all, you can't hold the state of a single moment of the simulation in this universe, if you need more bits to do so than are available. I don't understand how it might even be possible to get around that by "trading space for time". Can you expand on that, at all?
- WithinReason 3y agoe.g. lossless compression of state space and piecewise evaluation. Better compression = less space, more time
- b112 3y agoThat's silly. There are whole regions of space with no actual observer. Those can be swapped to disk, or DB backend until needed. They exist, they are part of the simulation, just not actively rendered. Or they can be as sparse files in linux, null until used. I think the big concern would then be, too many active NPCs would mean too much active universe, and then an OOM issue. But of course people die, so once all the people who lived, and have memories of a thing die, then that global memory can be wiped. There are lots of methods to save space! And to have bits not rendered, or taking active ram. So over-committed sim space is a thing. Heck, maybe the project had plans for adding RAM and DB storage space, before active sim space got too big... but you know, budgets change.
- FartyMcFarter 3y ago> What's the reason for the simulation to be smaller than the simulator? Depends on what "smaller" means: - if "smaller" means "not able to contain as much information" then yes, the simulation has to be smaller or equal to the universe containing the simulation. You can't store N bits in N-1 bits in general (a simple counting argument can prove that). - if "smaller" refers to a concept of physical dimension, then it's possible to simulate bigger universes, as long as it's a lower resolution simulation.
- amelius 3y ago> My personal belief is that the deepest things we’ve learned about quantum gravity—including about the Planck scale, and the Bekenstein bound from black-hole thermodynamics, and AdS/CFT—all militate toward the view that the answer is “yes,” that in some sense (which needs to be spelled out carefully!) the physical universe really is a giant Turing machine. Doesn't the non-determinism of QM in fact say that there's fundamentally an issue with computability?
- james-bcn 3y agoAnd isn't the fact that the universe seems to be a result of computation in fact just because we are abstracting it with mathematics?
- vidarh 3y agoWhat else would it be but computation? Coming up with something that isn't computation in some form or other is exceedingly hard. I'm not even sure it's meaningfully possible.
- amelius 3y agoComputation call still have non-determinism. For example, the computation gives e.g. 2 possible options at every step (both physically valid). Then a "consciousness" decides which of the 2 options it prefers, and that's the part we'll see and the other part of the tree is simply not observed. So you can compute it to some extent, just not fully.
- vidarh 3y agoThat doesn't address what I said at all. If you assert dualism, like what you did here as an attempt to inject "non-computation" all you do is give rise to infinite regress. E.g. how do you propose this "consciousness" would decide in a way that is not itself computation?
- makeworld 3y ago
- crowdyriver 3y agoIf we are living in a simulation, where does the simulation live in?
- moralestapia 3y agoPleroma? Lol.
- steve1977 3y agoWindows XP probably?
- chii 3y agoAnother simulation. It's turtles all the way up and all the way down. We, too, one day, will do a simulation, and thus the depth continues on indefinitely.
- Night_Thastus 3y agoWe already do, they're just much more primitive than our reality and very limited in the scope of what they simulate. If we're in a simulation, it's possible the same is true. That our reality only is a simulation of some parts of the reality above ours, and at a lower fidelity.
- chii 3y ago> at a lower fidelity. that doesn't need to be true. The simulation could be at "full fidelity" - just slow(er) than their reality. But it doesn't matter for the simulated persons - they cannot tell the difference.
- lukan 3y ago"If they say, maybe you should live your life differently, just from knowing that you might be in a simulation, I respond: I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I have a vague feeling that this discussion predates the 80 or so years we’ve had digital computers! Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly different here if you’re being dreamed in the mind of God or being executed in Python?" That sums up a bit my thoughts about it. The whole simulation hypothesis seems like a new way to introduce theological concepts with modern tech. Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified.
- FartyMcFarter 3y agoIt's still interesting to think about though. Specifically, I find it interesting that the concept of a "god" is actually realistic in a very tangible way.
- lukan 3y agoOh, theology is in general interesting to think about. But I am sceptical about the "realistic" claims. We don't know how consciousness works, so we don't know, whether we can simulate it with a computer.
- somenameforme 3y agoThere's a slight "paradox", for lack of a better word. Imagine tomorrow you die, only to 'wake up' and discover it actually was just a simulation. And you're now in some new reality. Well it turns out you haven't really answered anything, because the exact same question still remains of what's the source of this new reality. Turtles all the way down? And I expect there is probably no answer, because there's quite disconcerting little issue of first existence. Even if you imagine that the matter for a big bang could just materialize out of some weird quantum fluctuation, then you're left to wonder about what created the void, or what created the rules as they exist. You end up with this sort of uncomfortable hand-wavey, well it's just always been this way forever. Even increasingly abstract things like multi-verses don't really manage to reconcile this. If you think about it enough, it's really quite uncomfortable than "we" (whoever "we" may be) actually exist given this paradox. Because it's a question that intelligent existence may actually never be able to answer, and only testable by the experiment from which nobody returns.
- Waterluvian 3y agoIs it knowable that we’re living in a simulation or not? Because if it’s not knowable, isn’t any argument for or against just meaningless cherry picking? So I’m wondering what the ways might be that we can definitively know, versus new observations of how this universe works. Even a giant head appearing in the sky telling us it’s a sim would necessarily be reconcilable by changing our models?
- yreg 3y agoYou can't prove unknowable things, but you can have bayesian arguments about their probabilities. For some people it's meaningless, for others it's interesting to speculate.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago->"Why not just join the theologians in that earlier discussion, rather than pretending that this is something distinctive about computers? Is it relevantly different here if you’re being dreamed in the mind of God or being executed in Python?" Exactly. There is a few thousand years, since Plato's the Cave, dealing with same issues. Why make it a 'computer' this time. Because an entire generation has grown up after watching 'The Matrix', and that was their first introduction to the ideas. Now all the same old problems are put in that context. But they are shoe-horning it into current understandings of what a computer is. If physical Church-Turing is correct, then we 'ARE' the computer, not 'IN' the computer.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoDoes it matter? I'm with Chalmers - of course it's a good question to ask. Can we tell? We don't know if we can tell or not. That's why we're asking the question.
- FartyMcFarter 3y agoIt matters just as much as any other philosophical debate, at the very least.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoIt matters very much for the reasons I mention in this paragraph [0] "A century ago Nietzsche said that after we killed God we would search for him everywhere, tearing apart every institution and everything we love and believe in. Finally, we found computer technology. We now bow before it and throw onto the sacrificial pyre our time, our dignity and our fellow humans. Computers cannot be wrong. Even if good men and women must die to maintain that belief." Is <Deity> real? Let's say you are in a temple surrounded by a hundred sword wielding devout believers who will cut off your head and play football with it if you offend them. Right there, <Deity> is very real. Whether you personally believe or not, there is a real situation, in which you are not in control and your opinion, logic, reason and "rightness" as as good as irrelevant. Other people make <Deity> real there. We are in a world where people believe in computers and digital technology. It's more than just a scientific question, it's become an ideology with laws to back it up. This is no different to pre-Enlightenment Christianity or Caliphate. You had better believe in the transcendence of cybernetic systems.. or else! [1,2] [0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/postoffice/ https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/postoffice/ [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00168-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00168-8 [2] https://www.bcs.org/articles-opinion-and-research/computer-always-right-law-must-be-revisited-to-avoid-another-post-office-it-scandal/ https://www.bcs.org/articles-opinion-and-research/computer-a...
- dsego 3y agoZizek says that with quantum physics, we've caught God with His pants down. Saying that some of the programming of our universe is undetermined in the same way that parts of computer game levels aren't meant for the player to go to. https://youtu.be/ywVHFo1na38 https://youtu.be/ywVHFo1na38
- AndyMcConachie 3y agoZizek is someone who has made a career out of sounding clever without ever committing to being a disciplined intellectual.
- batch12 3y agoWhat do you mean by disciplined intellectual? Do you mean someone in academia or something else?
- bowsamic 3y agoI think Andy is referring to the fact that Zizek stopped writing works that were cutting edge in philosophical academia a few decades ago
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoNothing wrong with that. He did write books, and was cutting edge at some point. We don't dismiss every scientist who isn't making a ground breaking discovery every year. Sometimes you want to go on the lecture circuit and relax some.
- daedlanth 3y ago[dead]
- narush 3y agoThe OG Nick Bostrom argument [1] makes an argument for simulation theory with some reasonably simple math you can see in the paper with only a few variables: - `f_p` - Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage - `f_I` - Fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations - `N_I` - Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilization - `H` - Average number of individuals that have lived in a civilization before it reaches a posthuman stage And then the formula for the fraction of observers with human-type experiences (after simplifying) is just: f_sim = (f_p * f_I * N_I) / (f_p * f_I * N_I + 1). By first arguing that `N_I` is likely to be very large (because, pretty much, why not) -- you can thus conclude that one of these three conditions are met: 1. `f_p ~= 0` -- or the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; 2. `f_I ~= 0` -- or any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); 3. `f_sim ~= 1` -- or we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It's all feels pretty similar to the Fermi paradox to me -- which I'm also suspicious of for reasons I can't justify properly. Something about point estimates for variables like `f_I` is... weird? Idk. I'm honestly not good enough at math to disagree - but it also feels like folks who are too good at math might be using `f_I` in equations in a way that isn't legitimate. Like, assuming the "existence" of `f_I` as a concept to reason with -- doesn't it feel like more might be sneaking in with this assumption? [1] https://simulation-argument.com https://simulation-argument.com
- mshron 3y agoOne of Aaronson's arguments in the article boils down to the idea that running a full universe simulation (without cheating) on a universe with the same physics as ours may just not be possible computationally; it seems physically plausible that you need a universe to compute a universe. If that's true, then the simulators would need to be running in a different kind of universe than ours... in which case "ancestor simulation" doesn't really make sense.
- 303uru 3y agoWell, yes, quantum physics says that's true. Our universe is the minimal requirements necessary to run our universe. There could be tricks, for instance maybe you only simulate at fine grain the universe near an observer. But still, to simulate our granularity you need a simulation of equal (or greater) granularity. There's the trick, it's conceivable that the simulator exists in a universe with more dimensionality.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoThis is fairly stupid pop philosophy. It's really a question about the nature of reality mixed with the fantasy that it's possible to to somehow step outside of reality, or that there is an entity creating and controlling reality, that becomes a fantasy about god existing. Our reality exists entirely in our own minds, in that sense we live in a simulation we create in our brains. Using science to determine the details of our environment is useful, but speculating that there is something beyond what we can possibly study (by definition) is pointless.
- yreg 3y agoWas this thread downranked by the flame detector? It's almost cute that a topic like this can get our community worked up :)
- lenerdenator 3y agoEvery time I see these guys pondering this I just think of Carl from ATHF saying "It don't mattah. None of this mattahs." Got a way to hack out of the simulation, permanently? No? Okay then. We got rid of church and the futurists created their own god.
- johnea 3y ago> Go talk to David Hume or sometthing... Best answer ever 8-)
- randomopining 3y agoThe Simulation thing is one of the biggest pseudo-science discussions ever. What exactly would be the difference between a simulation and the "real world"? Nobody ever says anyting about that. It makes the entire question preposterous.
- jncfhnb 3y agoPeople ask that question every time
- randomopining 3y agoBecause it blows up the whole discussion doesnt it? I think this whole thing is a form of nerdy pseudoscience.
- ricardo81 3y agoI humour the idea that we probably are in one, and that its creator(s) are asking the same questions like us, like if there is free will. If the idea of new universes being spawned from black holes is a thing, and the Hawking radiation emitted from them is somehow measurable, it would be interesting to see if unexpected data is returned! Sod's law it would take the age of our own universe to find out, hopefully it runs quicker for the super user.
- me_me_me 3y agoWe are not in one. And it comes down to resources and self preservation. Firstly: you need to recognise that virtual life is as real as physical life (you feel and experience a world - it doesn't mater if its digital representation or physical one). Now consider this: If you live in a simulation, a VM, then you serve some kind of purpose to person that spawned you. A game, a experiment, a collage thesis... whatever. If you start running your own universe simulations (VM) that have a chance of spawning their own VMs, you are increasingly more power intensive to simulate. VM -> VM -> VM -> VM, there is a chain or tree of VM being created and new ones will be created all the time. At some stage the original person who started the VM chain will see the whole thing slowing down and becoming ever more useless - eventually causing then to shut it down (or restart it). So, if that is true and we are in one of nodes in VM chain (or tree) the most optimal survival strategy is to not put any strain or hardware that is simulating us, or we risk deletion.
- ricardo81 3y agoAaronson mentions this in his post re: 'lower resolution' and entropy. It's a fair point you make. It's not known if any 'parent' universes would be subject to the same timeframes as we are, though. By rights on that point their universe would operate more slowly from our frame of reference as per having more stuff/energy in their universe and ours potentially being a subset of theirs.
- imtringued 3y agoIf the fabric of reality is a simulation, then it is just a transformation of actual reality. If the human brain could grow micro processor cells in addition to regular brain cells, it could simulate a neuron using the micro processor to achieve exactly the same goal. If that is the case, what is the difference between a real human with a biological brain, a human with a cybernetic brain and a human with a virtual biological brain? Assuming they behave identically, there is no difference. A perfect simulation then is just a roundabout identity function. The only interesting consequence could be that unsimulated reality somehow differs from simulated reality.
- fallingfrog 3y agoI think the idea is rather silly. Look: we live one one little planet and right above us in the sky we can see that there are some 22 sextillion other planets, mostly empty gas giants. So if your question is “why are they simulating earth”, you’re way, way off base. What you need to explain is why someone is simulating 22 sextillion random gas giants. When you phrase it that way the question seems absurd. On the other hand, if you think only the earth is real or only you are real and the rest is being faked, then you’re engaging in the most self indulgent solipsism imaginable. If there is a god, for them to place 22 sextillion worlds full of nothing right where we can plainly see them, but never reach them, is a pretty damn effective way to say “you’re not that fucking important.”
- countWSS 3y agoSimulation theory is the Flat Earth Matrix, its far more likely we're manipulated and have limited understanding of multi-dimensional reality, with some aliens in another dimension running the show with reality itself being more malleable than we like to admit: imagine that time travel and timeline manipulation outside of 3D universe would look much easier and appear as 'miracles' to people who don't understand the technology.
- jakedata 3y agoI am not a simulation, but you might be.
- snakeyjake 3y agoSurely the likelihood of me being simulated and the likelihood of the world in which my simulation is running also itself being a simulation are equal, right? That must be true. It doesn't make any sense that my reality is simulated but the reality in which my reality is being simulated cannot be a simulation. If that is true, then the chances of me being in a simulation and that simulation itself being just one of an infinitely nested series of simulations are also equal. And this simulation can itself have infinite simulations and the simulation layer that is simulating my simulation can itself have infinite other simulations each one of which is an infinitely nested stack of simulations. We may be so deep down in the simulation stack that each femtosecond of my time takes 10^10^10^10^10^10 quadrillion years to simulate several layers up in a universe with entirely different rules than our own. If there is an infinite number of simulations each hosting an infinite number of simulation stacks then we aren't living in a simulation, that is just the nature of our existence-- it is reality.
- nuc1e0n 3y agoIn a sense houses are simulations, shopping malls are simulations, even clothes are simulations. Mostly in order to make our lives warmer or otherwise more pleasant than being naked and hungry outside in the cold. Almost all of the environment we live in is in some way artificial and constructed for our benefit. And that's a good thing.
- superposeur 3y agoTo the extent that the physical world and consciousness can be modeled as computations (in order to “simulate” on some hardware), the details of the “hardware” running the simulation are totally irrelevant to the occupants of the simulation; only the relational patterns between states of the simulation at different times are relevant. The hardware could run fast or slow; forwards or backwards in “simulation time”; once or multiple times over and over; using grungy calculations or clock time-saving efficient algorithms. Actually, it’s irrelevant to the occupants of the simulation whether or not the simulation is even “run” or merely has the potential to run. Or, indeed, whether the hardware even exists. Or, indeed, whether we use the word “simulation” instead of “laws of physics” to describe the patterns of relations between simulation states. It’s hard for me to see how the simulation hypothesis can have any content whatsoever.
- whoswho 3y agoMore unsubstantiated ramblings. Please, for once, can we get something that can be proved/disproved? This nonsensical bullshit is on par with theology.