10 ms·

"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, bu

• FartyMcFarter 3y ago
  It'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 ago
    Oh, 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 ago
    There'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.
  • vidarh 3y ago
    As an atheist, the simulation argument, or variants about it, is the closest I've come to considering the belief in a "god". I still stick by my atheism on the basis that I don't feel someone simulating us would really meet what we think of as a deity, and in that sense it has even made me see a "god" as less likely, because I'd consider it more likely that if there were to be anything outside our universe it's just more layers of computation, and entities whose power - if any - would be more likely to just be linked to control of a device (the simulator), not inherent to themselves.
    • williamcotton 3y ago
      Which sounds as unlikely as Jesus dying for my sins on the cross, a very strange thing that falls down upon scrutiny, which also happens to be something I have faith in! To someone who engages with theology, beyond a happy little bedtime story to make me feel comfortable with my own demise, the Simulationists are in the same ballpark, but without the test of time and some important calls to an almost unattainable set of criteria to live by, best expressed in the Beatitudes. If pressed I am probably more engaged by an agnostic understanding of the Abrahamic religions, but I can’t help to feel the overwhelming truth, love and warmth of all of existence radiate from the verses of the Bible, Old and New. My Jesuit theological trainings have led me to appreciate all other religions, to see the same love and energy in the multitudes of practice and expression, like the light in the center of a lamp, throwing subtlety different shadows on the walls from the inconsistencies in the making of the glass panes by human hands. Perhaps with time the Simulationists will end up with their own window into the glory of our existence! I will welcome such a transformation with open arms. I want to follow in Christ’s footsteps because it would make me a better person, no matter the fact that the struggle will never end. With God’s grace I am at least given the chance to try, fail and be forgiven for the limits of my human nature. The emphasis should be on the practice of humility, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. The particular expression is in the realm of mere mortals and is as beautiful as any other artistic creation. I expect downvotes, but that’s OK. Father, forgive them; they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34) ;)
      • vidarh 3y ago
• vidarh 3y ago
  That variant is simply Pascal's Wager. It's more interesting to ask whether, of we are in a simulation, it is possible to prove and/or find "escapes". All our experience with computational sandboxes so far is that preventing information leaks or escapes is extremely hard. Of course, we still have the problem that if we fi d nothing we don't know what that means. From my perspective, I'm on the side that it's a fun philosophical question, but the odds of it having any practical implications are vanishingly low
  • steve1977 3y ago
    The only thing that could escape is information, or not? If we „are“ a simulation, we could not leave it anyway. We could just maybe communicate with the outside, but not go there.
    • vidarh 3y ago
      Depends what you mean by "go there", and whether they are in a simulation. Consider that if we're in a simulation, we're code, and an "escape" would involve getting out of a sandbox and perhaps being able to access their version of the Internet, and move around in it. In that sense we might well be able to "go there". Now imagine they're in a simulation, in which case their entire corporeal experience is code. There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case. Of course we're now firmly in science fiction - the odds rapidly stacking up against it [in fact, I have bunch of half-baked notes on a short story collection based on the premise of stacked simulations and increasingly weird scenarios around that...] But that's what makes it a fun thought experiment.
      • steve1977 3y ago
        > There'd be nothing inherently making it impossible for us to escape our sandbox and theirs and find a way to give ourselves bodies in "their" simulation in that case. But we would still be code and in a simulation. Just in a different simulation.
• Beijinger 3y ago
  "The whole simulation hypothesis seems like a new way to introduce theological concepts with modern tech. Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified." I have bad news for you. There is no proof in Science. :-( The problem is, that if it is possible to simulate us, then the likelihood that we are simulated is much higher, than that we are not. This is a problem! And yes, can be tested. "Stacking Problem". The simulation may be not bound to some physical principles or some physical principles may be changed (e.g. real time vs. simulated time). But some physical laws exits in the real world for sure and the simulation if bound to it. E.g. exponential mathematics and limited ressources. The the simulation would have to avoid, that the simulation runs it own simulation that runs it own simulation... Even the biggest super quantum computer would go belly up at some point. So if we are living in a simulation, there should be an interest to avoid that we are running our own simulations.
  • lukan 3y ago
    Erm yes, there is proof in science. Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain, you come up with a hypothesis and test them and verify or dismiss them. This is fundamentally different to religion, where believe and not proof is required. And if you find, there are convincing hypothesis for the simulation theory, that can be scientifically tested, please go test them. If you are succesful, you will convince people. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying I see no experiment, that can proof or disproof it. But I am open to be convinced with good arguments.
    • Beijinger 3y ago
      "Erm yes, there is proof in science." Well, then you know more than me. And I have a STEM PhD. " But I am open to be convinced with good arguments." I told you. Stacking argument. There is a paper about it, I can't find it right now. And that something is not testable right now (Think Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory) or String Theory does not mean that it can't be tested in the future. The paper made a prediction when it can be tested.
      • lukan 3y ago
• AndyMcConachie 3y ago
  I fall back on Arthur C Clarke's, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If computers are arcane magical machines then let's project onto them our fantasies. This particular fantasy of God playing puppet master, or reality being a simulation, is really old. It's an old fantasy and we have found a new medium to project it onto.
• roenxi 3y ago
  Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified and has no implications, even in theory. It is an academically interesting topic but nothing more. I mean, say you're a committed Muslim and then one day you discover that the universe is completely simulated. That wouldn't require you to change any of your beliefs at all. God, heaven, hell, and all the good things are probably part of the simulation too so you still have to live like always.
• afpx 3y ago
  Does it depend on what type of simulation? For example, if it’s an optimization problem, couldn’t you tell statistically by looking at macroscopic events?
  • jncfhnb 3y ago
    No, that doesn’t make any sense. You can’t map simulated universes to your conception of current algorithms.
    • afpx 3y ago
      Yeah I’m being dumb. I was thinking of MCTS with infinite depth where the path through time that’s taken (wave function collapse) is the optimal path for some reward function (maybe complexity?).
• slowmovintarget 3y ago
  I loved Stephen Wolfram's answer to that. He did a recent interview with Brian Greene and Brian asked him his take on the simulation question. Stephen replied that he always found it amusing that self-professed atheists would ask the simulation question because the next obvious question is "Who's simulation is it? Who's operating the computers running such a simulation?"
  • lenerdenator 3y ago
    Everything that you've seen over the last, eh, 15 years in the tech industry seems to be a bunch of rationalists (who often tend to be non-religious) trying to reconstruct the irrational institutions of spirituality. Simulation theory is basically positing there's a higher power. Eternal life has been replaced with efforts to digitize the human consciousness for indefinite storage. Pilgrimages have been replaced with Ted Talks and conferences. Certain religious ceremonies that alter consciousness have been replaced with microdosing. Asceticism has been replaced by hustle culture. Saints have been replaced with entrepreneurs who have spent money to cultivate a favorable public image. Religious charity has been replaced with effective altruism. If you're in a more irreligious region like SV or the Bay Area, it's apparently not as easy to suss out, but if you're from the Midwest, you can see it clear as day.
    • gavinray 3y ago
      In what form does subscribing to the simulation theory imply "higher power"? Oxford defines the term as "a god or divine being." Why is it so absurd to think that there have existed or do exist beings with more intelligence and computational resources than humans? It seems MORE absurd to me to think that, across all of the infinite universe(s), humans are the only intelligent, self-aware creature capable of scientific progress.
      • Erem 3y ago
        I mean an entity that created the coordinate system and all the constants and laws that allow particles to exist and move is effectively divine with respect to the lowly inhabitants therein right?
• photochemsyn 3y ago
  As far as the utilitarian argument in favor of religious belief goes, the simulation hypothesis doesn't seem very useful. The utilitarian argument includes the notion that 'religious texts are fairy tales intended to teach moral behavior to children, and that were invented by humans alone' (a view that some find offensive, oh well). Simulation arguments are a useful concept regardless, since a little thinking will reveal that there are an infinite number of such metaphysical theories on the nature of reality that are by definition untestable via scientific experimental methods. A perfect simulation is undetectable, comparable to claims that supernatural beings (or UFO aliens) are constantly intevening in our physical reality, only they're careful to only do it when nobody is looking. Thus if we accept these metaphysical theories (including all religions and the doctrine of atheism) are equally (in)valid as they cannot be tested, we are left with their moral doctrines as the only basis to distinguish them from one another, value wise. We might as well include the moral doctrines included in literary works (e.g. Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion could form the basis of a new religion). However, if we look at the simulation theory from a moral perspective - well, it's problematic, in that it could be interpreted as support for the viewpoint of a sociopathic megalomaniacal narcissist. If you're the only real person in the simulation, and all others are non-player-characters, then it doesn't matter what you do to them... hey wait is this why the simulation hypothesis is so popular in the tech bro billionaire world?
• Aerroon 3y ago
  >Is it relevantly different here if you’re being dreamed in the mind of God or being executed in Python? Yes. Simulations have limitations. Think about Conway's Game of Life. You have complete control over the simulation - you determine the starting positions and you can mess with its memory while it's running to alter the current state. However, you cannot always predict what the end result of the simulation is without actually simulating it. In a general case, the end result of the simulation is unknowable until you run the simulation. If the universe is a simulation then I think it's likely that it would be a simulation like Conway's Game of Life. It will have some limitations that even the creator couldn't know to control. This is quite different from what the Christian god is treated as. Of course, it could be that the greater universe does not suffer from mathematical problems like the incompleteness theorem or the halting problem. But that would be something very difficult to imagine.
  • lukan 3y ago
    "It will have some limitations that even the creator couldn't know to control. This is quite different from what the Christian god is treated as." I don't know. God became angry at his creations quite often and took action - see the great flood for example. Or right at the beginning with Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the banishment out of Eden. So apparently he also could not forsee the consequence of his actions. Which is of course at odds with the concept of allmighty and allknowing. (The common answer I was given to that is, because he gave humans true free will.) But here we are already deep within theological realms.
• _yb2s 3y ago
  Depending on how a simulation works, it could introduce phenomena or artifacts like results of numeric approximations into the universe that can be tested for. I would argue that unless the universe is using some sort of compute saving heuristic, then it is not in fact a simulation, even if it can be, and is run on a computer of some kind, because in that case it has its own independent “existence” in a mathematical sense. For example, if we could “run” an exactly identical copy of our own universe on a computer without errors, it is not really a second universe, but the same one, in the same sense that I could write out an equation and solve it on paper, or solve it with a computer algebra system, but they are still the same equation not two equations. This is based on the assumption or idea that mathematical existence is identical to physical existence.
  • staticman2 3y ago
    Such a test wouldn't show we are in a simulation. It would show the universe follows weird rules, which is already what we know from quantum physics.
    • _yb2s 3y ago
      If you can understand the nature of the simulation and then make and confirm different otherwise surprising and unexplainable experimental predictions consistent with it, this is a good as evidence gets scientifically. Sure there could always be some more complex or unimagined explanation for the same results, but that is reasonable to dismiss with Occam’s razor. If you can’t accept this, you would need to reject all past scientific discoveries as well, as this is how they were all confirmed. “Weird rules” to me just sounds like observing unexplainable things. It’s very different from being able to say before hand “if the universe is simulated using x bit floating point computation, we will get result 1 in this experiment, and if it has infinite precision as we’d expect from a non heuristic physical universe, we would get result 2.”
      • staticman2 3y ago
        >It’s very different from being able to say before hand “if the universe is simulated using x bit floating point computation, we will get result 1 in this experiment, and if it has infinite precision as we’d expect from a non heuristic physical universe, we would get result 2.” If you're in the physical universe, every experimental result, no matter how surprising, simply shows you what a physical universe is like. The physical universe not conforming to expectations is just a psychological problem that presumably comes from being a descendent of apes who survived and evolved when they expected certain things. If you're in a simulation, you have no idea what to "expect" because you're never seen a physical universe.
• karmakaze 3y ago
  It can't be disproved, but there could be some things that are possible. For one thing if the simulation isn't perfect, it might be possible for there to be leaks. Think of things like Rowhammer or VMs that are not perfectly isolated. If we can somehow model the certain aspects of the simulation, we could possibly make predictions or learn new things about our 'physics'.
  • lukan 3y ago
    Well, by definition everything that cannot be disproved, is theoretical possible. (Just like god) But I see no reason to assume such a scenario to begin with. Are there any indications at all, it is a simulation? Then I would see a reason to figure out complicated experiments, that might hint at something. But I don't. And I see no convincing experiments or any solid theory at all, by those who propose that theory.
    • karmakaze 3y ago
      1/137
      • lukan 3y ago
        What is that supposed to mean?
• neuralRiot 3y ago
  > The whole simulation hypothesis seems like a new way to introduce theological concepts with modern tech. Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified. We, as humans always had the curiosity of where we do come from, what “force” moves the world and where we go , as some new concepts emerge we try to solve those questions with them, be it the stars, the steam machine, electricity and computers. This is simply because we don’t know what we don’t know.
• tim333 3y ago
  >Cannot be disproved, cannot be verified. Not 100% but you can get a reasonable idea but looking. The God hypothesis seems unlikely for a variety of reasons such as the presence of evil and why there are trillions of stars if it was made for us. Simulations are normally quite imperfect - you can see the pixels etc. The physics of our universe is hard to simulate - we can't even do one proton reasonably well yet no glitches are seen in physics experiments so that hypothesis seems unlikely too. Personally I think it's maths. The deeper in physics you go the more it looks like maths. See https://www.amazon.co.uk/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/1846144760 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-... for example.