4 ms·

"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

"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
    Are you seriously arguing, that there is no such a thing as scientific proof? I think I stated clearly the philosophical limitations of that "Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain" but that still makes proofs a scientific thing. "Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory" And Einsteins theory was indeed controversial at first, but it was a solid piece of work, that indeed turned out to be true by experiment. But people were convinced before that, because it explained things in a satisfying way. And string theory is indeed just a theory. But one that aims to explain something. (I do not find it convincing btw. but it is a somewhat working model) But the stacking argument ... what exactly is it explaining? And when can it be tested?
    - quench 3y ago
      The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science. The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof. A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it. So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened. So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  A lot of cosmology rests on far less stable ground than most might realize. So for instance the big bang was hypothesized by observing than everything is expanding. So if you roll back the tape then it seems obvious that everything must have been closer. Roll it way back and you get the basic foundation of the idea. So one natural consequence of this explosion would be the cosmic microwave background radiation, the radiant heat left after the explosion. And we do observe that! Kind of... The thing is, it's nothing like what we expected. When we look at the CMB it's extremely homogeneous, everywhere. The reason this is a problem is because areas that are not causally connected (could not have reached each other at the speed of light, since the beginning of the universe) actually seem to be causally connected. We would expect to see a much more heterogeneous universe after a big bang. So we resolved this by inventing cosmic inflation. [1] The idea is that somehow, shortly after the big bang, everything just sped up dramatically - well past the speed of light. And then it slowed down. And then started accelerating again in a fashion similar to what we currently observe. If you assume this, then we can get the big bang to match what we observe. But there's no causal mechanism or anything of the sort proposed. It's literally just retrofitting a hypothesis to avoid having it falsified, an ad hoc hypothesis. [2] Inflation does fit what we see quite well, but it's untestable, unfalsifiable (especially given the ad-hoc nature of its own existence), and the predictions its offered to date were not particularly unexpected, given the homogeneity of the CMB. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
The problem is that we have no idea what the physics is off the 'real world'. There is no rule at all that says 'physics inside the simulation' must obey some 'real world physics' also. Nothing. Because we don't have any knowledge of the relationship between the simulation and the 'real'. The world in Minecraft is the size of 64K Earths (or something). I do not need the amount of energy to create that amount of 'matter', in my laptop to play it. The Minecraft world has gravity, is huge, and yet, my computer didn't need that amount of energy to simulate it. Note. I don't think we are in a simulation, and a lot of the arguments for it are weak. But any of the physics based rejections, are in themselves assuming too much about what we know about whatever the outside world is.
- Beijinger 3y ago
  For a start, mathematics would likely be the same.
nertirs 3y ago
The problem is that there are no qualities, that distinguish a simulation from reality. For all we know, we might as well be living in the worst simulation with unrealistic physics and poor graphics, which was made by a regular student on a weekend, who received a C- for effort. If the simulation is already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles. With access to all the particles in the universe humanity could easily simulate every single particle in a smaller universe at a high tick rate. A simulated humanity could even easily simulate every particle in a bigger universe, if we remove the requirement to render the world at a high tick rate.
- Beijinger 3y ago
  "If the simulation is ,already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles" That would be very unlikely, again, mathematics would likely be the same and this limits options. The guys simulation us would be bound to mathematics and limits (e.g. computational crunching power). In "grand theft auto" you also just simulated/render, what is necessary at a given moment. By the way, the rendering would be a nice interpretation for the "observer" of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics :-)
  - nertirs 3y ago
    You assume, that time has to pass at the same speed in the simulation as in the simulating world. Even with our current computing power we could simulate very complex scenarios, if we spend a year of continuous computing on a nanosecond of said scenario. You assume, that the simulating world is bound by the same restrictions as the simulation. Maybe the difference between our simulated world and the real world is the same like the difference between minecraft and our world. We have trouble to predict, what the world will look like in a hundred years. And we have thousands of years of data on both humanity and our world. What hope do we have to state even one true fact about a world, that is simulating ours?
    - cgriswald 3y ago
vidarh 3y ago
Well, yes, but the "real world" might have infinite dimensions, and the only reason we don't is because we're near the bottom of an infinitely high stack. The problem with trying to make assumptions like these is that without "outside knowledge" we're stuck trying to postulate limitations based on a world that might well be a result of the "outside world" taking liberties for the sake of computability of their simulation. The original simulation hypothesis took simplifying steps for the sake of "selling it" that at the same time makes it easier to attack. E.g., the "ancestor simulations" presumes some degree of similarity between those running a simulation and the subjects of the simulation, but there's no reason for us to presume that simulations of our own past would dominate sufficiently if we gain the ability to simulate worlds that we can assume that anyone running "our" simulation if we are in one would represent our "descendants". Beyond not knowing if "our" physics reflects anything resembling the complexity of a containing simulation, we also need to presume a whole lot of things about "our" simulation to assume that it is expensive/complex to run. A small selection of such assumptions: 1. That the simulation actually simulates the whole of "our" universe. 2. Or even a significant part of it. 3. And that it simulates a long time period 4. Or even more than a single moment over and over. 5. That the world outside our individual mind exists 6. That there aren't all kinds of other crude shortcuts (chunks despawning and serializing differences from base simulation whenever nobody "interesting" observes it, etc.) 7. That we can know there aren't crude shortcuts because we're not seeing any. See 3, 4, 5, plus maybe the only reason "our" simulation is running is because nobody has spotted any shortcuts and triggered kill switches yet ("oh no, another experiment contaminated; time for a reboot") 8. As a variant on 5, that other people, or any significant number of people, exist, and make pruning the simulation computational budget hard. You can come up with an endless number of these. We can perhaps start to make some very vague guesses about some very generic qualities of a simulation, but the'd largely be in relation to qualities of a hypothetical "outside" that we don't know the qualities off. E.g. it may be reasonable to assume that our physics would either be no more complex than theirs or that our simulation would be strictly limited in scope, be it time, space, fidelity. But that wouldn't tell us much. From a scientific point of view, this makes the entire hypothesis rather pointless, unless we run head-first into extremely clear signs we are in one. But from a philosophical point of view it's what makes it fun to think about consequences.

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
  Are you seriously arguing, that there is no such a thing as scientific proof? I think I stated clearly the philosophical limitations of that "Despite the fact, that nothing is 100% certain" but that still makes proofs a scientific thing. "Einstein Relativity that was for some years only a theory" And Einsteins theory was indeed controversial at first, but it was a solid piece of work, that indeed turned out to be true by experiment. But people were convinced before that, because it explained things in a satisfying way. And string theory is indeed just a theory. But one that aims to explain something. (I do not find it convincing btw. but it is a somewhat working model) But the stacking argument ... what exactly is it explaining? And when can it be tested?
  - quench 3y ago
    The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science. The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof. A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it. So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened. So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.
somenameforme 3y ago
A lot of cosmology rests on far less stable ground than most might realize. So for instance the big bang was hypothesized by observing than everything is expanding. So if you roll back the tape then it seems obvious that everything must have been closer. Roll it way back and you get the basic foundation of the idea. So one natural consequence of this explosion would be the cosmic microwave background radiation, the radiant heat left after the explosion. And we do observe that! Kind of... The thing is, it's nothing like what we expected. When we look at the CMB it's extremely homogeneous, everywhere. The reason this is a problem is because areas that are not causally connected (could not have reached each other at the speed of light, since the beginning of the universe) actually seem to be causally connected. We would expect to see a much more heterogeneous universe after a big bang. So we resolved this by inventing cosmic inflation. [1] The idea is that somehow, shortly after the big bang, everything just sped up dramatically - well past the speed of light. And then it slowed down. And then started accelerating again in a fashion similar to what we currently observe. If you assume this, then we can get the big bang to match what we observe. But there's no causal mechanism or anything of the sort proposed. It's literally just retrofitting a hypothesis to avoid having it falsified, an ad hoc hypothesis. [2] Inflation does fit what we see quite well, but it's untestable, unfalsifiable (especially given the ad-hoc nature of its own existence), and the predictions its offered to date were not particularly unexpected, given the homogeneity of the CMB. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

The problem is that we have no idea what the physics is off the 'real world'. There is no rule at all that says 'physics inside the simulation' must obey some 'real world physics' also. Nothing. Because we don't have any knowledge of the relationship between the simulation and the 'real'. The world in Minecraft is the size of 64K Earths (or something). I do not need the amount of energy to create that amount of 'matter', in my laptop to play it. The Minecraft world has gravity, is huge, and yet, my computer didn't need that amount of energy to simulate it. Note. I don't think we are in a simulation, and a lot of the arguments for it are weak. But any of the physics based rejections, are in themselves assuming too much about what we know about whatever the outside world is.

Beijinger 3y ago
For a start, mathematics would likely be the same.

nertirs 3y ago

The problem is that there are no qualities, that distinguish a simulation from reality. For all we know, we might as well be living in the worst simulation with unrealistic physics and poor graphics, which was made by a regular student on a weekend, who received a C- for effort. If the simulation is already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles. With access to all the particles in the universe humanity could easily simulate every single particle in a smaller universe at a high tick rate. A simulated humanity could even easily simulate every particle in a bigger universe, if we remove the requirement to render the world at a high tick rate.

Beijinger 3y ago
"If the simulation is ,already simulating all the particles in the universe, then it doesn't matter what humanity does with all those particles" That would be very unlikely, again, mathematics would likely be the same and this limits options. The guys simulation us would be bound to mathematics and limits (e.g. computational crunching power). In "grand theft auto" you also just simulated/render, what is necessary at a given moment. By the way, the rendering would be a nice interpretation for the "observer" of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics :-)
- nertirs 3y ago
  You assume, that time has to pass at the same speed in the simulation as in the simulating world. Even with our current computing power we could simulate very complex scenarios, if we spend a year of continuous computing on a nanosecond of said scenario. You assume, that the simulating world is bound by the same restrictions as the simulation. Maybe the difference between our simulated world and the real world is the same like the difference between minecraft and our world. We have trouble to predict, what the world will look like in a hundred years. And we have thousands of years of data on both humanity and our world. What hope do we have to state even one true fact about a world, that is simulating ours?
  - cgriswald 3y ago

vidarh 3y ago

Well, yes, but the "real world" might have infinite dimensions, and the only reason we don't is because we're near the bottom of an infinitely high stack. The problem with trying to make assumptions like these is that without "outside knowledge" we're stuck trying to postulate limitations based on a world that might well be a result of the "outside world" taking liberties for the sake of computability of their simulation. The original simulation hypothesis took simplifying steps for the sake of "selling it" that at the same time makes it easier to attack. E.g., the "ancestor simulations" presumes some degree of similarity between those running a simulation and the subjects of the simulation, but there's no reason for us to presume that simulations of our own past would dominate sufficiently if we gain the ability to simulate worlds that we can assume that anyone running "our" simulation if we are in one would represent our "descendants". Beyond not knowing if "our" physics reflects anything resembling the complexity of a containing simulation, we also need to presume a whole lot of things about "our" simulation to assume that it is expensive/complex to run. A small selection of such assumptions: 1. That the simulation actually simulates the whole of "our" universe. 2. Or even a significant part of it. 3. And that it simulates a long time period 4. Or even more than a single moment over and over. 5. That the world outside our individual mind exists 6. That there aren't all kinds of other crude shortcuts (chunks despawning and serializing differences from base simulation whenever nobody "interesting" observes it, etc.) 7. That we can know there aren't crude shortcuts because we're not seeing any. See 3, 4, 5, plus maybe the only reason "our" simulation is running is because nobody has spotted any shortcuts and triggered kill switches yet ("oh no, another experiment contaminated; time for a reboot") 8. As a variant on 5, that other people, or any significant number of people, exist, and make pruning the simulation computational budget hard. You can come up with an endless number of these. We can perhaps start to make some very vague guesses about some very generic qualities of a simulation, but the'd largely be in relation to qualities of a hypothetical "outside" that we don't know the qualities off. E.g. it may be reasonable to assume that our physics would either be no more complex than theirs or that our simulation would be strictly limited in scope, be it time, space, fidelity. But that wouldn't tell us much. From a scientific point of view, this makes the entire hypothesis rather pointless, unless we run head-first into extremely clear signs we are in one. But from a philosophical point of view it's what makes it fun to think about consequences.