3 ms·

There is no definition of what "simulation" actually means let alone the definition of escape. You're just starting with something you know, ie simulating somet

There is no definition of what "simulation" actually means let alone the definition of escape. You're just starting with something you know, ie simulating something on a computer or other device and assuming there is something comprehensible outside it, just like how our reality exists outside a computer simulation. But consider the reality that software exists in and what use our reality is to it. It cannot exist in it (outside of the computer) let alone "comprehend" it. In any possible "simulation" we live in, "outside" isn't going to entail any elements of what you perceive inside your (created) reality, just like software, other than with convenient assumptions to prop up the idea. It may be a fun "mind wank" but don't take it seriously, because it doesn't make any sense.

vidarh 3y ago
Of course there are plenty of definitions of what a simulation would mean, and I can give you a clear definition of what I meant by "escape". In this context, I'm using simulation to mean any computational process that gives rise to my subjective experience if that subjective experience does not reflect the world in which that computational process runs. A computer would seem more likely, in a very broad sense, but computation is everywhere. An "escape" in the sense I used it would be any means by which it were possible to find a flaw in the simulation that would allow us to either exfiltrate information and/or transfer computation out of it. And, no I'm not saying it's possible. I'm saying it's interesting to think about the possibility. > You're just starting with something you know, ie simulating something on a computer or other device and assuming there is something comprehensible outside it, just like how our reality exists outside a computer simulation. No, I'm starting with the question of whether if we are in a simulation, there is something outside that we could find a way to interact with, and if so what the potential consequences would be. Yes, this is all wild speculation - that is the entire point. > In any possible "simulation" we live in, "outside" isn't going to entail any elements of what you perceive inside your (created) reality, just like software, other than with convenient assumptions to prop up the idea. In an infinite set of possible simulations, the outside would entail elements of what we perceive inside our reality. In another infinite set, the outside would entail no elements. We don't have any knowledge that lets us presume to know what such an "outside" would be like, nor which would be more likely, because we don't know who would be running such simulations, or why. > It may be a fun "mind wank" but don't take it seriously, because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense to let it affect us without evidence, but the question matters because understanding it is to understand the limitations of our universe. E.g. anything that might lead us to believe it is less likely we are in a simulation would imply the odds are higher that we will face substantial limitations on computation and/or filters in the future (because if we find ourself not in a simulation, while we might just be first by chance, it might also imply that simulations will be rare or never happen). Whether we can find such indicators is another question. Conversely, if we are in a simulation, then it raises interesting questions about whether it is possible to learn anything about the potential from that from probing the limitations of "our" physics etc., and whether there are any interesting testable hypotheses there that might tell us something about the odds. It may never get us anywhere, but so what?

vidarh 3y ago

Of course there are plenty of definitions of what a simulation would mean, and I can give you a clear definition of what I meant by "escape". In this context, I'm using simulation to mean any computational process that gives rise to my subjective experience if that subjective experience does not reflect the world in which that computational process runs. A computer would seem more likely, in a very broad sense, but computation is everywhere. An "escape" in the sense I used it would be any means by which it were possible to find a flaw in the simulation that would allow us to either exfiltrate information and/or transfer computation out of it. And, no I'm not saying it's possible. I'm saying it's interesting to think about the possibility. > You're just starting with something you know, ie simulating something on a computer or other device and assuming there is something comprehensible outside it, just like how our reality exists outside a computer simulation. No, I'm starting with the question of whether if we are in a simulation, there is something outside that we could find a way to interact with, and if so what the potential consequences would be. Yes, this is all wild speculation - that is the entire point. > In any possible "simulation" we live in, "outside" isn't going to entail any elements of what you perceive inside your (created) reality, just like software, other than with convenient assumptions to prop up the idea. In an infinite set of possible simulations, the outside would entail elements of what we perceive inside our reality. In another infinite set, the outside would entail no elements. We don't have any knowledge that lets us presume to know what such an "outside" would be like, nor which would be more likely, because we don't know who would be running such simulations, or why. > It may be a fun "mind wank" but don't take it seriously, because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense to let it affect us without evidence, but the question matters because understanding it is to understand the limitations of our universe. E.g. anything that might lead us to believe it is less likely we are in a simulation would imply the odds are higher that we will face substantial limitations on computation and/or filters in the future (because if we find ourself not in a simulation, while we might just be first by chance, it might also imply that simulations will be rare or never happen). Whether we can find such indicators is another question. Conversely, if we are in a simulation, then it raises interesting questions about whether it is possible to learn anything about the potential from that from probing the limitations of "our" physics etc., and whether there are any interesting testable hypotheses there that might tell us something about the odds. It may never get us anywhere, but so what?