3 ms·

>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 exper

>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.

_yb2s 3y ago
We can formulate and test hypotheses about the nature of our universe via experiment. I'm not talking about the universe "not conforming to expectations" or being "surprising" as evidence of a simulation, but of our ability to form and test very specific hypotheses, where the outcome is expected to be a certain way due to artifacts of certain types of simulation, thereby providing evidence for it. This requires a specific hypothesis about the nature of the simulation, and testing a corresponding prediction that we would never have thought to look for, or expected otherwise. The experimental confirmation of General Relativity by confirming that the perihelion precession of Mercury is almost exactly as predicted, is a good model of what I am talking about. Although the fact of perihelion precession was already known, the magnitude of it could not yet be accurately measured at the time, yet General Relativity was able to precisely predict the magnitude, which was confirmed much later when the measurement became possible. There are a large number of papers on arXiv outlining paths towards such experiments to test for specific types of simulation artifacts.
- staticman2 3y ago
  In the sense an intelligent design advocate would also claim they can test "specific hypothesis" about god, perhaps.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    Only if “god” is a computational or mathematical system that leads to clearly defined and testable predictions. That isn’t typically consistent with most religious concepts of God. I can surely imagine an intelligent design advocate trying to formulate a testable physical prediction inspired by theology, but if done rigorously, they are going to be disappointed in the result. And I’ll venture to guess that’s why you are equating the two- you are so certain we are not in a simulation that you think the concept of exploring it scientifically is absurd, and you would not accept any result conflicting with your prior belief, regardless of the evidence, am I right? That kind of certainty without evidence sounds kind of like religious faith to me ;-)
    - staticman2 3y ago
      When you do your experiments and they don't show you are in a simulation, do you conclude that we are living in reality or do you conclude "Wow, this simulation has better code than I expected!" or "Wow, I guess the simulation creators invented better computers than we imagined!" I compare it to religion because, well, I think you are claiming nonfalsifiable ideas are falsiable, and I don't think doing a bunch of math changes this or framing this in a way that sounds scientific changes this. Anyway someone on substack said it better than me. "any simulation can only be detected from the inside by performing a measurement and finding a discrepancy between the results and what would have resulted if the measurement had been performed outside the simulation. Without access to the outside of the simulation, there's nothing to compare against and no way to tell simulation from reality".
      - _yb2s 3y ago
        We can only experimentally test for very specific artifacts from specific types of simulation. If we don’t see them we can conclude that we’re not in that specific type of simulation, but that is all we can conclude, anything more is speculation. I understand the point that you are trying to make, and the quote makes it clearly, but it does not apply in the situations I am talking about, where you can actually make and test a prediction. That’s why these specific testable hypotheses are written up by physicists and appear in arXiv or physics journals, and are not considered theology. Indeed the general idea that we are in some type of simulation is mostly not falsifiable. At best, we could falsify only that we are not in a few specific types of resource constrained simulations that have predictable artifacts.

_yb2s 3y ago

We can formulate and test hypotheses about the nature of our universe via experiment. I'm not talking about the universe "not conforming to expectations" or being "surprising" as evidence of a simulation, but of our ability to form and test very specific hypotheses, where the outcome is expected to be a certain way due to artifacts of certain types of simulation, thereby providing evidence for it. This requires a specific hypothesis about the nature of the simulation, and testing a corresponding prediction that we would never have thought to look for, or expected otherwise. The experimental confirmation of General Relativity by confirming that the perihelion precession of Mercury is almost exactly as predicted, is a good model of what I am talking about. Although the fact of perihelion precession was already known, the magnitude of it could not yet be accurately measured at the time, yet General Relativity was able to precisely predict the magnitude, which was confirmed much later when the measurement became possible. There are a large number of papers on arXiv outlining paths towards such experiments to test for specific types of simulation artifacts.

staticman2 3y ago
In the sense an intelligent design advocate would also claim they can test "specific hypothesis" about god, perhaps.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  Only if “god” is a computational or mathematical system that leads to clearly defined and testable predictions. That isn’t typically consistent with most religious concepts of God. I can surely imagine an intelligent design advocate trying to formulate a testable physical prediction inspired by theology, but if done rigorously, they are going to be disappointed in the result. And I’ll venture to guess that’s why you are equating the two- you are so certain we are not in a simulation that you think the concept of exploring it scientifically is absurd, and you would not accept any result conflicting with your prior belief, regardless of the evidence, am I right? That kind of certainty without evidence sounds kind of like religious faith to me ;-)
  - staticman2 3y ago
    When you do your experiments and they don't show you are in a simulation, do you conclude that we are living in reality or do you conclude "Wow, this simulation has better code than I expected!" or "Wow, I guess the simulation creators invented better computers than we imagined!" I compare it to religion because, well, I think you are claiming nonfalsifiable ideas are falsiable, and I don't think doing a bunch of math changes this or framing this in a way that sounds scientific changes this. Anyway someone on substack said it better than me. "any simulation can only be detected from the inside by performing a measurement and finding a discrepancy between the results and what would have resulted if the measurement had been performed outside the simulation. Without access to the outside of the simulation, there's nothing to compare against and no way to tell simulation from reality".
    - _yb2s 3y ago
      We can only experimentally test for very specific artifacts from specific types of simulation. If we don’t see them we can conclude that we’re not in that specific type of simulation, but that is all we can conclude, anything more is speculation. I understand the point that you are trying to make, and the quote makes it clearly, but it does not apply in the situations I am talking about, where you can actually make and test a prediction. That’s why these specific testable hypotheses are written up by physicists and appear in arXiv or physics journals, and are not considered theology. Indeed the general idea that we are in some type of simulation is mostly not falsifiable. At best, we could falsify only that we are not in a few specific types of resource constrained simulations that have predictable artifacts.