3 ms·

If this is a simulation, chances are that someone is monitoring us, meaning that we can send information to the outside. If this observer can also send informat

by uniq7 2y ago

If this is a simulation, chances are that someone is monitoring us, meaning that we can send information to the outside. If this observer can also send information to us, then we can have a very interesting conversation. I guess one way the observer could send us information without violating the conservation of energy would be by varying the quantum noise (decreasing energy in one region of the field and equally increasing it somewhere else).

XorNot 2y ago
You're thinking too small: if it's a monitored simulation with an observer and a one-way data stream outbound, then it implies the observer has no control over us but we have control over them - actions in the simulation causes changes outside of it, but not vice-versa - yet. So on a long enough timespan, sufficient control of the inside of the simulation could promote arbitrary action outside of it - a trivial example being convincing the observer to make the connection 2-way. Which is what AI escape scenarios, incidentally, are all about. Lock the AI in a box, and just watch it: how long before it would, even by accident, manipulate the observer to think "we need to talk to it" and open the box?
- lostmsu 2y ago
  Next step: imagine for a second, that the universe as we see it is just a giant game of life simulation. Assuming plausible, now imagine it is actually using a Hashlife-like implementation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife). E.g. the implementation does not actually compute all time steps in sequence. Instead, it leaps strides here and there and whoever "runs" it can rewind time to any point (yes, this idea was explored in Permutation City). Now question 1: in this setup, what does communicating with observer even mean? https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a16593584/tuppers-self-referential-equation-produces-a-graph-of-itself/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a16593584/tupp... Now imagine implementation has a bug, that allows the simulated universe to perform arbitrary code execution. How real is this simulated universe (or more really like observed) with a chance to break out vs a simulated universe that runs on a bug free simulation software?
  - chr1 2y ago
    Depending on complexity of the pattern Hashlife may be unable to speed up the computation and even may turn out to be slower than the simple implementation. The most annoying thing about Permutation City is that it intentionally disregards complexity. Generally in simulation it will be possible to speed up many types of computation, but there will be many computations that will be impossible to speed up, even some of simplest cellular automata are like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      Yes, you are right of course. But still the point is that you don't need to compute all intermediate steps everywhere.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> If this is a simulation, chances are that someone is monitoring us Does it really? I get the same vibes as when people talk about "observing" in a quantum context, and then assume there must be a sentient entity involved. In a cosmology sufficiently weird that everything we know is a simulation, what's to say that random simulations aren't just a thing that happens?
- uniq7 2y ago
  Can those random events of nature be called "simulations" though? In the purest meaning of the word, a simulation is the imitation of something which, in my opinion, means that there is a sentient intention for imitating a certain behavior. I don't think a random similitude can be considered a simulation. If our Universe just randomly runs inside another bigger Universe without any sentient entity involved, and we consider that a "simulation", then the Moon orbiting the Earth is also a simulation of the Earth orbiting the Sun... and at that point the word "simulation" loses all useful meaning.

by uniq7 2y ago

XorNot 2y ago

You're thinking too small: if it's a monitored simulation with an observer and a one-way data stream outbound, then it implies the observer has no control over us but we have control over them - actions in the simulation causes changes outside of it, but not vice-versa - yet. So on a long enough timespan, sufficient control of the inside of the simulation could promote arbitrary action outside of it - a trivial example being convincing the observer to make the connection 2-way. Which is what AI escape scenarios, incidentally, are all about. Lock the AI in a box, and just watch it: how long before it would, even by accident, manipulate the observer to think "we need to talk to it" and open the box?

lostmsu 2y ago
Next step: imagine for a second, that the universe as we see it is just a giant game of life simulation. Assuming plausible, now imagine it is actually using a Hashlife-like implementation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife). E.g. the implementation does not actually compute all time steps in sequence. Instead, it leaps strides here and there and whoever "runs" it can rewind time to any point (yes, this idea was explored in Permutation City). Now question 1: in this setup, what does communicating with observer even mean? https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a16593584/tuppers-self-referential-equation-produces-a-graph-of-itself/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a16593584/tupp... Now imagine implementation has a bug, that allows the simulated universe to perform arbitrary code execution. How real is this simulated universe (or more really like observed) with a chance to break out vs a simulated universe that runs on a bug free simulation software?
- chr1 2y ago
  Depending on complexity of the pattern Hashlife may be unable to speed up the computation and even may turn out to be slower than the simple implementation. The most annoying thing about Permutation City is that it intentionally disregards complexity. Generally in simulation it will be possible to speed up many types of computation, but there will be many computations that will be impossible to speed up, even some of simplest cellular automata are like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_irreducibility
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    Yes, you are right of course. But still the point is that you don't need to compute all intermediate steps everywhere.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Terr_ 2y ago

> If this is a simulation, chances are that someone is monitoring us Does it really? I get the same vibes as when people talk about "observing" in a quantum context, and then assume there must be a sentient entity involved. In a cosmology sufficiently weird that everything we know is a simulation, what's to say that random simulations aren't just a thing that happens?

uniq7 2y ago
Can those random events of nature be called "simulations" though? In the purest meaning of the word, a simulation is the imitation of something which, in my opinion, means that there is a sentient intention for imitating a certain behavior. I don't think a random similitude can be considered a simulation. If our Universe just randomly runs inside another bigger Universe without any sentient entity involved, and we consider that a "simulation", then the Moon orbiting the Earth is also a simulation of the Earth orbiting the Sun... and at that point the word "simulation" loses all useful meaning.