4 ms·
>In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics, or (literally) astron
by Legend2440 1y ago
>In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics, or (literally) astronomically large
Of course it would be. The laws of physics as we know them would exist only within the simulation.
The outer universe could have literally any rules - free energy, faster-than-light travel, more (or fewer) spatial dimensions, super-turing computation, anything’s possible.
- tantalor 1y agoWho knows, it could be populated entirely by all-knowing, all-powerful beings that watch our every moral decision and intervene in subtle ways if we sincerely entreat them.
- suzzer99 1y agoThen I have a lot of issues with the amount of tragedy and suffering they allow.
- IAmNotACellist 1y agoPerhaps matter that animates and takes issue with other matter suffering is the whole point, and that wouldn't be possible without suffering.
- changoplatanero 1y agoGood news is that in this scenario it’s simulated suffering and not “real” suffering.
- maest 1y agoSame difference, though
- roxolotl 1y agoSuffering is bad because people experience the suffering. There is no fake suffering.
- IAmBroom 1y agoThe joke is, they aren't real people. That is what the comment implied. Of course, from the POV of any such simulation, the simulated suffering is real within the context of the simulation. But realistically, it's already a giant leap - a thought experiment, mostly - to wonder if we're in a simulation. To then extrapolate our IRL experiences to some parallel In-Simulation-Life (ISL) value is pushing the thought experiment to ridiculous levels.
- roxolotl 1y agoMy point though is that simulated suffering, if simulated effectively, is as real as nonsimulated suffering. The important part of suffering is that it’s experienced. The inverse of fake people experiencing real suffering is that if you put a real person in a torture machine but you somehow prevent them from experience suffering they would not be suffering. So it does not matter whether or not the people are real. I fully understand some people disagree as you’re saying. But I believe they aren’t being intellectually honest with themselves and are actually just trying to excuse the reality of simulated suffering.
- IAmNotACellist 1y agoIs my LLM experiencing real or simulated suffering? How many layers of complexity and real-time stimuli-responsiveness would make the answer to that question effectively unknowable?
- HDThoreaun 1y agoall suffering is real if it is experienced by thinking beings
- tantalor 1y agoI didn't say anything about benevolence.
- empressplay 1y agoYou can only account for personal tragedy and suffering, though -- it's impossible to determine how many other entities like you there are in a simulation. You could be the only one.
- Phanteaume 1y agoI had the same pain point with religion until I realize that I routinely enjoy movies, shows or books where people suffer or die in unjust ways. Well, if I enjoy it (to some degree, because it serves the story), wouldn't some other entities do too ?
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoThe people in the media aren't actually suffering. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't enjoy it knowing that anything was actually was in pain for my amusement. We can't even use video game as a analogy for the simulation because the creatures in video games don't actually feel, and the simulation implies we are built to have conscious experience.
- Phanteaume 1y ago> The people in the media aren't actually suffering. I would argue that from their point of view, they very well do. See "Last Action Hero" for my point. How do you know, one dimension higher from them, that they do not suffer ? Do you see the actor "winking" at you, like it's a joke ? No, from their point of view, the suffering is pretty much real. You imagine suffering from our point of view. Try to imagine that a God might see you as you see Bruce Wayne in the comics.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoI get it, it's fun philosophically, but this is an absolute non issue. Jack Slater is just a role Arnold played and Bruce Wayne is a character. You can never produce an unintended reaction from either of them because there's nothing there to react. They aren't even simulations of people. A person in the simulation is aware of their existence in some reality and are able to react to stimulus. Bruce Wayne can't do that, it does exactly what the writer and artist will. The only place that Bruce Wayne the thinking thing exists is in our imaginations.
- smitty1e 1y agoJob 40:6-14 [6] Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, [7] Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. [8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? [9] Hast thou an arm like God? Or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? [10] Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; And array thyself with glory and beauty. [11] Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: And behold every one that is proud, and abase him. [12] Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; And tread down the wicked in their place. [13] Hide them in the dust together; And bind their faces in secret. [14] Then will I also confess unto thee That thine own right hand can save thee. https://bible.com/bible/1/job.40.6-14.KJV https://bible.com/bible/1/job.40.6-14.KJV
- IAmBroom 1y agoA confusing chapter, so I asked AI for guidance (or prayed to the simulator, if you prefer)... AI Overview In the Book of Job, chapter 40, God challenges Job to address the wickedness and pride in the world, highlighting the fact that only God can truly subdue the forces of evil. God uses the examples of the Behemoth (a powerful land creature) and the Leviathan (a sea monster) to demonstrate his immense power and to show Job that he cannot handle these issues himself. Essentially, God is revealing Job's limitations and his own divine power, urging him to submit to God's justice and wisdom. Here's a more detailed breakdown: God's Challenge: God asks Job if he can "tread down the proud" and "make the wicked turn to their place". This is a test to see if Job can embody God's justice and power. Behemoth and Leviathan: God uses the Behemoth and Leviathan as examples of his power. They are creatures of immense strength, representing the forces of chaos and pride that only God can control. Job's Submission: Through these examples, God is showing Job that he cannot understand or control all of God's work. Job eventually acknowledges this, expressing his humility and submission to God. Theme of Divine Sovereignty: The chapter emphasizes God's power, wisdom, and justice, contrasting it with Job's limited understanding and ability. Suffering and Justice: The suffering Job endured is a backdrop to this chapter. God uses the suffering to demonstrate the mystery of his ways and the importance of trusting in his justice.
- smitty1e 1y ago
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoImagine giving someone a chess board where there are no negative consequences. Where both players win and no one loses any pieces ever. Would that game serve a purpose? Which has a better outcome, a mom/dad that gives their child everything and protects them from all exposure to the world, or parents that introduce their children to difficult/frustrating learning situations? As C.S. Lewis put it, what you want is a potential higher being to be a grandparent not a parent.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- spiderfarmer 1y agoAnd at that point it doesn't matter if we're in a simulation as it could be simulations all the way down.
- PorterBHall 1y agoI love this. It seems like conspiracy theory on a Universal scale.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- levocardia 1y agoOne strand of argument for the simulation hypothesis is that future beings would conduct "ancestor simulations" to understand key events in history. Such simulations would of course use the same laws of physics (or nearly the same) to be useful. This paper, at least, refutes the ancestor simulation strand of arguments (to the extent you believe it of course)
- out_of_protocol 1y agoOr it could be Half-Life 10⁹⁹, with stylized graphics and simplified rules (main action goes within another galaxy and we are a background noise). We're talking unknown unknowns here
- wmf 1y agoThe paper sort of gets into that as well, considering the "worst" possible simulation where particle colliders and neutrino observatories would still work.
- unparagoned 1y agoWhen we simulate the weather we don’t simulate stuff at the physics level.
- canjobear 1y agoJust keep reading the abstract. > Only universes with very different physical properties can produce some version of this Universe as a simulation. On the other hand, our results show that it is just impossible that this Universe is simulated by a universe sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements of the far future.
- photochemsyn 1y ago[flagged]
- socalgal2 1y agoThe simulation argument is that we'll make these universe simulators. Because we will in this universe, they'll be common. If they are common it's likely we're in one. If you change that to they won't happen in this universe. That suggests they are not common. And so while we could be in a simulation the argument kind of dies off
- IAmBroom 1y agoDoes not follow. "Common" does not imply "infinitely reproducible in all directions". Something can be "common" for positive integers, but not for negative. Or common for simulations of size << U, where U represents the energy of this universe.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- John23832 1y agoI present to you the halting problem.