5 ms·

Ah, no. At best they prove that we can't simulate our own universe. They don't prove ours isn't simulated or that other, higher fidelity simulations can't simul

Ah, no. At best they prove that we can't simulate our own universe. They don't prove ours isn't simulated or that other, higher fidelity simulations can't simulate similar ones.

harpiaharpyja 11mo ago
At that point the whole idea becomes quite removed from what most people would think of when asked to consider if the universe is a simulation. To clarify: without being able to simulate the universe from within the universe itself (i.e. needing to resort to some "outside" higher-fidelity universe), then the word "simulation" becomes meaningless. We could just as easily refer to the whole thing (the inner "simulation" and the outer "simulation") as just being different "layers of abstraction" of the same universe, and drop the word "simulation" altogether. It would have the same ontology with less baggage.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- vercaemert 11mo ago
  According to the current mathematical model we use to define the universe, built from Einstein’s field equations, we’re not in a simulation. The said model is significantly misaligned with human perception regarding the start and edges of spacetime, so it’s completely valid to point out that it’s just a model (and that we might be in a simulation).
WhyOhWhyQ 11mo ago
The idea that the universe is a simulation proceeds as follows: (1) Person notices that computer simulations are getting increasingly powerful. Maybe we will be able to simulate something like the universe one day which will have life in it. (2) If simulating the universe is so easy and inevitable, what are the odds that we are at the top level? The idea in the article would refute the inductive step.
- DangitBobby 11mo ago
  Yes.
- fragmede 11mo ago
  On a Von Neumann architecture computer, but maybe a quantum computer?
  - WhyOhWhyQ 11mo ago
    That's a good point. One simulator would just "run the laws of our universe" (I don't care to make that precise, since presently it's a trivial statement, but hopefully it's clear that I mean to distinguish it from running a computer), but then that sort of trivializes the idea of "simulation". Maybe it's possible for us to create a sub-universe of ours with a quantum computer such that we view the entities as a part of our universe, but the entities cannot be aware of us. (This is the insects at the surface of a pond idea, unaware of the dimension above or below.)
- skissane 11mo ago
  > The idea in the article would refute the inductive step. No it doesn't. The article describes a proof that it is impossible for a computer to simulate this physical universe with perfect accuracy; but, that's not actually a problem for Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. For the simulation argument to work, you don't need to simulate the universe with perfect accuracy – just with sufficient accuracy that your simulated people can't distinguish it from a real one. And this proof isn't about "ability to simulate a universe to the point the simulated people can't tell that it is a simulation", it is about "ability to simulate a universe with perfect accuracy". So the proof isn't actually relevant to that argument at all.
  - WhyOhWhyQ 11mo ago
    Please explain how to simulate a universe which is indistinguishable from a simulation but which is not accurate according to the rules of the article.
DuperPower 11mo ago
the bible talks about Angels holding the universe so maybe the Angels are the computers? unscientific fiction is really powerful
imtringued 11mo ago
If we follow your logic, then atoms or quarks could be considered computers simulating the universe.
derbOac 11mo ago
The former isn't even a new proof: https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362 https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4169/amer.math.monthly.121.06.498 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4169/amer.math.monthl...

Ah, no. At best they prove that we can't simulate our own universe. They don't prove ours isn't simulated or that other, higher fidelity simulations can't simulate similar ones.

harpiaharpyja 11mo ago

At that point the whole idea becomes quite removed from what most people would think of when asked to consider if the universe is a simulation. To clarify: without being able to simulate the universe from within the universe itself (i.e. needing to resort to some "outside" higher-fidelity universe), then the word "simulation" becomes meaningless. We could just as easily refer to the whole thing (the inner "simulation" and the outer "simulation") as just being different "layers of abstraction" of the same universe, and drop the word "simulation" altogether. It would have the same ontology with less baggage.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
vercaemert 11mo ago
According to the current mathematical model we use to define the universe, built from Einstein’s field equations, we’re not in a simulation. The said model is significantly misaligned with human perception regarding the start and edges of spacetime, so it’s completely valid to point out that it’s just a model (and that we might be in a simulation).

WhyOhWhyQ 11mo ago

The idea that the universe is a simulation proceeds as follows: (1) Person notices that computer simulations are getting increasingly powerful. Maybe we will be able to simulate something like the universe one day which will have life in it. (2) If simulating the universe is so easy and inevitable, what are the odds that we are at the top level? The idea in the article would refute the inductive step.

DangitBobby 11mo ago
Yes.
fragmede 11mo ago
On a Von Neumann architecture computer, but maybe a quantum computer?
- WhyOhWhyQ 11mo ago
  That's a good point. One simulator would just "run the laws of our universe" (I don't care to make that precise, since presently it's a trivial statement, but hopefully it's clear that I mean to distinguish it from running a computer), but then that sort of trivializes the idea of "simulation". Maybe it's possible for us to create a sub-universe of ours with a quantum computer such that we view the entities as a part of our universe, but the entities cannot be aware of us. (This is the insects at the surface of a pond idea, unaware of the dimension above or below.)
skissane 11mo ago
> The idea in the article would refute the inductive step. No it doesn't. The article describes a proof that it is impossible for a computer to simulate this physical universe with perfect accuracy; but, that's not actually a problem for Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. For the simulation argument to work, you don't need to simulate the universe with perfect accuracy – just with sufficient accuracy that your simulated people can't distinguish it from a real one. And this proof isn't about "ability to simulate a universe to the point the simulated people can't tell that it is a simulation", it is about "ability to simulate a universe with perfect accuracy". So the proof isn't actually relevant to that argument at all.
- WhyOhWhyQ 11mo ago
  Please explain how to simulate a universe which is indistinguishable from a simulation but which is not accurate according to the rules of the article.

DuperPower 11mo ago

the bible talks about Angels holding the universe so maybe the Angels are the computers? unscientific fiction is really powerful

imtringued 11mo ago

If we follow your logic, then atoms or quarks could be considered computers simulating the universe.

derbOac 11mo ago

The former isn't even a new proof: https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362 https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1362 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4169/amer.math.monthly.121.06.498 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4169/amer.math.monthl...