4 ms·
ArXiv paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 This work attempts to draw out the presence of a simulation by looking for tiny viol
by ISL 14y ago
ArXiv paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847
This work attempts to draw out the presence of a simulation by looking for tiny violations of known/expected symmetries, which is always worth doing. We should note, however, that an excellent simulation could exactly cover its tracks, lest the underlying architecture cause unintended artifacts.
From a CS perspective, the simulation's developer might create unit tests that guarantee the preservation of symmetries.
A theorist who develops an experimental test that could prove we do not live in a simulation should be lauded. There are experimentalists (like me) just waiting for such guidance. John Bell's theorem [1] was/is a shining guidestar for physics.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_theorem
- coopdog 14y agoI think they're assuming that the simulators don't have infinite resources, so eventually we'll find a 'wall' in the simulation. "With finite resources at their disposal, our descendants will likely make use of effective theory methods, as is done today, to simulate every-increasing complexity, by, for instance, using meshes that adapt to the relevant physical length scales, or by using fluid dynamics to determine the behavior of fluids, which are constrained to rigorously reproduce the fundamental laws of nature." It's possible that if we were simulated, the simulators aren't actually trying to hide the nature of our universe from us. It's also possible even though the simulation started with a 'simple' framework that they could have hidden better if desired, that by becoming a self aware information system we can no longer be switched off / restarted without violating their ethical constraints. So it's possible that the limits a simulation actually are detectable. Of course as someone said, if the simulators were actively monitoring your thoughts with the intent of stopping you from finding the boundaries then there truly would be nothing you could do.
- huseyinyilmaz 14y agoOur decedents might have a certain level of technological advancement that Moore's law works a lot faster for them. If it is above a certain level, we would not fast enough to detect that limit.
- seanica 14y ago> A theorist who develops an experimental test that could prove we do not live in a simulation should be lauded. That sounds like they would be proving a negative, which is impossible to do.
- alanctgardner2 14y agoThat's a pretty silly statement. Surely you can prove that 1+1!=3, which is the negative of 1+1=3. You can also prove that pi is not a rational number, 1/2 is not an integer, etc. There's a post on the front page about attempting to prove P!=NP.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- evincarofautumn 14y agoThe typical formulations of all of those proofs are by contradiction, though—so it may be worth distinguishing “prove” from “demonstrate by proof”.
- alanctgardner2 14y agoIs there a distinction between proving and demonstrating by proof? I did a quick search (I'm hardly a mathematician), to quote Wikipedia: > a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true It would seem that, if you can demonstrate a statement is true for a given logic, that is proof. Contradiction and exhaustion (which is a bit more controversial, I think), while less tidy than one might expect, are valid techniques for showing that a statement is always true, and therefore are valid ways to construct a proof. Note: I encourage any and all maths professors to come and tell me off if I'm way off base.
- ISL 14y agoI am wearing only two socks. Both socks are black. Is it impossible for me to prove that I'm not wearing red socks?
- 14y ago