4 ms·

If you're interested in going a bit deeper on this, Nick Bostrom (http://nickbostrom.com/ http://nickbostrom.com/) has pulled together an intriguing case: http:

If you're interested in going a bit deeper on this, Nick Bostrom (http://nickbostrom.com/ http://nickbostrom.com/) has pulled together an intriguing case: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html A provoking question: if we found evidence that convinced us, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we were living in a computer simulation, would you change your behavior?

brodney 13y ago
Could you?
- kabdib 13y ago
  Already have!
- benhamner 13y ago
  Are they using a pseudo-random number generator with a set seed, or is there a better source of randomness? ;) I treat free will as an assumption: - If we are, in fact, predestined, assuming I have free will doesn't hurt or matter. - If we do have free will, I'm applying that free will to make decisions based on a correct assumption - If we do have free will and I had assumed we were predestined, this could have worse results. At the very least, it is unlikely to improve outcomes
  - dgordon 13y ago
    "If we are, in fact, predestined, assuming I have free will doesn't hurt or matter." Not to mention you were predestined to assume so.
    - KC8ZKF 13y ago
      You have to live as if you have free will. You can't say, "I've considered all the possibilites, and have decided that there is no free will", because considerations and decisions are acts of free will themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean you have free will.
      - Jayschwa 13y ago
        I find it interesting how people often cite determinism as incompatible with free will. Our minds don't violate the laws of physics, but they still make decisions. Similarly, a car can still be described as "driving", even if the physics behind it are deterministic.
        moens 13y ago
        Its an easy way to excuse bad habits, that's all.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
pizza_ 13y ago
For starters I'd re-classify The Matrix as a documentary.
marblar 13y ago
I wonder if we could devise an experiment to see if the world containing the computer was, itself, a simulation -ad infinitum.
- modarts 13y ago
  Turtles, all the way down.
aswanson 13y ago
Bostrom's postulates are exceedingly bad. His assumptions rely to much on the isotropy of properties of the one "real" existence and the simulated ones. I would expect, statistically, that there would be far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1" over the more "realistic" call of duty. It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error.
- gwern 13y ago
  > It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error. What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'? > far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1" Those seem like perfectly normal universes to me: they're fully describable by short programs executing over discrete binary states like a chunk of RAM. Where's the violation of logic or metaphysical oddities there?
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
    - gwern 13y ago
      > The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). But the 'real universe' appears discrete on the smallest level, and I don't believe physicists will ultimately settle on a theory in which two completely different sorts of theories take over at different regimes and the macro-scale theory is not reducible, even in principle, to derivations and predictions of the micro-scale theory. The quantum theories will eventually predict the relativity-scale results./ > In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch. How would you know? What governs quantum randomness?

brodney 13y ago

Could you?

kabdib 13y ago
Already have!
benhamner 13y ago
Are they using a pseudo-random number generator with a set seed, or is there a better source of randomness? ;) I treat free will as an assumption: - If we are, in fact, predestined, assuming I have free will doesn't hurt or matter. - If we do have free will, I'm applying that free will to make decisions based on a correct assumption - If we do have free will and I had assumed we were predestined, this could have worse results. At the very least, it is unlikely to improve outcomes
- dgordon 13y ago
  "If we are, in fact, predestined, assuming I have free will doesn't hurt or matter." Not to mention you were predestined to assume so.
  - KC8ZKF 13y ago
    You have to live as if you have free will. You can't say, "I've considered all the possibilites, and have decided that there is no free will", because considerations and decisions are acts of free will themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean you have free will.
    - Jayschwa 13y ago
      I find it interesting how people often cite determinism as incompatible with free will. Our minds don't violate the laws of physics, but they still make decisions. Similarly, a car can still be described as "driving", even if the physics behind it are deterministic.
      - moens 13y ago
        Its an easy way to excuse bad habits, that's all.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

pizza_ 13y ago

For starters I'd re-classify The Matrix as a documentary.

marblar 13y ago

I wonder if we could devise an experiment to see if the world containing the computer was, itself, a simulation -ad infinitum.

modarts 13y ago
Turtles, all the way down.

aswanson 13y ago

Bostrom's postulates are exceedingly bad. His assumptions rely to much on the isotropy of properties of the one "real" existence and the simulated ones. I would expect, statistically, that there would be far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1" over the more "realistic" call of duty. It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error.

gwern 13y ago
> It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error. What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'? > far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1" Those seem like perfectly normal universes to me: they're fully describable by short programs executing over discrete binary states like a chunk of RAM. Where's the violation of logic or metaphysical oddities there?
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
  - gwern 13y ago
    > The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). But the 'real universe' appears discrete on the smallest level, and I don't believe physicists will ultimately settle on a theory in which two completely different sorts of theories take over at different regimes and the macro-scale theory is not reducible, even in principle, to derivations and predictions of the micro-scale theory. The quantum theories will eventually predict the relativity-scale results./ > In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch. How would you know? What governs quantum randomness?