9 ms·
Do We Live in the Matrix?
- ethana 13y agoI'm quite a bit nutty about this question actually. I'm in the process of creating a comic about a further out sentient race that try to reach the beginning of the universe. Along the way, they stop by Earth and decided to give us a bump in technological advancements.
- electic 13y agoGreat article
- aaronrenoir 13y agoMore like the 13th floor.
- chanux 13y agoI came here to say this. For anyone else interested, it's a movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
- ztzg 13y agoOr like "Welt am Draht": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welt_am_Draht http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welt_am_Draht Based on the same book, but with less cheese.
- jheriko 13y agowasn't this here only yesterday or the day before? it is interesting, but some fantastic naivete shines through the article... it early on states that the rules of our universe need not be the rules of the external universe, then begins to discuss constraints that only apply if the rules are identical in both. populist pseudoscience imo. still entertaining though...
- Houshalter 13y agoEh, computational constraints are likely to be true in a large number of universes. There is no way to prove the universe isn't a simulation in a universe with arbitrarily powerful computers, but we can rule out universes with high constraints (like our own), or else test for things like approximations going on under the hood. I think it's pretty unlikely, but it's possible and if a test confirmed it that would be incredibly important.
- jheriko 13y agosure we can detect it from the inside, but its incredibly naive and arrogant imo to assume anything about the outside world. as a programmer i am very aware of exactly how much power i have over the insides of my target hardware - i can easily imagine creating a simulation where any 'life' inside of it would be subject to utterly different rules. everything like conservation of energy, even the concepts of mass and energy, momentum, velocities, space and time are completely unrequired for the simulation. you would never ben able to guess these constraints from the inside without finding some bug or unintended behaviour - and even then, if you are used to a different set of concepts you wouldn't recognise the artefacts as being due to energy or mass constraints, the dimensionality of space-time or any of those things... there wouldn't be anywhere near enough evidence to draw that conclusion.
- Houshalter 13y agoIt's entirely possible clues of what the outside world is like could be left behind. It reminds me of this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/
- jheriko 13y agosure, but its also possible that the universe was generated by a giant spaghetti monster.
- 13y ago
- wudf 13y agoHeh. I just submitted a link on this very subject earlier today.
- mindcrime 13y agoJust had a little touch of deja vu, eh?
- Qantourisc 13y agoDeja vu for me to, but not from HN's...
- j15e 13y agoWhy isn't there more research in this field? Do you any other great and modern metaphysic projects?
- tobico 13y agoThe problem with studying metaphysics is that it's quite hard to do experiments.
- thenerdfiles 13y agoNo it isn't. We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws of geometry. —Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1922). Predicate calculus and Modal logic supply us with more than enough tools to make experimental metaphysics convenient and easy to do. The problem is that most people simply don't have familiarity with the topic, don't study philosophy (confusing it with Humanities, rather than seeing it as a gateway into the most fundamental science: logic), and because of the "science is sexy" crowd and the distraction of the Atheist Initiative (Dawkins, etc.) who push and preach Scientific Realism. NLTK + Modal predicates[0]: Experiemental Metaphysics. Done. [0]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/
- thenerdfiles 13y agoThrow in Pandas and you're well on your way to modeling universes with document-term matrixes, assuming you have some basic familiarity with possible world semantics, natural kinds, rigid designators, etc. à la Kripke. One, two, skip a few you've got schemas for modal hypermedia APIs across universes (at least). UPIs? Modal hyperpredicates?
- t__r 13y agoModal logic as a tool to analyze and elucidate philisophical problems (epistemic, doxastic, deontic etc.)? Yes. Modal logic as a tool to do `experimental metaphysics'? I don't think so. In the end a logic is a bunch of intellectually sophisticated stuff built on top of mostly set theory. It is not clear that a logic models something in the physical world. Let alone metaphysical world.
- b1daly 13y agoThe power of the "Matrix" concept is its illustration of the subjectiveness of what we think of as "reality." I think we for sure live in the meatspace version of the Matrix. So it's more blobish, but it's a distributed construct that is quite convincing to its inhabitants as long as it holds together!
- thenerdfiles 13y agohttp://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
- thenerdfiles 13y agoIf we are currently in S, then it is true that (a) our species will reach/surpass the posthuman stage before extinction (perhaps even preventing species extinction) and (b) our species [will likely] run a significant number of simulations (of which we likely, so it follows, are not the original biological implementation).
- thenerdfiles 13y agoAs always, any epistemic framework (all the way through to physics) must cohere with the phenomenological departure of [things like] us, humans. In order to cohere with our modality of gestalt perception, such a framework must at least consist of Decisions, Principles, and Predictions as the underpinning conceptual substrates of that framework. Rationality amounts to reasoning to the best explanation which allots Decisions, Principles (First Principles — Metaphysics), and Predictions (expressed typically as statistical Laws) and their interplay. For instance, sometimes Decisions and subvert Principles. Sometimes Principles are more intuitive than Decisions, given that some Decisions are not fathomable by all epistemic agents. Sometimes evidence invalidates Predictions, but we ultimately Decide what evidence is within scope of those Principles which determine valid Predictions. Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make. (i.e. It is not something we "discover" in the usual sense of the term.)
- loup-vaillant 13y ago> Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make. So, if we want to live in the matrix, we are living in the Matrix? Conversely, if we don't want to live in the Matrix, then we aren't living in the Matrix? That's magic.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- a3voices 13y agoYou'll know it when you wake up and say "whoa".
- throwwit 13y agoEntanglement the ultimate ycombinator?... lol
- tomrod 13y agoHah!
- yetanotherphd 13y agoAny deviation from the current laws of physics might be considered as either evidence that we are living in a simulation, or that the current laws of physics are incomplete. Some arguments are given that some deviations are especially indicative of the former. In my opinion these arguments are very weak. Mainly because the simulations they have in mind are sufficiently elegant, that the deviations they cause are things that could also arise in an elegant mathematical model.
- Zarathust 13y agoThis is exactly what I thought when reading the article. Gamma rays have not been found beyond a certain level of energy? We must therefore live in a simulation! Even the big bang had a finite amount of energy, this doesn't prove anything, just that we don't know about anything beyond that.
- pearjuice 13y agoBetteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines Daily reminder the Matrix is a work of fiction.
- thenerdfiles 13y agoOkay. Fictionalism[0], Brian Cantwell Smith's term "semiotic alchemy"[1] as an explanation to the "no theory" theory of Computer Science, Crispin Sartwell's book which roundly demolishes all emergent narrative structures[2] as a form of disease, the Extended Mind/Embodied Cognition school à la David Chalmbers, and philosophers like McTaggart with Time Series paradoxes along with other philosophers (John Mackie) who have created Error Theories and Paraconsistent logics (Graham Priest). "Fiction" is not an inherently meaningful term. [0]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/ [1]: http://www.ageofsignificance.org/people/bcsmith/papers/smith-godapprox4.html http://www.ageofsignificance.org/people/bcsmith/papers/smith... [2]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4171744-end-of-story https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4171744-end-of-story
- mehwoot 13y agoWhat on earth are you talking about?
- thenerdfiles 13y agoEverything I'd said there blows out of the water this idea that "simulation thought experiments" can similarly be classed as "fiction" in the usual sense of the term. Saying "it's fiction" is only the beginning of the discussion, not the ending of it — namely in that this world only makes sense through the fictional-narrative structure which shapes all discourse from religion to science to programming.
- bermanoid 13y ago
- wellboy 13y agoI can only think that if someone is smart enough to create an our universe, they would also be smart enough to prevent us from finding a lattice..
- pscsbs 13y agoUnless the purpose of the simulation is to see how long it takes a civilization to find the lattice.
- famo 13y agoI like thinking about this concept, so I purchased On Computer Simulated Universes by Mark Solomon hoping to gain a little more insight. It's a great book and got me thinking along the lines of why we, or an ancestor universe, may want to simulate a universe. Is it for fun, learning, or o test a wide range of simulations with different parameters in order to try and avoid a disaster in the simulator's universe (such as destruction of their own habitat)? I really like telling people that I think our universe was seeded with the idea of religion to see where we go with it. So all of the supernatural occurrences (stories, visitations, burning bushes etc.), whether you believe them or not, are simply part of our simulation program.
- grownseed 13y agoI like the idea but I also have a few issues with how simulated universes are commonly seen or how we assume we could detect them. I'm not a mathematician or physicist by any means, so I guess my opinion is purely subjective and could easily be discarded. The first one is that we assume this would be a computer simulation, i.e. a very complex program with potential bugs and such. While I'm not against the idea that some sort of computer might be behind it, the chance that it wouldn't behave anything like our computers seem more than likely. It also assumes that every projection (for lack of a better word) is the result of complex calculations, rather than the result of how the many inherent properties of a system behave together. This is something that strikes me as odd with a lot of people in sciences (broadly speaking), is that they often start assuming the tool they're using is in fact the basis of what they're trying to study with it. My second issue, which sort of ties into the first, is that a lot of people often assume that the laws of physics would therefore be bendable. I guess the Matrix (a film I really liked, and still do) might have been partly responsible for that. It seems to me that even if we were simulated, it would in fact not change much, if anything, we would still abide by the simulated laws of simulated physics, within a simulated environment which imposes a set of restrictions on us. Finally (sorry if this is dragging), my third issue, is a God complex one. We assume that our Simulators actually realize what they have, or rather all the intricacies of what they have made. What seems to be billions of years for us, in my view, could very well be a fraction of a second for them. Our existence may very well be (not that it currently isn't mind you) completely insignificant in their whole experiment, or whatever the simulation may be. This reminds me of a discussion with my AI professor when I was at uni, I argued that we might not be able to tell we've created a successful AI if its lifespan was too short for us to witness (I also think the first real AIs will be suicidal but that's a completely different story). It could also be that we are, in fact, unable to recognize its existence as such based on our standards. Not really tied to any of my points, but there's also this story about simulated reality which I really like http://qntm.org/responsibility http://qntm.org/responsibility
- psycr 13y agoCould you expand on why you believe the first real AIs will be suicidal? Is there a particular line of thought that has influenced your reasoning?
- ars 13y agoThere doesn't have to be a lattice to be a simulation. A lattice assumes the simulation is using rectilinear coordinates, but it doesn't have to. It could also use relative coordinates - each particle in the simulation is defined based on the angle and distance to the nearest other particle. (Where angle is relative to the spin axis of the particle - no global angle.) This is actually a natural way to simulate things because in general particles only affect nearby ones, which then affect others in turn (at the speed of light. Could this be why there is a speed of light? Because of the delay of each particle affecting the next?) Forces with infinite range are modeled by starting a particle at 0, then when a force "message" is received update the particle with the new force acting on it, and send the force message along to the next particle in the chain. This works because the infinite forces can never be created from nothing, they can only be moved from place to place (the electromagnetic ones usually cancel out), and forces propagate at the speed of light, so there is time for each particle to notify the next.
- dwaltrip 13y agoI wonder if the particles are using socket.io or sockJS to listen for "force messages". I personally have found sockJS to be more reliable, especially cross-domain.
- k__ 13y agoThis is about matrix, not vert.x
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- weland 13y ago> It could also use relative coordinates - each particle in the simulation is defined based on the angle and distance to the nearest other particle. (Where angle is relative to the spin axis of the particle - no global angle.) Are you sure? IMO, these coordinates will not be infinitely precise, lest they require infinite memory. Consequently, you would find that the space of possible angles and distances is in fact discrete, as it were defined by a lattice. The structure of the coordinate system is implicit in this case.
- maaku 13y agoCicada 3301 is the path to the red pill. Be careful, agents are always watching.
- aapje 13y agoOur Tamagotchi and Minecraft Avatars are asking the same thing. The Wreck it Ralph crew already know the answer.
- snitko 13y agoSometimes people take The Matrix quite literally, while it is actually a very good metaphor for government and democracy. Morpheus hints at this very transparently in a couple of monologues: Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes [grins]. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. Neo: What truth? Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind. So what Neo later sees are endless fields of human beings being grown for the very purpose of obtaining energy from them. Still don't see what's going on here? And then later in the training program he tells Neo this: Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. And indeed, I see that all over again. Even if you hint to people that maybe we don't really need a government to live our lives in peace, at the very best it is suggested you go to Somalia. The very idea that maybe the dearest leaders of whatever country you live in don't actually care about you doesn't seem to be able to penetrate people's minds, even though time and again they lie and abuse their powers. Those who hint to this idea are called radicals and extremists, even though it is not them, but the elite in power, who have a stake in this whole game.
- md224 13y agoRight, but... what if the reality is that there's a mix of better and worse-intentioned people in government, as well as emergent structural inefficiencies and competing ideologies? I understand that we need a good narrative to comprehend the world, but I think we can do better than the "government = bad" one. The truth seems like it would be more nuanced.
- TausAmmer 13y ago
- fauria 13y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2cZfwgxzOE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2cZfwgxzOE
- benbou09 13y agoMy favorie part: "Our simulators may be simulations themselves" You could write a book on this simple idea...
- bprater 13y agoThink fractals...
- trumbitta2 13y agoThere's a movie about that. And, after a SPOILER ALERT, that movie is: The Thirteenth Floor
- zvrba 13y ago> To repeat them, and generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last atom, would take more energy than the universe has He's only saying that we cannot simulate this universe within itself. But how does that imply that our potential simulators couldn't live in a vastly larger universe with a vastly larger amount of energy?
- TelmoMenezes 13y agoIf the computational theory of mind is correct -- the theory that our minds can be emulated by a computation at some substitution level -- then I can even give you the code for the Matrix. It's called the Universal Dovetailer, and it's a simple program that runs all possible programs. On each step it runs the next instruction of every program running so far and introduces the first step of a new program. Given infinite time, it performs every conceivable computation. Due to the Church-Turin thesis, we know that the infinite set of all programs can be enumerated and we also know that it doesn't matter in which programming language we use, provided it is Turing-complete. Since the Universal Dovetailer is a conceivable program, this computation will contain itself in a recursive fashion (simulations within simulations).
- thenerdfiles 13y agoConceivablility is no substitute for a sound proof.
- TelmoMenezes 13y agoOf course. However, sometimes no prove is possible. This limitation of formal logic was proved by Gödel. Here, I believe mind emulation might be possible, but I believe I cannot know for sure unless my own mind is emulated -- in which case I will have private knowledge but no way to prove it to you. How can I prove that I'm conscious? You can see how this problem extends to simulated realities (or computational realities).
- thenerdfiles 13y agoGE Moore gave a perfectly valid proof. [Here is a hand, here is another hand; I have two hands.]
- varjag 13y agoIf it takes infinite time to arrive at a proof, it's not quite a proof.
- 13y ago
- jackson1372 13y agoThe author makes a number of logical errors. For example: > To...generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last atom would take more energy than the universe has. Right. But the problem is that the only universe we know about is the one that we live in. So if we were we living in a computer simulation, we would have no knowledge of the 'real' universe. Therefore, we could never say with any confidence that there's not enough energy in the 'real' universe to simulate the 'fake' universe.
- rl3 13y agoThese experiments cannot definitively prove anything. Here's why: 1) A perfect simulation, by definition, would be impossible for its inhabitants to detect. 2) Detection of an imperfect simulation requires an absolute understanding of the universe. This includes the imperfect simulation itself, any imperfect simulation(s) containing it, the physical universe, the multiverse; everything. Putting aside any philosophical arguments about whether it's even possible to absolutely know anything, let alone the complete mechanics of the universe, the conclusion one would arrive at is the same conclusion that those who ponder the origin of our universe (irrespective of simulations), arrive at: infinite regress. Therefore, definitively proving whether or not our existence is that of a simulation, and completely understanding literally everything that exists, has existed, and will exist, are one and the same.
- raldi 13y agoYour point #2 is not logically obvious. Could you explain why you feel it's true?
- rl3 13y agoAssume for a moment that we have evidence which strongly suggests we reside inside of a simulation. However, our knowledge is strictly limited to the complete mechanics of our simulation and any which contain it, but not the actual physical universe containing all of these simulation(s). How then do we know that we're not in fact residing in the physical universe as actual matter, not inside of simulation(s), and that something which exists inside of the physical universe isn't simply manipulating us to believe that the supposed evidence we have (proving that we're inside of a simulation) is true? Presumably, whatever is manipulating us into believing this would be utilizing methods we would not be able to detect or comprehend, namely because we lack a full understanding of the physical universe.
- raldi 13y agoWhat if there is no intelligent manipulation? What if, for example, we find evidence of a granular lattice underlying the universe, aligned along a set of axes? That would be huge evidence in favor of the simulation theory but require no absolute knowledge of all things.
- aufreak3 13y ago.. and our programmers created Occam and made him come up with his razor so that most serious people (sorry .. simulations) who might actually be able to answer this question within the system will more likely discard it because of how much their training emphasizes Occam's razor. edit: quoting the part of the article that read like the flying spaghetti monster [1] > In such a makeshift cosmos, the fine details of the microscopic world and the farthest stars might only be filled in by the programmers on the rare occasions that people study them with scientific equipment. As soon as no one was looking, they’d simply vanish. > In theory, we’d never detect these disappearing features, however, because each time the simulators noticed we were observing them again, they’d sketch them back in. [1]: http://www.venganza.org/ http://www.venganza.org/
- stuartcw 13y agoRelevant video of Philip K Dick discussing this very matter recorded at Metz sci-fi convention in France, 1977: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeVgEs4sOo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeVgEs4sOo