5 ms·

The rate at which computers have gotten powerful is simply mind boggling. Even as early as 20 years ago, something like an iPhone would sound like wishful think

by kamaal 12y ago

The rate at which computers have gotten powerful is simply mind boggling. Even as early as 20 years ago, something like an iPhone would sound like wishful thinking to someone who would think rationally. Heck WWW, internet, mobile phones and this whole thing looks right out of a science fiction book for some one in early part of 1900's Its hard to imagine how much more computers can go. But I believe people in the future will look at our way of thinking about computing limits(Moore's law) in the same we look at vaccum tubes. Or the way we look at people who thought heavier than air flying objects are impossible by laws of physics. We just don't know how many 'transistor events' or 'wright brother' events there are going to be in the future which will work around the laws of science orthogonally.

nitrogen 12y ago
There is a limit to the amount of computation that can be done by a given amount of matter that only new physics could change. Given that limit, at best you would need every particle in our universe just to simulate an identical one. It's more likely that the best possible simulation would have significantly reduced fidelity and/or size with respect to its host universe, thus the inevitability component of the simulation argument falls apart. What would convince me we are a simulation is evidence (e.g. proof that quantum randomness is caused by floating point rounding errors, or that entanglement is caused by lazy expression evaluation), hard empirical measurements. Not arguments from pure logic and extrapolation. That said, I agree that we have done some amazing things with computers; I just doubt (in the extreme) the simulation argument is valid.
- philwelch 12y ago
  As far as I can tell, you don't even disagree with the simulation argument. The simulation argument is that one of three propositions is true: 1. It is impossible to create a simulated world that people can live in. 2. People consistently do not choose to create such simulations. 3. We are almost certainly living in such a simulation right now. You haven't said anything to undermine the basic logic of the argument at all; instead, you're arguing that statement 1 is true. But the simulation argument is that one out of statements 1-3 is true. Hence you agree with the simulation argument. You just don't think you do because you identify the whole argument with statement 3.
  - Sandman 12y ago
    Based on what you just said, the simulation "argument" is no argument at all. The three propositions cover all possible cases. How can you argue against that? What would be the counter-argument?
    - philwelch 12y ago
      The counterargument would be simple: a counterexample where all three propositions are false at the same time. The Simulation Argument is really a tool, and a challenge. It sets things up such that, if we manage to disprove 1 and 2 empirically, we get stuck with a shocking realization about the basic facts of our existence. It gives us an unusual way of indirectly testing whether or not we are living in a simulation. That's a lot out of something that "isn't an argument at all".
      - keenerd 12y ago
        > The Simulation Argument is really a tool, and a challenge. No it isn't. It is Pascal's Wager updated for the 21st century. The only way it can be "proved" is if we are living in a really bad, poorly maintained, fundamentally broken, cheaply outsourced simulation.
  - mc808 12y ago
    The argument seems to be missing a proposition: 4. It is possible to create and live in a simulated world, but not with the level of fidelity/flexibility necessary for the infinite regress that would make #3 convincing.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      You can fold that into #1 if you want, or fold 1 and 2 together, but they're largely equivalent formulations.
      - mc808 12y ago
        I don't think it fits cleanly into 1 or 2. Maybe people choose not to live in deeply nested simulations because of the degradation, but that still misses the possibility that simulated people do want to keep the process going but it becomes increasingly difficult.
- gojomo 12y ago
  You don't need to simulate every particle in the universe to have a convincing simulation, from the perspective of a small number of observers (or just one). How many particles are you currently observing, in sufficient detail, to be sure they are being individually modeled, rather than the subject of macro-approximations? The answer is likely 'zero', or at least a number much closer to zero than the number of particles in the rumored universe. Also, if you are in a simulation, you can't reason about the size and computational capabilities of the physics of the simulating system. All the limits you've ever perceived may be arbitrary choices of the simulation, countless orders-of-magnitude more limited than the "host" universe.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    "Flatland" comes to mind with respect to the latter part of what you wrote.
  - outworlder 12y ago
    > All the limits you've ever perceived may be arbitrary choices of the simulation Such as the speed of light? That's the simulation tick rate.
    - tarpherder 12y ago
      More like step. There is no such thing as time. The simulation could be paused for (real) years, then continued and there would be no way for entities in the simulation to notice that. This is also why we technically don't need super fast computers for such a simulation; it would be slow to us, not to those inside. Although it's not practical to have a very slow simulation of course.
- OvidNaso 12y ago
  "There is a limit to the amount of computation that can be done by a given amount of matter that only new physics could change. Given that limit, at best you would need every particle in our universe just to simulate an identical one. It's more likely that the best possible simulation would have significantly reduced fidelity and/or size with respect to its host universe, thus the inevitability component of the simulation argument falls apart." Or, potentially, one would only need to simulate the minds of any observesers in the simulation, not every particle in the simulated universe.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Or, potentially, one would only need to simulate the minds of any observesers in the simulation, not every particle in the simulated universe. ...for every possible interaction those minds could have with the simulated universe. The only lossless way to simulate a mind's interaction with a universe is to simulate the universe. Further, one must define "observer", as well as simulate accurately what happens to non-"observer" objects, animals, microbes, etc. while "observers" aren't looking.
tspiteri 12y ago
Or the way we look at people who thought heavier than air flying objects are impossible by laws of physics. Did any people actually think this? That would be weird, considering how we are surrounded by heavier-than-air flying animals.
- JanezStupar 12y ago
  Everybody rational knew that it cannot be done.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    "cannot be done" means "too difficult to be feasible" more often than it means "impossible by laws of physics"

by kamaal 12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago

There is a limit to the amount of computation that can be done by a given amount of matter that only new physics could change. Given that limit, at best you would need every particle in our universe just to simulate an identical one. It's more likely that the best possible simulation would have significantly reduced fidelity and/or size with respect to its host universe, thus the inevitability component of the simulation argument falls apart. What would convince me we are a simulation is evidence (e.g. proof that quantum randomness is caused by floating point rounding errors, or that entanglement is caused by lazy expression evaluation), hard empirical measurements. Not arguments from pure logic and extrapolation. That said, I agree that we have done some amazing things with computers; I just doubt (in the extreme) the simulation argument is valid.

philwelch 12y ago
As far as I can tell, you don't even disagree with the simulation argument. The simulation argument is that one of three propositions is true: 1. It is impossible to create a simulated world that people can live in. 2. People consistently do not choose to create such simulations. 3. We are almost certainly living in such a simulation right now. You haven't said anything to undermine the basic logic of the argument at all; instead, you're arguing that statement 1 is true. But the simulation argument is that one out of statements 1-3 is true. Hence you agree with the simulation argument. You just don't think you do because you identify the whole argument with statement 3.
- Sandman 12y ago
  Based on what you just said, the simulation "argument" is no argument at all. The three propositions cover all possible cases. How can you argue against that? What would be the counter-argument?
  - philwelch 12y ago
    The counterargument would be simple: a counterexample where all three propositions are false at the same time. The Simulation Argument is really a tool, and a challenge. It sets things up such that, if we manage to disprove 1 and 2 empirically, we get stuck with a shocking realization about the basic facts of our existence. It gives us an unusual way of indirectly testing whether or not we are living in a simulation. That's a lot out of something that "isn't an argument at all".
    - keenerd 12y ago
      > The Simulation Argument is really a tool, and a challenge. No it isn't. It is Pascal's Wager updated for the 21st century. The only way it can be "proved" is if we are living in a really bad, poorly maintained, fundamentally broken, cheaply outsourced simulation.
- mc808 12y ago
  The argument seems to be missing a proposition: 4. It is possible to create and live in a simulated world, but not with the level of fidelity/flexibility necessary for the infinite regress that would make #3 convincing.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    You can fold that into #1 if you want, or fold 1 and 2 together, but they're largely equivalent formulations.
    - mc808 12y ago
      I don't think it fits cleanly into 1 or 2. Maybe people choose not to live in deeply nested simulations because of the degradation, but that still misses the possibility that simulated people do want to keep the process going but it becomes increasingly difficult.
gojomo 12y ago
You don't need to simulate every particle in the universe to have a convincing simulation, from the perspective of a small number of observers (or just one). How many particles are you currently observing, in sufficient detail, to be sure they are being individually modeled, rather than the subject of macro-approximations? The answer is likely 'zero', or at least a number much closer to zero than the number of particles in the rumored universe. Also, if you are in a simulation, you can't reason about the size and computational capabilities of the physics of the simulating system. All the limits you've ever perceived may be arbitrary choices of the simulation, countless orders-of-magnitude more limited than the "host" universe.
- vidarh 12y ago
  "Flatland" comes to mind with respect to the latter part of what you wrote.
- outworlder 12y ago
  > All the limits you've ever perceived may be arbitrary choices of the simulation Such as the speed of light? That's the simulation tick rate.
  - tarpherder 12y ago
    More like step. There is no such thing as time. The simulation could be paused for (real) years, then continued and there would be no way for entities in the simulation to notice that. This is also why we technically don't need super fast computers for such a simulation; it would be slow to us, not to those inside. Although it's not practical to have a very slow simulation of course.
OvidNaso 12y ago
"There is a limit to the amount of computation that can be done by a given amount of matter that only new physics could change. Given that limit, at best you would need every particle in our universe just to simulate an identical one. It's more likely that the best possible simulation would have significantly reduced fidelity and/or size with respect to its host universe, thus the inevitability component of the simulation argument falls apart." Or, potentially, one would only need to simulate the minds of any observesers in the simulation, not every particle in the simulated universe.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Or, potentially, one would only need to simulate the minds of any observesers in the simulation, not every particle in the simulated universe. ...for every possible interaction those minds could have with the simulated universe. The only lossless way to simulate a mind's interaction with a universe is to simulate the universe. Further, one must define "observer", as well as simulate accurately what happens to non-"observer" objects, animals, microbes, etc. while "observers" aren't looking.

tspiteri 12y ago

Or the way we look at people who thought heavier than air flying objects are impossible by laws of physics. Did any people actually think this? That would be weird, considering how we are surrounded by heavier-than-air flying animals.

JanezStupar 12y ago
Everybody rational knew that it cannot be done.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  "cannot be done" means "too difficult to be feasible" more often than it means "impossible by laws of physics"