3 ms·

The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial natu

by Udo 12y ago

The simulation argument is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I'd charitably expand the definition of such simulations to universes of an artificial nature in general, but it's still just a thought experiment about something which cannot be falsified. Granted, it's a fascinating one, but it shares too many traits with The Invisible Dragon in my Garage to be of profound scientific value. It's worth taking into account that people tend to have two entirely separate ideas about the nature of any such simulation. The first one is a Matrix-like universe: a world designed from the ground up to be an illusion specifically for us - a computer program so idiosyncratic as to be utterly implausible, which only cares about deceiving human minds into living in an artificial environment. This is the concept of a computer simulation always invoked by the popular media whenever this subject comes up. The second one, which is what scientists usually mean, is an actual simulation that merely runs the basic processes of physics from which all the other things in the universe emerge - and these include accidentally, among other things and quite marginally, intelligent life forms such as humans. It's merely an uncaring physics simulation indistinguishable from a "natural" universe. In the end both of these are scientifically barren concepts. The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications - holes which seem like they are in disagreement with daily observation and hence should lend themselves to falsification. The cold physics simulation on the other hand, while it doesn't share the intellectual weaknesses of the Matrix, gets us rapidly to a point where we might ask what difference it makes at all whether the fabric of reality is running on an artificial or "natural" substrate if there is no hope of ever finding out.

tvmalsv 12y ago
I don't remember who authored the following, but I thought it was amusing enough years ago to toss it into my interesting-quotes.txt: I recall reading a science fiction story that involved the first human spaceship to reach the edge of the universe. When they tried to go through they bounced off, it was impenatrable. Then we cut to 2 higher dimensional beings, and one says, "On that run it took life only 14.7 gigayears to reach the edge." The other one says, "Great! Let's do another run. Sterilize the medium."
- Udo 12y ago
  :D That's a very funny story! When I imagine an intelligent life form simulating the universe, it might as well be a simple creature just pushing little stones from cell to cell across a coordinate system drawn into the sand of an impossibly huge plain, using a few very simple rules about where stones move on every single cell. And when the creature gets to the last stone in the grid, it starts the same thing again from the top. This is also not my idea, I don't remember where I heard it first. But it's appealing for several reasons. It illustrates that no intelligence is necessary to run the universe. More fundamentally, however, it shows how a higher-dimensional being might very well have no real concept of what goes on in here. ;)
  - nvader 12y ago
    You're thinking of http://xkcd.com/505/ http://xkcd.com/505/
ccvannorman 12y ago
>The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications I agree the Matrix argument has significant plot holes, but given that there are an infinite set of conditions in which something analogous to The Matrix could exist that are probably outside the scope of current human understanding, it's not disprovable. (Although you can also say "God isn't disprovable".. but my point is you can't discredit Matrix arguments on implausibility grounds because we don't have the scope to make that judgement.) >what difference it makes at all whether the fabric of reality is running on an artificial or "natural" substrate if there is no hope of ever finding out. There is always hope of figuring it out given enough time. I see no reason to assume we couldn't "escape" the simulation and enter the next-level-up (which is probably also a simulation, but that's a discussion for a post-simulation-broken-hacker-news thread.)
- Udo 12y ago
  > There is always hope of figuring it out given enough time. Well, there could be a message embedded into some basic universal structure, left there in case any intelligent life forms might come across it. But other than that, I don't see how any arbitrary phenomenon happening in the universe could possibly tip the scale of plausibility in either direction. Discoveries of computation-like processes have indeed been (ab-)used for that purpose in the past, but people forget that there is no reason to believe this couldn't happen in a natural universe. > I see no reason to assume we couldn't "escape" the simulation and enter the next-level-up There would be absolutely no difference in "escaping" an artificial universe or a real universe. In both cases, the exact same problems apply. Artificiality in this context doesn't really mean anything.
devnonymous 12y ago
> but it's still just a thought experiment about something > which cannot be falsified. Well, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_t... ( http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-... )
tiatia 12y ago
> The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones Actually, no. The question is simple: Can a universe with a least a few intelligent individuals be simulated? (Grand Auto Theft also does not simulate the whole city but only a selected "view"). The answer to this is probably "yes". But then you have another problem: If a universe can be simulated, it is mathematically FAR FAR more likely that you live in a computer simulation than not since billions of worlds with trillions of individuals are getting simulated. > and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications Be my guest and elaborate. > holes which seem like they are in disagreement with > daily observation and hence should lend themselves to > falsification. Actually, you are right and wrong here. First, I don't see "disagreement" with daily observations since there is only one known idea how to test the hypothesis. And then you are right, this thesis can be tested:"To avoid stacking (i.e. simulations within simulations), the termination of these simulations is likely to be the point in history when the technology to create them first became widely available, (estimated to be 2050)." Actually, there is a movie preceding "The Matrix" that is much much better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/

by Udo 12y ago

tvmalsv 12y ago

I don't remember who authored the following, but I thought it was amusing enough years ago to toss it into my interesting-quotes.txt: I recall reading a science fiction story that involved the first human spaceship to reach the edge of the universe. When they tried to go through they bounced off, it was impenatrable. Then we cut to 2 higher dimensional beings, and one says, "On that run it took life only 14.7 gigayears to reach the edge." The other one says, "Great! Let's do another run. Sterilize the medium."

Udo 12y ago
:D That's a very funny story! When I imagine an intelligent life form simulating the universe, it might as well be a simple creature just pushing little stones from cell to cell across a coordinate system drawn into the sand of an impossibly huge plain, using a few very simple rules about where stones move on every single cell. And when the creature gets to the last stone in the grid, it starts the same thing again from the top. This is also not my idea, I don't remember where I heard it first. But it's appealing for several reasons. It illustrates that no intelligence is necessary to run the universe. More fundamentally, however, it shows how a higher-dimensional being might very well have no real concept of what goes on in here. ;)
- nvader 12y ago
  You're thinking of http://xkcd.com/505/ http://xkcd.com/505/

ccvannorman 12y ago

>The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones, and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications I agree the Matrix argument has significant plot holes, but given that there are an infinite set of conditions in which something analogous to The Matrix could exist that are probably outside the scope of current human understanding, it's not disprovable. (Although you can also say "God isn't disprovable".. but my point is you can't discredit Matrix arguments on implausibility grounds because we don't have the scope to make that judgement.) >what difference it makes at all whether the fabric of reality is running on an artificial or "natural" substrate if there is no hope of ever finding out. There is always hope of figuring it out given enough time. I see no reason to assume we couldn't "escape" the simulation and enter the next-level-up (which is probably also a simulation, but that's a discussion for a post-simulation-broken-hacker-news thread.)

Udo 12y ago
> There is always hope of figuring it out given enough time. Well, there could be a message embedded into some basic universal structure, left there in case any intelligent life forms might come across it. But other than that, I don't see how any arbitrary phenomenon happening in the universe could possibly tip the scale of plausibility in either direction. Discoveries of computation-like processes have indeed been (ab-)used for that purpose in the past, but people forget that there is no reason to believe this couldn't happen in a natural universe. > I see no reason to assume we couldn't "escape" the simulation and enter the next-level-up There would be absolutely no difference in "escaping" an artificial universe or a real universe. In both cases, the exact same problems apply. Artificiality in this context doesn't really mean anything.

devnonymous 12y ago

> but it's still just a thought experiment about something > which cannot be falsified. Well, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_the_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_t... ( http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-... )

tiatia 12y ago

> The Matrix is an implausible just-so story with quasi-religious undertones Actually, no. The question is simple: Can a universe with a least a few intelligent individuals be simulated? (Grand Auto Theft also does not simulate the whole city but only a selected "view"). The answer to this is probably "yes". But then you have another problem: If a universe can be simulated, it is mathematically FAR FAR more likely that you live in a computer simulation than not since billions of worlds with trillions of individuals are getting simulated. > and it's a concept that exhibits quite a few glaring holes the closer you look at its practical implications Be my guest and elaborate. > holes which seem like they are in disagreement with > daily observation and hence should lend themselves to > falsification. Actually, you are right and wrong here. First, I don't see "disagreement" with daily observations since there is only one known idea how to test the hypothesis. And then you are right, this thesis can be tested:"To avoid stacking (i.e. simulations within simulations), the termination of these simulations is likely to be the point in history when the technology to create them first became widely available, (estimated to be 2050)." Actually, there is a movie preceding "The Matrix" that is much much better: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070904/