Are you a Sim?
June 10, 2016 8:41 PM Subscribe
01001000 01101111 01110111 00100000
01110111 01101111 01110101 01101100 01100100 00100000 01111001 01101111
01110101 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110100
01101000 01100101 00100000 01100100 01101001 01100110 01100110 01100101
01110010 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01100010 01100101
01110100 01110111 01100101 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000
01100101 00100000 01100100 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101101 00100000
01110111 01101111 01110010 01101100 01100100 00100000 01100001 01101110
01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110010 01100101
01100001 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101100 01100100
00111111
lol in ios this appears as a shitload of clickable links to phone numbers
posted by griphus at 8:47 PM on June 10, 2016 [48 favorites]
posted by griphus at 8:47 PM on June 10, 2016 [48 favorites]
If we are living in a sim, I'm pretty confident that Elon Musk is an NPC
posted by phooky at 8:49 PM on June 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by phooky at 8:49 PM on June 10, 2016 [27 favorites]
I do leave my dirty dishes in the middle of the floor...
posted by dirigibleman at 8:49 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 8:49 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
I tried to call one and it opened up a subspace channel to V'ger.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:50 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:50 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'll let you all know next time I go to the pool
posted by littlesq at 8:50 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by littlesq at 8:50 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I really do think that our future descendents have better things to do than simulate my life.
posted by arcticseal at 8:52 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by arcticseal at 8:52 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Damn, sorry, mobile users. That's what I get for embracing my simulated side.
posted by iamfantastikate at 8:52 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by iamfantastikate at 8:52 PM on June 10, 2016
Rick and Morty covered this topic way more effectively.
posted by town of cats at 8:58 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by town of cats at 8:58 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
I read the article. Here's a short answer that's probably true: no.
posted by codacorolla at 9:05 PM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by codacorolla at 9:05 PM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
1001001 in distress.
posted by bassomatic at 9:05 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bassomatic at 9:05 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Excuse me, Mister Musk? What if, like... the colors that we see are like... not the same color that other people see, but we call them the same thing!?"
"I've run the numbers, and there's almost no way that's not true."
posted by codacorolla at 9:06 PM on June 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
"I've run the numbers, and there's almost no way that's not true."
posted by codacorolla at 9:06 PM on June 10, 2016 [12 favorites]
If I can't dance, you can keep your simulation.
posted by anshuman at 9:09 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by anshuman at 9:09 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really do think that our future descendents have better things to do than simulate my life.
Yeah, and it seems a little arrogant to assume that the people(?) who created the simulation would look like us, be versions of us. Maybe robots or aliens have simulated us. Why not? Just as much proof for that (i.e., none).
That said, I don't find it too strange to think, were we a simulation, we could be an experiment on evolution. Maybe we're tomorrow's or some place else's fruit flies.
posted by iamfantastikate at 9:11 PM on June 10, 2016
Yeah, and it seems a little arrogant to assume that the people(?) who created the simulation would look like us, be versions of us. Maybe robots or aliens have simulated us. Why not? Just as much proof for that (i.e., none).
That said, I don't find it too strange to think, were we a simulation, we could be an experiment on evolution. Maybe we're tomorrow's or some place else's fruit flies.
posted by iamfantastikate at 9:11 PM on June 10, 2016
It's almost as though philosophers don't have the expertise needed to speak with authority about mathematics or the natural world.
posted by belarius at 9:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by belarius at 9:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, we're not living in a simulator... go out and build a primitive wattle and daub hut from scratch to get it out of your system, I think y'all have been on the computer too long!
posted by MikeWarot at 9:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by MikeWarot at 9:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
Same misuse of probability as the doomsday argument, getting a little weary of this meme.
posted by pixelrevolt at 9:12 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by pixelrevolt at 9:12 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
What are the odds someone...or some*thing*...would run such a simulation? The whole notion has always seemed as idiotic to me as the idea of uploading your mind into a computer (so you can live forever while third-world people keep the server farm running, I guess?)...frankly I think the gulf between me and people who find this sort of thing plausible is too great to even shout across.
posted by uosuaq at 9:19 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 9:19 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll tell you what's wrong with the discussion of this idea as it is carried out today: no ambition. I don't wanna hear "Oh, we might be living in a simulation, but it's indistinguishable from reality so there's no reason to argue or care either way." I want to hear "I think we're living in a simulation, and here's how I'm gonna bust us out." I want to transfer my consciousness out, not further in.
posted by No-sword at 9:23 PM on June 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by No-sword at 9:23 PM on June 10, 2016 [17 favorites]
What Are the Odds We Are Living in a Computer Simulation?
What's all this "we" business? I'm the genuine simulation, the rest of you are just digital window dressing.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:24 PM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
What's all this "we" business? I'm the genuine simulation, the rest of you are just digital window dressing.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:24 PM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I just don't buy that the probability is more than 99%. Say you're in an arbitrary universe. It looks complicated enough to support an ancestor-simulation, but running an ancestor-simulation-capable simulation will be less efficient in time, space, or energy than letting actual people use that space/time/energy. But hey, you're nuts, so you set aside 99% of your universe for simulations. Sure, the simulation stack will go deep, but there's not much simulation-that-is-not-simulating-another-simulation there.
The idea that a future computer 1m³ in volume will be able to simulate a galaxy-sized universe where a 1m³ computer—or even a 1km³ computer— simulates the LHC is just nuttery. And it needs not to be nuttery for Bostrom's thought experiment to avoid falling flat on its face.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 9:26 PM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
The idea that a future computer 1m³ in volume will be able to simulate a galaxy-sized universe where a 1m³ computer—or even a 1km³ computer— simulates the LHC is just nuttery. And it needs not to be nuttery for Bostrom's thought experiment to avoid falling flat on its face.
posted by the antecedent of that pronoun at 9:26 PM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
If we are living in a sim, I'm pretty confident that Elon Musk is an NPC
Other way around. We are the NPCs, he's the Gary Stu PC.
posted by fings at 9:27 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Other way around. We are the NPCs, he's the Gary Stu PC.
posted by fings at 9:27 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're in a sim, then position would be quantized (and it isn't).
If we're in a sim, then there's an absolute frame of reference (and there isn't).
If we're in a sim, then both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are wrong, and if you claim that you've got a lot of explaining to do.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:33 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're in a sim, then there's an absolute frame of reference (and there isn't).
If we're in a sim, then both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are wrong, and if you claim that you've got a lot of explaining to do.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:33 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
What are the odds someone...or some*thing*...would run such a simulation?
Background setting for a video game.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:38 PM on June 10, 2016
Background setting for a video game.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:38 PM on June 10, 2016
I want to hear "I think we're living in a simulation, and here's how I'm gonna bust us out." I want to transfer my consciousness out, not further in.
Be careful, though. The last universe ended when someone divided by zero. Thankfully we're living in a universe where singularities were patched in.
posted by ymgve at 9:39 PM on June 10, 2016
Be careful, though. The last universe ended when someone divided by zero. Thankfully we're living in a universe where singularities were patched in.
posted by ymgve at 9:39 PM on June 10, 2016
Because it's impossible to simulate special relativity and quantum mechanics...
posted by dilaudid at 9:48 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dilaudid at 9:48 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Delicious?
posted by infinitewindow at 9:52 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by infinitewindow at 9:52 PM on June 10, 2016
The problem with using probability in an argument for this type of cranky stuff is that it's independent of the occurrence of all observable phenomena. Probability only becomes a useful part of the argument when someone comes up with a theory which relates the occurrence of observable events to the properties of the underlying "machine" or whatever you want to call it.
If you were to construct a model which included all the things we can imagine but cannot relate to observables, the probability of "We are in the matrix already..." is on par with "But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"
posted by ethansr at 9:56 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you were to construct a model which included all the things we can imagine but cannot relate to observables, the probability of "We are in the matrix already..." is on par with "But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"
posted by ethansr at 9:56 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
The character Dwayne Hoover in Breakfast of Champions, by Kurt Vonnegut, reads a science fiction book by the character Kilgore Trout in which the reader is in a world where everyone else is a robot. He thinks it is true and decides he can therefore do anything he wants and resorts to violence including biting off Kilgore's finger. It would be a spoiler to explain how in the end they are all in a simulation of sorts.
I hope this doesn't mean Elon Musk is about to go on a rampage. On the other hand, if his rampage is doing crazy things like creating fast, long distance driving electric cars, solar energy, low cost recycleable rockets, and high speed trains, then maybe it can be a good thing.
posted by eye of newt at 9:56 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope this doesn't mean Elon Musk is about to go on a rampage. On the other hand, if his rampage is doing crazy things like creating fast, long distance driving electric cars, solar energy, low cost recycleable rockets, and high speed trains, then maybe it can be a good thing.
posted by eye of newt at 9:56 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dilaudid: it's impossible to perfectly simulate special relativity and quantum mechanics with any kind of digital computer. (It's because of the "butterfly effect"; it's the same reason we can't accurately predict weather more than a few days out.)
Another problem is that any computer simulation is inherently deterministic, and that runs counter to Quantum Mechanics.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:59 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Another problem is that any computer simulation is inherently deterministic, and that runs counter to Quantum Mechanics.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:59 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we're living in a sim, the scale of computronium needed to simulate a galaxy, or even a just-in-time sim of a technological society's "view" of a universe, you would need such a scale that a finite speed of light in the host universe is probably a limitation on your bandwidth and calculation speed. I'd be on the lookout for race conditions or opportunities to conduct timing attacks.
Unless we're talking about weakly godlike entities running the sim, in which case I would like to meet those assholes and spit right in their eye-organs. Because fuck them, that's why.
posted by chimaera at 10:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Unless we're talking about weakly godlike entities running the sim, in which case I would like to meet those assholes and spit right in their eye-organs. Because fuck them, that's why.
posted by chimaera at 10:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not if the computer is running in a universe that has its own quantum mechanics.
posted by dilaudid at 10:04 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dilaudid at 10:04 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which is still limited by any finite light speed. I seem to recall that you end up in a continuum universe rather than a quantum one if you have an infinite light speed, or at least such a wildly different set of physical laws that "quantum mechanics" doesn't mean much anymore. (I haven't done my homework on this, so I may be mistaken.)
posted by chimaera at 10:07 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by chimaera at 10:07 PM on June 10, 2016
If we achieve posthumanity within our simulated universe, we might go on to simulate people of our own, and they may go on to simulate people of their own, in a recursive loop. Meanwhile, the advent of simulation technology will force us to accept that we are likely living in a simulation ourselves. Reality, therefore, may turn out to consist of a vast number of nested simulations. In this possibility, Steinhart sees an infinite, digital version of the “great chain of being.” By the time we perfect simulation technology, he speculates, we will probably have achieved ethical maturity, and so will care about the people we simulate; we may even find ways to “promote” them into our simulation when they die, so that they can embark on an endless process of resurrection-through-ascension. The afterlife may turn out to be an infinite journey into ever-higher levels of simulation.
This would make for a great philosophic/comedic sci-fi novel. Our protagonist Dorje is a devout Tibetan Buddhist. She ascends through the six realms of migration which in reality are " a vast number of nested simulations." She eventually attains nirvana, ultimate reality, only to find she must live next door to communist Chinese government officials on the planet "Are You Fucking Kidding Me?".
posted by cwest at 10:08 PM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
This would make for a great philosophic/comedic sci-fi novel. Our protagonist Dorje is a devout Tibetan Buddhist. She ascends through the six realms of migration which in reality are " a vast number of nested simulations." She eventually attains nirvana, ultimate reality, only to find she must live next door to communist Chinese government officials on the planet "Are You Fucking Kidding Me?".
posted by cwest at 10:08 PM on June 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
Running a simulation of our ancestors would be the ultimate crime against humanity. If we accept that a simulated person is a human, putting our simulated humans through the holocaust or the Mongol invasion, makes those running the simulation morally culpable for those (simulated) deaths.
posted by monotreme at 10:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by monotreme at 10:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ah, dilaudid was responding to a different comment. Still, any finite light speed means latency, which means the sim can crash. Unless Godel doesn't apply in that universe -- again, it would have to be inconceivably weird for someone in a continuum universe or a universe without incompleteness to run a sim that ends up like this. In which case my fuck them still stands.
posted by chimaera at 10:12 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chimaera at 10:12 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dilaudid: it's impossible to perfectly simulate special relativity and quantum mechanics with any kind of digital computer.
Aren't you assuming a lot when you assume that whatever simulates us is a digital computer?
posted by ymgve at 10:13 PM on June 10, 2016
Aren't you assuming a lot when you assume that whatever simulates us is a digital computer?
posted by ymgve at 10:13 PM on June 10, 2016
The first is that consciousness can be simulated in a computer, with logic gates standing in for the brain’s synapses and neurotransmitters. (If self-awareness can arise in a lump of neurons, it seems likely that it can thrive in silicon, too.)
This common assumption isn't self-evident, and its axiomatic assumption in most discussions is somewhat frustrating. The problem is the often unchallenged assumption that self-awareness is an emergent property of "super fast processing speed," and as such, we must be getting closer to self-awareness the faster we make computers. Why these two are necessarily linked together, I don't know, but it seems to be grounded in assumptions that became popular when we started noticing that mimicking consciousness becomes possible at higher processing speeds and we started considering the utility of things like the turing test with computers. But for all we know, successful mimicking of consciousness is a universe away from actual self-awareness, and we might be down an entirely wrong path altogether. As an actual emergent property, I'm not sure how we would establish that self-awareness necessarily follows from speed + silicon at all. It might be because we feel that speed and mimicking is all we have to work with at times (and mimicking is really compelling for thinking about things like personhood), and we don't have the conceptual categories to consider how things like self-awareness could emerge in different ways.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:14 PM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
This common assumption isn't self-evident, and its axiomatic assumption in most discussions is somewhat frustrating. The problem is the often unchallenged assumption that self-awareness is an emergent property of "super fast processing speed," and as such, we must be getting closer to self-awareness the faster we make computers. Why these two are necessarily linked together, I don't know, but it seems to be grounded in assumptions that became popular when we started noticing that mimicking consciousness becomes possible at higher processing speeds and we started considering the utility of things like the turing test with computers. But for all we know, successful mimicking of consciousness is a universe away from actual self-awareness, and we might be down an entirely wrong path altogether. As an actual emergent property, I'm not sure how we would establish that self-awareness necessarily follows from speed + silicon at all. It might be because we feel that speed and mimicking is all we have to work with at times (and mimicking is really compelling for thinking about things like personhood), and we don't have the conceptual categories to consider how things like self-awareness could emerge in different ways.
posted by SpacemanStix at 10:14 PM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
What are the odds someone...or some*thing*...would run such a simulation?
None of these ideas about simulations seem testable.
But having read too much sci-fi, I might imagine a civilization that exists in the far future, living at a time when there is little usable energy in the universe, holding orbit around a dying, evaporating star to harvest scraps of what's left. Perhaps they use that energy to run parallel simulations of universes, to see if there a solution that might stave off a final death before the last embers flicker out.
Or maybe simulations are the last dreams of advanced civilizations, generative artworks that explore iterations upon iterations of life being birthed, existing and dying over billions of copies of eons, to try to glean any kind of meaning before entropy annihilates everything meaningful. Our own museums and private archives make up a cultural memory bank that aims clumsily at the same thing.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:24 PM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
None of these ideas about simulations seem testable.
But having read too much sci-fi, I might imagine a civilization that exists in the far future, living at a time when there is little usable energy in the universe, holding orbit around a dying, evaporating star to harvest scraps of what's left. Perhaps they use that energy to run parallel simulations of universes, to see if there a solution that might stave off a final death before the last embers flicker out.
Or maybe simulations are the last dreams of advanced civilizations, generative artworks that explore iterations upon iterations of life being birthed, existing and dying over billions of copies of eons, to try to glean any kind of meaning before entropy annihilates everything meaningful. Our own museums and private archives make up a cultural memory bank that aims clumsily at the same thing.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:24 PM on June 10, 2016 [11 favorites]
The speed of light in the simulating universe isn't an issue. Our speed of light and our perception of passage of time are part of our universe and would also be part the hypothetical simulation. It might take a million years of compute time for each second of our time, but if so we'd never know it.
XKCD visited this idea one time.
Now, about my objections...
It is a foundation of Special Relativity that there is no absolute frame of reference. But in any simulation, analog or digital, positions will be represented by something (a number, a voltage, the size of a gap) and they have to mean something compared to a reference point.
And that would be an absolute frame of reference, which Special Relativity says cannot exist. Thus if we're in a simulation, then Special Relativity is wrong.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:24 PM on June 10, 2016
XKCD visited this idea one time.
Now, about my objections...
It is a foundation of Special Relativity that there is no absolute frame of reference. But in any simulation, analog or digital, positions will be represented by something (a number, a voltage, the size of a gap) and they have to mean something compared to a reference point.
And that would be an absolute frame of reference, which Special Relativity says cannot exist. Thus if we're in a simulation, then Special Relativity is wrong.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:24 PM on June 10, 2016
Anyway, some simulations might end up with solutions for the Final Heat Death. Other simulations end up with pre-orders for cool electric cars.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:25 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:25 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want to hear "I think we're living in a simulation, and here's how I'm gonna bust us out." I want to transfer my consciousness out, not further in.
At the Nuclear Museum in Albequerque I saw Doc Edgerton's camera for filming the atomic bomb tests. It had a ring of high-speed cameras pointing up at a rapidly rotating mirror pyramid so that each camera (slightly off-set and running at top speed) caught only a fraction of the action in such a way that, when you interlaced all the frames together (cameraAframe1,cameraBframe1,...cameraXframe1,cameraAframe2,cameraBframe2, etc) you ended up with slow-motion footage so slow it was unacheivable with any current camera.
I plan to use a similar apparatus to get gamma ray beams to interfere in such a way that their wavelengths are shortened into sub-Planck-length "ultra-waves", plug the whole thing into some serious voltage, rip a fucking hole, and kiss all you losers goodbye. Or explode. One of the two.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:30 PM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
At the Nuclear Museum in Albequerque I saw Doc Edgerton's camera for filming the atomic bomb tests. It had a ring of high-speed cameras pointing up at a rapidly rotating mirror pyramid so that each camera (slightly off-set and running at top speed) caught only a fraction of the action in such a way that, when you interlaced all the frames together (cameraAframe1,cameraBframe1,...cameraXframe1,cameraAframe2,cameraBframe2, etc) you ended up with slow-motion footage so slow it was unacheivable with any current camera.
I plan to use a similar apparatus to get gamma ray beams to interfere in such a way that their wavelengths are shortened into sub-Planck-length "ultra-waves", plug the whole thing into some serious voltage, rip a fucking hole, and kiss all you losers goodbye. Or explode. One of the two.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:30 PM on June 10, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's almost as though philosophers don't have the expertise needed to speak with authority about mathematics or the natural world.
Honestly, how seriously is Nick Bostrom taken as a philosopher, though? My impression is that "simulationism" is just a repackaging of some pretty old and flawed philosophical ideas with a techno-futurist spin.
posted by biogeo at 10:34 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Honestly, how seriously is Nick Bostrom taken as a philosopher, though? My impression is that "simulationism" is just a repackaging of some pretty old and flawed philosophical ideas with a techno-futurist spin.
posted by biogeo at 10:34 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've heard about timing attacks on the universe a few times (probably mostly appropos of Charles Stross). Can anybody suggest conditions where the opportunity might present itself?
posted by solarion at 10:34 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by solarion at 10:34 PM on June 10, 2016
Believe it or not, scientists with very sophisticated hardware have looked into this question, and the results so far have been negative. But on the other side of the fence, theoretical physicist James Gates thinks he's found error correcting code within String Theory.
My own opinion (formed many years ago) is that it doesn't matter, if there's no way to to hack the universe. This is the only life I know of, so I have to make the most of it. If I'm actually a brain in a jar or a bunch of code, that doesn't alter my experiences or inherent value right here and now.
The New Yorker article is very well written, though. It gets +500 XP for referencing Greg Egan's Permutation City.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:34 PM on June 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
My own opinion (formed many years ago) is that it doesn't matter, if there's no way to to hack the universe. This is the only life I know of, so I have to make the most of it. If I'm actually a brain in a jar or a bunch of code, that doesn't alter my experiences or inherent value right here and now.
The New Yorker article is very well written, though. It gets +500 XP for referencing Greg Egan's Permutation City.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:34 PM on June 10, 2016 [9 favorites]
Now, about my objections...
It is a foundation of Special Relativity that there is no absolute frame of reference. But in any simulation, analog or digital, positions will be represented by something (a number, a voltage, the size of a gap) and they have to mean something compared to a reference point.
And that would be an absolute frame of reference, which Special Relativity says cannot exist. Thus if we're in a simulation, then Special Relativity is wrong.
This still makes assumptions about the computational capabilities of our "overlords". Maybe they have extremely distributed systems, like Bitcoin networks, where no node is the master. Maybe they use a reference system where the hyper-universe is a sphere and everything in our universe is on the surface of the sphere, with no definable center.
posted by ymgve at 10:52 PM on June 10, 2016
It is a foundation of Special Relativity that there is no absolute frame of reference. But in any simulation, analog or digital, positions will be represented by something (a number, a voltage, the size of a gap) and they have to mean something compared to a reference point.
And that would be an absolute frame of reference, which Special Relativity says cannot exist. Thus if we're in a simulation, then Special Relativity is wrong.
This still makes assumptions about the computational capabilities of our "overlords". Maybe they have extremely distributed systems, like Bitcoin networks, where no node is the master. Maybe they use a reference system where the hyper-universe is a sphere and everything in our universe is on the surface of the sphere, with no definable center.
posted by ymgve at 10:52 PM on June 10, 2016
I think it's important to ask, "What is a simulation?" What differentiates a simulation from reality? Ymgve, the kind of system you're describing may not make sense to refer to as a "simulation".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:58 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:58 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think people too easily forget that computation is physical (NY Times summary). There are actual physical limits on the amount of information processing a system can perform imposed by thermodynamics. Fundamentally, a physical system can't be used to run a simulation more complex than itself.
We run simulations of extremely complex systems like climate by making simplifying assumptions in the hopes that our reduced system captures at least some of the features we're interested in studying. But we'll never build a computer that can simulate Earth's climate perfectly, because the climate is a chaotic system and any small errors introduced by our simplifying assumptions are compounded over time until the simulation is useless. A computer capable of running such a simulation perfectly would in fact just be Earth. An analogous argument holds for brains -- the best way to simulate consciousness is to just build a brain.
Remember that even a faithful emulation of Pong (previously) stretches the limits of what we're currently capable of, and Pong is dead simple. Calling the amount of computational power needed to run the kinds of simulations hypothesized by Bostrom et al. "truly stupendous" is a dramatic understatement.
posted by biogeo at 11:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
We run simulations of extremely complex systems like climate by making simplifying assumptions in the hopes that our reduced system captures at least some of the features we're interested in studying. But we'll never build a computer that can simulate Earth's climate perfectly, because the climate is a chaotic system and any small errors introduced by our simplifying assumptions are compounded over time until the simulation is useless. A computer capable of running such a simulation perfectly would in fact just be Earth. An analogous argument holds for brains -- the best way to simulate consciousness is to just build a brain.
Remember that even a faithful emulation of Pong (previously) stretches the limits of what we're currently capable of, and Pong is dead simple. Calling the amount of computational power needed to run the kinds of simulations hypothesized by Bostrom et al. "truly stupendous" is a dramatic understatement.
posted by biogeo at 11:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
It is a foundation of Special Relativity that there is no absolute frame of reference. But in any simulation, analog or digital, positions will be represented by something (a number, a voltage, the size of a gap) and they have to mean something compared to a reference point.But our laws of physics don't have be objectively true within the higher level universe of the simulators, they only have to be consistent within the simulation. That is to say, our universe could not be considered to be an extension of theirs, like a nested Matryoshka doll. There'd be no one-to-one correlation of anything physical in their universe with physical things in ours. We'd just be information to them.
And that would be an absolute frame of reference, which Special Relativity says cannot exist. Thus if we're in a simulation, then Special Relativity is wrong.
posted by Kevin Street at 11:04 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
But our laws of physics don't have be objectively true within the higher level universe of the simulators, they only have to be consistent within the simulation.
Once you're prepared to concede that the simulator's physics is different from ours, there's no longer any basis for having intuitions about whether we're simulated at all. We could make an equally sound argument that our universe is a simulation created by Gandalf using the Palantir powered by the songs of the Valar and Maiar.
posted by biogeo at 11:09 PM on June 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
Once you're prepared to concede that the simulator's physics is different from ours, there's no longer any basis for having intuitions about whether we're simulated at all. We could make an equally sound argument that our universe is a simulation created by Gandalf using the Palantir powered by the songs of the Valar and Maiar.
posted by biogeo at 11:09 PM on June 10, 2016 [13 favorites]
To try and be more clear (since I'm kind of muddling this), the things in their universe that are computing ours aren't physically creating anything. (In their universe.) They're only processing information that represents or symbolizes a hypothetical reality. The simulation hypothesis says that sufficiently complicated representations can be indistinguishable from reality (and are thus real), to the representations - but to the simulators our universe is no different from words on a page or a really complicated novel. Just information. Therefore there's no violation of special relativity.
posted by Kevin Street at 11:16 PM on June 10, 2016
posted by Kevin Street at 11:16 PM on June 10, 2016
Kevin Street, the point is that if we are simulated then there is an underlying absolute frame of reference inherent in our system, which Special relativity says cannot exist. Whether I know what it is or not, the simulation includes an absolute position for me, which is relative to a single arbitrary zero-point.
The fact that I don't know what it is doesn't rescue Special Relativity. Special relativity says it doesn't exist at all, and a whole lot of Special Relativity falls into shreds if there is such an origin, even if we don't know where it is.
There are similar problems with Quantum Mechanics but they're a lot more esoteric and too complicated to discuss here and now.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:39 PM on June 10, 2016
The fact that I don't know what it is doesn't rescue Special Relativity. Special relativity says it doesn't exist at all, and a whole lot of Special Relativity falls into shreds if there is such an origin, even if we don't know where it is.
There are similar problems with Quantum Mechanics but they're a lot more esoteric and too complicated to discuss here and now.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:39 PM on June 10, 2016
In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.posted by biogeo at 11:44 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jorge Luis Borges, On Exactitude in Science
Yeah I'm not seeing how this is any different from the idea that the world was created by a God who is omniscient but gave us free will to see what we would do. I mean, does this imply anything about our lives or our world that every other explanation for reality over the course of humanity's span hasn't? Especially if every physical and logical reason it can't be true is met with "well, what if the beings running the simulation were all-powerful or had vastly different physics" or whatever.
posted by threeturtles at 12:52 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by threeturtles at 12:52 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
The only reason this would be interesting is if there were bugs in the simulation which we could discover and take advantage of.
Otherwise it's unfalsifiable and useless.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:05 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Otherwise it's unfalsifiable and useless.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:05 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Kevin Street, the point is that if we are simulated then there is an underlying absolute frame of reference inherent in our system, which Special relativity says cannot exist. Whether I know what it is or not, the simulation includes an absolute position for me, which is relative to a single arbitrary zero-point.
Special Relativity says that there is no observable absolute position; it does not make any claims about unobservable phenomena. For a comparable example, Redcode's instruction set uses 100% relative addressing such that, from inside the simulator, it is impossible to differentiate between absolute addresses -- there is no difference, to the simulated program, between being placed at absolute address 0, 100, 1000, or any other value.
It is also possible to structure a simulator so that it does not keep an absolute reference frame; it could run on a distributed system where each node only knows about its immediate neighbors, and only by direction, not position -- indeed, this is a highly practical way to scale a simulation in which there is a speed limit on the transmission of information.
Special Relativity could be correct, but incomplete. Newtonian physics is correct within the low-speed, low-energy domain -- it is still possible that Special Relativity won't make accurate predictions in domains we haven't tested. A successor theory may demonstrate that there is some absolute position after all, it just doesn't have a measurable effect in the domains we've tested Special Relativity. For example, we might find that physics doesn't quite work the same way in certain regions of space (that are running on flaky or defective hardware).
It's impossible to prove that we aren't in a simulation.
posted by reventlov at 1:30 AM on June 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Special Relativity says that there is no observable absolute position; it does not make any claims about unobservable phenomena. For a comparable example, Redcode's instruction set uses 100% relative addressing such that, from inside the simulator, it is impossible to differentiate between absolute addresses -- there is no difference, to the simulated program, between being placed at absolute address 0, 100, 1000, or any other value.
It is also possible to structure a simulator so that it does not keep an absolute reference frame; it could run on a distributed system where each node only knows about its immediate neighbors, and only by direction, not position -- indeed, this is a highly practical way to scale a simulation in which there is a speed limit on the transmission of information.
Special Relativity could be correct, but incomplete. Newtonian physics is correct within the low-speed, low-energy domain -- it is still possible that Special Relativity won't make accurate predictions in domains we haven't tested. A successor theory may demonstrate that there is some absolute position after all, it just doesn't have a measurable effect in the domains we've tested Special Relativity. For example, we might find that physics doesn't quite work the same way in certain regions of space (that are running on flaky or defective hardware).
It's impossible to prove that we aren't in a simulation.
posted by reventlov at 1:30 AM on June 11, 2016 [10 favorites]
Chocolate Pickle: The only reason this would be interesting is if there were bugs in the simulation which we could discover and take advantage of.
Or easter eggs.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:20 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or easter eggs.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:20 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
running on flaky or defective hardware
i.e., any real-world instantiation ...
posted by oheso at 3:34 AM on June 11, 2016
i.e., any real-world instantiation ...
posted by oheso at 3:34 AM on June 11, 2016
If this is a VR sim, I picked a shitty game.
Or, be very very concerned that apocalyptic events are about to unfold and our only savior is some dude out in central Massachusetts that can make charts.
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:44 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or, be very very concerned that apocalyptic events are about to unfold and our only savior is some dude out in central Massachusetts that can make charts.
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:44 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Paul can’t quite forget that, when he turns around, the simulation will stop rendering it, reducing it to “a single gray rectangle” in an effort to save processing cycles. If we live in a simulated world, then the same thing could be happening to us: Why should a computer simulate every atom in the universe when it knows where our eyes aren’t looking?"
This was my mind at about 10 years old. I have no clue where the concept came from, but I spent a lot of time in 1958 attempting to wrap my head around this idea. I clearly remember standing in my driveway and spinning around as fast as I could hoping to see that I was right, to see that, when I wasn't looking at it, the rest of the world disappeared. I never saw the "gray rectangle", but assumed it was because I just couldn't spin fast enough.
Because this was pre computers and simulations, I believe it was more of a narcissistic dynamic that stated the world only existed for me to live in, coupled with a belief that my mind had created it all to begin with.
I still haven't been able to prove myself wrong about this.
(I apologize in advance for the fact that you all will disappear in a few minutes when I close this browser window and take the dog for a walk.)
posted by HuronBob at 3:50 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
This was my mind at about 10 years old. I have no clue where the concept came from, but I spent a lot of time in 1958 attempting to wrap my head around this idea. I clearly remember standing in my driveway and spinning around as fast as I could hoping to see that I was right, to see that, when I wasn't looking at it, the rest of the world disappeared. I never saw the "gray rectangle", but assumed it was because I just couldn't spin fast enough.
Because this was pre computers and simulations, I believe it was more of a narcissistic dynamic that stated the world only existed for me to live in, coupled with a belief that my mind had created it all to begin with.
I still haven't been able to prove myself wrong about this.
(I apologize in advance for the fact that you all will disappear in a few minutes when I close this browser window and take the dog for a walk.)
posted by HuronBob at 3:50 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
See also.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 3:59 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
See also.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 3:59 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I seem to recall that someone here on Metafilter suggested that there are two pieces of evidence that we're living in a simulation:
Firstly, the Planck Constant, that suggests that the universe has a granularity (or pixelisation) which would be expected in a computer simulation run with finite resources.
Secondly, the Uncertainty Principle that could be considered roughly analogous to lazy evaluation. This would be useful as it means that conditions would only be evaluated when necessary. That is, only an observer looking would cause what they're looking at to be computed.
Personally, I don't know how this holds up to scrutiny. Also, I might be seriously misremembering the comment.
On the subject of how much computing resource would be required, a lot certainly, but maybe not an excessive amount. There's no reason that what we observe as occurring in a fraction of a second couldn't be rendered over days, months, years, or even centuries. It's a (very) weak argument, but wasn't Babylon 5 rendered on Amigas with each frame taking hours to generate? (Please note that I'm not suggesting that the existence of Babylon 5 is proof that we're living in a simulated universe.)
posted by veedubya at 4:11 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Firstly, the Planck Constant, that suggests that the universe has a granularity (or pixelisation) which would be expected in a computer simulation run with finite resources.
Secondly, the Uncertainty Principle that could be considered roughly analogous to lazy evaluation. This would be useful as it means that conditions would only be evaluated when necessary. That is, only an observer looking would cause what they're looking at to be computed.
Personally, I don't know how this holds up to scrutiny. Also, I might be seriously misremembering the comment.
On the subject of how much computing resource would be required, a lot certainly, but maybe not an excessive amount. There's no reason that what we observe as occurring in a fraction of a second couldn't be rendered over days, months, years, or even centuries. It's a (very) weak argument, but wasn't Babylon 5 rendered on Amigas with each frame taking hours to generate? (Please note that I'm not suggesting that the existence of Babylon 5 is proof that we're living in a simulated universe.)
posted by veedubya at 4:11 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've never read such horseshit.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 4:54 AM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by GallonOfAlan at 4:54 AM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hint: copy the content of the post into http://www.binaryhexconverter.com/binary-to-ascii-text-converter for more goodness!
posted by Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez at 5:16 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez at 5:16 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
> I clearly remember standing in my driveway and spinning around as fast as I could hoping to see that I was right, to see that, when I wasn't looking at it, the rest of the world disappeared.
Solipsism predates the concept of digital simulation by, I dunno, centuries. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it influences the concept.
posted by ardgedee at 5:52 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Solipsism predates the concept of digital simulation by, I dunno, centuries. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it influences the concept.
posted by ardgedee at 5:52 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
If this is a simulation, I really need to go back to a save point from seven years ago. TIA.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:06 AM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 6:06 AM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
My question is, when The Matrix became a hit movie, did the robots running our sim go "oh shit they figured us out" and another robot said "no wait lets see where this goes"
posted by fungible at 6:20 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by fungible at 6:20 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Came to make a snarky comment about super-universe frame of reference indeterminate quantum mumbo-jumbo, now determined to not read comments before posting next time. And that I personally am quite a low frequency sim.
posted by sammyo at 6:33 AM on June 11, 2016
posted by sammyo at 6:33 AM on June 11, 2016
I'm a little surprised that the thread's gotten this long without anybody mentioning Roko's Basilisk yet, since that was once mefi's favorite referent for thinking too hard about The Matrix.
posted by ardgedee at 6:40 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ardgedee at 6:40 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Before you dismiss the simulation hypothesis as total crankery, consider a slightly different framing of it.
--The Universe was deliberately created by an immensely powerful being who has total knowledge and control over it.
--Humans can communicate with this creator by concentrated thought, and the creator regularly intercedes in the model as a result of these communications
-- Human consciousness can persist after physical death in some extrauniversal medium, and the creator decides based on our performance in the universe what our standard of living will be on the outside
-- If we piss off the creator enough we might have to worry about the OFF switch.
This is a statement of the simulation hypothesis, and a substantial fraction of the human race is convinced that it is true.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:45 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
--The Universe was deliberately created by an immensely powerful being who has total knowledge and control over it.
--Humans can communicate with this creator by concentrated thought, and the creator regularly intercedes in the model as a result of these communications
-- Human consciousness can persist after physical death in some extrauniversal medium, and the creator decides based on our performance in the universe what our standard of living will be on the outside
-- If we piss off the creator enough we might have to worry about the OFF switch.
This is a statement of the simulation hypothesis, and a substantial fraction of the human race is convinced that it is true.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:45 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
Roko's Basilisk is the dumbest idea ever to drop from the Rapture of the Nerds, and I think I can say with some authority that that is a high bar to clear.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:47 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:47 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here's a page that summarizes a lot of "computational universe" writings. I found it a while back after hearing about Conrad Zuse building on Einstein's "god doesn't play dice" statement with papers and a book describing the computational universe. The subsequent discovery that Einstein was wrong on this point didn't deter him (no reference provided here). Zuse's other claim to fame is being a computer pioneer, having built a programmable computer in 1936(!).
posted by dylanjames at 7:06 AM on June 11, 2016
posted by dylanjames at 7:06 AM on June 11, 2016
I've never read such horseshit.
... a simulation of GallonOfAlan said for the billionth time that morning alone as the holographic pseudo-universes churned in the planetary computer's processor like bubbles in a washing machine...
posted by No-sword at 7:06 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
... a simulation of GallonOfAlan said for the billionth time that morning alone as the holographic pseudo-universes churned in the planetary computer's processor like bubbles in a washing machine...
posted by No-sword at 7:06 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
If this is a simulation, I really need to go back to a save point from seven years ago. TIA.You may have already done this many, many times.... ;-)
posted by MikeWarot at 7:29 AM on June 11, 2016
You may have already done this many, many times.... ;-)
Unless we're living in a Roguelike.
Do you want your possessions identified? (y/n)
posted by fings at 9:01 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless we're living in a Roguelike.
Do you want your possessions identified? (y/n)
posted by fings at 9:01 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Turtles all the way down.
Time and space are illusions. We sense them only when or because the meta has activated its device: moves us up and down, in and out, resolving a scene into any of a not quite infinite variety of eventualities. We are not aware when the meta closes the device and puts it away for the time being. We are not aware when the meta opens the device and plays out another set of eventualities--the eventualities are not endless, but they are many. We entertain meta by sheer force of numbers, our universe being vast, complicated, and subtle at all levels of perception. Echos of numberless everywhens give resonance to our deeds, and theyalso provide us an illusion of agency that meta finds amusing. Somewhens, the meta never even gets to our level at all, preferring to ride sunbeams through the photosphere of a star. Maybe it takes a macro view, at which scale galaxies comprise vast walls of light, stars get born and die in predictable sequence, the celebration of the liberation of energy and persistence of matter--the meta plays the device unto the end of all permutations, so that time and space (and all therein) evaporate. Meta puts the device away, searches for another entertainment.
--from the "We are Just Dog Drool Theory of Everything"
posted by mule98J at 9:14 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Time and space are illusions. We sense them only when or because the meta has activated its device: moves us up and down, in and out, resolving a scene into any of a not quite infinite variety of eventualities. We are not aware when the meta closes the device and puts it away for the time being. We are not aware when the meta opens the device and plays out another set of eventualities--the eventualities are not endless, but they are many. We entertain meta by sheer force of numbers, our universe being vast, complicated, and subtle at all levels of perception. Echos of numberless everywhens give resonance to our deeds, and theyalso provide us an illusion of agency that meta finds amusing. Somewhens, the meta never even gets to our level at all, preferring to ride sunbeams through the photosphere of a star. Maybe it takes a macro view, at which scale galaxies comprise vast walls of light, stars get born and die in predictable sequence, the celebration of the liberation of energy and persistence of matter--the meta plays the device unto the end of all permutations, so that time and space (and all therein) evaporate. Meta puts the device away, searches for another entertainment.
--from the "We are Just Dog Drool Theory of Everything"
posted by mule98J at 9:14 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
The chronology protection conjecture suggests that the universe is constructed in such a way as to prevent timing errors.
Loop quantum gravity (though it remains theoretical) posits granularity of space.
As I understand it, special relativity does not say that absolute frames of reference are impossible, just that they aren't meaningful from the perspective of an observer in the system. That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole (or the computronium running it) doesn't use some kind of absolute frame of reference.
posted by dephlogisticated at 9:17 AM on June 11, 2016
Loop quantum gravity (though it remains theoretical) posits granularity of space.
As I understand it, special relativity does not say that absolute frames of reference are impossible, just that they aren't meaningful from the perspective of an observer in the system. That doesn't mean that the universe as a whole (or the computronium running it) doesn't use some kind of absolute frame of reference.
posted by dephlogisticated at 9:17 AM on June 11, 2016
What a nightmare. I think I saw a 2.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 9:52 AM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Captain l'escalier at 9:52 AM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
Guys I've run the numbers and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin will shock you.
posted by The Whelk at 10:16 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 10:16 AM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I live in an apartment with 3600 books sitting out on shelves. Who programmed the simulation that specified which 3600 books are there and why would they go to that much detail? Given that I can open up any of the 3600 books and find text inside. And in most cases that text refers to something outside the text that can be verified by looking at something else. It's details of details all the way down.
posted by njohnson23 at 10:22 AM on June 11, 2016
posted by njohnson23 at 10:22 AM on June 11, 2016
Turtles all the way down.
oh god are you saying it's programmed in LOGO
posted by biogeo at 10:36 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
oh god are you saying it's programmed in LOGO
posted by biogeo at 10:36 AM on June 11, 2016 [6 favorites]
My question is, when The Matrix became a hit movie, did the robots running our sim go "oh shit they figured us out" and another robot said "no wait lets see where this goes"
So what you're saying is that Donald Trump is our species' delayed punishment for having produced the second and third Matrix movies?
posted by invitapriore at 12:19 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
So what you're saying is that Donald Trump is our species' delayed punishment for having produced the second and third Matrix movies?
posted by invitapriore at 12:19 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I live in an apartment with 3600 books sitting out on shelves. Who programmed the simulation that specified which 3600 books are there and why would they go to that much detail? Given that I can open up any of the 3600 books and find text inside. And in most cases that text refers to something outside the text that can be verified by looking at something else. It's details of details all the way down.
A Mandelbrot picture has infinite detail. Doesn't mean that someone designed all the nuances of the picture when you zoom in.
posted by ymgve at 12:58 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Mandelbrot picture has infinite detail. Doesn't mean that someone designed all the nuances of the picture when you zoom in.
posted by ymgve at 12:58 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
To clarify a bit better - I don't think there are many "we're living in a simulation" people that think the world got designed like, last Thursday. The idea is that someone set the ground rules, started a Big Bang, and let chaotic processes take it from there. Those 3600 books are a result of 13 billion years of chaos interactions, no outer force designed them specifically.
posted by ymgve at 1:08 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ymgve at 1:08 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I live in an apartment with 3600 books sitting out on shelves. Who programmed the simulation that specified which 3600 books are there and why would they go to that much detail? Given that I can open up any of the 3600 books and find text inside.
Dwarf Fortress is currently set up to allow the Dwarves to write little tales that have some semantic meaning within the game (as in, they're not just random, they're based on actual things that have happened to the dwarf). I don't buy the sim argument, but it's not out of the question with enough processing power.
posted by codacorolla at 1:10 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dwarf Fortress is currently set up to allow the Dwarves to write little tales that have some semantic meaning within the game (as in, they're not just random, they're based on actual things that have happened to the dwarf). I don't buy the sim argument, but it's not out of the question with enough processing power.
posted by codacorolla at 1:10 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Roko's Basilisk is the dumbest idea ever to drop from the Rapture of the Nerds
I thought Roko's Basilisk was like Zeno's Paradox: obviously incorrect (or untenable), and its value was in forcing one to do the work to dismiss it. You're not supposed to take it seriously; being able to reject it is a competence test for your theory.
posted by fatbird at 1:10 PM on June 11, 2016
I thought Roko's Basilisk was like Zeno's Paradox: obviously incorrect (or untenable), and its value was in forcing one to do the work to dismiss it. You're not supposed to take it seriously; being able to reject it is a competence test for your theory.
posted by fatbird at 1:10 PM on June 11, 2016
Yeah, the 3600 books makes me think instantly of Skyrim. I'm not sure how many books are in the game, but with all the mods it is up to that order of magnitude.
Maybe our simulators just have a very active mod community?
posted by Balna Watya at 1:12 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe our simulators just have a very active mod community?
posted by Balna Watya at 1:12 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought Roko's Basilisk was like Zeno's Paradox: obviously incorrect (or untenable), and its value was in forcing one to do the work to dismiss it. You're not supposed to take it seriously; being able to reject it is a competence test for your theory.
You would think so, but LessWrong banned discussion of Roko's Basilisk for years. Someone certainly took it at face value.
posted by ymgve at 1:12 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
You would think so, but LessWrong banned discussion of Roko's Basilisk for years. Someone certainly took it at face value.
posted by ymgve at 1:12 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
True, RB was a kind of panic-attack-inducing reductio ad absurdum for the Less Wrong community. From what I recall of the tale, Roko didn't take it seriously and was surprised it caused as much genuine distress as it did.
Although if you spend any amount of time with hyper-rationalist LessWrongers, you should know that tying them in logical knots is uniquely effective and problematic for them.
posted by fatbird at 1:15 PM on June 11, 2016
Although if you spend any amount of time with hyper-rationalist LessWrongers, you should know that tying them in logical knots is uniquely effective and problematic for them.
posted by fatbird at 1:15 PM on June 11, 2016
So wait ..maybe ...
They're the AIs?
*mind blown gif*
posted by The Whelk at 1:18 PM on June 11, 2016
They're the AIs?
*mind blown gif*
posted by The Whelk at 1:18 PM on June 11, 2016
I live in an apartment with 3600 books sitting out on shelves. Who programmed the simulation that specified which 3600 books are there and why would they go to that much detail? Given that I can open up any of the 3600 books and find text inside. And in most cases that text refers to something outside the text that can be verified by looking at something else. It's details of details all the way down.
I don't think we are in a simulation, but to push back on this criticism a little bit, simulated games (like Fallout 4) now have creation tools implemented inside the game to allow for creativity and emergent gameplay that wasn't hard baked into the engine. For example, before you could use mod tools outside the game as something of a transcendent creator to add objects. Now, you are given the tools within the game as a participant to craft and make things like houses, light boards with specific hand-crafted messages, and other things. So, if we have a simulation that either allows for human freedom or has the preconditions set to mimic human freedom, it could either allow for this type of "in house" creative development as part of the simulation or could be programmed intricately enough that it mimics it on its own (like the Dwarf Fortress example).
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:48 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think we are in a simulation, but to push back on this criticism a little bit, simulated games (like Fallout 4) now have creation tools implemented inside the game to allow for creativity and emergent gameplay that wasn't hard baked into the engine. For example, before you could use mod tools outside the game as something of a transcendent creator to add objects. Now, you are given the tools within the game as a participant to craft and make things like houses, light boards with specific hand-crafted messages, and other things. So, if we have a simulation that either allows for human freedom or has the preconditions set to mimic human freedom, it could either allow for this type of "in house" creative development as part of the simulation or could be programmed intricately enough that it mimics it on its own (like the Dwarf Fortress example).
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:48 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
You would think so, but LessWrong banned discussion of Roko's Basilisk for years. Someone certainly took it at face value.
As I understand it, Eliezer banned the subject because LessWrong is an open community, and some of the folks hanging out there were, charitably, not the sharpest tools in the knife block and the Basilisk meme was causing them existential distress/giving them nightmares.
NB: we're nearly a hundred comments in, so let me just drop this turdlink to a recent blog post of mine on a closely-related topic: Cytological utopia and the rapture of the Eukaryotes (a lengthy reductio ad absurdam of the singularitarian/Federovite proposal to resurrect everyone who has ever lived inside a sim, by exploring the full depth of stupidity implied by the proposal when you follow it down the rabbit hole).
posted by cstross at 3:35 PM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
As I understand it, Eliezer banned the subject because LessWrong is an open community, and some of the folks hanging out there were, charitably, not the sharpest tools in the knife block and the Basilisk meme was causing them existential distress/giving them nightmares.
NB: we're nearly a hundred comments in, so let me just drop this turdlink to a recent blog post of mine on a closely-related topic: Cytological utopia and the rapture of the Eukaryotes (a lengthy reductio ad absurdam of the singularitarian/Federovite proposal to resurrect everyone who has ever lived inside a sim, by exploring the full depth of stupidity implied by the proposal when you follow it down the rabbit hole).
posted by cstross at 3:35 PM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If we're living in a sim, the scale of computronium needed to simulate a galaxy, or even a just-in-time sim of a technological society's "view" of a universe, you would need such a scale that a finite speed of light in the host universe is probably a limitation on your bandwidth and calculation speed.
"Quantum computers share information with huge numbers of versions of themselves throughout the multiverse." --david deutsch :P
also btw...
'Can computers become conscious?': [Scott Aaronson's] reply to Roger Penrose
oh and there was a nova episode on this last year!
posted by kliuless at 7:49 PM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Quantum computers share information with huge numbers of versions of themselves throughout the multiverse." --david deutsch :P
also btw...
'Can computers become conscious?': [Scott Aaronson's] reply to Roger Penrose
oh and there was a nova episode on this last year!
posted by kliuless at 7:49 PM on June 11, 2016 [3 favorites]
If reality is a simulation, the upside is that it may actually be possible to unlock things like interstellar travel and FTL if/when we level up sufficiently. In fact, if someone does invent FTL, it could be taken as compelling evidence that we are living in a simulation.
posted by Pryde at 11:43 PM on June 11, 2016
posted by Pryde at 11:43 PM on June 11, 2016
Both relativity and quantum mechanics smell suspiciously like the kind of limitations you might introduce into a simulation to keep resource usage under control. The practical effect of that combination is that it makes the accessible universe finite; the math might suggest there is more out there but there is a finite amount of information we could ever possibly mine about our own surroundings.
And the fact that quantum mechanics and relativity don't seem to play well together could simply be bad programming, because they are two unrelated limitations introduced for different reasons.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:07 AM on June 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
And the fact that quantum mechanics and relativity don't seem to play well together could simply be bad programming, because they are two unrelated limitations introduced for different reasons.
posted by Bringer Tom at 5:07 AM on June 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the larger question, above "Are we in a simulation?", is "Does it matter?"
If I walk out of this office right now, buy a birthday cake from a local shop, walk to the bank and throw the cake in the manager's face, it doesn't matter if I am made of atoms or bits when I do this: my actions still have consequences. As such, it makes no practical difference if I'm in a simulation or not. All outcomes to all actions are going to be as "real" either way.
This gives me some comfort as our programming overlords still haven't worked out the bug on the local weather. Summer is supposed to be warm, O Great Ones.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:59 AM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
If I walk out of this office right now, buy a birthday cake from a local shop, walk to the bank and throw the cake in the manager's face, it doesn't matter if I am made of atoms or bits when I do this: my actions still have consequences. As such, it makes no practical difference if I'm in a simulation or not. All outcomes to all actions are going to be as "real" either way.
This gives me some comfort as our programming overlords still haven't worked out the bug on the local weather. Summer is supposed to be warm, O Great Ones.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 5:59 AM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's almost as though philosophers don't have the expertise needed to speak with authority about mathematics or the natural world.
If one of us is in a sim, then that sim doesn't have to be a large-scale and stable simulation of the entire universe.
I'm sitting in my office, in front of a computer, typing and drinking coffee. This would make a perfectly boring simulation, something a programmer might do to showcase the technology for fifteen minutes: a demo. Perhaps it's even the retail attractor simulation, for customers to watch before making their purchase. I finish the comment, hit post, and then the simulation resets and I'm back at the beginning again. Like Sisyphus with a goldfish's lack of memory.
Obviously, I'm scared to hit post, now.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 AM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
If one of us is in a sim, then that sim doesn't have to be a large-scale and stable simulation of the entire universe.
I'm sitting in my office, in front of a computer, typing and drinking coffee. This would make a perfectly boring simulation, something a programmer might do to showcase the technology for fifteen minutes: a demo. Perhaps it's even the retail attractor simulation, for customers to watch before making their purchase. I finish the comment, hit post, and then the simulation resets and I'm back at the beginning again. Like Sisyphus with a goldfish's lack of memory.
Obviously, I'm scared to hit post, now.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:09 AM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older The Buffalo Hunt | Stop dithering and start dithering Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mwhybark at 8:44 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]