[HN Gopher] Existing in an Un-Simulated Reality ___________________________________________________________________ Existing in an Un-Simulated Reality Author : turtlesoup Score : 29 points Date : 2023-09-09 17:27 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (iahwrites.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (iahwrites.substack.com) | kromem wrote: | Except we _are_ calculating it. | | We're building digital twins of much of the universe around | ourselves at different scales. We're even building digital twins | of ourselves. | | We're improving the technology that enables that twinning quite | rapidly. | | We're improving the technology that allows for emulating a | virtual environment. | | And in fact, there's a remarkable overlap in how we are running | those virtual environments and the fundamental building blocks | we've experimentally validated in our own universe. | | The part that I think people get caught up in is the assumption | that we'd need to ourselves calculate a 1:1 copy for us to be in | a calculated copy. | | But at macro scales the universe behaves as if things are | continuous, not discrete/quantized. And the mechanics of | quantization remains incompatible with the mechanics of | continuous theories like GR. | | The nuances of that quantization map to how we fudge fidelity in | our own virtual representations. | | So we need not create a 1:1 copy for us to be in a copy any more | than one would need to create _Minecraft_ at a 1:1 scale within | _Minecraft_ for _Minecraft_ to exist. | | Additionally, looking at mechanics isn't the only way to | investigate whether we are in a virtual copy. For example, in | many copies we make, there's some acknowledgement of that state | woven into the world lore. | | Indeed, in our own world in antiquity was a set of beliefs | attributed to one of the most well known figures in history that | espoused that we were in a copy of an original world in which an | original humanity came to exist spontaneously and then brought | forth the creator of this copy within light with us in their | archetype before they ultimately perished. The full text at the | heart of these beliefs was lost for centuries before being found | again the same month as ENIAC ran its first computer program. | | This text claimed the proof for what it said about a creator of | light would be found in motion and rest (the domain now called | Physics), and the group following it claimed that the ability to | find an indivisible point within bodies would only be possible in | the non-physical. | | That's quite the coincidence in an age when we are moving towards | putting the AI emulating our digital twins literally into light | with optoelectronics and are very focused on the discovery of | indivisible points within the domain of study of motion and rest. | | (The name of the text is literally translated as "the good news | of the twin" and its main point is that if one understands its | content they will not fear death or worry about the soul's | dependence on a physical body.) | [deleted] | philipswood wrote: | This is similar to asking how real the character in a book is | when no one is reading or remembering it. | axelsvensson wrote: | I believe that you are more real than Donald Duck if and only if | the future is not yet determined. | | In philosophy, theories of time are categorized in A- and B- | theories [1]. | | In B-theoretic time, the difference between past, present and | future is only subjective. Objectively, all points in time exist | and are equally real. I view this to mean that there isn't any | particular difference in the degree of reality between our | reality and any mathematical model or imagined reality. Only with | A-theoretic time are you objectively more real than Donald Duck. | | [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheoBTheo | antonkar wrote: | Wolfram's theory of physics has exactly this idea. He thinks all | the formal computable rules necessary exist and we are living | inside of them https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why- | does-the-uni... | kazinator wrote: | That coincides with my belief. If the next state exists | mathmatically, it exists. | | The "simulation not required" hypothesis eliminates the | inconvenience of infinite regress: what simulator runs the | simulator, and what runs that one ... | mistermann wrote: | > That is, if we had a powerful enough computer to store the | state of every single atom, and calculate their interactions, we | could play through time in that existence. It would feel | completely real to everyone in that simulation. | | Telling persuasive stories can achieve essentially the same | outcome, is much easier, and is already an accepted convention. | m000 wrote: | I am hungry and there's some leftover pizza in the fridge. Do I | really need to eat it? | lacrimacida wrote: | Your mirror universe dolppelganger may eat it first | prng2021 wrote: | "The argument assumes that given one state of human existence, it | is possible to calculate a distinct next state. And then a state | after that. That is, if we had a powerful enough computer to | store the state of every single atom, and calculate their | interactions, we could play through time in that existence." | | Why are you assuming this to be true? Due to the Heisenberg | Uncertainty Principle, it's impossible to perfectly know "one | state of human existence". So the rest of the thought experiment | seems moot. | nntwozz wrote: | It's also naive to think that everything can be calculated by a | computer, at some point the calculations become so enormous | that the energy requirement approaches infinity. | iahwrites wrote: | Is it moot though? The uncertainty principle makes it | impossible for us to _measure_ both speed and position, _but_ | if you 're simulating it that's not necessary. | Trasmatta wrote: | Isn't this essentially Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe | hypothesis? | [deleted] | codeflo wrote: | I believe so, yes. I think it's somewhat likely that | mathematically minded people would come up with that idea | independently -- it's essentially Platonism taken to its | logical conclusion. | | For reference: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... | kirill5pol wrote: | Yep, had the same thoughts a few years ago too. Basically if | you accept mathematical realism as an axiom, pretty often you | get to this idea | omnicognate wrote: | Had this thought in the bath ~25 years ago. Not an idea you | can actually _do_ anything with, though, other than go | 'huh, interesting' and add more hot water. | [deleted] | iahwrites wrote: | OP here... yeah it sure looks like it is! | | I hadn't heard of it before, and will need to do some more | reading, but at a high-level it does look to be the same line | of thinking. | Trasmatta wrote: | Cool! He has some books on the topic that you'd be interested | in. | ttctciyf wrote: | You might also like to check out Greg Egan's _Permutation | City_ [0] which (in the form of entertaining scifi) presents | some related arguments about the need for a computational | substrate, or lack thereof. | | 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation_City | fdhfdjkfhdkj wrote: | [dead] | smokel wrote: | This argument seems to mix up "existence" and "construction". | | The number states do not magically appear in the physical | universe merely by thinking up the construction. The numbers | could be configured as (temporary) patterns in physical objects, | such as brains, books, or in ink molecules on paper. But the | states are not physical objects themselves. | | Also, if our universe happens to be universal, in the sense that | it encompasses _all_ of existence, then how could a calculation | device exist outside of it? I 'm not saying this is necessarily | the case, but it's an option that many simulation-believers | overlook. The calculation device might be part of the existence, | but it seems rather unlikely that it can then predict reality | faster than it unfolds. | iahwrites wrote: | In response to your second point, at a high level I believe the | calculation device would exist inside _one_ universe but | calculate another one... the idea that you could calculate your | own universe and use that to predict future events does seem | covered in paradoxes. For one, the universe you're predicting | would (recursively) have to include the computer you're using | to predict it. | | ... but that's different to what I've argued here. I'm not | claiming the states are physical objects, but just the existing | of the pattern, even if temporary or intangible, would feel | real to the humans/actors inside it. | smokel wrote: | My premise was that the universe was universal, i.e. there | _is_ no other universe. Again, I 'm not saying that this is | the case, or that there is any reason to believe that it is | so, but I don't see a good reason why there _would_ be more | than one universe. (Note that all of this depends a bit on | the definition of a universe -- for the sake of argument, I | 'm assuming our universe to be a system closed under physical | interactions. Happy to argue about other universes, but | perhaps it's best to save that for another time.) | | If you are trying to prove the existence of this universe by | requiring the existence of another universe, then it's | turtles all the way down. | | How do you define "existing" of a pattern? Does it exist | inside a physical thing? If so, then how does that physical | container come into existence? And if it exists only | conceptually, then how is it possible for concepts to exist? | In the universe that I know, concepts only exist in the minds | of human beings, and perhaps in some other animals. To me, it | seems rather unlikely (and a bit anthropocentric or | egocentric) that concepts are something truly universal. | | For me, it helped to meditate a lot on what it'd be like to | be a rock. The rock does not have memory, no sensory input, | and therefore most likely no concept of time, space, logic, | nor mathematics. It makes you wonder whether the rock exists | at all. In any case, it probably doesn't care as much about | it as we humans do. There might be a hint there. | dustyduster wrote: | This reminds me of the "dust" theory in Egan's _Permutation | City_. | jl6 wrote: | It is indeed similar. | | It seems to take a highly reductionist pathway: | reality/experience can be simulated -> simulation is | computation -> computation is mathematics -> mathematical | objects exist regardless of whether anybody has discovered | them. | | This implies that _all conceivable universes_ (including the | ones where a lot of really bad things happen on an eternal | loop) are possessed of the exact same reality as ours. | zach_miller wrote: | Am I missing something here? I can suppose a universe where | the premise is false (This is a conceivable universe, I'd | argue). Doesn't that mean that this premise really is false? | axelsvensson wrote: | Someone who holds this view would probably have to make the | definitions more precise, so that if you live in a | deterministic reality, you actually cannot conceive of a | universe that isn't deterministic. You can throw around | words like "indeterministic", but you cannot precisely | simulate something indeterministic using only deterministic | ingredients, and hence, for some precise definition of | "conceive", cannot conceive such a universe. | mistermann wrote: | If one assumes paradoxes are impossible maybe. | javajosh wrote: | Take a smaller example: weather on Earth. There are a LOT of | particles, but still classically simulatable. _Chaos_ ensures | that we still cannot know all future states of the weather. This | is a remarkable truth, and one should give it time to sink in. | | Note that quantum modelling those effects go as O(a^N). If you | want to hand-wave away exponential computational cost, then I cry | foul: the details matter, and I posit that you cannot build a | computer that is more powerful than the universe itself. | iahwrites wrote: | Sure, but this argument is for simulation theory... not what is | described here. | | What I'm suggesting is that the calculation never needs to be | done, which means the complexity of it _does not matter_. | Whether it 's O(1) or O(a^N) they're both far smaller than the | infinite number of potential states. | javajosh wrote: | _> the calculation never needs to be done_ | | Well, that's your preference then. But personally I want to | see the Mets play the Yankees because it's profoundly | unsatisfying to believe that all possible outcomes are | computable and therefore on an equal basis. I daresay that | idea is so bad that if you took it seriously, it would die | out with your genes/memes. (Not that that matters since you | could travel to and impregnate every woman on Earth). | ajuc wrote: | One one hand it's absurd (it means that everything that can be | imagined and many more things exist). | | On another hand the opposite (requiring a mapping from that | computation to real-world objects) is absurd too, because for any | sequence of numbers you can always find a mapping to physical | objects (notice that you can make the mapping arbitrarily | complex). So why require the extra steps? | | My opinion is that it follows that asking about existence without | specifying the domain in which sth exists is meaningless. | | You can say that the number 42 exists in the domain of integers. | You cannot say whether the number 42 exists in general. It | wouldn't mean anything. | | Similarly you can say that Harrison Ford exists in our universe | but Han Solo doesn't. But you cannot say whether one or the other | exist in general. | russdill wrote: | The insistence that some "real" universe exists does strike me | as a kind of dualism, but I'm unable to describe the concept | with any rigor. | ajuc wrote: | Should have said "physical" not "real" probably. I didn't | meant to imply it's more "real" than the integers or any | other domain, my point was that you have to specify the | domain and that there are many options. | [deleted] | scotty79 wrote: | Basically it's a question of whether math exists. If it exists | then the states of the simulation exist and look like reality | "from the inside". | | I really like Iain M. Banks moral argument against universe being | simulated. No intelligence capable of simulating it would be | immoral enough to create something so horrible. Unless they are a | total bastard. So it's not a 100%. | [deleted] | psunavy03 wrote: | > _No intelligence capable of simulating it would be immoral | enough to create something so horrible._ | | Based on what just the human race has demonstrated across | history, this claim is arguable at best. | paint wrote: | [flagged] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-09-09 23:00 UTC)