And here I was waiting to get unplugged, or maybe finding a Nokia phone that received a call.
Oh those mathers. At least scientists are humble enough to recognize that theorums about the physical world can’t be proven.
That’s just what they fucking want you to think.
“If we assume X theorem is true, Y theorem is true, and lemma Z is true, then …”
This is actually about our models and seeing their incompleteness in a new light, right? I don’t think starting from arbitrary axioms and then trying to build reality was about proving qualities about reality. Or am I wrong? Just seems like they’re using “simulated reality” as a way to talk about our models for reality. By constructing a “silly” argument about how we can’t possibly be in a matrix, they’re revealing just how much we’re still missing.
Buncha fee fees about to start rejecting reality
I highly suggest to listen to this podcast with Damien P. Williams and Paris Marx:
“No, we don’t live in a f—ing simulation”
https://ouropinionsarecorrect.libsyn.com/no-were-not-living-in-a-f-ing-simulation
It’s possible that the universe could be simulated by an advanced people with vastly superior technology.
Hard solipsism has no answer and no bearing on our lives, so it’s best to not give it another thought.
It’s possible yes, but the nice thing is that we know we are not merely talking about “advanced people with vastly superior technology” here. The proof implies that technology within our own universe would never be able to simulate our own universe, no matter how advanced or superior.
So if our universe is a “simulation” at least it wouldn’t be an algorithmic one that fits our understanding. Indeed we still cannot rule out that our universe exists within another, but such a universe would need a higher order reality with truths that are fundamentally beyond our understanding. Sure, you could call it a “simulation” still, but if it doesn’t fit our understanding of a simulation it might as well be called “God” or “spirituality”, because the truth is, we wouldn’t understand a thing of it, and we might as well acknowledge that.
But that sounds like disproving a scenario no one claimed to be the case: that everything we perceive is as substantial as we think it is and can be simulated at full scale in real time by our own universe.
Part of the whole reason people think of simulation theory as worth bothering to contemplate is because they find quantum physics and relativity to be unsatisyingly “weird”. They like to think of how things break down at relativistic velocities and quantum scale as the sorts of ways a simulation would be limited if we tried, so they like to imagine a higher order universe that doesn’t have those pesky “weird” behaviors and we are only stuck with those due to simulation limits within this hypothetical higher order universe.
Nothing about it is practical, but a lot of these science themed “why” exercises aren’t themselves practical or sciency.
Does it feel very solipsistic around here or am I the only one?
The uptime is too good to be a simulation. It has an uptime of like 14 billions years! AWS has a lot of catching up to do. /s
From our perspective, sure. But we wouldn’t know if it was stopped and started running again, or if it was reverted to a previous state.
Or, if malware was inserted in, say, 1933 or 2016.
I just had déjà vu
Lol, because these guys imagine the outer universe in which ours is built has the same rules and limitations. Also because they can’t wrap their minds around our universe’s rules doesn’t mean they make no sense to higher beings. Life in conway’s game would equally produce the same wrong statement
The simulation idea doesn’t work only because people apply it incorrectly. Our brains do in fact create our experiences with no contact to the world outside our bodies, its our sensory organs that give data to the brain to create our perception of experiencing things.
We are all partly made of simulators, but knowing this changes nothing for each of us since we can start associating ourselves with a larger force of nature that happens when we group ourselves together for changes we want to see in the world.
Our brains do in fact create our experiences with no contact to the world outside our bodies, its our sensory organs that give data to the brain to create our perception of experiencing things.
Ehhh… The claim that there’s a clear delineation between the central and peripheral nervous system is generally just a byproduct of how we teach anatomy. The more we understand about cognitive science and anatomy in general, the further we get away from the old understanding of the cns when it was treated almost like a computer that runs a machine.
I think it kinda depends on how you define an experience, but you’re kinda edging into an old debate known as the mind body problem in cognitive science and philosophy.
None of that suggests this can’t be the case though.
What I’m saying is that for example, dreams are not real, and yet they can and often are indistinguishable from reality, many even have dreams where they are aware they are dreaming and can control them the same way we can control what we do while awake.
This is only possible because we have bodily systems for producing experiences.
What I’m saying is that for example, dreams are not real, and yet they can and often are indistinguishable from reality, many even have dreams where they are aware they are dreaming and can control them the same way we can control what we do while awake.
I think to adopt that argument you have to be operating on some preconceived assumptions.
Dreams are “real”, in the sense that they are propagated by measurable physical phenomena. Just because some people can experience an amount of choice in their dreams, does not mean they are interacting with “reality”.
This is only possible because we have bodily systems for producing experiences
Again… Experiences needs to be defined. There are a lot of theories about how we engage with the world around us in both a physical and metaphysical way.
Dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input
Reality is dreaming constrained by sensory input
Dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input
That’s not really true… Dreaming is a cognitive function that is still limited by how we engage with our surroundings normally. Congeniality Blind people do not see in their dreams, and deaf people do not hear.
Reality is dreaming constrained by sensory input
Imo that is a bit of a narcissistic way to view reality. Reality is shared, and not defined by an individual person’s sensory input. There are natural laws that persist even if there is no way for a person to perceive them.
Lol. They forgot that thermodynamics existed? If they remembered they were already done before they started.
Exactly what the simulation would say
I can’t explain how much I hate simulation theory. As a thought experiment? Fine. It’s interesting to think of the universe in the context of code and logic. But as a driving philosophy of reality? Pointless.
Most proponents of simulation theory will say it’s impossible to prove the universe is a simulation, because we exist inside it. Then who cares? There obviously must exist a non-simulated universe for the mega computer we’re all running on to inhabit, so it’s a pointless step along finding the true nature if reality. It’s stoner solipsism for guys that buy nfts. It’s the “it was all a dream” ending of philosophy.
Yes but, also, no.
You already seem familiar but, ror the uninitiated playing along at home, Wikipedia’s entry for Simulation Theory is a pretty easy read. Quoting their synopsis of Bostrom’s conjecture:
- either such simulations are not created because of technological limitations or self-destruction;
- advanced civilizations choose not to create them;
- if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality and we would therefore almost certainly be living in one.
it’s certainly an interesting thought. I agree it shouldn’t inform our ethics or disposition toward our lived experiences. That doesn’t mean there’s zero value in trying to find out though. Even if the only positive yield is that we develop better testing methods which still come up empty: that’s still progress worth having. If it nets some additional benefit then so much the better.
I’d argue that satisfying curiosity is, in itself, and worthy pursuit so long as no harm is done.
That all still sets aside the more interesting question though. If such simulations are possible then are they something we’re comfortable creating? If not, and we find one has been built, what should we do? Turn it off? Leave it alone? “Save” those created inside of it?
These aren’t vapid questions. They strike at the heart of many important unresolved quandries. Are the simulated minds somehow less real than unsimulated ones? Does that question’s answer necessarily impact those mind’s right to agency, dignity, or self-determination?
The closer we get to being able to play god on a whim the more pressing I find such questions. That’s not because I wring my hands and labor anxiously at truth or certainty for lack of better idols. It’s because, whatever this is, we’re all in it together and our choices today have an outsized impact on the choices others will have tomorrow. Developing a clearer view of what this is, and what we’re capable of doing in it, affords future minds better opportunity to arrive at reasonable conclusions and decide how to live well.
The universe can’t be a simulation, the framerate is way too good.
I keep seeing supersampling artifacts when I squirt my eyes
Eyes don’t normally do that. I think you should
squirtsee a doctor.I think typing charlie squirt so many times fucked up my autocorrect
An surprise, I’m sure, but a welcome one.
Simulation theory is the long way around to creationism for atheists.
Creationism usually implies the creator put a lot of thought, care, and love into the creation. Knowing what I do of software development, fucking lol.
Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains.
“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
Impossible to describe does not mean that it’s not possible to simulate, and impossible is an incredibly strong criterion that sounds quite inaccurate to me. We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately. We don’t even know that gravity is quantum, so that’s quite a weird starting point but we’ll ignore that for a second. What is this argument?
This seems like a huge leap to conclude that just because some aspects of our understanding seem like we wouldn’t be able to fully describe them somehow means that the universe can’t be simulated.
“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” says Dr. Faizal.
Who’s to say that reality is completely defined? Perhaps there are aspects to what we consider the real universe that are uncertain. Isn’t that foundational to quantum mechanics?
What bothers me most is that they equate a model with reality.
Quantum gravity theory is our current working model that we use to describe our observations. It’s not reality itself, and no scientist worth their money would claim that it is, because if it was, physics would be solved and it isn’t.
That’s how science works: We have observations, we build models to describe them, then we have more observations that don’t fit the old models, so we build newer models that also describe the new observations. Since we aren’t omnicient, there’s always something we can’t observe (yet) and what we can’t observe we also can’t describe.
“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”
This, in fact, would fit quite well to an imperfect simulation that doesn’t perfectly follow all the rules we made up when observing.
We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately.
The amount of computer power used to run those simulations is immense, and even then, the predictive capacity of those models starts degrading rapidly around 7 to 10 days ahead. There’s some amazing science that goes into those models, but the results are hard-won. And what we know about more energetic systems (say, the magnetohydrodynamics of the sun) is far less comprehensive.
And be careful with that “fundamentally chaotic” assertion: there are degrees of how chaotic a system is, and some aspects of a system can be more deterministic than others.
We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately.
Weather simulations are approximations. It’s not an exact replication of the universe.
Can the universe not also approximate? Why must it be an exact result whenever a rule is applied?
Then it’s not an approximation - it’s the reality. The question is whether all things the universe does can also a computer do in theory. If one thing about the universe is uncomputable, then the entire universe is uncomputable.
The paper suggests this thing is quantum gravity. I have my doubts about it, but I’m in no position to refute the paper.
But who sait it must be a perfect match?
I mean they can argue that we can’t simulate correctly the universe (just check kaos theory) but that doesn’t mean we cant simulate a universe. Even a universe that looks feels like ours.
The paper makes the argument that the universe we live in is mathematically uncomputable. No algorithm can describe it. There’s no mathematical formula we can use to compute the universe as it is.
If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.
Now their argument is that quantum gravity is the thing that makes the universe uncomputable. I’m not sure how valid this part of their argument is.
If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.
SO many assumptions in that statement
I thought the rebuttal to this was covered in ‘The Thirteenth Floor’. They don’t have to simulate the entire universe, and it doesn’t have to be consistent. Just the parts that the PCs are looking at.
I’m not even going to mention what tricks they can do with the rewind button.
Anyways this paper was likely written by an NPC.
I mean, it’s a bunch of technical gobledygook from different fields in an Iranian journal dealing with holography claiming extraordinary results.
Reminds me of the Bogdanov affair.
This is such a boring take, I wonder how anyone gets funding or publication making a statement as useless as “see godels incompleteness theorem that proves that there’s more truth than what mathematics can prove, therefore reality is not a simulation”. Yes, we know, you don’t need a PhD to know the major theorem that took down the entire school of logical positivism. The fundamental philosophical error here is assuming that all forms of simulation are computational or mathematical. Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep
The fundamental philosophical error here is assuming that all forms of simulation are computational or mathematical.
Uh… that’s literally what a simulation is.
Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep
But dreams aren’t simulating reality as we observe it; they just kinda do their own thing. Your brain isn’t consistently simulating quantum mechanics (or, hell, even simple things like clocks) while you’re dreaming so this is a moot point.
People who are lucid dreaming simulate a full reality that’s nearly indistinguishable from the one they find themselves in during waking time. If your brain can’t tell the difference during this time, how can you be sure you’re not dreaming right now reading this?
The scope of what a simulation is has always been limited by the technology we know. It is only a failing of imagination and knowledge to assume that algorithmic computation is the only valid form of simulation in the future, these have existed for barely 100 years, but even Plato’s cave was talking about the larger philosophical problem
People who are lucid dreaming simulate a full reality that’s nearly indistinguishable from the one they find themselves in during waking time.
You’re not describing a simulation, you’re describing a perception. A person perceives that they’re seeing an indistinguishable reality, but we know that people’s brains do not have the computational power to simulate molecular motion in even a cubic centimeter of air.
Or, if they look at the stars, are they then simulating an infinite space with infinite mass and all of the associated interactions inside of their finite brain? Of course not, that would be impossible.
Dreams are perceptions, not simulations.
The mind while lucid dreaming is creating a whole environment, which for some people has incredible level of detail. Your “consciousness” is experiencing a whole video game or whatever, which must be simulated to be percieved. Imagine you had some kind of really advanced VR setup and body suit that could touch your senses very richly - something must be feeding that perception, a simulation
Our brains build a model of the world inside of our head, that’s what we experience.
Those same processes can generate output that isn’t there, we can hallucinate. This is what we’re doing when we’re dreaming. We’re not simulating a world it is computationally impossible.
To perfectly simulate a volume the size of your bedroom for even a few minutes would take millions of years of compute time. That is not happening inside your brain.
A lucid dream does not fully simulate anything, it is an altered state that includes the subjective apprehension of verisimilitude. Perceptions and apprehensions, even outside of altered states, do not constitute proof of anything.
I take issue with completeness in a very similar way. For example, imagine for some reason that in the simulation it’s impossible to think about penguins. Let’s say that penguins are so logically incomprehensible that we cannot implement this.
The implementation of the simulation could simply trap any attempt to think about penguins and replace it with something else. We would be none the wiser. The simulation still works even if there are states that we can’t get to or are undefined.
It could be that reality itself isn’t entirely complete and defined everywhere. Who’s to say this isn’t one big dream and that the sky isn’t there if we all stopped looking?
There is no escape from Plato‘s cave.
While I’m far from an expert on it… at best the dream simulations are still, extremely rudimentary. To the point that’s usually how you can tell it isn’t real by doing something like reading a book. IE it’s largely believable, but only because you are put in a gullible state. Like watching 2 year old AI videos, while stoned.
Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep
Dreams are an approximation of reality at best. It’s not a perfect simulation.
Prove it.
My bad. Of course you’re right.
I’ve dreamt that levitation is possible. Therefore, levitation is possible in reality. QED
The question is rather What is “reality”: the dream (et al.) or the physical world (what you describe as reality). See Descartes first two meditations (and note that he relies fully on the existence of God to prove the existence of reality later). In this case, us experiencing a “dream” just serves to outline the point; Descartes, for example, also suggests that we are being fooled by an evil daemon. If it’s a dream or an evil daemon — doesn’t matter; it would likely be something entirely beyond our comprehension anyway. But genuinely proving the physical world as being reality is very difficult.
