Kurzgesagt & Vsauce3 - The Simulation Argument / Are You In A Simulation? - General

[QUOTE=Quark:;52705982]If you knew for a fact that your entire life was a simulation, you wouldn't feel upset?[/QUOTE] hey all i know about my existence right now is that i'm a completely worthless brain receiving input from my body and using it to wonder along this massive planet where I have no real power or ability to do anything of value while the planet is floating around a massive empty universe, completely alone. simulation or "real" life it all seems like the same horrible shit from my point of view

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52706888]Simulation theory is a hypothetical crock of shit tbh. Its proponents offer no real mechanism to either simulate an entire quantum universe while addressing the storage problem, or for culling what isn't consciously observed. It just ignores the former and treats the latter as a trivial problem. Like it astounds me that the simulation hypothesis doesn't even include the assumption "It is physically possible to create a simulation of a universe."[/QUOTE] Exactly my thoughts. There are two kinds of simulation hypothesis: 1) Someone is simulating this entire universe. This would require the base universe to have very different physics to be able to build a computer that can do that. That means the number of simulation layers would be very restricted. This is the far more likely option in my opinion, but negates the "there are infinite simulated universes and one real universe, you have to be in a simulation" argument. 2) Someone is simulating specifically you (or maybe all humans) but is faking everything else. This doesn't make any logical sense to me. Why would you include shit like quantum mechanics and sub atomic particles in your simulated universe when you don't even simulate them and just fake everything on a macroscopic scale anyway? This is the version most people (including this Kurzgesagt video) seem to be talking about, but that is just so insanely far fetched and stupid that I can't really respect that idea.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52706888]Simulation theory is a hypothetical crock of shit tbh. Its proponents offer no real mechanism to either simulate an entire quantum universe while addressing the storage problem, or for culling what isn't consciously observed. It just ignores the former and treats the latter as a trivial problem. Like it astounds me that the simulation hypothesis doesn't even include the assumption "It is physically possible to create a simulation of a universe."[/QUOTE] The simulation argument isn't saying that we should believe that we are in a simulation. It points out that it's almost certain that at least one of these 3 statements must be true: 1) The vast majority of civilisations never develop technology capable of producing ancestor simulations or 2) The vast majority of civilisations with that technology have no motivation to run ancestor simulations or 3) The vast majority of observers are within an ancestor simulation It doesn't say which is true. So I suppose you'll have a high credence of 1) being true. I think Nick Bostrom himself thinks it's more likely that we're not in a simulation. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] Basically the assumption "It is physically possible to create a simulation of a universe." is part of option 1).

[QUOTE=Ziks;52707511]Basically the assumption "It is physically possible to create a simulation of a universe." is part of option 1).[/QUOTE] It doesn't frame it that way and that's why the whole spiel is dumber than dirt. It contains within it the assumption that its is possible when we've rolled the magic 8 ball a billion times and it keeps returning "signs point to no".

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707613]It doesn't frame it that way and that's why the whole spiel is dumber than dirt. It contains within it the assumption that its is possible when we've rolled the magic 8 ball a billion times and it keeps returning "signs point to no".[/QUOTE] Did you watch the videos by the way?

[QUOTE=Ziks;52707659]Did you watch the videos by the way?[/QUOTE] Yes, and I've read and watched a whole lot more on the subject.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707683]Yes, and I've read and watched a whole lot more on the subject.[/QUOTE] That's odd then, since the very start of the Kurzgesagt video after the intro talks about why you don't need to "simulate an entire quantum universe".

[QUOTE=Ziks;52707698]That's odd then, since the very start of the Kurzgesagt video after the intro talks about why you don't need to "simulate an entire quantum universe".[/QUOTE] If you reread the most important part of my first post in the thread you might understand: If you can't provide a mechanism for culling yet subscribe to the idea then you're making a very weak yet bold proclamation against occam's razor and established theory. It's a foolish consciousness-centric view of the universe that assumes too many things and introduces too many problems to be worth seriously considering. Assuming consciousness is required presents a "when did the sim start" chicken and egg problem for defining consciousness. Some large distant objects have properties many theories describe as being governed by quantum mechanics. Even dark matter and energy and inflation field have candidate theories that say they are governed by quantum mechanics we can understand today, using no more than the standard model. Treating all those things as approximations or just classically or whatever doesn't cut it unless you can provide a perfectly blended series of approximations for the entire observable universe at all levels. Good luck. So the logical conclusion from all that is that optimization is impossible, so a universe simulator would have to sim the whole universe which is definitely impossible under any similar physical laws to our own. By then that's making the equivalent of some magical realm god argument and its arguing the god of the gaps ad nauseum. This is why the whole thing is stupid. It's either we live in a real universe, or you have to make assumption after assumption beyond what the hypothesis originally states and fight with well known physics to duct tape a sinking ship.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707754]If you reread the most important part of my first post in the thread you might understand: If you can't provide a mechanism for culling yet subscribe to the idea then you're making a very weak yet bold proclamation against occam's razor and established theory. It's a foolish consciousness-centric view of the universe that assumes too many things and introduces too many problems to be worth seriously considering. Assuming consciousness is required presents a "when did the sim start" chicken and egg problem for defining consciousness. Some large distant objects have properties many theories describe as being governed by quantum mechanics. Even dark matter and energy and inflation field have candidate theories that say they are governed by quantum mechanics we can understand today, using no more than the standard model. Treating all those things as approximations or just classically or whatever doesn't cut it unless you can provide a perfectly blended series of approximations for the entire observable universe at all levels. Good luck. So the logical conclusion from all that is that optimization is impossible, so a universe simulator would have to sim the whole universe which is definitely impossible under any similar physical laws to our own. By then that's making the equivalent of some magical realm god argument and its arguing the god of the gaps ad nauseum. This is why the whole thing is stupid. It's either we live in a real universe, or you have to make assumption after assumption beyond what the hypothesis originally states and fight with well known physics to duct tape a sinking ship.[/QUOTE] It feels like you're assuming the simulation would be at a lower level than necessary. At a fundamental level the only requirement is that no observer can make an observation that would betray that they were in a simulation. So firstly you can plausibly have simulated scientists make independent measurements, and generate outcomes that would satisfy the scientist making the measurement enough to convince them that nothing weird was happening. Then, if you have two scientists comparing their observations with each other in a way that would lead to a contradiction, like violating some conservation law that you're trying to convince them of, with enough computational capacity it would be fairly inexpensive to wind back the simulation to before the last measurement was made, and choose a different outcome that didn't violate a conservation law. The main point is, in principle it is possible to do this. The simulation argument is only saying that if it is physically possible to build such simulations, and at least a fraction of civilisations eventually do build such simulations for whatever reason, then a typical observer can expect to be in such a simulation. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] Again, the argument isn't saying that we should expect to be in a simulation, it's just pointing out that if a couple of things do turn out to be true then we should expect to be in one.

[QUOTE=Ziks;52707794]wind back the simulation to before the last measurement was made, and choose a different outcome that didn't violate a conservation law[/QUOTE] This assumes and relies on determinism which is probably not how the universe works. You could counter this with another god of the gaps type deal but no matter what there's likely more and more established theory or sufficient partial understandings that point to no, and even if not you've built on more assumptions. No matter the case simple deductive reasoning presents a better more cohesive solution than another snippet of duct tape.

I'll phrase it in another way: 1) It is either possible to simulate observers like us that believe they are in a coherent world or it is not. 1a) If it isn't possible: We should not expect to be in a simulation. End. 1b) If it is possible: Continue to step 2. 2) Either the vast majority of civilisations end up dying out before achieving the technology required to build such simulations, or they don't. 2a) If they die out: We should not expect to be in a simulation. End. 2b) If some fraction survive: Continue to step 3. 3) Either the vast majority of these civilisations don't have any motivation to produce such simulations, or they do. 3a) If they don't have motivation: We should not expect to be in a simulation. End. 3b) If some fraction do: We should expect to be in a simulation. End. That's all the simulation argument is. I can't really see what you could say is incorrect with it. If you happen to believe for some reason that it's absolutely impossible to simulate a bunch of people and make them believe that they are in a fully fleshed out universe, then you would stop at option 1a.

everyone likes to pretend they understand how simulations and universes work on the internet, especially if they get to use big words :v:

Hence why I only took issue with the original phrasing of the hypothesis in my very first post, because it didn't present the option of "Its it possible." It only asks "Can a species reach that point?" Those are not the same thing. One makes an assumption from the outset, one addresses the actual largest barrier to entry: physical constraints. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Quark:;52707857]everyone likes to pretend they understand how simulations and universes work on the internet, especially if they get to use big words :v:[/QUOTE] and youve found the easiest cop out in the book to appear superior to everyone else, congrats

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707821]This assumes and relies on determinism which is probably not how the universe works.[/QUOTE] Actually it would give the illusion of non-determinism, at least to a sufficiently convincing degree, while being simulated on a deterministic computer. It would be a bit like a depth first search for a coherent history. Also I don't know why we should assume that the computer running the simulation needs to be a classical one. [QUOTE]You could counter this with another god of the gaps type deal but no matter what there's likely more and more established theory or sufficient partial understandings that point to no, and even if not you've built on more assumptions. No matter the case simple deductive reasoning presents a better more cohesive solution than another snippet of duct tape.[/QUOTE] One more time: The simulation argument isn't arguing that we should expect to be in a simulation. It's describing a scenario that would lead to us expecting that we are in a simulation. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707871]Hence why I only took issue with the original phrasing of the hypothesis in my very first post, because it didn't present the option of "Its it possible." It only asks "Can a species reach that point?" Those are not the same thing. One makes an assumption from the outset, one addresses the actual largest barrier to entry: physical constraints.[/QUOTE] To be honest I think "Will at least some fraction of civilisations eventually be able to simulate other civilisations" is explicit enough, but I'll grant that you're allowed to think otherwise. Are you okay with the simulation argument if that first point is reworded to be super explicit, like "Is it possible to simulate civilisations, and will at least some fraction of civilisations eventually be able to do so"?

[QUOTE=Ziks;52707888]Actually it would give the illusion of non-determinism, at least to a sufficiently convincing degree, while being simulated on a deterministic computer. It would be a bit like a depth first search for a coherent history. Also I don't know why we should assume that the computer running the simulation needs to be a classical one.[/QUOTE] You see the issue with this though? More storage necessary, more complicated systems, etc. It's just presenting more issues than it solves and requires more and more complex setups pushing what is physically possible to manufacture beyond reason. [QUOTE=Ziks;52707888]One more time: The simulation argument isn't arguing that we should expect to be in a simulation. It's describing a scenario that would lead to us expecting that we are in a simulation.[/QUOTE] Yes, but as I've harped on about, it frames itself very poorly. Your reframing on this page is way better. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ziks;52707888]To be honest I think "Will at least some fraction of civilisations eventually be able to simulate other civilisations" is explicit enough, but I'll grant that you're allowed to think otherwise. Are you okay with the simulation argument if that first point is reworded to be super explicit, like "Is it possible to simulate civilisations, and will at least some fraction of civilisations eventually be able to do so"?[/QUOTE] Yeah. I just don't find the original explicit enough and think it leads to the wrong conclusion that it's easier than it really is or actually possible. Like as if it's a natural tech progression if a society doesn't off itself, rather than also being physically possible or not in the first place.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707871]and youve found the easiest cop out in the book to appear superior to everyone else, congrats[/QUOTE] maybe be real for just a moment. here on planet earth, we have literally [I]no idea[/I] how advanced computational power can get, what can or cannot be simulated, what is or is not simulated, and so on. our understanding of physics is mediocre at best, our computational abilities are [I]alright[/I], and our energy efficiency is extremely low. you have no way of rationally saying that certain things are impossible to simulate, unless you're saying it's impossible for [I]us[/I] to simulate, with [I]our[/I] technology.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707920]You see the issue with this though? More storage necessary, more complicated systems, etc. It's just presenting more issues than it solves and requires more and more complex setups pushing what is physically possible to manufacture beyond reason. Yes, but as I've harped on about, it frames itself very poorly. Your reframing on this page is way better. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] Yeah. I just don't find the original explicit enough and think it leads to the wrong conclusion that it's easier than it really is or actually possible. Like as if it's a natural tech progression if a society doesn't off itself, rather than also being physically possible or not.[/QUOTE] You're right that a lot of people frame the argument in a bad way, or claim that it "proves" that we're in a simulation, so I understand where you're coming from. I think the reason why we weren't really understanding each other was I assumed you were attacking the argument as described by Bostrom, rather than what I realise now which was justifiably attacking those that misunderstand the argument.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52707939]our understanding of physics is mediocre at best[/QUOTE] It really isn't. We're either at the cusp of figuring it all out or the cusp of finding an even deeper level of things, and that doesn't look very likely from what I understand. Unless you can point to glaring [I]fundamental[/I] flaws in our current theories. I'm no expert but do like to read this stuff as a hobby.

Anyway the original paper's pretty fun to read anyway, for anyone that hasn't seen it: [url]https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf[/url] A better description of what I was trying to describe before, from the paper: [QUOTE]If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power – how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of the inside of the Earth can be safely omitted. Distant astronomical objects can have highly compressed representations: verisimilitude need extend to the narrow band of properties that we can observe from our planet or solar system spacecraft. On the surface of Earth, macroscopic objects in inhabited areas may need to be continuously simulated, but microscopic phenomena could likely be filled in ad hoc. What you see through an electron microscope needs to look unsuspicious, but you usually have no way of confirming its coherence with unobserved parts of the microscopic world. Exceptions arise when we deliberately design systems to harness unobserved microscopic phenomena that operate in accordance with known principles to get results that we are able to independently verify. The paradigmatic case of this is a computer. The simulation may therefore need to include a continuous representation of computers down to the level of individual logic elements. This presents no problem, since our current computing power is negligible by posthuman standards. Moreover, a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief‐states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as‐needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ziks;52707957]You're right that a lot of people frame the argument in a bad way, or claim that it "proves" that we're in a simulation, so I understand where you're coming from. I think the reason why we weren't really understanding each other was I assumed you were attacking the argument as described by Bostrom, rather than what I realise now which was justifiably attacking those that misunderstand the argument.[/QUOTE] Glad we feel each other now.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707996]Glad we feel each other now.[/QUOTE] Yeah, sorry for being a bit snarky! [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707971]It really isn't. We're either at the cusp of figuring it all out or the cusp of finding an even deeper level of things, and that doesn't look very likely from what I understand. Unless you can point to glaring [I]fundamental[/I] flaws in our current theories. I'm no expert but do like to read this stuff as a hobby.[/QUOTE] Same here, reading about QM feels a lot like reading a Lovecraft novel sometimes. Like there's some underlying explanation for it that we're either not mentally equipped to understand, or will teach us something terrible about how reality works.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52707971]It really isn't. We're either at the cusp of figuring it all out or the cusp of finding an even deeper level of things, and that doesn't look very likely from what I understand. Unless you can point to glaring [I]fundamental[/I] flaws in our current theories. I'm no expert but do like to read this stuff as a hobby.[/QUOTE] We still don't know how gravity works (or whether there even is an elementary particle associated with gravitation or not), we don't know for sure why gravity is the weakest of the forces (other than theories at best), we don't know what "Dark Energy" or "Dark Matter" really are other than guesses, we don't know how quantum tunneling occurs or why, we don't know how to contain antimatter efficiently. we still aren't sure how many spatial dimensions there are, or what they are like. we don't know how to build rockets without liquid fuel. there's [I]so much[/I] we don't know, and CAN'T know due to the filters of our senses and the ways in which we perceive reality. We aren't anywhere near the cusp of figuring [I]it all out[/I], but we're in the right ballpark. I'm no expert either but I take this stuff rather seriously. And our understanding of physics is seriously mediocre and stitch-job for how much we boast about [I]knowing it all[/I]

I'm not sure where your confusion about tunneling lies, can you elaborate? As for gravity, we have good directions to go off, but when that's the only force we're really struggling with that tells me we're doing better than ballpark. We're in the ballpark and hitting the dartboard on the other side, just not quite the bulls-eye. Dark energy and dark matter, I have my (mostly unknown and controversial) beliefs on those which are testable within 5-15 years. Antimatter containment or rockets isn't really a lack of understanding so much as a lack of technology. Spatial dimensions, I know we have lots of ideas there and can conceptualize them in many ways, but it's a weak area of mine. Ultimately all of these things don't appear to be fundamental holes in our theories, just gaps to soon be filled in. The idea that there are unknowable physics due to our limitations should be substantiated, otherwise I can't take that seriously.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52708098]We still don't know how gravity works (or whether there even is an elementary particle associated with gravitation or not), we don't know for sure why gravity is the weakest of the forces (other than theories at best), we don't know what "Dark Energy" or "Dark Matter" really are other than guesses, we don't know how quantum tunneling occurs or why, we don't know how to contain antimatter efficiently. we still aren't sure how many spatial dimensions there are, or what they are like. we don't know how to build rockets without liquid fuel. there's [I]so much[/I] we don't know, and CAN'T know due to the filters of our senses and the ways in which we perceive reality. We aren't anywhere near the cusp of figuring [I]it all out[/I], but we're in the right ballpark. I'm no expert either but I take this stuff rather seriously. And our understanding of physics is seriously mediocre and stitch-job for how much we boast about [I]knowing it all[/I][/QUOTE] That's all true, but I think it's worth appreciating that with QFT and GR we can fully describe any human-scale phenomena. If the goal of physics is to be able to model the mechanics of the world, we're already there for all but the most extreme scenarios. I agree with you though that we can't know if we're close to understanding [i]why[/i] those mechanics behave as they do, and for all we know it's impossible to access that information from the inside. [editline]22nd September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DOG-GY;52708165]As for gravity, we have good directions to go off, but when that's the only force we're really struggling with that tells me we're doing better than ballpark. We're in the ballpark and hitting the dartboard on the other side, just not quite the bulls-eye.[/QUOTE] The fact that gravity / the geometry of spacetime in some situations has remarkably similar properties to tensor networks in QM seems super promising. I definitely share your sentiment that it feels like we're on the cusp of some major breakthrough in finding a theory of everything.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;52708165]I'm not sure where your confusion about tunneling lies, can you elaborate? As for gravity, we have good directions to go off, but when that's the only force we're really struggling with that tells me we're doing better than ballpark. We're in the ballpark and hitting the dartboard on the other side, just not quite the bulls-eye. Dark energy and dark matter, I have my (mostly unknown and controversial) beliefs on those which are testable within 5-15 years. Antimatter containment or rockets isn't really a lack of understanding so much as a lack of technology. Spatial dimensions, I know we have lots of ideas there and can conceptualize them in many ways, but it's a weak area of mine. Ultimately all of these things don't appear to be fundamental holes in our theories, just gaps to soon be filled in. The idea that there are unknowable physics due to our limitations should be substantiated, otherwise I can't take that seriously.[/QUOTE] My point was that if we were on some cusp of understanding it all, we would maybe have a better understanding of some of the more basic ideas. There's so much stuff right in front of us that we can't wrap our minds around that it's completely foolish to think our understanding of things is anything [I]other[/I] than mediocre. We've known about gravity since Sir Isaac Newton, but really haven't discovered much new since then. We only have guesses about dark energy and dark matter. Rocket physics hasn't changed in decades, we're still combusting liquids to move them. Antimatter is not well understood even though we've managed to create it in laboratories. We don't know what happens inside of a black hole, for example, because our way of using physics completely fails to explain it. We have [I]no[/I] models that can even scratch the surface. Our [I]best[/I] physicists just repeat the old line "our mathematics break down." And 100% of this is stuff that is readily available to our senses. Visible light, audible sound, etc. It's naive to assume there's [I]not[/I] stuff we'll never observe due to sensory limitations.

Antimatter isn't well understood? Gravity theories haven't made progress since Newton? Wat?

[QUOTE=Quark:;52708207]My point was that if we were on some cusp of understanding it all, we would maybe have a better understanding of some of the more basic ideas. There's so much stuff right in front of us that we can't wrap our minds around that it's completely foolish to think our understanding of things is anything [I]other[/I] than mediocre. We've known about gravity since Sir Isaac Newton, but really haven't discovered much new since then. We only have guesses about dark energy and dark matter. Rocket physics hasn't changed in decades, we're still combusting liquids to move them. Antimatter is not well understood even though we've managed to create it in laboratories. We don't know what happens inside of a black hole, for example, because our way of using physics completely fails to explain it. We have [I]no[/I] models that can even scratch the surface. Our [I]best[/I] physicists just repeat the old line "our mathematics break down." And 100% of this is stuff that is readily available to our senses. Visible light, audible sound, etc. It's naive to assume there's [I]not[/I] stuff we'll never observe due to sensory limitations.[/QUOTE] There are a few things there that I think might be incorrect. Firstly I'd say that we have made a pretty huge advancement in our understanding of gravity since Newton, since General Relativity goes much further in explaining why gravity acts as it does, and does much better at predicting extreme scenarios. Secondly, I understand where you're coming from in saying we don't know what happens inside of a black hole, but "our mathematics breaking down" is specifically about the singularity in the middle of a black hole. I think we have fairly fleshed-out ideas of what happens when you enter a black hole, both from the perspective of you falling in, and from the perspective of someone watching you fall in. There are some unresolved disagreements about it, but it's not like we don't have any models at all.

[QUOTE=Quark:;52708207]It's naive to assume there's [I]not[/I] stuff we'll never observe due to sensory limitations.[/QUOTE] russell's teapot

Something that's funny to think about, although I don't think we should treat it as evidence, is if we did design a simulation where we wanted the inhabitants to observe fundamental conservation laws, but we wanted to minimise computational complexity by only simulating what the inhabitants were aware of, amending observations if it would lead to an inhabitant being aware of a conservation violation, and otherwise picking a random result, you would naturally get something that approximates quantum mechanics. That's without even aiming to replicate QM, it just so happens to have a similar result. For example, you'd get the same 4/9 Bell inequality result, and other entanglement experiments should behave as they do for us.