[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 441 KB, 1900x1200, nick bostrom quote.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3087911 No.3087911 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

>> No.3087917

>>3087911

Yes, we know. But it doesn't really make a difference as long as it's still the same size as the universe.

>> No.3087923

>>3087917
>the nature of reality doesn't matter
amen brah

>> No.3087928

>>3087917

I wonder, though, if the person at the top (Or at some n-level of the stack) is pooling all those trillions of solar masses of resources to simulate a universe that will ultimately be smaller than the one he's in, and the simulated folks in n-1 decide to do the same, at some point they should reach a point where the largest possible universe they can simulate would be smaller than usable.

So the stack is finite, at least downwards.

>> No.3087947

>>3087928

True, but the basic requirement for this to actually work is to be able to store information more densely than matter. As far as we know, there is no smaller way to represent the state of an atom than an atom. So a computer than simulated the whole universe would be the size of the universe.

If they've managed to solve that problem, then there isn't really an issue with limited resources as they've basically got infinite information density.

>> No.3087979
File: 95 KB, 479x799, solaris.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3087979

>>3087947

Well, yes, my argument was that every simulated universe n would be smaller than its containing universe n+1. If they somehow break the Bekenstein Bound, then they would be able to store information more densely and create a universe n of some size would be able to contain a universe n-1 of even greater size.

Although with the information we have available it's safer to assume the Bekenstein Bound can't be broken.

>> No.3087994

>>3087979

Exactly, which brings up back to the "It makes no real difference as long as the rules are consistent" angle.

Unless it turns out that the race that created the simulation are god-tier trolls.

>> No.3088006
File: 331 KB, 1404x2100, 1295138816806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3088006

>>3087994

I was thinking, that the only reason (Besides curiosity) to run a universe sandbox would be for a posthuman (Or someone attempting to be one) to create this huge universe where different species would evolve, and have them compete, grow, evolve, for millions of years, until one of them reaches a level greater than whomever simulated that universe; so the owner takes the new superior traits, incorporates them, and shuts off the universe or has it continue its evolution, perhaps the time there could even run far, far faster; to make this viable.

>> No.3088018

>>3088006

And then the people inside the simulated universe find the 'Root' command....

>> No.3088042

>>3088006

You just blew my mind

>> No.3088051

If we are in a computer simulation then what is outside the computer simulation? Is outside the computer simulation another computer simulation? Where did the original computer simulation come from?

>> No.3088056

>>3088051

The Real World.

>> No.3088070

>>3087947
You seem to be assuming the "outside" universe should follow the same rules as our own.
Maybe from their perspective we are as simple as a 8bit videogame is to us.

>> No.3088315
File: 81 KB, 535x470, 58_08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3088315

Bump

>> No.3088330

>>3088315
How come Yotsuba never gets any older or taller? North Korean starvation diet?

>> No.3088463

I read this and enjoyed it.

As I was reading, I was thinking this was written by some gifted high schooler and was pleasantly surprised to see that it was the work of an Oxford professor.

I'm not sure about the almost-Drake equation-like probability justification he gave because I didn't understand the first fsim fraction, but I grant that it makes sense to believe that if reality is ever sufficiently simulated to the degree that consciousness spawns within it so as to be subjectively real for individuals capable of pondering their own existence, and then allowed to run so that subsequent simulates are run, then it follows that subjective observers as a sum total are more likely than not to exist in a simulation, given that simulated civilizations are capable of simulating more civilizations, and that no civilization is sure that it is near the top of a simulation hierarchy.

All based on the hypothesis that reality/consciousness simulation is possible of course.

>> No.3088505

>>3088463

Ah, this explains it.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/patch.pdf

>> No.3088583

brain in a vat

>> No.3088633
File: 27 KB, 312x305, Dyson-Sphere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3088633

Bump with a real subtle in joke.

>> No.3090270

I hope they gave us an afterlife.

>> No.3090273

What is the difference between the simulated and simulators?
Are we less real than them? But about what about our consciousness, self-awareness, being able to think about such things like this and even figuring out if this is a simulation?

>> No.3090278

Would you guys be mad if it turned out your entire universe was just an alien kid's chaos theory experiment?
because i have a confession to make

>> No.3092094

bump

>> No.3092121
File: 35 KB, 590x337, 0b738d2c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092121

>>3088633
Was that the Impossible Dyson?

Might be interesting.

>> No.3092129

>>3090278

>chaos theory

>> No.3092141

This argument is crap. There is no evidence to support it... just some intellectual mastrubation.

>> No.3092610
File: 37 KB, 220x214, AI-IN-2020-HONEST.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092610

>>3092121

Yes!

Fame and fortune is now yours!

>> No.3092638

>>3092610
Danke! Now I'm going to DisneyDyson!

>> No.3092644

If you believe it's all a simulation, that implies that someone is watching it. As far as we can tell, it's an incredibly large simulation (relative to us). So it's very possible that all of human history has gone entirely unnoticed by the simulators. If you want to find out whether or not it's a simulation, you're going to have to actually do something that will get the attention of the simulators, so that you can tell them you've figured it out. There's no guarantee as to what their reaction to your announcement will be, however.

>> No.3092650

>>3092644
Perhaps not all the universe is simulated with the same fidelity. The high-cost, high-precision algorithms only kick in when someone takes a look.

Anyway, I agree that the discussion is moot. Unless you have a way of actually testing it, the brain-in-a-vat scenario is just intellectual masturbation with no consequence.

>> No.3092654

>>3092650
And even if the universe IS a simulation, it doesn't make us less real. It changes the nature of our existence, but does not negate that existence. Digital life we might create would no less real than chemical life in our universe. Why would we (ostensibly a simulation) be any less real than the beings outside of it?

>> No.3092658

>>3092654

We wouldn't. I wasn't implying we would be less real for being digital.

>> No.3092666

>>3092658
OK, glad to hear it. I've heard that argument before. "If I found out life was a simulation, I wouldn't give a fuck anymore". LOL

>> No.3092684

>>3092654
>Why would we (ostensibly a simulation) be any less real than the beings outside of it?
They arise from the invariable rules of the natural cosmos, as variables that change only according to those rules. We arise from rules that can be modified at will, as variables that can be changed at will.

Nobody can shut their universe off.

We are a higher-order phenomenon, removed by further levels of abstraction from fundamental existence.

>> No.3092694

>>3092684
>They arise from the invariable rules of the natural cosmos, as variables that change only according to those rules.
Surprise, the Higher Beings are ALSO in a simulation! What now?
While I agree that being part of an intelligently directed simulation has distinct implications from an undirected result of a static ruleset, I don't think that's what meant by being "real". These concepts can be addressed, but I think it will take some careful definition of terms first.

>>3092684
>Nobody can shut their universe off.
Challenge accepted.

>> No.3092710

>>3092694
>Surprise, the Higher Beings are ALSO in a simulation! What now?
Are the characters in the story of the book more or less real than the characters in a fictional book mentioned in the book?

Whatever your answer is, the characters are less real than the actual writer and readers of the actual real-world book.

>> No.3092728

1) i don't get
2) i click on the picture cause i thought it had a flamethrower.

>> No.3092742
File: 5 KB, 160x160, popeye.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3092742

>>3092728
i like ur picture though. heres popeye

>> No.3092801

Who would simulate such a boring life like mine?

>> No.3092803

>>3092710
I think there are different ideas of "real" here. All levels of simulation are contained within a common reality, and by their very existence are "real". I'm not sure what term would better capture what you have in mind, though. Independent? High-level?

>> No.3092926

bump