Comment by galacticaactual
3 years ago
> "We’ve learned that at least one American plutocrat (almost certainly Elon Musk, who believes the odds are a billion to one against us living in "base reality") has hired a pair of coders to try to hack the simulation."
Source?
I like how there is an assumption that any simulation we run inside even follows rules, physics, or mathematics we can comprehend. If this is actually a simulation it's quite possible the outside world is so completely different it basically breaks everything we think we know.
Strong agree. It's like expecting video game characters (however sentient they may eventually / theoretically become) to understand the hardware instructions that power the assembly language that is running the process within which their reality exists.
More depressing is what happens if you do realize you're living in a simulation... You can't escape it unless the creator has the means to convert a sim to something real. You're just some shitty fake bits in a snowglobe.
5 replies →
The public thought got fixated on the VM style simulation. Consider another idea. The baseline reality is spacetime that can form any configuration with any number of space and time dimensions and everything in between. We live in the 3+1 layer, which doesn't exclude the existence of other 3+1 layers, just like one flat valley doesn't prevent the existence of other valleys. Those who know how to work with that spacetime can create arbitrary worlds, e.g. a toroidal 4+3 world. These world can be connected to each other in strange ways and transition between them may or may not be possible. Some local spacetime can be nested into bigger soacetimes with different configuration.
I think it's fair to say that obviously, anybody who explores 'breaking' the simulation is also aware of this and all their hopes are pinned on the admittedly infinitesemal chance that we're in a simulation that can be broken
And yet, in Minecraft you can build devices that detect features of the underlying software — eg, the update policy, circuit cache size, and server lag.
Perhaps we won’t understand the reality “out there”, but attempting to may nevertheless produce tangible benefits for us “in here”, eg, like wireless communication in Minecraft arises from detecting subtle variations in updates.
I think the idea is that *if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources?
Lot of IFs based on our view of their values, I know... I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning... just stating how I understand the argument.
To counter that argument, if "they" live in world where computation is cheap (eg they have something like Zeno machines[1]) they may not be spending what they view as lots of resources.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_machine
>Why else would "they" spend all those resources?
Why the assumption that it takes a significant amount of their resources to run our simulation?
8 replies →
>Why else would "they" spend all those resources?
We could just in a video-game style world, with mechanics (laws of physics etc) totally different to the ancestor's world. Like we often do when we make games...
> Why else would "they" spend all those resources?
Entertainment? Random Number generator? Maybe they are in the future and doing some historical analysis. Plenty of reasons to spend resources.
> the idea is that if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources?*
This always struck me as the most WTF simulationist assumption. To the degree we simulate our ancestors, today, it’s in games. Given an infinity to ponder and simulate, it strikes me as ludicrous to assume even a significant fraction of computer power would go to ancestor simulations.
2 replies →
I know nothing about this, but I do know how type the question into Google, and I got this back, which sounds like what Maciej is talking about (if maybe ever so slightly corrupted).
https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-billionaires-want-to-br...
That article links to the below article where Musk lays out his version of the simulation argument. His version is fraught to the brim with confused thinking and non sequiturs, and yet I’ve never seen him called out on it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-question-elon-musk-refus...
We are living in a base reality by definition.
BARRET: Have y'all ever considered that none of this is real? That we're just part of some game, a simulation?
TIFA: Barret, what are you talking about?
AERITH: It's an interesting thought, though. Sometimes, everything does seem too surreal to be true.
BARRET: Exactly! Maybe we're just codes in a computer, or pawns in someone else's game.
CLOUD: Barret, that's ridiculous. Even if it were true, how would that change anything?
CLOUD: We are living in a base reality by definition.
TIFA: Cloud's right. Whether it's a simulation or not, this is our reality. We have to deal with it.
AERITH: Maybe the real question should be, what can we do to make this reality better?
BARRET: Hmph, you're all just too afraid to face the truth. But mark my words, one day you'll see.
Those aren't people. They're characters in a video game, and so aren't having a conversation.
No, we are not? I am confused what definition you are using. If the Matrix were real, you would say the Matrix is base reality?
I think his point is that even if we're technically in a simulation, we very likely do not have access to any exterior world.
Thus, in some sense, this is base reality "by definition" - that reality beyond which you cannot find anything else.
I don't agree, but it's a reasonable way to think about it (if that is in fact what OP meant).
8 replies →