undefined | Better HN

0 pointsduaneb10y ago0 comments

Why do you (and others) tend towards arguments suggesting simulations?

To me, the language here is important. Both simulation and computation imply (to me) a tool and a user of the tool. Even a broader interpretation of computation as, umm, the efficient transfer of precise information through spacetime in certain shapes (which is easily providable by our understanding of physics today) requires an observer to extract the computation from the otherwise non-semantic system.

It definitely makes sense to think of the universe as a projection of a higher dimension, or a holograph, or however you want to look at it, but that's a far cry from implying a simulation.

EDIT: hologram -> holograph

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

criddell10y ago· 3 in thread

What do you feel about the mathematical universe hypothesis[1]? If I understand it correctly (and I probably don't), it says that the universe is literally mathematics. Not that it's a manifestation of mathematics or can be modeled by mathematics, but is 100% mathematics.

I think that fits the computation model and doesn't require an observer or operator.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...

Retra10y ago

Mathematics is a human language for studying the structure of various experiences. To say the universe "is" mathematics without saying what mathematics is doesn't really say much at all. You might as well say it's magic.

And, saying that it's a "mathematical structure" is just saying that it's a structure that humans can apply mathematics to model. So there's really no mechanism for this to be true, except in the trivial "the universe has structure" sense, which also tells you (basically) nothing, because humans can't even perceive things that don't have structure, nor can we reason about them.

criddell10y ago

> Mathematics is a human language for studying the structure of various experiences

I think you are getting hung up on the semiotics of mathematics which is indeed a human construct. The idea of "1 + 1 = 2" is true no matter how (or if) you represent the idea.

> saying that it's a "mathematical structure" is just saying that it's a structure that humans can apply mathematics to model

That's not what the theory says (AFAIK). The mathematical universe hypothesis says that there is nothing in the universe, it's all just mathematics.

Edit: Think about it this way: if you could simulate a universe and in that simulated universe you modeled people and all the stuff around them, what would you tell those simulated people with their simulated free well what a table is made out of? It's all mathematics, right?

1 more reply

duanebOP10y ago

I actually love that theory because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy. However, it is.... Highly hard to defend, to say the least.

madaxe_again10y ago· 1 in thread

A simulation doesn't mean that there is a simulator - just that what we consider real may be a projection of something else. As you say, the holographic universe principle can equally answer this.

That said, the simulation argument strongly pushes in favour of a simulated reality - particularly when you consider that there is no need for it to be real time, or of the entire universe. In short if we ever gain the capability to accurately simulate a small corner of the universe, then it stands to reason that someone further up the hylaean flow (apologies to Stephenson) also has.

Hell, maybe the rotation of distant galaxies is off because they're just sprites ;)

padobson10y ago

Hell, maybe the rotation of distant galaxies is off because they're just sprites

So there's probably some other simulation of our universe where they tried to do models, but it was too slow.

If not, then the simulator introduced a pre-mature optimization. The existential ramifications of such a development inefficiency are palpable!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse