

Whoa, dude, are we in a computer right now? NASA scientist thinks we could be. - mattdennewitz
http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-0000329-v19n9

======
Udo
The first comment on the site illustrates (depressingly) well how this type of
speculation is being perceived by the average uneducated person:

    
    
      Wow this was a really good article. I didn't realize that we are 
      so close to simulating consciousness. and this part: "In quantum 
      mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re 
      being observed." is that true? That blew my mind.
    

I'm not sure if its superfluous to even state this here on HN, but I feel
compelled to: We are _not_ "close" to simulating consciousness, and the whole
quantum thing doesn't actually work like you've been led to believe.

First of all, there is a whole spectrum of simulation software to consider.
The most Matrix-like method is a direct 3D game-like environment with really
good graphics where many parameters of our current environment are hard-coded
and everything is executed with the human inhabitant in mind. This is probably
close to what the article is trying to invoke if for no other reason than
"it's easy to understand". It's also the one which least conforms to our
observations. If the universe is being simulated, it's more likely a bottom-up
simulation where things like planets, plants, and eventually people simply
emerge instead of being designed outright. For all intents and purposes, such
a universe would be indistinguishable from a "natural" one, so much so it's
bordering on pointlessness even arguing about it.

Second, simulating consciousness (or rather more precisely: designing and
running human-like minds on a digital substrate) directly is not something
we're particularly close to. We are still missing important engineering
details about human brains to recreate them, and likewise generalised AGI
research also has some gaps in understanding how to build advanced problem
solving machines. Depending on the chosen method of "simulation", from full
no-shortcuts whole brain emulation probably being the most expensive to fast
and memory-optimised non-human AGI being the more efficient, we might already
have enough raw computing power to drive a mind using just a couple of desktop
computers. What we're missing though is the right software.

I'm also getting really tired about this whole "observer" misunderstanding
whenever quantum physics is invoked. I can't help but feel this was an
intentional consequence when they chose their terminology. To this day it
remains a poor choice of wording. The agenda behind this might not only be
designed to sell books to New Age lunatics, but also to enable pseudo-
religious excursions undertaken by otherwise respectable scientists such as
Penrose.

------
Xcelerate
> "Unless you believe there’s something magical about consciousness"

Well, yes, I do actually. See philosophical zombie
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie>). Although I don't doubt
that the physics of our universe could be simulated.

By the way, there's actually something called the Bekenstein bound
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound>) which puts a finite
information limit on a volume of spacetime. Incredibly enough, the information
content is _not proportional_ to the volume of the region, but to the volume's
surface area. This is known as the holographic principle
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle>).

I did a calculation the other day for fun with the Bekenstein bound. All of
the information in 1 kg of water can be entirely described with roughly
~20,000 earth masses of 1 TB hard drives (assuming each hard drive weighs one
pound).

And if someone wants to see something extra freaky, calculate the maximal
information content of a Planck volume ;)

~~~
Bakkot
I'm sorry, you believe the physics of this universe could be simulated but
still accept that the p-zombie argument is valid? So in p-zombie land, there's
an Xcelerate making claims about being conscious for _exactly the same reasons
you are_ (ie physics), but only _you_ are actually correct? Moreover, you're
correct _entirely by accident_ , because your reasons for making your claim to
consciousness (ie physics) have nothing to do with the actual fact of your
consciousness? I just can't take that seriously.

~~~
Xcelerate
I'm sorry you feel that way. We just happen to disagree then.

What constitutes science? You must be able to predict events from a theory and
you must be able to reproduce them. But there's a third, implied tenet that
most people forget about: anyone performing the experiment _must_ come to a
consensus on the results of the experiment.

For me, "experience" is easy -- it's the most "real" thing in my reality.
Vision, hearing, taste, smell? Those could all be faked some day with advanced
enough neural manipulation.

Let me attempt to clarify.

Suppose you have a hypothetical person who sees an apple floating everywhere
in front of him. He tells everyone that he sees this apple, but everyone else
says "No, you're crazy. There is no apple there." So he takes a photograph of
the apple. He prints it out and says "Look! Right here in this photograph is
the apple!" Again, everyone says "I see no apple." He can consistently,
predictably, see this apple. He decides to even paint exactly what he sees.
And when he looks at his painting, he sees an apple, but everyone else sees
empty sky.

Is this person crazy? Well, if science is determined by consensus (which it
is), then yes, the majority of people would say that he is crazy. But now
instead of just this one guy with an apple, let's say that _everyone_ sees a
piece of fruit in front of them. But it's a different type of fruit for each
person. And they all try to tell each other that there is clearly, obviously,
unmistakably a fruit floating _right there_ in front of them, but everyone
thinks everyone else is crazy because they can't see other people's fruit --
only their own.

So eventually, they decide to just forget about the fruit. Maybe it's not
actually real if everyone else can't see it? (Would a person in a computer
simulation see this fruit?) And so, despite everyone obviously having their
own fruit hanging right in front of them, they have all decided to say that
there is instead no such thing as floating fruit, since no one can come to a
consensus about everyone else's fruit existing.

So there you go. That's how I view consciousness. Although I should tweak that
slightly -- "consciousness" perhaps isn't the right word. Consciousness can be
manipulated with drugs and sedatives. What I am really referring to is the act
of "experiencing" something.

~~~
Bakkot
You've conflated a couple of things here, and I think my position must have
been a little poorly stated as well. Here's some points, in roughly ascending
order of important. (Anyone reading this: skip to the bottom if you're not
going to read it all.)

First: 'Science' does not embody the whole of human knowledge, not at all.
That's not even what it's for. It is a true thing that 1+1=2 (with standard
definitions, Peano arithmetic, etc), but science has nothing to say on this
matter.

Second: The fact that other people talk about this fruit they see, and you
yourself have this fruit that you see, is very strong evidence that people
have fruits, even if, with our current understanding, we can't verify it from
physics.

Third: I do believe consciousness exists. I think (in fact it seems self-
apparent to me) that consciousness is a property of processes or algorithms.
Can I explain how exactly it arises? No, but then for virtually all of human
history we had no idea how, say, biology or magnets or fire could come out of
physics either.

Fourth: Just because a process has some property doesn't mean we'll ever
understand it in a satisfying way - even very simple processes (care to
explain how the current best-candidate for BusyBeaver(6) works?) This is _not_
the same as that property not existing.

Finally: This was in my original post as well, was in fact the entire point of
said post, and I can't seem to find a response in your post. If you accept (as
is a part of the p-zombie postulation) that the reasons you say things like 'I
am conscious' are entirely because of physics, do you think that this means
your consciousness has nothing to do with your claim to be conscious? That
seems absurd to me, and to me it seems that the conclusion _must_ be, given
the above, that consciousness does in fact fall out of physics.

For clarity, here's that final argument spelled out again.

1\. My claim to be conscious does have to do with the fact of my
consciousness. (Agree?)

2\. My claim to be conscious is completely determined by physics, since I
would also make it in p-zombie world (that is, the world which is by
hypothesis completely determined by physics). (Agree?)

3\. Therefore, the fact of my consciousness must fall out of physics. (Agree?)

Or in set-theoretic terms, because that's how I think:

fact-of-consciousness \subset reasons-for-claim-to-be-conscious \subset
physics _implies_ fact-of-consciousness \subset physics.

Do you disagree?

~~~
Xcelerate
I really like the way you stated your arguments.

First: Yes, I agree.

Second: Hmm... I don't know. People talk about ghosts a lot as well. There are
many people who claim that they see ghosts. But I don't think that is strong
evidence that ghosts exist.

Third: We need a consistent _definition_ of consciousness here. It would waste
a lot of time if it turned out we were debating different concepts. I believe
your idea of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon that arises
from simpler processes, much like how biology arises from the simple laws of
QM. Is this correct? If so, then with that definition of consciousness, I
agree with you. And we will learn more about it as time goes on.

Fourth: Yes, I agree. Chaitin's constant is my favorite exemplification of
that idea.

Finally: "Do you think that this means your consciousness has nothing to do
with your claim to be conscious?" Yes, that is exactly what I think. Although
replace "consciousness" with "the act of experiencing existence" and that is a
much closer semantic match to what I am attempting to convey.

> 1\. My claim to be conscious does have to do with the fact of my
> consciousness. (Agree?)

No, for the simple reason that you can write a computer program that prints
out "I am conscious." Its claim of consciousness is only due to a program that
someone wrote.

> 2\. My claim to be conscious is completely determined by physics, since I
> would also make it in p-zombie world. (Agree?)

Yes, I agree with that.

> 3\. Therefore, the fact of my consciousness must fall out of physics.

Were 1 and 2 true statements, they would indeed imply 3. But since I don't
agree with 1, 3 also doesn't seem to be true.

~~~
Bakkot
> I believe your idea of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon
> that arises from simpler processes, much like how biology arises from the
> simple laws of QM. Is this correct?

I wouldn't call that a definition. Here's a working one: my consciousness is
the part of me which thinks and feels, which enjoys music and mountains and
friends and so forth. Computers as of now can take input, but can't experience
input the way I do; the gap is what I call consciousness. (To this definition
your above description does apply.)

> "Do you think that this means your consciousness has nothing to do with your
> claim to be conscious?" Yes, that is exactly what I think. Although replace
> "consciousness" with "the act of experiencing existence" and that is a much
> closer semantic match to what I am attempting to convey.

This is the bit I'm having trouble with. For me, I experience things, and then
state that I experience things. The relationship is direct and causal. From
what I understand you experience things and then state that you experience
things, and these facts are completely unrelated? I'm pretty sure Occam had
something to say about that.

------
logn
The idea put forth is that if we're able to simulate life that we must almost
certainly be living in a simulation. But this assumes that our post-humans
have nearly infinite computing resources and that each simulation (within a
simulation) somehow has the uncanny ability to evolve to the point of creating
exceptionally good simulations. I don't think either is true so I think we're
probably real.

~~~
GuiA
A treatment of the question by an Oxford philosophy professor:
<http://www.simulation-argument.com/>

The paper is very readable, even for the novice.

tl;dr:

"A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous
computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows
that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of
human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
(2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running
ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people
with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to
one. If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching
posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among
the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any
relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are
free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation.
In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion
one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3). Unless we are now
living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an
ancestor-simulation."

------
andrewflnr
Assuming we are a simulation, I don't see any reason to assume that the "base
universe" has remotely similar beings or even physics as ours. It's obviously
(if anything is obvious) possible to simulate different physics from our
layer. Why not the outer layer? We might not be "bits" in a recognizable
sense, or even qubits. We can't really keep any of our most basic assumptions
when speculating here.

Luckily, in Real Life I'm a dualist.

~~~
spindritf
> I don't see any reason to assume that the "base universe" has remotely
> similar beings or even physics as ours

There are plenty of reasons. First, it's much easier to just copy a known
world than create a complete new physics and beings. Just that, creating s
coherent set of rules governing the universe would be a major undertaking. And
I'm not even convinced that there are multiple types of intelligence, ie. I
think all intelligent beings are fundamentally similar to each other.

Secondly, simulations similar enough seem to be more entertaining. Thirdly,
mostly simulations similar enough would be useful as experiments.

~~~
ken
As to #1, there's no reason to believe we're the first or only type of
simulation. There could well be some life that said "hey, we've been running
these simulations of our world for a while, but what if we tried making
_carbon_ -based life forms for fun?". I imagine that would happen a lot: I
don't see everybody doing exactly the same type of thing on their computers
today for fun, nor can I imagine any reason people running life sims would be
any different. All I know is that (if I can trust my memory) I'm in a
relatively stable physical environment. When you can simulate a lifetime in an
hour on commodity hardware, there's going to be a lot of people trying crazy
stuff just to see if it ends up being stable.

As to #2, I'm not sure I agree. We've got lots of computer environments
ourselves that aren't very lifelike at all, from Conway's Life to Sim-(fill-
in-the-blank) to World of Warcraft to extremely specialized (and non-
entertaining) environments. To some extent, that's because we don't have the
processing power to simulate real life, but even with infinite processing
power, I would guess that most simulations would not be perfectly lifelike.
There are more lifelike simulations available today, but I don't think they're
a majority.

For #3, yes, but maybe you're assuming the main purpose of simulation would be
for experiments, and therefore that they're similar to the real world. From
what I've seen of my world, the most common use of computers is entertainment,
and for this, being different from reality (either a little or a lot) is very
important. Research will have human brains-in-a-computer first, but a decade
or two later the Playstation 7 will have a lot more of them. It's like asking:
you're a master-level chess computer, who are you? You might be Deep Blue in
1996, but you're far more likely to be a chess program running on somebody's
PC a few years later.

------
scotth
Ugh...same old shit, no new data to suggest that this might be possible within
the time span mentioned. Moore's Law, Exponential Growth, blah blah blah.

~~~
habitmelon
I am really tired of Moore's trend being referred to as a Law.

~~~
jlgreco
It _is_ a law though. The mistake is in thinking that means it will always
hold true or is necessarily "correct".

As wikipedia nicely puts it:

 _Scientific laws:

1) summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a
single statement,

2) can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or
equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to
predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other
physical conditions of the processes which take place,

3) are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific
knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified).
Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather
the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law
does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute
certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible
for a law to be overturned by future observations._

"Law" is not a stronger form of "theory", as is popularly believed.

Now granted, it is not a particularly _good_ law. Strictly speaking it is bad
science, but a law it is nevertheless.

------
nhebb
This sounds like Solipsism Syndrome [1]. I used to experience it in my Fluid
Dynamics class, convincing myself that no one in the world could possibility
give a shit about this stuff, so it must be all taking place in my mind.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome>

------
doctorstupid
These people are closet creationists. The thought of there being no reason for
the universe is probably quite frightful for them.

~~~
knodi
I love the notion of "no reason for the universe". I find it to be very
pleasing.

~~~
robertk
The ultimate sandbox. Deterministic, free will-less sandbox. :(

~~~
Permit
How can it be deterministic if there are elements of randomness in our
universe? I mean true randomness such as electron movement and nuclear decay.

~~~
akoumjian
Instantaneous nonlocal action does not make it nondeterministic, it just makes
it unpredictable.

~~~
Permit
I am not a physicist, so I'm speaking outside my realm of expertise. On the
topic, Hawking suggests the following:

"Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by
laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of
determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature
determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than
determining the future and past with certainty."

It's an interesting idea, because to me it suggests that if one were to rewind
time and play events out again without changing anything, subtle things may
occur differently. This would lead to larger time changes over a larger period
of time. The idea seems strange, but then, so do many things on the quantum
level as they are completely outside our traditional experiences.

Apparently no consensus has been reached on this topic by experts in the
field. I won't try and convince you, just present my interpretation.

------
aj700
But does it have protected memory? Can we write into it the things we want and
need?

~~~
Jyaif
I'm constantly fearing that Voyager might trigger an "out of bounds" exception

~~~
Ogre
Or that when the NPCs in our hyper-realistic video games start creating their
own video games we'll run out of stack space.

------
oatmealsnap
The pixel analogy doesn't quite hold here. The only reason pixels have a
certain size if because the maker of the screen didn't make them any smaller.
With quantum mechanics (at least by my undergrad understanding of it), those
"pixels" are due to angular momentum, and properties of standing waves.

------
lukevdp
The article suggests this is a new idea. This isn't a new idea at all, it's
been kicking around for years.

Interesting but untestable, and has no effect on our scientific understanding
of the world. Fun thought to have but ultimately useless.

~~~
whyenot
The article actually states quite clearly that it is _not_ a new idea.

 _This hypothesis—versions of which have been kicked around for centuries—is
becoming the trippy notion of the moment for philosophers, with people like
Nick Bostrom, the director of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity
Institute, seriously considering the premise._

Are we really sure it's untestable? It seems like something that might be
worth thinking about. If we look in the right places (theoretical math,
physics?) might we be able to see reflections of a world "outside"?

~~~
lukevdp
>>The article actually states quite clearly that it is not a new idea.

I was talking about this bit, which is a bit lower:

"but he is one of the first to argue we might already be living inside one."

>>Are we really sure it's untestable? It seems like something that might be
worth thinking about. If we look in the right places (theoretical math,
physics?) might we be able to see reflections of a world "outside"?

We can never be 100% sure it's untestable because it's impossible to prove a
negative. But I put it in the same basket as testing the existance of a god.

------
faizthoughts
This is not science. This is fabrication, fiction, and to an observer,
Bullshit.

------
freefrancisco
I think there is a principle of conservation of computation in the universe
that would not allow this.

Just like a system that takes some energy in cannot output more energy than
what it took in, I think a simulation that takes some computational power in
cannot output more computation than the original system is capable of.

If we had a simulation of the relevant aspects of the universe, of the mind,
of computers, etc. that was capable of running another simulation inside it,
in order to run the other simulation while still running itself it would have
to double its computer power (or half its simulation speed), it would have to
share computational power with any simulation running inside it, whether
directly or nested inside another one. Without creating more computer power
out of nothing it would soon come to the physical limits (or the computational
limits) and would not be able to go further.

------
redm
Since these simulations are getting so complex, it shouldn't be long until we
can scan our brains structure exactly and simulate it in mobile computer
attached to an android.

Then androids could simulate the combination of DNA from parents and have baby
androids. :o

~~~
petitmiam
>Then androids could simulate the combination of DNA from parents and have
baby androids. :o

well that is the fun bit. :)

------
uvTwitch
Did this guy only just now watch The Matrix or something?

~~~
lloeki
In Matrix, minds are not simulated, and only a faux-earth is presented to
people, much more like Descartes's evil genius[0]. Actually, most of the
processing would actually happen in people brains, since only stimulations
matter, and they would only need to be quite gross compared to a whole
universe of physics iterated over at Planck intervals.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon>

------
lloeki
Here's a nice short story about probabilities and a universe "simulating the
course of what the programmer considers to be ancient history" I stumbled upon
some years ago:

<http://qntm.org/responsibility>

------
daniel-cussen
Ah, so when they said 42 is the answer, they meant it was the seed number.

(If you've played Minecraft, a world simulator, you know you need a seed
number to get the world started. It's the "let there be light" and ensures
your Minecraft world is unique.)

------
nvmc
A lovely piece of conjecture, complete with pop-culture and drug references.

------
Kilimanjaro
What if we are? We still can't change the laws of physics, rewind time, fast
forward events, live forever.

So no, we aren't.

