
Your yearly dose of is-the-universe-a-simulation - evanb
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3208
======
mrleiter
Immanuel Kant foresaw all this. In his seminal work "Critique of pure reason"
he argues that our pure reason, as opposed to the pure mind, always tries to
look for the absolute, the absolute of all conditionals. This leads our reason
to look beyond empirically observable objects. Those objects that have their
origin only in pure reason is what he calls "ideas". Those ideas can be
separated into three categories, namely psychologia rationalis (Soul),
cosmologia rationalis (World) and theologie transcendentaus (God, or Being of
all Beings).

Ideas can never be proven or falsified for that matter. But they have their
use: be a guideline for our living. This is where Kant's famous practical
philosophy stems from.

~~~
Gormisdomai
Kant student here. Find below some relevant Kant for the unitiatied. Note that
Kant interpretations are everywhere and that no two scholars are alike, but
I've tried to list the less controversial stuff.

Look at a thing on your desk. You are having a sensation of light and colour.
Kant calls this raw pixel level sense data "sensibility".

Now as well as just seeing pixels you can distinguish the thing you are
looking at as an individual object, with certain dimensions and in a certain
location. Kant calls this processed spatiotemporal data "intuition".

Now you may also recognise the object you are looking at as being "a stapler"
and you may recognise it as being on your desk and as belonging to your friend
who's lent it to you. Kant calls this abstract data "concept" (also called
"idea" as in the OP).

Now. If you're doing Science then you'd better have intuitions corresponding
with all your concepts otherwise you're just making stuff up without actually
looking at the world. But unfortunately there's a limit to how much we can
observe in the world and we are greedy so we start coming up with judgements
about concepts that do not correspond to any intuitions. E.g. "The universe is
a simulation". In the Critique of Pure reason the central question is how any
such judgements can be true (hint we think that some are true: Pythagoras's
theorem is a judgement about all triangles, and so we think it is true for
some triangles we have never seen). If you think this is a worthwhile question
you might like to read Kant.

A Kantian reply to the blog post linked above would be that if the universe is
a simulation then we can't even be sure that the laws of mathematics or
geometry hold outside of it, because these laws are added by our brains when
we turn "sensibility" into "intuition".

If it seems silly to you that the laws of mathematics or geometry might be all
in our heads, then you are what Kant calls a "Transcendental Realist". If it
seems natural to you that the laws of mathematics and geometry are all in our
heads and that this is what allows those laws to be true of every object we
see, then you are what Kant calls "a Transcendental Idealist".

If we're being Transcendental Realists then it makes sense to collect
empirical data to settle whether the universe is a simulation or not. If we're
being Transcendental Idealists, then the empirical data we collect has
absolutely no bearing on the question.

~~~
kordless
Look at a thing in your mind's eye, if you are capable of doing so. An apple
or a book will serve for this example. The pixels you are "seeing" allow you
to distinguish the thing you are looking at as an individual object. (This
would also be a good time to ask yourself if you've ever considered your
ability to imagine as "seeing" photons, and if you haven't, why not?)

You are a Transcendental Realist if you think this "view" of an apple comes
from a system, your brain, which itself is based 100% in reality...the reality
that contains "real" apples, perhaps on a table at work, which can be
confirmed by consensus of coworkers. The consensus and coworkers are also 100%
based in reality, if you believe this way. This theory is based on what Kant
called a posteriori knowledge, or knowledge after observation.

If you are a Transcendental Idealist, you will know that the internal, mind's
eye view of the apple makes it real. You will also know other "things" in your
"real world" view have little or no bearing on your internal view. Things out
here in the real world are mutable, in other words, and are undergoing a
constant change by everyone's view (or just your view, in some variations) of
their/your internal realities. i.e. all of _this_ stuff is just brought into
being by your consciousness. This "ability" is a priori knowledge, or
knowledge that comes from reasoning.

I would propose this reality is actually a mix of the two, where both work in
union, in a decidedly meta a priori way, to render reality as we see it. It is
not a simulation and it _is_ simulation-like at times, in other words. It's a
hybrid consciousness!

Random, and irrational, but figured I'd share.

------
TelmoMenezes
Something that most people never consider in these discussions:

If you accept the hypothesis that mind is generated by a computation, and that
this computation is finite, then the same computation that produces "you" can
be performed in different places and at different times. The same computation
can be performed inside a simulation, inside a simulation inside a simulation
and so on.

Whatever environment around you can be included in this computation.

As long as the computation is finite the larger and/or more temporally
extended the universe is, the higher the probability that the computation that
is generating this current moment for you is being executed more than once. If
the universe is infinite in some sense, this probability converges to 1.

And yet you would have no way of knowing that this is happening.

So I claim that, if you assume that mind is generated by a computation, then
then question of wether we are in a simulation or not can be replied with
"both" or "it doesn't matter".

~~~
GuiA
Except that your mind is not an isolatable computation - it is influenced by
your body, which is in turn influenced by its immediate environment, in turn
influenced by the rest of the universe in an ever expanding nested fashion.

So if you want to simulate yourself, you have to simulate the universe.

~~~
Ntrails
> So if you want to simulate yourself, you have to simulate the universe.

This doesn't gel with me. I go back to brain in a jar stuff - I'm just
streaming packets of data from nerves and processing them. Whether the "body"
I'm responding to is real is pretty hard to guarentee.

~~~
GuiA
There's evidence that your brain is influenced by e.g. certain chemicals in
your bloodstream produced by gut bacteria.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-
bacte...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacteria-on-
the-brain/395918/)

So the brain in a jar model where the only interface with the real world is
through nerves is most probably wrong; now your jar also needs a stomach with
a fully developed microbial ecosystem. And that's just one recent mechanism
that was investigated; there are probably many others.

~~~
frobozz
No, at most you can say it requires a way to introduce those chemicals into
the bloodstream in the brain.

Actually, all you need is a way to stimulate the same receptors that are
stimulated by those chemicals.

Just as with unit testing, you don't actually need to hook up your SUT to a
real environment, you just need to hook it up to something that will exercise
the same interface as a real environment.

~~~
Ntrails
Indeed. I over-simplified - but whatever the mechanism people refer to it's
mockable.

------
planetjones
But couldn't our universe be being simulated by a species far more advanced
and discrete to anything the human race has ever encountered? How do we know
that another form of life doesn't find everything that we find super complex
extremely trivial ?

~~~
moxious
It could be the case that we are being simulated by a far superior alien
species. It could also be that invisible pink unicorns in the 15th dimension
control all of our thoughts and only want us to believe this.

Without being tongue in cheek, I'll observe that the empirical evidence for
both of these ideas is equal in quantity.

We don't know for sure that these things aren't true. But to ask that question
is to inappropriately shift the burden of proof away from the claimer. Whoever
claims something (we live in a simulation) should put up the evidence or get
out. It's not up to bystanders to disprove the assertion. Connecting this to
current events, even the president of the USA doesn't get to make baseless
claims that his predecessor wiretapped him and get away with shifting the
burden of proof to the FBI to prove he wasn't.

This "reversal of burden of proof" is a classic but invalid way to make a
point.

~~~
sillysaurus3
There are many questions in life that are interesting to consider, independent
of whether they're falsifiable. It tends to get boring to consider only
questions that can be experimentally proven, though different people have
different interests.

Questions about society and human nature are worth considering, for example,
but it's difficult to do controlled experiments.

There's some truth to "watch out for wishful thinking," but usually
conversations about the actual topic are more interesting.

~~~
kobeya
> There are many questions in life that are interesting to consider,
> independent of whether they're falsifiable. It tends to get boring to
> consider only questions that can be experimentally proven...

You say "boring", I say "ruthlessly pragmatic."

It could be argued, crudely, that the non-verifiable questions are akin to
epistomatic masturbation. We are drawn to them, and debating them makes us
feel good, but the result is ultimately empty and meaningless.

~~~
ue_
I don't see any particular reason to subscribe to pragmatism; epistomatic
masturbation sounds good, and from a hedonistic perspective I think I'd rather
take that.

You say "ruthlessly pragmatic", I say "boring".

~~~
kobeya
> I don't see any particular reason to subscribe to pragmatism

Reason #1: it works. I've never needed a reason #2.

------
leni536
The statement "we live in a simulation" is not falsifiable. For me this
question is simply not interesting.

~~~
coldtea
Popper's concept of "falsifiable" claims as the only means to science has been
debunked time and again.

It's not how real science works most of the time.

~~~
lordfoom
Really? I'm interested in reading more about this?

~~~
coldtea
Check e.g.:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method)

(And other newer sources on epistemology, but those are basic).

------
Insanity
I am not sure what to make of the whole universe-is-a-simulation argument. The
problem is that, this is as far as I know, not an hypothesis we could ever
hope to prove. Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of
this world.

I highly doubt that there is a higher creature, whether that would be a God of
some kind, or a whole civilization outside of our universe that somehow
simulates us.

But let's for entertainment suppose that we are in fact a simulation. Would
that not immediatly raise the question "why"? If we are a simulation I would
really like to know the reason for being simulated. What do they hope to reach
with simulating a life like ours?

I fear we could never find a satisfactory answer to these questions. I also
agree with the statement that this brings us back to a more mythological
explanation of the universe and life around us. It'd make more sense to try
and explain our universe without that hypothesis to me.

Another argument that I'd like to raise against the universe-simulation
hypothesis is the following. Humans like to see the world around them in terms
of the technology that, at that moment, is considered modern and which they
like. For example, Freud compared the human brain to the steam engine, which
at that point was modern technology. Today, we compare the brain to a
computer, and we even go as far as to consider the whole universe might be
similated in one. Maybe just because that is what we consider 'modern' at the
moment?

In 1000 years from now, humans might think it's silly to think of the brain as
a computer and rather think of it in terms of technology X, and the universe
is technology Y.

~~~
simonh
I think it's interesting to speculate what the simulation argument means for
religion. The existence of a simulation creator doesn't actually disprove the
existence of an ultimate god, after all the beings running the simulation
might have a divine creator, so it just pushes the question up a level. But it
does pose a problem for imminent religions that believe that god intervenes in
the world to cause miracles. How do you know that any given miracle was caused
by the ultimate god and not the simulation sysadmins editing the simulation?
The whole question of miracles and divine providence becomes deeply
problematic.

~~~
ensignavenger
Who is to say that God and the sim operators aren't one and the same?

~~~
mannykannot
The sim operators would be gods. It is gods all the way up, but not the sort
of gods that most religions imagine.

~~~
ensignavenger
Perhaps- but most Christian sects consider God to be 'incomprehensible" or
something similar- so it would not surprise them if God was different from
what they imagined.

~~~
mannykannot
I don't think it is a stretch to say that all Christian sects have some
definite ideas of what God is like. For some, the 'God is incomprehensible'
claim is their motte in a motte-and-bailey fallacy, to which they temporarily
retreat when faced with questions like "if God is omniscient, omnipotent and
loving, why was there smallpox?"

~~~
ensignavenger
Sure, but within those 'definite ideas' there is usually a wide path for
imagination to feel in details. See my reply to another comment for an
example.

If you want to have a more personal theological discussion, including a
possible answer or two to the question about disease you pose above, feel free
to reach out to me, my contact info can be found via my profile. :)

------
pilingual
It's amusing that the point of the blog post was how refreshing it was to be
at the Stanford conference with bright minds talking about stimulating new
topics; yet the comments here on HN continue to discuss the tired topic.

~~~
tempodox
You couldn't simulate that if you tried.

------
ouid
This question is so fundamentally bullshit that a new, stronger form of the
word fundamental is required to truly describe it. Of course the universe is a
simulation. There are either more fundamental processes occurring which
explain the behavior of our observations, or it is the identity simulation.
Newtonian laws are simulated with quantum laws, atoms are simulated with
quarks, time is simulated by statistical relationships, and chemical
interactions within the rules of the other abstractions are sufficient to
simulate our observations.

If you believe that this question is about whether or not there is some
anthropomorphic supervisor of the simulation, then THAT is the hypothesis you
should be putting forward, not that the universe is a simulation, which is
meaningless.

------
snowwrestler
Here's what I wrote in a comment here last year about the Bostrom simulation
argument specifically:

The simulation argument, going back to Bostrom, relies on two flaws.

1) It leverages our optimism to corrupt our understanding of statistics and
logic. It essentially says that if you think humanity doesn't destroy itself,
then our descendants will probably try to simulate us. But of course if you
just take a statistical view of the potential future ordered states of the
universe, there are FAR more potential future states in which we don't exist,
than states in which we do. The chances we are living in a simulation now are
equally as small.

2) Bostrom hypothesizes that our descendants will try to simulate us. But it
is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system--that's
basic thermodynamics. So simulation proponents argue that our simulated
reality is running in a more complex universe than we experience. But if that
is the case, then the beings running the simulation are not our descendants!
They're the descendants of whatever more complex beings came before them. Once
again the central logic of the argument fails.

~~~
karpathy
The thing I always found perplexing about the idea of an ancestral simulation
is - how do you initialize that? E.g. suppose we are in the year 3,000 and we
have super advanced computers and I'd like to simulate the year 2017. How do I
lay out all the humans/their brains/animals/trees/rocks/etc, without access to
the snapshot of the state? And some attempts at patching this, e.g. by
simulating physics backwards from a current state because the laws of physics
are reversible is not likely due to 1) entropy/chaos when going backward, 2)
the difficulty of taking a simultaneous high-fidelity particle-level-accurate
snapshot in the year 3,000, and 3) missing boundary conditions.

~~~
AnonNo15
1) you start from Big Bang and go forward.

2) you can at any state check the difference between the simulated state and
historical record

3) if your simulation converges, that is the closer to present day, the less
the uncertainty, then you are on a right track.

4) if you simulation diverges you go to step 1 and tweak the initial
conditions

5) you don't run a single simulation - you run many in parallel and select the
best match at each step.

------
julianpye
Regarding AI and God and religion - here is a blog post that I wrote that
suggests that being in a simulation actually increases our chances for a
religious afterlife.

[https://medium.com/@photodiary/implementing-religion-in-
ai-l...](https://medium.com/@photodiary/implementing-religion-in-ai-life-
simulations-45e6e293b8aa#.giqw4s25n)

~~~
jonathanstrange
That's a non-sequitur you have there, because you do not even attempt to
explain why there should be a case distinction. To be fair, even Nick
Bostrom's original simulation argument is also based on several fairly
unfounded and not very plausible assumptions (e.g. what extremely advanced
societies would do). Much of the debate seems to be based on speculation.

~~~
julianpye
Well, my blog-post is half-serious. The bigger question from it would be why
the hell the Universe would be implemented in Java :)

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Well if you do it in Basic a pony takes 4 million lines.

------
Myrmornis
Can someone explain the first bit of the last sentence?

> if our world is a simulation, then whoever is simulating it seems to have a
> clear preference for the 2-norm over the 1-norm

Is it basically saying that space looks Euclidean at a range of scales and
Pythagoras crops up everywhere or is it saying something else / more
sophisticated? What would the Universe look like if its creator favored a
1-norm?

~~~
gjm11
I think he's referring less to the geometry of space(-time) and more to the
structure of quantum mechanics.

Classical probabilities are positive real numbers that add up to 1. (The
1-norm of the vector of probabilities is 1.) Quantum ampltiudes are complex
numbers whose squared absolute values add up to 1. (The 2-norm of the vector
of amplitudes is 1.)

A universe made by someone who preferred 1-norms would more likely be
classical rather than quantum.

For more on this from the author of the linked blogpost, see here:
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html](http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html)
or the corresponding bit in his excellent book "Quantum computing since
Democritus".

~~~
Myrmornis
Thanks! That was a really helpful reply. Started reading the Aaronson intro to
QM you linked and it does seem like a very direct and understandable approach
to the subject.

------
js8
I don't understand why is simulation even necessary. Simulation argument says
that our universe and consciousness is pretty much just some sort of
mathematical structure, that is being manipulated according to some simple
laws as it evolves through what we call time.

But then, isn't the only requirement for beings inside this structure to
perceive it as such that the structure exists? Do you need to really
physically manipulate it?

To put it differently, what if the designers of the simulation could come up
with some theorem that would let them correctly skip hundreds of years of
simulating something. Would beings in those hundreds of years still existed,
even though it wasn't actually executed? What if they just calculated the
final answer? Would we then exist?

So, to me, either this is nonsense, and we are not in simulation, or, any kind
of mathematical structure that can possibly exist somehow "exists" and no
"creator" is needed. But neither of those two options is a good argument for
existence of simulation creator.

~~~
pka
That's intersting.

If the universe could be simulated, you could, in theory, run that simulation
on a (very large) piece of paper by hand. Running the simulation would then be
equivalent to calculating some numbers and writing them down.

Basically, if I wrote down the correct sequence of numbers, I could simulate
you. But is calculating those numbers actually necessary? Is it enough to just
have the result of that computation without performing the actual steps to
obtain it? If yes, then a random number generator would be all that is needed
to simulate our (and infinitely many other) universes.

And if that's the case, maybe it's not such a big leap to imagine that the
mere existence of the physical laws as an abstract concept is enough to give
rise to a simulation?

~~~
carry_bit
> And if that's the case, maybe it's not such a big leap to imagine that the
> mere existence of the physical laws as an abstract concept is enough to give
> rise to a simulation?

Calculating it just provides a window into the simulation; it still exists (in
an abstract mathematical sense) even if you're not looking.

------
tazjin
I experienced a series of extremely unlikely coincidences recently and one of
my first thoughts was that if The Sims was a sufficiently advanced game I'd be
doing those sorts of things to the characters.

~~~
egeozcan
I used to take writing lessons and the teacher always said that the
coincidences only happen in real life, not in stories because that wouldn't be
realistic.

------
moomin
Until someone demonstrates a jailbreak, I'm going to regard this hypothesis as
moot.

~~~
ftlio
Timothy Leary is a double entendre here...

------
yk
Putnam has a very nice argument in his _Brains in a vat_ paper. [1] Basically
he argues that a brain in a box lacks any causal connection to the box, the
brain does never learn any information about the box. The idea "I am a brain
in a box" lacks a reference and any reasoning about it is at best a lucky
guess, even if true.

The issue is the similar, but more fundamental, as me claiming "you have a
misplaced comma in the second sentence of your next email." That may or may
not be true, but if it is true it is certainly not based on sound reasoning.

[1]
[http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf](http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf)

------
Aeolun
I recently read a short story about this exact subject:
[https://qntm.org/responsibility](https://qntm.org/responsibility)

I think it quite accurately represents the mind-fuck that this causes.

~~~
jfries
Wow that's quite a thought experiment. Fun twist at the end, I wonder how
society would react to this realization.

------
FrankyHollywood
You only need to simulate one mind actually, it's all a dream :)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)

------
amelius
My personal favorite (untested) theory is that the universe does not exist at
all in reality, but only in an abstract way through a rewrite system that
combines "nothingness with nothingness" ad infinitum [1, 2]

[1]
[http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6544](http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6544)

[2]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XdhzCORbo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XdhzCORbo)

------
wnkrshm
I don't understand how rejecting that the state of the universe is
fundamentally computable is the same as rejecting the Church-Turing Thesis.

Rejecting the computability of the universe's state is more fundamental: It
rejects one of the assumptions of the Church-Turing Thesis, namely that there
is a function to compute at all.

------
Geee
My hypothesis is that we are in a natural simulation, i.e. simulated by a
computer which evolved by itself. Or layers of simulations. The "base
universe" should be the simplest possible universe that is very simple, but
capable of evolving the first simulation, which is more complex universe.

------
polotics
Contributing to the debate: How frequently do you fire up sim-city / how
frequently do you fix up lunch?

------
mannykannot
Maybe I am just not following, but the arguments of Sabine Hossenfelder, Scott
Aaronson, and of a great many posts here seem to assume that reality is
something like what we (or should I say I?) experience. If our (my) universe
is a simulation, nothing we (I) perceive about it is trustworthy, and that
applies as much to odds as to absolutes. Has there been any argument against
the possibility that does not either beg the question by tacitly assuming that
our perceptions inform us about the ultimate reality, or alternatively squeeze
the essence of the problem into a tight little knot and thereafter avoid
dealing with it directly, as I think Kant (among others) did? I do not
actually think I am a simulation, but I cannot argue against it.

------
tempodox
Eventually, it comes down to the question whether any self-respecting non-
simulated universe would actually tolerate that amount of the-universe-is-a-
simulation braincrackery. My simulation of Occam is turning in his grave.

------
powera
I'm yet to hear a simulation theory with more explanatory power than the much
simpler theory of "God did it".

Most of the claims are variants of "but computers, so science", which is not
an argument at all.

~~~
codebolt
To me, even if we ignore the God debate, there are some big problems with
theories like these because they irreverently presuppose that everything
including the human mind can be reduced to mechanical/mathematical principles.
This ignores things like the problem of qualia (which I'm subjectively
convinced is real), and the Penrose-Lucas argument for why there is a non-
computational component to human consciousness.

~~~
TekMol
I don't experience any qualia. And I don't believe you that you do. Do you
have any arguments that could convince me to believe you?

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Why do I need to convince you _I_ experience qualia?

You're welcome to propose models that omit it, but they'll fail basic logic to
me: they fail to explain the only experiment Im absolutely sure of the results
of and which is continually running while I'm existing. Im less sure gravity
exists than that qualia does for me.

It's entirely possible no one else does, or that they experience a different
qualia. It's also not possible to prove that you do to _others_.

I see no point in trying to convince non-qualia-experiencing entities that I
experience it, because they fundamentally don't have experiences and I don't
think it's possible to bridge that gap.

~~~
simonh
To me that, and 'I think therefore I am' are just I'm a special snowflake
arguments.

I take the simulated Intelligence argument the same way. Suppose you could
create a simulation of an intelligence that was indistinguishable from a real
one? Well then, you'd have created an artificial intelligence. If such a thing
reported that it experienced qualia I'd have no reason to doubt it.

Edit: to put it differently. Suppose I built a model of a Formula 1 engine. I
used different materials at a different scale and used a different fuel, but
to precise tolerances so that it could actually run. Would it be a Formula 1
engine? No. Would it be an internal combustion engine? Of course, nobody would
doubt it.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
I think you're wrong about them being "special snowflake" arguments, and
likely miss the point of them.

Those arguments are very low-level in the intellectual stack, and can only
address matters of subjective self because what they seek to establish or
discuss is more fundamental than concepts like objectivity. (Well, cogito ergo
sum is establishing an objective fact from a subjective one to give a basis
for later objective discovery.)

Any full accounting of the world must explain the mechanism by which I
experience it, or it hasn't explained the only part of the world Im sure
exists (my experience of it), and hence can't be a full accounting. You can
have a very good predictive model for features of that experience, but
neglecting that experience -- qualia -- is leaving a major thing unexplained.

Similarly, cogito ergo sum is likely better phrased as "computation ergo
existence" \-- the process of doubting is a form of doing something, and so
something must exist which is doing that (or is that process). This
establishes that there must be some sort of existence, even if it's just a
brain in a jar, random memory from quantum noise, etc. You can't doubt there's
_an_ existence, because the very act of doubting is proof of existing. You can
only doubt the form of it.

I also disagree that we'd have no reason to _doubt_ the claim, but I agree we
have no a prior reason to reject it.

Your edit also makes a major assumption: that we know what causes qualia (our
brain structure). That's the very thing being debated, so you're just begging
the question.

~~~
simonh
But the qualia argument isn't just that a full description of a mind must
explain qualia, it's that the nature of qualia are such that no description of
a mind can possibly explain them. Philosophers like David Chalmers are making
a specific very strong claim, which I see no reason to accept. I can't right
now explain how qualia arise from the mechanisms in our brain, but I see no
reason to suppose that such an explanation is impossible.

------
KCFforecast
How to solve any problem quickly: Program your computer to solve a problem in
a million years time, then go for a travel at the speed of light, come back to
your home and consult the solution of your problem, you have been traveling
only a few days but your computer has been doing computation a million of
years, so you now have the solution, a quick one.

Just alter that system to use the relative time to have computer working
millions of years to solve problems for you and you can have the solution in
days. Call it photon computation to give the system a name.

~~~
StavrosK
That's not "quickly". That's your consciousness slowing down to a rate of one
day per million years.

~~~
KCFforecast
You don't solve the problem by yourself, that problem is solved for you on
system A, in system A a million years have lapsed but in your life only a few
days have passed.

~~~
StavrosK
I know, but that's not "quickly". It's just that time passes slowly for you.
"Quickly" would be if my friends and family were still alive and the world
were recognizable (and there) by the time I got back.

~~~
KCFforecast
Try this version instead: There is a rocket to be launched for people to
upload problems to solve, the rocket travels in such a way that it is able to
solve all the problems and come back to tell people the solution. The way it
solves the problem is by orbiting around a tiny planet full of computers
devoted to compute the problems they are communicated of. The problem seems to
be how to locate the observers.

Edited: time dilation and computation:
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1579.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1579.pdf)

------
6stringmerc
I'm nurturing a thought that the experience of Human Life is much more akin to
a biological radio antennae picking up on a cosmic "living" code base being
broadcast somewhere out there which encompasses the entire known universe.

That's where the postulation stops and I just go with "turtles all the way
down" after that.

------
AnonNo15
I had thought about this idea and came to the conclusion that if the full
universe simulation is ever possible, it is highly likely that we are living
in one right now.

And the only way to prove it is possible, is to attempt to simulate one.

~~~
baddox
Your first sentence is precisely Bostrom's argument, which is pretty much the
canonical argument for the simulation hypothesis.

~~~
visarga
And thus we open the door again for Intelligent Design. If we live in a
simulation, then we could be the creation of an intelligent and powerful
designer.

~~~
AnonNo15
The point about unfalsifiability is still valid. Even if we can simulate
sentient life we still can't prove we ourselves are simulated or not.

------
jmcdiesel
I think its a great question to ponder on, and I think anyone making a claim
in either direction is wrong...

To claim it is a simulation is just overreaching, because there is no real
evidence.

To claim its not, that its not possible, is hubris - just because we can't
simulate it now doesn't mean in a million years a society following ours
wouldn't be able to, and if you say even a society in a billion years would be
able to, then you're saying its possible, and if its possible, than you can't
say we're not.

I love unanswerable questions. Especially with a little sativa in my bowl. :)

------
z3t4
I've been thinking about distributed databases lately and how such a system
should be designed. How does nature do it ... ? (quantum mechanics)

------
wallace_f
The author writes about exceptional attendees at the conference:

>...from Lenny Susskind and Don Page and [and..., and..., and...]

This is what I don't like about academia. It's equivalent to "shout outs" you
see 12-year-olds do in Call of Duty tournament games.

I know everyone knows academia is filled with politics, but if scientists are
going to circle jerk, please jerk on ideas, not each other.

------
akssri
I'm a string in X^*, and the universe is a real number.

------
draw_down
I'm reminded of when I was in school, and took western philosophy to try to
get some help with how to think about life and the world. Instead what I got
was a bunch of, like, Descartes staring at a candle and trying to figure out
if it's real.

My thought then and now has been, it doesn't matter. This existence has
certain rules to it. Drink poison and you die, hurt people and go to jail.
It's up to us to figure out how to navigate that for a time, and that's all we
get. As far as we know.

Even if you knew what was outside what we call reality, even if you knew the
form of the simulation- what could be done with that information?

I wonder if this sort of thinking is ultimately propelled by a fear of death
or some other impetus compelling people to deny that reality is what it really
is. Maybe it's somehow comforting to think that your loved ones don't really
die and neither do you, suffering isn't real, it's just qubits being shuffled
around in a formal game that lacks higher meaning.

