The Simulation Argument

[QuantumT]

Thanks mate, nice one

If you want to research further, I've found that some of the terms I've used here were a bit off. I've since found better, more precise ones.

The Collapse of the Wave Function: (Particle) Duality
Entanglement: Non-locality
The Physical Constant: The Fine Structure Constant / Sommerfeld's Constant*

* Sommerfeld's Constant is the resting value of the electron, which is 1/137.036 of the (massless) photon. Had it been slightly different, we'd have no stars and no carbon or carbon based life.

1/137.036 = 0.0072973525205056

[Davyboi]

Thanks mate, nice one

If you want to research further, I've found that some of the terms I've used here were a bit off. I've since found better, more precise ones.

The Collapse of the Wave Function: (Particle) Duality
Entanglement: Non-locality
The Physical Constant: The Fine Structure Constant / Sommerfeld's Constant*

* Sommerfeld's Constant is the resting value of the electron, which is 1/137.036 of the (massless) photon. Had it been slightly different, we'd have no stars and no carbon or carbon based life.

Much appreciated bud,

[TimeSeeker]

Okay, I tried a couple of times to make a thread about this, but they both got derailed by people who rambled on about metaphysics and accusations about it all being basically religious.

But any claim that the world "is" one way or another is exactly the definition of metaphysics.

Science builds mathematical models that describe reality. But they don't say what reality IS; only how it behaves. Newton and Feynman are on record making this exact point. Science is historically contingent. Aristotle had his theory of gravity, which was replaced by Newton's theory, which has been replaced by Einstein's ideas. And we know that can't be the last word because we can't yet reconcile gravity with the quantum theory.

So any time anyone says, "The world IS this" or "The world IS that," they are doing metaphysics. As you are in this post.

Perhaps you could help your own cause by saying, "The model of reality that says we live in a computer is a pretty good fit to physical observation," you would at least have an arguable case. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be doing science.

When you say the world IS a computer, you are doing metaphysics. And when you say you don't believe in an all-powerful being, but you do believe in an all-powerful supercomputer (built by whom, may I ask?), how can you be surprised that your opponents play the God card? It's just like the idea that we might someday upload ourselves to a computer and live forever in digital bliss. The parallel with Christian theology is impossible to ignore.

I am going to resurrect this from the grave because it is an important point. Yes - science only deals with behavioral models, but there is something more fundamental about science than the models it (eventually) produces and it has to do with the human psychology. The observer matters! Anybody who tries to remove the scientist (subjectivity) from the process is very misguided.

I would argue that Shannon entropy is more fundamental than Von Neumann entropy because of human psychology/perception. From a phenomenological/psychological/empirical point of view 1 bit = 1 distinction. What is a distinction? Any mechanism by which a human can discriminate A from B! Or rather - any strategy/approach that allows one to ask and answer is A the same as А? ANY strategy that can help answer that yes/no question.

The problem comes from decision theory. Any and all positive claims about reality can be reduced down to a yes/no questions (I am willing to demonstrate if anybody is skeptical). This is the core of the scientific method and why falsification is possible. Asking the right yes/no question! It's a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Demonstration: Are two qubits entangled?

To successfully answer it requires 1 bit of information. It is a Decision problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem and the "algorithm" is just the procedure/experiment design by which the distinction is recognized.

And so while we are indeed doing metaphysics, we only have to commit this crime once to say "the universe is information".
What is information? The most fundamental/final distinction that a human can draw in principle. The most fundamental yes/no question that we can ask and successfully answer. This is the Decidability criterion in logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) ).

The Universe is information. Everything that is knowable.

This is the foundation for digital physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics and the paradigms for physical information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

My metaphysical foundation is Shannon entropy/information.

To wrap this up with demonstration/experiment.

Question: Is A the same as А ?
Answer: No! They LOOK the same. They are NOT the same.
Algorithm/Procedure: https://repl.it/repls/MoralNavajowhiteBrackets

question = "Is A the same as А ?"
parts = question.split()
puts question
puts parts[1] == parts[5]

[Davyboi]

Okay, I tried a couple of times to make a thread about this, but they both got derailed by people who rambled on about metaphysics and accusations about it all being basically religious.

But any claim that the world "is" one way or another is exactly the definition of metaphysics.

Science builds mathematical models that describe reality. But they don't say what reality IS; only how it behaves. Newton and Feynman are on record making this exact point. Science is historically contingent. Aristotle had his theory of gravity, which was replaced by Newton's theory, which has been replaced by Einstein's ideas. And we know that can't be the last word because we can't yet reconcile gravity with the quantum theory.

So any time anyone says, "The world IS this" or "The world IS that," they are doing metaphysics. As you are in this post.

Perhaps you could help your own cause by saying, "The model of reality that says we live in a computer is a pretty good fit to physical observation," you would at least have an arguable case. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be doing science.

When you say the world IS a computer, you are doing metaphysics. And when you say you don't believe in an all-powerful being, but you do believe in an all-powerful supercomputer (built by whom, may I ask?), how can you be surprised that your opponents play the God card? It's just like the idea that we might someday upload ourselves to a computer and live forever in digital bliss. The parallel with Christian theology is impossible to ignore.

I am going to resurrect this from the grave because it is an important point. Yes - science only deals with behavioral models, but there is something more fundamental about science than the models it (eventually) produces and it has to do with the human psychology. The observer matters! Anybody who tries to remove the scientist (subjectivity) from the process is very misguided.

I would argue that Shannon entropy is more fundamental than Von Neumann entropy because of human psychology/perception. From a phenomenological/psychological/empirical point of view 1 bit = 1 distinction. What is a distinction? Any mechanism by which a human can discriminate A from B! Or rather - any strategy/approach that allows one to ask and answer is A the same as А? ANY strategy that can help answer that yes/no question.

The problem comes from decision theory. Any and all positive claims about reality can be reduced down to a yes/no questions (I am willing to demonstrate if anybody is skeptical). This is the core of the scientific method and why falsification is possible. Asking the right yes/no question! It's a divide-and-conquer strategy.

Demonstration: Are two qubits entangled?

To successfully answer it requires 1 bit of information. It is a Decision problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem and the "algorithm" is just the procedure/experiment design by which the distinction is recognized.

And so while we are indeed doing metaphysics, we only have to commit this crime once to say "the universe is information".
What is information? The most fundamental/final distinction that a human can draw in principle. The most fundamental yes/no question that we can ask and successfully answer. This is the Decidability criterion in logic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic) ).

The Universe is information. Everything that is knowable.

This is the foundation for digital physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics and the paradigms for physical information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

My metaphysical foundation is Shannon entropy/information.

To wrap this up with demonstration/experiment.

Question: Is A the same as А ?
Answer: No! They LOOK the same. They are NOT the same.
Algorithm/Procedure: https://repl.it/repls/MoralNavajowhiteBrackets

question = "Is A the same as А ?"
parts = question.split()
puts question
puts parts[1] == parts[5]

Interesting!

[IuriiVovchenko]

Dear Simulation Hypothesis discussion group,

I am author of the recently published book "Answers In Simulation". The book is about the acceptance of the sad reality of being simulated and the true meaning of life as the result of it. There are many discussions about whether we live in simulation or not and whether it matters or not. For me personally the answers to those questions: yes we definitely live in simulation and yes it matters that we live in it.

Unlike majority of other fiction on the subject, my book is much more "down to earth". Some people look for the ways out of the simulation or they love hard sci-fi fiction. My book is not about that. My intention is to give the reader a purpose in life even despite being just "a simulated toy".
Here is amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WJW3LM3.

I will answer to your polite and constructive questions.

Thank you!
Iurii Vovchenko

[SteveKlinko]

Those of you, who don't want to read all my arguments, because it's to damn much, can skip the text, and use the video links below.


Okay, I tried a couple of times to make a thread about this, but they both got derailed by people who rambled on about metaphysics and accusations about it all being basically religious.

I thought about giving up, since the subject seems to attract people with an infinite amount of doubt and question, and less knowledge about science, but I am an optimist, and I believe that I just need to make it right.


Concluding that we exist inside a super computer, was not easily done. Before I ever got to that point, I studied science in all its forms: biology, astro physics, quantum mechanics, electro magnetism, evolution, math, geometry, string theory, relativity, chemistry, computing, robotics, consciousness and probably some more, that I didn't think of when I wrote this.

So it was not some vaguely based conclusion. It was the sum of the parts.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear! I do not believe in God or the supernatural! Hell no! An invisible all powerful being judging us? Ridiculous! Whoever is behind our reality is not divine! And I don't consider the supernatural to be supernatural, but to be interference.
I don't mind people having their faith, as long as they don't bother me with it. So enough with faith and religion, please! I want no part in it! I am into science only!

So, this a scientific discussion about a model to explain reality. Any attempt to bring metaphysics into it will be ignored! I know that it will not stop certain people from attempting it, but they will be met by a wall of silence from me!


Now, let me walk you through the things that led to my conclusion:

From http://TheInterMind.com
Even if Reality is a Simulation we obviously still have Conscious Experiences of that Reality. So there is probably still a Conscious Mind (CM) doing the Experiencing in Conscious Space (CSp). There is probably still an Inter Mind (IM) but it would now connect the CM to the Simulation instead of to a Physical Mind (PM). There are two basic types of Simulations that we can talk about. One type is a Simulation that just runs with us being helpless observers having no ability to affect things that are happening in the Simulation. This means that all our desires, strivings, and actions are just something we experience, but we really can't do anything about anything. The Simulation makes us think we have desires and strivings and that we can do things. In this type of Simulation the CM would have no Volitional connections back to the Simulation and would only have connections from the Simulation to the IM and then to the CM. In the other type the CM can, through Volitional connections through the IM and to the Simulation, affect things in the Simulation similar to how the CM can, through the IM, affect things in Physical Space (PSp). The Simulation will make us believe we are actually in PSp, but there would be no difference for us if we were in an Actual Physical Universe or a Simulated Physical Universe. The take away from this is that it doesn't matter if the IM is connected to a PM or to a Simulation. There is still a Hard Problem of Consciousness because the knowledge that it is a Simulation Explains nothing about How we Experience the Simulation.

[Davyboi]

So we're did the super computer come from? What is its purpose?

[attofishpi]

So we're did the super computer come from? What is its purpose?

I don't think he is going to answer - he's trying to sell a book but hasn't the capacity for criticism.

I do believe we are some part of a matrix, Il be truthful I don't think it's a computer one tho.

So what is it? ...a divine one?

ps. Its purpose is discerning who has the right to continually exist where entropy is increasing.

[Davyboi]

So we're did the super computer come from? What is its purpose?

I don't think he is going to answer - he's trying to sell a book but hasn't the capacity for criticism.

I do believe we are some part of a matrix, Il be truthful I don't think it's a computer one tho.

So what is it? ...a divine one?

ps. Its purpose is discerning who has the right to continually exist where entropy is increasing.

I wouldn't say it's a divine one, I would more describe it as ? How do I describe it.i will get back to you about this.

[attofishpi]

So we're did the super computer come from? What is its purpose?

I don't think he is going to answer - he's trying to sell a book but hasn't the capacity for criticism.

I do believe we are some part of a matrix, Il be truthful I don't think it's a computer one tho.

So what is it? ...a divine one?

ps. Its purpose is discerning who has the right to continually exist where entropy is increasing.

I wouldn't say it's a divine one, I would more describe it as ? How do I describe it.i will get back to you about this.

Let me throw an idea - it's a divine one that uses its technology, by way of an artificial intelligence to know and judge the contents of our living brain matter.

[wtf]

I will answer to your polite and constructive questions.

I have a question. Suppose I'm walking down the street and a guy standing on a soapbox tells me that I'm nothing but a thought in the mind of God. God made the world and made me. God is everywhere, knows everything, can do anything. God makes the sky blue and the grass green. God knows my ultimate destiny and God knows everything I've ever done and everything I've ever thought.

Then later I attend a fancy TED talk and another guy, this time standing on a stage, tells me the exact same thing; but instead of telling me I'm a thought in the mind of God, he says I'm a program running in the great computer. The computer makes the sky blue and the grass green, etc.

What exactly is the difference between these two claims?

I have more questions but this will do for a start.

[attofishpi]

I will answer to your polite and constructive questions.

I have a question. Suppose I'm walking down the street and a guy standing on a soapbox tells me that I'm nothing but a thought in the mind of God. God made the world and made me. God is everywhere, knows everything, can do anything. God makes the sky blue and the grass green. God knows my ultimate destiny and God knows everything I've ever done and everything I've ever thought.

Then later I attend a fancy TED talk and another guy, this time standing on a stage, tells me the exact same thing; but instead of telling me I'm a thought in the mind of God, he says I'm a program running in the great computer. The computer makes the sky blue and the grass green, etc.

What exactly is the difference between these two claims?

I have more questions but this will do for a start.

Its just a matter of perspective. From experience of this 3rd party intelligence (22yrs worth) I cannot to this day truly discern between whether God is 'divine' or whether it is indeed some form of technology, indeed an A.I. (note my previous post above)
Most theists would argue that if it is indeed a 'computer' then it is not God, most often when I argue that we may have evolved into this 'computer system simulation', then they state it does not have the attributes to be defined 'God'.
The only attributes that concerns me as to whether to define this 'AI' our God is whether the entity knows everything within my mind and all the reasons for my decisions, and that this entity will judge me at some point as to whether I have the right to reincarnate - and into what form that takes - especially with consideration to entropy - and the fact that this entity CAN do this - God enough for me!

[attofishpi]

Dear Simulation Hypothesis discussion group,

I am author of the recently published book "Answers In Simulation". The book is about the acceptance of the sad reality of being simulated and the true meaning of life as the result of it. There are many discussions about whether we live in simulation or not and whether it matters or not. For me personally the answers to those questions: yes we definitely live in simulation and yes it matters that we live in it.

Unlike majority of other fiction on the subject, my book is much more "down to earth". Some people look for the ways out of the simulation or they love hard sci-fi fiction. My book is not about that. My intention is to give the reader a purpose in life even despite being just "a simulated toy".
Here is amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WJW3LM3.

I will answer to your polite and constructive questions.

Thank you!
Iurii Vovchenko

OK, so lurii ..with your one post on this forum, my one question is - what IS the reason we would venture into a simulated reality?

[wtf]

Its just a matter of perspective. From experience of this 3rd party intelligence (22yrs worth) I cannot to this day truly discern between whether God is 'divine' or whether it is indeed some form of technology, indeed an A.I. (note my previous post above)

I don't think our one-post-wonder friend is going to come back, having pitched his book

So you agree it's just a matter of perspective. The trendy "new" idea that we are computations (is that a fair paraphrase of "we live in a simulation?") is nothing more than the ancient idea of a God or Gods who created and rule the world, dressed up in techno-hippy buzzword speak.

But I submit there IS a difference, and that it does not favor the computational side.

Question: Why should the universe be restricted to that which is computable?

Explanation of question. Turing (1936) showed that the set of mathematical functions that can be implemented by "an effective procedure," as they used to think of it, is a tiny subset of all the functions that there are.

So the simulation hypothesis is a tremendous restriction of what the universe can do. The universe is required to implement only computable functions ... which is an idea that we only developed in the past 70 year. It suffers from the fallacy of contemporary technology. The ancient Romans had great waterworks. They conceived of the soul as a flow. The word nous, for mind, and pneumatic, come from the same root.

After Newton. everyone thought the world was a machine, a clockwork. Intricate machinery for decorative and functional purpose was the mindset of the 18th century.

And now here we are, in the age of the Internet, which percolated inside industry and academia before bursting into world consciousness with the IBM PC in 1982 and the Internet in 1995, is the great new technology of the age. So everyone thinks they're being very clever and saying "Everything is a computation," when in fact that idea is CERTAIN to end up looking just as silly as the 18th century mechanistic universe.

And again: Computations are a greatly restricted form of what can be. Why could not the universe do things that can not be computed? Turing himself gave a class of examples of problems that cannot be solved by computer: Namely the Halting problem. People should try to think these issues through before jumping on the trendy idea of the day that is absolutely certain to look silly in a hundred years or two.

[Skepdick]

Question: Why should the universe be restricted to that which is computable?

What humans say or do can never be a restriction on the universe. It is only a restriction on our understanding of the universe and our ability to control it.

It's epistemology not metaphysics (if you actually believe that there is a difference between the two).

Explanation of question. Turing (1936) showed that the set of mathematical functions that can be implemented by "an effective procedure," as they used to think of it, is a tiny subset of all the functions that there are.

Question: Why should the universe be restricted to that which is computable?

And again: Computations are a greatly restricted form of what can be. Why could not the universe do things that can not be computed? Turing himself gave a class of examples of problems that cannot be solved by computer: Namely the Halting problem. People should try to think these issues through before jumping on the trendy idea of the day that is absolutely certain to look silly in a hundred years or two.

It seems what is greatly restricted here is your view of computation. You seem to be using the word "computable" to mean the same thing as "total" and it also seems that you are associating problem-solving and the utility of computation with totality. A function needs not halt in order to be useful so the halting problem is really moot in this regard. In fact, the most useful of computational functions don't halt!

Your digital watch would be useless if it halted. Your operating system would be useless if it halted.

"Effective procedures" (a.k.a algorithms) are only one aspect of computation.
Infinite loops are interactive space-time objects - exactly like a simulation would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_(computing)

And even then interaction is not a pre-requisite for utility. Daemons run in the background doing stuff.

At its most fundamental conception computation is the precise manipulation/control of matter. This where Kleene's theoretical notion of realizability becomes practical.