tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post7217757686070876371..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The simulation hypothesis and other things I don’t believeSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57554665195837198692020-05-15T02:14:41.196-04:002020-05-15T02:14:41.196-04:00Me, Im about "What If". So, given the Si...Me, Im about "What If". So, given the Simulation, how might it work? I see "Mysterious" lost civilisations strewn over the lands. Often challenging original agreed time periods. So what of "infrastructure" is harder to simulate, so, rather than a complete reset, just reset the conditions and let life start again (Seeding?) <br /><br />Only experiencial resolution? ApteryxOzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09141994266651257758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43291965974852467122013-03-14T06:02:28.551-04:002013-03-14T06:02:28.551-04:00I thank you, Sabine, for patiently explaining you...I thank you, Sabine, for patiently explaining your position in spite of my repeated misunderstandings. <br /><br />But now it seems we've come to the end of the road of this discussion. Talking about <i>"a pretty much useless hypothesis generated by people who've spend too much time playing video games"</i> is just patronizing. How would we ever approach the fundamental nature Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-89684526704160354732013-03-12T04:42:29.407-04:002013-03-12T04:42:29.407-04:00Hi Olle,
Well, it does not, of course, have any r...Hi Olle,<br /><br />Well, it does not, of course, have any relevance for whether or not we live in a computer simulation, which either is the case or not. It just has a relevance to how seriously we should take the proposed idea. The more relevant information we are missing, the less likely we are to come to the correct conclusion. Given that mankind has only engaged in science for a few Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40088895468335740562013-03-10T16:52:47.279-04:002013-03-10T16:52:47.279-04:00"Take a system that’s still fairly simple, li..."Take a system that’s still fairly simple, like a galaxy. If nobody is pointing a telescope at it, you don’t want to bother with its time evolution. But then how do you make sure that observations at different times are consistent?"<br /><br />I heard that this is exactly how the core of "The Sims" runs. According to Will Wright, he program calculates the time evolution of Riccardo Di Sipiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775353990899591603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36040793530442870612013-03-09T15:36:26.930-05:002013-03-09T15:36:26.930-05:00Well could be if reality is something like Julian ...Well could be if reality is something like Julian Barbour's Platonia or Paola Zizzi's computational loop quantum gravity.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonia_(philosophy)<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paola_Zizzi<br /><br />I would still think anybody pulling plugs would mostly effect their own reality though we could be caught in kind of a statistical average of John Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16525125349739950426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23466457657965057992013-03-09T15:32:29.758-05:002013-03-09T15:32:29.758-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.John Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16525125349739950426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70826200705896764202013-03-07T12:52:05.896-05:002013-03-07T12:52:05.896-05:00All right, Sabine, perhaps we're converging to...All right, Sabine, perhaps we're converging towards much less disagreement than it seemed at first. When you write, concerning the quest for the fundamental nature of reality, that you <i>"don't think we have all the pieces together and have had time enough to assemble them correctly"</i>, then about this we're in total agreement! I'm pretty sure Nick Bostrom would agreeOlle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27758903154581271352013-03-07T01:53:26.608-05:002013-03-07T01:53:26.608-05:00Hi Olle,
No, I don't think the human brain is...Hi Olle,<br /><br />No, I don't think the human brain is necessarily incapable of understanding the fundamental nature of reality. What I'm saying is it's a scientifically very difficult question and we haven't yet spend very much person-hours on it, so everything we've come up with so far is unlikely to be correct because we're missing too much knowledge and understandingSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30659603090828977232013-03-06T16:10:11.118-05:002013-03-06T16:10:11.118-05:00So it boils down to your belief that the human bra...So it boils down to your belief that the human brain is incapable of understanding the fundamental nature of reality. OK, that's a position I obviously cannot refute...Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55150443684353388012013-03-06T14:11:53.779-05:002013-03-06T14:11:53.779-05:00Hi Olle,
Neither evolution nor climate change mak...Hi Olle,<br /><br />Neither evolution nor climate change make any claims about the nature of reality. They're models with applicability to specific systems over some amount of time. The scientific method works on that very well. If you wanted to use the coincidence argument on that you'd have to make a statement saying it's unlikely that soandsomany human scientists can come up with aSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52364758202330545862013-03-06T11:38:29.837-05:002013-03-06T11:38:29.837-05:00OK Sabine, that's a different argument from wh...OK Sabine, that's a different argument from what I first thought, and with little or no similarity to the doomsday argument. But to me the argument as you now phrase it sounds like skepticism-gone-to-far. A creationist could use your argument, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, to conclude that evolution by natural selection is most likely not at all how we came about, as it would be too much of a Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71206233593303201202013-03-05T07:51:35.795-05:002013-03-05T07:51:35.795-05:00Hi Olle,
What I mean is roughly thought-time expe...Hi Olle,<br /><br />What I mean is roughly thought-time expended on the issue, which does depend on the number of people thinking about a question (here: fundamental nature of reality), but also simply on the time that's being spent thinking about it. That having been said, if you'd tell me that for 100 billion years all intelligent beings in the universe have tried to find a description Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62820103711662997222013-03-05T07:40:35.574-05:002013-03-05T07:40:35.574-05:00nad0815:
The limits on precision and the attempt ...nad0815:<br /><br />The limits on precision and the attempt to hide them are necessary for Bostrom's argument because he wants to show that we are exceedingly likely to live in a simulation. Now if you take part of the universe and use it to simulate another universe, then iterate, everything we presently know about the laws of nature would tell you that you cannot in fact repeat this processSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90969038220393153182013-03-04T14:00:57.500-05:002013-03-04T14:00:57.500-05:00Do we operate under the assumption that there is a...Do we operate under the assumption that there is a single reality, one that serves as standard for the real? Is that the first, unspoken axiom of our science?<br /><br />Is it not equally and simultaneously true that there are a multitude of realities, one for every distinction in the whole and each one describing over time its own valid conic section of the real?<br /><br />As a practical matterDon Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04814669413022486958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57623459302665660802013-03-03T05:24:46.811-05:002013-03-03T05:24:46.811-05:00What you seem to be somewhat discussing is to some...What you seem to be somewhat discussing is to some extend wether there exist some god(s).<br /><br />That is if I replace "simulation" with "creation by god" and if I replace "computer" with "human mind accessible universe" then your discussion looks very similar to that discussion.<br /><br />Finally wether something feels "simulated" or "nad0815https://www.blogger.com/profile/15640373035677970013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57564528919355802562013-03-03T01:53:55.446-05:002013-03-03T01:53:55.446-05:00Sabine, you ask what connection I see between your...Sabine, you ask what connection I see between your coincidece argument and the doomsday argument. Let me make it explicit. <br /><br />You write <i>"Why do we just happen to live in a period where we discover the very means by which the universe is run? To me, it’s too much of a coincidence to be plausible"</i>. Now, to say that something is "too much of a coincidence" means Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6119410544792889562013-03-02T21:34:44.048-05:002013-03-02T21:34:44.048-05:00In AWT the Universe is the more random, the wider/...In AWT the Universe is the more random, the wider/more general scope is used for its observation. Such an Universe is infinite, eternal and therefore it doesn't requires to be simulated. After all, how the simulation concept could help the universe explanation? It's the similar semantic circular reasoning like the assumption of Universe beginning.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13334188690345607532013-03-02T17:19:38.330-05:002013-03-02T17:19:38.330-05:00You have the capacity to run your own simulations,...You have the capacity to run your own simulations, yes. You do that every time you think of tomorrow and what you have to do. That is a a valuable insight to consider although I cannot lay claim to it.:)<br /><br />http://www.eskesthai.com/2012/11/tedxcambridge-jeff-lieberman-on-science.html<br /><br />PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38434395630826863412013-03-02T17:06:51.734-05:002013-03-02T17:06:51.734-05:00Under label of virtual reality I had forgotten tha...Under label of virtual reality I had forgotten that I had recorded this previous subject, "<a href="http://www.eskesthai.com/2012/06/reality-is-information.html" rel="nofollow">Reality is Information?</a>" ....must be old age?:)<br /><br />I was having trouble with some insights that had been generated by another individual quite similar to proposition given by Nick Bostrum's topic.PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48538476748400392012013-03-02T17:00:41.521-05:002013-03-02T17:00:41.521-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82132600148834597112013-03-02T16:57:23.818-05:002013-03-02T16:57:23.818-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68101900304819512662013-03-02T10:53:00.421-05:002013-03-02T10:53:00.421-05:00In science the belief or disbelief has no place. W...In science the belief or disbelief has no place. We have arguments for hypothesis or against it - or we haven't. That's all. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35942425610477877462013-03-02T10:50:48.933-05:002013-03-02T10:50:48.933-05:00Hi Kaleberg,
This is interesting! As so often, sc...Hi Kaleberg,<br /><br />This is interesting! As so often, science fiction has been ahead of science. Best,<br /><br />SabineSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43043419288803604032013-03-02T10:48:32.505-05:002013-03-02T10:48:32.505-05:00Hi Unknown,
If the hypothesis is that differentia...Hi Unknown,<br /><br />If the hypothesis is that differential geometry is the fundamental nature of reality, I would argue that the corollary applies. But I'll agree that my formulation is sloppy in the sense that it doesn't specify the type of hypothesis it refers to, though it should be clear from the context. As I said in my comment to Phillip above, if you properly specify the range Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32141981488405094172013-03-02T10:43:26.055-05:002013-03-02T10:43:26.055-05:00Hi Olle,
The coincidence argument has absolutely ...Hi Olle,<br /><br />The coincidence argument has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people on the planet and their statistical distribution over time. I don't know what connection you see. The doomsday argument relies on the increase of population over time. The coincidence argument would apply also if there was only one person in the whole universe trying to figure out the nature ofSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com