Hacker News Reader

Comment by metaprinter | Hacker News Reader

"...so that means firing off a kilogram (or so) of self-replicating molecular nanotechnology which can build the infrastructure you'd want to live in (compute on) at the destination."

i just got a chill thinking we are living that exact thing in this simulation O_O

View on HN

My best argument against living in simulation is similar to the argument against the intlelligent design or solipsism - if you could simulate anytning, why would you simulate this?

So many things in universe make sense if they have happened by accident, but make no sense to include in an intentionally created simulation.

If I would have the power and intelligence to create/simulate a universe, there's no way in hell I would make the world to work like this.

"if you could simulate anything, why would you simulate this?"

I want to agree... but then... I look at Youtube and wonder why a large portion of that gets made.

With the computing power we have NOW... look at all the stupid stuff that gets made. Imagine 50 years from now.

Well, making a silly youtube video for no reason is not the same as making a world where millions of sentient beings suffer/die for no reason.

Have you saw those YouTube videos about genetic algorithms teaching a thing to walk of fly? You may think: this thing do not suffer or feel any pain in repeating millions of times the same moviments just to fall on the floor less and less, no problem at all.

Advance a thousand years in the future and someone may happily simulate the world where you live among trillions of another things trying to evolve.

Yes and no. I'll agree that simulating a universe isn't the same as making a stupid video...

But I stand by my assertion that people waste a LOT of time doing stupid stuff.

There are projects that do AMAZING things and are spectacular. Then there is the other 95% of Youtube.

I'm sure there will be some AMAZING simulations... and then there will be the majority of them...

The real question in my mind... is which of those simulations are we in... an Amazing one... or a subpar one used for comparisons.

Simulating a universe like your own except simpler would let you spot-test solutions to problems, and study analogous of issues in your universe to greater depth.

We do economic simulations all the time, with weak-minded agents.

An argument from personal incredulity is still a logical fallacy. It's easy to see why this line of reasoning doesn't make sense.

If we're living in a simulation the thing most likely to running the simulation is ourselves, in the future.

It's easy to see why that would be valuable, e.g. this could be a simulation to see what happens if a war broke out in 1914, and all the downstream effects on that happening.

I think simulations will be used to help people live more productive / happy lives in the future. Imagine having many "lives" worth of experience, perhaps from many different periods throughout history, and you're still only 16 years old.

Not just the "matrix" flavor where the goal is to learn specific skills. I'm talking about being born, growing old, and dying in a simulation many times in a matter of hours? / days? / weeks? and being able to recall those experiences / decisions and their rewards and/or consequences once you're back to living your "real" life.

do you know the series "Rick and Morty"? reminds me exactly of this part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szzVlQ653as

None of that was original, but I read the very best (Vinge, Drexler, Stross, Schroeder).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com