Hacker News Reader

Comment by leni536 | Hacker News Reader

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

It might help on an existential level.

+ In the space of all possible universes it is unlikely that we live in the most probable one, but it is likely that we live in a probable one.

+ When I feel existentially lost, I'd like to think that if we look deep into math we will see the necessity of our universe's existence.

+ Our universe is a probable sequence hidden like primes within natural numbers. It exists forever, we only need a mathematical microscope.

For me it helps a bit...

> In the space of all possible universes it is unlikely that we live in the most probable one, but it is likely that we live in a probable one.

I was never great at probability theory, but wouldn't we by definition most likely be living in the most probable universe?

Nope. Imagine there are million possible universes. Imagine the most probable has a probability of 1%. It'd still pretty unlikely that we live in that one, even tho it's more likely than any other one.

Indeed; the 'simulation universe' possibility I find (oddly I know!) comforting, and this has provided me with a way of understanding to some degree the comfort offered by religion to many people, while at the same time I still can't understand the religious aspect itself.

Just replace "Simulators" with "God", and you'll find that your beliefs are virtually indistinguishable from a religious conviction. In that light, the comfort it provides is by no means hard to understand.

"In [God] we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

Not only is it not falsifiable it provides nothing actionable whatsoever. Accepting the statement as fact changes nothing practical unless you're the nihilistic type and look for an excuse to go on a spree killing or to off yourself -- or you're bogged down by anxiety and the revelation that nothing matters frees you to live without care, which I find unlikely.

It's basically a philosophical game of navel gazing. I get why some might find that enjoyable but to imply it has any practical application seems nonsensical. It's like debating how long God's beard is or what material a unicorn's horn is made of.

I think the fact that it is not falsifiable means that we should not believe it, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting.

Just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean you shouldn't ever believe it. It merely means you have to decide whether to believe it, it's negation, or neither, based on no evidence.

Keep in mind that most of mathematics isn't falsifiable either. Although I suppose it actually might be, unless it is consistent.

Also, it doesn't explain anything, and esp. nothing about the simulators: are they themselves simulated (and so it's turtles all the way down, again) or are they not? And if not, why not, and who are they? etc.

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.

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

Check e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

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

Interesting. How then does the real science works? Maybe "falsifiable" claims are not the only means, but that's exactly how science works. Otherwise, why build LHC and LIGO?

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

If you define science as "what scientists do", sure.

But if you define science as "knowledge about the world that you can acquire by reason", you need it to be falsifiable; otherwise reason can't tell apart knowledge from invention.

Maybe it is if there's a bug in the simulation. Large scale software projects have bugs all the time.

Maybe we asked too few questions for now and the quantum system is not overconstrained enough for us to see any bugs.

Maybe it is not software, but natural process when our physics was separated from original physics (the event that happened at the big bang) and all this is a temporary false state.

Maybe our gods are not aware of us and our universe is a single pew in their high-tech starwars.

The fact is, all these possibilities are close to our minds, so we find them 'interesting', but there could be billions of billions other not so close-to-mind ideas that are much less sci-fi and do not fit the religion happiness/meaningfulness property. That's why falsifiability is important — you can't connect real point to one of infinite amount of imagined points and pretend that road exists. We explore the universe, we do not imagine things so they suddenly realize. Imagination is a property of our simple and biased minds. Nature doesn't give a fuck about what you like.

I agree with Karl Popper's idea that falsifiability is required of a scientific theory. On the other hand, science is not the only thing that humans find interesting, and it is not even the only way to acquire knowledge.

For example: "I think therefore I am" is a famous example of knowledge that we can all obtain by non-scientific means. There is also the knowledge of what being in love feels like, or how sardines taste like -- both not obtained through the scientific method.

I guess is possible to only find science interesting and nothing else, but that would make you a very unusual human being.

I agree, it tickles my apatheist spot in the same way that talk of "God" does. Questions that are obviously not within the realm of human exploration are not interesting or compelling questions; the logical equivalent of "Is there a god?" or "What's North of the North Pole?"

At the end of the article, Scott essentially says the same thing, but emphasizing the other side of the coin:

> [...] the question of whether the universe “really” “is” a simulation has barely come up. Why would it, when there are so many more fruitful things to ask?

I always felt that the point of asking this question was not the answer itself, but that theorising how it might be implemented could lead to hacking the sandbox.

IANATP but I've read, for example, that violating Lorentz invariance is an active research area.

Or looking for aliasing from a lattice QCD simulation in cosmic microwave background...

That's my take on it too. The history of physics has shown, though, that it pays in interesting ways to go through every crazy idea until it's actually refuted or understood to be wrong.

But this is not physics, or science, unless you can have falsifiable claims. Otherwise it's just philosophy or metaphysics, which does not warrant a scientific discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com