The Men Who Are Convinced We’re All Living in a Simulation | Hacker News Reader

The Men Who Are Convinced We’re All Living in a Simulation

melmagazine.com

11 pointstosh10 comments

Slightly More technical discussion: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-...

This idea isn't new. Robert Heinlein wrote about this decades ago.

Stopped reading after: "That all changed last November, though, when the Chicago Cubs, the most futile franchise in the history of professional sports, won the World Series, and Donald Trump, the most unqualified candidate in the history of the U.S. presidency, won the Electoral College"

Tom Campbell is also famous for his virtual reality theory. According to him the acceptance among scientists grew from few people to several thousands and continues to grow

:wonders what the women believe:

It kind of feels like someone made a fairly well-intentioned simulation, and then some other people came along and hacked it for their own benefit, taking away a large part of the value proposition, and leaving a mildly shitty simulation for the remaining people. I guess that sort of thing would be inevitable.

Here is a more interesting question imho: Assuming we are in a simulation, how does a person make sure that their thoughts are 'really their own' and not sort of programmed in. E.g. How does a person make sure that they are not a robot, that they are not being manipulated to e.g. vote for someone, have whatever political view, do this or that thing.

The whole topic is pointless because it does not detract or add to the realism of our existence; this is just another exercise in pure determinism.

You already are bootstrapped by your biology and life experience you do not make decisions in vacuum and there is a good chance that your biology has as much of an impact on your base political views as your nurture.

Hypothetical scenario 1: Let's suppose Person A exists for a while and has belief set A. Now person B comes along a while later and /claims/ to be a life-extension clone or something of Person A who is maybe entitled to some of the resources that Person A had available. (Maybe just a different avatar, in video game terms) Should Person B. exhibit some or all of the same beliefs that Person A had in order to claim this? (I would say obviously yes..?)

Hypothetical scenario 2: Suppose that Person A has whatever beliefs in ordinary times, but is put in a stress or otherwise abnormal situation and forced to make whatever decision. Should their decision be their ordinary time logical choice, or their choice under a high amount of stress?

I'm sure I could come up with more scenarios, but the point is, what should be intellectually considered a given person, in circumstances like a simulation where an adversary could heavily muddle the waters.

I don’t understand the scenario you proposed or it’s relation to the simulation hypothesis.

However as for the latter part of your post anything which is external is irrelevant.

Basically it doesn’t matter if the universe is a simulation a hologram or a marble it has no actual impact on our reality since it’s ohtside of its scope.

If we are being tinkered with it does not detract from our reality in any way it doesn’t change anything since if we are in a simulation then an administrator who modified your code is on the same level as natural law, they are a part of the universe not our peers.

(I guess that's sort of off the thread)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com