The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis
p2p-simulation-hypothesis.com
p2p-simulation-hypothesis.com
Its truly impressive that you can build an academic career in philosophy by producing such content. The days where GPT-4 will advance to a faculty position in this field are probably not that far ahead.
He claims that his theory
> 1. Is based on serious scientific and philosophical hypothesies.
> I show that existing MMORPGs (online simulations we have already created) actually reproduce every general feature of quantum mechanics within their simulated-world reference-frames. Second, I show that existing MMORPGs also replicate (and so explain) many philosophical problems we face in the philosophy of mind, time, personal identity, and free will – all while conforming to the Libertarian Compatibilist model of reality
Also:
> Explaining the mind-body problem: It's a curious fact that it seems to many of us that no matter how complete a physical explanation might be, such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul"). The P2P hypothesis predicts and explains this problem. Observers trapped in a P2P simulation would be convinced--just as many of us are--that there is something about their subjective point-of-view that cannot be captured in the physics of their world. And they would be right. The hardware upon which the simulation is running--the processing apparatus (viz. DVD laser apparatus/processor)--would comprise their subjective point-of-view, and be inaccessible to them within the simulation. More generally, the P2P model holds a reality like ours is comprised by two fundamentally different types of things: (A) "hardware" (i.e. consciousness/measurement appartus), and (B) "software" (i.e. physical information) interacting.
Surely that's just shifting the mind-body problem into the universe simulating us. Does the author propose that the mind body problem doesn't apply to conscious observers in the universe above us? Or that conscious observers can't exist there? Or does the problem get punted down yet another layer to the universe simulating the universe simulating us, so that it's turtle minds all the way down?
> such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul").
Citation needed.
It doesn't matter if that structure is made up of "real matter" or simulated matter running in a computer: the emergent result is the same. A simulation hypothesis is not needed to resolve the mind-body problem - presumably, intelligent life can evolve just as readily in a simulated universe as a real one.
The mind, no, but the mind isn't what we talk about in this context when we talk about 'consciousness'. Alpha Go has a mind, but does it have a conscious experience of being? How many neurons are required for that?
That said, I agree that a simulation hypothesis is not necessary to resolve the 'problem' and, as far as I am concerned, the problem only exists because people insist on believing that they are more special than the rest of the world around them.
Good day.
The majority of my comment is a direct quote. I wrote very little.
> Constructive criticism would explain how his model can’t possibly give rise to the Lorentz invariance or Schrodinger’s equation.
His model isn't well defined enough for me to attempt that. It's wishy-washy nonsense, that betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of QM. I never said it can't, I just asked the author to show it. It may very well be the case that a more well developed and rigorously defined version of this could give rise to the Lorentz invariance or the Schrödinger equation.
> But you physicists clearly have it all figured out.
Science and mathematics doesn't have it all figured out. That's the whole point. But there are standards and rigor that need to be applied. This utter horseshit doesn't have any of that, and it's astounding that it came from someone with a PhD, and not a poorly trained ML model.
But this thing is all over the place and makes a whole bunch of pretty ridiculous claims it does not support. E.g. the "problem of free will" section doesn't solve anything - all it does is present infinite regress and call it a solution (if "free will" comes from "outside", then the "problem" has not been solved, just lifted up one level in a way that if you keep giving the same answer will just keep on going without a resolution). The same applies to its purported "solution" to the mind-body problem.
Others, like the "problem of personal identity" does not need a physical explanation, and there's no reason to assume that physical reality has a bearing one way or the other on it.
But it falls apart also with respect to it's explanation of the basics. E.g. there's absolutely no physical reason why recording or simulation of physical data needs to be limited, and using it as an explanation is a weakness. It makes presumptions about the nature of such a simulation that we can't make. Now, there are efficiency reasons why one might conceivably do things this way, and to me a lot of the appeal of writing sci-fi about this subject is that I get to speculate a lot about how I'd try to implement such a simulation.
But as written this isn't even good scifi.
> It makes predictions about our world, and so may be confirmed or falsified.
> We should be able to reproduce/witness the 4-dimensional wave-like aspects of reality in real-time by feeding the superimposed outputs of a large number peer-to-peer Microsoft Hololens unites into a single Hololens.
Another key difference is that most people who find the idea of the simulation argument interesting seems to approach it as either a philosophical curiosity that gives us avenues to explore or as something that needs some massive further steps to get to something testable, not as dogma. I find the subject very fascinating, because if we're in a simulation I'd expect bugs. And if there are bugs, there is the possibility of exploits. But there is also the possibility of all kinds of implementation artefacts. To me at least a whole lot of the appeal of the simulation hypothesis (unlike the nonsense linked to here) is that there's a whole lot of room for actual testable hypotheses here. I have no interest in taking anything on faith.
Also it's fun to speculate about. But I don't need to believe something to speculate about it.
Ultimately though there'd be no way to tell bugs apart from legitimate physics because we lack a basis for comparison. If we discover that we can, with enough trickery, generate infinite free energy or something, that's not evidence of anything other than our model of the universe being incomplete.
>For additional work related to the P2P Hypothesis, see:
>Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer.
So you can cross that off your bingo card.
(Edit: I'm not usually conspiracy theorist, I don't believe in god/religion, I believe in science, global warming, wearing masks, etc...but sometimes your eyes see things you can't unsee).
You read about how Apollo 13 the movie with Tom Hanks has a calm Tom Hanks saying: "Houston, We've Had a Problem", then you read a list of Mandela Effects a few days later and it says that the actual lines are "Houston, we HAVE a problem", you verify with your wife who watched the clip all 10 times last week, and you watch it with her another 10 times just to make sure, you have her pinch you...
Lo and behold, reality has changed. No idea how, others agree with you, but that's irrelevant since you don't need to believe them or not because you now how personal proof, which most people will say is not proof it's just "Mis-remembering" but have you ever watched something with full awareness and intention with another person to see what the actual "fact" is at the time?
Did you forget the outcome 3 days later? Most people would say empatically no, they did not. So if 3 days later you have not forgotten the fact, but the fact has changed via sources online that are trusted (often the same sources), is it not suggestive that something has changed? Or that perhaps reality is really some-part subjective?
Is it hard to consider that reality could be partially dependent on those in the reality? what if reality is consensus based?
If 10 people have a fact and 6 people believe chartreuse is maroon, and 4 people believe chartreuse is green, then it's really green. In fact I'd say a lot of facts in life are based on consensus. Colors are labels, and if the majority think blue is green and green is blue, then seems like people will be calling green blue and vice versa.
That's more though about a group-think decision on what something means. When a literal historical fact or video changes almost before your very eyes, it's very hard to dispute...
That's what was said in the actual Apollo 13 mission, which might be the source of confusion. Surely "multiple realities" is a bit more far fetched than "sometimes people are wrong in similar ways"?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24209318
EDIT: s/mind/mine
This version is disapointingly shallow though:
>It is also a natural result of a peer-to-peer network that single objects can “split in two”, becoming entangled
He does describe a process whereby an object can split into two, but as for how this is the same as two entangled particles I've no clue. Just sounds like superposition to me to be honest.