My contribution to the idea that we lived in a simulation | Hacker News Reader

My contribution to the idea that we lived in a simulation

3 pointsGardinengleiter7 comments

Especially Elon Musk brought the idea of a simulation that we all live in to the table again and again. And people throw themselves at it, are excited, share their opinion. And I want to chime in. I also want to share my opinion about the idea that we live in a simulation.

Now what I contribute to that is this. We live in a simulation and somebody sees us or something sees us. There's an awareness of us, what we are doing. So all the atoms are just an imagination that we have. All the interactions, the fact that there's a Milky Way, that there are stars billions of light years away or other galaxies, that it's all fake and that we just see that because that's what the simulation creates.

Then those people that control us, that see us being in a simulation, are also subject to that. They themselves could be viewed by others. They could be in a simulation. There could be a recursive simulation. So regardless how many times you do a recursion, one constant is that there's no beginning and no end. There's constant change. And even if dying, for instance, meant that you woke up in the next higher dimension, which is unlikely because then before birth, you would have been in this other dimension to begin with and remember it. So you are in this higher dimension, then you are born, then you go into this lower dimension that is being observed and when you die, you go up in the higher dimension, which is unlikely.

But then this game would repeat itself even on the higher level. So regardless how many levels you go, you will always end up being in a surrounding that changes, that is subject to death and birth of everything. So picture that for a moment. Regardless how deep you go, you will always face both sides. And not really sides, but demonstrations of change that is never ending.

"Simulation" arguments never touch on what is meant by simulation.

Without a firm notion of what it means to simulate, the rest is nonsense.

A TV simulates what was recorded by a camera, but have you ever heard anyone at any stage of mental development wonder "how do all those little people live in that box?"

Even small children are never confused about it, any more so than they would suspect a parent contains a homunculus inside or is operated as a Chinese room.

So what is it about Bostrom's "simulation" that gets brainiacs wrapped around the mental axle about simulations?

Alan Kay would present the first few minutes of a Harvard commencement from the following Annenberg documentary "A Private Universe" and joke that Harvard may or may not educate but it's a leader in producing arrogance.

--

A Private Universe

https://vimeo.com/113349804

Definition of a simulation: A simulation is a synthetic, computed reality that is generated and controlled by a higher-level system or intelligence. It is not fundamentally real; its apparent physical constructs (like atoms, galaxies, and laws of physics) are facades or imaginative representations created by the simulation's rules. The entities within the simulation may or may not be aware that they are simulated.

It doesn't matter what the idea or narrative or hypothesis is. How do you test the hypothesis.

Make your post relate to my post. Your statement currently does not.

It does, you make certain claims in your text, and the parent questions how to test you alternate theory against the perceived reality to see which of those two are true.

I understand why you consider his question relevant. At the same time, it is worth making a clear distinction: OP does not formulate an alternative empirical explanation of physical reality, but rather a philosophical reflection on the consequences of the simulation assumption itself. In this context, the question of experimental testability is generally meaningful, but it misses the point here because it presupposes a scientific hypothesis that OP does not even propose. His objection would be justified if OP were to claim truth in the scientific sense — but he does not.

Your question about testability is justified. However, the considerations are not an empirical hypothesis in the scientific sense, but rather a philosophical argument. He is not claiming that the simulation hypothesis can be experimentally confirmed or refuted. His point is rather that even if one accepts the simulation hypothesis — even recursively — it does not result in a privileged beginning, a final observer, or ontological salvation. Change, emergence, and decay persist at every level. The question is therefore less whether we live in a simulation than what this assumption actually explains or changes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com