Hacker News Reader

Comment by electrograv | Hacker News Reader

The scientific paper deals with "the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid".

Just because the universe may operate with computer-like regularity and grid-like data structures does not mean "the universe is a computer simulation." At best it means the fundamental laws of physics are "computer-like".

Whether "resembles a computer simulation" equals "is a computer simulation" is a metaphysical/philosophical question.

Finding uncanny resemblance between our own reasoning concepts and the universe is not new - and this uncanny mirroring between abstract mathematical concepts and the laws of physics has been known for quite some time. It's a mystery, not an answer. See: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" by Eugene Wigner:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

View on HN

Indeed. And conversely, proving that the observed universe does not operate on a cubic space-time lattice would not prove that it is not a simulation of some sort--it would merely prove that it is not a simulation of that sort.

...can't Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness" be explained in some way via the anthropic principle? (there should be a way to reason that intelligent life like us could only have evolved in an universe where predictions about physical systems can be made considering only a small subset of the initial condition variables, and also that "abstract mathematical ideas" could only appear in someone's mind from a sort of intuition of the universe's laws, so that the mathematicians' intuition can't come "out of the void" but is actually subconsciously "inspired" by the laws of nature at some level and this is why it explains them, and that what "feels" "simple and elegant" to a mathematician actually feels this way because it's in accordance with the universal laws of nature by witch his mind also works...)

Also.. if we are a simulation, wouldn't those running the simulation see what we're doing and supply us with the correct results that we would expect?

They could just hardcode it..

Maybe they're not so bright or careful? Or maybe it's all happening too fast for them?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/

That was the most fascinating thing I barely understood a word of that I read in a long time. Thanks!

Maybe they're sleeping on the job.

If we're simulation, we're almost certainly emergent phenomena (laws of physics as we discovered them doesn't say anything about humans, they operate on much lower level of abstraction). Those, that run our simulation may even don't know we're there.

Imagine intelligent life evolved in huge game of life grid (it's possible assuming inteligence is turing-complete). We may look at the strange patterns and never know they are intelligent, never mind communicating with them, or decoding what they're up to from the patterns.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com