Iah is saying (that it's not that unreasonable to think that perhaps) you don't need to actually "run" any simulation for the simulated to have internality/subjective experience. So, no need for atoms on which to run simulations.
we live in base reality with probability 1, because any simulation would necessarily still be made out of base reality, you can't simulate a reality inside base reality which somehow exits base reality, the simulation hypothesis is a bunch of bullshit from nerds who write whole papers / books about a concept and give speeches about it without taking 30 seconds to follow the antithesis line of reasoning.
if anyone proves we live in a simulation (and i don't mean "hurr probabilistic unfolding universe is a simulation" semantics, i mean, "running on meta-bob's macbook 9000" kind of simulation) then i will literally do 100,000 pushups!!!
Hey Bion, I appreciate you explaining your thinking which is actually in line with why simulation theory never felt good to me.
That said— it also feels like you never read what I wrote. As Richard replied earlier the whole of what I’ve said, which I’m now happy calling the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, is that there isn’t a machine running the simulation. It just is, because it can be. There’s no way to exit it, and no need for your pushups.
As others have said, this is basically Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
Josha Bach describes a similar idea in his first interview with Lex Fridman.
I second the recommendation to read Permutation City by Greg Egan, it includes a compelling description of a group of people who have proof the Simulation Hypothesis is true (for them).
I came to the same theory independently about 6 years ago via roughly the same reasoning.
I highly recommend Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe." It's very relevant.
Edit: Ok. I've got to mention this. One could say that "science abhors a dichotomy." Before Newton, we had two different sets of laws of motion: one for terrestrial objects and one for "the heavens." Newton resolved that dichotomy and now we have one set of laws of motion for both. Similarly, a materialistic view of the mind has mostly superceded dualistic ways of thinking about the mind. Much of the history of science is the story of the elimination of dichotomies. *This* view eliminates any dichotomy between "existent" and "nonexistent."
Not sure I agree with this. How do we define a state — do we enumerate all the information in the universe at some fixed moment and call that the global state (quantum entanglement implies this)? If so, time is effectively the transition between states (say, at the Planck scale). That transition could be a DAG, which is commonly assumed. But maybe not.
Either way, for consciousness to exist, assuming a non-meat chauvinist view of it (i.e. consciousness isn’t due to a soul or some special bio-sauce, rather, it’s in the information embodied by, in our case, the neurons and synapses of our brains and, in principle, it can be created in silicon or some other non-organic matter), neurons or what-have-you need to fire, which in turn implies a change to the global state of the Universe and a step in time. Again, that implies consciousness requires the DAG or similar (i.e. movement between states of the Universe). As an aside: Intuitively, I doubt a multiverse model changes this.
All said, why should we believe consciousness can exist without time? To me, that seems a very strong and hard to support statement.
This is very Neoplatonist! Like, this Pythagorean idea that the world is made of math and also mathematically inevitable. The world isn’t made of stuff, it’s made of mathematical algorithms.
This view implies that every possible universe exists, including an infinite number of universes that happen to be running *exactly this universe* (in which we're having this conversation) as a simulation. But also, our experiences never required any of those infinite simulations to "run" in order for us to experience them, so we have existence independent of any of those simulations.
How are you going to make your simulation? With…atoms? Atoms of what? Base reality. Simulation hypothesis is bullshit? Always has been.
Iah is saying (that it's not that unreasonable to think that perhaps) you don't need to actually "run" any simulation for the simulated to have internality/subjective experience. So, no need for atoms on which to run simulations.
we live in base reality with probability 1, because any simulation would necessarily still be made out of base reality, you can't simulate a reality inside base reality which somehow exits base reality, the simulation hypothesis is a bunch of bullshit from nerds who write whole papers / books about a concept and give speeches about it without taking 30 seconds to follow the antithesis line of reasoning.
if anyone proves we live in a simulation (and i don't mean "hurr probabilistic unfolding universe is a simulation" semantics, i mean, "running on meta-bob's macbook 9000" kind of simulation) then i will literally do 100,000 pushups!!!
Hey Bion, I appreciate you explaining your thinking which is actually in line with why simulation theory never felt good to me.
That said— it also feels like you never read what I wrote. As Richard replied earlier the whole of what I’ve said, which I’m now happy calling the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, is that there isn’t a machine running the simulation. It just is, because it can be. There’s no way to exit it, and no need for your pushups.
As others have said, this is basically Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
Josha Bach describes a similar idea in his first interview with Lex Fridman.
I second the recommendation to read Permutation City by Greg Egan, it includes a compelling description of a group of people who have proof the Simulation Hypothesis is true (for them).
I came to the same theory independently about 6 years ago via roughly the same reasoning.
I highly recommend Max Tegmark's book "Our Mathematical Universe." It's very relevant.
Edit: Ok. I've got to mention this. One could say that "science abhors a dichotomy." Before Newton, we had two different sets of laws of motion: one for terrestrial objects and one for "the heavens." Newton resolved that dichotomy and now we have one set of laws of motion for both. Similarly, a materialistic view of the mind has mostly superceded dualistic ways of thinking about the mind. Much of the history of science is the story of the elimination of dichotomies. *This* view eliminates any dichotomy between "existent" and "nonexistent."
Not sure I agree with this. How do we define a state — do we enumerate all the information in the universe at some fixed moment and call that the global state (quantum entanglement implies this)? If so, time is effectively the transition between states (say, at the Planck scale). That transition could be a DAG, which is commonly assumed. But maybe not.
Either way, for consciousness to exist, assuming a non-meat chauvinist view of it (i.e. consciousness isn’t due to a soul or some special bio-sauce, rather, it’s in the information embodied by, in our case, the neurons and synapses of our brains and, in principle, it can be created in silicon or some other non-organic matter), neurons or what-have-you need to fire, which in turn implies a change to the global state of the Universe and a step in time. Again, that implies consciousness requires the DAG or similar (i.e. movement between states of the Universe). As an aside: Intuitively, I doubt a multiverse model changes this.
All said, why should we believe consciousness can exist without time? To me, that seems a very strong and hard to support statement.
Yep, it's one of the points of the Wolfram's new theory of physics https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
This is very Neoplatonist! Like, this Pythagorean idea that the world is made of math and also mathematically inevitable. The world isn’t made of stuff, it’s made of mathematical algorithms.
Also see Roger Penrose’s “road to reality”
I think you'd enjoy Permutation City
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/156784
I also believe this. - Of course, this view does not preclude simulation.
This view implies that every possible universe exists, including an infinite number of universes that happen to be running *exactly this universe* (in which we're having this conversation) as a simulation. But also, our experiences never required any of those infinite simulations to "run" in order for us to experience them, so we have existence independent of any of those simulations.