You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DaFranker comments on If we live in a simulation, what does that imply? - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: JoshuaFox 25 October 2012 09:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (59)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DaFranker 26 October 2012 07:58:23PM 0 points [-]

How confident are you that we would notice?

If the heuristics of the simulator are good enough, it might just do something akin to detecting our attempts at analyzing low-res data, and dynamically generate something relevant and self-consistent.

Or, the simulation might be paused while the system or the engineers come up with a way to resolve the problem, which to us would still appear as if the whole thing had all been in the same resolution all along, since whatever they change while we're paused will happen in zero time for us.

Comment author: [deleted] 26 October 2012 08:17:03PM 1 point [-]

How confident are you that we would notice?

Honestly, not much, at least in the foreseeable future -- data from cosmic ray experiments are way too noisy to discriminate between source models. (We've been able to rule out the hypothesis that a sizeable fraction of UHECRs are decay products of as-yet-unknown extremely heavy particles, but that's pretty much it.) But see this. (I've tried a dozen times to download the paper and failed -- are the Simulators messing with me? Aaaargh.)

Comment author: DaFranker 26 October 2012 08:41:50PM *  0 points [-]

Ah, I've read that article before. From what I understood, they essentially conclude "Here's a way we could tell the difference if we were simulated with system X. However, it's unlikely that we would be simulated with system X." without giving all that much evidence concerning other possible simulation systems.

Personally, I hold the belief that if 1) we are a simulation and 2) the simulation will not be stopped at some near point in time, then we will eventually discover the fact that we are running in a simulated universe and begin learning about the "outside", by reasoning that:

  • Running simulations of other universes at a rate slower than one's own universe defeats the purpose of most plausible reasons to run the simulation.
  • If we are running faster than the Simulators, then our own intelligence and information capabilities will eventually exceed theirs, which, if also given that they are aware of our existence, is likely to be part of the very purpose of the simulation.
  • If given that we become more intelligent than them, it becomes increasingly likely that we will outsmart (perhaps accidentally) any safety measures they might take or heuristics built into the program, since they won't be able to understand what we're doing anymore (presumably).

However, I doubt we'll find this by noticing any discrepancy in the resolution of the simulation in different parts of it.

Comment author: DanArmak 26 October 2012 11:18:13PM 0 points [-]

If the heuristics of the simulator are good enough, it might just do something akin to detecting our attempts at analyzing low-res data, and dynamically generate something relevant and self-consistent.

In other words, maybe the simulator is doing the equivalent of ray-tracing. When a ray of light impacts the simulated Earth, the process that generated it is simulated in detail only when a bit of Earth becomes suitably entangled with the outcome - but not if the ray serves to merely heat up the atmosphere a bit.