Are We Living in a Computer Simulation, and Can We Hack It? | Hacker News Reader

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation, and Can We Hack It?

nytimes.com

18 pointsbookofjoe18 comments

Since playing No Mans Sky[0] I've thought about this a lot.

Basically in the game the universe is a simulation that only has 16 minutes (real time) left to run, but that still translates to billions of years in universe, and the number 16 manifests everywhere as the computer/AI tries to fix itself.

But we have game engines that approximate physics, so if an NPC like Newton were watching he could figure out gravity from the game engine because even though it's not a real thing in the game it's based on our reality, but what if a player opens a portal and steps through and is transported to another universe or solar system?

They could come up with all kinds of convoluted 'physics' to explain it based on what they know of physics based on watching the games engine do its thing.

But this time the physics in universe isn't based on anything 'real', it's just some random code someone like us wrote to teleport players.

If they couldn't find a physics answer they might call it magic.

What if magic in our reality is just rewriting the game engine code in game?

[0] https://www.nomanssky.com/

This oddly similar to Bhagwad Gita's interpretation of the universe.

Once I thought about this in the context of those code injection game hacks you sometimes see where people do strange, repetitive actions in-game that wind up writing instructions in RAM and eventually they can bootload Flappy Bird in Super Mario World[0], and how in reality that would look like an arcane ritual.

But realistically even if the universe were a simulation of some kind, it would be absurd to think that it was anything akin to a modern computer running a Unity game or something, even though that's where everyone goes because of The Matrix.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB6eY73sLV0

Related but far off-topic, in regards to differences in experiencing passing time: the "The Twilight Zone" episode "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," based on Ambrose Bierce's 1890 story of the same name. My heart almost stopped when I saw it on TV when it was broadcast as Episode 22 of the fifth season of "The Twilight Zone" on February 28, 1964. I was 15.

Watch it here: https://vimeo.com/542564090

>ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? — Nick Bostrom, 1961

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

So funny to see this pop up in this discussion. This is quite possibly my favorite Twilight Zone episode, and it had a similar impact on me upon seeing it (although that wasn't until ~2005 as I was working my way through the series in college).

Thanks for the memories.

You're most welcome. Perhaps in second place: John Lithgow looking out the window during a flight and seeing on the wing... I won't spoil it in case you haven't [yet] seen it.

https://archive.ph/O5QpE

This concept has been around for hundreds of years. Now it's a "computer simulation" because that is how we see things in 2023, though it feels like such a single purpose would be poorly served by one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

I've honestly never fully understood Bergstrom's trilemma that set up this whole debate. I understand what it's arguing, but don't understand why the third option (we're in a sim) is the most plausible of the three...

I think it's more likely that we can't make conscious sims at this scale/fidelity (#1), or that a society sophisticated enough to do so would take issue with "simulating" bone cancer in conscious sim children (#2). I'd hope, at least.

As I understand it the reason for plausability is that there can only be one 'top' level, but any sufficiently complicated simulation could contain more simulations within it. The potential depth being more or less infinite if the top level is infinitely complex.

My thoughts are that given the complexity of the simulation we are currently in, whatever could be simulating something like this would have to have insane compute power or be limiting required compute in various ways, or both. I sometimes wonder if things like the relatively low speed of light is an example of this.

As for simulating bone cancer, unfortunately if youre only simulating a universe to see how black holes work (or whatever) then it may not matter to the designers what side effects there are -- although it would be nice to think that life would at least be a curiosity.

Any sufficiently complicated simulation could be indistinguishable from magic.

The detection from LIGO opens a door to more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

Dumb question - if we’re living in a simulation then aren’t we likely to also be a simulation?

Shit

Hahahahaha!

That response made me laugh out loud. Thanks for starting my day off well. :)

It’s simulations all the way down then.

The why existence of existence/being itself is impossible to answer, because you can keep asking ad nauseam.

There is no operational difference between thinking the universe is a simulation, and Abrahamic religion. You can make up what whoever is running it wants you to do, either way. Maybe latch onto a Book, for lack of imagination.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GBUu_FxCAgE

Have to admit disappointment in NYT for indulging.

You're right of course. But as an intellectual exercise, it might be interesting to sniff out all of the dogma tied to this particular belief system. Like, there has to be "sins" and a way to transcend and all of that other stuff. Or something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com