lorepieri

The counting is done inside a chosen reference class of "human civilisation". Pick one definition that makes sense, and the argument applies there. So yes, by definition you are counting simulations of civilisations, not of simpler phenomena (say ants-only simulations).

In the space of all simulations, we are very likely to be pretty close to the simpler possible simulation inside the reference class, but there is no way of probing this. What we can do is make comparison with more complex versions of our current reality. If you think that we are not that simple, then you should believe that we are not in a simulation after all.

True, the universe may have been started 1 second ago, but among all the 1-second simulations some are simpler than other nevertheless. For instance a 1-second simulation in which we have colonised the entire milky way is far more complex than our current experience.

Very good tl;dr apart for a detail: it's not about the complexity of a single simulation, it's about the ratio of complexity of two simulations. In this way we can factor out our ignorance of the details (are we a brain-in-a-vat? Is the simulation run on an abacus? Is it written in Phyton?) and clearly establish which simulation is more complex.

Now, since by a counting argument we are more likely to be in a simple simulation, by looking at "optional" complexity around us we can establish if we are in a simulation. Reaching 5 sigma of confidence should be enough, so if we find out that the universe could have been 10 million times easier than what we experience, then we can be pretty confident that we are not sims (I assumed a linear scaling of the simplicity assumption here).

Now the tricky question is, which complexity is "optional"? I would argue open space which we would probe if we do interstellar travel, but maybe there are better ways to find optional complexity.

Not necessarily, it's enough to have some notion of finiteness of computational resources for the outside, in whatever form they may appear. This is a pretty small assumption as we don't know any system which doesn't behave this way. So, by Occam's Razor, why postulating new physics (simulators without any kind of resource finiteness) if we can explain what we experience with traditional physics?

Also, if in the future we start simulating universes, all these constraints will apply to us and all the simulations we do.

Any complex computational machine is still equivalent to a laptop machine in terms of what it can compute, so it can always reproduced as a regular physics simulation. Something different could be a machine able to do hypercomputation.

It would actually have consequences, for instance we would likely not be able to do interstellar travel. Ok, not really mundane, but still. See https://osf.io/ca8se (disclaimer, I'm the author).

Can you share the references you mention at point 1? Thanks!

Yes, you need to remain inside the reference class of human simulations, so in a sense there is a bias in where do you want to draw the line of what's a human simulation. But once you do it, the result in not ambiguous.

I see good arguments for both views. A way to get insights could be discovering an alien civilization math.

Does science fiction exists? Or Pokemon? In case your view is that they don't, you may argue similarly that math is a human made construct (which happen to work well to describe our universe, but it may be just survivorship bias as we use in physics only the math that works. For instance we discard imaginary solutions to classical motion equations). I do believe it is the right view, math is a man made "language" inspired by physics which is more fundamental.

I'm working on writing a paper along those lines. I do believe that the answer to "why there is something rather than nothing?" may be: actually nothing is the only thing that exist, but its instability creates our apparent reality trough a self-referential observer-observed reality loop. I would love to chat, use my research email.

It is actually possible :) (with some assumption on the distribution of the simulations) Complex sims are less likely, so the likelihood of increasing optional complexity of our sim should be slim, for instance interstellar travel. It's still unsolved how much unlikely, but if you have a large enough increase in complexity (say interstellar travel over billions of light years) you will hit sims which are unlikely enough.

(https://osf.io/ca8se, I'm the author)

Even if it's easy, simple simulations would still dominate the space of all possible simulations if the resources of the simulators are finite. So simpler simulations are more likely. (https://osf.io/ca8se , disclaimer I'm the author)

Yes, any evidence of complexity (assuming that simpler universes are more likely) is evidence against the simulation hypothesis: The Simplicity Assumption and Some Implications of the Simulation Argument for our Civilization https://osf.io/ca8se (I'm the author :) )

These problems remind me of https://github.com/fchollet/ARC

"ARC can be seen as a general artificial intelligence benchmark, as a program synthesis benchmark, or as a psychometric intelligence test. It is targeted at both humans and artificially intelligent systems that aim at emulating a human-like form of general fluid intelligence."

I'm also interested in setting up research institutes. I'm obsessed with knowledge, I've built 2 companies (AI, robotics, Blockchain) and have a PhD in theoretical physics.

-The first one would focus on Automation, UBI and AGI. The goal is to actively accelerate the transition to a post-scarcity economy. The plan is to create, fund and invest in automation companies supported by the R&D of the institute. The goal is for this institute to be profit making.

-A second institute would fund fundamental research in math and physics, without any short term requirements to the researchers involved, not even publications. Researchers will be free to work on 100, 1000 or more long term projects. This a longer term project, since this institute would be funded externally, so a larger capital to sustain this would be needed.

I'm looking to fund researchers motivated by obsession for knowledge and genuine curiosity, uninterested in social status. Satoshi Nakamoto is a good example of the spirit which I look for: anonymously publishing ground breaking research without looking for recognition. Please reach out to lorenzo.pieri.research[at]gmail.com if you want to chat.

I agree with this 100%. The most effective UBI is providing water, food, shelter and all the other essentials + some cash for extra, where the cash part can be small.

As the time goes on and our society gets richer, we would include more things into the essentials (holidays, a personal vehicle, etc.)

In few decades there will just not be enough jobs in which humans are more convenient to employ than robots and AIs.

Up-skilling is just delaying the problem we will face when there is not enough offer to match the demand for jobs.

Nice overview, I'm an utopian. :) I'm trying to speedup the transition to a post scarcity society, currently building a company to automate food prep.

Perhaps we could guarantee life-income, so potentially 40-60 years of UBI. This would be expensive and slow, but it would provide the real UBI experience. Restricting this to a small group of people (100-1000) could make it viable financially.

My belief is that we will forced much earlier to start real UBI program, thanks to the push of automation. I forecast real nation-wide UBI being implemented in a country before 2045. I would bet on a Nord European country.

Battery is the biggest problem of IoT, this could be a tipping point.

What if there was a tax on honking? Like 0.1 cent for every honking. With advanced enough car technology I see this as being a real thing.

Let's not lose hope!

See here https://cuervopropertyadvisory.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/is-t...

This also match my personal experience (my girlfriend is from there). The other side of the coin is that they are on average much happier and social than other cultures. This is in line with schools of thought that see happiness as inversely proportional to perfectionism.

Well, actually there are infinite ways of modifying the equations and still have them compatible with current observations. Check out for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F(R)_gravity but there are many more examples with additional fields.

Can you provide some references on "General learning is uncomputable"? Thanks.

It is a big loss of your time and nobody will give you back that one. I suggest you to use your time in non zero-sum games, something that can create value for you and society. Now that you have some saving you can definitely afford it. The next best thing of not doing it is to quit doing it now.

Disclaimer: I built a similar system in the past, took some gains and then realised the above. I then quitted to build a company.

If you don't have time for your obsessive interest, then it's not really obsessive after all. A maximally obsessive person would have neglected distractions from his obsession.

Wow, that is sick!! Thanks for sharing.

On a (somewhat) related note, I'm working on face recognition with homomorphic encryption, therefore without compromising the user privacy. The bold goal is the first privacy preserving videocamera. If you find this interesting, I would love to chat about it.

Thanks for sharing. I'm working on face recognition with homomorphic encryption, therefore without compromising the user privacy. The bold goal is the first privacy preserving videocamera. If you find this interesting, I would love to chat about it.