On the subject of ""OH MY GOD you put together this whole forest" Look up Jadav Payeng sometime. He planted a 1,360 acre forest on a sandbar, turning uninhabitable nothing into lush greenery over the last 40+ years.
Social Sock No clue who you speak to about who, but that was a real question. If anybody knows how I could have made that joke better, please do chime in. I feel that most of my jokes are not seen as such.
Personally I think things like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement are shortcuts that the programmers of the simulation took. For what reason would we be able to distinguish the shortcuts from just the regular operation of the universe?
Shortcuts could have been taken. Over on PBS Spacetime, the past 2-3 videos are talking about how photos act as waves until they're measured. This /could/ be a shortcut of some kind, to save calculating each and every photon of light. Then there's hidden surface rendering. How do we know that's not happening? Given how outcomes can change just by whether or not we observe/measure them, it /could/ be possible. Key word, here, is *could*.
A great reference for the idea proposed at 2:16 is the book Implied Spaces. It follows many of the theories and possibilities proposed by the Simulation theory.
Regarding shortcuts. They could be taken, but covered up in perception patches that only temporarily do the far more complex math when someone looks that close. That would be far cheaper than doing that math all the time.
On the sense of wonder again, I think the only thing game-simulated settings have over Earth-generated settings is ease of generation. I have been in the presence of people going "oh my God, there's so much sand" (or stars. it was the Sahara desert). However, it's much easier to get that reaction from seeing mundane things recreated well. The reasons for simulation to be more awe-inspiring than reality, as far down as I can reach, is threefold. Firstly is exposure. Seeing a dense, beautiful city in a game causes us to all stop and observe it for a little while. In contrast, a very similar city in the real world tends to be pidgeonholed by routine, and we ignore it (I think forests don't work as well, since there are so few forests for so many of us.) Second, there is objective. You are specifically looking for things in a game, often scattered around an area. Even in NMS, you are looking for fuel and upgrade materials. This encourages close observation. IRL, there isn't that desire as adults. When we go into nature, it tends to be more wandering. When there is an objective, though, our attention is much more sound, and I have found it is easier to be excited about something unpleasant or mundane as a result. Thirdly, there is the fact that games are not real. All of the grit and grime and insects that dominate reality are absent. A city is pristine (even a city like San Andreas in GTA); the roads are in excellent condition, street cleaners don't need to exist, and there really aren't any monochrome or horribly dingy areas (there might be one or two for impact, but not large parts of the city). The discomfort and danger in a simulation can be ended instantaneously by looking away.
I have to disagree about your not having the experience of "Oh wow, a whole forest." I mean maybe that's not something you do, but I literally do that every time I go into a forest, like the fact that there are SO MANY ORGANISMS and that that JUST HAPPENED, like WTF HOW ARE TREES EVEN A THING! They just grow out of the ground? Crazy.
I'm one of those who thinks that If there's no way to tell we're living in a simulation, then it doesn't really matter, and we have to live our lives as if this were real. Your concern that it causes us to think differently, however, actually relates to a different point. Clearly, if we can think differently, then we can approach life and its issues and problems from different angles or points of view. Simulation or not, our reality is complex enough that thinking differently actually has an impact on the real world and how we act and react in it. There's a lot of new age garbage that considers consciousness to be the primary factor in reality and that by changing your consciousness, you can change the world. I hold that there is an objective reality that cannot be changed, and that is the primary factor of reality. However, as I implied above, our reality is complex enough that we can achieve different things by how we think of reality, and while we cannot change reality itself, we can change the circumstances that we are in, for better or worse. We cannot negate gravity and fly, a la Superman or Neo, but thanks to various people thinking differently, we can fly with hot air balloons, airplanes, helicopters, and jet rockets. Reality didn't change, gravity didn't disappear; we simply learned how to modify our particular circumstances of reality. The implication of a higher power because of simulations is somewhat interesting, but suffers the same problems that any question about gods or deities suffers. If you can't prove that we're living in a simulation, then how can you use that as proof of a God or higher power? Only if it can be proven can it be used as an argument for a higher power. But to come full circle, you can, of course, live AS IF you are in a simulation. And maybe if you think like that, it will cause you to act and react differently to our reality, because you are, in fact, looking at it from a different perspective or angle. Maybe thinking that a cheeseburger is simulated will, in fact, make it taste differently to you.
@5:20 I think we would say "Oh my god a whole forest?!" If we were told before we went that it was once an empty field and someone had planted the whole thing. Edit: aaaand I just read Drackar's comment. That.
The purpose of shortcut is to make easier the programming, assuming they are no shortcut doesn't exclude a simulation, and maybe what we can see in physics are actual shortcut compare to their reality. We start to run 2D simulation of life, evolution, neural network ... yet we are in a 3D world, maybe the "programmer" are themselves living in a higher dimensional world. Just some thoughts ...
mmm i get that amazed or enchanted by things in existence thing a lot. Like I am driving and stare at the clouds and think they (in just their existence and being there) are amazing. BTW I am not religious and that is actually where my awe comes in - that somehow those clouds, that sunset or that forest exists right here in this moment and they are not defined by some intelligent higher being. It is very similar to the awe I get from NMS. That perfect scene that I see on my screen was created by a non intelligent procedural generation universe. Both are amazing and for similar reasons to me
Why are practical things important? For example, a radio. That physically changes your drive to work. Or does it? Your drive still takes the same amount of time and burns the same amount of fuel. But here's why it matters: your experience is, for the most part, improved. That is also the reason why these hypothetical questions matter. Food is another example. But wait, isn't that just to keep you alive? Well, how would you like to eat boring sludge like in the matrix every day? We prefer to add flavor and texture because it improves our experience. Heck, the entire internet wouldn't exist if practical survival was all that mattered. Humans lived before we had Facebook and RUclips, but they improve our experience, and so here we are today.
For once I can totally and without reserve, agree with Mike on something. Utilitarianism is nice and all but sometimes it's nice to consider things on a pure intellectual level. Even if it does not even change the way you think or your point of view by an inch, just the exercise of a "what if" or a "how could it work" are interesting to do for their own sake.
you misunderstood the quote about driving non-stop. He was quoting the movie "The 13th floor" where the simulation is only of the size of one city, so to figure out you are in a simulation you would only have to drive to the edge of the city until you would hit an "invisible wall" as said in videogame terms, or otherwise discover unmapped parts of the world... It was not about driving till you die...
After reading Forvrin and Amie's comments, now I have a desire to see fiction in the vein of H.P. Lovecraft regarding the ideas presented in those comments. A major theme of his work, after all, was the horror of the idea--or, within-story, the knowledge--that humanity is NOT cosmically important. That notion isn't as frightening to modern sensibilities (as can be seen from commentors nonchalantly bringing it up), but a story about our-universe-as-simulation, in which the human protagonist eventually comes to learn that our incomprehensible creator doesn't know or care that humanity is even in there, written as though intended for audiences back in Lovecraft's own time, could be a very interesting read, I think.
***** I installed it on my Surface a few days ago, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up playing it a lot. Maybe not the best thing to pick up right before college :P
I would argue that many religious people have the attitude towards forests described here. Its along the lines of "wow god is wonderful i can't even comprehend the awesomeness of this forest and world that he created". See the hymn "How Great thou Art", which is about that feeling, and specifically mentions forests.
I would also ague for users of psychedelics (me being among them): it's incredibly easy to be suddenly taken away by the sheer breadth of the whole world while under their influence.
Some really great points here, but I want to add a comment to what was said about the consequences of thought. I think it was Wittgenstein (though for the life of me I can't find this source) who said something like: the only good or useful philosophy is one that could be lived. I think the question of the pragmatics in philosophy is a useful, and provides a sort of litmus-test for considering the usefulness of an idea-one I realize that is very subjective and not always accurate, but a kind of starting point. So I guess I don't find the simulation idea particularly "useful," but perhaps the same test could be issued by someone else to render a different result. Unreliable, these philosophical questions.
Hmm. I figured there was a temporal evolution element to No Mans Sky. Kinda figured that was part of the point, which makes it seem even more pointless now. I mean, time is just another dimension to add to your fractal graph, right? It's not uncommon to render "fractal clouds" formulae in 3 or 4 dimensions.
If we are living inside a simulation, yet life is not terribly entertaining, perhaps entertainment isn't the point. We could all be part of the "Earth in the 21st Century" exhibit in the Museum of Galactic History. Maybe every time a new group of visitors comes in to the exhibit, we live our lives again, in the same, historically accurate way that we always do. :D
Thank you, Mike, for reminding us all that our thoughts are important, not just our actions. Utilitarianism is nice, but, well, this *is* the Idea Channel, after all...
If real life is a simulation or not is impossible to really know, but I like to think that it is, because then all my problems aren't that huge monster that I have to battle and if it's a game there is no problem here that doesn't have a solution. That gives me a more positive mindset and makes my life lighter, I still have to deal with the problems but I feel different.
Have you heard of Elite Dangerous? It does the trading and space combat a lot better and the space stations are so much better, though you can't get out of your ship. If it had the planet side portions of No Man's Sky, then they'd both be what they should be.
Riding off the Planck length being the resolution of the simulation comments, just had a thought - what if superposition and quantum states collapsing into reality only when observed, is actually a result of the universe being a procedurally generated sim, to avoid expending unnecessary power on rendering things until they are actually needed (to be perceived by objects of simulation).. Thoughts anyone?
4:47 - 5:12 :this is how I feel as a Christian who believes that the world did not arise from itself, but that it was created by God, in essence, "Wow, God made this!"
The argument that the devs of a supposed universe simulation didn't take short cuts, so therefore it can't be, doesn't hold water. Maybe they did take short cuts, how would we know? Maybe all the crazy stuff that goes on at the quantum level is due to coding short cuts, maybe the speed of light is an artificial limit to save processing power, maybe there are 6 more layers of things smaller than atoms, but they just totally skipped rendering them? I'm not saying any of those things are true, but if we are bound by a simulation (just as were are bound by physics), how would we know if there was something outside of that?
I think you should make a separate channel for the comment response videos, because it is such a different style of content that I only want to watch the non-comment-response. This isnt to say that you should stop doing comment responses, because there is clearly an audience for them. But putting it on a different channel, would give people an option.
Ehh, I disagree, and that's from someone who also finds the comment response videos less interesting than the main ones. Part of what makes this channel unique is the community, and that is driven by the fact that 50% of the videos are comment responses. Part of the appeal of these videos is making intellectual responses and contributing to the dialogue in the hope that you might appear in the next video. I'm sure if the comment responses moved to another channel that many of the existing commenters would carry over, but the community would stagnate as new members were not encouraged to think critically and, crucially, intelligently, about the video and respond appropriately. In other words, these videos are much more fun to watch if you comment more often yourself, so get stuck in, buddy!
I see your point and I agree. As such I will totally take back what I said before. Comment responses can stay where they are. I am very glad with how easy it is to have a civilized disscusion here, and what you have said rings true to that. I didnt think about how moving the comment tesponse videos would affect the quality or quantity of comments on the main channel. Thanks for your opinion, because it certainly changed mine.
A but late, but what guarantee is there that the higher world (in the case that we are in a simulation), obeys the same laws of physics and stuff that we (the simulation) experience. What if their universe in more or less complex than ours? For example, if someone was playing a simulation game, they might make a world where there isn't gravity, or their isn't certain elements.
I mean, we don't really know enough about planet formation and evolution to accurately simulate it in any way. Like No Mans Sky essentially plays a big game of dice every time you enter a new solar system and plays another game of dice every time you land your ship and start observing the flora and fauna. That's not a good representation of the largely deterministic world we live in.
You're actually wrong, yes things don't exist in no man's sky until someone visits them. However because of the way the seed works what you will find when you go somewhere is predetermined, it doesn't matter who goes to a planet first they will see nearly the same thing. Also you're kind of missing the point because nobody's proposing that our universe is in a simulation as crude as no man's sky.
Well, anyone thinking that Quantum Mechanics is that "short cut"? Also, even No Mansky gets patched every once in a while, why couldn't this 'simulation'? Of course, it's an unfalsifiable idea.
Just because humanity takes shortcuts we can't assume that the hypothetical creator of the hypothetical simulation would. Or, we could be living in a simulation that's been thoroughly QA'd.
oooh I love this topic, Meta-modernism! Post-modernism questioning the world around us. Meta-modernism being who cares about that but then finding a new sincerity by say yes I care about these questions. They do matter because it changes the way you think about the world around you. Sorry nerding out but I love thinking out these theories :) love the videos too so keep them coming :D
couldn't the argument about the lack of quantum shortcuts be explained by the programmers being so advanced that those shortcuts are unnecessary for them?
We marvel about No Man's Sky's forests more than "real" forests only because No Man's Sky is novel. Give it a few years and its existence will be taken for granted except for in museums just like "real" forests.
I know that I am late, but whatever. Anyways, my thoughts on this is that, I personally believe in God, but if the universe was really created by a God(s)/Goddess('s) would that itself not make our universe simulated? Some religions say that we are the dreams of the Gods. Christianity says that God "Breathed" the universe. I think that one could argue that that would make it a simulation. Which makes me think, our own dreams are just simulations in our brain. People argue about whether technology could simulate life, or free will. But could a life simulate life? Not that I personally believe this, I just really like to think.
I'd really consider thinking twice about buying. Hello Games have lied a lot about what's in the game and I hear it is extremely repetitive. I'd say at least wait until a price drop, because apparently Spore has more variety than NMS right now.
1:42 Regarding the supposed zero programming shortcuts: who's to say that our lack of diversity in the number of arms and legs in humans is not one such shortcut? Or the fact that only humans are the peak intelligent species on Earth? That seems very limited to me and like a shortcut a creator/programmer would take to save himself work on a massive amount of permutations.
If this were a simulation; intelligence and live in general would have to be emergent behaviors. Simulating sub atomic particles in a human is not any more difficult than simulating them in a rock. As for our bodies, evolution works just as well in the simulation as in real live.
Mike, I think you (at least partially?) contradicted yourself in your response from around 5.50. You said that Daniel seemed to be saying that things weren't worth thinking about if they don't change behaviour, and then continued to say that the value of this kind of idea (the simulation idea) was that it could change the way you think about and look at things. But changing the way you think about and look at things *will* change the way you behave, even if only a little (or even only internally). This is precisely my problem with the simulation idea: I that I don't think it forces you to confront interesting ideas in a particularly useful way. A lot (if not all) of the topics it does raise already have approaches to them (Is there an ethical demand to act entertainingly if we all live in the Truman Show?), but the core idea doesn't seem to have any actual depth to it. Do we live in a simulation: maybe? Next question. Although, in writing this response, I've started thinking about the ideas you mentioned a lot more, so maybe you were right?
when we say simulation we typically think computer. What if we were simulated in the synapses of some super genius, or a simple child. Would that be "simulated,"?
Well there's already simulators out there that do it properly, like Space Engine. But in return it lacks the detail, the atmosphere you'd get from landing on a planet and such. The efforts required to do all these things in the same game would be absolutely massive. Right now all we can do is pick whatever focuses on what's important to us.
The biggest argument against us living in a simulation in the infinite amount of irrational numbers. π, e, √2, etc. These numbers have infinite digits, and there are infinitely many of them. If this were a simulation there would need to be infinite memory in order to just simulate the numbers. Literally infinite. Not just arbitrarily large, but all consuming.
celinacelerysalt Wow, that wall of text. I'll have to re-read it when I'm not dead tired, but I did consider the "if this is a simulation, then the creators of it are beyond the bounds of the universe, infinite power/memory could be a thing." scenario, but I didn't feel like writing a novel on it. :P One thing that stood out in my tired state is (again, I'll reread it later when I'm fully awake) is that "the universe generates infinite power." I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure energy is just conserved, not created, in our universe. Anyway, I'd like for you to really think about the concept of infinite power. If you take all the energy in the universe, with it's hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with billions sun, many of which are billions of times more powerful than our own sun , and shrink all that down into just the size of an atom. Then do that again and again until you have enough of these universe-energy-containing atoms to make a whole other universe, then do that again with those super-energy universes, then again, and again, and again... you'd still have 0% of infinite energy. It's just literally mind-boggling to even think about. Of course, the counter argument is just that the creators of the simulation are that advanced or work withing a universe with different laws of physics (if physics even exist) and so on and so forth. I didn't say that irrational numbers or infinity are a perfect argument against simulation theory, just the biggest one (and relatively easy to explain). Either way, it's a pointless (if fun) argument because simulation theory in falsifiable. Either way, it's something fun to think about. And as you stated, our understanding of even our own universe is minuscule (though I think we have a fairly decent grasp of the basics). There's still plenty more to learn. I just find it awe inspiring that we can even conceptualize things like this.
True dat to every line. I agree with what you said about universal conservation completely, but that's just semantics. The definition of power generating becomes funked up under the light of universal conservation, right? It's just definitions, if your not comfortable with saying the universe generates power i can get on board with that just fine. But neither do people then xD you see?
How does my consciousness come about from this simulation? If we were to create a simulation of the universe and it produced lifeforms, then would those lifeforms experience true consciousness like we do?
Well, "I think, therefore I am". That is what people mean when wonder what consciousness is. They aren't asking if "consciousness" (qualia is a better word, I feel) is real or not, they are asking what allows them to literally experience the experience of thinking "I think, therefore I am".
Hopefully quantum effects aren't a shortcut that our creator made after thinking to themselves "Well why would anyone care what happens at this scale of granularity, nobody will figure this out, and if they do it'll just confuse them, I'll make sure of that." (or we're a universe simulation testing future quantum physics hypothesis and it needs to run it's course and see how close it gets to actual reality to see the error in their theory.)
On this topic (shortcuts), it seems that in a simulation this complex, the minimum amount of rules you can create, the better it would be. By this logic, if we eventually find that reality is governed and built by a relatively small amount of axioms... one could make the argument that those axioms ARE the short cuts.
I'd imagine the only purpose for a simulation this complex would be some sort of end game scenario. Like simulating what happens at the end of the universe in order to prepare or rationalize it in some way. If no intelligence is ever able to fully answer the question of why we're all here, then at least maybe they could predict where we're all going. What we see as a great time to start in the universe could be an end game scenario for them, perhaps they know enough about physics to know that there are more limitations on space travel than we realize and a much smaller limit to a civilization's expansion. So they're playing out a future with a simulated species that is adapted to have high reproductive rates and fast technological development to see how we'd handle forced interstellar travel? I mean this is all heavy conjecture but isn't that why people talk about this? ...food for thought?
Walter McMain Good thought, but I could see other scenarios as well. One example: The creators of the simulation are unfathomably more complex than ourselves. Their world when compared to this one may be the same as our world compared to the that of Super Mario Bros. I'm sure if Mario could think, he wouldn't be able to conceive of wind, or relativity, or even depth. The "end game" reasoning is optimistic (and I hope it would be the case), but I think the more likely scenario is that we are Toads.
Maybe I'm giving too much credence to the "how would it even matter" argument, but I think it's disingenuous to think that it's an argument made against thought and reflection and philosophy. I take it instead as a rejection of the notion that there is a difference between a simulation and reality, and I think that's a conversation we need to be having. "Simulation" as the word is currently used is tied to artificiality, to an idea that there exists a "real" world with the implication that the simulated is lesser. I'm not saying Mike necessarily believes that the experiences in a simulated world would be less real than experiences that are not in a simulation, but I think that implication is going to be there until the word evolves and loses its association with simulacra. I think the way many transhumanists talk about the idea of the world being a simulation does nothing to help the divide between the simulated and the real, too.
If the world is a simulation and we as a species make a simulation and then the creatures inhabiting the simulation got to a sufficient tech level to create a simulation themselves ad infinitum....Wonder what spec pc this is all running on?
At least our universe is more inrerestig the NMS repetitive boring universe. With its "2.4g" worth of files... including textures. Seriously no wonder the planets are so bland.
If humanity wasn't the point of the simulation, why would it bother to render us? Take Minecraft for example. If the creator/player doesn't know you exist, you probably haven't been loaded yet and furthermore you will de-spawn when the creator/player leaves.
Besides how do you know that we aren't only 'rendered' (or simulated, really) when something of importance is in near us? We don't know what is the 'thing of importance' for other civilizations and 'near' can also be a relative term. Anyway, for all we know we only get simulated for a second per millenium of creator's time but we wouldn't know it because when we aren't simulated we are simply suspended. Maybe during the time I've been writing the comment I was suspended and resumed for a billion times -- I wouldn't know it since I can only perceive things when the simulation is running.
honestly I can not understand how you think no man sky is a step forward in simulation. they really have not innovated much. Dwarf fortress however does. And you, mike, know dwarf fortress quite well. From what I have gathered of the development of dwarf fortress is that the key of it's complexity is time. it looks like when you develop a game for 15+ years or so you get a game with a ton of features. lots of mechanics that interact with each other. Have you seen Dwarf Fortress user stories? I bet you have. Is there other game where such a thing might happen?
When it comes to simulations, I think you should take a look at Dwarf Fortress. Even if the graphical quality is not the same as something like NMS. the details of its simulation of a living, breathing world with a history and communities that rise and fall is, to me, at least as meaningful as the ability to generate planets, and I think that it may be a better source of ideas to discuss the small details and "shortcuts" of simulating a world beyond the creation of the physical aspect of it. I think taking a look at how it creates cities, castles and sites that are all part of one of many nations within the world speaks to a part of "our simulation" that NMS doesn't really bother with. and in my mind, that's the part that separates a world that can pass for a simulation to a being within it and one that can't.
6:00 nothing that you talked about are solutions or nuances, they are ethical problems that don't require that our own reality is a simulation. nothing comes out of the simulation hypothesis that is not derived from fear, an religious fear, a fear from a bigger power, a creator, a designer that observes and cares. it is not plausible, is not practical, it only raises problems, not questions, they don't bring nothing that could bring development, it would only e restricting. just think again, a simulation would meant that we are just bits in a machine, that exist in another universe, and that universe may not even be 3d, maybe it works in 4 dimensions, maybe 16 dimensions, maybe it is a school project or maybe a distraction of an infant in the 16th dimension that same way our 3d kids make drawings . it is just not concrete, it is the god almighty all over again. and i seriously tired of this hogwash
While I have my own problems with the simulation hypothesis (or at least the idea that we can reasonably infer that it's likely). The fact that it _sounds weird_ is not a real criticism of the theory, you could say the same thing about say quantum mechanics, but that still doesn't make it less likely.
Valcor Wabajak i not even once criticized for being weird, but for not being practical. the simulation hypothesis is hugely, impassably extraordinary of an allegation, with no basis other than mere speculation that indicates a higher power. the simulation hypothesis is the god of the gaps all over again.
Lucas Melo First off you do get that the god of the gaps argument is about using supernatural stuff to explain current gaps in knowledge right? It's not really applicable to this situation. Also you don't have to explicitly say "it's wrong because it's weird" for my criticism to work. Saying it's an extraordinary impractical claim, then not addressing the arguments made by proponents is functionally the same thing. You still never made a _actual criticism_ of the arguments for the position.
I get the frustration, as someone who is also occasionally frustrated by religion. The simulation hypothesis is an interesting thought experiment, though. I think that's what he's trying to say. To me the take away is not one of fear or insignificance. It's of excitement for all the things humans might be capable of. Could we create life that is not us? What are the moral implications of this? Questions which becomes increasingly more relevant the better our AI get. Wondering if we could be AI or "simulated" and not know is a very useful thing to think about. Also, even if we do look at it like a new religion with some shadowy creator(s), I think I like this one better. Man can apparently not hope to understand God, but if we were simulated through science that means we are capable of understanding our origin. Learning about what's outside of the simulation, taking apart our code. Don't know, that's just better to me.
Not that I think it's a legit scientific theory, at least with the current evidence or lack there of. It's a thought experiment, but one with a purpose
Shortcuts in the programming of our universe just opened up a world of sci-fi premises in my head. Thanks!
On the subject of ""OH MY GOD you put together this whole forest" Look up Jadav Payeng sometime. He planted a 1,360 acre forest on a sandbar, turning uninhabitable nothing into lush greenery over the last 40+ years.
Ooh. Interesting.
send him to mars!
You think the animals in No Man's Sky ever discuss whether or not they are simulated?
More like NPC aliens.
No, because they can't.
***** Any advice on comedy, while I have your attention here?
Relax, maybe he has aspergers
Social Sock No clue who you speak to about who, but that was a real question.
If anybody knows how I could have made that joke better, please do chime in. I feel that most of my jokes are not seen as such.
The taste of cheeseburgers has changed since the last video came out.
Simulation confirmed.
Nina Hagen does a little jump at 5:35
Personally I think things like the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement are shortcuts that the programmers of the simulation took. For what reason would we be able to distinguish the shortcuts from just the regular operation of the universe?
Very well said
Shortcuts could have been taken. Over on PBS Spacetime, the past 2-3 videos are talking about how photos act as waves until they're measured. This /could/ be a shortcut of some kind, to save calculating each and every photon of light.
Then there's hidden surface rendering. How do we know that's not happening? Given how outcomes can change just by whether or not we observe/measure them, it /could/ be possible.
Key word, here, is *could*.
@PBSIdeaChannel: You need to submit to have this and the original episode put into a video game except replacing you with a video game character
That would be so beautifully meta...
A great reference for the idea proposed at 2:16 is the book Implied Spaces. It follows many of the theories and possibilities proposed by the Simulation theory.
I had that "Woah" reaction when I learned that the Catoctin Mountian Park was constructed by the new deal.
this theory mixed with the many worlds interpretation sounds pretty cool
Your thoughts-that-don't-change-behavior-are-still-important speech was wonderful! 😁
Now that I've watched this I might, next time I encounter a forest, stop and stare and be like "oh my god, a whole forest!"
Reading comments to me is like visiting endless planets as far as I can see.
2:10 Maybe the speed of light is a shortcut? It puts an upper limit on energy and limits hows quickly information can transmit.
To quote Matrix: "... what you can smell, what you can taste and see, ... which is why chicken tastes like everything.”
Regarding shortcuts. They could be taken, but covered up in perception patches that only temporarily do the far more complex math when someone looks that close. That would be far cheaper than doing that math all the time.
On the sense of wonder again, I think the only thing game-simulated settings have over Earth-generated settings is ease of generation. I have been in the presence of people going "oh my God, there's so much sand" (or stars. it was the Sahara desert). However, it's much easier to get that reaction from seeing mundane things recreated well.
The reasons for simulation to be more awe-inspiring than reality, as far down as I can reach, is threefold. Firstly is exposure. Seeing a dense, beautiful city in a game causes us to all stop and observe it for a little while. In contrast, a very similar city in the real world tends to be pidgeonholed by routine, and we ignore it (I think forests don't work as well, since there are so few forests for so many of us.)
Second, there is objective. You are specifically looking for things in a game, often scattered around an area. Even in NMS, you are looking for fuel and upgrade materials. This encourages close observation. IRL, there isn't that desire as adults. When we go into nature, it tends to be more wandering. When there is an objective, though, our attention is much more sound, and I have found it is easier to be excited about something unpleasant or mundane as a result.
Thirdly, there is the fact that games are not real. All of the grit and grime and insects that dominate reality are absent. A city is pristine (even a city like San Andreas in GTA); the roads are in excellent condition, street cleaners don't need to exist, and there really aren't any monochrome or horribly dingy areas (there might be one or two for impact, but not large parts of the city). The discomfort and danger in a simulation can be ended instantaneously by looking away.
Dwarf Fortress. Dwarf Fortress is obviously the next step in simulation technology (despite being released in like 2006).
I have to disagree about your not having the experience of "Oh wow, a whole forest." I mean maybe that's not something you do, but I literally do that every time I go into a forest, like the fact that there are SO MANY ORGANISMS and that that JUST HAPPENED, like WTF HOW ARE TREES EVEN A THING! They just grow out of the ground? Crazy.
I'm one of those who thinks that If there's no way to tell we're living in a simulation, then it doesn't really matter, and we have to live our lives as if this were real. Your concern that it causes us to think differently, however, actually relates to a different point. Clearly, if we can think differently, then we can approach life and its issues and problems from different angles or points of view. Simulation or not, our reality is complex enough that thinking differently actually has an impact on the real world and how we act and react in it.
There's a lot of new age garbage that considers consciousness to be the primary factor in reality and that by changing your consciousness, you can change the world. I hold that there is an objective reality that cannot be changed, and that is the primary factor of reality. However, as I implied above, our reality is complex enough that we can achieve different things by how we think of reality, and while we cannot change reality itself, we can change the circumstances that we are in, for better or worse. We cannot negate gravity and fly, a la Superman or Neo, but thanks to various people thinking differently, we can fly with hot air balloons, airplanes, helicopters, and jet rockets. Reality didn't change, gravity didn't disappear; we simply learned how to modify our particular circumstances of reality.
The implication of a higher power because of simulations is somewhat interesting, but suffers the same problems that any question about gods or deities suffers. If you can't prove that we're living in a simulation, then how can you use that as proof of a God or higher power? Only if it can be proven can it be used as an argument for a higher power.
But to come full circle, you can, of course, live AS IF you are in a simulation. And maybe if you think like that, it will cause you to act and react differently to our reality, because you are, in fact, looking at it from a different perspective or angle. Maybe thinking that a cheeseburger is simulated will, in fact, make it taste differently to you.
I think it would cool to simulate and observe every single aspect of human history.
What if the Berensta(e)in Bears change was a hotfix?
@5:20 I think we would say "Oh my god a whole forest?!" If we were told before we went that it was once an empty field and someone had planted the whole thing.
Edit: aaaand I just read Drackar's comment. That.
The purpose of shortcut is to make easier the programming, assuming they are no shortcut doesn't exclude a simulation, and maybe what we can see in physics are actual shortcut compare to their reality. We start to run 2D simulation of life, evolution, neural network ... yet we are in a 3D world, maybe the "programmer" are themselves living in a higher dimensional world.
Just some thoughts ...
mmm i get that amazed or enchanted by things in existence thing a lot. Like I am driving and stare at the clouds and think they (in just their existence and being there) are amazing. BTW I am not religious and that is actually where my awe comes in - that somehow those clouds, that sunset or that forest exists right here in this moment and they are not defined by some intelligent higher being. It is very similar to the awe I get from NMS. That perfect scene that I see on my screen was created by a non intelligent procedural generation universe.
Both are amazing and for similar reasons to me
Why are practical things important? For example, a radio. That physically changes your drive to work. Or does it? Your drive still takes the same amount of time and burns the same amount of fuel. But here's why it matters: your experience is, for the most part, improved. That is also the reason why these hypothetical questions matter.
Food is another example. But wait, isn't that just to keep you alive? Well, how would you like to eat boring sludge like in the matrix every day? We prefer to add flavor and texture because it improves our experience.
Heck, the entire internet wouldn't exist if practical survival was all that mattered. Humans lived before we had Facebook and RUclips, but they improve our experience, and so here we are today.
For once I can totally and without reserve, agree with Mike on something. Utilitarianism is nice and all but sometimes it's nice to consider things on a pure intellectual level. Even if it does not even change the way you think or your point of view by an inch, just the exercise of a "what if" or a "how could it work" are interesting to do for their own sake.
you misunderstood the quote about driving non-stop. He was quoting the movie "The 13th floor" where the simulation is only of the size of one city, so to figure out you are in a simulation you would only have to drive to the edge of the city until you would hit an "invisible wall" as said in videogame terms, or otherwise discover unmapped parts of the world... It was not about driving till you die...
OMG we are keeping Mario from finding the castle where his princess is...
Honestly I didn't even start paying attention to it until you mentioned it. It's pretty low key.
After reading Forvrin and Amie's comments, now I have a desire to see fiction in the vein of H.P. Lovecraft regarding the ideas presented in those comments. A major theme of his work, after all, was the horror of the idea--or, within-story, the knowledge--that humanity is NOT cosmically important. That notion isn't as frightening to modern sensibilities (as can be seen from commentors nonchalantly bringing it up), but a story about our-universe-as-simulation, in which the human protagonist eventually comes to learn that our incomprehensible creator doesn't know or care that humanity is even in there, written as though intended for audiences back in Lovecraft's own time, could be a very interesting read, I think.
RE: Akshay Jaggi
You mean Dwarf Fortress?
I love that that game exists. I haven't had the time or patience to actually play it in a couple years, but I still follow the dev blogs.
***** I installed it on my Surface a few days ago, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up playing it a lot.
Maybe not the best thing to pick up right before college :P
I would argue that many religious people have the attitude towards forests described here. Its along the lines of "wow god is wonderful i can't even comprehend the awesomeness of this forest and world that he created". See the hymn "How Great thou Art", which is about that feeling, and specifically mentions forests.
I would also ague for users of psychedelics (me being among them): it's incredibly easy to be suddenly taken away by the sheer breadth of the whole world while under their influence.
Some really great points here, but I want to add a comment to what was said about the consequences of thought. I think it was Wittgenstein (though for the life of me I can't find this source) who said something like: the only good or useful philosophy is one that could be lived. I think the question of the pragmatics in philosophy is a useful, and provides a sort of litmus-test for considering the usefulness of an idea-one I realize that is very subjective and not always accurate, but a kind of starting point. So I guess I don't find the simulation idea particularly "useful," but perhaps the same test could be issued by someone else to render a different result. Unreliable, these philosophical questions.
Hmm. I figured there was a temporal evolution element to No Mans Sky. Kinda figured that was part of the point, which makes it seem even more pointless now. I mean, time is just another dimension to add to your fractal graph, right? It's not uncommon to render "fractal clouds" formulae in 3 or 4 dimensions.
If we are living inside a simulation, yet life is not terribly entertaining, perhaps entertainment isn't the point. We could all be part of the "Earth in the 21st Century" exhibit in the Museum of Galactic History. Maybe every time a new group of visitors comes in to the exhibit, we live our lives again, in the same, historically accurate way that we always do. :D
8:36 So THAT'S where Anthony Caboni went! I was wonder about that when he left DNews.
As far as No Man Sky is allowed to age, the relativity of time makes that very difficult.
Thank you, Mike, for reminding us all that our thoughts are important, not just our actions. Utilitarianism is nice, but, well, this *is* the Idea Channel, after all...
Pretension is profundity that hasn't been earned.
If real life is a simulation or not is impossible to really know, but I like to think that it is, because then all my problems aren't that huge monster that I have to battle and if it's a game there is no problem here that doesn't have a solution. That gives me a more positive mindset and makes my life lighter, I still have to deal with the problems but I feel different.
Have you heard of Elite Dangerous? It does the trading and space combat a lot better and the space stations are so much better, though you can't get out of your ship. If it had the planet side portions of No Man's Sky, then they'd both be what they should be.
Riding off the Planck length being the resolution of the simulation comments, just had a thought - what if superposition and quantum states collapsing into reality only when observed, is actually a result of the universe being a procedurally generated sim, to avoid expending unnecessary power on rendering things until they are actually needed (to be perceived by objects of simulation).. Thoughts anyone?
5:00 What about orchards?
4:47 - 5:12 :this is how I feel as a Christian who believes that the world did not arise from itself, but that it was created by God, in essence, "Wow, God made this!"
The argument that the devs of a supposed universe simulation didn't take short cuts, so therefore it can't be, doesn't hold water. Maybe they did take short cuts, how would we know? Maybe all the crazy stuff that goes on at the quantum level is due to coding short cuts, maybe the speed of light is an artificial limit to save processing power, maybe there are 6 more layers of things smaller than atoms, but they just totally skipped rendering them? I'm not saying any of those things are true, but if we are bound by a simulation (just as were are bound by physics), how would we know if there was something outside of that?
The tRick is to never go back to the Carpet store.
I think you should make a separate channel for the comment response videos, because it is such a different style of content that I only want to watch the non-comment-response. This isnt to say that you should stop doing comment responses, because there is clearly an audience for them. But putting it on a different channel, would give people an option.
Ehh, I disagree, and that's from someone who also finds the comment response videos less interesting than the main ones. Part of what makes this channel unique is the community, and that is driven by the fact that 50% of the videos are comment responses. Part of the appeal of these videos is making intellectual responses and contributing to the dialogue in the hope that you might appear in the next video. I'm sure if the comment responses moved to another channel that many of the existing commenters would carry over, but the community would stagnate as new members were not encouraged to think critically and, crucially, intelligently, about the video and respond appropriately.
In other words, these videos are much more fun to watch if you comment more often yourself, so get stuck in, buddy!
I see your point and I agree. As such I will totally take back what I said before. Comment responses can stay where they are. I am very glad with how easy it is to have a civilized disscusion here, and what you have said rings true to that. I didnt think about how moving the comment tesponse videos would affect the quality or quantity of comments on the main channel. Thanks for your opinion, because it certainly changed mine.
A but late, but what guarantee is there that the higher world (in the case that we are in a simulation), obeys the same laws of physics and stuff that we (the simulation) experience. What if their universe in more or less complex than ours? For example, if someone was playing a simulation game, they might make a world where there isn't gravity, or their isn't certain elements.
8:13 I honestly didn't no that and I don't know if that improves your reputation or not.
*know :P
I mean, we don't really know enough about planet formation and evolution to accurately simulate it in any way. Like No Mans Sky essentially plays a big game of dice every time you enter a new solar system and plays another game of dice every time you land your ship and start observing the flora and fauna. That's not a good representation of the largely deterministic world we live in.
You're actually wrong, yes things don't exist in no man's sky until someone visits them.
However because of the way the seed works what you will find when you go somewhere is predetermined, it doesn't matter who goes to a planet first they will see nearly the same thing.
Also you're kind of missing the point because nobody's proposing that our universe is in a simulation as crude as no man's sky.
Well, anyone thinking that Quantum Mechanics is that "short cut"? Also, even No Mansky gets patched every once in a while, why couldn't this 'simulation'?
Of course, it's an unfalsifiable idea.
Just because humanity takes shortcuts we can't assume that the hypothetical creator of the hypothetical simulation would. Or, we could be living in a simulation that's been thoroughly QA'd.
The point about shortcuts and the granularity of the simulation is actually addressed in Bostrom's paper, but the explanation is hopelessly ad hoc.
I signed up for the single player simulation, but it seems I have been placed in the multiplayer one.
oooh I love this topic, Meta-modernism! Post-modernism questioning the world around us. Meta-modernism being who cares about that but then finding a new sincerity by say yes I care about these questions. They do matter because it changes the way you think about the world around you. Sorry nerding out but I love thinking out these theories :) love the videos too so keep them coming :D
CAN WE GET A HOT PEPPER IDEA PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
Pretty sure Ricky and Morty had something to say about this.
couldn't the argument about the lack of quantum shortcuts be explained by the programmers being so advanced that those shortcuts are unnecessary for them?
We marvel about No Man's Sky's forests more than "real" forests only because No Man's Sky is novel. Give it a few years and its existence will be taken for granted except for in museums just like "real" forests.
tfw mike rugnetta references anthony carboni !!!!!!!!! 2 of my favez
I know that I am late, but whatever.
Anyways, my thoughts on this is that, I personally believe in God, but if the universe was really created by a God(s)/Goddess('s) would that itself not make our universe simulated? Some religions say that we are the dreams of the Gods. Christianity says that God "Breathed" the universe. I think that one could argue that that would make it a simulation. Which makes me think, our own dreams are just simulations in our brain. People argue about whether technology could simulate life, or free will. But could a life simulate life?
Not that I personally believe this, I just really like to think.
Plato's Cave
Games are evolving all that is needed is a way to suspend memory.
Man. I love No Man's Sky and I don't even own it. I just want to collect the credits, keep exploring. Curse my graphics card, lol
Apparently it runs like garbage on PC no matter how good your graphics card is.
I want to play just so I can name all of the things.
I mean imagine flying through space and seeing "Lookit Inamedaplanet"
I had to give my old gaming PC a fairly cheap graphics card upgrade and I've been enjoying the PC build ever since. It's worth it I tells ya!
I'd really consider thinking twice about buying. Hello Games have lied a lot about what's in the game and I hear it is extremely repetitive. I'd say at least wait until a price drop, because apparently Spore has more variety than NMS right now.
1:42 Regarding the supposed zero programming shortcuts: who's to say that our lack of diversity in the number of arms and legs in humans is not one such shortcut? Or the fact that only humans are the peak intelligent species on Earth? That seems very limited to me and like a shortcut a creator/programmer would take to save himself work on a massive amount of permutations.
If this were a simulation; intelligence and live in general would have to be emergent behaviors. Simulating sub atomic particles in a human is not any more difficult than simulating them in a rock. As for our bodies, evolution works just as well in the simulation as in real live.
Mike, I think you (at least partially?) contradicted yourself in your response from around 5.50. You said that Daniel seemed to be saying that things weren't worth thinking about if they don't change behaviour, and then continued to say that the value of this kind of idea (the simulation idea) was that it could change the way you think about and look at things. But changing the way you think about and look at things *will* change the way you behave, even if only a little (or even only internally). This is precisely my problem with the simulation idea: I that I don't think it forces you to confront interesting ideas in a particularly useful way. A lot (if not all) of the topics it does raise already have approaches to them (Is there an ethical demand to act entertainingly if we all live in the Truman Show?), but the core idea doesn't seem to have any actual depth to it. Do we live in a simulation: maybe? Next question.
Although, in writing this response, I've started thinking about the ideas you mentioned a lot more, so maybe you were right?
Please turn off that background music. It's so annoying and distracting.
Other than that, great video! :)
when we say simulation we typically think computer. What if we were simulated in the synapses of some super genius, or a simple child. Would that be "simulated,"?
Why simulate a universe poorly?
just scale it down and simulate a solar system decently.
I'm not sure if you're talking about the real
universe or No Man's Sky's universe, either way, the answer should be pretty similar
Well there's already simulators out there that do it properly, like Space Engine. But in return it lacks the detail, the atmosphere you'd get from landing on a planet and such. The efforts required to do all these things in the same game would be absolutely massive. Right now all we can do is pick whatever focuses on what's important to us.
I think we can all agree that our simulated world we live in has terrible graphics... and an even worse plot... 5/10
The biggest argument against us living in a simulation in the infinite amount of irrational numbers. π, e, √2, etc. These numbers have infinite digits, and there are infinitely many of them. If this were a simulation there would need to be infinite memory in order to just simulate the numbers. Literally infinite. Not just arbitrarily large, but all consuming.
What if the irrational numbers generate infinitely in the way roguelikes do. Once we find new digits, the digits are stored.
celinacelerysalt Wow, that wall of text. I'll have to re-read it when I'm not dead tired, but I did consider the "if this is a simulation, then the creators of it are beyond the bounds of the universe, infinite power/memory could be a thing." scenario, but I didn't feel like writing a novel on it. :P
One thing that stood out in my tired state is (again, I'll reread it later when I'm fully awake) is that "the universe generates infinite power." I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure energy is just conserved, not created, in our universe.
Anyway, I'd like for you to really think about the concept of infinite power. If you take all the energy in the universe, with it's hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with billions sun, many of which are billions of times more powerful than our own sun , and shrink all that down into just the size of an atom. Then do that again and again until you have enough of these universe-energy-containing atoms to make a whole other universe, then do that again with those super-energy universes, then again, and again, and again... you'd still have 0% of infinite energy. It's just literally mind-boggling to even think about.
Of course, the counter argument is just that the creators of the simulation are that advanced or work withing a universe with different laws of physics (if physics even exist) and so on and so forth. I didn't say that irrational numbers or infinity are a perfect argument against simulation theory, just the biggest one (and relatively easy to explain). Either way, it's a pointless (if fun) argument because simulation theory in falsifiable.
Either way, it's something fun to think about. And as you stated, our understanding of even our own universe is minuscule (though I think we have a fairly decent grasp of the basics). There's still plenty more to learn. I just find it awe inspiring that we can even conceptualize things like this.
True dat to every line. I agree with what you said about universal conservation completely, but that's just semantics. The definition of power generating becomes funked up under the light of universal conservation, right? It's just definitions, if your not comfortable with saying the universe generates power i can get on board with that just fine. But neither do people then xD you see?
How does my consciousness come about from this simulation?
If we were to create a simulation of the universe and it produced lifeforms, then would those lifeforms experience true consciousness like we do?
That assumes that we have, indeed, possess "true" consciousness.
Well, "I think, therefore I am". That is what people mean when wonder what consciousness is. They aren't asking if "consciousness" (qualia is a better word, I feel) is real or not, they are asking what allows them to literally experience the experience of thinking "I think, therefore I am".
Hopefully quantum effects aren't a shortcut that our creator made after thinking to themselves "Well why would anyone care what happens at this scale of granularity, nobody will figure this out, and if they do it'll just confuse them, I'll make sure of that."
(or we're a universe simulation testing future quantum physics hypothesis and it needs to run it's course and see how close it gets to actual reality to see the error in their theory.)
On this topic (shortcuts), it seems that in a simulation this complex, the minimum amount of rules you can create, the better it would be. By this logic, if we eventually find that reality is governed and built by a relatively small amount of axioms... one could make the argument that those axioms ARE the short cuts.
I'd imagine the only purpose for a simulation this complex would be some sort of end game scenario. Like simulating what happens at the end of the universe in order to prepare or rationalize it in some way. If no intelligence is ever able to fully answer the question of why we're all here, then at least maybe they could predict where we're all going.
What we see as a great time to start in the universe could be an end game scenario for them, perhaps they know enough about physics to know that there are more limitations on space travel than we realize and a much smaller limit to a civilization's expansion. So they're playing out a future with a simulated species that is adapted to have high reproductive rates and fast technological development to see how we'd handle forced interstellar travel?
I mean this is all heavy conjecture but isn't that why people talk about this? ...food for thought?
Walter McMain
Good thought, but I could see other scenarios as well. One example: The creators of the simulation are unfathomably more complex than ourselves. Their world when compared to this one may be the same as our world compared to the that of Super Mario Bros. I'm sure if Mario could think, he wouldn't be able to conceive of wind, or relativity, or even depth.
The "end game" reasoning is optimistic (and I hope it would be the case), but I think the more likely scenario is that we are Toads.
Maybe I'm giving too much credence to the "how would it even matter" argument, but I think it's disingenuous to think that it's an argument made against thought and reflection and philosophy. I take it instead as a rejection of the notion that there is a difference between a simulation and reality, and I think that's a conversation we need to be having. "Simulation" as the word is currently used is tied to artificiality, to an idea that there exists a "real" world with the implication that the simulated is lesser. I'm not saying Mike necessarily believes that the experiences in a simulated world would be less real than experiences that are not in a simulation, but I think that implication is going to be there until the word evolves and loses its association with simulacra. I think the way many transhumanists talk about the idea of the world being a simulation does nothing to help the divide between the simulated and the real, too.
the last comment reminds me a lot of /r/outside
A good reason to find out if we live in a simulation is that if we do, we could maybe find a way to hack the system and start cheating.
I wonder what happens to comments on the comments videos. Nothing I suppose.
Fair enough :)
If the world is a simulation and we as a species make a simulation and then the creatures inhabiting the simulation got to a sufficient tech level to create a simulation themselves ad infinitum....Wonder what spec pc this is all running on?
0:40 Exactly. Why would the simulation be created by humans? And why would we be the point of the simulation? Seems rather egotistic.
I like your watch.
4:39 never ???
like who do you even hang out with???
man now i see why you think our world is boring
At least our universe is more inrerestig the NMS repetitive boring universe. With its "2.4g" worth of files... including textures. Seriously no wonder the planets are so bland.
9:38 *is not to be
42
If humanity wasn't the point of the simulation, why would it bother to render us? Take Minecraft for example. If the creator/player doesn't know you exist, you probably haven't been loaded yet and furthermore you will de-spawn when the creator/player leaves.
because it's a simulation, not a game... For a simulation to be accurate all particles must be considered.
Besides how do you know that we aren't only 'rendered' (or simulated, really) when something of importance is in near us? We don't know what is the 'thing of importance' for other civilizations and 'near' can also be a relative term. Anyway, for all we know we only get simulated for a second per millenium of creator's time but we wouldn't know it because when we aren't simulated we are simply suspended. Maybe during the time I've been writing the comment I was suspended and resumed for a billion times -- I wouldn't know it since I can only perceive things when the simulation is running.
Like Samramdebest said, you are conflating a complex simulation with a simple game. You have to simulate everything, else it would be pointless.
ayyy first... I feel so ashamed.
lol
honestly I can not understand how you think no man sky is a step forward in simulation. they really have not innovated much. Dwarf fortress however does. And you, mike, know dwarf fortress quite well.
From what I have gathered of the development of dwarf fortress is that the key of it's complexity is time. it looks like when you develop a game for 15+ years or so you get a game with a ton of features. lots of mechanics that interact with each other. Have you seen Dwarf Fortress user stories? I bet you have. Is there other game where such a thing might happen?
are we npcs? or players? or just some digital seamonkey?
Here's an idea:
Don't spoil brand new stuff
with your thumnail and video title. -__-
what did he spoil then? What the video is about? Thats the purpose of a title y know
When it comes to simulations, I think you should take a look at Dwarf Fortress. Even if the graphical quality is not the same as something like NMS. the details of its simulation of a living, breathing world with a history and communities that rise and fall is, to me, at least as meaningful as the ability to generate planets, and I think that it may be a better source of ideas to discuss the small details and "shortcuts" of simulating a world beyond the creation of the physical aspect of it. I think taking a look at how it creates cities, castles and sites that are all part of one of many nations within the world speaks to a part of "our simulation" that NMS doesn't really bother with. and in my mind, that's the part that separates a world that can pass for a simulation to a being within it and one that can't.
Not first.
6:00 nothing that you talked about are solutions or nuances, they are ethical problems that don't require that our own reality is a simulation.
nothing comes out of the simulation hypothesis that is not derived from fear, an religious fear, a fear from a bigger power, a creator, a designer that observes and cares.
it is not plausible, is not practical, it only raises problems, not questions, they don't bring nothing that could bring development, it would only e restricting.
just think again, a simulation would meant that we are just bits in a machine, that exist in another universe, and that universe may not even be 3d, maybe it works in 4 dimensions, maybe 16 dimensions, maybe it is a school project or maybe a distraction of an infant in the 16th dimension that same way our 3d kids make drawings .
it is just not concrete, it is the god almighty all over again.
and i seriously tired of this hogwash
While I have my own problems with the simulation hypothesis (or at least the idea that we can reasonably infer that it's likely).
The fact that it _sounds weird_ is not a real criticism of the theory, you could say the same thing about say quantum mechanics, but that still doesn't make it less likely.
Valcor Wabajak i not even once criticized for being weird, but for not being practical.
the simulation hypothesis is hugely, impassably extraordinary of an allegation, with no basis other than mere speculation that indicates a higher power.
the simulation hypothesis is the god of the gaps all over again.
Lucas Melo First off you do get that the god of the gaps argument is about using supernatural stuff to explain current gaps in knowledge right? It's not really applicable to this situation.
Also you don't have to explicitly say "it's wrong because it's weird" for my criticism to work. Saying it's an extraordinary impractical claim, then not addressing the arguments made by proponents is functionally the same thing.
You still never made a _actual criticism_ of the arguments for the position.
I get the frustration, as someone who is also occasionally frustrated by religion. The simulation hypothesis is an interesting thought experiment, though. I think that's what he's trying to say.
To me the take away is not one of fear or insignificance. It's of excitement for all the things humans might be capable of. Could we create life that is not us? What are the moral implications of this? Questions which becomes increasingly more relevant the better our AI get. Wondering if we could be AI or "simulated" and not know is a very useful thing to think about.
Also, even if we do look at it like a new religion with some shadowy creator(s), I think I like this one better. Man can apparently not hope to understand God, but if we were simulated through science that means we are capable of understanding our origin. Learning about what's outside of the simulation, taking apart our code. Don't know, that's just better to me.
Not that I think it's a legit scientific theory, at least with the current evidence or lack there of. It's a thought experiment, but one with a purpose