TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)

33 点作者 _ttg将近 4 年前

32 条评论

Mountain_Skies将近 4 年前
Maybe but if there's no way for information to move in and out, what does it matter? It just ends up being one more turtle on the bottom of the stack.
评论 #27737706 未加载
评论 #27737847 未加载
评论 #27737817 未加载
评论 #27739263 未加载
评论 #27739313 未加载
rendall将近 4 年前
<i>Simulation</i> is such a lack of imagination. I see it situated right in the tradition of always comparing the universe to the latest technology. <i>The Universe is... a clock! A hologram! Electricity! A computer!</i><p>What if the Universe were a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensible entities?<p>Could you call <i>that</i> a simulation? The comparison is meaningless.
评论 #27738272 未加载
评论 #27737968 未加载
bloak将近 4 年前
The first step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a universe whether that universe is &quot;real&quot; or simulated.<p>The second step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a simulated universe whether you actually run the simulator, or even bother building it.<p>For example, the set of prime numbers less than 10^12 exists whether or not you build and program a computer to print them out. If you write a program that simulates a universe, then the mathematical object defined by that program exists whether or not you build a computer and run the program, and to any conscious beings that happen to exist inside that hypothetical universe it can&#x27;t possibly make any difference.<p>That&#x27;s my opinion, anyway.
评论 #27738776 未加载
评论 #27738246 未加载
hirundo将近 4 年前
If it is a simulation, what are the odds that it&#x27;s a game? The great majority of simulations that we know about are games.<p>If it is a game, what are the odds that you are a non player character? In games, the vast majority of characters aren&#x27;t the player.<p>So if we are living in a computer simulation, odds are that we&#x27;re non player characters.
评论 #27738337 未加载
评论 #27737855 未加载
评论 #27738241 未加载
评论 #27737852 未加载
评论 #27754586 未加载
评论 #27737868 未加载
stoicjumbotron将近 4 年前
The first 4 paragraphs really made me feel weird. I just can&#x27;t explain it. Is this what is called existential crisis?
cik将近 4 年前
I find questions like this fascinating. As a religious person, I guess I don&#x27;t really see the question. There&#x27;s no way for me to (currently) prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Ultimately I make a faith-based decision based on things that resonate with me, helping to reinforce my religious beliefs. Others do the reverse and don&#x27;t believe.<p>But it would be hubris on my part to try and prove the existence of deity. It&#x27;s fundamentally unproveable - at least with what we currently know. I view these simulation exercises as the same.
评论 #27738380 未加载
Igelau将近 4 年前
No dev up against a deadline is going to implement a Higgs Field. Those masses would be hard-coded.
评论 #27737849 未加载
评论 #27737878 未加载
评论 #27745322 未加载
评论 #27737959 未加载
lettergram将近 4 年前
Isn’t this basically impossible to prove? see Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;goedel-incompleteness&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;goedel-incompleteness&#x2F;</a><p>Effectively we can’t prove a higher level of the simulation because we are encoded in it?
评论 #27737837 未加载
mytailorisrich将近 4 年前
To me this is simply rephrasing the age old question about the existence of God using a modern technology analogy.
scotty79将近 4 年前
Unknowable.<p>And no, you&#x27;ll have no way to break out of simulation and access api of the simulator, because if it&#x27;s in place it works similarly to this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8</a>
评论 #27737828 未加载
only_as_i_fall将近 4 年前
All physical evidence points to the universe containing some fixed amount of entropy which puts an upper bound on the complexity of any simulation you could embed inside it.<p>Given this, the claim that we&#x27;re at the bottom of some large or infinite stack of simulated universes would have to also assert that the containing universe is fundamentally different than our own, which moves the claim from the realm of merely unfalsifiable to convoluted.<p>When I see people like musk make the argument for the universe being simulated I can&#x27;t help but see those arguments as a sophomoric reach for whatever model of reality feels &quot;coolest&quot; at the time; evidence be damned.
评论 #27738524 未加载
Folcon将近 4 年前
I find the notion of a sim a little more interesting that other kinds of closed systems, because unlike say &quot;what if the world is a dream&quot; there are constants in a sim, rules are fixed. Those rules may be exploitable.<p>So I&#x27;m just curious where the bugs may be found? After all anything this complicated probably has bugs =)... Is it in quantum mechanics? Faster than light travel? Something super mundane that we&#x27;ve not thought about because it&#x27;s that simple way someone decided to trigger debug mode?<p>Find those and fun things may be possible, which would also give us evidence for the sim theory.<p>I&#x27;m not holding my breath, but it&#x27;s fun to think about.
rektide将近 4 年前
isn&#x27;t it a bit weird to hypothesize that the virtuality would run on something as Reality 1.0&#x2F;Earth-Normal as a computer?<p>are we assuming there are smarter cooler humans running around on their own planet with 7 continents, 5 oceans, in a 8 planet solar system (sorry pluto), orbiting a G2V class star? that are running big data-centers where they faithfully simulate physics, the planet, the heavens for us in essentially-exact detail?<p>that&#x27;d take a lot of computation. maybe our simulated reality only moves 10^-6 as fast, so they have time to do all the computation, and they&#x27;re just really really old over there. in sci fi typically the uploaded people speed around at a much much faster time factor, but if we&#x27;re trying to make sure that every physics experiment reproduces, biology &amp; virology &amp;c experiment &amp; observations reproduce, that&#x27;s a lot more complexity than what i imagine for your run-of-the-mill hyper-advanced society that has uploaded into the cloud: i imagine the uploaded society running a much more synthetic, simpler reality, selectively interesting.<p>to me, it&#x27;s much easier to imagine a Great Fake situation, that humanity has been actively steered by unknown higher technology forces sometimes in the past couple thousands of years (and perhaps longer). i still tend to think we are a not entirely-uncommon random chance amid the congealed energy that exploded &amp; hopefully pretty please contracts to explode again. i tend to think our past is our own. and so too our future.
dazhengca将近 4 年前
A fine example of why you don’t just get to make up the probability of something when you don’t know the actual probability.
MaggiD将近 4 年前
Not complete without linking to Georg Hotz (geohot) talk at SXSW: &quot;Jailbreaking the Simulation&quot;<p>He&#x27;s taking the hacker&#x27;s perspective and exploring if the simulation would be hackable from inside.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ESXOAJRdcwQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ESXOAJRdcwQ</a>
PaulHoule将近 4 年前
It&#x27;s hard to square Lorentz invariance with any kind of discrete approximation in either time or space.
评论 #27737841 未加载
评论 #27737899 未加载
评论 #27737237 未加载
alexshendi将近 4 年前
The world certainly feels as if it was hacked together in C++ as a side project by an incompetent demiurge.
arketyp将近 4 年前
Maybe the universe exists precisely because it&#x27;s indistinguishable from its own simulation. Maybe that&#x27;s existence per se. Maybe self-reference is more fundamental than void. Likelihood arguments assume some kind of bottom level, but perhaps there is none.
werber将近 4 年前
I’ve had a reoccurring dream since childhood about our universe being a B+ assignment in an extraterrestrial middle school classroom and that in effect I’m a npc in that effort.<p>Whenever this subject comes up I’m always a bit interested but it seems like an impossible thing to know.
评论 #27737850 未加载
jakobdabo将近 4 年前
There&#x27;s just too much pain (both physical and emotional) and too many diseases in the world. I refuse to believe that a higher entity (name it God or aliens) would create or simulate all those cruel things.
评论 #27737813 未加载
评论 #27737784 未加载
评论 #27737836 未加载
评论 #27737776 未加载
评论 #27737786 未加载
评论 #27737812 未加载
recursivedoubts将近 4 年前
&quot;Therefore some simulation exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another simulation, but rather causes it. This all men call God.&quot;
JohnHaugeland将近 4 年前
&quot;So, if your brain is fast, and aliens have the Playstation Fourteen, that means reality is a Nintendo&quot;<p>Sit down, Doug, that doesn&#x27;t make any sense
tsegratis将近 4 年前
I think, just as no system is fully self descriptive (there is always an axiom), and there is no fully self contained perpetual motion machine<p>So it is reasonable to take the universe as not fully self descriptive or defining<p>For instance can the universe create it&#x27;s own arbitrary laws of physics and run molecules on that basis? No it doesn&#x27;t<p>And so essentially, a simulation, or God becomes required. And the one running the simulation would need an immense power essentially beyond the realms of our conception<p>It seems if we are to exist, then, for want of a better word, God is essential
评论 #27737671 未加载
评论 #27737769 未加载
评论 #27737827 未加载
Simplicitas将近 4 年前
Does the resulting simulation (this universe) show any hints that it is nearly impossible for the theoretical hosting universe to exist?
评论 #27738459 未加载
pestatije将近 4 年前
Depends on your definition of &quot;Computer Simulation&quot;. If it is &quot;making physics match what maths say&quot;, then 100%.
sobriquet9将近 4 年前
Planck constant in uncertainty principle does look like pixel pitch on the screen or mesh of finite element method.
neonate将近 4 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;ENDoc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;ENDoc</a>
stevev将近 4 年前
My opinion, the enigma of what we call the paranormal, or sightings of people who has passed, could shed some light about the reality we live in.
pontiacbandit8将近 4 年前
This might explain parallel universes…
naveen99将近 4 年前
0
评论 #27737768 未加载
Black101将近 4 年前
It&#x27;s at least a 50% chance. The god-believing-people would probably say that we are for sure.
tomcooks将近 4 年前
2016
评论 #27740512 未加载