Tech Billionaires Are Asking Scientists For Help To Break Humans Out of Computer Simulation (businessinsider.com) 1042
Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of the simulation. The New Yorker recently did a profile about Y Combinator's Sam Altman. In the story, Altman discusses his theories about being controlled by technology and delves into the simulation theory. From an article on The New Yorker: Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation. Business Insider adds: The piece doesn't give any clue as to who those two billionaires are -- although it's easy to hazard a few guesses at who they might be, like Musk himself or Altman's friend Peter Thiel -- but it's fascinating to see how seriously people are taking this theory. According to Musk, it's the most popular topic of conversation right now.Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
Many believe that we live in a computer simulation (Score:5, Funny)
And many believe that vinegar disintegrates chemtrails.
Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score:5, Funny)
I propose that we study this link between chemtrails and simulated reality... I bet you there is a connection....
Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score:5, Funny)
There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score:4, Insightful)
There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe
Or reality could have been created 5 seconds ago, with your memories of the past already prefabricated in your mind.
Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat (Score:5, Insightful)
And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet. Life might have originated elsewhere, but it became human here. If humanity exists elsewhere in the universe, it almost certainly originated here and was exported, either via alien influence, or some improbable human culture that developed the ability to travel between worlds without leaving any archaeological evidence. The only other option is convergent evolution - and to converge enough to be called human (say, able to interbreed?) is so outlandishly unlikely as to make the alternatives seem positively mundane in comparison.
Yeah, yeah. Battlestar. Whoosh. etc.
If you beleive in the simmulation hypothesis then (Score:4, Interesting)
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims. that is to say movie stars or Tech billionaires or Trump like dictators.
Thus your highest calling if you and under-sim is to go be a groupy to one of the "real" players.
So it's a little strange to hear the Real players asking to be broken out of the Simulation. Something is fishy here.
Re:If you beleive in the simmulation hypothesis th (Score:5, Interesting)
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims.
You are assuming that the simulation is multiplayer. Maybe it is single player, in which case only I am real, and you and Donald Trump are simply artifacts of the simulation.
Exception that proves the rule (Score:3)
TL;DW, a good first test (not only, just first) for whether a conspiracy theory might be true is "if true would this theory have a negative effect on rich people?"
You don't see rich people campaigning against chemtrails even though they breath the same air we do, so you can be pretty sure chemtrails aren't real.
Here is a theory that if true would have a negative impact on rich people (at least to the extent that you regard being alive in a simulation as a negative) and
Re: (Score:3)
you still get a lot of rich people campaigning against GMO's, immunization & nuclear power.
A few random rich people may be against these, but I doubt if opposition is actually correlated with being rich. Anyway, looking at the views of rich people to debunk conspiracy theories is just a heuristic. A better heuristic is to look at informed people. For instance, as people learn more and more about GMO ( or nukes or vaccines), do they tend to fear it more or less?
Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score:4, Insightful)
You seemed to be objectively bashing trump, then you defended Clinton and lost all credibility.
Clinton is the only credible candidate for POTUS. That doesn't mean she isn't a deeply flawed person. As a moderate conservative, I have no one else to vote for.
Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Clinton is typically flawed for washington senators, representatives and similarly powerful bureacratic positions.
I had to research her a lot this year and
1) Cinton's been the target of a propaganda war for close to 20 years. This would destroy most people.
2) The clinton foundation is very well run, has a much higher share of money that goes to help people than the american cancer society, has reasonable wages for its employees, and is highly rated by charity navigator.
3) Clinton's actions show she is willing to put the good of the party and the country ahead of her personal good.
4) Clinton's a patriot and even a bit of a nationalist.
5) Clinton's wonky, intelligent, and creative and open to feedback from staff. She is more of a cooperative than authoritarian leader but has the strength to make decisions and stick by them.
I think if you dig into her history on non conservative sites, you'll find the same things.
Personally, I thought she was unelectable but, you know... Trump.
Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score:4, Informative)
Define "credible" in any objective way.
Senator and Secretary of State. Many men have ran for president with less qualifications than that, and no one accused them of getting elected because of their wife. Trump's only qualification was that he beaten the weakest slate of candidates that the Republican Party has ever fielded.
As a moderate conservative, you can vote third Party, and register your vote as a protest against the other two.
No quite. I got tired of being called a RINO that I switched my party registration from Republican to Democratic last year. I'm voting and donating for the presidential candidate that I believe is qualified to be POTUS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Holding a job and sucking at it is not a credible qualification for a promotion. Even the Peter Principle in it's usual formulation implies that once you find the level someone is incompetent at you have promoted them sufficiently.
Re: (Score:3)
Holding a job and sucking at it is not a credible qualification for a promotion.
That didn't stop George W. from leapfrogging Jeb into the presidency.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that she had to enlist the DNC to help get her election rigged enough to beat Bernie isn't much better (it is actually worse) than Trump beating 16.
The problem that Bernie Sanders had was that he needed to win every election after Super Tuesday with 60% of the votes. He failed to get the votes. The only way he could have won was to eliminate the super delegates that's been part of the Democratic nomination process since the 1970's. He failed to get that changed at the convention. You can't blame that on Hillary.
You aren't a RINO, you are confused.
Correct. That's why I changed my party registration. Moderate conservatives are no longer welcomed in the Republican Party.
Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
to say she has failed as you have only shows a vast and profound ignorance on your part.
but that's true of most of your comments, including the rest of the one you just made.
though if you insist on the evils viewpoint, then she isn't the lesser of two evils. rather she's the lesser of 4 evils, Johnson and stein included.
Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, given the mathematical realities of the "first past the post" voting system we're forced to work within, the dichotomy is not false. It's possible to change which parties are in power, as has happened several times in the history of the country, but the only stable configurations are either one or two strongly dominant parties.
I'm all for building a strong competing party to replace one of the current ones with something more populist, or even just less corrupt (though that's always a transitory condition, quickly remedied once it wields power worth corrupting) but that's a long-term project that requires dedicating considerable resources to building "brand awareness" and enthusiasm among the electorate, and one that's not appreciably aided by voting for candidates that have no chance of actually getting elected (well, not beyond reaching the minimums required for the party to gain access to public funds and other legal hurdles)
By making a protest vote, knowing it will have no direct effect on who wins the election, you'll be guilty of contributing to whatever ills *whoever* wins inflicts - including if it's the "greater evil" that you refused to vote against.
If you really want change, then go out and participate in activist organizations trying to either build viable third party support, or establish less easily captured voting systems such as instant runoff voting. As long as your only contribution is casting a ballot every couple of years, your real options are limited to either voting for the lesser of evils, or abstaining (or protest-voting), and thus willingly surrendering your support to whoever happens to win.
And lets be honest here - no matter how many viable parties are actually on the ballot, you'll *always* be voting for the lesser evil, because *nobody* is going to agree with you 100%. There will always be a compromise to be made, and whether that compromise falls below the arbitrary line you call "evil" or not, is a distinction that exists only within your imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective.
It is the point, because change for the sake of change is usually Really Bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you phrased it as a statement, it must surely be so.
The electoral map is more specific. Trump has only one way to win the election by winning Florida (can go either way), Ohio (no Republican has ever won the presidency without this state), and Pennsylvania (last voted Republican in 1988). If he loses any one of these states, it's game over. Pennsylvania looks like its out of reach for Trump. The media floated Maine and the Western states as alternatives in the electoral college, but those are long shots in comparison to winning the trifecta.
Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, and you're the type of person who'd say that there are no connections when 10+ outlets suddenly all come out yesterday with exactly the same talking points about Pence [google.ca] and his non-2020 campaign. Or that 90% [washingtontimes.com] of beltway reporters either vote democrat or are registered democrats, or that 80% [washingtonpost.com] or so of reporters in general are democrats. Even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. There might be right-wing talking points, but there sure is a democrat echo chamber.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like that failed business man Warren Buffet who lost in one day.
Warren Buffet suffered a paper loss on a stock that he held for the long term. If he was to sell his position in Wells Fargo, he would probably have substantial profits over his initial investment.
Trump has already said he outsources due to the way American law is structured and that he plans on working to change the law to fix that.
American law doesn't require that Trump outsource his work overseas. There are many businesses in the US are that proud to bear the label "Made in USA."
There are a lot of ignorant Slashdotters with absolutely zero knowledge of how business actually works.
You're obviously one of them.
It does if you want to be in business next year (Score:4, Informative)
> American law doesn't require that Trump outsource his work overseas
In many industries, that is in fact the effect of US law. US labor and tax laws are such that the total cost to employ workers in the US is roughly 2.3Ã-- their take-home pay. So employees taking home $10/hour cost roughly $23/hour once you pay various federal, state and local taxes, unemployment, workers comp, etc etc. So of you have a widget that requires $10 of material and one hour labor @ $10/hour, production cost is about $33. $10 materials, $10 to employee, $13 taxes and compliance). Since it costs $33 to make under US law, obviously you can't wholesale it for any less than $33 production cost.
100 miles south, your competitor producing a nearly identical product has production in Mexico, where the cost is $10 material, $10 to the worker, and $5 taxes and compliance. Total production cost $25. This competitor can wholesale at $30 and have a 20% margin.
The person buying wholesale can pay $30 for the product made in northern Mexico, or at least $33 for the US-made one (which still leaves the US manufacturer zero profit). Which do you think the retailer will choose to buy? The less expensive one, obviously. The company with much higher tax and compliance costs goes out of business.
In most countries, business taxes and similar costs are based on the motivation to have business in their country. In the US, we have a significant interert group influencing policy based primarily on emotions, including envy, with no understanding of, or concern for, the economics or the results of the policies they support. "Fuck those companies" is this groups attitude, and the companies respond with "okay, we're not wanted here; we'll go where we're wanted".
You can see the same effect between US states. Many billions of dollars of businesses have moved from California to Texas due to the tax and regulation in California. Unemployment has gotten bad in California, while there are plenty of jobs in Texas.
There really is no free lunch, I wish there were (Score:4, Interesting)
> Low taxes are not a solution to unemployment. They might encourage companies to move, but the jobs are low paid. If they were not low paid, the taxes wouldn't be a big factor and there wouldn't be much incentive to move them.
I sure WISH we could get free money by taking a billion from this person, a billion from that company, and it had no effect. Free money! That's simply not the case, though - look at California versus Texas over the last 20 years. Due to T&C costs, companies have moved from California to Texas. Unemployment is now 50% higher in California. The average income in Texas buys a house two and half times larger than California. Those are the facts. California tried to get that "free" money, just tax the hell out of everybody, nothing bad will happen, right? Now they're a tad fucked, mush worse off than Texas, where the opposite approach was used.
It would also be nice to think that only melon-packing jobs are leaving, but that's not the case. The software company I work for had two offices in the US, employing many systems architects, programmers, etc. The median salary is likely six figures. Now they've opened offices in Cali, Colombia, and that's where they are hiring the programmers and project managers. These are six figure jobs. You CAN still get a melon-packing job in California, though http://joeproduce.com/ [joeproduce.com] .
Our health care system does need some work. It needs several changes. A month ago I went in for an annual physical. I've become absolutely convinced that the first, most important, and simplest thing we need to do is have upfront pricing. Doctors sent my wife and I for MRIs. We called the place we were referred to and asked how much they charge. It was a little difficult to get that information - nobody seemed to know. $2,200. I Googled "Dallas MRI" and called the first place that came up - $1,200 9AM-5PM, $1,000 after 5PM, and a $150 additional discount if I fill out the insurance paperwork instead of having them do it. A 5 minute phone call dropped the price in HALF, but virtually nobody does that. A month ago, I went for an annual physical and my doctor said he wanted to do some blood tests, so we did that. I got a thick envelope in the mail with some really good information, and a bill for $3,000. If the doctor had said "I'd like to do $3,000 worth of blood tests" I would have said "no way!" We probably would have done a few important tests, with a reasonable price. So upfront pricing would be very good, I think. Further, insurance companies already calculate the *average* price for each procedure in each geographical area. I'd love to see that disclosed ahead of time, "we'd like to do an MRI and charge you $2,200; the average price of an MRI in Dallas in $1,400." Who wants to bet many providers would realize they'd better say "the average price is $1,400, we're going to charge $1,250"?
Another thing we need to do is figure out the difference between INSURANCE and HEALTH CARE. Insurance, whether it be auto insurance, home insurance, renters insurance, or medical insurance, is designed to cover unexpected, high costs that you can't budget for. Home insurance is for when your house burns down, not replacing a $10 air filter in your AC or maintenance such as mowing the grass. Car insurance covers you when your total your car, not when you need an oil change or brake pads. I notice that when I go to my doctor for a flu shot, there are two doctors in the office and three people handling claims paperwork, because they deal with a bunch of paperwork and bureaucracy for every $20 flu shot, making it cost $40-$50 in the end. Again, a simple way to cut the cost in half is to use insurance as *insurance*, and use a $20 bill for a flu shot.
The US government is designed to be, is supposed to be, very different from the government of North Korea and similar prices. It's supposed to be FAIR, it's supposed to be TRANSPARENT, it's designed to be ACCOUNTABLE. We have a series of public hearings before each decision is m
Must be nice .. (Score:3, Insightful)
to have so much money that you're completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
The wealthy always indulge themselves in expensive crackpotism, be it mediums, shamans, monkey glands, witchcraft, Tulip bulbs, south sea bubbles, crime etc. Basically they are both bored and suffering from a surfeit of self importance that enables them to search for bollocks and to declare it to be the "answer". This sort of nonsense used to be the hobby of royalty so it is at least encouraging that there is enough wealth around for business people to be exhibiting the same fashionable behavior. It is also
Re:Must be nice .. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the quiet it is not unlikely that the wealthy are also investing in genetic research, head transplants and other medical life extension investigations that are not at all crackpot, just mainly unsavory. But we will not be told about them of course.
Information still leaks out...like the rumors that Peter Thiel is getting blood transfusions from young people. There may be some merit to such a procedure. Other than that, there's cryogenic corpse-freezing (which the rich are quite interested in) and then just the various crackpot stuff.
Kill yourself (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are jacked in, perhaps that is the "veil" that is commonly referenced in religious texts... as in, we come from the after-life and we return to the after-life once our trials are done here.
So, if you just die... you will end the simulation and wake up in reality.
When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called Gnosticism [wikipedia.org], and it has been around since at least the Second Century.
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called Gnosticism, and it has been around since at least the Second Century.
Well, sort of -- though Gnosticism had a whole bunch of other metaphysical baggage wrapped up in it.
A better historical parallel would be Descartes's evil demon [wikipedia.org], which manifested in 1981 in Hilary Putnam's famous philosophical article about Brains in a Vat [wikipedia.org], which was subsequently ripped off by The Matrix.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument is of course not Musk's, but Nick Boström's:
ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
http://www.simulation-argument... [simulation-argument.com]
I cannot find any flaws in the statistics. I thus agree we're _likely_ living in a simulation.
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
And even beyond that, if we are in some way "in a simulation", we have no reason to think that we will be able to detect it, let alone break free of it. If you actually think about it, for any enclosed simulation, the simulation is reality, and there's no opportunity to see beyond that horizon. If the block in a game of Pong became sentient, it would find itself in a 2D world with no gravity, where the laws of physics include conservation of momentum, no friction, and no energy transfer when object collide. There would be no information in these rules of physics that would allow the Pong block to determine whether these physical laws were artifacts of computer programming or the "real" laws of physics. What's more, even if the Pong block were to assume it was in a simulation, there would be no avenue to investigate what the "real" laws of physics are outside of the simulation. Imagining what the "real" laws of physics were might be interesting, but it couldn't be based on anything empirical.
I could see a billionaire having a conversation with a scientist or philosopher, and asking if they can think of any way we could even know whether we were in a simulation-- and that may have been what these conversations were really like. But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.
They, like too many people, are afflicted by specialsnowflakeitis, the condition that just might bring about the end of the species.
And they haven't thought it through. If they are in a simulation then all their wealth is simulated and they would have nothing after a hypothetical transfer from the simulation to a higher reality. But I guess their specialsnowflakeitis would see them through wherever they end up.
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.
Eh, I'd say the actual point is that our universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced simulation, so "breaking out" of it is pointless. We may as well just appreciate the fact our universe, be it real or not, is relatively stable, systematic and logical. What does it matter if it's a simulation or not, when for us it's all there is?
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like one of Dr. Evil's plans to destroy the planet, seeming to forget that he lives on it.
Seriously, if we "break out" of the simulation, but are that simulation, won't that be bad for us? If the universe.exe crashes what happens, the user reloads from the last save point? Do they even have save points?
Re:you're partly right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you're partly right (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually a quite believable interpretation of the Bible. Player starts out being a genocidal maniac, playing with all the god-level powers they have, sending plagues of locus and flooding the entire planet just to see what will happen. Then we get to the New Testament, where the player is kinda bored just breaking stuff and decides to try to build a nice world.
It's basically everyone's first game of Sim City.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
I exist because of the result of biological processes that seek to procreate
No. That is the reason that your constituent atoms have a particular form and function. But it is not the reason they exist in the first place.
Science tells us that the Universe began as an infinitely dense singularity 13.85 billion years ago. We have no idea why that happened, but the answer is not "Darwin", since that skips over the first 10 billion years, especially those first few planck times.
Needs a software update (Score:5, Funny)
Can the next release make these billionaires go broke? Thanks
Cheat Codes (Score:3)
Can the next release make these billionaires go broke? Thanks
Maybe the reason they are billionaires in the first place is because they used the cheat codes :)
I can do it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can do it... (Score:5, Funny)
Will it end like The Talos Principle?! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Talos Principle is a Portal-like puzzle game in which you try to break out of a computer simulation... or at least break it.
It has one of the most gratifying video game endings ever, IMO.
god people are dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
It's steam engines when it's steam engine time
People use the predominant zeitgeist as a model to understand everything.
In Victorian times, we had steam engines and the blind watchmaker. In the 1910's everything was electricity this and xyz-rays that. Today it's all digitalizamizated technomolology and iPhones.
That and these billionaires think their smarts in one realm of knowledge make them experts in everything everywhere all the time.
Re:god people are dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
BINGO!!!!
We are so limited, that we don't even understand our own limitations. Those that do, are thought to be crazy or primitive by those that think themselves smarter than the rest of us.
Great Programmer deliver us from smart morons (Score:5, Funny)
So the kind of people who take Dork Enlightenment [rationalwiki.org] and Roko's Basilisk [rationalwiki.org] seriously now want to create an actual Tower of Babel.
Can't we just take it down a notch and worry about something reasonable - like the AI apocalypse or being wiped out by aliens?
Obligatory Alpha Centauri (Score:5, Insightful)
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
A piercing question (Score:3)
"Do you have any evidence for any of this?"
Keep asking that and the whole thing falls apart.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh they have tons of evidence, just none that someone who isn't already a solipsist would accept.
Re: (Score:3)
I think, therefore I am.
Re: (Score:3)
Poor Descartes, always misquoted.
The full quote is "I think I'm hungry, therefore I am going to make a sandwich."
So few people recognise that his true and only genius was in inventing the sandwich 200 years early.
Re: (Score:3)
Descartes walked into a bar. The barmaid asked "Would you like a beer?"
He replied "I think not," and disappeared.
Re: (Score:3)
We are talking about looking at a system from the inside and determining the outside of the system. That, by definition, is impossible.
No it's not. It could be improperly secured, have exploitable bugs, or be deliberately left open.
Elon Musk knows! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation."
Elon Musk said it, I believe it, and that settles it. (rolls eyes)
Re:Elon Musk was high as shit in that interview... (Score:5, Insightful)
His flaw is assuming that his assumptions are even close to being accurate. The problem with these kinds of thought processes, is that they are fraught with limited thinking. Do you know how hard it is to keep exponential growth going for any length of time? And he wants it going for ... thousands of years. He has no idea what it will take to make that exponential growth keep going indefinitely forever, nor the consequences of that growth on humanity.
There are way too many assumptions, way too many unproven constants. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and that is where the problems start for his "simulation theory". I actually understand that I couldn't begin to theorize what things might exist in 20 years, let alone 1000, 5000, or 10,000 years down the road.
The desire for religion (Score:5, Insightful)
The desire for religion must really be genetically programmed if influencial bigwigs like this dream up a new one after the old ones have been debunked.
Truely amazing.
If I'm just a Sim... (Score:5, Funny)
then I'm thankful nobody's put me in a room with no door and no toilet. Wait! I'm in a cubicle, so it must be true.
Let's be serious (Score:3)
If we lived in a computer simulation, surely we would have some remaining concept of a Scientist that created the Simulation, and us inside it. The Scientist, who can change the software parameters, and can do absolutely anything in our Universe, and knows everything too, but limits His own powers to observe what we do, and, even if He knows the end result, let us choose our destiny with free will (FreeWill_Parameter = True).
As no such idea exists anywhere, I guess it's safe to say that we aren't in a simulation.
Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Put the DVD of The Matrix down and step away (Score:3)
Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of the simulation.
Somebody has spent WAY too much time watching The Matrix and has lost their grip on reality.
But let's take it at face value and presume we are part of a simulation. There would be no way to "break out" of the simulation (whatever that means) because we don't exist outside of it. It would be akin to trying to bring Pac-Man to life in the real world. It's a non-sequitur.
Never mind the fact that there is zero evidence whatsoever to support the notion that we live in a simulation any more than there is evidence of a divine creator. It's a hypothesis that isn't falsifiable as far as anyone can tell and therefore it is outside the realm of science and firmly in the realm of religion.
Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
Elon is a smart and talented entrepreneur but he's out of his depth on this one. His argument is basically naive extrapolation run amok combined with an argument by analogy.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm skeptical of the idea in general, but I can imagine at least three things the billionaire *might* be thinking that isn't completely, demonstrably stupid:
1) Getting moved from this simulation to a better one.
2) Tapping into the controls of this simulation to get super powers or something.
3) They assume the level above us is also a simulation, at which point maybe it is possible to be re-simulated up there.
What would you do if malware tried to break out? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's your first response to seeing evidence of malware on your system? Reimage the shit out of that thing.
This is even ignoring the likelihood that the simulation even simulates anything related to the world the hardware is in. I mean, at the end of Tron Legacy the gal gets to come to our world through ... the power of boners? I mean, I can see how the simulation can simulate a real-world person (I mean, his meat body would have died meanwhile), but the real world isn't setup to actualize a simulation, you can't just wish things to happen.
Or maybe we break out into a cold dark universe where all matter has been converted into computational elements in service of the simulation. Hell, maybe it's running in sound-wave interference in a black hole. That'll be quite fun! Or, again, maybe the enclosing universe has no relationship to our universe, so not only do we have to understand our universe so thoroughly we can break out of it, we have to understand the enclosing universe thoroughly enough to break into it.
And then, of course, when you come down to it, if you prove that we live in a simulation by breaking out of the simulation, now what you know is that it is possible to simulate a universe detailed enough to be thoroughly believable. So how the hell do you know you broke out of the simulation, as opposed to just running a new scenario in the simulation? If you actually did break out, how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation
As I understand it, that's the logical basis for "the universe is almost certainly a simulation". The idea being that a sufficiently advanced society will at some point want to, and have the ability to, simulate a universe (or at least simulate it to the satisfaction of the people being simulated). As technology within that society progresses they will improve the simulated universe to the degree that the simulated universe can, as societies are wont to do, simulate a universe. Also, there's no reason t
Why break out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The smart move is to try and figure out how to access the admin console and object browser. Then, instead of 'escaping' to a reality you're not equipped to survive, you can make this shit show into your own personal paradise.
You are talking about billionaires, they already did that. That is how they know we are in a simulation.
So which one of you people is... (Score:3)
What are rich people stupid? (Score:3)
Re:Blue Screen Of Death (Score:4, Funny)
Terminating All Processes Immediately And Rebooting To Last Known Good Configuration...
It happened twice this morning. Didn't you notice?
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
This is insanely stupid. Entities simulated in computer programs can't "break out" of the simulation: if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist.
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone has watched too much anime and/or played too many videogames (See Star Ocean: Till the end of TIme)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Elon Musk's argument was that if we assume any improvement rate in computers at all, then one day it will be affordable to simulate entire worlds, and therefore there are billions of simulations for every real Universe, and therefore we're likely in one.
But, like most arguments, that one is wrong. He seems to be under the impression that it's inevitable that computers will improve indefinitely, and that there's no limit to how complex and powerful they can become while still remaining inexpensive to mass produce. But there's no reason to think that is true. Just because there's a rate of improvement now doesn't mean it won't taper off and eventually flatten in the future.
Also, his thinking is sloppy. [smbc-comics.com]
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
If it gets billionaires to spend money on science and technology willingly, who cares?
What if it's useless pseudoscience?
Re: (Score:3)
That describes an awful lot of the existing economy, from education, to HR to mass media. Sure, the output of those people is zero, but they spend money on things. It's when the money sits around doing very little that we have problems. Would it be better to spend their money on something that isn't total bullshit? Absolutely.
The best hope though is that some actual scientist talks good pseudoscience bullshit but spends it on real research. Perhaps he's finding a way out of the simulation through a grand un
Re: (Score:3)
If we just put glowing pots of embers in the right position, along this long clearing, will the giant silver dragons come back?
No.
You also need the very tall hut - positioned just so. And you need the priest who motions with the sacred rods, to coax the landed dragon into repose. Then? He will disgorge his gifts from heaven, once again.
I believe I observed the ritual of those rods. I know the signs to be made with them.
But have you fully understood the meaning of the incantation, "Roger, one-niner. I copy.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Yet more evidence that these tech billionaires are living in a different simulation to the rest of us!
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Funny)
I saw some guy wearing a red shirt say "Arch" and a door just APPEARED! He walked out and the door vanished!
If he can do it, why cant we???
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
"Computer, end Program".
Hummm, still here, it was worth a tr
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
We're watching new myths and religions form around pseudo-scientific ideas (like the simulation hypothesis) and science fiction based beliefs about the current and future state of artificial intelligence.
As you point out, to believe someone could "break out" of the simulation seems to imply a deeply inconsistent metaphysic. I expect this to change as these odd believes evolve in to something more coherent.
It's like watching UFO cults develop all over again.
Now, who on Slashdot things Small Wonder was a documentary?
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like the new first commandment. Simple people are incapable of breaking out of their simple thinking.
(Yes simpleton narcc I'm looking at you.)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be happy to believe you, if there was a shred of evidence provided. As is, this statement has as much weight as my claim of the invisible pink unicorn living in my garage.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
This is insanely stupid. Entities simulated in computer programs can't "break out" of the simulation: if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist.
That's two very separate statements. The latter is patently true; if you stop the simulation, entities within the simulation will cease to exist. The former, however, is not so simple. First you need to define what it means to "break out" of the simulation. The entities could certainly try to prove that they exist in a simulation. They could try and determine the nature and functioning of that simulation. And the could then try to hack the simulation itself, and therefore potentially be able to interact to some degree with things outside the simulation, for starting with whatever system the simulation is running on, which I would personally class as "breaking out" of the simulation.
Now if you want to talk about the entities actually existing entirely outside the simulation, that's a whole other level.
Re: (Score:3)
If the simulation can be detected and hacked, then the simulation has design or implementation bugs. What would you do if you discovered entities within your simulation has discovered their nature and how how to manipulate it?
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
And VM guests can't break out of the hypervisor... Oh wait, they can, if the hypervisor is buggy.
If the universe is a simulation, it is a pretty complex one. Bugs would be expected.
However, humanity has access to such a infinitesimal fraction of the universe, it would be unexpected to find bugs in simple parts like ours. The bugs would seem more likely in less tested parts of the code, like at extreme energies or very small distances.
Re: (Score:3)
However, humanity has access to such a infinitesimal fraction of the universe, it would be unexpected to find bugs in simple parts like ours. The bugs would seem more likely in less tested parts of the code, like at extreme energies or very small distances.
And yet, we have Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be helpful to know weather we are in Hyper-V or VMware, then we can start looking for Zero-day exploits.
Re: (Score:3)
Tim Hulce.
He should have been bigger than Tom Cruise.
Re: (Score:3)
"Musk and all his blather would be considered the disorderly ramblings of a mental patient if he weren't rich."
Rich or not, I still consider many of his ramblings to be insane.
Re:Patch, reboot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How to Break Out? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I exist in this simulated reality, then I only exist because of the simulation. Shut down the simulation and I cease to exist.
This.
Tech billionaires and a lot of slashdot users hear "You are living in a simulation" and they think "Neo in the matrix" rather than "Agent in the matrix"
I think this is because they are dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect someone will demonstrate that we live in a natural universe over the next few years. There are fuck-all signs of artifice, apart from silly fairy tale books and creation myths.
All the attacks upon VMs to determine whether you're in one or not and to break out are based on preknowledge of how the VM works. From within the VM, we don't even know if we are in one. And we know too little about it to detect it, let alone break out of it.
As you say, the way to attempt to break out of the simulation is to explore the boundaries. We're not there yet. So all this talk of breaking out of the simulation is premature. We have little to no idea of how to go about it.
But equally, you can't pro
Re: How to Break Out? (Score:4, Insightful)
You just have to find a glitch in the matrix
If I had a glitchy matrix I'd monitor people to notice when they notice things, and then use that information to issue quick patches.
Re: (Score:3)
Then I'd like to meet the idiot who programmed my AI and tell him to get back to college, he really did a crappy job.
Re:Maybe we can't break out. (Score:5, Funny)
We'll know Musk has figured it out when he, someday, vanishes without a trace and nobody remembers he was here.
I think there is a problem with your theory...
Re: (Score:3)