thought experiment

One of the thought experiments I tend to play with is the following:

How, in principle, could a being determine the difference between living in a "naturalistic" universe (no creator, no "information source" -- it just is) and living on someone's sufficiently large computer with a program running called "Reality 3.0" (containing at least 10 ^ 10 ^ 123 bits of information, and simulating physical processes with a consistent set of laws)?

Any thoughts?

[tek]

Could a computer program allow someone to do something illogical?

About 200 years ago a supposed "chess machine" was beating everyone. People thought there was a midget inside but didn't have the ability to prove it...until one clever guy started playing stupid. The machine knocked all the pieces off the board, thereby proving there was a human inside because a machine wouldn't care how anyone played...

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the thought experiments I tend to play with is the following:

How, in principle, could a being determine the difference between living in a "naturalistic" universe (no creator, no "information source" -- it just is) and living on someone's sufficiently large computer with a program running called "Reality 3.0" (containing at least 10 ^ 10 ^ 123 bits of information, and simulating physical processes with a consistent set of laws)?

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

that's way too many bits...

[benkahuna]

This question is what happens when people watch The Matrix the first time without having ever questioned their assumptions about the nature of reality.

If the program were written properly, you couldn't.

So could we be living in The Matrix? Yes.

I don't even bother thinking about this sort of thing because it just doesn't matter. You'll probably never know and there's probably nothing you could do about it anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
This question is what happens when people watch The Matrix the first time without having ever questioned their assumptions about the nature of reality.

If the program were written properly, you couldn't.

So could we be living in The Matrix? Yes.

I don't even bother thinking about this sort of thing because it just doesn't matter. You'll probably never know and there's probably nothing you could do about it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. Well, that's not quite where I was going with this... Actually it is the same question that gets asked here again and again about the existence of God (or a general creator), phrased in a more neutral and specific context.

My own answer to the question is that there exists the possibility that the person running the program could halt the computer at some point, introduce changes in the "state" and then start it again -- even run it backwards and forwards multiple times, introducing changes such that the preferred outcome is achieved. Such changes would appear as "miracles" to conscious entities in the program, of course -- events where knowledge of the program itsself (i.e. the "natural laws of physics") are insufficient for predicting what will happen.

Anyway, the point is basically that humans arguing back and forth about the "existence of God" are isomorphic to sufficiently advanced programs arguing back and forth about the "existence of a programmer."

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the thought experiments I tend to play with is the following:

How, in principle, could a being determine the difference between living in a "naturalistic" universe (no creator, no "information source" -- it just is) and living on someone's sufficiently large computer with a program running called "Reality 3.0" (containing at least 10 ^ 10 ^ 123 bits of information, and simulating physical processes with a consistent set of laws)?

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the Brain in a Vat idea that is taught in Philosophy 101. That is, we can never really be 100% certain about anything because there is always the possibility that we are just living a simulated existance. If the simulation was good enough, there would be no way to tell. The only idea I could think of that might work is to kill yourself, but that could probably be simulated too.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the thought experiments I tend to play with is the following:

How, in principle, could a being determine the difference between living in a "naturalistic" universe (no creator, no "information source" -- it just is) and living on someone's sufficiently large computer with a program running called "Reality 3.0" (containing at least 10 ^ 10 ^ 123 bits of information, and simulating physical processes with a consistent set of laws)?

Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know there is no way to be sure. If I'm right about this then anyone who claims quantum mechanics is true and requires non-determinism, is wrong.

chez

[benkahuna]

Whoops, looks like I jumped the gun. :P

I agree with you Metric. The potential to screw with our sense of reality would be limitless. Just like the movie in the Animatrix, there could be zones that completely violate the standard programming of our universe or the universe itself could do weird things to violate rules we'd figured out due to programmer whim or just to keep us guessing.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, the point is basically that humans arguing back and forth about the "existence of God" are isomorphic to sufficiently advanced programs arguing back and forth about the "existence of a programmer."

[/ QUOTE ]

These two situations are analogous, I agree. Tron was more profound than I had initially realized.