I find this terribly interesting, but rather than agree or disagree with it, I think I’d like some clarifications.
2 + 2 will always be 4 whether somebody is computing it or not.
Is this implying a “yes” to the Tree Falls in the Forest question? Has that question been decided, and if not, does this theory not fall apart without it?
On a related note, the core idea here seems to be that things that COULD exist (in the sense that they are mathematically possible) therefore DO, even if there may be no context for them to exist in (doesn’t matter if they are actively being simulated or not). It’s certainly attractive on the large scale, but does it apply to smaller scale phenomena? It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that every possible pairing of sperm and egg in the entire world is in fact an existing consciousness. Not necessarily wrong, just counter-intuitive, so I want to know if that is indeed a reasonable assertion.
If every possible mathematical structure is real in the same way that
this universe is, then isn’t there only an infinitesimal probability that
this universe will turn out to be ruled entirely by simple regularities?
The section beginning thusly appears to argue that there can be a great number of universes, limited only by the number of internally-consistent mathematics that could give rise to them. How many of these mathematics there are though seems like a totally separate discussion though, so I can’t see how this theory necessarily implies multiple universes.
Is this implying a “yes” to the Tree Falls in the Forest question? Has that question been decided, and if not, does this theory not fall apart without it?
First off, welcome to Less Wrong! You should take a look at some of the sequences, as this exact question has been addressed (see: Disputing Definitions). To be brief, the consensus around here is that the “Tree Falls in the Forest” question is a wrong question, and should be dissolved.
Thanks nhamann. And fair enough. “Tree Falls” has always been a miserable example of what I’m getting at, so I’ll try to be more general.
My question is more like “to what extent does perceiving or not perceiving something determine whether and to what degree it can be said to exist?”. Clearly “Tree Falls” isn’t the right way to ask this, but I can only assume that was the motive of whoever first asked it.
Anyway, the last I’d heard it was still (understandably) an undecided question. It is known though that observation affects reality so I would think it should be given some consideration.
My point as it relates to the original post though, is that if there’s a chance that perception is a prerequisite for reality, then we may still have a chicken-and-egg problem with the idea of a “simulation no one is bothering to run”.
Anyway, the last I’d heard it was still (understandably) an undecided question. It is known though that observation effects reality so I would think it should be given some consideration.
Be careful about how you interpret news stories about quantum physics—quantum physics is a very confusing subject, and is often distorted severely by the reporting process.
Affect and effect have tremendously different meanings in this context—please don’t mix them up.
My question is more like “to what extent does perceiving or not perceiving something determine whether and to what degree it can be said to exist?”.
I recommend looking through the Quantum Physics Sequence, or at least the “Quantum Physics Revealed As Non-Mysterious” and/or “And the Winner is… Many-Worlds!” subsequences. Aside from the general matters of map versus territory, our specific knowledge of quantum physics indicates that the observer/collapse effects you may have heard about are not part of what the universe is really doing.
As for self-perception… for all the problems with Descartes’s philosophy of mind, “cogito ergo sum” is still a pretty good standard, at least for setting a bare minimum baseline for a definition of existence. (That is, if your definition of existence doesn’t allow you to be pretty confident that you yourself exist, it can’t be a very good definition.) Further, based on the assumptions of materialism and reductionism (see Zombies? Zombies! and GAZP), I concluded that if a being (whether a normal human you’re interacting with, an AI, a person in a simulated universe, etc.) says that they feel conscious, real, etc., and you are confident that they have some mechanism for actually acquiring such a belief that is at least as good as your own (e.g. their program has to actually be mindlike, not just printf(“I experience qualia! How mysterious!”); exit(0)), then you should take their word for it.
I find this terribly interesting, but rather than agree or disagree with it, I think I’d like some clarifications.
Is this implying a “yes” to the Tree Falls in the Forest question? Has that question been decided, and if not, does this theory not fall apart without it?
On a related note, the core idea here seems to be that things that COULD exist (in the sense that they are mathematically possible) therefore DO, even if there may be no context for them to exist in (doesn’t matter if they are actively being simulated or not). It’s certainly attractive on the large scale, but does it apply to smaller scale phenomena? It seems counter-intuitive to suggest that every possible pairing of sperm and egg in the entire world is in fact an existing consciousness. Not necessarily wrong, just counter-intuitive, so I want to know if that is indeed a reasonable assertion.
The section beginning thusly appears to argue that there can be a great number of universes, limited only by the number of internally-consistent mathematics that could give rise to them. How many of these mathematics there are though seems like a totally separate discussion though, so I can’t see how this theory necessarily implies multiple universes.
First off, welcome to Less Wrong! You should take a look at some of the sequences, as this exact question has been addressed (see: Disputing Definitions). To be brief, the consensus around here is that the “Tree Falls in the Forest” question is a wrong question, and should be dissolved.
Thanks nhamann. And fair enough. “Tree Falls” has always been a miserable example of what I’m getting at, so I’ll try to be more general.
My question is more like “to what extent does perceiving or not perceiving something determine whether and to what degree it can be said to exist?”. Clearly “Tree Falls” isn’t the right way to ask this, but I can only assume that was the motive of whoever first asked it.
Anyway, the last I’d heard it was still (understandably) an undecided question. It is known though that observation affects reality so I would think it should be given some consideration.
My point as it relates to the original post though, is that if there’s a chance that perception is a prerequisite for reality, then we may still have a chicken-and-egg problem with the idea of a “simulation no one is bothering to run”.
Be careful about how you interpret news stories about quantum physics—quantum physics is a very confusing subject, and is often distorted severely by the reporting process.
Affect and effect have tremendously different meanings in this context—please don’t mix them up.
I recommend looking through the Quantum Physics Sequence, or at least the “Quantum Physics Revealed As Non-Mysterious” and/or “And the Winner is… Many-Worlds!” subsequences. Aside from the general matters of map versus territory, our specific knowledge of quantum physics indicates that the observer/collapse effects you may have heard about are not part of what the universe is really doing.
As for self-perception… for all the problems with Descartes’s philosophy of mind, “cogito ergo sum” is still a pretty good standard, at least for setting a bare minimum baseline for a definition of existence. (That is, if your definition of existence doesn’t allow you to be pretty confident that you yourself exist, it can’t be a very good definition.) Further, based on the assumptions of materialism and reductionism (see Zombies? Zombies! and GAZP), I concluded that if a being (whether a normal human you’re interacting with, an AI, a person in a simulated universe, etc.) says that they feel conscious, real, etc., and you are confident that they have some mechanism for actually acquiring such a belief that is at least as good as your own (e.g. their program has to actually be mindlike, not just printf(“I experience qualia! How mysterious!”); exit(0)), then you should take their word for it.
The Simple Truth is another good place to start when considering these map-territory questions.