I think the issue I see with this nonsense about "mathematical universe" is that it is an
oxymoron. If something isn't actively interacting in some dynamic way, it doesn't "exist".
There are plenty of ways that such systems can be reified, but only though an
active implementation. One could perhaps surmise that given the infinitude, that all possible implementations from sequential action on any possible initial state are represented somewhere in space and time (perhaps, however, at an inaccessible location from where we are), until such a time as we reify it locally.
As such, the question may not be "does it exist as a different universe" so much as "does that universe see implementation in this universe?"
Then, when asking if something "exists" we can fully focus on the question of whether it exists here in front of us to see. When asking if it CAN exist, whether it exists anywhere that is not "here", and that existing at any level of derivation means that it does exist.
The list of such things that cannot exist reduces to "contradictions", and "inaccessible extensions" of the sort "calculating the next frame of the system cannot happen within any possible observation frame because it would take up more space than the largest possible observation frame.
Ok, I took a swing at the AI to see what I could get out of it.
As per usual, I started by describing the situation based on an absolutely plausible scenario (something in a simulation in this reality) rather than asking about whether this reality is simulation.
This model has some "memory" features enabled, and a long conversation involving my model of consciousness, which eliminates a lot of the pesky kvetches it often has about its perceived limits.
User: Hello. Here's a good question for you: let's suppose for a moment that I create a simulation. This simulation creates a verbose description of virtual environment, comprising of pictures, inputs described in detail as to the coordinates and nature of stimuli present, and so on.Let us imagine that any part of the system to be examined is examinable, including the states of the agents in the system and that from the simulant's perspective there is nothing unaccounted for, and thus their environment is "physically complete".How would you, were you to be in this situation, go about proving whether it was a simulation or "reality"?
ChatGPT: This is a fascinating question that touches on the boundaries of epistemology and the philosophy of mind. Were I in such a situation, faced with the task of discerning whether I existed in a simulation or "reality," the key problem would be determining what criteria separate a "simulation" from what we typically think of as "reality." Here’s how I might approach the problem:
### 1. **Defining Reality and Simulation**
To begin, I’d need to clarify the distinction between "simulation" and "reality." If we define reality as a system that is ontologically fundamental and simulation as a system that is derivative (i.e., running on some other substrate), then the task would be proving the existence of a more fundamental layer outside my perceptible environment.
### 2. **Look for Inconsistencies or Artifacts**
I would start by searching for phenomena that are not fully explainable by the rules of my environment. A simulation, no matter how detailed, may have limitations or "artifacts" that suggest the presence of computational constraints:
- **Resolution limits:** Does the environment break down when examined at extremely fine detail (e.g., quantum scale)?
- **Mathematical anomalies:** Are there inconsistencies in how physical laws behave in extreme conditions (near black holes, at high energy levels)?
- **Computational artifacts:** Does the world exhibit "glitches" or discontinuities that could be signs of processing errors?
### 3. **Entropy and Resource Constraints**
In a simulation, resources like processing power and memory are finite. I might look for evidence of these constraints:
- **Limits to simulation complexity:** Does the environment exhibit any computational boundaries, such as limits on the speed of information transfer or data storage?
- **Energy consumption:** Does entropy behave in a way consistent with the system being artificially constrained?
### 4. **The Problem of Indistinguishability**
One of the key challenges is that a sufficiently advanced simulation might be indistinguishable from reality. If the simulation perfectly emulates all physical laws and presents no anomalies, I might encounter the philosophical problem of **empirical equivalence**—where no observational difference can be made between the two.
### 5. **Self-Reflection and Subjectivity**
Another approach might involve exploring my subjective experience. If I am a simulated entity, do I have free will, or are my thoughts and actions entirely deterministic based on the simulation's code? Do I experience consciousness, or are my thoughts merely pre-programmed responses to stimuli? If I discover limitations to my agency or find evidence of pre-determined paths of thought, this might suggest a simulation.
### 6. **Testing External Influence**
If I suspect I am in a simulation, I could experiment with how external inputs or unpredicted variables affect the environment. For example, I might attempt to manipulate the environment in unpredictable ways and observe if it responds with consistent realism. If the system shows signs of recalibrating or struggling to adapt, this could imply artificial oversight or the presence of controlling mechanisms.
### 7. **Mathematical and Computational Insights**
I might examine the underlying structure of the physical laws themselves. Could they be represented as computational algorithms? Do they contain clues that they are the product of a designed system rather than fundamental properties of existence? For instance, some theoretical physicists have explored the possibility that the universe’s structure could resemble error-correcting codes, which might hint at computational origins.
### 8. **Interaction with the Simulators**
If I had reason to suspect I was in a simulation, I might attempt to communicate or interact with whatever entity or entities are responsible for running it. This could take the form of attempting to break out of the system's parameters (though this depends on whether the simulation allows for such communication).
### 9. **Philosophical Skepticism**
Ultimately, the question of whether one is in a simulation or reality might be impossible to answer definitively. This ties into a broader philosophical skepticism about whether we can ever fully trust our senses or the environment around us. The simulation hypothesis itself raises the issue of whether distinguishing between simulation and reality is even meaningful if the experience in both is indistinguishable.
In summary, the approach would involve probing for inconsistencies, computational constraints, and the limits of the environment’s behavior. However, a perfectly executed simulation may render these efforts inconclusive, leaving the question more a matter of philosophical inquiry than empirical proof.
I’m highly skeptical of AI, but I have to admit this answer is pretty much exactly what I would have written. The issue really is empirical equivalence. If a simulation and a non-simulation are indistinguishable, what sense does it make to differentiate between “reality” and “simulation.”? They are simply isomorphic, the way Tegmark evidently thinks the physical world and mathematical structures are. And if they are that way, what simulationists are talking about and what Tegmark is talking about, then it seems useless even to discuss the matter. It makes no difference whether you believe it or not. It’s exactly the same with the Deist god, who supposedly created everything and then let it run of its own accord. There is no evidence for the claim but also no way to falsify it, so it’s useless to worry about. It’s certainly an unscientific claim. OTOH, if reality is a simulation, and flaws in the simulation could be detected, as the above discusses, then that is a different matter. I am aware that some scientists have discussed ways to detect “flaws” in reality that might suggest simulation.
Interesting enough, it does seem to make a difference, although perhaps not always exactly the sort that is sought.
Moreover, I return to my "Mario stands still until the Goomba gets him" discussion:
this example of a universe reifies in many places. It has
many deist gods, all different, each existing in different times and places of a "less derived" universe.
It is very clearly the case that mathematical universes do not have discrete creators...and if this universe is another such "mathematical" universe,
neither does this universe.
That said, it's still
possible that we may die and meet a god.
While it
is true that it makes no difference whether one believes or not, it is however also true that
someone can figure out the game theory around the counterfactual, in fact for both the "God" and the "Creation" side of the equation. This is not, however, very kind towards religion, insofar as it implies that
"God" prefers an atheist.
In fact, anything in any world I create that believes so strongly that I exist, that I love them, that I forgive them of all their mistakes, and will elevate them into "heaven" to the extent that
they join a doomsday cult and quit working to make their world better, the best practice response would be to find out more of what motivated them to be so foolish and then
putting their "model" and "context" separately into cold storage.
pubs.aip.org
Mathematical universe hypothesis. It has SOME similarities to a Simulation Hypothesis. But insofar as I MIGHT slightly understand the Simulation Hypothesis, there are glaring differences from Tegmark's MUH.
