9 ms·

Reminds me of this classic: https://xkcd.com/505/ https://xkcd.com/505/ Replace universe simulation with a LLM an it’s hard to consider a bunch of rocks shuffl

Reminds me of this classic: https://xkcd.com/505/ https://xkcd.com/505/ Replace universe simulation with a LLM an it’s hard to consider a bunch of rocks shuffling on a beach as conscious. Or alternatively, our own minds are simply (squishy, organic) rocks on a beach, which is quite humbling if you think about it long enough.

deadbabe 2mo ago
Our bodies could just be rocks on a beach, but whatever it is about us that is capable of observing the output of our own internal thinking (preventing us from just being p-zombies) is not contained within the beach.
- __alexs 2mo ago
  This makes no sense at all as soon as you start trying to define where the internal/external line actually is.
- easyThrowaway 2mo ago
  The "whatever" part, in strict terms, would be information. Jury is still out whether that is a fundamental component of the universe or not: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundame...
  - eru 2mo ago
    Well, thermodynamics is considered pretty fundamental, and the second law of thermodynamics is pretty much all about information. (But your link already touches that.) People also interpret the 'unitarity' of quantum mechanics to mean that information is preserved.
- rationalist 2mo ago
  I think you're being downvoted because you're announcing it as an absolute truth, of which we do not have evidence. However I am open to your belief (and not on religious or theistic grounds which I assume many people might think you're talking about) because people have (non-religious) experiences that lend to such possibilities.
Kotlopou 2mo ago
Indeed a classic (upvoted!), but it presupposes that there is a theory of everything that can be used to perfectly simulate the universe, and I'd like to remind everybody that we still don't know whether such a thing exists. Nor do we know whether it's possible to simulate "just" neurons and get meaningful results on some higher level. People have been trying at that for decades, so far without success. (nice overview here: https://ccli.substack.com/p/the-biggest-mystery-in-neuroscience https://ccli.substack.com/p/the-biggest-mystery-in-neuroscie...)
- dofm 2mo ago
  > but it presupposes that there is a theory of everything that can be used to perfectly simulate the universe, and I'd like to remind everybody that we still don't know whether such a thing exists Is it even possible that a complete simulation of the rules of this universe (let alone the content of it) could exist in this universe? I am no expert but I did manage to read most of GEB [0] so I feel fully qualified to say that it feels like something Gödel would have opinions about? [0] the honest nerd's "did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night"
  - cwillu 2mo ago
    It is entirely possible (if perhaps unlikely) that the correct theory of everything is a relatively straightforward expansion of the current standard model.
  - eru 2mo ago
    > Is it even possible that a complete simulation of the rules of this universe (let alone the content of it) could exist in this universe? Yes, it is possible! See how a Quine is constructed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) As an analogy: you can have a zip archive that expands to itself. Or even more so: to itself (the simulation of itself in itself) plus something arbitrary (standing in for the rest of the universe).
    - CorrectHorseBat 2mo ago

deadbabe 2mo ago

Our bodies could just be rocks on a beach, but whatever it is about us that is capable of observing the output of our own internal thinking (preventing us from just being p-zombies) is not contained within the beach.

__alexs 2mo ago
This makes no sense at all as soon as you start trying to define where the internal/external line actually is.
easyThrowaway 2mo ago
The "whatever" part, in strict terms, would be information. Jury is still out whether that is a fundamental component of the universe or not: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundame...
- eru 2mo ago
  Well, thermodynamics is considered pretty fundamental, and the second law of thermodynamics is pretty much all about information. (But your link already touches that.) People also interpret the 'unitarity' of quantum mechanics to mean that information is preserved.
rationalist 2mo ago
I think you're being downvoted because you're announcing it as an absolute truth, of which we do not have evidence. However I am open to your belief (and not on religious or theistic grounds which I assume many people might think you're talking about) because people have (non-religious) experiences that lend to such possibilities.

Kotlopou 2mo ago

Indeed a classic (upvoted!), but it presupposes that there is a theory of everything that can be used to perfectly simulate the universe, and I'd like to remind everybody that we still don't know whether such a thing exists. Nor do we know whether it's possible to simulate "just" neurons and get meaningful results on some higher level. People have been trying at that for decades, so far without success. (nice overview here: https://ccli.substack.com/p/the-biggest-mystery-in-neuroscience https://ccli.substack.com/p/the-biggest-mystery-in-neuroscie...)

dofm 2mo ago
> but it presupposes that there is a theory of everything that can be used to perfectly simulate the universe, and I'd like to remind everybody that we still don't know whether such a thing exists Is it even possible that a complete simulation of the rules of this universe (let alone the content of it) could exist in this universe? I am no expert but I did manage to read most of GEB [0] so I feel fully qualified to say that it feels like something Gödel would have opinions about? [0] the honest nerd's "did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night"
- cwillu 2mo ago
  It is entirely possible (if perhaps unlikely) that the correct theory of everything is a relatively straightforward expansion of the current standard model.
- eru 2mo ago
  > Is it even possible that a complete simulation of the rules of this universe (let alone the content of it) could exist in this universe? Yes, it is possible! See how a Quine is constructed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine_(computing) As an analogy: you can have a zip archive that expands to itself. Or even more so: to itself (the simulation of itself in itself) plus something arbitrary (standing in for the rest of the universe).
  - CorrectHorseBat 2mo ago