[bwood]

I've been compiling a list of ways in which physical reality is similar to game engines or mechanical simulation in general. Here's my list so far:

- The observer effect, quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse --> lazy evaluation

- Speed of light --> speed of causality to resolve the object interaction problem O(n^2)

- Quanta of energy, Planck's length --> discretization of reality to limit computational precision

- Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics --> reality is implemented with mathematics

- Parsimonious physics --> simple physical rules are less computationally expensive to evaluate

- Entropy --> stability of the simulation and a guaranteed "wind down"

[szvsw]

For speed of light, a more direct analogue (though your example still makes sense) would be what is often called the “speed of sound” in numerical methods (like the finite difference method, aka FDM), which is often closely related to both temporal and spatial discretization schemes and can lead to numerical instability (cf. CFL condition, Von Neumann stability analysis, etc). It’s also related to things like stiff problems. It essentially has to do with how fast computational information propagates through the simulated domain. Note that it is still called “the speed of sound” even when you are not simulating the wave equation! (At least by my profs)

[state_less]

The simulation framing tends to draw deterministic connotations. I think when people think of a simulation or perhaps physical interpretations, they imagine life as happening to them, rather than through them. I think it’s easy to perceive it one way or the other, and what you seek you will find.

But something like ‘lazy evaluation’ could provide a bridge between the two views. A choice is made AND a physically compatible path is observed as if it were always so from the past to the present.

Personally, I think of the universe is alive with choice and we do get to participate.

PS. I kept a copy of Kip Thorne’s Black Holes and Time Warps on my nightstand as a kid - it filled me with fascination. Thanks Kip!

[szvsw]

> The simulation framing tends to draw deterministic connotations.

I bristle at this because there is obviously a massive amount of probabilistic programming methodology and stochastic simulation techniques out there, but at the end of the day in terms of connotation you are probably correct…

[Mattasher]

I think there's a case to be made that, if the simulation hypothesis is correct, we are god's dice[1]. We exist as agents to introduce randomness in the form of free will or enough chaos to ensure non-determinism, at least from the perspective of whatever force built this place.

[1] https://mattasher.substack.com/p/btf-6-gods-dice

[medstrom]

Sounds like anthropocentric bias. If you can implement a true RNG for some things, why not for all things?

[nickpsecurity]

Add a few more observations:

1. The laws of the universe require unimaginable power, knowledge, and precision to implement. Its Creator must have these traits.

2. It doesn’t fail. Everything humans build requires maintenance but still fails. That this universe runs with a 100% reliability rate shows its maintainer’s power, knowledge, and perfection. It also shows He is sustaining us every second. He’s thinking about and caring for His creation.

3. Humans appear hardwired to seek who God is. So, the Creator wants us to look for them.

4. Even as children, humans have basic notions of love, justice, and are relational. The Creator is a relational, moral being who wants them to think like that.

5. All life passes through genes that carry some appearance and behavior. The higher creations raise their offspring. The Creator designed us to bear children who we teach. We’re creators in a way, too.

6. Many claim the Creator reveals Himself to them. One had objective proof, power, and outcomes that back that up (eg GetHisWord.com). The Creator has purpose for us which He helpfully shares. Jesus also lived it, too, in the same flesh before dying for our sins.

Just these six suggest that, in contrast to gaming, our world is run by God who has power, omniscience, morals, and a relationship with His people. So, that says the way to win is to be close to Him (Jesus) while playing the game by His rules. Also, to enjoy learning how it works which is endlessly deep and fun. :)

In contrast, a game engine or computer doesn’t compare mostly because of how the universe works perfectly despite billions upon billions upon billions of interactions. It can’t be overstated how unlikely that is based on all observations of reality. It’s truly astounding.

[whoknw]

If you are willing to argue in good faith (no pun intended), I'd recommend for you to read Spinoza. Spinoza builds on your argument number one and argues that there can only be one substance, and this substance is God. In a nutshell: God is everything that exists, we do not exist outside of God (we are "modes" of God, if I remember correctly). Spinoza also argues that by virtue of being the only substance, God exists necessarily and does not have a choice.

The implications of this logic create problems for the Judeo-Christian stance. Absolute morality goes out of the window and a few other things with it as well.

[nickpsecurity]

It might be interesting to read. It's not far from my original guess about these things.

The logic wouldn't create a problem for us due to the weight of our source, the Word of God. Whatever counters it would need perfect character, prophecies that came true, miraculous power, historical evidence, and global impact on most people groups. Then, his followers would have to experience similar things on top of transformed lives. If not, his views remain pure speculation with nothing backing them like most religions and philosophies. Not threatening at all. :)

[whoknw]

That is why I prefixed my previous post with "in good faith". If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.

Granted, that style of reasoning also has a long tradition in philosophers like Descartes, Berkeley, etc. Descartes famously postulates that "God is not a deceiver", and that we are dealing with a benevolent God. You make the same assumption. Back then, there had to be a God, because the church would have showed people how the afterlife looks like pretty quickly. I don't understand what necessitates such a stance today.

In any case: as long as you argue from the conclusion backwards, we can spare some ink and leave this be.

[nickpsecurity]

“ If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.”

I thought my original comment had a link. We have a huge weight of evidence of various types to support God’s Word being from God. There’s usually more types for that than most beliefs people express on HN that are accepted. So, I start with that as a foundation much like proof assistants build on a core logic.

https://www.gethisword.com/evidence.html

To test your assertion, we can do simple comparisons that Christians often do to justify their beliefs. For instance, you equated our use of the Bible to Descartes stating an opinion. Did Descartes live a perfect life, claim to speak for God, and perform miracles to prove that? Did he come back from the dead? Do his followers experience unlikely transformations and life events in response to praying to Descartes? Do they get healings in the hospital verified by doctors by asking Descartes to heal the person? Would the people I’ve seen who were miracle healed have done better with Descartes?

When a philosopher or scientist counters Christ or His Word, we can just go down the list to find they don’t come close to refuting them. Christ wins the trustworthiness competition. Then, we trust Him based on that.

I would consider switching sides if the others met the same criteria. They’d have to claim to receive visions from God, their predictions come true precisely, work miracles, come back from the dead, have perfect character (trustworthy), and I’d have to get promised results following them. If not, “let God be true and every man a liar” when they contradict.

I find real science doesn’t contradict my faith, though, since it’s a pursuit of truth which God wants us to pursue. Most of it is OK or it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. I can enjoy it all. :)

[Kbelicius]

> 1. The laws of the universe require unimaginable power, knowledge, and precision to implement. Its Creator must have these traits.

Since you are adding these observation in the context of the universe being a simulation none of the above need to be true. The one who designed the universe did not necessarily have the knowledge to implement (code the universe), build the hardware that it runs on or built the power source that is powering it all.

Why did you jump to the conclusion that it is only one person/being doing everything?

> 2. It doesn’t fail. Everything humans build requires maintenance but still fails. That this universe runs with a 100% reliability rate shows its maintainer’s power, knowledge, and perfection. It also shows He is sustaining us every second. He’s thinking about and caring for His creation.

How do you know that it doesn't fail? What would failure even look like? Wouldn't something like the heat death of the universe signify its failure?

How do you know that the universe runs with 100% reliability?

Why mention that everything that humans build requires maintenance when even the universe, by your own words, requires maintenance by its creator?

> 3. Humans appear hardwired to seek who God is. So, the Creator wants us to look for them.

Humans appear hardwired to seek explanations to phenomena. So much so that when they can not logically explain a phenomena they will make up an explanation. Isn't this more logical than your statement, if not, why?

In your point 4 and 5 you are just saying because some facts of the universe thus god.

> 6. Many claim the Creator reveals Himself to them. One had objective proof, power, and outcomes that back that up (eg GetHisWord.com). The Creator has purpose for us which He helpfully shares. Jesus also lived it, too, in the same flesh before dying for our sins.

Did not share it with me. Why?

[nickpsecurity]

Good observations. I’ll try to address a few of them.

Re reliability. We know what we can observe. We see the machinery doing billions of billions of things with perfect consistency. The amount of interactions required is staggering. Whereas, humans quit trying to prove code correct after many 10,000 lines.

The being is either keeping it running without failures being possible (God’s power) or is doing the equivalent of preventative maintenance. Both are logically possible.

Re hardwired. That is a good hypothesis. I’d counter along C.S. Lewis’s lines that some things we seek aren’t merely imaginative. We have a strong, unique urge for specific things we need or are critical to our species, like food or sex. Those urges are tied to objective, real things. Our urges for God, love, and justice are just as strong and global. That’s because we’re designed for it.

Re: how do I know. Well, there’s multiple forms of knowledge. They include evidentiary (eg historical), phenomenological (eg sensation of pain), logical, empirical, and revelatory. That last one is important because we can’t really know anything outside the universe unless told by those outside it. That God chose to reveal Himself to His creation solves some big problems we could never solve without that.

“ Did not share it with me. Why?”

He did. He works through people who carry His message of reconciliation, the Gospel. It was in the quote:

https://www.gethisword.com

His Word says God draws us to Him, faith is a gift, it comes by hearing His Word, and (per Jesus) His sheep hear His voice. If people are humble, and truly seeking Him, He supernaturally tells them the message is true. Convicted of their sin, they have a choice to make that determines if they face eternal punishment or receive the mercy of eternal life.

God could’ve made it hard. He could’ve required people to be geniuses, know important people, be star athletes, or live perfectly on their own. Instead, Christ paid the price for our sins. Then, gave anyone who acts on a simple message to be saved. Anyone who shares that message might pull others out the fire, too.

Believe, repent, and live for and like Him. He’s worth it. Hell’s not.

[anthk]

That's a bunch of fallacies.

[nickpsecurity]

You didn't say that about either the claims in the OP article or prior submissions with less proof of what they say. Your reaction might be emotional, not logical. I encourage you to consider it logically.

An easy test would be to find human machines that have 100% reliability without design or maintenance. Then, strong arguments that they'll remain that way for thousands to billions of years with no intelligent intervention. If you wouldn't believe that, why would you believe an atheist that says the universe's superior machinery was likewise undesigned, is unmaintained, and is accidentally perfect? That goes against everything we've observed.

We also have a guess on the computational requirements which are mind-boggling. Just simulating tiny molecular or quantum systems with total accuracy, if it's even happened, takes a ton of computation. Every sub-particle or force in the entire universe running at the same time is unimaginable computation. Plus, the Creator makes them all work exactly as desired with the same, observed patterns. We can't get cellular automata to work like we want but the Creator is directing a universe of simple interactions to cause specific behavior, global and local?

God is the best theory for these observations. That also makes Him the most interesting of all beings in existence. Since we know Him, we also worship Him on top of it. That's acquired through non-scientific means, though. He supernaturally imparts it to those who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's more phenomenological but indirectly observable.

[Kbelicius]

> An easy test would be to find human machines that have 100% reliability without design or maintenance. Then, strong arguments that they'll remain that way for thousands to billions of years with no intelligent intervention. If you wouldn't believe that

This very much might be a failing, short lived universe. Why do you think that it isn't? Keep in mind that when we run simulation we do not usually run them in real time where one of our days equals one day in a simulation.

> If you wouldn't believe that, why would you believe an atheist that says the universe's superior machinery was likewise undesigned, is unmaintained, and is accidentally perfect? That goes against everything we've observed.

It doesn't go against anything we observed. We did not observe that the universe is a machine nor that it is perfect. All that we observed is that the universe is as it is.

> We also have a guess on the computational requirements which are mind-boggling. Just simulating tiny molecular or quantum systems with total accuracy, if it's even happened, takes a ton of computation. Every sub-particle or force in the entire universe running at the same time is unimaginable computation. Plus, the Creator makes them all work exactly as desired with the same, observed patterns. We can't get cellular automata to work like we want but the Creator is directing a universe of simple interactions to cause specific behavior, global and local?

Those computational requirements exists within our universe but if we are talking about a simulation or a creator what seems like an impossible computational requirements... maybe this universe is being ran on a their version of a calculator.