lorenzo-rex feed - LessWrong 2.0 Readerlorenzo-rex’s posts and comments on the Effective Altruism Forumen-usComment by lorenzo-rex on Can you prove that 0 = 1?
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/vhLKiDk5RZNQrfiDK/can-you-prove-that-0-1?commentId=Q7Zz5JWnxcynkPZqF
<p>Consider modular arithmetic with modulo 1. It is true that 0+0=0, 1+1=1, and indeed 0=1. What is this describing? A theory of complete nothingness. </p><p>I'm working on something on these lines, there is much more structure that one would expect at first. Feel free to reach out privately.</p>lorenzo-rexQ7Zz5JWnxcynkPZqF2021-12-17T22:37:13.567ZComment by lorenzo-rex on Awesome-github Post-Scarcity List
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/nKq7ec2AKnuatc9FN/awesome-github-post-scarcity-list?commentId=grmjZGnEHF4fQLyYS
<p>Nothing much to add to gbear605, there was no self-congratulatory intent here! I'm editing the title to make this a bit more clear.</p>lorenzo-rexgrmjZGnEHF4fQLyYS2021-11-22T22:25:47.135ZComment by lorenzo-rex on Awesome-github Post-Scarcity List
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/nKq7ec2AKnuatc9FN/awesome-github-post-scarcity-list?commentId=q27XRNG4W5yiSFD5H
<p>Awesome-github are indeed curated open-source lists. If you know better resources feel free to open a pull request so that I can incorporate those, thanks! </p>lorenzo-rexq27XRNG4W5yiSFD5H2021-11-20T22:28:38.314ZAwesome-github Post-Scarcity List
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/nKq7ec2AKnuatc9FN/awesome-github-post-scarcity-list
<p>I've just created an awesome-github list of post-scarcity links and resources. Feel free to send pull requests to add new entries to the list.</p><p><a href="https://github.com/lorepieri8/awesome-post-scarcity"><u>https://github.com/lorepieri8/awesome-post-scarcity</u></a></p>lorenzo-rexnKq7ec2AKnuatc9FN2021-11-20T08:47:59.454ZA Roadmap to a Post-Scarcity Economy
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/kXeeidB34DJJAPS3W/a-roadmap-to-a-post-scarcity-economy
<p><strong>Background Reading (optional for the discussion)</strong></p><p><a href="https://lorenzopieri.com/post_scarcity/"><strong>https://lorenzopieri.com/post_scarcity/</strong></a><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Summary</strong></p><p>A post-scarcity society can be defined as a society in which all the basic needs of the population are met and provided for free. A common belief is that moving to such a desirable state, if possible at all, will require futuristic technologies to eliminate the scarcity of material resources. In this writeup I emphasise how what’s actually stopping us from being post-scarcity is not lack of resources, but the forced reliance on human labour. Given these premises, I lay out an actionable roadmap to post-scarcity and I highlight the role of automation and Universal Basic Income in the process. This analysis suggests that post-scarcity is within reach well inside the current century with current technologies, assuming a sustained progress in the field of artificial intelligence.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Discussion</strong></p><p>Do<strong> </strong>you agree with automation being the real missing piece to post-(basic)scarcity? And what is the smoothest roadmap to such an economy, which minimise the trauma for the displaced jobs?</p>lorenzo-rexkXeeidB34DJJAPS3W2021-10-30T09:04:29.479ZComment by lorenzo-rex on Boring machine learning is where it's at
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/Dge5Wnri3K8yosd3r/boring-machine-learning-is-where-it-s-at?commentId=f6bs8NNpzcg49Bf3W
<p>It's a good point, but it's like saying that to improve a city you can just bomb it and build it from scratch. In reality improvements need to be incremental and coexist with the legacy system for a while.</p>lorenzo-rexf6bs8NNpzcg49Bf3W2021-10-24T19:36:42.728ZComment by lorenzo-rex on How would the Scaling Hypothesis change things?
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/ED28KSXKc4j8CNoi8/how-would-the-scaling-hypothesis-change-things?commentId=LNHNG2TDEcZy69dwP
<ul><li>Would your forecasts for AI timelines shorten significantly?</li></ul><p>Yes, by 10-20 years, in particular for the first human level AGI, which I currently forecast between 2045-2060. </p><ul><li>Would your forecasts change for the probability of AI-caused global catastrophic / existential risks?</li></ul><p>Not by much, I give a low estimate to an AI existential risk.</p><ul><li>Would your focus of research or interests change at all?</li></ul><p>Yes, in the same way that the classic computer vision field has been made pretty much obsolete by deep learning, apart for few pockets or for simple use cases.</p><ul><li>Would it perhaps even change your perspective on life?</li></ul><p>Yes, positively. We would get faster than expected to the commercialisation of AGI, shortening the gap to a post-scarcity society. </p><p> </p><p>That said, I don't believe to the scaling hypothesis. Even though NNs appear capable to simulate arbitrary complex behaviours, I think we will hit a wall of diminishing returns soon, making it impractical to proceed this way for the first AGI. </p>lorenzo-rexLNHNG2TDEcZy69dwP2021-08-14T22:42:46.819ZComment by lorenzo-rex on Analysis of World Records in Speedrunning [LINKPOST]
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/nhjaegqWxbBhiqMGS/analysis-of-world-records-in-speedrunning-linkpost?commentId=hdh2Kcjexsh5fd38B
<p>Apparently many records have been subjected to cheating: </p><figure class="media"><div data-oembed-url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7x5elophk"><div><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ww7x5elophk" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div></div></figure>lorenzo-rexhdh2Kcjexsh5fd38B2021-08-05T20:59:23.345ZComment by lorenzo-rex on The accumulation of knowledge: literature review
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/dkruhqAEhXnbAk7iJ/the-accumulation-of-knowledge-literature-review?commentId=oiY3i3fSih2E73iFc
<p>I will briefly give it a shot:</p><p><strong>Operative definition of knowledge K about X in a localised region R of spacetime</strong>:</p><p><strong>Number N of yes/no questions (information) which a blank observer O can confidently answer about X, by having access to R.</strong></p><p> </p><p>Notes:</p><p>-Blank observer = no prior exposure to X. Obvious extension to observers which know something already about X.</p><p>-Knowledge makes sense only with respect to some entity X, and for a given observer O.</p><p>-Access to K in a given R may be very difficult, so an extension of this definition is enforcing a maximum effort E required to extract K. Max N obtained in this way is K.</p><p>-Equivalently, this can be defined in terms of probability distributions which are updated after every interaction of O with R.</p><p>-This definition requires having access to X, to verify that the content of R is sufficient to unambiguous to answer N questions. As such, it's not useful to quantify accumulation of knowledge about things we don't know entirely. But this has to be expected, I'm pretty sure one can map this to the halting problem.</p><p>Anyway, in the future it may be handy for instance to quantify if a computer vision system (and which part of it) has knowledge of objects it is classifying, say an apple.</p><p>-To make the definition more usable, one can limit the pool of questions and see which fraction of those can be answered by having access to R.</p><p>-The number N of questions should be pruned into classes of questions, to avoid infinities. (e.g. does an apple weighs less than 10kg? Less than 10.1kg? Less than 10.2kg? ...)</p><p> </p><p>Regarding, your attempts at: <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/s/H6kiZXJwYgxZubtmD/p/YdxG2D3bvG5YsuHpG">https://www.lesswrong.com/s/H6kiZXJwYgxZubtmD/p/YdxG2D3bvG5YsuHpG</a></p><p>-Mutual information between region and environment: Enforcing a max effort E implies that rocks have small amount of knowledge, since it's very hard to reverse engineer them.</p><p>-Mutual information over digital abstraction layers: The camera cannot answer yes/no questions, so no knowledge. But a human with access to that camera certainly has more knowledge than one without.</p><p>-Precipitation of action: Knowledge is with respect to an observer. So no knowledge for the map alone.</p>lorenzo-rexoiY3i3fSih2E73iFc2021-07-25T13:43:44.806ZComment by lorenzo-rex on The BTC equilibriumating and the ETH one-eightening
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/tkbMkBEsyuzM7L2zH/the-btc-equilibriumating-and-the-eth-one-eightening-1?commentId=sLKmuLWvpvKQdn7pH
<p>-Polkadot has less than 300 validators at the moment, the system is not decentralised enough to support large attacks. </p><p>-Well, rising or at least stable. Considering that gold market cap is 10x bitcoin, and then bitcoin can be gold 2.0, there is definitely a large upside left. See also the stock-to-flow model applied to bitcoin. </p>lorenzo-rexsLKmuLWvpvKQdn7pH2021-05-27T22:59:30.846ZComment by lorenzo-rex on The BTC equilibriumating and the ETH one-eightening
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/tkbMkBEsyuzM7L2zH/the-btc-equilibriumating-and-the-eth-one-eightening-1?commentId=ZjTRAonQoQTPzfME5
<p>The problem I see with Ethereum is the tech itself. Is building a scalable and decentralised blockchain possible at all? Ethereum needs to get it right in few years, or it will lose the first mover advantage and other chains will take the lead.</p><p>On the other side, Bitcoin is already working as a decentralised store of value and doesn't need crazy scalability, even though it would be beneficial (and necessary in order to be a daily currency).</p>lorenzo-rexZjTRAonQoQTPzfME52021-05-25T23:23:20.907ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=mjHykQFmu6CHP8jTF
<p>Those extended simulations are more complex than non extended simulations. The simplicity assumptions tells you that those extended simulations are less likely, and the distribution is dominated by non extended simulations (assuming that they are considerably less complex). </p><p>To see this more clearly, take the point of view of the simulators, and for simplicity neglect all the simulations that are running t=now. So, consider all the simulations ever run by the simulators so far and that have finished. A simulation is considered finished when it is not run anymore. If a simulation of cost C1 is "extended" to 2 C1, then de facto we call it a C2 simulation. So, there is well defined distributions of finished simulations C1, C2 (including pure C2 and C1 extended sims), C3 (including pure C3, extended C2, very extended C1, and all the combinations), etc.</p><p>You can also include simulations running t=now in the distribution, even though you cannot be sure how to classify them until the finish. Anyway, for large t the number of simulations running now will be a small number w.r.t the number of simulations ever run. </p><p>Nitpick: A simulation is never really finished, as it can be reactivated at any time. </p>lorenzo-rexmjHykQFmu6CHP8jTF2021-05-23T23:09:13.087ZComment by lorenzo-rex on Re: Fierce Nerds
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/pWJQGg7LgT9DAHnpv/re-fierce-nerds?commentId=FaQTsmcEHLzhY3Fug
<p>That acceptance is in my experience due to lack of skills/intelligence. By realising that you don't have enough skills/intelligence to withstand the (possible) consequences of speaking up, it is rational to comply with the rules and just hope that somebody else will bring the change. </p>lorenzo-rexFaQTsmcEHLzhY3Fug2021-05-23T19:56:06.904ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=cn6DcNz68zcGXPTPe
<p>Thanks for sharing, I will cite in a future v2 of the paper. </p><p>I don't agree with simple --> highest probability of glitches, at least not always. For instance, if we restrict to the case of the same universe-simulating algorithms running on smaller portions of simulated space (same level of approximation). In that case running an algorithm on larger spaces may lead to more rounding errors.</p>lorenzo-rexcn6DcNz68zcGXPTPe2021-04-15T00:17:38.973ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=uadEsMRAqzohw99cp
<p>My view is that Kolmogorov is the right simplicity measure for probabilistically or brute force generated universes, as you also mention. But for intentionally generated universes the length and elegance of the program is not that relevant in determining how likely is a simulation to be run, while computational power and memory are hard constraints that the simulators must face. </p><p>For instance while I would expect unnecessary long programs to be unlikely to be run, if a long program L is 2x more efficient than a shorter program S, then I expect L to be more likely (many more simulators can afford L, cheaper to run in bulk, etc.). </p>lorenzo-rexuadEsMRAqzohw99cp2021-04-14T23:40:33.450ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=tE3TgKJxD2QxBtTZu
<p>Regarding the first point, yes, that's likely true, much easier. But if you want to simulate a coherent long lasting observation (so really a Brain in a Vat (BIV) not a Boltzmann Brain) you need to make sure that you are sending the right perception to the brain. How do you know exactly which perception to send if you don't compute the evolution of the system in the first place? You would end up having conflicting observations. It's not much different from how current single players videogames are built: only one intelligent observer (the player) and an entire simulated world. As we know running advanced videogames is very compute intensive and a videogame simulating large worlds are far more compute intense than small world ones. Right now developers use tricks and inconsistencies to obviate for this, for instance they don't keep in memory the footprints that your videogame character left 10 hours of play ago in a distant part of the map. </p><p>What I'm saying is that there are no O(1) or O(log(N)) general ways of even just simulating perceptions of the universe. Just reading the input of the larger system to simulate should take you O(N). </p><p>The probability you are speaking about is relative to quantum fluctuations or similar. If the content of the simulations is randomly generated then surely Boltzmann Brains are by far more likely. But here I'm speaking about the probability distribution over intentionally generated ancestor simulations. This distribution may contain a very low number of Boltzmann Brains, if they are not considered interesting by the simulators. </p>lorenzo-rextE3TgKJxD2QxBtTZu2021-04-14T21:55:15.715ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=bkEGhoaxCd5vhFetc
<p>Not sure I get what you mean by simpler universes. According to the SH simulated universes greatly outnumber any real universes. </p><p>The bold statement is to be able to actually extract experimental consequences also for passive simulations, even if only probabilistically. Active simulations are indeed interesting because they would give us a way to prove that we are in a simulation, while the argument in the post can only disprove that we are in one. </p><p>A possible problem with active simulations is that they may be a very small percentage of the total simulations, since they require someone actively interacting with the simulation. If this is true, we are very likely a passive simulation. </p>lorenzo-rexbkEGhoaxCd5vhFetc2021-04-13T22:23:59.386ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=Jy4n3dGLbXxwCnWKa
<p>Quantum computing is a very good point. I thought about it, but I'm not sure if we should consider it "optional". Perhaps to simulate our reality with good fidelity, simulating the quantum is necessary and not an option. So if the simulators are already simulating all the quantum interactions in our daily life, building quantum computers would not really increase the power consumption of the simulation.</p>lorenzo-rexJy4n3dGLbXxwCnWKa2021-04-13T21:59:59.831ZComment by lorenzo-rex on On Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its?commentId=tyupo3wh7irKoLu5F
<p>It is surely hard and tricky.</p><p>One of the assumptions of the original simulation hypothesis is that there are many simulations of our reality, and therefore we are with probability close to 1 in a simulation. I'm starting with the assumption that SH is true and extrapolating from that. </p><p>Boltzmann Brains are incoherent random fluctuations, so I tend to believe that they should not emerge in large numbers in an intentional process. But other kind of solipsistic observers may tend to dominate indeed. In that case though, the predictions of SH+SA are still there, since simulating the milky way for a solo observer is still much harder than simulating only the solar system for a solo observer.</p>lorenzo-rextyupo3wh7irKoLu5F2021-04-13T21:53:59.848ZOn Falsifying the Simulation Hypothesis (or Embracing its Predictions)
https://lw2.issarice.com/posts/69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv/on-falsifying-the-simulation-hypothesis-or-embracing-its
<p><strong>Disclaimer</strong>: This is my first post on this website, I tried to follow the proper etiquette, but please let me know if something is off. :)</p><p><strong>Briefly about me</strong>: former academic (PhD in theoretical physics, quantum black holes, string theory, information paradox) turned entrepreneur (currently building a company in the AI/Robotics space).</p><p> </p><p>A widespread belief surrounding the Simulation Hypothesis (SH) is that being or not being in a simulation doesn't really have any implication for our lives. Or equivalently, SH is often criticised as unscientific and unfalsifiable, since no definite universal testable predictions have (so far) been made. By universal prediction I mean a prediction that all (or at least a very large part) of the simulations must make. </p><p>In this post I would like to challenge this view by noticing that in the space of all simulations some families of simulations are more likely than others. Having at least the rough behaviour of the probability distribution over the space of simulations then allows us to extract probabilistic predictions about our reality, therefore bringing SH in the realm of falsifiable theories. Of course there will be some assumptions to stomach along the way. </p><p>The whole line of reasoning of this post can be summarised in few points: </p><p><strong>1- We are equally likely to be in one of the many simulations.</strong></p><p><strong>2- The vast majority of simulations are simple.</strong></p><p><strong>3- Therefore, we are very likely to be in a simple simulation.</strong></p><p><strong>4- Therefore, we should not expect to observe X, Y, Z, ...</strong></p><p> </p><p>I will now expand on those points.</p><p> </p><p><strong>1- We are equally likely to be in one of the many simulations.</strong></p><p>First of all, let's assume that we are in a simulation. Since we have no information that could favour a given simulation, we should treat our presence in a given simulation as equally likely among all the simulations. This "bland indifference principle", is telling us that what matters is the multiplicity of a given reference class of simulations, that is what percentage of all the possible simulations belong to that reference class. The definition of a reference class of a civilisation simulation is tricky and subjective, but for our purposes is enough to fix a definition and the rest of the post will apply to that definition. For instance we may say that a simulation in which WWII never started is part of our reference class, since we can conceive to be reasonably "close" to such an alternative reality. But a simulation in which humans have evolved tails may be considered out of our reference class. Again, the choice is pretty much arbitrary, even though I didn't fully explore what happens for "crazy" choices of the reference class.</p><p> </p><p><strong>2- The vast majority of simulations are simple.</strong></p><p>This is pretty much the core assumption in the whole post. In particular we arrive there if we assume that the likelihood of a given simulation to be run is inversely correlated with the computational complexity of the simulation, in the space of all the simulation ever run. We can call the latter the Simplicity Assumption (SA). The SA mainly follows from the instantaneous finiteness of the resources available to the simulators (all the combined entities that will ever run civilization simulations. Governments, AIs, lonely developers, etc.). By instantaneous I mean that the simulators may have infinite resources in the long run, for instance due to an infinite universe, but that they should not be able to harness infinite energy at any given time. </p><p>We observe this behaviour in many systems: we do have a large number of small instances, a medium number of medium size instances and a small number of large ones. For instance the lifetime of UNIX processes has been found to be scaling roughly as 1/T, where T is the CPU age of the process. Similarly, many human related artifacts have been found following Zipf’s law-like distributions. </p><p>In the case of civilization simulations, there are multiple observations that point to the SA being valid:</p><p>-While the first ancestor simulation may be a monumental government-size project, at some point the simulators will be so advanced that even a single developer will be able to run a huge amount of simulations. At that point, any simulator will be able to decide between running a single bleeding edge simulation or, for instance, <span><span class="mjpage"><span class="mjx-chtml"><span class="mjx-math" aria-label="10^6"><span class="mjx-mrow" aria-hidden="true"><span class="mjx-msubsup"><span class="mjx-base"><span class="mjx-mn"><span class="mjx-char MJXc-TeX-main-R" style="padding-top: 0.372em; padding-bottom: 0.372em;">10</span></span></span><span class="mjx-sup" style="font-size: 70.7%; vertical-align: 0.591em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.071em;"><span class="mjx-mn" style=""><span class="mjx-char MJXc-TeX-main-R" style="padding-top: 0.372em; padding-bottom: 0.372em;">6</span></span></span></span></span></span><style>.mjx-chtml {display: inline-block; line-height: 0; text-indent: 0; text-align: left; text-transform: none; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; font-size-adjust: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; word-spacing: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0; min-height: 0; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 1px 0}
.MJXc-display {display: block; text-align: center; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0}
.mjx-chtml[tabindex]:focus, body :focus .mjx-chtml[tabindex] {display: inline-table}
.mjx-full-width {text-align: center; display: table-cell!important; width: 10000em}
.mjx-math {display: inline-block; border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0}
.mjx-math * {display: inline-block; -webkit-box-sizing: content-box!important; -moz-box-sizing: content-box!important; box-sizing: content-box!important; text-align: left}
.mjx-numerator {display: block; text-align: center}
.mjx-denominator {display: block; text-align: center}
.MJXc-stacked {height: 0; position: relative}
.MJXc-stacked > * {position: absolute}
.MJXc-bevelled > * {display: inline-block}
.mjx-stack {display: inline-block}
.mjx-op {display: block}
.mjx-under {display: table-cell}
.mjx-over {display: block}
.mjx-over > * {padding-left: 0px!important; padding-right: 0px!important}
.mjx-under > * {padding-left: 0px!important; padding-right: 0px!important}
.mjx-stack > .mjx-sup {display: block}
.mjx-stack > .mjx-sub {display: block}
.mjx-prestack > .mjx-presup {display: block}
.mjx-prestack > .mjx-presub {display: block}
.mjx-delim-h > .mjx-char {display: inline-block}
.mjx-surd {vertical-align: top}
.mjx-surd + .mjx-box {display: inline-flex}
.mjx-mphantom * {visibility: hidden}
.mjx-merror {background-color: #FFFF88; color: #CC0000; border: 1px solid #CC0000; padding: 2px 3px; font-style: normal; font-size: 90%}
.mjx-annotation-xml {line-height: normal}
.mjx-menclose > svg {fill: none; stroke: currentColor; overflow: visible}
.mjx-mtr {display: table-row}
.mjx-mlabeledtr {display: table-row}
.mjx-mtd {display: table-cell; text-align: center}
.mjx-label {display: table-row}
.mjx-box {display: inline-block}
.mjx-block {display: block}
.mjx-span {display: inline}
.mjx-char {display: block; white-space: pre}
.mjx-itable {display: inline-table; width: auto}
.mjx-row {display: table-row}
.mjx-cell {display: table-cell}
.mjx-table {display: table; width: 100%}
.mjx-line {display: block; height: 0}
.mjx-strut {width: 0; padding-top: 1em}
.mjx-vsize {width: 0}
.MJXc-space1 {margin-left: .167em}
.MJXc-space2 {margin-left: .222em}
.MJXc-space3 {margin-left: .278em}
.mjx-test.mjx-test-display {display: table!important}
.mjx-test.mjx-test-inline {display: inline!important; margin-right: -1px}
.mjx-test.mjx-test-default {display: block!important; clear: both}
.mjx-ex-box {display: inline-block!important; position: absolute; overflow: hidden; min-height: 0; max-height: none; padding: 0; border: 0; margin: 0; width: 1px; height: 60ex}
.mjx-test-inline .mjx-left-box {display: inline-block; width: 0; float: left}
.mjx-test-inline .mjx-right-box {display: inline-block; width: 0; float: right}
.mjx-test-display .mjx-right-box {display: table-cell!important; width: 10000em!important; min-width: 0; max-width: none; padding: 0; border: 0; margin: 0}
.MJXc-TeX-unknown-R {font-family: monospace; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal}
.MJXc-TeX-unknown-I {font-family: monospace; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal}
.MJXc-TeX-unknown-B {font-family: monospace; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold}
.MJXc-TeX-unknown-BI {font-family: monospace; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold}
.MJXc-TeX-ams-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-ams-R,MJXc-TeX-ams-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-cal-B {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-B,MJXc-TeX-cal-Bx,MJXc-TeX-cal-Bw}
.MJXc-TeX-frak-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-R,MJXc-TeX-frak-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-frak-B {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-B,MJXc-TeX-frak-Bx,MJXc-TeX-frak-Bw}
.MJXc-TeX-math-BI {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-BI,MJXc-TeX-math-BIx,MJXc-TeX-math-BIw}
.MJXc-TeX-sans-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-R,MJXc-TeX-sans-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-sans-B {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-B,MJXc-TeX-sans-Bx,MJXc-TeX-sans-Bw}
.MJXc-TeX-sans-I {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-I,MJXc-TeX-sans-Ix,MJXc-TeX-sans-Iw}
.MJXc-TeX-script-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-script-R,MJXc-TeX-script-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-type-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-type-R,MJXc-TeX-type-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-cal-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-R,MJXc-TeX-cal-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-main-B {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-B,MJXc-TeX-main-Bx,MJXc-TeX-main-Bw}
.MJXc-TeX-main-I {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-I,MJXc-TeX-main-Ix,MJXc-TeX-main-Iw}
.MJXc-TeX-main-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-R,MJXc-TeX-main-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-math-I {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-I,MJXc-TeX-math-Ix,MJXc-TeX-math-Iw}
.MJXc-TeX-size1-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size1-R,MJXc-TeX-size1-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-size2-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size2-R,MJXc-TeX-size2-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-size3-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size3-R,MJXc-TeX-size3-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-size4-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size4-R,MJXc-TeX-size4-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-vec-R {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-R,MJXc-TeX-vec-Rw}
.MJXc-TeX-vec-B {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-B,MJXc-TeX-vec-Bx,MJXc-TeX-vec-Bw}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-ams-R; src: local('MathJax_AMS'), local('MathJax_AMS-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-ams-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_AMS-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_AMS-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_AMS-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-B; src: local('MathJax_Caligraphic Bold'), local('MathJax_Caligraphic-Bold')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-Bx; src: local('MathJax_Caligraphic'); font-weight: bold}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-Bw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Caligraphic-Bold.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Caligraphic-Bold.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Caligraphic-Bold.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-R; src: local('MathJax_Fraktur'), local('MathJax_Fraktur-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Fraktur-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Fraktur-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Fraktur-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-B; src: local('MathJax_Fraktur Bold'), local('MathJax_Fraktur-Bold')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-Bx; src: local('MathJax_Fraktur'); font-weight: bold}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-frak-Bw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Fraktur-Bold.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Fraktur-Bold.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Fraktur-Bold.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-BI; src: local('MathJax_Math BoldItalic'), local('MathJax_Math-BoldItalic')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-BIx; src: local('MathJax_Math'); font-weight: bold; font-style: italic}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-BIw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Math-BoldItalic.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Math-BoldItalic.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Math-BoldItalic.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-R; src: local('MathJax_SansSerif'), local('MathJax_SansSerif-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_SansSerif-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_SansSerif-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_SansSerif-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-B; src: local('MathJax_SansSerif Bold'), local('MathJax_SansSerif-Bold')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-Bx; src: local('MathJax_SansSerif'); font-weight: bold}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-Bw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_SansSerif-Bold.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_SansSerif-Bold.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_SansSerif-Bold.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-I; src: local('MathJax_SansSerif Italic'), local('MathJax_SansSerif-Italic')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-Ix; src: local('MathJax_SansSerif'); font-style: italic}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-sans-Iw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_SansSerif-Italic.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_SansSerif-Italic.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_SansSerif-Italic.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-script-R; src: local('MathJax_Script'), local('MathJax_Script-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-script-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Script-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Script-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Script-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-type-R; src: local('MathJax_Typewriter'), local('MathJax_Typewriter-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-type-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Typewriter-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Typewriter-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Typewriter-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-R; src: local('MathJax_Caligraphic'), local('MathJax_Caligraphic-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-cal-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Caligraphic-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Caligraphic-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Caligraphic-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-B; src: local('MathJax_Main Bold'), local('MathJax_Main-Bold')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-Bx; src: local('MathJax_Main'); font-weight: bold}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-Bw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Main-Bold.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Main-Bold.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Main-Bold.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-I; src: local('MathJax_Main Italic'), local('MathJax_Main-Italic')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-Ix; src: local('MathJax_Main'); font-style: italic}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-Iw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Main-Italic.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Main-Italic.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Main-Italic.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-R; src: local('MathJax_Main'), local('MathJax_Main-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-main-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Main-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Main-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Main-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-I; src: local('MathJax_Math Italic'), local('MathJax_Math-Italic')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-Ix; src: local('MathJax_Math'); font-style: italic}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-math-Iw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Math-Italic.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Math-Italic.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Math-Italic.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size1-R; src: local('MathJax_Size1'), local('MathJax_Size1-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size1-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Size1-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Size1-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Size1-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size2-R; src: local('MathJax_Size2'), local('MathJax_Size2-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size2-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Size2-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Size2-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Size2-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size3-R; src: local('MathJax_Size3'), local('MathJax_Size3-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size3-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Size3-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Size3-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Size3-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size4-R; src: local('MathJax_Size4'), local('MathJax_Size4-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-size4-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Size4-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Size4-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Size4-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-R; src: local('MathJax_Vector'), local('MathJax_Vector-Regular')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-Rw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Vector-Regular.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Vector-Regular.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Vector-Regular.otf') format('opentype')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-B; src: local('MathJax_Vector Bold'), local('MathJax_Vector-Bold')}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-Bx; src: local('MathJax_Vector'); font-weight: bold}
@font-face {font-family: MJXc-TeX-vec-Bw; src /*1*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/eot/MathJax_Vector-Bold.eot'); src /*2*/: url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/woff/MathJax_Vector-Bold.woff') format('woff'), url('https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/mathjax/2.7.2/fonts/HTML-CSS/TeX/otf/MathJax_Vector-Bold.otf') format('opentype')}
</style></span></span></span> simple simulations. While it is reasonable to imagine the majority of simulators not being interested in running simple simulations, it’s hard to imagine that ALL of them would not be interested (this is similar to the flawed solutions to the Fermi's paradox claiming that ALL aliens are not doing action X). It is enough for a small number of simulators to make the second decision to quickly outnumber the number of times complex simulations have been run. The advantage for simple simulations will only become more dramatic as the simulators get more computational power. </p><p>-If simulations are used for scientific research, the simulators will be interested in settling on the simplest possible simulation that is complex enough to feature all the elements of interest and then run that simulation over and over.</p><p>-Simple simulations are the only simulations that can be run in nested simulations or on low powered devices.</p><p>An example partially (no intelligent observer inside!) illustrating this are the Atari games. Take Asteroids. No doubt that more complex and realistic space-shooting games do exist nowadays. But the fact that Asteroids is so simple allowed for it to be embedded as playable in other games (a nested game!) and used as a reinforcement learning benchmark. So if we purely count the number of times an Asteroid-like space-shooting game (this is our reference class) has been played, the original Asteroids is well posed to be the most played space-shooting game ever. </p><p>The exact scaling of the SA is unclear. One day we may be able to measure it, if we will be advanced enough to run many ancestor simulations. In the following let’s suppose that the scaling is at least Zipf’s law-like, so that if simulation A takes n times more computation than B, then A is n times less likely than B in the space of all simulations.</p><p> </p><p><strong>3- Therefore, we are very likely to be in a simple simulation.</strong></p><p>This follows from 1+2.</p><p> </p><p><strong>4- Therefore, we should not expect to observe X, Y, Z, ...</strong></p><p>We don’t know how the simulation is implemented, but in fact we only need a lower bound on how complexity scales in a simulation and then factor out our ignorance of the implementation details by finding how likely a simulation is w.r.t. another simulation. Let’s assume an incredible level of computational complexity optimisation, namely that the simulators can simulate all the universe, including the interaction of all the entities, with O(N) complexity, where N is the number of fundamental entities (quantum fields, strings, etc., it doesn’t matter what the real fundamental entity is). We also don’t really care about what approximation level is being used, how granular the simulation is, if time is being dilated, if big part of the universe are just an illusion, etc since the SA tells us that the most likely simulations are the one with the higher level of approximation. So taking the highest possible approximation level compatible with the experience of our reference class, the lower bound on the computational complexity is proportional to the time the simulation is run multiplied by the number of fundamental entities simulated. Since our universe is roughly homogenous at big scales, N is also proportional to how large the simulated space is.</p><p>Now consider a civilization simulation A that is simulating in detail our solar system and mocking the rest of the universe and a simulation B which is simulating in detail the whole milky way and mocking the rest. Simulating in detail the milky way is about <span><span class="mjpage"><span class="mjx-chtml"><span class="mjx-math" aria-label="10^{12}"><span class="mjx-mrow" aria-hidden="true"><span class="mjx-msubsup"><span class="mjx-base"><span class="mjx-mn"><span class="mjx-char MJXc-TeX-main-R" style="padding-top: 0.372em; padding-bottom: 0.372em;">10</span></span></span><span class="mjx-sup" style="font-size: 70.7%; vertical-align: 0.591em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.071em;"><span class="mjx-texatom" style=""><span class="mjx-mrow"><span class="mjx-mn"><span class="mjx-char MJXc-TeX-main-R" style="padding-top: 0.372em; padding-bottom: 0.372em;">12</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>harder, if we count the number of stars and black holes. According to the SA with linear scaling, being in simulation B is about <span><span class="mjpage"><span class="mjx-chtml"><span class="mjx-math" aria-label="10^{12}"><span class="mjx-mrow" aria-hidden="true"><span class="mjx-msubsup"><span class="mjx-base"><span class="mjx-mn"><span class="mjx-char MJXc-TeX-main-R" style="padding-top: 0.372em; padding-bottom: 0.372em;">10</span></span></span><span class="mjx-sup" style="font-size: 70.7%; vertical-align: 0.591em; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0.071em;"><span class="mjx-texatom" style=""><span class="mjx-mrow"><span class="mjx-mn"><span class="mjx-char MJXc-TeX-main-R" style="padding-top: 0.372em; padding-bottom: 0.372em;">12</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> less likely than being in A. Some interesting predictions follow: we are very likely not going to achieve significant interstellar travel or invent von Neumann probes. We are not going to meet extraterrestrial civilizations, unless they are very close, in turn explaining Fermi's paradox. </p><p>Similarly given two simulations with the same patch of simulated space, long living simulations are less likely than short living ones. In particular infinite lifetime universes have measure zero.</p><p>More generally, this argument applies to any other feature which provides a large enough “optional” jump in complexity in our universe. Notice that the argument is significantly weakened if super efficient ways of simulating a universe can exist (log(N) or more efficient, according to how sharp the SA distribution is). </p><p>In turn, if humanity were to achieve these feats it would be a pretty strong indication that we don’t live in a simulation after all. Of course SH can never be completely falsified, but this is similar to any physical theory with a tunable parameter. What we can do is to make SH arbitrary unlikely, for instance by achieving space colonization of larger and larger spaces. In fact one may point out that the achievements we already made, such as the exploration of the solar system, are already a strong argument against SH. But this depends on the exact shape of the SA. </p><p>In this post I’ve tried to keep details and subtleties at minimum, I’ve written a larger writeup for those who may be interested in digging deeper, see here: <a href="https://osf.io/ca8se/"><u>https://osf.io/ca8se/</u></a>. </p><p>Please let me know your comments, critiques on the assumptions of this post are very welcome. </p>lorenzo-rex69YbiY6tjnWPrrLXv2021-04-12T00:12:12.838Z