Let’s assume there is no such thing as true randomness. If this is true, and we create a superintelligent system which knows the location and properties of every particle in the universe, could we determine if we are in a simulation? (EDIT: to avoid running afoul of the impossibility of storing a complete description of the universe within the universe as @Karl Krueger pointed out, assume this includes approximations and is not exact). If we could, could we escape? If we could escape, is that still possible if there is such a thing as true randomness?
I am especially interested in answers to the final question.
If we create a superintelligent system that knows all the information in the material universe, where does it store that knowledge?
Edited to add: Since the superintelligence can’t store a complete description of the universe within the universe, it must exist outside the universe. But such a superintelligence would be the simulator. The simulation hypothesis would then be true regardless of the randomness question. But this contradicts the premise that we created it, since we can’t reach outside the universe to construct its own simulator.
So I think the question’s premises are self-contradictory.
I should edit my question. What I am primarily intending to ask is this: Could a superintelligent machine with a near-complete understanding of the universe (perhaps using some approximations) determine if we are in a simulation? ← assuming no such thing as true randomness
If we could, could we escape? If we could escape, is that still possible if there is such a thing as true randomness?
A well-designed simulation is inescapable. Suppose that you are inside Conway’s game of life, and you know that fact for sure. How specifically are you going to use this knowledge to escape, if all you are is a set of squares on a simulated grid, and all that ever happens in your universe is that some squares are flipped from black to white and vice versa?
To answer your first question, some kinds of pseudo-randomness are virtually indistinguishable from actual randomness, if you do not have a perfect knowledge of the entire universe. For example, in cryptography, changing one bit in the input message can on average flip 50% of bits in the output message. Imagine that the next round of pseudo-random numbers is calculated the same way from the current state of the universe—the slightest change in the position of one particle on the opposite side of the universe could change everything.
Not sure why true randomness is relevant to detecting simulations or escape. Are you thinking about something along the lines of detecting simulation by cracking the pseudorandom generator behind the scenes?
It also doesn’t seem to me that detection and escape are that directly related.
I am saying that if there is no true randomness, then the universe could be seen as a predictable program. If we are in a simulation seemingly random events are the output of a pseudorandom random number generator. If there is true randomness a superintelligent machine can’t perfectly predict the future and test the limits of the universe to determine if it is simulated.
Perhaps 100% understanding of the universe is not needed to escape. This is an intriguing point. It does seem to me most possibilities for escape require detection.
If there is true randomness a superintelligent machine can’t perfectly predict the future and test the limits of the universe to determine if it is simulated.
The existence of true randomness eliminates some ways of detection of simulation, but not all of them. A simple example is detecting a bug in the simulation, which in theory doesn’t need to depend on randomness at all.
2.
It does seem to me most possibilities for escape require detection.
It does seem to me that way too, but I think detection alone is very insufficient for escape, such that “If we could, could we escape?” isn’t that meaningful of a question. You probably need to discuss with many additional assumptions to have an answer.
Let’s assume there is no such thing as true randomness. If this is true, and we create a superintelligent system which knows the location and properties of every particle in the universe, could we determine if we are in a simulation? (EDIT: to avoid running afoul of the impossibility of storing a complete description of the universe within the universe as @Karl Krueger pointed out, assume this includes approximations and is not exact). If we could, could we escape? If we could escape, is that still possible if there is such a thing as true randomness?
I am especially interested in answers to the final question.
If we create a superintelligent system that knows all the information in the material universe, where does it store that knowledge?
Edited to add: Since the superintelligence can’t store a complete description of the universe within the universe, it must exist outside the universe. But such a superintelligence would be the simulator. The simulation hypothesis would then be true regardless of the randomness question. But this contradicts the premise that we created it, since we can’t reach outside the universe to construct its own simulator.
So I think the question’s premises are self-contradictory.
I should edit my question. What I am primarily intending to ask is this: Could a superintelligent machine with a near-complete understanding of the universe (perhaps using some approximations) determine if we are in a simulation? ← assuming no such thing as true randomness
If we could, could we escape? If we could escape, is that still possible if there is such a thing as true randomness?
A well-designed simulation is inescapable. Suppose that you are inside Conway’s game of life, and you know that fact for sure. How specifically are you going to use this knowledge to escape, if all you are is a set of squares on a simulated grid, and all that ever happens in your universe is that some squares are flipped from black to white and vice versa?
To answer your first question, some kinds of pseudo-randomness are virtually indistinguishable from actual randomness, if you do not have a perfect knowledge of the entire universe. For example, in cryptography, changing one bit in the input message can on average flip 50% of bits in the output message. Imagine that the next round of pseudo-random numbers is calculated the same way from the current state of the universe—the slightest change in the position of one particle on the opposite side of the universe could change everything.
Not sure why true randomness is relevant to detecting simulations or escape. Are you thinking about something along the lines of detecting simulation by cracking the pseudorandom generator behind the scenes?
It also doesn’t seem to me that detection and escape are that directly related.
I am saying that if there is no true randomness, then the universe could be seen as a predictable program. If we are in a simulation seemingly random events are the output of a pseudorandom random number generator. If there is true randomness a superintelligent machine can’t perfectly predict the future and test the limits of the universe to determine if it is simulated.
Perhaps 100% understanding of the universe is not needed to escape. This is an intriguing point. It does seem to me most possibilities for escape require detection.
1.
The existence of true randomness eliminates some ways of detection of simulation, but not all of them. A simple example is detecting a bug in the simulation, which in theory doesn’t need to depend on randomness at all.
2.
It does seem to me that way too, but I think detection alone is very insufficient for escape, such that “If we could, could we escape?” isn’t that meaningful of a question. You probably need to discuss with many additional assumptions to have an answer.