You want to write your weird sci-fi novel, go nuts, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Bullshit like this belongs on the Fox News 'science' column, not Slashdot.
It's not bullshit. The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet. Given unlimited computer power. If so then many intelligent beings may be doing this. So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance. Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation. Why are you conscience or a sentient being? Thru programming or natural selection? We don't know, but it is not bullshit.
If you could harness the power of a star, then it's basically unlimited.
If this world is a simulation, maybe the world outside of a simulation has unlimited energy.
It also depends on the type of simulation. Maybe the simulation is just for you, how you react to things. It would take very little power in comparison to simulate only the things you're currently seeing.
Keep in mind, if we are in a simulation, our idea of what's possible might be tightly constrained by the limits of the simulation rather than the real world it's running in (which could be several layers of simulation deep for all we know.
There is no such thing as unlimited power, so no, it's bs.
What does that even mean? If this is a simulation then there actually could be unlimited power, and that we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The problem with this whole simulation idea is the same as it's ever been. Sure, there's circumstantial evidence that lends it credence, like the way things behave differently at very high or low energy states, and how observation seems to affect outcomes — that looks a lot like different physics models are being used to model different conditions only as needed to preserve CPU time. But that's not the only explanation, and until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is. And even THEN there might be some other explanation. But until we learn to break the simulation, suggesting that it might be one is pure mental masturbation. Without testable predictions there's no science, only thought experiments.
until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is
And why the hell would a super-intelligence capable of creating this simulation be sufficiently incompetant that we glorified monkeys could find such "evidence"?
So this is all of course baseless speculation with no way to falsify, so it's not so much science as it is philosophy.
All that said to have fun with the philosophy, it isn't even necessarily as hard as you make it sound.
For one, the common assumption would be that the 'true' reality is roughly like our own in terms of how complex it is and how complex computers could be. Say hypothetically a computer simulation we made was self aware. They may study their universe and conclude that a triangle is a fundament
No. There would be telltale signs if we were in a simulation.
To be a simulation -- a model -- something must by definition be incomplete, otherwise it would not be a simulation; it would be reality. You don't put a bunch of plants in the ground and say you're simulating a garden, for example. Rather, you have created a garden.
Since physics is the phenomenon which underlies all else in our universe, then we would have to be in a simulation of physics. That means we would expect to see limits of precision
couldn't quantum effects possibly be among those signs, or the edge of the universe rapidly expanding away from us? (think of a 3d video game where you can see the far horizon, but are prevented from traveling there by some mechanism)
Also, is there any reason why the physical laws of the universe are the way that they are?
I agree that quantum theory is pro-simulation evidence. The idea that the Universe updates in discrete steps based on probability? Hmm. The world is just a complex version of Conway's Life.
I tend to think - that if we are in a simulation, then there is no way to say what the rules outside that simulation are.
If we are in a simulation, physics as we know it might just be a concept that exists - within the simulation, and the external (and unknowable) reality is something utterly unknowable to us. (likewise the beings who could do this would be utterly unknowable/unrelatable to us).
Likewise, the platform that the simulation is running on - would not be bound by our laws of physics.
That makes no sense. A simulation of something might be incomplete compared to that something, but it is complete in the sense that it has a ruleset it follows and can be glitch free in respect to that ruleset. If we live in somebody's computer program, our world would be defined by the rules of the program and there might not be a telltale sign - in fact any glitch would be a law of nature for us. It depends on the specifics of course. Personally I find the question mildly interesting, but don't really care
No. There would be telltale signs if we were in a simulation.
So what? That doesn't mean we could detect them.
How might a single atom or particle -- let alone all of its characteristics -- possibly be represented in less space, or with less energy, than the atom itself?
The answer to that is painfully obvious because you'd do it the same way we do it in games. You only model what the player is interacting with at full resolution. Everything else operates on a simpler level. And since most of the actors in the simulation are experiencing the same little corner of the simulation, most of the universe can be modeled in quite gross terms. You don't need a system larger than the known universe to model the known universe if you're
Precisely. When someone jumps from "hey here's a hypothetical philosophy thing to ponder about the possibility of a simulated universe to 'this is a scientific theory', that would be silly because they have something inherently non-falsifiable. But in the context of the hypothesis, anything is possible.
How might a single atom or particle -- let alone all of its characteristics -- possibly be represented in less space, or with less energy, than the atom itself? It would be paradoxical; a logical impossibility.
My hypothetical would be that *we* think an atom is a fundamental building block, but a universe simulating us may see it as a quaint, oversimplification of something we couldn't even imagine. As I said in my post, for comparison something that we make would make the same argument about a textured triangle being a fundamental particle. In terms of scale, a universe that we simulate would be smaller than our own, but that universe couldn't conceptualize that they are small compared to us.
How might a single atom or particle -- let alone all of its characteristics -- possibly be represented in less space, or with less energy, than the atom itself?
We have no way of knowing if the results of the experiments that establish physical rules - such as the existence of these supposed "characteristics" - are just some crap made up in a game that someone else is playing. If our observations of the universe are a result of a simulation, then nothing can be relied upon including the evidence for the simulation itself.
It's all nothing but circular bullshit, like most of philosophy.
No it is bullshit. It is a ridiculous hypothesis that cannot be taken seriously or even tested for. "Given unlimited computer power", that alone makes it bullshit.
It's not bullshit.
The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet. Given unlimited computer power. If so then many intelligent beings may be doing this. So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance.
Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation.
Why are you conscience or a sentient being? Thru programming or natural selection?
We don't know, but it is not bullshit.
There's no way to know if you are only programmed to/think/ you're conscious.
/And as far as astronomical computer resources are concerned: don't forget that a simulations don't have to run in real time -- a simulated person would never know the difference if it takes a millennium to render each 'frame'. //And it may have been turned on a fraction of a second ago, will all past events and 'history' programmed in from its inception as launch parameters.
As I put in another comment, there is no reason to presume that the platform running the simulation is any way constrained by the laws of physics within the simulation.
It only looks like it's a 1 in a billion chance we're not simulated... as long as you say "Let's assume..."
The problem is you start with the assumption there are all these higher level simulations running. In actuality, we have a sample size of 1 (reality), and no determination of its status.
Furthermore, this kind of self flagellation raises the obvious point that the existence containing the computer on which we were being simulated would probably ALSO merely a simulation because the same logic would appl
I'd mod you up if I could. This is old news, but like you suggest the whole supposition rests on a meaningless 'if..' and then it's simulations all the way down.
It's pointless stoner thinking. Like wow man, imagine if like colours were actually sounds. Far out man.
We even have evidence that happened. Our creator was so unhappy with his original code, that he refactored it with the help of Noah. However, the quality of the rewrite was so poor, that we may be heading to another refactoring event.
This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not bullshit.
The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet. Given unlimited computer power. If so then many intelligent beings may be doing this. So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance.
Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation.
Why are you conscience or a sentient being? Thru programming or natural selection?
We don't know, but it is not bullshit.
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you surpassed them somehow?
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Substitute very large amount for unlimited.
Keep in mind, if we are in a simulation, our idea of what's possible might be tightly constrained by the limits of the simulation rather than the real world it's running in (which could be several layers of simulation deep for all we know.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in our universe. How do you know what the 'outer' universe is like, what laws of physics it has?
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as unlimited power, so no, it's bs.
What does that even mean? If this is a simulation then there actually could be unlimited power, and that we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The problem with this whole simulation idea is the same as it's ever been. Sure, there's circumstantial evidence that lends it credence, like the way things behave differently at very high or low energy states, and how observation seems to affect outcomes — that looks a lot like different physics models are being used to model different conditions only as needed to preserve CPU time. But that's not the only explanation, and until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is. And even THEN there might be some other explanation. But until we learn to break the simulation, suggesting that it might be one is pure mental masturbation. Without testable predictions there's no science, only thought experiments.
Re: (Score:2)
until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is
And why the hell would a super-intelligence capable of
creating this simulation be sufficiently incompetant that
we glorified monkeys could find such "evidence"?
Re: (Score:3)
So this is all of course baseless speculation with no way to falsify, so it's not so much science as it is philosophy.
All that said to have fun with the philosophy, it isn't even necessarily as hard as you make it sound.
For one, the common assumption would be that the 'true' reality is roughly like our own in terms of how complex it is and how complex computers could be. Say hypothetically a computer simulation we made was self aware. They may study their universe and conclude that a triangle is a fundament
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There would be telltale signs if we were in a simulation.
To be a simulation -- a model -- something must by definition be incomplete, otherwise it would not be a simulation; it would be reality. You don't put a bunch of plants in the ground and say you're simulating a garden, for example. Rather, you have created a garden.
Since physics is the phenomenon which underlies all else in our universe, then we would have to be in a simulation of physics. That means we would expect to see limits of precision
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't quantum effects possibly be among those signs, or the edge of the universe rapidly expanding away from us? (think of a 3d video game where you can see the far horizon, but are prevented from traveling there by some mechanism)
Also, is there any reason why the physical laws of the universe are the way that they are?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that quantum theory is pro-simulation evidence. The idea that the Universe updates in discrete steps based on probability? Hmm. The world is just a complex version of Conway's Life.
Re: (Score:2)
We do have physical limits, the speed of light for one.
Re: (Score:1)
I tend to think - that if we are in a simulation, then there is no way to say what the rules outside that simulation are.
If we are in a simulation, physics as we know it might just be a concept that exists - within the simulation, and the external (and unknowable) reality is something utterly unknowable to us. (likewise the beings who could do this would be utterly unknowable/unrelatable to us).
Likewise, the platform that the simulation is running on - would not be bound by our laws of physics.
(I don't nece
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:3)
That makes no sense. A simulation of something might be incomplete compared to that something, but it is complete in the sense that it has a ruleset it follows and can be glitch free in respect to that ruleset. If we live in somebody's computer program, our world would be defined by the rules of the program and there might not be a telltale sign - in fact any glitch would be a law of nature for us. It depends on the specifics of course.
Personally I find the question mildly interesting, but don't really care
Re: (Score:2)
No. There would be telltale signs if we were in a simulation.
So what? That doesn't mean we could detect them.
How might a single atom or particle -- let alone all of its characteristics -- possibly be represented in less space, or with less energy, than the atom itself?
The answer to that is painfully obvious because you'd do it the same way we do it in games. You only model what the player is interacting with at full resolution. Everything else operates on a simpler level. And since most of the actors in the simulation are experiencing the same little corner of the simulation, most of the universe can be modeled in quite gross terms. You don't need a system larger than the known universe to model the known universe if you're
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. When someone jumps from "hey here's a hypothetical philosophy thing to ponder about the possibility of a simulated universe to 'this is a scientific theory', that would be silly because they have something inherently non-falsifiable. But in the context of the hypothesis, anything is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
How might a single atom or particle -- let alone all of its characteristics -- possibly be represented in less space, or with less energy, than the atom itself? It would be paradoxical; a logical impossibility.
My hypothetical would be that *we* think an atom is a fundamental building block, but a universe simulating us may see it as a quaint, oversimplification of something we couldn't even imagine. As I said in my post, for comparison something that we make would make the same argument about a textured triangle being a fundamental particle. In terms of scale, a universe that we simulate would be smaller than our own, but that universe couldn't conceptualize that they are small compared to us.
Or alternatively, ev
Re: (Score:2)
How might a single atom or particle -- let alone all of its characteristics --
possibly be represented in less space, or with less energy, than the atom itself?
We have no way of knowing if the results of the experiments
that establish physical rules - such as the existence of these supposed "characteristics" -
are just some crap made up in a game that someone else is playing.
If our observations of the universe are a result of a
simulation, then nothing can be relied upon including
the evidence for the simulation itself.
It's all nothing but circular bullshit, like most of philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we apply our critical thinking to work on the philosophical conundrum of sunflowers and their marital status?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not bullshit. The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet. Given unlimited computer power. If so then many intelligent beings may be doing this. So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance. Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation. Why are you conscience or a sentient being? Thru programming or natural selection? We don't know, but it is not bullshit.
There's no way to know if you are only programmed to /think/ you're conscious.
/And as far as astronomical computer resources are concerned: don't forget that a simulations don't have to run in real time -- a simulated person would never know the difference if it takes a millennium to render each 'frame'.
//And it may have been turned on a fraction of a second ago, will all past events and 'history' programmed in from its inception as launch parameters.
Re: (Score:3)
Given unlimited computer power.
Unlimited computing power violates the laws of physics, so you can't just throw that in and expect a valid conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
As I put in another comment, there is no reason to presume that the platform running the simulation is any way constrained by the laws of physics within the simulation.
Re: (Score:2)
It violates our laws of physics, not theirs.
I think it IS bullshit (Score:2)
It only looks like it's a 1 in a billion chance we're not simulated... as long as you say "Let's assume..."
The problem is you start with the assumption there are all these higher level simulations running. In actuality, we have a sample size of 1 (reality), and no determination of its status.
Furthermore, this kind of self flagellation raises the obvious point that the existence containing the computer on which we were being simulated would probably ALSO merely a simulation because the same logic would appl
Re: I think it IS bullshit (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if I could. This is old news, but like you suggest the whole supposition rests on a meaningless 'if..' and then it's simulations all the way down.
It's pointless stoner thinking. Like wow man, imagine if like colours were actually sounds. Far out man.
Re: (Score:1)
''It's not bullshit.''
Agreed.
''The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet.''
Only if there's one observer on that single planet [unless said planet only has one point of view -- Borg like].
But the point is moot, until the point the goldfish escape the bowl. Otherwise, our model exists 100 percent inside the bowl.
Somewhat like proving life after death, following billions upon billions of human death.. we've not found one able to return to the bowl. Doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance.
Why not 10 to the power google? That's every bit a justifyable as 1 in a billion.
Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation.
Where the fuck do you get that from?