Physicists Testing To See If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Kitebasher said:
I think it is a side effect of the red pill. They did not tell me it would come with spastic colon.
Click to expand...

You should take a fiber tablet.

AHA! That was only a simulated fiber tablet. It has fixed nothing! Pfizer is a lie!

But now, the question you must ask yourself is...was the red pill simulated? And if so, couldn't the diarrhea you blasted out of your ass in fact be a memory dump designed to stabilize your algorithm?
 
C'mon guys, everyone knows that the Earth is just a reality TV show for the rest of the galaxy to enjoy. It's common knowledge that all beings have their own planet and Earth is just an experiment to see how we all get along on one planet. It's just a good thing Kenny kept that picture of the execs doing naughty stuff so they won't cancel us!
 
Stiletto said:
You should take a fiber tablet.

AHA! That was only a simulated fiber tablet. It has fixed nothing! Pfizer is a lie!

But now, the question you must ask yourself is...was the red pill simulated? And if so, couldn't the diarrhea you blasted out of your ass in fact be a memory dump designed to stabilize your algorithm?
Click to expand...

I stabilize my algorithm once a day with the help of the twins, poo'ing has nothing to do with that. Unless I am making a youtube video.
 
distortion69 said:
If this were true simply studying schizophrenics would point out the consistency in their arguments. As it is, schizophrenics just talk a bunch of nonsense. I have a few schizo's in my family, most just talk about random shit like winning the lottery, and memorizing the bible because they are a profit.
Click to expand...

Could not a simulator's voice have told them those things, or to say/do those things. It's impossible to truly know what some other knows, and experiences, and what their real motives are, I figure.
 
devil_trigger said:
C'mon guys, everyone knows that the Earth is just a reality TV show for the rest of the galaxy to enjoy. It's common knowledge that all beings have their own planet and Earth is just an experiment to see how we all get along on one planet. It's just a good thing Kenny kept that picture of the execs doing naughty stuff so they won't cancel us!
Click to expand...

Having thought about this subject for years, I tend to imagine earth is an intergalactic prison for the psychotic and demented. To let all the crazies bother each other, instead of normal entities. ;)
 
There's a lot of people who think this is a new idea, but it isn't. The earliest mention I've seen of it was in the 70s, but it seemed to gain more steam in the 80s and 90s.

And there's evidence for this too, in the way the universe operates when it's being observed and not observed.

Funnily enough, computer games do this by only drawing or generating the viewable area to the observer, and not having to process what's hidden. This is why FPS takes a giant hike when you're looking at the floor. We all know this after even a brief time playing games, and it makes sense from a design standpoint. You can get more mileage out of your hardware being more efficient.

So the question is, does being a simulation mean anything in the end? I have to say I question my agnosticism a little more as time rolls on and lean more towards the belief in a god than not.

That's sort of the elephant in the room and in the back of many minds when they start talking about the meta issues, and the biggest one is god. Not nessecarily a personal god, like the god of christian or jewish belief, but an intelligence. Perhaps it doesn't care about us one whit.

From a common sense perspective however, if the parent universe who's simulating us is anything like us in terms of reality, then the chances they have the ability to simulate a universe close to their own is unlikely. It's probably going to require more processing power than that universe is capable of. That is unless theirs is quite a bit different then ours. In that case, I would say the "simulator" would be to us, indistinguishable from god.
 
Thing is Wixard, in an FPS game you have no way of knowing the world is not fully rendered (unless the game dev is lazy). Same principle applies to universes, if they didn't want us to know we would not, it could be as simple as modifying our brains to think we saw the universe rendered when we did not. It may be too much to render even what we see, but it is not too much to render the thought that we saw it in our minds, brains are on the order of 10^15 flops, simply converting the mass of a planet like Jupiter to nanorobotic computers would get 10^50 flops or so, more than enough to fake anything in our brains.
 
Well and are they proving a shared simulation, or is there a single working POV (think FPS)? Maybe it's a multiplayer match and there are several working POV's? The rest of you are NPC's, sorry.

In that case, it would be really wierd for NPCs (all of you who are not me) to prove the universe is a simulation to me. Of for one of you to prove to me I'm an NPC..... damn, that would be annoying.
 
devil22 said:
Thing is Wixard, in an FPS game you have no way of knowing the world is not fully rendered (unless the game dev is lazy). Same principle applies to universes, if they didn't want us to know we would not, it could be as simple as modifying our brains to think we saw the universe rendered when we did not. It may be too much to render even what we see, but it is not too much to render the thought that we saw it in our minds, brains are on the order of 10^15 flops, simply converting the mass of a planet like Jupiter to nanorobotic computers would get 10^50 flops or so, more than enough to fake anything in our brains.
Click to expand...


Yea it's sort of the old brain in the vat.

For speed I think you're assuming real time. If you were to simulate a person and slow down the process, they wouldn't know how quickly they were going. (relativity, another concept) To have a truly 1:1 simulation you really couldn't cut any corners though, as you're saying.

I guess you're right in that if jupiter was somehow converted into a colossal super computer you could shove someone's brain in a vat. That idea has been around since Aristotle, and perhaps it's right. We're talking more of a 1:1 simulation. If their universe is like ours, it's not really going to be a realistic possibility. That's what I said, their universe, or whatever reality it is, is going to have to be much different from what we see in order to simulate another, similar and functioning universe.

Then the obvious question comes up, what happens when your simulation, begets another simulation, into another and another and so on.

The chances of our universe being second in the chain would be beyond low. Which is why the universe above us, must either be radically different, or we're not a simulation. Each "daughter" universe is going to have less and less access to computational power through a reduction in both actual resources and the impact of inefficiency.
 
I don't believe that the Universe is a simulation. Why? Because if you have a bunch of people stand in front of a large mirror holding another mirror, the resulting "infinite images" doesn't slow the computer running the simulation down.

Esoteric reason? Maybe, but then again, so is believing the world is a simulation in the first place.
 
I read "The Simulation Argument" a while back. Not a fan. I can explain a LOT of things that are patently not true using "Logic", and that is basically all this guy is doing.

Section 3 is basically just a glorified "Because Magic" argument. Even if you accept the mathematical arguments in that section (which the paper itself admits are just WAG's) you still run up against the issue of basic physics causing it to require, at minimum, a planet sized computer with a solar-system sized energy plant. He uses "because magic" to work around this issue, which is a complete failure. The concept that this would be so trivial a computer to build that not only would it be built but "hugely many" of them would be built just to run fairly pointless ancestor simulations, is ridiculous, and once you take away section 3 the whole thing falls apart.

But even if you ignore this fail, you still have the problem with his assumption about treating options 1, 2, and 3, as equally likely, which is what he spends sections 5 and 6 trying to get people to accept. The reality is that 1 is so incredibly likely that 2 and 3 don't exist at all. First off, the very concept of a Posthuman society as he describes it is another "Because Magic" argument. We have no reason at all to believe that anything resembling that will ever come about. Human history, what we know of physics and chemistry, basically everything the universe is telling us says it will literally never happen, even if we imagine all manner of other intelligent lifeforms throughout the universe, it still doesn't become feasible. It not only is close to 0, but it actually is 0.
 
ballistic90 said:
I don't believe that the Universe is a simulation. Why? Because if you have a bunch of people stand in front of a large mirror holding another mirror, the resulting "infinite images" doesn't slow the computer running the simulation down.

Esoteric reason? Maybe, but then again, so is believing the world is a simulation in the first place.
Click to expand...

The premise is that a computer only simulates each human and their experiences individually. So the computer doesn't simulate the mirrors at all, it just simulates what you think you see when you look into the mirrors, and that is very finite, and indeed our brains fuzz a lot of that out anyway.

Doesn't mean you are wrong, I think you are entirely right, just that your understanding of the simulation concept as explained in this paper is flawed.
 
ballistic90 said:
I don't believe that the Universe is a simulation. Why? Because if you have a bunch of people stand in front of a large mirror holding another mirror, the resulting "infinite images" doesn't slow the computer running the simulation down.
Click to expand...

What if it's running on a processor and GPU with speeds so vast we can't even comprehend them? What if it's like running Half-Life on a maxed out EE Intel CPU with quad-SLIed 690s?
 
Stiletto said:
What if it's running on a processor and GPU with speeds so vast we can't even comprehend them? What if it's like running Half-Life on a maxed out EE Intel CPU with quad-SLIed 690s?
Click to expand...

The idea I am thinking of is that we create a sudden, massive increase in the amount of "world" that needs to be simulated that could not be compensated for by an equipment upgrade fast enough that a slowdown couldn't be avoided.
 
Wixard said:
There's a lot of people who think this is a new idea, but it isn't. The earliest mention I've seen of it was in the 70s, but it seemed to gain more steam in the 80s and 90s.

And there's evidence for this too, in the way the universe operates when it's being observed and not observed.

Funnily enough, computer games do this by only drawing or generating the viewable area to the observer, and not having to process what's hidden. This is why FPS takes a giant hike when you're looking at the floor. We all know this after even a brief time playing games, and it makes sense from a design standpoint. You can get more mileage out of your hardware being more efficient.

So the question is, does being a simulation mean anything in the end? I have to say I question my agnosticism a little more as time rolls on and lean more towards the belief in a god than not.

That's sort of the elephant in the room and in the back of many minds when they start talking about the meta issues, and the biggest one is god. Not nessecarily a personal god, like the god of christian or jewish belief, but an intelligence. Perhaps it doesn't care about us one whit.

From a common sense perspective however, if the parent universe who's simulating us is anything like us in terms of reality, then the chances they have the ability to simulate a universe close to their own is unlikely. It's probably going to require more processing power than that universe is capable of. That is unless theirs is quite a bit different then ours. In that case, I would say the "simulator" would be to us, indistinguishable from god.
Click to expand...

The universe above us has to be just like our universe in this theory. Otherwise they would not be doing an ancestor simulation, they would just be making stuff up. As to needing more than a universe of power... The paper is basically assuming that the purpose of the simulation would be focused on simulating humans, not the entire universe. So the computers only simulate what we observe as we observe it and doesn't need to simulate the entire universe. It just simulates our observation of the universe instead. And indeed, if someone were to notice any kind of failure in the simulation the simulation could just correct our observation of that moment after the fact and nobody would be the wiser.
 
arentol said:
The premise is that a computer only simulates each human and their experiences individually. So the computer doesn't simulate the mirrors at all, it just simulates what you think you see when you look into the mirrors, and that is very finite, and indeed our brains fuzz a lot of that out anyway.

Doesn't mean you are wrong, I think you are entirely right, just that your understanding of the simulation concept as explained in this paper is flawed.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. When no one is looking at a table, is the table still there? If you leave a room with no one in it, will it still be like that when someone does come in? If so, then the simulation needs to track everything, even if no one is there to experience it. A table that is not watched doesn't float in the air, so gravity is constantly being calculated. A light source that you don't notice or see can still shine light into your field of view, so all aspects of that light still needs to be calculated and constantly updated.

Even if no one is looking at an object, the state of the object and each of the molecules and atoms still need to be at the very least stored for when someone does encounter it next, or else the state of the object would constantly be reset when you left it alone for a while. My kitchen table at home still has every knick and cut in the surface it had when I left this morning, so it's being at the very least, tracked.
 
devil22 said:
Having thought about this subject for years, I tend to imagine earth is an intergalactic prison for the psychotic and demented. To let all the crazies bother each other, instead of normal entities. ;)
Click to expand...

That's funny, I've been thinking something similar. You just keep getting reborn here, until you do it right, and can rejoin proper society!
 
Otherwise, if it's a computer simulation, I'm classifying it as "Abandonware"
 
Original paper is Philosophical trolling.

Make up outrageous premise, write paper attempting to defend of it, make profit on interviews, speaking fee, books.
 
ballistic90 said:
Not entirely. When no one is looking at a table, is the table still there? If you leave a room with no one in it, will it still be like that when someone does come in? If so, then the simulation needs to track everything, even if no one is there to experience it. A table that is not watched doesn't float in the air, so gravity is constantly being calculated. A light source that you don't notice or see can still shine light into your field of view, so all aspects of that light still needs to be calculated and constantly updated.

Even if no one is looking at an object, the state of the object and each of the molecules and atoms still need to be at the very least stored for when someone does encounter it next, or else the state of the object would constantly be reset when you left it alone for a while. My kitchen table at home still has every knick and cut in the surface it had when I left this morning, so it's being at the very least, tracked.
Click to expand...

You're making myopic assumptions based on the known attributes of our universe at the current time. If our universe is a simulation, it's likely that the beings running our universe simulation would have computing power and technology well beyond what we can even fathom. Relative to their universe, our universe might be very rudimentary.
 
Would explain a lot if it was all just a dream, who knows there are some things that cannot be answered as they are beyond what math and theory can explain, I think it's just our nature to try and find something beyond what we already are.
 
arentol said:
The universe above us has to be just like our universe in this theory. Otherwise they would not be doing an ancestor simulation, they would just be making stuff up. As to needing more than a universe of power... The paper is basically assuming that the purpose of the simulation would be focused on simulating humans, not the entire universe. So the computers only simulate what we observe as we observe it and doesn't need to simulate the entire universe. It just simulates our observation of the universe instead. And indeed, if someone were to notice any kind of failure in the simulation the simulation could just correct our observation of that moment after the fact and nobody would be the wiser.
Click to expand...

What theory was it that nothing exists until observed? Maybe that's their way of majorly, and I mean majorly cutting down on the resource required to power such a simulation? ;)
 
ballistic90 said:
Not entirely. When no one is looking at a table, is the table still there? If you leave a room with no one in it, will it still be like that when someone does come in? If so, then the simulation needs to track everything, even if no one is there to experience it. A table that is not watched doesn't float in the air, so gravity is constantly being calculated. A light source that you don't notice or see can still shine light into your field of view, so all aspects of that light still needs to be calculated and constantly updated.

Even if no one is looking at an object, the state of the object and each of the molecules and atoms still need to be at the very least stored for when someone does encounter it next, or else the state of the object would constantly be reset when you left it alone for a while. My kitchen table at home still has every knick and cut in the surface it had when I left this morning, so it's being at the very least, tracked.
Click to expand...

True, but maybe they've developed some kind of beyond comprehension algorithm that can accurately predict where everything should end up at any given moment of observation, as opposed to "tracking" everything at every single moment. For example, we know where the Earth will be located in 3 years relative to the Sun, and where the Sun will be located relative to the Milky Way, and even where the Milky Way will be located relative to the local cluster. We have (initial location) + (some equation) = solution. Maybe that's how a simulation would work in real time... observation = (initial location) + (I can't comprehend what I'm saying here) = render reality?

My brain hurts.
 
Parja said:
You're making myopic assumptions based on the known attributes of our universe at the current time. If our universe is a simulation, it's likely that the beings running our universe simulation would have computing power and technology well beyond what we can even fathom. Relative to their universe, our universe might be very rudimentary.
Click to expand...

However, our computational capacity is growing at a rapid rate. Not only that, but our ability to observe the Universe is growing as well. That could, theoretically, require the simulation to fundamentally change to keep up, or the hardware its being changed freqeuntly. The needs of the simulation are expanding fast.

However, that would explain the "no matter or energy can be created or destroyed" BS.
 
blade52x said:
True, but maybe they've developed some kind of beyond comprehension algorithm that can accurately predict where everything should end up at any given moment of observation, as opposed to "tracking" everything at every single moment. For example, we know where the Earth will be located in 3 years relative to the Sun, and where the Sun will be located relative to the Milky Way, and even where the Milky Way will be located relative to the local cluster. We have (initial location) + (some equation) = solution. Maybe that's how a simulation would work in real time... observation = (initial location) + (I can't comprehend what I'm saying here) = render reality?

My brain hurts.
Click to expand...

The objects would need to be tracked, because plenty of things can happen to a location that is not being observed, for example. Say, a house being hit by two catastrophies when no one is watching, a mater main exploding, and then a meteorite hits it. Little things like the location and condition of every little part of the house to the order of catastrophies and the time of each hit can play a part of the outcome.
 
We are definitely living in a simulation, a game. Our characters are human and our actions are driven by our spirits. See, this game was designed by God, and it has rules to follow, called physics. The pixels are pretty darn small too.

This explanation allows for all known theories: ghosts, re-incarnation, life after death, religion, aliens, demons...etc...
 
c4v3man said:
They do realize that IF they screw up and come to the conclusion that reality is a simulation, that a bunch of idiots will go around raping/pillaging/murdering right?
Click to expand...

Yeah...because that isn't happening already. :rolleyes:
 
c4v3man said:
They do realize that IF they screw up and come to the conclusion that reality is a simulation, that a bunch of idiots will go around raping/pillaging/murdering right?
Click to expand...

You're saying they'll act like the monsters in Garth Ennis's and Jacen Burrows's Avatar comic series Crossed? http://www.crossedcomic.com/
crossed-wywh-header.jpg
 
Just stupid.....so who proposed the universe is a simulation anyway? and what evidence or factual basis did they have for doing that?......you don't just pull hypothesis out of your rear just because there is no evidence to the contrary......you have to have some factual reason for making the proposal.
 
ballistic90 said:
Not entirely. When no one is looking at a table, is the table still there? If you leave a room with no one in it, will it still be like that when someone does come in? If so, then the simulation needs to track everything, even if no one is there to experience it. A table that is not watched doesn't float in the air, so gravity is constantly being calculated. A light source that you don't notice or see can still shine light into your field of view, so all aspects of that light still needs to be calculated and constantly updated.

Even if no one is looking at an object, the state of the object and each of the molecules and atoms still need to be at the very least stored for when someone does encounter it next, or else the state of the object would constantly be reset when you left it alone for a while. My kitchen table at home still has every knick and cut in the surface it had when I left this morning, so it's being at the very least, tracked.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.... The simulation would only need to calculate that which is actually being observed or about to be observed, and the rest could just be stored. We don't see atoms and molecules so their basic information would be stored, there if needed, but not calculated on an ongoing basis. You could look right at the table and the simulation would only need to simulate the table as a single complete object, not as trillions of atoms. Things that go unobserved for an extended period and change during that time, like when something fades after being left in the sun for a long time, would just get retroactively updated whenever someone got close to observing them. It would be insanely complex to program by human standards, but since it would be programmed by AI's with brains the size of Jupiter, it would be entirely doable (at least if you believe some of the earlier premises, which as I said earlier you shouldn't).
 
blade52x said:
What theory was it that nothing exists until observed? Maybe that's their way of majorly, and I mean majorly cutting down on the resource required to power such a simulation? ;)
Click to expand...

This is the original paper that REALLY got this subject going:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

And this is the part from the paper that I am referencing:

"Moreover, a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. "

Basically that is the only way the guy can get the computing power for an ancestor simulation low enough to be even vaguely feasible. Obviously simulating just every atom would take computing power thousands of times greater than what you are simulating, making it stupid and pointless. So by simulating only what we perceive and doing (relatively) low level tracking on everything else the computing power requirement is cut back by many orders of magnitude and it becomes vaguely conceivable to do this kind of thing with a planet-sized computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top