I remember my philosophy professor criticizing computer-simulation solipsism. He argued that it is impossible for a computer simulation to keep track of everything’s position so that no two things occupy the same space.
He was, apparently, unaware of or found cause to discount CT scan data which represents space as a discrete rather than contiguous field.
~Max
It does not follow that an entity simulating our universe has any control over our universe whatsoever. It does not even follow that, just because an entity is or could be simulating our universe, our existence is limited to that simulation.
The abstract number ‘2’ could very well exist in a platonic form, regardless of whether I am thinking of it or your computer is using it or some alien on Mars is thinking of it.
~Max
Yes, it’s sophistry. It’s merely a science-y way of saying the same thing as goddidit. And capable of the same flaws. Just as some people jokingly or seriously say that god made the universe last Thursday but created it with all the evidence of a past, a simulation could do the same. Was this thread even here when the sim started or were the first 40 posts created as backstory? Has this thread been restarted or recreated 50 times? Or a billion? Did a capital G god create a billion universes to try them out? Will our universe change tomorrow? Is tomorrow even a term in such a metareality?
Once you start with the premise that nothing is real, you’re quickly led down the road toward nothing is sayable about reality. Your memory, your senses, your evidence all become not just untrustworthy but meaningless. So does your philosophy. Nothing “follows.”
I would say regardless of the entity’s control over the simulation, its ability to set off such a complex and massive simulation is akin to the powers of any God I’ve ever imagined, and beyond the powers of any non-Gods I’ve ever heard about, too.
Each and every one of us lives in a simulation made by our respective brains. Brains do not have direct access to the “real” world, they must rely on senses, and from that sensorial data they must build the world “outside”. They literally imagine it. And they are pretty good at it: the brains guide us through all our lives until we die, I count that as success. So yes, we each live in a simulation, only it is not a computer simulation, it is a biological one, or rather, many. It is amazing that those many simulations are compatible with one another to a degree that allows us to live together in a coherent and mostly predictable enough manner (more or less). Proof again of how good they are.
Of course, some simulations are in screen saver modus most of the time. Damned pity.
I don’t have faith in God or the Simulation Hypothesis, but it is interesting to construct thought experiments about the latter.
Invoking Occam’s razor, what would be the simplest explanation for a simulated universe? Perhaps quantum mechanics is the only reality, and everything else is an illusion of our collective consciousness that formed instantaneously and temporarily in one vacuum fluctuation. No special or general relativity. No space or time. Just a fabricated consciousness that believes the illusion of being created and existing in a universe of infinite space and time. The only thing infinite may be vacuum fluctuations and the universe we believe we exist in feels anthropic. We’re a QM fluctuation that believes it’s real.
…or, maybe I should slow down on the medical weed.
Nah. I mean, consider many hypothetical universes depending on a bunch of parameters, which if life is but a dream you have no idea what they might be, but suppose for the sake of argument that the type of “real” world we observe is very probable while the more complicated type of universes required to simulate the “real” world are very unlikely. Or some hand-waving to that effect.
But how do you know the programmer has control over the simulation? He might be able to tweak the constants, and single step it, and maybe even observe some variables, but he won’t be able to understand it unless he has godlike powers already.
I’ve written lots of simulators, mostly of computers and digital circuits, and I can’t understand all that they were doing. Nor would I live long enough to wait for the simulation to simulate any significant amount of code or vectors.
It’s comforting to know that philosophy professors disputing the hypothesis are as clueless as the ones supporting it.
I love it that philosophers supporting the simulation hypothesis wouldn’t know a simulation if it bit them on the butt.
Simulations require computation, computation requires energy. That’s pretty much a natural law. Simulating a complete universe would require practically a universe’s worth of energy. If people in your simulated universe simulate a universe, that at least doubles it. If N cultures in your universe do it, that takes N times the energy. If all of their simulations include N cultures doing simulation, It’s N**2. Pretty soon you won’t be able to pay your power bill, even if you can toss stars around.
And don’t tell me you won’t simulate the stuff no one is looking at. It is doable, but it would probably take more computation than just simulating everything, especially since if you simulate things that change, you’d have to go back and run the simulation for that thing between times someone looked at it.
There is the level of granularity. Planck time looks like a simulation step, sure, but it is a very low level one. We simulate at different levels. If you are simulating logic, like I’ve done, you don’t do the transistors. If you are simulating an instruction set, you don’t do the logic. We maybe could simulate a processor at the transistor level, but why?
Finally, we simulate things for a reason. Why do a whole universe simulation, especially one as big and which has run so long as ours. By the same probability argument they use, the vast majority of simulated universes would be small and young, so our universe is extremely unlikely to be simulated.
God could simulate us, but no one else. And why would he bother.
But wait - the suckers love tech things. Who wants to join me in forming a new religion? We could clean up!
That’s a natural law in our universe. We know nothing about the rules in a universe that could simulate our universe.
You cannot logic your way to a religious or magical concept.
Couldn’t simulated magnetic fields turn a simulated motor if that is written into the program?
The only slightly more interesting prediction is whether or not he’ll return to his topic to respond.
I thought it was Machinaforce with yet another question about solipsism or nihilism or whether reality really exists. Whatever happened to that person? (Not that I want them back.)
One reason I could think of off the top of my head is as a learning device. Simulating the universe at a Planck level could serve a similar function: teach students something, or even just discover something about how to make complex phenomena emerge from simple rules.
@Exapno_Mapcase makes the good point that we can’t reliably make any assumptions about the parent universe, but one hypothesis as to why a simulation even exists is that very advanced people are simulating their ancestors to learn something about their world. In such a case, I’d imagine our physics resemble those of the parent universe. But it tells us nothing about the scale of energy, space, or anything else in their universe. Perhaps running a simulation which would require more energy than could ever be available to us is energetically trivial to them. Who knows?
That ant colony you keep in your bedroom is full of ants that think they are living perfectly normal Formiciinae lives.
Who’s to say that we aren’t in a sim running on some kid’s computer?
Who could then say that that kid isn’t in a sim as well?
I quipped at a Con, “Nobody wants to read Conan the Accountant where the conflict in the story is whether he’ll wear the red or the blue necktie.”
I’ve actually seen some theoretical physicists say the changes are near 100%. And I’ve seen some who say the chances are…very very low (you never hear the TP say 0 on anything…or 100% on anything).
So, no, he’s not joking. He probably is being abstract though. 
As to your second paragraph, I guess it depends on the nature of the ancestor simulation we are in. If you are the (or an I guess) main character, then you play through your ‘life’, experiencing what the programmers think was your ancestors ‘life’, then when you ‘die’ you come back to reality or whatever and perhaps play again as a Roman or something. Maybe literally everyone else (including me 
) are NPCs. Perhaps you are the only player. Or, maybe you are an NPC and I’m a player. Or we all are players. As I said, it depends on the nature of the simulation. Maybe none of us are players, and we are all AI’s and the simulation is just a way to test different parameters. The point is, the programmer probably ARE jerks since that’s the nature of programmers and IT people. 
I actually like the idea of a simulation, but then I’m a big fan of infinite inflation and multi-worlds hypothesis since it’s a way that I am immortal. But honestly, I think this is something only very few people (and NDGT is probably one of those) who understand this enough to really have an opinion that is grounded in…well, more than fantasy I guess.
I’d like to see a consistent universe without a conservation of energy law.
Most adherents of this view that I’ve seen think they have sophisticated views of technology. However they are pretty much like those who said AI is impossible because computers are just big adding machines.
The really religious types don’t buy this, of course.
I’d love to see the grant proposal. “Term of research - 100 billion years.” Or more, simulations are always way slower than reality.
Simulating a tiny universe for a short time I can certainly see. We don’t live in such a universe.
More energy than we have is not a problem. I was talking about more energy than the universe has.
On the other hand, next time you see a supernova, you can say “oops, another simulation crashed.”
