Do you believe it's possible the world is a simulation?

[Riemann]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Yeah, but, see, you experience stuff, and if this is a simulation you’re not dying in an unpleasant way; by contrast, the living things that do die in unpleasant ways could just be a framing device: they act like background characters in someone else’s story, but they’re just animated images going through the motions as if they’re suffering.

(What? If it’s a simulation, the whole setting is up for grabs.)

Well, more seriously - any entity that has developed the technology to simulate universes will probably be utterly beyond our comprehension. I think the relationship between it and us would be comparable to our relationship with ants or even bacteria. It might be impossible for us to understand its nature and motivations.

I’ve said that I think such an entity is the only credible idea that corresponds somewhat to the idea of “God”, if only in the sense of near-omnipotence from our point of view. If it were real I think it would certainly have the property of appearing to us to “work in mysterious ways”.

[Riemann]

@Eugene_of_Sandwich

Nope. There’s room there in your question for a philosophical discussion about the meaning of life but if you’re having a hard time accepting the reality of this physical world and our existence within it you really need to see a shrink.

What on earth in the OP prompts you to be so rude?

[Sage_Rat]

@QuickSilver

Endless recursive calls, all the way down.

Say that the world is made of Lego blocks. There is not and cannot be anything smaller than a Lego block. You could put a bunch of blocks together in the shape of a single, larger block. But there’s no way to arrange them so that you have more blocks than you started with.

Assuming that logic is true, regardless of reality, then there wouldn’t be endless recursion. You can only simulate a universe if there’s enough material/energy to simulate one. And since each simulation needs a creator, the material in each universe must be split between at least the creator and the simulation, meaning that the simulation always has fewer materials available than its parent. Thus, at some point, there will be a universe which does not have enough resources to create any child simulations.

[Sage_Rat]

@levdrakon

I hope not, because whoever made the universe, made it knowing there’d be suffering and death. All life on Earth eventually dies, and most living things die in unpleasant ways. Very few things die of old age, or peacefully. Our creator would have to be a dick of cosmic proportions. I think I prefer that no one did that on purpose.

Ever heard of procreation?

[billfish678]

@Riemann

What on earth in the OP prompts you to be so rude?

Defective subroutine.

[Arrogance_Ex_Machina]

@levdrakon

I hope not, because whoever made the universe, made it knowing there’d be suffering and death. All life on Earth eventually dies, and most living things die in unpleasant ways. Very few things die of old age, or peacefully. Our creator would have to be a dick of cosmic proportions. I think I prefer that no one did that on purpose.

I guess you’ve never played or seen anybody play any of the Simcity games where you can inflict catastrophes on your own city.

As for the OP, the whole world being a simulation is a more believable thing than any of the gods I’ve heard about. Doesn’t change much either way though, real or not it is real enough to us.

[Sage_Rat]

@beowulff

If it’s a simulation, I’m hoping that the Creators tweak my parameters so that I don’t have to work out so damn hard to gain size!

As I pointed out in a recent thread, based on the size of a quark, it would be almost impossible to force their structure into the creation of a human being. We’re almost certainly an emergent structure which has developed from the rules imposed on a simple underlying system that has a random component for resolving interactions. Potentially, there’s too much data for us to ever be found by the creators. Or, plausibly, there could be a law to not interact with emergent life, as it would be immoral to do so.

[levdrakon]

@Eugene_of_Sandwich

Nope. There’s room there in your question for a philosophical discussion about the meaning of life but if you’re having a hard time accepting the reality of this physical world and our existence within it you really need to see a shrink.

Tell that to all the theoretical physicists who accept the simulated universe as a valid possibility.

[QuickSilver]

@Sage_Rat

Say that the world is made of Lego blocks. There is not and cannot be anything smaller than a Lego block. You could put a bunch of blocks together in the shape of a single, larger block. But there’s no way to arrange them so that you have more blocks than you started with.

Assuming that logic is true, regardless of reality, then there wouldn’t be endless recursion. You can only simulate a universe if there’s enough material/energy to simulate one. And since each simulation needs a creator, the material in each universe must be split between at least the creator and the simulation, meaning that the simulation always has fewer materials available than its parent. Thus, at some point, there will be a universe which does not have enough resources to create any child simulations.

That’s when you get an ABEND CODE: 0C4.

[levdrakon]

@Arrogance_Ex_Machina

I guess you’ve never played or seen anybody play any of the Simcity games where you can inflict catastrophes on your own city.

As for the OP, the whole world being a simulation is a more believable thing than any of the gods I’ve heard about. Doesn’t change much either way though, real or not it is real enough to us.

I’ve played Sims, and I’ve killed them in various ways, because I’m kind of a dick that way, and I know they aren’t actually feeling anything. If I created things that did feel, I’d be a dick for making them suffer, wouldn’t I?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Riemann

An entity that arose in a real universe, and then developed the technology to simulate universes. Or an entity that arose in a simulated universe, and then developed the technology to run simulations within the simulation.

The idea that our universe is a simulation run by such an entity either for some purpose or just for entertainment is the only notion of “God” that I think is worth entertaining a real possibility. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke, any entity with sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a God with magical powers.

A little tongue in cheek, obviously - this is a little like college students getting high and speculating about solipsism - but the underlying idea seems valid to me.

God wants porn, then. OK, I’m down with that.

[Pantastic]

@Riemann

In the latter link, note “Bostrom’s trilemma”. There is an idea that if any self-aware intelligent species develop technology, they will eventually be able to simulate many universes, and will do so. Therefore, we should expect many more simulated universes than real universes. Therefore, our own universe is more likely to be a simulation than real.

This is one of those things where if you string together a bunch of unfounded assumptions you can reach whatever conclusion you want. It’s not just develop technology, it’s ‘develop superhuman technology,’ with ‘superhuman’ conveniently undefined but assumed to be inevitable. It assumes that a simulation as complicated as the entire universe can be run quickly inside of the universe, which seems more than a bit unlikely, and it recurses down, allowing simulations to run simulations. And it seems to assume that these universe-sized simulations either are so easy to create, run, and observe that beings will spend time running a large number of them to try to simulate their ancestors, rather than (for example) to try new parameters.

Also, the whole category of argument that ‘there are a lot of X and only a little of Y, therefore we must be X because it’s improbably that we would be why’ isn’t logically sound. Someone has to be the first, but if they apply that logic they would determine that they can’t possibly be the first.

The Planck length and quantization in general do kind of look like pixellation, right?

Taking physical phenomena and saying ‘yeah, they kind of look like this computer thing’ isn’t exactly convincing to someone who doesn’t already agree with you, especially since it’s so circular. I mean, what model of particle interactions could the universe operate under that wouldn’t look like pixellation to you?

[Riemann]

@Arrogance_Ex_Machina

…As for the OP, the whole world being a simulation is a more believable thing than any of the gods I’ve heard about…

“Maybe the universe is a simulation” –> Oh my god, you have no grip on reality, you should see a shrink

“God is an omnipotent and omniscient yet anthropomorphic being with an anger-management problem and a history of genocidal behavior who is nevertheless the source of all morality, and who sacrificed his son to himself in order to give himself permission to forgive humans for stuff that happened before they were born involving a talking snake.” –> Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Sage_Rat]

@Pantastic

This is one of those things where if you string together a bunch of unfounded assumptions you can reach whatever conclusion you want. It’s not just develop technology, it’s ‘develop superhuman technology,’ with ‘superhuman’ conveniently undefined but assumed to be inevitable. It assumes that a simulation as complicated as the entire universe can be run quickly inside of the universe, which seems more than a bit unlikely, and it recurses down, allowing simulations to run simulations. And it seems to assume that these universe-sized simulations either are so easy to create, run, and observe that beings will spend time running a large number of them to try to simulate their ancestors, rather than (for example) to try new parameters.

There are already quark simulators, and they will become easier and faster when we move to quantum computers. And knowing that the speed of computers doubles every 18 months, it seems unlikely that there won’t be some simple universe simulators within the next couple of centuries.

It’s unlikely that any species which created devices capable of such computation wouldn’t be scientifically minded. And any scientifically minded species would want to run simulations in order to perform scientific inquiries.

[Lemur866]

“Simulate the Universe”.

What does that mean? Are they simulating the entire universe? That can’t possibly work, you’d need something larger than the universe to simulate the universe. Unless the universe with all the galaxies and such doesn’t actually exist, and the only thing being simulated is our solar system? Why go to that trouble? Why not just simulate the Earth? Heck, why bother simulating the Earth, let’s just simulate the crust and not bother with the ocean depths or more than a few hundred feet deep. And what’s the point of Antarctica?

What’s the supposed purpose of the simulation? How far back does the simulation go? Does it simulate every physical process in the observable universe since the Big Bang? Or did it start last Thursday?

A simulation that simulates the entire universe is nonsensical. If there’s a higher more complicated universe that allows our entire simpler universe to be simulated within it, what’s the point of saying our universe is a “simulated” universe?

[dracoi]

A simulation of a universe could probably work if you implemented it kind of like a fractal When you have one human looking at another human, you show one level of detail. If one of them pulls out a magnifying glass or an electron microscope or a particle accelerator, you “zoom in” on the fractal equations to show as much detail as is relevant to the simulation.

If the universe was implemented that way, there’s a good bet we could eventually figure it out and model it for ourselves. And then we would naturally run our own simulations using the same fractal laws of the universe.

Anyway, I do concede the possibility.

I agree with Pantastic, though. It is an enormous mistake to assume that such simulations are inevitable. Trying to simulate the movement of every body in the solar system or every molecule in a hurricane… these things are not going to be possible just because we keep following Moore’s law or we implement quantum computing. There is an enormous gap between “not impossible” and “inevitable” that needs to be taken into account.

I almost find it more plausible to take the theory that our universe is inside a black hole, and extend that to say that you can actually simulate and observe a universe in an artificial singularity. But in that case, it’s not actually a simulation except for the origin of the singularity. Everything inside would be no more or less real than the ones observing it.

[mascaroni]

@levdrakon

Tell that to all the theoretical physicists who accept the simulated universe as a valid possibility.

I think ‘theoretical’ is the clue there.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Lemur866

A simulation that simulates the entire universe is nonsensical. If there’s a higher more complicated universe that allows our entire simpler universe to be simulated within it, what’s the point of saying our universe is a “simulated” universe?

This paragraph makes no sense to me. I would take it as a given that “outer” universes need to be more complex than inner universes. The “point” of saying that our universe is simulated is to help us understand the nature of the universe we live in. Whether the hypothesis proves to be correct or not, it strikes me as a worthwhile concept for exploration.

[Pantastic]

@Sage_Rat

There are already quark simulators, and they will become easier and faster when we move to quantum computers. And knowing that the speed of computers doubles every 18 months, it seems unlikely that there won’t be some simple universe simulators within the next couple of centuries.

There are no quark simulators that can simulate a fairly simple macro-scale object like a car at the quark level, much less all 10^80 particles estimated to be in the observable universe. Where are you even going to store all of the information to simulate 10^80 particles and coordinate it across your simulation?

And Moore’s law is not a law of nature, it was an observation that has functioned as a law because chip makers considered it a reasonable goal and worked to meet it. It is going to come to an end long before centuries are up.

It’s unlikely that any species which created devices capable of such computation wouldn’t be scientifically minded. And any scientifically minded species would want to run simulations in order to perform scientific inquiries.

This is what I mean about chaining a bunch of unsubstantiated claims together. This is just bald assertion presented as inevitable truth, with a bunch of undefined terms thrown in. What is a “scientifically minded species,” exactly? Are humans one? How do you determine that any species creating computers will want to run fully detailed universe simulations, when there are many other things to spend time, computation, matter, and energy on?

[Sage_Rat]

@Lemur866

What does that mean? Are they simulating the entire universe?

Unless you have evidence that the rest of the universe, outside of our solar system, is just a wall painting and not actually there, the current indication would be that the simulation encompasses the whole universe (if it is one).

That can’t possibly work, you’d need something larger than the universe to simulate the universe.

Yes(ish). We have world simulators, that are used to study the atmosphere, global warming, weather, etc. They simulate the entire Earth but probably fit within a regular desktop computer.

The nice thing about data is it can be represented by very small particles.

If you have a universe with 10^1000^1000^googleplex particles, it wouldn’t be too hard to create a machine with enough RAM to represent 10^1000^1000 particles.

If we’re a simulation, the only thing we could infer is that the parent universe is larger than ours by a significant amount.

Unless the universe with all the galaxies and such doesn’t actually exist, and the only thing being simulated is our solar system? Why go to that trouble? Why not just simulate the Earth?

Evidence that we’re a scientific simulation rather than, for example, a holodeck simulation for entertainment. Though, in the interest of the holodeck, presenting a realistic universe could still be a goal. Neither you nor I have any evidence that the scientists reporting about the larger universe are telling the truth. All science news could just be copied reports from the real universe, created and distributed by non-AI NPCs.

As the OP mentioned, we could just be brains in jars, with all of the sensations and information we encounter being faked.

Heck, why bother simulating the Earth, let’s just simulate the crust and not bother with the ocean depths or more than a few hundred feet deep. And what’s the point of Antarctica?

Why bother simulating anything at all?

It’s just going to depend on what the goal was of the person who developed the application and/or the person who’s running it. Possibly science, on the interaction of quarks, on the possibility of emergent structures in a random environment, or entertainment.

It’s likely that Earth is just a side-effect of the science.

A simulation that simulates the entire universe is nonsensical. If there’s a higher more complicated universe that allows our entire simpler universe to be simulated within it, what’s the point of saying our universe is a “simulated” universe?

It’s what we’ll call it when we create such simulations ourselves.