# Evidence we're not living in a simulation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/681804 "2014-02-20T17:11:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Tibby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tibby/32/17030_2.png) [@Tibby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tibby)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/681804/81 "2014-03-17T21:07:06Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Solipsism seems unlikely to me just because I know for a fact I’m not smart enough to create this whole world, especially with all the theories I can only vaguely understand. A simulation, at least, solves that problem. **woodstockbirdybird** , Solipsism is indeed the correct _theory of everything_. However, I hate to break it to you, you’re a bit confused about the \*star of the show, the main event, the big cheese, the whole enchilada \*. It’s me, not you. Creation of the universe and everything in it? Piece-a-cake, knocked it out while sitting on the can, dropping the kids off at the pool. Then, one day, between _Jackin’ the Beanstalk_ to thoughts of Betty White in a pair of Daisy Dukes (and nothing else), and trimming my toenails before going to bed…_ **BAM** _, you popped into my head and you’ve been scampering about ever since. You can call me dad if you want. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/681804/82 "2014-03-27T11:51:08Z")
> [@Tibby or Not Tibby](#): > > As Matrix-type simulations, we humans will have real higher order consciousness, but only an illusionary universe to exist in. That is only true of Matrix-type simulations. In many hypothetical simulated universes, the simulated person only exists as software, and has no physical body at all, unless you count the computer he or she is running on. I suspect that Bostrom in particular is talking about simulations that only exist as software running in a computer. > [@](#): > > If we live in a simulated universe, we cannot interact physically with the real universe, only the simulated one. That is not necessarily the case. A software entity/person could interact with the real universe, if he or she were allowed to control an artificial robotic body (which could be as realistic as an advanced civilisation might create, that is to say extremely convincing). Note that the simulee will have to be ‘permitted’ to occupy one of these ‘real’ bodies; I can’t think of a way that a simulee could ‘hack’ their way into such a remote body without the ‘simulator’ knowing about it, but I suppose it might in theory be possible. > [@](#): > > A conscious, self-aware mind, as experienced in the first person, can’t be a simulation, it can only be real. Probably untrue, as noted above. > [@](#): > > Whoever created our real consciousness and simulated universe must themselves have a real higher order consciousness. But, can they themselves live in a simulated universe with no real physical interaction? If we can without breaking physical law, they should be able to as well. Correct. > [@](#): > > If it’s possible for something to create us in a simulated universe, then it follows that it’s possible for our creators to have been created in a simulated universe…ad infinitum. But, is this really possible? I think that, in an infinite universe as postulated by Max Tegmark, some sort of concentric universe is not only possible, but inevitable. Somewhere in this infinite universe there will be a region where simulated universes exist inside other simulated universes and so on; such a region will be a fantastically vast distance away from us, and we will never reach it - but it would exist, and buried deep at its heart would be a region of space-time which is identical to the one you are experiencing, with a copy of you in it. I don’t think that such a region could be an infinite regression if it follows the same sort of physics as our observable universe has (but see below). > [@](#): > > If it’s possible for us to be created in a simulated universe, then it’s possible for our creators to be created in a simulated universe; If it’s not possible for our creators to be created in a simulated universe, then it should not be possible for us have been either. But Tegmark also suggests that there might be an infinity of universes with other physical laws and constraints, If he is right, then an infinite regression of simulations might be a reality somewhere out there, and once again this simulation might contain a simulated version of you in it that has exactly the same experience as you have. > [@](#): > > A paradox lies in there somewhere, I think… Not really. Although a sumulatable universe might be part of an infinite regression if Tegmark is correct, there is no reason that it must be. In fact there might be an infinite number of non-infinite regressions as well as an infinite number of infinite ones, the vast majority of which will be different from each other in ways that we cannot detect. ---
**Author:** ![Thrasymachus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@Thrasymachus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thrasymachus)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/681804/83 "2014-03-27T16:41:22Z")
I’m pretty sure we’re in a simulation, and here’s my argument based on the [Reduced Compton Wavelength](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength) **Premise 1:** Everything in our sim-universe works according to laws (physics), capable of being expressed mathematically. **Premise 2:** Knowing the state of matter (i.e., the “numbers”) and the laws governing it (i.e., the “math”) allows calculating a future state. **Premise 3:** The creators of the simulation, although we can’t know their motives, might reasonably want to prevent any entity INSIDE the simulation from ever knowing the exact states - gaining enough information to simulate some part of it faster than it would normally run, perhaps to predict the future or explore alternate futures. Briefly, if we want to measure where something is or its size we bounce photons (light) off of it [or some other particle] and get information when they rebound. There’s an accuracy limit to this based on the wavelength of light used, which is why electron microscopes and X-ray diffraction gives so much better info than a plain visible light microscope. Shorter wavelengths are higher energy. But if you want to measure something to within a Planck length (fundamental quantum length dimension, essentially the “pixel size” of the universe), you need to use a photon with enough energy to create a mini-black hole on impact, which swallows the photon and then evaporates leaving no information. _This strikes me as exceedingly convenient_, serving as a way of preventing anyone INSIDE the simulation from getting enough information to create an accurate mini-simulation (in effect, being able to calculate future states for some subsection of the universe), as any small inaccuracy in a mini-sim gives a ripple effect that makes it wildly off in a short time and therefore useless. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/681804/84 "2014-03-27T16:51:46Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > Layman’s terms: it works because the universe is four-dimensional, time is also a dimension. Instead of the universe being stuff in space, it is stuff in space-time. > > I have no idea what you are talking about with water. Thanks thespace-time thing actually helps. I don’t understand water; how it got here, why it got here, how come it doesn’t age, etc. Just seems totally inexplicable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/681804.md?page=4)