Quoth Mosier:
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m getting at, though the distinction doesn’t necessarily have to be between infinite and finite. It could just be that it’s possible to do it either way, but easier to do it this way.
Do nested universe simulations necessarily lose resolution with each level of nesting? And if not, wouldn’t the computational power required at the top level necessarily go to infinity as more and more nested universe simulations are created?
No, anymore than a minigame inside a computer game automatically has lower resolution.
With infinite nesting you’d naturally get an infinite processing load I presume. The solution, obviously, is to not try for infinite nesting or infinite anything else.
bolding mine - it wouldn’t necessarily be limited to 2-D, because you can simulate 3-D in a 2-D space by following the right rules to handle the additional complication. When you dig down past the abstraction all computer programs are stored in a 1-dimensional array of 1s and 0s, after all.
And indeed, this is the basic premise of the holographic principle that the OP mentioned. Note that, unlike the simulation hypothesis, which is probably just an unresolvable philosophical musing, the holographic principle is a real physical hypothesis which is being taken seriously by physicists, and which would have real observable consequences which may, in fact, already have been observed. I urge everyone to read the article Attack from the 3rd Dimension linked: This is really the most exciting thing happening in fundamental physics right now.
On the one hand, I’m glad I didn’t refer to the Holographic Principle too, because it turns out it was referenced in the OP.
On the other hand, I’m not sure I’m glad I read that article: more precisely, the comments. Who knew that comments about physics could be so mind-blowingly ignorant! (And this is coming from someone who has asked many of the same questions in those comments, just asking them in a way that avoids woo and argumentum ad ignorantum.)
But what if the, um, “A.I.” in the first nested universe simulation created a second nested universe simulation that in itself gave rise to its own A.I. that then created a tertiarily nested universe simulation with A.I. and so on? Where is the line drawn?
Isn’t this the premise of Scientology? That our true selves are higher-reality beings called “Thetans” who have become so caught up in a simulation that we’ve forgotten that it’s all just a game?
The line is drawn at the point that the simulated universe isn’t sophisticated enough to support a simulation within it, of course. For any finite number of layers, it’s possible to imagine a supercomputer on the top that’s sufficiently powerful to run the whole works; it’s just not possible to imagine an infinite number of layers.
Clearly you’ve never played SimCity.
I don’t see why this is a problem. As each nested universe begins to be simulated, a smaller and smaller fraction of the original computing power is applied to the sub-simulation itself, implying that computing results from the sub-simulation take longer and longer to obtain from the perspective of the root computer. Is there anything contradictory about suggesting there is no limit to the nesting levels but that the computational time approaches infinity?
Processor power isn’t the only limited resource-- Memory is, too. You could deal with the limited processor power by just having each layer run progressively slower, but you can’t deal with limited memory that way. An infinite stack of simulations would require an infinite amount of memory.
Yes, this makes sense and validates your point about drawing the line of the nesting cut-off. Since each layer is limited to the resources available in its own simulation (say in our case, the state space of every particle in the universe), any sub simulation would be limited to strictly less, implying a convergence to zero.
Is this what you are thinking about?
Yup. We’re on the same wavelength here. Most people wouldn’t play an mmorpg called ‘Sit around on the couch doing nothing’, but we all do it in real life. If we knew or suspected that this is a simulation, wouldn’t we play harder?
I should also mention one of the times that the virtual world has spilled messily back into the real world
Achievement!
How do you know that isn’t what you are?
Who are YOU ?
In many places I see peoplel refering as YOU as their Creator or as the brightess star in the sky, or as Sirus.
What is YOU ? Is it an entity ? Is it an AI ? Is it a computer ? Is it a diety as people on the earth understand it ?
PC’s vs. NPC’s…you could make some predictions…
If a PC is an entity, with either total free will on the next level from which he derives/operates, or at least a greater degree of freedom, then we would expect PC’s to exhibit a lot more freedom than an NPC (which in the end would just be a bot running an AI routine somewhere). Said PC would thus be much more unpredictable than an NPC, exhibiting (among many other things) a much more significant ability to overcome stereotyped/ingrained/predetermined/habitual actions.
Moreover, to save computing power, the makers of the sim would have to use a lot of rather basic subroutines for all the entities, human or otherwise, populating said universe. You would thus expect to see, among NPC’s, a lot of commonalities in their habits and tendencies, and NOT see them undergoing radical changes seemingly out of nowhere, or embarking on new and novel lifestyles out of the blue.
I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if our world seems populated more by PC, or NPC, types.
My theory is that this is all a game based on actual history, and the goal is to survive through the singularity.