Are we living in a computer simulation?

[alexsok]

Came upon the following article:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Granted, there are some other approaches to the these metaphysical questions (string theory for instance) but... will it actually reveal the meaning of life or maybe finally discover GOD or refute his existence altogether?

Exciting times are ahead, too bad we won't be here to observe them

 

[DemoCoder]

Old, and a rehash of prior arguments. Essentially a non-falsifiable assertion based on probabilistic argument where no probabilities are even given! It's like those "probably that God Exists = 50/50" arguments, that just assign equal probabilities to everything. Garbage In/Garbage Out.

There are also fundamental problems with calling a perfect simulation a simulation in the first place. If two things cannot be distinguished by any measurement in any way, and agree 100% in behavior, it is meaningless to conclude they are different.

I mean, Tipler makes similar arguments in the Omega Point, positing an infinity computing resource at the end of the universe that can simulate anything including all possible people who ever lived, or even all possible combinations of all possible people who ever lived. But Tipler goes further to suggest that any beings with sufficient magnitude of computing power wouldn't just simulate people in the time in which they existed, they'd simulate a virtual HEAVEN for them, because being post-human implies post-human ethics.

The Simulation argument is essentially making a Fermi Paradox argument. "If post-humans can exist, then they must already be here, and we are a simulation. If not, then post-humans can't exist..."

I also find it rather ludicrous that post-humans would build technology capable of simulating post-human minds (that is, after all, what a post-human *IS*) but rather than run post-human consciousnesses in these computers, in post-human environments, they'd spend it simulating regular human minds in a regular human world, in a kind of "human theme park" ala the movie "The 13th floor"

This makes the assumption that post-humans would be enamored and fascinated with "humans", and want to play around in their world. But why then does our particular simulation run for so long? And where are the post-humans in it? Surely, some of them would like to "play god" and fsck around doing amazing stuff! And why would they leave it running (apparently) for so long if they're not here. Oh, I know, there are millions of simulated worlds, and we just happen to be living in one with a benevolent post-human overlord who never interferes and leaves us alone.

Ultimately, the simulation argument is an interesting philosophical thought experiment, but it is not more scientific than intelligent design, or philosophical calculations on the probability of God.

 

[zidane1strife]

Came upon the following article:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Granted, there are some other approaches to the these metaphysical questions (string theory for instance) but... will it actually reveal the meaning of life or maybe finally discover GOD or refute his existence altogether?

Take the axiom that information is, that existence exists. That nothing can come or go into nonexistence, that is that all information is and that information cannot be destroyed. Then you see, that all is, and thus there exists infinite simulations outhere, and there exist one for each and everyone one of the infinite number of universes that can be simulated. Every single action that can happen within each simulation has taken place, and every possible simulations has run for every possible span of time that it can run, with all possible outcomes being simulated.

Is it not equivalent? Does the representation of the idea not convey the idea? If this representation is to a certain lvl of precision isn't it equivalent to this idea at this lvl of precision?

Exciting times are ahead, too bad we won't be here to observe them

We won't be? heh, within this very century human civilization will most likely come to an end. Either we will reach the asymptote, or we will revert back to the stone age if not simply disappear from the face of this planet.

 

[alexsok]

Ok guys i'm reading a paper right now about string theory and here's what it says:

"There are only three options to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe: It could be an unexplainable cosmic coincidence. With this option every scientific ambition to explain the finetuning ends. If we do not accept the fine-tuning of the universe as the result of pure coincidence, the question remains: How did we get our made-to-measure universe? - It could be a designer-universe, especially and deliberately made for us (or made for other reasons leading to conditions compatible with our existence). This assumption is, if supposing good intentions, the traditional subject of theological considerations and religious belief. If there is no clarity with regard to the intentions, it can also find its place in the context of gnostic scenarios or the recently much discussed "simulation argument" as well as the labyrinthic conceptions of science fiction.
If there remains anything at all for scientific endeavors, it is the third alternative. That our universe is made-to-measure for our existence would be no miracle, if there exists a sufficiently large ensemble of physically real universes. We would find ourselves necessarily in a universe compatible with our existence. The fine-tuning of the universe would be an anthropic selection effect."

Also:
"[...] vacuum tunneling between solutions with different values of the cosmological constant [...] is often assumed to be the mechanism which dynamically implements the anthropic principle. The universe jumps around between vacua until it finds itself in an anthropically allowed one, at which time we observe it."

 

[nintenho]

I remember telling people this theory when I was a little kid, scared the fuck out of them.

 

[alexsok]

BTW DemoCoder, what's your theory?

 

[DemoCoder]

My theory of what? If you mean "what ultimately is/who created/the universe", it's a meaningless question, because it is unknowable. Unless someone can present a falsifiable theory that can determine the answer, it's pointless. At best, one *might* be able to proove one is in a simulation if some flaw developed in the simulation that exposed it. But that's like saying one might be able to prove God exists if he appeared before you. Not really a theory.

 

[alexsok]

Yeah that's what I meant. Donno what to think really. I also think that the question is kinda meanlingless. But don't u think that without an omnipotent creator, everything is kinda pointless? I mean you're born, you live, you die... of course it is meaningful to me and to most people too (in terms of goals and stuff) but globally... seems too brutal and vulgar i guess... i don't think that the universe cares whether you buy a radeon 1900xt or a geforce 7900gtx

 

[nutball]

Yeah that's what I meant. Donno what to think really. I also think that the question is kinda meanlingless. But don't u think that without an omnipotent creator, everything is kinda pointless? I mean you're born, you live, you die... of course it is meaningful to me and to most people too (in terms of goals and stuff) but globally... seems too brutal and vulgar i guess... i don't think that the universe cares whether you buy a radeon 1900xt or a geforce 7900gtx

Yes, it is meaningless. This is one of the primary reasons why people seem to invent creator/Gods, to give their otherwise meaningless lives some semblance of meaning. Having invented their God their lives are just as meaningless as they were before, but they feel better so ... whatever floats their boat I suppose.

Turn the question around, why does the extistence of an omnipotent creator suddenly make our lives meaningful? Seems to me that being a "play-thing" subjected to the sadistic whims and fancies of some super-being isn't exactly something to aspire to.

 

[_xxx_]

Someone watched Matrix too many times, methinks...

 

[alexsok]

Turn the question around, why does the extistence of an omnipotent creator suddenly make our lives meaningful?

That is a correct formulation as well but i guess that is the gist of the problem... either way it seems meaningless whether there is a god or there isn't one... our existence (in the form that we exist) is kinda flawed which is exactly why we can't find any meaning to our lives other than individual aspirations (we're a blip on earth, that is a blip in the galaxy, that is a blip in the universe, that *might* be a blip in some parallel dimensions, who knows)... so the question why the universe bothers to exist, at least how i think, it unsolvable... death is pointless and doesn't make life meaningless because how is death solving the problem of meaning (it just, supposedly, destroys the source of the question, which is not really an "answer").

 

[KimB]

The Universe is far too big and far too consistent with experiment to be just a simulation.

 

[Mate Kovacs]

Have you guys read the short story "Prof. Corcoran" by Stanisław Lem?

 

[zidane1strife]

Yes, it is meaningless. This is one of the primary reasons why people seem to invent creator/Gods, to give their otherwise meaningless lives some semblance of meaning. Having invented their God their lives are just as meaningless as they were before, but they feel better so ... whatever floats their boat I suppose.

Turn the question around, why does the extistence of an omnipotent creator suddenly make our lives meaningful? Seems to me that being a "play-thing" subjected to the sadistic whims and fancies of some super-being isn't exactly something to aspire to.

To know that the ideal exists, is such a wonderful joy, something that keeps those with great knowledge going on. When we love, the mechanisms involved are said to distort our ability to evaluate, making something imperfect from this world appear IDEAL and perfect. It is the ideal that we love, it is the ideal that we seek, it is that which we each see in each other when we fall in love. In the end it is the mirage, the illusory reflection of God, presented upon a small fragment of the whole, that we all love that we all crave.

The Universe is far too big and far too consistent with experiment to be just a simulation.

Ahhh, but that implies that it is impossible to simulate this universe no matter how advanced the civilization even with alternate laws/constants allowing for far greater computational potential.

 

[KimB]

Ahhh, but that implies that it is impossible to simulate this universe no matter how advanced the civilization even with alternate laws/constants allowing for far greater computational potential.

Dude, then numbers involved are just astronomical. To accurately simulate just a small piece of matter (say, a cubic centimeter in size) is so vastly beyond the scope of current processing power that I don't know if we'll ever be able to do it.

Now imagine accurately simulating one single person, understanding that processing power required goes much faster than linearly with complexity.

Accurately simulating an entire world? Not happening.

 

[alexsok]

Wait so even if our world is a simulation, the pesky question still remains at large - who created this simulation (and virtual particles popping out of nowhere is not really an explanation, but rather, a description).

 

[Xmas]

I also find it rather ludicrous that post-humans would build technology capable of simulating post-human minds (that is, after all, what a post-human *IS*) but rather than run post-human consciousnesses in these computers, in post-human environments, they'd spend it simulating regular human minds in a regular human world, in a kind of "human theme park" ala the movie "The 13th floor"

That's assuming human minds are the purpose of the simulation. What if it's about evolution? Or mice?

The Universe is far too big and far too consistent with experiment to be just a simulation.

Dude, then numbers involved are just astronomical. To accurately simulate just a small piece of matter (say, a cubic centimeter in size) is so vastly beyond the scope of current processing power that I don't know if we'll ever be able to do it.

Now imagine accurately simulating one single person, understanding that processing power required goes much faster than linearly with complexity.

Accurately simulating an entire world? Not happening.

You're not thinking it through properly. There's no reason a meta-universe would have to be based on the same principles as our universe. For one, there is no reason simulation time has to equal "real-time", if time exists at all.

A clever simulation can use approximations where sufficient.
And quantisation occurs because They are using only 128-bit integers.

 

[darkblu]

Have you guys read the short story "Prof. Corcoran" by Stanisław Lem?

yes. lem was a genius. may he rest in peace.

 

[KimB]

1. Quantization is not simply a choice of integer values.
2. There are many facts about the universe that are just pure math. They can't be altered no matter how different another universe is, such as statistical mechanics.
3. Since statistical mechanics is the basis for thermodynamics, and since thermodynamics sets limits upon how much information is stored in the observable universe, the demands are just too tremendous to simulate the entire universe.
4. Approximations would lead to experimental inconsistencies with fundamental laws. No such inconsistencies have been found.
5. If the computer did not do the calculation in realtime, then it would need to have been in existence for some amount of time much longer than the 15 billion or so years our universe has been around. To think it could be calculated in shorter time is absurd.
6. Inflation produces a universe that is much larger than the observable universe, and nearly infinite. Since we are now very certain we live in a universe that was started by inflation, this makes the information requirements even more absurd.

 

[darkblu]

2. There are many facts about the universe that are just pure math. They can't be altered no matter how different another universe is, such as statistical mechanics.

how about a universe where statistical mechanics is broken by definition?

plus, 'too tremendous' is a fancy term but i don't think anybody cares about it. as long as you have a computationally-finite problem you have sufficient and insufficient computational resources. too tremendous does not fit anywhere.