I was thinking about something today. Allow me to relay that something to you via the intertubes of the webnet.
Due to the exponential nature of moores law we are likely within 50-100 years of being able to relatively accurately simulate a world within a computer if we so desired.
Ok so assuming that *we* could do such a thing it makes sense to believe that *other* intelligent lifeforms could also do it.
Now, if we assume that we could have *one* world being simulated then one would assume that it would be possible for us to have more than one concurrently. And ditto for our assumed aliens.
It's also not beyond the realms of possibility that the world that we simulate would develop intelligences that could also build computers that simulate worlds. It seems likely that intelligent lifeforms would want to make other intelligent lifeforms. Remember, this is not an infinite loop of computing power. The 'real' lifeforms only have to simulate the physical matter inside the first universe which would be simulated exactly the same way regardless of whether or not the 'non-real' universe also had a computer inside it. What i'm saying is that any given universe would always have a finite and constant amount of computing power required assuming conservation of mass and energy in the simulated world.
So what do I conclude?
Surely all this means that it is vastly more likely that we are in a simulated universe rather than a real one.
That is to say that the number of real intelligent lifeforms is likely to be less than the number of simulated intelligent life forms and thus its more likely that we are in the simulated section.
Is my logic flawed?
Also how do you feel about being a simulated lifeform?
SYSTEM ERROR
File Not Found: Descartes.sys
REBOOT IMMINENT
Hasn't Moore's law already almost taken transistors and stuff to the molecular level? How can we go faster than that?
I think I've seen this movie, though :P. All you have to do is drive to the edge of the city, and you see the simulation getting frayed.
I think i have also seen that movie... although i havent seen the simulation being frayed.
Moore's law is expected to hit a stumbling block in around 10-20 years simply because (as you say) there arent enough molecules left to put the transistors on.
But the current version of moores law doesnt factor in advances in 3D chips (i.e with transistors on top of one another) so it could either explode or dwindle. And there are also advances in quantum computing and bio-computing to consider. So i doubt our speed advances will just stop.
Where's my cheat menu?
jump Up, left testicle,duck down, right testicle, eyeball + nose tweak.
I have heard of (and love) this theory!
I had this idea for a story/game once where the world was coming undone (strange holes in reality, cities/people just vanishing, details (such as paintings, art, etc) being lost) ... and as you play out the game you figure out the reason for this is because your "world" is actually the Tenth World. What had happened was that a person (in First World) created a simulation of a world (Second World) and then as those people advanced their technology they then created another world (and so on) and by the time it got to your world (the Tenth World) the combined computational power needed to drive all the worlds was too much for the first world's computer system (which is driving it all) to keep up with so your world is crumbling. The game was called "The Tenth World" and you had to find a way to travel to the other worlds and figure out a solution to saving them all.
I never took it past the idea stage (and I'm sure somebody out there has thought of something like it before) but I thought at some point it'd be a fun game to make.
uh, yes I think your logic is flawed, even if we ever have the hardware that could support a full simulation of the universe we'd still have to achieve a full understanding and knowledge of how the universe works (and possibly why it works the way it does) to program that simuation. So far we are nowhere near and I believe it's up to philosophical debate if we will ever achieve that level of understanding, the whole "the creation cannot surpass the creator" thingie.
I'm not an expert on the subject, in fact it's an uneducated opinion but that's my impression so far
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 14:56:47
Also how do you feel about being a simulated lifeform?
So we'd have complete life/death control over an intelligence etc etc, that's more or less God. I don't believe in God, and I believe we are monkeys. I hope we never achieve that. I feel bad enough when people throw away old stuff >.<
No I disagree,
You dont need to fully understand the universe you merely need to be able to construct a model that imitates a universe (in whatever form you decide) to the satisfaction of its inhabitants. You are making the assumption that our universe is how it all is. Our universe could simply be an imperfect construct, an imitation of a different universe.
Perhaps the reason quantum mechanics seems so strange and counter intuitive is that its an abberation. A failed way to model the exact situation in the real (or rather the step above us) universe.
Also, the creation/creator thing is totally erroneous anyway. The *whole purpose* we create things is to surpass us. (robots, computers etc);
I tried heavily not to burst out laughing. I failed to do so, so here goes another approach.
People are always having this idea that there's something sinister in this world, and well to quote Douglas Adams, that's just simple paranoia, pretty much we all have it.
People can't even copy themselves in an android. You see an android or robot or whatever have you, can learn stuff by its author, but not by itself. It can't see an apple and learn that its an apple by asking someone what is it. It cannot gain experience or make mistakes, it can't even walk like a human being.
So to conclude, if you were a simulated life form you wouldn't be able to gain experience. And what's more important is chances. Let's say someone makes something. The simulated universe. Undoubtedly there will be a mistake somewhere, a loophole, a window. So with that there and if every person is a chance that this loophole is discovered then tada it should have been discovered already.
Quote
Due to the exponential nature of moores law we are likely within 50-100 years of being able to relatively accurately simulate a world within a computer if we so desired.
I wonder what happened to Virtual Reality? And I'm also wondering what happened to Flying Cars? And I'm also wondering what happened to Hyper-Sonic Jumbo Jets?
Of the ridiculous theories this one wins the prize of making me laugh so much. Sorry. ;D
Congratulations for missing the point by a nautical mile.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 17:14:07
Congratulations for missing the point by a nautical mile.
Congratulations for making me laugh.
Well you may disagree but I still think that in order to make an identical universe you need to know this one. You can't throw a bunch of cogs and expect them to turn into a clock.
Plus that is kind of a cheapshot,you first go talking about "simulating the world" and then you're like "a universe in whatever form you decide"
Anyway consider this as well. In order to simulate a world, even if it's not identical to ours exactly but resembles it, you cannot go like (for example) Ok the sun attracts the earth with *enter specific number* so much force, and the moon goes at that speed, ok let;s go to the next solar system.
You need to establish the very few, very basic principles that govern our universe as well. From these very few "commands" comes your simulated world, building itself.
Otherwise we're talking about a large scale "second life" or WoW program with no intelligence.
There was a JRPG that dealt with this subject, can't remember which one though. Haven't played it just read it somewhere, you may be interested in it!
PS: I think it was Star Ocean
No, you are presupposing that our universe is the original one. All the universes could be completely different from one another. You wouldnt need to fully understand the one you are in to create a new one because the new one doesnt need to be a copy of the one youre in.
Complexity is relative. Our universe seems fairly complex but perhaps not to whoever is running 'our' universe. Similarly the universe that we create need not be as complex as this one.
Also, remember that physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. You wouldnt necessarily need to prescribe the constants in advance, they would just arise as a consequence of the behaviour you describe. (If they were prescriptive then you essentially just proved God)
(as an aside, scientists currently think that there can be a great deal of variation in the physical constants and still create a universe that we would consider habitable.)
And you're presupposing we can create something completely alien.
With the sole exception of baseball not once mankind has created something totally alien.
If you're to create a world even a simplified world you need to have at least (again an example) gravity. Well you know squat about gravity.
Unless you're under the impression you're gonna set gravity to 3 like you're in yoyo Game Maker and an inteligent life form will come out of it.
And anyway even if you want someone to agree to get some satisfaction (we all do sometimes =P) I'll forget my objections and say for the sake of the conversation that you are right. Even so it does not matter at all. The world we're living is a closed system. Nothing can go outside of it. No energy, no human, no information for what may or may not be outside. So even if we are a in a dragon's dream or a bubble universe generated by the erection of Lady Gaga we would never know.
Because we don't already have gravity and physics in computer generated worlds? You shot yourself in the foot with that GameMaker comment.
Point is there's only one universe.
Q: Why?
Cause life sucks (this topic proves it to the fullest) so why make more of it?
You say that I know nothing about gravity and then you make bold claims about what can and cannot leave our universe as if you know, whilst throwing me a sympathy bone of you agreeing to just let it go.
On that note, scientists actually think gravity may be a universal force across the 'multi-verse' (or a brane in M-Theory), leaking into other universes (or dimensions in a single multi-verse depending on how you want to define it) which explains why gravity is so unimaginably weak but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I just thought it tied in nicely with how i know nothing about gravity and how nothing can leave our universe. Double-whammy!
So in summation: Universes (as they may be defined) are just containers for physical objects and they follow a series of rules. Whether or not our species is at the point where we could simulate this is irrelvant. The matter at hand is that it *could* be simulated and if it can then a single species is likely to be able to simulate many more than 1 (theres no reason why you'd stop at one) and assuming computing power can grow a great deal more then its not beyond the realms of possibility that a single species might generate enough universes to make it orders of magnitude more likely that any given universe is simulated.
ok this is getting old. I'll explain this and then I'm out of the topic. I can't seriously continue arguing in a topic that someone claims we have true gravity in games and that I proved god.
Ok in games you have "gravity" in the sense that you have a "force" that pulls certain sprites to the bottom of the screen. Gravity (in contrast to "gravity") is something a tad more complex. It is essential to life, possibly gives birth to life, kills life, makes you age and gives scientists a nice headache. You can make a build of a game without "gravity", you can't have life, molecules, matter, possibly dimensions or whatever without real gravity.
Btw Calin once again you either too eager to disagree or you don't think before posting. You say the laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive, and if I am to say the are preblahblah I proved god,
like OH MY GOD, we're talking about a universe YOU want to create!!! If you DO create it then OFCOURSE the laws you set are prescriptive and you ARE god.
Don't be so insecure. "you know nothing about gravity" you=the wannabe creator not you=Calin
Anyway I'm off, you're right we are programs in some machine, and we can simulate life et cetera that's why we haven't even start to make the slightest AI
*is gone before someone claims Half-Life 2 had excellent AI*
Sorry, I actually meant the physical *constants* are descriptive in that they arise from other things.
However, the point is that gravity(which i'm fairly sure is not capitalised unless youre talking about the constant G) is something that *CAN* be simulated. Indeed general relativity can calculate gravitation to within an inperceptable margin of error.
Gravity was a bad example for you to choose. You know where you shouldve gone? You shouldve gone for quantum interactions since they are unpredictable and random by definition (radioactive decay for instance).
But thats only from the perspective of the observer within the universe. Watch me simulate whether or not a decay event takes place.
bool decay = Random(1);
Also, it should be noted that I am not saying we are going to simulate a universe *tomorrow* but rather that IT IS CONCEIVABLY POSSIBLE!
Okay, let's assume for a moment that this whole simulation is correct, then by the very assumption that laws and physics are something we have explained with our comprehension and in reality it COULD be something very different then that results into making a theory based on laws barely proven therefore even if simulation was possible it wouldn't be possible with those means/laws, therefore it's not possible.
The problem is that the attempt of proving that life under other terms than what we have now is a completely wrong thing to do.
NASA has spent millions and theories of alien life anywhere but UNDER OUR VERY NOSE. You want to spent your time learning about others, when you frankly have no idea who you are, that's the equivalent of your theory.
If this was an idea for a game, I'd say cool. But there's no standard answer on a big question, tying up what seems logical and more understandable, is something restricted by your own brain capabilities. The very answer is unrestricted, no boundaries, it doesn't care if it's gonna be accept or if its digestible by anyone's mind, it's just is.
Seen this theory before, the Matrix probably popularized it. It's sorta similar to the living in a dream one, except more tehnologically based. Yeah, probably. It is theoretically possible, and depending on certain assumptions, probable. I wouldn't get worried about it unless we start seeing glitches or figure a way to get out of the box.
Plus, there was that one enemy in Half-Life 2 who wouldn't see you if you had a coffee can in front of your face.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 14:56:47
Due to the exponential nature of moores law we are likely within 50-100 years of being able to relatively accurately simulate a world within a computer if we so desired.
Already this introductory inference makes no sense. How can you derive from growing complexity anything about such a vague concept as "accurately simulate a world" is beyond me. Unless to you reality and meaning are nothing more than a random structure of accidental material.
Ok, a couple of people are missing the point.
Yes i know this is all just cogito ergo sum all over again. That was not my concern.
The point I was making, and why i felt it was interesting, was that if my logic holds then it is *more likely than not* that we are simulations simply because they outnumber us.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 26/12/2010 18:54:24
Unless to you reality and meaning are nothing more than a random structure of accidental material.
Yes they are. 'Meaning' is derived from the electrical impulses in your brain. (Although I dislike the word 'accidental'. It belies the underlying system')
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 18:59:36
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 26/12/2010 18:54:24
Unless to you reality and meaning are nothing more than a random structure of accidental material.
Yes they are. 'Meaning' is derived from the electrical impulses in your brain. (Although I dislike the word 'accidental'. It belies the underlying system')
If you believe that, I find it strange you worry about such trivialities as the possibility of being a brain in a vat or a simulated lifeform. You don't seem to believe in any difference between the real and the artificial.
I don't understand Gabriel's arguments at all, and I'm not even sure what Dualnames is saying.
Why is it hard to not understand that we, as possible virtual lifeforms living in a simulation, may being living in a universe equivalent to Minecraft as to our own. If you created a true AI that could freely roam around and fully interact with the cubed environment of Minecraft with his little cube arms. Even if gravity and physics and lighting was completely faked. It would probably take many generations of the AI's to learn that its own environment 'may' not be real.
The AI isn't born with intelligence, it must learn on its own. You can only learn from what you see and experiment with what's around you. You think you have an understanding of gravity but that's because it's part of this simulation and its physics. What if that was completely faked for this simulation we live in.
For a while we used to believe in witches and magical forces. We used to believe our world was flat. We didn't start putting the pieces together until very late into our development.
The lifeforms above us, the ones who created the simulation we are in, may be living in a universe that we couldn't even comprehend. That is, if we were really in a simulation. Are we?
I don't see this theory being all that difficult. Do I believe we're in a simulation? Hell no.
In fact. I'm looking at this a little stupid. Thinking of AI and such. If this was a simulation down to the molecular level, we could have been created by chance. If the building blocks are there in this simulation, I can't see how it isn't possible.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 26/12/2010 19:07:18
If you believe that, I find it strange you worry about such trivialities as the possibility of being a brain in a vat or a simulated lifeform. You don't seem to believe in any difference between the real and the artificial.
Ha ha, well us materialists dont generally break down and sob ourselves to sleep due to the lack of some objective truth.
For me, the meaning of life is making everyones experience more enjoyable. Just because we are all bags of meat doesnt mean we can't enjoy being so.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sun 26/12/2010 19:11:03
Even if gravity and physics and lighting was completely faked. It would probably take many generations of the AI's to learn that its own environment 'may' not be real.
There's no reason why the AI would *ever* realise the light wasnt real. For the minecraftians that is how light works.
Minecraftian physicists would craft blockular(sp) science labs and they would study the light and write "Dr Creepers General Theory of Minecraftivity"
From their perspective what is the difference? If their laws fit the observations how would they ever know the difference?
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 19:32:14
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 26/12/2010 19:07:18
If you believe that, I find it strange you worry about such trivialities as the possibility of being a brain in a vat or a simulated lifeform. You don't seem to believe in any difference between the real and the artificial.
Ha ha, well us materialists dont generally break down and sob ourselves to sleep due to the lack of some objective truth.
Actually materialism does believe in objective truth and makes lots of strong claims about how the world works (as you do). It's skepticism that doesn't believe in objective truth and questions everything.
Quote from: Jehovah
Hey everyone,
Check out this universe I'm creating!
Features:
* ever expanding
* single axis of time
* grand unifying theory
* seemingly fractal features
* everything is made out of little interacting wavelets
* billions of biospheres on which life evolves, argues, and dies
I've been at it for nearly a week now. To be honest I'm a bit bored of working on it. If anyone wants to take over, I've enclosed the source. I think I spotted a bug where the fabric of space time wrapped around on itself.
Enjoy!
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 14:56:47
Surely all this means that it is vastly more likely that we are in a simulated universe rather than a real one.
I'm sorry, even if I get where you're going with this theory, this statement "more likely" I just don't get. Why is it more likely that we're in a simulated universe.
And even if this theory is correct, you're basically suggesting that we're living in someones simulation, so by further contemplation - why would you care. If you are, than life loses just a bit less meaning and besides nothing you can do can change this relationship, you might as well say people that you see on the TV actually live in the TV, they/we are also bounded by the restrictions, we can't exit the universe and even if we could, what would you accomplish by it?
And might I add that this theory doesn't really awnser anything, you're just adding a layer, you do not explain the mechanics or origins of this universe. Might as well say "God did it" and after the inevitable question "Why?" just anser "...because".
I know what you're talking about, Calin. I'm familiar with the theory. My personal philosophy is that I can never be 100% positive about anything, due to Descartes and my understanding of Quantum Mechanics. So, I do believe that this is not only possible, but probable. If we've advanced so far in the realm of robotics and AI in such a short time, it's possible another civilization could have had more time and created a simulation of their universe, or a universe with rules they defined. If anything, this argument explains a lot about the universe and even gives credibility to the existence and communication with God. It would make sense that if the programmers created or noticed Earth in the simulation, they may have tried to shape the development of the planet and ultimately humanity.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sun 26/12/2010 20:16:16
Quote from: Jehovah
Hey everyone,
Check out this universe I'm creating!
Features:
* ever expanding
* single axis of time
* grand unifying theory
* seemingly fractal features
* everything is made out of little interacting wavelets
* billions of biospheres on which life evolves, argues, and dies
I've been at it for nearly a week now. To be honest I'm a bit bored of working on it. If anyone wants to take over, I've enclosed the source. I think I spotted a bug where the fabric of space time wrapped around on itself.
Enjoy!
I give it 3 days in GiP before Darth closes it.
Simulation or not, this universe is here and we're in it. So I'm going to stop wondering about it's nature and have a taco, because at least I know THAT is delicious.
Bt
Quote from: anian on Sun 26/12/2010 21:13:02
I'm sorry, even if I get where you're going with this theory, this statement "more likely" I just don't get. Why is it more likely that we're in a simulated universe.
Well its a fairly tenuous stretch but if you assume that making these fake universes is possible then intelligent species are likely to make many more than 1. Because thats what intelligent species do (as far as we know with our sample size of 1). Also you can assume that within any universe there is more than 1 intelligent species capable of this (just by pure force of numbers) So for each universe capable of evolving such species you can expect a great number of fake universes. So for any given universe it is more like to be fake than not because there are more fake ones than real ones.
Quote from: anian on Sun 26/12/2010 21:13:02
And even if this theory is correct, you're basically suggesting that we're living in someones simulation, so by further contemplation - why would you care. If you are, than life loses just a bit less meaning and besides nothing you can do can change this relationship, you might as well say people that you see on the TV actually live in the TV, they/we are also bounded by the restrictions, we can't exit the universe and even if we could, what would you accomplish by it?
Agreed, it's an entirely pointless conversation. But the unexamined life is not worth living my friend.
Quote from: anian on Sun 26/12/2010 21:13:02
And might I add that this theory doesn't really awnser anything, you're just adding a layer, you do not explain the mechanics or origins of this universe. Might as well say "God did it" and after the inevitable question "Why?" just anser "...because".
This wasnt to explain the origins of the universe. I just found it amusing that there is a strong possibility (possibly more than evens) that I'm not real.
I'm kinda surprised that everyone seems so down on the idea (except Darth ^_^).
What difference does it make to your experience of life if you are not real? You still feel things and you can still influence the experience of others.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 26/12/2010 19:57:31
Actually materialism does believe in objective truth and makes lots of strong claims about how the world works (as you do). It's skepticism that doesn't believe in objective truth and questions everything.
Sorry, I meant objective *meaning*
Although I'm not too sure about your definitions. I would think that all skeptics are materialists by default? How can you have a dualist skeptic?
Quote from: Gabriel_DownAnyway I'm off, you're right we are programs in some machine, and we can simulate life et cetera that's why we haven't even start to make the slightest AI
Well, there is "the Blue Brain Project (http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/)" and a simillar project which simulated a mouse brain (actually, half of it at 10% speed for 10 seconds).
Quote from: anianAnd even if this theory is correct, you're basically suggesting that we're living in someones simulation, so by further contemplation - why would you care. If you are, than life loses just a bit less meaning and besides nothing you can do can change this relationship, you might as well say people that you see on the TV actually live in the TV, they/we are also bounded by the restrictions, we can't exit the universe and even if we could, what would you accomplish by it?
And might I add that this theory doesn't really awnser anything, you're just adding a layer, you do not explain the mechanics or origins of this universe. Might as well say "God did it" and after the inevitable question "Why?" just anser "...because".
This thread seems to be more about interesting conversation rather than finding meaning on that level.
Since the theory relies on statistical data I don't take it too seriously but understanding some of our current limitations we might just as well be in a simulation.
I'm reminded of an old text adventure, "A Mind Forever Voyaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mind_Forever_Voyaging)".
Also, Half-Life 2 had excellent AI.
Quote from: Blackthorne on Sun 26/12/2010 21:39:44
Simulation or not, this universe is here and we're in it. So I'm going to stop wondering about it's nature and have a taco, because at least I know THAT is delicious.
Bt
My thoughts exactly. I'm not even sure if any of you exist at all. All the proof I have is text on the internet that I'm reading with my eyes, both of which can easily be fooled. Doesn't stop me from enjoying life. There's always the statistical possibility that life is a sham, or we're all just robots, or just in each others over active imaginations. Be aware of it, but don't let it get in the way of enjoying life.
I'm increasing my post count with this post.
First of all, moore's law is about transistor count, not computational speed. Secondly: computers are nowhere near the speed required to do such compution in a time we could actually observe it. Maybe if we have quantum computers :D
Can we simulate a complete universe? Well let's simplify it a bit: can we simulate another computer. Well yes we can! Computer scientists use the term 'turing complete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_complete)' to denote a machine can at least be as functional as a turing machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine). The turing machine is considered to be the most basic computer. You can simulate another computer that is in itself turing complete (think dos box, emulators, java, etc). That proves any computer can simulate an infinite chain of computers. Well if I see the universe as a computer, that would mean the universe also can simulate an infinite number of universes. But is it likely we are in one? Not very. Besides, people would not be albe to interact with the simulated universe because it would run so slowly.
Assume we would need one molecule to store one bit. However we would need many bits to describe one molecule. The overhead created by the simulated (not only the storage, also the computation) would always require the simulated world to be drastically smaller the the real universe. This means this chain is finite, and not even that impressive. :D
Still it could be that this universe is simulated by another universe that is a (tremendous) multitude bigger then this one. Well it would not change things for me, since it would be just as good as a non simulated universe. Besides, I think, therefore I am! :D
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 22:25:48
I'm kinda surprised that everyone seems so down on the idea (except Darth ^_^).
Heck no. There isn't a day that passes that I don't think of this theory at least once. I absolutely love it.
It's definitely more believable than any religion. But then one would argue that the creators of this simulated universe would be considered God. Meh.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 22:25:48
I'm kinda surprised that everyone seems so down on the idea (except Darth ^_^).
Me too... I don't see how this is hard to understand; take the infinite simulation of computers as an example:
If there is a string of 100 computers, each simulated in the one before it, any randomly selected computer in the string is 99% likely to be a simulation.
So if we eventually gain the ability to simulate a universe with the capability to do the same, I see no reason to discount the idea that our universe was simulated also.
That being said, one of the major assumptions in the model that I disagree with is the idea that human-like intelligence is a deterministic evolutionary trait (a-la Planet of the Apes), when there is no evidence to suggest that.
It's fun to speculate though. :)
Also: this came to mind... (http://xkcd.com/505/)
Quote from: Scarab on Mon 27/12/2010 03:44:58
Also: this came to mind... (http://xkcd.com/505/)
Or this one (http://xkcd.com/721/) (sorta). Great comics btw, thanks for the link.
If you define the situation right, it becomes completely undecidable. There'd be no way to tell, and no practical implications. So the question is essentially meaningless.
As for the probabilistic argument (which relies on a whole bunch of assumptions), Wyz's response is the right one:
Quote from: Wyz on Mon 27/12/2010 02:04:42
Assume we would need one molecule to store one bit. However we would need many bits to describe one molecule. The overhead created by the simulated (not only the storage, also the computation) would always require the simulated world to be drastically smaller the the real universe. This means this chain is finite, and not even that impressive. :D
Because not only the number of worlds but the size of each world (including in the time dimension and in the amount of detail--let's think of it as the information-size of the universe) affects the likelihood of randomly being in each, this effectively breaks the argument.
*takes the blue pill*
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 26/12/2010 16:34:58
the combined computational power needed to drive all the worlds was too much for the first world's computer system (which is driving it all) to keep up with so your world is crumbling.
I like the idea for that game Darth, but I started thinking about it at work today.
If there was a simulated universe running in a computer, if it were anything like this universe, it would obviously have to be computing right down to the molecular level. The system would have to calculate the path, the interaction, etc, whatever molecules and such do. So it really wouldn't matter if a planet was exploding or a sun constantly burning or a little daisy blowing on a hilltop, it would nearly be the same processing power per molecule.
Now if you had a 'computer' in this simulation, it wouldn't draw any extra power from the real world simulator since it's all based on the molecular level.
Also if the simulated universe is reduced in size or complexity, let's say for computing reasons, memory, etc. A simulated universe within that simulated universe could easily exceed their own reality; just as long as they have the ability to create it.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 14:56:47
...its more likely that we are in the simulated section.
I don't think there's really point in calculating odds for something that to our knowledge doesn't even exists. It's like calculating odds for the existance of god. When we create a working virtual world of our own, where the inhabitants are aware that they exist, I think that's the point when we can truly start questioning our own existance on a physical level.
It's an interesting idea to play with, but as no world can definately say that they are the real world, it kind of loses it's point. Maybe there is just a god on the top level and every universe below that is just an elaborate simulation. Would that kind of hierarchy make the first level some how more real than the next ones?
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Mon 27/12/2010 03:25:58
...But then one would argue that the creators of this simulated universe would be considered God. Meh.
When I started thinking about this, I think the computer itself would be more of a god entity. This is what wikipedia says about the attributes of a god: "The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."
I think those fit the computer more than the programmers.
Btw, I think the movie you were talking about earlier is The Thirteenth Floor:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
Yes, that was it!
What a remarkably average movie that was.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11982757
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Well really, nobody can disagree with this because Calin argues that our Universe isn't a duplicate of a Original Universe, but just a simulation. To be an absolute duplicate you'd have to map every single atom of the whole Universe and unravel every single riddle. This might be possible in the Original Universe but it's certainly not possible in ours. In ten trillion trillion years time maybe, but it's so unlikely it hurts. And this is exactly the point - the Original Universe could be anything from a pink pony haven to a land where they worship guacamole. You suggest it, I can make it happen in the Original Universe. Therefore you can realistically counter any argument with "yes but don't forget our Universes don't necessarily share laws".
So, in this Original Universe where anything can happen (one thing we definitely know is that something is 'intelligent' enough to program us), there could even be a Master Computer with infinite processing power. Because of the space-time continuum, this leaves one of two options - either the Master Computer is only finitely powerful, in which case Space and Time would have an end; or Space and Time can go on forever.
Either way, another thing we definitely know is that Time MUST pass in the original, because without Time the Universes would be unstable and wouldn't exist. There MUST also be Space otherwise nothing would exist and you wouldn't be reading this now.
My point is, the Original and Simulated Universes share at least these two things in common. It is thus reasonable to assume they share many other things in common.
Furthermore, if we are in but a simulation, it would be possible to travel backwards and forwards in time. Clearly, this is impossible now, and it ALWAYS will be. There is no way on Earth (quite literally) that effect can come before cause. There are so many paradoxes with travelling backwards in time it proves itself impossible. The same can be applied with time travel to the future. Effect would come before cause. My daughter would be married before she was born. On the other hand, you could argue that only the Original Universe has the power to affect the Master Computer. But if we are a simulation of the Master Computer then there is a way to connect with it, we just haven't found it yet.
Either way, we can search for the truth but this one's a materialistic route to take. I'd like to believe there's much more to life than being governed by some Master Computer in some Pony Palace.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Best post EVER. Way to go.
Quote from: Dualnames on Tue 28/12/2010 15:30:17
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Best post EVER. Way to go.
Ok Dually, what are you hankering after this time? I made it quite clear it was just a one off!
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 28/12/2010 22:25:28
Quote from: Dualnames on Tue 28/12/2010 15:30:17
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Best post EVER. Way to go.
Ok Dually, what are you hankering after this time? I made it quite clear it was just a one off!
I'm honestly saying that I couldn't have said it better. Your post is remarkably my thoughts on paper expressed by some who's not me. That alone is something to be amazed. I'm not sarcastic or cynical. I just agree with every single point made by your post.
If our universe is a simulation, we humans have either been long forgotten by our creators, or not even noticed at all considering our existence in this universe is a mere blip in time. I'm not too worried about them catching me matsurbating... To them, we're probably just an interesting tick in a box, and there are things in other parts of our universe that they find far mor interesting.
Not exactly what you were talking about, but I thought the timing was funny:
Scientists aim to simulate Earth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12012082)
I'll say this: we cannot ever know whether we are in a simulation or not. Even if we had some Matrix style wake up moment and met other intelligent beings on the outside, there's no way to be absolutely sure that we aren't still inside the simulation.
I don't think that it's more likely that we're in a simulated universe; my gut tells me that our universe is way to complex to be a product of intelligent beings. Sounds paradoxical, but I think the complexity is evidence for a natural origin.
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 28/12/2010 15:12:32Furthermore, if we are in but a simulation, it would be possible to travel backwards and forwards in time. Clearly, this is impossible now, and it ALWAYS will be.
This is pure speculation and I wholeheartedly disagree, especially with the first statement, a non sequitur.
Also, why would time travel to the future cause the effect to predate the cause? Say I board a time machine and travel a year to the future. All I just did is skip a year. To the other people I'm gone for a year, and when I reappear, I haven't aged during that year. That's all that happened. Think of Idiocracy, or Futurama. No paradox at all.
To drive that point home, if I entered a yearlong hibernation, unconscious and without aging, I'd have essentially traveled to the future, without a flux capacitor or warp field.
Damnit Calin! You materialistic son-of-a-quark, why is it that your brain always seems to have direct access to mine, like some sort of evil Batphone? (it's not the first time you do that - when it's not about Monarchy, it's about Materialism, and when it's not about Materialism, it's about the Law of Attraction). I hate you/love you.
I've read interesting things and over-skeptical posts (that is, skeptical about the wrong things).
There are 2 ways to answer your question:
1/ the practical way (the easy way) :
"Is it possible that our reality is a subset of another "bigger" reality, possibly created artificially?"
Yes, definitely yes. There are no technical limitations to that, we do it all the time (in a still primitive manner)
- Some guys believe we're one generation away from singularity.
In other words: we are doing it (even if we don't fully understand what we do, by the way - I agree with you that it's not a prerequisite)
- Some cosmologists suggested that our universe is actually some sort of holographic projection of something "bigger" that exists at the frontiers of the universe. You may call it a simulation if you will.
In other words: we might be inside of it
2/ the real hardcore philosophical way :
For that you won't have enough of your lifetime, but here are some paths to explore :
- Define "simulate" (e.g. "does it have to be copy of reality, a simplification, a projection, etc.?" - "does it have to emulate conscious life forms?" (we already imitate virtual gravity, so if that's enough to match your definition of "simulation", there you go!). Atelier brought a solid basis for that part.
- Does our reality have to have been created by something/someone to be called a simulation, or do you simply accept that it can just be one of many normal manifestations of the way the multiverse works? Let's say, just like gravity (it's there, and that's it).
- Define "we are [in a simulation]". At this stage we can admit that "I think therefore I am" is obsolete bullshit, Descartes had no clue what he was talking about. When you're part of a simulation, you're also part of the reality that's "hosting" that simulation, so you're actually part
of reality, full stop. You can say you're in both. Or none. You decide :-)
Your question is actually very hard, because it packages the 3 hard core topics of philosophy :
- What is existence?
- What is self-consciousness?
- What is reality, and can we have a grasp of it?
Those questions remain valid even if you're a materialist, by the way.
Calin, go and read Sophie's World by Jostein Gardener. We don't even need a complex computer to create this situation, just a person with an imagination. Only if the author of our story (or simulation) lets us ask these questions can we think about them, and only if they let us can we ever know the answer, and they themselves.
So perhaps God (or whatever you want to call the being that runs our sim) wrote fiction as a teenager and then made the characters in to a sim. It would explain the reason why nothing much has happened in the last 2000 years, god-wise.
Quote from: Khris
This is pure speculation
There is
nothing in this topic that isn't pure speculation. Calin posed a philosophical question - surely the whole point is
to speculate and exchange ideas? To use your own words: "we cannot ever know whether we are in a simulation or not." I'm sorry but I think that was unnecessary.
About travelling to the past/future: if we're in a simulation then a Master Computer has control over
everything. There would be nothing in the Universe that isn't a manifestation of the Master Computer. It can manipulate space so it would be able to manipulate time. Therefore time travel, altering time itself, would be possible.
Quote from: Khris
Also, why would time travel to the future cause the effect to predate the cause?
If you time travel to the future but do not age, you would be younger than you actually are which is paradoxical. Even if you do age other strange things would happen. You would have grand-children before you have children. Basically, it cannot happen if you cheat the flow of time. The children must have been born in the present before it can happen in the future.
Think of a train, which serves as a metaphor for time. The train starts in London, and is going to Edinburgh. On the way it will pass through Manchester. This train travels one direction, at a constant speed - it is time itself. If the train was plucked from the tracks just before it reached Manchester, hauled by a crane over the city, and put down on the other side, the journey and fabric of time would be disrupted. It would never have been through Manchester but it would still be past Manchester. If you asked a fellow passenger whether you'd been through Manchester yet, they'd have to say no, even though you are past Manchester and are now on the home-straight to Edinburgh.
To link back to my point, say a child was born in Manchester. Because the train didn't go through the city, it would not be possible for the child to be an old woman by the time you reach Edinburgh (because she was never born).
Quote from: Khris
if I entered a yearlong hibernation, unconscious and without aging, I'd have essentially traveled to the future
This is wrong, you have not
physically travelled
through time, as it would still be passing around you. Sure you might wake up to a 'future world', but think of the train again. You fall asleep at King's Cross and wake up at Paddington. All the while you're still on the train (of time), which is constantly travelling whilst you're sleeping. You couldn't call yourself a time traveller.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Sun 26/12/2010 14:56:47
Also how do you feel about being a simulated lifeform?
That's why we have religion. A concept of different life after or before life.
That's why we value what we have.
So, let's say, tomorrow someone comes and says, YES, this is Matrix.
What would that change for us? For any individual?
Nothing I think. There would be even more science to find the limitations, bugs and ends of the simulation, same thing we do now, with "universe" instead of "simulation".
We'd still value what we feel, see and sense. After all, what's the alternative? Only way out of simulation is death, it's not like Matrix where you can wake up and live different life. All we could do is pray for BSOD not to happen.
Your idea of forward time travel is bizarre.
Generally the definition of time travel is for a person to find themselves further forwards in time whilst only having experienced a shorter period of time. This is *already possible and has been done*
The faster you travel, the slower time progresses from your perspective. So the apollo astronauts for example are younger than they would have been had they not gone to the moon.
By any definition i can think of that is time travel.
Your definition seems to require the observer to be able to 'copy' themselves so that they can travel forward in time whilst leaving a copy of themselves to carry out their lives as it would have been.
It's a weird kind of fatalism that seems to imply that events happen purely by virtue of them happening. i.e having a child without being there to have it.
Anyway all that is still irrelevant. Just because time travel is seemingly impossible from our perspective doesnt mean the computer, or whatever, doesnt have the power to reverse time.
Remember, if we were in a simulation we would be the NPCs without direct access to the console.
As many people have mentioned (descartes first) it is *impossible* to determine by logic alone if we are in a simulation because all the logic we apply is only relevant in our frame of reference which could itself, be a simulation.
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Thu 30/12/2010 12:34:33
people have mentioned (descartes first) it is *impossible* to determine by logic alone if we are in a simulation because all the logic we apply is only relevant in our frame of reference which could itself, be a simulation.
Careful with that thought. Since Descartes, maths (and logic) have been re-described from scratch in a manner that tends to make them independant from any reality. Like, really. Like, they could even exist without us.
I'm not saying mathematicians achieved their goal, I'm just saying some commenters say they have. Including some philosophers. I recall an article about that in "New Scientist" about 2 years ago.
Quote from: Calin
[Time travelling] is *already possible and has been done*
Nobody has ever travelled through time. Ever. The astronauts are a good point which admittedly I didn't think of, but they did not travel
through time. To be truly time travelling, you would have to manipulate time itself
Universally, by disjointing it and then reconnecting at a place further along the track, not just visit the moon, or go into a coma. This is what I'm saying, just because they went to the moon and experienced time differently, the train still went through Manchester.
Quote from: Calin
Just because time travel is seemingly impossible from our perspective doesnt mean the computer, or whatever, doesnt have the power to reverse time.
This is true, and what I said earlier. "The Master Computer ... can manipulate space so it would be able to manipulate time."
Plus, this is also exactly what I meant by the Pony Palace Universe.
Quote from: Calin
Remember, if we were in a simulation we would be the NPCs without direct access to the console.
That's also what I said in my own post:
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 28/12/2010 15:12:32On the other hand, you could argue that only the Original Universe has the power to affect the Master Computer.
I don't wish to be truculent I'm just defending myself when I never explicitly answered the original question.
Time is relative to the observer. It makes no sense to say anything about time is 'universal'. How would that even work? You'd have to believe in a fatalistic universe in which the events are fixed regardless of the things that happened before. That simply doesnt make any sense.
I know youre trying to argue that it's impossible anyway but you can't declare some strawman of time travel and then claim that your strawman is impossible.
Quote from: Calin
Time is relative to the observer. It makes no sense to say anything about time is 'universal'.
No, I don't mean the passage of time is universal, just that time passes throughout the whole universe (as far as we know of course). Thus it is a universal trait. Which is why I said you would have to change time universally to be genuinely travelling in time.
There is nothing fundamentally impossible (in the sense of leading to logical paradox) about me stepping into a box, waiting five minutes, and coming out to discover that a hundred years have passed. Which is what's generally understood by forward time travel.
Quote from: KhrisMUCI don't think that it's more likely that we're in a simulated universe; my gut tells me that our universe is way to complex to be a product of intelligent beings. Sounds paradoxical, but I think the complexity is evidence for a natural origin.
I would agree naturally, but for the sake of this discussion:
Being a product within a simulated world, we would have no idea how to measure this complexity you speak of. How could we decipher between what is
too complex to be a simulated world and what is of natural origin? If this were a simulated world, what we know to be "natural"
is simulation. We would be absolutely blind to what is what. What we think to be too complex, could be insignificant in the big picture.
Quote from: Atelier on Thu 30/12/2010 13:23:46
Quote from: Calin
[Time travelling] is *already possible and has been done*
Nobody has ever travelled through time. Ever.
(http://www.youyouk.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/o_rly-original-.jpg)
Unnecessary skepticism, I tell you : http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/11/24/mit-is-actually-testing-time-travel-s-grandfather-paradox
(the article is a bit old but since then they actually succeeded in sending the particle back in the past and testing what happens when you make it kill its grandfather).
Yes, in 2010, Humanity masters backward time travel, you'd better get used tot he ideas, guys.
I just stumbled upon this thread, I didn't read all the posts, so sorry, if I repeat someones points.
First of all, I really doubt your premise, that "mankind" will be able to simulate the world as it is. Assuming that computers will be able to calculate the amount of information which is necessary to simulate the physical world (I already doubt that there will be a computer which is able to calculate all of what's happening in the world it's in), you still would have to provide all of the physical laws, not just the known ones, and to be sure that all of the physical constants really are constants. To simulate the human being/society, you would either have to know the exact physical state of all human beings if you are sure that they are just driven by physical laws (which I also doubt) or run a simulation of evolution itself by knowing all of it's laws.
Anyway, assuming that all of this would be possible, it still would't change the fact, that as a "simulated lifeform" you would be still in this very life and have to ask & answer the same questions.
And, as far as I am concerned, they are e.g.:
Do I agree to a society, that wants me to do work for someone else's interests?
Do I agree that competition is necessary to have a good life?
Do I agree that people are divided into "Nations"?
P.S. "The *whole purpose* we create things is to surpass us." What are you working on? Do you use AGS?
My AGS game will surpass me in many ways.
It will be nicer to look at for starters...
Quote from: Calin Elephantsittingonface on Thu 27/01/2011 16:56:08
My AGS game will surpass me in many ways.
It will be nicer to look at for starters...
OMG OMG OMG!!
I think people working on games, me included, have this urge to refer to doing so in every post. I know I do/did. :D :D
A friend of mine tested the psychics engine last week, his cars a write off.
Dual - you get excited far too often, but i guess you would make a cute pet. :=
AGS GAME!
Quote from: Chicky on Fri 28/01/2011 01:59:40
Dual - you get excited far too often, but i guess you would make a cute pet. :=
Awwwww. That's so cute and nice of you to say.
Dualnames curls around Chicky's feet
Quote from: Dualnames on Fri 28/01/2011 03:52:30
Dualnames curls around Chicky's feet
Don't get too excited, Chicky's really a man. :=
That's possibly the exact reason that he got excited.
Quote from: Gilbet V7000a on Fri 28/01/2011 04:12:22
That's possibly the exact reason that he got excited.
LOL!
Also, Ryan, I know man. If I don't know that, nobody f@#%&* does! :P
Yeah, he's totally seen my downstairs mixer!
He didn't curl around that, did he? :P
Hey! Watch it there! :P