Are we programs in a machine?

[Calin Leafshade]

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?

[veryweirdguy]

SYSTEM ERROR

File Not Found: Descartes.sys

REBOOT IMMINENT

[Babar]

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 . All you have to do is drive to the edge of the city, and you see the simulation getting frayed.

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Chicky]

Where's my cheat menu?

[Calin Leafshade]

jump Up, left testicle,duck down, right testicle, eyeball + nose tweak.

[Darth Mandarb]

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.

[Gabriel_Down]

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

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 >.<

[Calin Leafshade]

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);

[Dualnames]

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.

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

Congratulations for missing the point by a nautical mile.

[Dualnames]

Congratulations for missing the point by a nautical mile.

Congratulations for making me laugh.

[Gabriel_Down]

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

[Calin Leafshade]

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.)

[Gabriel_Down]

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.

[Chicky]

Because we don't already have gravity and physics in computer generated worlds? You shot yourself in the foot with that GameMaker comment.

[Dualnames]

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?

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Gabriel_Down]

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.

[Gabriel_Down]

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*