Are we programs in a machine?

[Scarab]

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...

[Ryan Timothy B]

Also: this came to mind...

Or this one (sorta). Great comics btw, thanks for the link.

[Snarky]

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:

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.

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.

[Galen]

*takes the blue pill*

[Ryan Timothy B]

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.

[Wersus]

...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?

...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/

[Babar]

Yes, that was it!

What a remarkably average movie that was.

[Atelier]

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.

[Dualnames]

*clap* *clap* *clap*

Best post EVER. Way to go.

[Atelier]

*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!

[Dualnames]

*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.

[Stupot]

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.

[Babar]

Not exactly what you were talking about, but I thought the timing was funny:
Scientists aim to simulate Earth

[Khris]

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.

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.

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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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.

[SSH]

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.

[Atelier]

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.

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).

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.

[InCreator]

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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.