A simulated universe??

[MadScientist]

I'm not certain if this is appropriate for these forums, I think it is though so...

 

Say our universe, the one we're in right now, is a simulation.

There are several levels it could being simulated:

1 - Just my brain and everything outside it is just information being provided to it.

2 - Several million brains being simulated on different computers with the ability to communicate as well as be provided information by the program.

3 - Everything in the universe is physically simulated.

 

To simulate things perfectly on any level you would have to simulate every single fundamental particle and these laws of physics applied to each one of them then set off to simulate that level of the universe.

Maybe there are more kinds but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

Whatever level you pick the computers they're running on need to be far more powerful than the universe they're simulating, we couldn't simulate a universe bigger than our own. The computers would need to be unbelievably large.

 

For us to simulate a human brain absolutely perfectly we would need to simulate every particle in a brain, our computers couldn't handle that so they would have to simplify things, instead of doing every single particle do every single cell, instead of our laws of physics (assuming we even knew them all) we would have to simplify those.

Then from that simulated brains perspective the smallest particle would have to be a cell (much like a quark is in our universe) and the laws of phsysics would have to be simpler. To provide it with information and feedback, when it looked at something another part of the program or another computer would have to provide it a simple representation of that thing. You might have to look at my examples below to see what I'm getting at here.

 

I was wondering what evidence there is out there to either prove or disprove that theory of the universe being simulated.

 

There needs to be an explanation for lag/delays.

 

Like the delay between looking at something and actually seeing it, if our brains or just my brain is being simulated, when I look at a car another part of the computer or another computer has to create that data and send it to my brain, there needs to be an explanation for the lag, which we call the speed of light. That has to remain constant so when we look at the sun it has to take 8 minutes to reach us.

 

That ties in with travelling somewhere, obviously the simulated brain can't physically move anywhere, the position in the 3D map in this virtual reality needs to be updated, in a video game there is a slight lag between pressing the forwards key and the character moving forwards.

So if our simulated brains invented space travel and we have to keep within the confines of information from light reaching our brains we have to travel slower too.

 

Other things like field of vision, if I were writing the program for this simulated brain I would limit the amount of data I needed to provide it with so it would keep the program running fast enough to be useful to me. There would be no point running a program if it took 3 days just to build up the information for a full sphere of vision around it so I would just create rules (laws of physics) that prevented that.

And to make the program run even more efficiently I would make rules to explain why the brain could only see things clearly in a narrow cone in that limited field of vision.

So when the brain looked away from a tree towards a house beside the tree I would only need to show the brain that tree at a simpler level so I would have more processing time to provide it an accurate model of the house. See what I mean??

 

 

Speed of light again, if I was simulating many brains I wouldn't want them to be able to reach these other planets or make contact with them, I would still want the other planets because I want these brains to develop as close to the level of my own as possible.

 

Distance sound travels, if I discovered I was limited to the number of brains I could have communicating at any one time, like if I could only have 1,000 brains being spoken to by another brain I would make it so sound could only ever travel 100 feet or something like that.

 

 

 

I suppose the question I'm really asking is there anything in the universe that proves irrefutably that we (or even just myself) aren't being simulated in a similar manner to this??

 

Because everything seems to be explainable by this model.

Even time dilation can be explained away, if one or more of these brains take off in a ship they're cut off from the rest, the computers their brains are running on can run more efficiently and outrun the other computer simulated brains. If I found that problem in the program I wrote I'd have to apply it to everything else, like an atomic clock flying on a plane, that would have to abide by the flaw too, so one of the brains would eventually figure it out as special relativity.

 

 

 

Sorry for the length and sorry if it's not suitable for these forums, just delete it if it is and I'll try somewhere else.

[RICHARDBATTY]

No. The comp needn't be that big either. Small sections of the program could be run at a time and time would only pass as fast as the program ran. Drat.

[Ophiolite]

You seem to be assuming that the simulation would be taking place within a computer within a Universe that followed the same laws, had the same fundamental constants etc as this one. If our Universe were a simulation is it not more likely that the simulation was of conditions disimilar to that of the parent Universe?

 

 

Thought for the hour: Why is there only one Monopolies commission?

[MadScientist]

No. The comp needn't be that big either. Small sections of the program could be run at a time and time would only pass as fast as the program ran. Drat.

 

Yup, I know exactly what you mean.

They could run the program at whatever speed they liked, just pause one simulated mind (or even part of the mind) wait for the others to catch up then unpause what you paused.

 

But it doesn't go to prove whether or not we are in a simulated universe..

[MadScientist]

You seem to be assuming that the simulation would be taking place within a computer within a Universe that followed the same laws' date=' had the same fundamental constants etc as this one. If our Universe were a simulation is it not more likely that the simulation was of conditions disimilar to that of the parent Universe?

[/quote']

 

Sorry Ophiolite but I did say this:

 

Other things like field of vision, if I were writing the program for this simulated brain I would limit the amount of data I needed to provide it with so it would keep the program running fast enough to be useful to me. There would be no point running a program if it took 3 days just to build up the information for a full sphere of vision around it so I would just create rules (laws of physics) that prevented that.

And to make the program run even more efficiently I would make rules to explain why the brain could only see things clearly in a narrow cone in that limited field of vision.

So when the brain looked away from a tree towards a house beside the tree I would only need to show the brain that tree at a simpler level so I would have more processing time to provide it an accurate model of the house. See what I mean??

 

In other words I would have to alter the laws of physics in the universe I was simulating.

I'd take away peripheral vision or reduce it by altering the way they evolved eyesight, so the computer didn't have to process as much data on vision leaving my program more CPU cycles for other things.

 

 

One thing that does get me going about this is the way energy seems to be the key in this universe of ours..

Energy and matter are interchangeable, e = mc2, the way a photon can behave as a wave of energy or a particle, you can't destroy energy, etc..

I kinda wonder what AI simulants in a universe we simulated would think when they looked closely enough at everything in their universe and found energy everywhere. Because in a universe running on a computer, everything would be energy.

 

And if I'm right we can never physically look at the smallest fundamental particle in the universe in a microscope of any kind. All we'll ever find is evidence that it was or is there. If I was writing this program that's one of the limitations I'd put in as a law of physics. So they would have a reason for that and carry on evolving instead seeing a fundamental and how it's just a piece of energy with variables and code attached to it (an OOProgramming object )

 

I would "inject" things into their development, I'd make a bush burn and vibrate so it gave off sound waves and give them guidelines to follow to evolve into a "nice" species.

I might try an experiment with different types of religions and see which evolves into the best.

Sorry if that offends but that's just what I'd do.

 

Does that make any sense??

 

Try and get your head around this one.

We are something that was created from nothing just like a simulated universe would be. And we are following the rules of a program. And if there's a chance we are just simulated beings doesn't that mean it's somethiing we should investigate??

Figuring out how black holes work and things like that, we're just figuring out how the program works. But they still need to be done in case they help uncover the truth..

 

 

Should we all look up and shout "We know we're simulated intelligences but please don't turn us off.. Talk to us.."??

 

I did think if we had telepathy we could disprove the theory but it wouldn't, it'd help disprove that I'm the only brain and you're all just data given to my brain. But not whether we're all simulated..

 

There MUST be some irrifutable evidence out there that proves we cannot be simulated intelligences. Otherwise it's pretty scary..

 

The scariest thing of all though is, if I'm the only really simulated intelligence in my universe none of you will be able to say "Yes, you are simulated." because as information providers for me you're not programmed to do that, you're programmed to keep me in doubt so I'll figure out something incredible on my own that the programmers want to use in their universe.

So I have to carry on regardless, taking the information the universe (you) are providing me with and processing it, so I can be ready to process the more advanced information you give me later.

The human mind improves with exercise so as I learn things my brain improves, that's something I'd make the simulated brain in my program do too.

I just hope they don't turn me off.

 

Of course things could be that way in a simulated universe with many properly simulated brains but it's scarier to be the only one, isn't it??

[Sayonara]

This is nothing to do with the thread, but surely if you are sophisticated enough to simulate a universe there will be very little you can learn from it?

 

ps - I am pretty sure we have done this topic

[Ophiolite]

There MUST be some irrifutable evidence out there that proves we cannot be simulated intelligences. Otherwise it's pretty scary..

 

..................

I just hope they don't turn me off.

Daniel F Galouye "Counterfeit World" 1964. A fairly effective treatment if I recall, correctly (Although that sub-routine may just have been inserted in my program.)

[MadScientist]

This is nothing to do with the thread' date=' but surely if you are sophisticated enough to simulate a universe there will be very little you can learn from it?

 

ps - I am pretty sure we have done this topic [/quote']

 

There are probably thousands and thousands of AI researchers who would disagree with you there.

 

Say we had the robotic technology to make the movements and have all the necessary senses, the ony missing component would be the AI brain.

If you wanted it to have personality, the right kind of moral standards and the ability to learn wouldn't it be more efficient to have the brain evolving in a universe running at 100 or 500 times the speed of ours??

Then you just need to pick the brains when they ripen (die in our universe) look at their log and see if they fitted your profile for a "nice" android, if they did you stick them in one if they didn't you just reset their variables and stick them back in.

 

Now ask yourself how reincarnation would fit into this. What if those variables didn't get completely erased?? Sometimes some people or under certain circumstances (hypnosis) they could access those old variables or even the log file (because it would be attached or linked to their OOP object in the program) and recollect one of their previous lives..

In fact it would be made easier to do that because all our memories would be doing would be accessing our own log files. Under hypnosis maybe you can access your log file from further back, bypassing one of the rules of the program... Hey you guys up there!!! Yeah you!! I found a bug in your program!!!

 

Telepathy becomes a bug, two or more AI OOP people (we are the OOPies. ) make a connection they shouldn't and data is exchanged across a distance directly instead of using sound waves or visual information.

 

That's it isn't it??

We should be looking for bugs in their program!!!

So what else can be explained away as a bug in their program??

Ghosts, ESP, remote viewing.

Predictions of the future, maybe the computer program has routines for analysing what might happen next. Or even the people running the program might see the brains aren't evolving the right way, they rewind the program to an earlier state and alter something then let it run again from that point. So somewhere in the system is the thing they wanted to change, some guy called Nicodemus gets affected by a bug and can visualise in his AI mind the things they've changed, so he can only make vague descriptions. Where somone dreaming of a plane crash which happens gets a clearer picture because it wasn't too far in the future, the data the bug gave access to was easier to find and collect.

 

So another bug we could look for is, does matter have to be solid??

If that wall is only information sent to my simulated mind it's just the programs rules telling me I can't stick my hand through it. It's telling me when I reach my non existant hand out and try to pass it through it it doesn't let it. So they've got some neat collision detection routines in this program.

That would be a handy bug to find but if there is a bug in that bit of code how the hell would we find it??

 

Well we know hypnotic past life regressision involves entering a trance, we know people who predict the future usually do it in their dreams. Find the connection between those and the condition people are in when they see ghosts then you're onto something. The key to activating other bugs.

 

When you're hypnotised and told to regress to a past life you do.

When you're asleep and you're worrying about the flight you're going to make later or someone else is going to make, in other words you're told to look into the future, you do.

When you see a ghost, I dunno.. People usually see them at night, most people are tired at night, especially around midnight, they usually see them in old houses or something similar. So they're being told they're in this old house where people in the past have reported seeing ghosts, in this and other houses in the past. So you open the bug and see something you shouldn't..

 

Have you ever been drifting off to sleep and thought you heard something?? I have a couple of times, I was once convinced someone was in my room and said "Hello." was that a bug??

What if when I went to bed later and started drifting off to sleep thinking about all this a bug opened and something weird happened. I'd have found out that just thinking about a this was enough to do it.

 

And what about this??

When you close your eyes you can still picture things, those aren't coming from your senses. They're coming from your memory so the program knows how to present you with information from your past in that way.

 

 

That should get their attention. ;)

 

Imagine if they do see that and this post and our memories are erased or altered. We wouldn't know a damn thing about it.

But think about this, they don't have to because we know our universe is physically real, don't we??

 

So that's evidence for, which I find a little worrying so where's this abundance of evidence against it??

If this were a murder trial, right now I'd be saying guilty because the lack of evidence against is none existent as far as I can see anyway.

 

BTW I'm sorry if I'm scaring anyone.

[MadScientist]

Daniel F Galouye "Counterfeit World" 1964. A fairly effective treatment if I recall, correctly (Although that sub-routine may just have been inserted in my program.)

 

Yup, I've not read it but I've seen 13th Floor and The Matrix, maybe those are just inserted to reassure us that this universe being simulated is nothing but fantasy. It'd be the ideal way of convincing the AI's that they don't even need to think about any of this as they discover more about the universe..

 

According to every model of the universe we're all going to keep on evolving and develop new technology and migrate off this planet and...

All the physically provable evidence points to that and all the fantasy evidence points to that.

If I was growing AI minds in a "simulverse" and wanted them to evolve into nice minds for my androids. This universe would be absolutely perfect for the job..

 

They'd argue the toss over who or what created it but given enough diversionary information they'd get by.

They'd ocassionally argue about whether the universe was simulated or not too but they would always end up saying the same thing "There's nothing we can do about it so we might as well get on with it." If one of them goes insane thinking about it and takes its own life, well it's only an object in a computer program isn't it??

But what if some of them didn't just argue about it but went further and found out the truth.. I think I'll watch 13th Floor and Matrix again later.

[Sayonara]

There are probably thousands and thousands of AI researchers who would disagree with you there.

 

and so on

I did say "universe" and not "scenario".

 

Generally when we say "the universe" we aren't leaving out the time axis for a quick laugh.

[Gilded]

A very interesting thread indeed. Starting to sound a bit like The Matrix though.

 

What about this:

This universe is just a game. During the game, you can't remember anything about the real universe, or your real life. Then when you die, you log off and receive a score for the game. "Ok... You lived 106 years... You were a moderator at SFN... Got a Nobel prize... Twelve offspring... 163040 points."

[MadScientist]

I did say "universe" and not "scenario".

 

I know, but by simulated universe it could be any scale, from one single brain with the rest of the universe provided as information or many simulated brains or right up to every particle in our universe simulated.

 

Generally when we say "the universe" we aren't leaving out the time axis for a quick laugh.

 

Sorry, I don't get the point you're making...

[Sayonara]

Well, you either start your simulation with an intitial state, which includes a fixed set of rules that may or may not spawn rules of their own, or you simulate a universe with an expanding set of rules which are constrained by an "outer" set of rules defined along a time axis.

 

In the first instance, you will only find out what "could be". In the second instance you will find out very little that you didn't know already.

[MadScientist]

A very interesting thread indeed. Starting to sound a bit like The Matrix though.

 

What about this:

This universe is just a game. During the game' date=' you can't remember anything about the real universe, or your real life. Then when you die, you log off and receive a score for the game. "Ok... You lived 106 years... You were a moderator at SFN... Got a Nobel prize... Twelve offspring... 163040 points." [/quote']

 

I was thinking about this but it complicated things too much, they'd have to be able to "jack in" to the system but the universe would need to run at their speed whilst they were playing. And it introduces problems like their home PC's would need to be able to handle all this processing and stuff like that.

I just thought it better to keep things simple.

 

There was one cool thing though, sleep. Maybe when we're asleep that's when they're out of the game for a while during their daytime.

 

That is getting a bit too Matrixey though.

[MadScientist]

Well' date=' you either start your simulation with an intitial state, which includes a fixed set of rules that may or may not spawn rules of their own, or you simulate a universe with an expanding set of rules which are constrained by an "outer" set of rules defined along a time axis.

 

In the first instance, you will only find out what "could be". In the second instance you will find out very little that you didn't know already.[/quote']

 

We know the initial rules, they're the laws of physics aren't they?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by another layer of rules though, all I can think of is things like "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or something like that.

 

As for why they simulate out universe they might not want to learn anything. It might be the latest version of The Sims to them, or they're growing minds for their androids, or in their universe their laws of physics are different - gravity on their world is slightly weaker..

 

How about this then..

Their species which evolved far differently to our own, they wanted to know what a species would be like that evolved from primates or even a different kind of bacteria right at the dawn of evolution.

When the dinosaurs start taking over evolution they have to intervene with - "Chuck a huge brick at 'em. Make it just big enough to wipe the dinosaurs out but not those mammals."

 

People do say it takes an incredible number of circumstances for life to evolve on Earth.

[Sayonara]

We know the initial rules' date=' they're the laws of physics aren't they?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by another layer of rules though, all I can think of is things like "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or something like that.[/quote']

The laws of physics are all very well, but they don't actually directly control everything that ever happens. They do constrain virtually all outcomes, but this is not a reliable way of ensuring realistic answers in a simulation on this scale.

The outer layer of rules is needed if you are progressing this simulation over time ('time' meaning in the simulation, obviously). You need additional rules to describe changes to the initial set of rules, many of which will not be able to change with time simply as a function of their own properties.

 

 

As for why they simulate out universe they might not want to learn anything. It might be the latest version of The Sims to them, or they're growing minds for their androids, or in their universe their laws of physics are different - gravity on their world is slightly weaker..

Well, if it is for a laugh then my original question doesn't apply. If they are programming physical laws as a means of deriving the effects of said physical laws then they are pretty much wasting their own time.

 

 

How about this then..

Their species which evolved far differently to our own, they wanted to know what a species would be like that evolved from primates or even a different kind of bacteria right at the dawn of evolution.

When the dinosaurs start taking over evolution they have to intervene with - "Chuck a huge brick at 'em. Make it just big enough to wipe the dinosaurs out but not those mammals."

See "biology is not a science" debate.

[Severian]

This is sort of already being done, at least on a small scale. Lattice gauge theory is an attempt to simulate physics by constructing a very fine mesh, or lattice, over space time, and simulating the values of quantum fields at the mesh-intersections. This is extremely difficult to do, and needs huge supercomputers, and so far the largest lattices are of the order of 64^4. They can calculate things like hadron spectra fairly well, but not much else.

[MadScientist]

The laws of physics are all very well' date=' but they don't actually directly control [u']everything[/u] that ever happens. They do constrain virtually all outcomes, but this is not a reliable way of ensuring realistic answers in a simulation on this scale.

The outer layer of rules is needed if you are progressing this simulation over time ('time' meaning in the simulation, obviously). You need additional rules to describe changes to the initial set of rules, many of which will not be able to change with time simply as a function of their own properties.

 

I STILL don't know what you mean.

The laws of physics as rules for the universe are obvious, gravity, speed of light, etc..

I don't understand why these would need to change over time...

 

I can see two other layers of rules though.

The rules of the program itself, how it has to present/deliver some data it has. To send a simulated mind a picture it has to split it up into individual packets (photons) then send those values to the corresponding part of the mind that deals with visual information.

 

Then the next layer is the rules the simulated minds create like "I can't ask her out because she's out of my league."

 

Or are you imagining this VR as The Matrix or 13th Floor. I don't know how much you know about programming but...

The video shown in a video game is only a graphical representation of the data inside the program.

If you wrote a game that had no visual feedback, it'd be a bit boring but the game would still run along with the soldiers shooting their guns at each other or whatever.

That's what a simulated universe would be like, the soldiers wouldn't physically move anywhere, their x,y,z variables would just get updated as they "moved". Then when they needed to be told they could see this computer monitor in front of them it would have to send that image into that simulated mind so it thought it was looking at the monitor.

That's what I mean by altering the laws of physics so when light passed through the right materials it got refracted so the computers can get away with using the old visual data by shifting it to the left and putting the new data in the centre as you looked to your right.

Their computers might not have the speed so they have to limit the visual information each mind (on each computer) has to deal with at any one time.

 

Maybe the rules you're talking about don't fit into my concept of how they'd run the simulated minds. Can you give me an example of your 2nd layer of rules??

 

 

I still want to find some bugs in their system that I can take advantage of.

Cheat codes would be nicer but... ;)

[Jake712]

Concerning your problem with time delay/ lag for communication between minds:

 

There are many theories for supraluminal , or instantanious, communication. Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card was the first Sci-Fi book I have read discussing the ansible, but I think that the first person who came up with it was Ursula Le Guin because I also read about it in her novel, The Dispossessed. The ansible is basically a form of binary data transfer without time delay. However, I don't remember any details about its explanation or discovery. While I believe that instantaneous communication is far beyond our reach, perhaps a superior being or beings may have mastered it. Yet, as far-fetched as the idea seems, I believe that it is, in some way, possible to communicate instantaneously.

[MadScientist]

Concerning your problem with time delay/ lag for communication between minds:

 

There are many theories for supraluminal ' date=' or instantanious, communication. [i']Ender's Game[/i] by Orson Scott Card was the first Sci-Fi book I have read discussing the ansible, but I think that the first person who came up with it was Ursula Le Guin because I also read about it in her novel, The Dispossessed. The ansible is basically a form of binary data transfer without time delay. However, I don't remember any details about its explanation or discovery. While I believe that instantaneous communication is far beyond our reach, perhaps a superior being or beings may have mastered it. Yet, as far-fetched as the idea seems, I believe that it is, in some way, possible to communicate instantaneously.

 

Yup, I totally agree with you Jake. I reckon it's just a matter of finding out how these entangled particles work then we can use the mechanics of that to communicate instantaneously.

 

But it's kinda irrelevent here because even though there might be other reasons for us having telepathy what we need to find is something that occurs in this universe that could never occur in a simulated one. Otherwise there is every chance our universe is just a computer simulation of a simpler version of their own universe.

 

I don't think it's anything to get paranoid enough over to change our lives, there's nothing we can do about it so...

And there's every chance they pull us out of the simulation and give us a life in their universe.

The thing is, even that fits into this model because it becomes heaven and hell. If you've the kind of mind that's not "nice" they'll probably not want it roaming about in their world. So this might even be their way of reproduction, clone a body then choose what kind of consciousness to put into it.

And most of the the evidence in our (or mine at least) tells me they want people who don't harm their fellow men in any way.

 

So nothing in the Bible proves otherwise, our god is those people running the simulation but there's nothing to say they don't follow that same god. So our god is their god so even that fits..

 

And if we can't prove this isn't a simulation and we start looking at it in more detail as that kind of universe we might find some different kinds of things out. So long as we don't abuse those "things" and stay "nice" they might not turn the simulation off or reset it and fix those things we found.