we are in a gaint simulation

[jerin]

look around us, gat equations, is discrete at lower lavels(time,energy,light,....)

[CaptainPanic]

What you mean to say is that you can make a simulation of everything. True.

 

And if you would simulate everything in huge detail, this particular simulation would be indistinguishable from reality. But that's not possible, because you would need to simulate the simulation too, opening a loop that will not converge.

[PeterJ]

Yes. That was the problem with plotline of The Matrix. But in real life the problem can be overcome.

[michel123456]

What you mean to say is that you can make a simulation of everything. True.

 

And if you would simulate everything in huge detail, this particular simulation would be indistinguishable from reality. But that's not possible, because you would need to simulate the simulation too, opening a loop that will not converge.

Why does it have to converge? You could open a loop into infinity, where is the problem?

[TaoRich]

When we model things, especially computer based modelling, we often talk about "simulating reality" ... building an approximation for something real.

 

I don't see that there is a need to differentiate "a simulation" from "a reality".

 

What if "what we observe in reality" is a simulation ?

 

In other words, "our so-called physical reality" is a manifestation of an underlying (non-physical) reality.

 

Consider one of the earliest computer games, Pong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong

 

As the player, we see a representation of a bat and a representation of a ball on the screen.

 

We move the representation of the bat ( by means of a keyboard, or a joy-stick ) into a position where ( we believe ) it will interact with the representation of the ball. The ball appears to strike the bat, and we observe the new movement path of the ball, as adjusted by the so called interaction of the bat with the ball ( or ball with the bat ).

 

Now, ask yourself in the above ... did the bat actually strike the ball ?

 

Even deeper, did the state of the pixels on the screen have anything to do with the movement of the ball.

 

Quite clearly, the answer is no.

 

The rules of the system are held in a program. The state of the system is held in a dynamic memory storage.

 

When we move the controller, we alter not the pixels on the screen representing the bat or the ball - we are altering ( some components of ) the state of the system held in the dynamic memory.

 

When the program performs "an evaluation of what to represent next on the screen" it passes the state of the system through the set of rules for the system. It determines how the components of the system will interact over the next given moment in time ( the refresh cycle ) ... and then manifests the new state as a changed representation on the computer screen which only gives the appearance that the ball was hit by the bat.

 

Again, did the white area of the computer or TV screen representing the bat actually interact with the white area of the computer or TV screen representing the ball ?

 

In actuality, the interaction was caused by the player moving the controller ... and the controller interacting with the program ... and the program rules interacting in turn on the state of the system held in memory.

 

In fact, the controller does not even exist in the dimensional reality of the manifestation of the system reality. ( The controller is not even connected to the screen. it is connected only to the program, and the program is connected to the screen )

 

Why then do we assume that what "we call reality" functions differently from the game simulation above.

 

Is it possible that a component of ourselves that exists "outside of our physical reality" interacts with a system ( the interconnected whole of a single wave which refreshes cyclicly ) causing an observed change in the manifestation what we call physical reality ?

 

 

Rich

Edited December 5, 2011 by TaoRich

[Tres Juicy]

"In other words, "our so-called physical reality" is a manifestation of an underlying (non-physical) reality."

There is a particular school of thought that would suggest that the universe we observe is a 3d representation of a 2d universe somewhere else, there is also some evidence of this I think.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

Google it, its interesting reading.

[CaptainPanic]

Why does it have to converge? You could open a loop into infinity, where is the problem?

At the 1st iteration, you have the universe, and you model it.

But then you must add the model to your model, so you have the universe + 1 model in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 2 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 3 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 4 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 5 models in the model.

etc.

 

Usually, at this point an IT expert steps in to tell me that my model is unnecessarily clumsy and slow, and that I can model the same thing with 100x less processor time.

 

Whatever

[PeterJ]

Yes. The idea of a simulation runs into problems. What is being simulated? Taorich's idea that the spacetime universe is a manifestation of the unmanifest is different and makes more sense, at least in that it does give rise to contradictions or endless regressions.

[Tres Juicy]

At the 1st iteration, you have the universe, and you model it.

But then you must add the model to your model, so you have the universe + 1 model in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 2 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 3 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 4 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 5 models in the model.

etc.

 

Usually, at this point an IT expert steps in to tell me that my model is unnecessarily clumsy and slow, and that I can model the same thing with 100x less processor time.

 

Whatever

 

Of course, if the people in the model are unaware that they're in a model there is no need to reproduce it at all. I certainly dont think "You Must" add the model

 

For example, if I model my house and it occupants (and give them the same consiousness as they have already) and I include a model of the model, suddenly the occupants are aware of at least the possibilty of a larger model.

 

If I leave it out there is no problem and the model people go about their lives none-the-wiser, which is surely the point of such a detailed model?

 

why build a perfect simulation and then ruin it with an infinite loop of simulations within it?

[michel123456]

At the 1st iteration, you have the universe, and you model it.

But then you must add the model to your model, so you have the universe + 1 model in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 2 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 3 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 4 models in the model.

But then you must add the model again, because that wasn't in the model yet, so you get the universe + 5 models in the model.

etc.

 

Usually, at this point an IT expert steps in to tell me that my model is unnecessarily clumsy and slow, and that I can model the same thing with 100x less processor time.

 

Whatever

You created a multitude of universes because you began with 1 universe in the 1st iteration.

If you began with something simpler, you may just have obtained a Universe.

With the mathematical line of integer numbers, you have no problem.

[CaptainPanic]

Of course, if the people in the model are unaware that they're in a model there is no need to reproduce it at all. I certainly dont think "You Must" add the model

 

For example, if I model my house and it occupants (and give them the same consiousness as they have already) and I include a model of the model, suddenly the occupants are aware of at least the possibilty of a larger model.

 

If I leave it out there is no problem and the model people go about their lives none-the-wiser, which is surely the point of such a detailed model?

 

why build a perfect simulation and then ruin it with an infinite loop of simulations within it?

All I am saying is that we cannot model the entire universe in all its details, because we (and our theoretical model) live within the system boundaries... and building the model would change the model.

 

That leaves only 2 choices: either change the system boundaries, or change the level of detail.

[Tres Juicy]

All I am saying is that we cannot model the entire universe in all its details, because we (and our theoretical model) live within the system boundaries... and building the model would change the model.

 

That leaves only 2 choices: either change the system boundaries, or change the level of detail.

 

Of course...

 

To solve the problem all you have to do is leave out the model (change the level of detail).

 

So we could well live in a model, just one that does not contain a model of itself

[TaoRich]

All I am saying is that we cannot model the entire universe in all its details, because we (and our theoretical model) live within the system boundaries...

 

Can this be proven definitively ?

 

"We live within the system boundaries."

 

The physical aspect of ourselves lives within the physical aspect of the system boundaries.

... I'm happy to agree with that.

 

But do "we as individuals" exist completely and utterly as physical aspects ?

... I'm not so happy to agree with that.

 

Or in other words, "is my entirety contained in physical dimensions ?" ... my gut feel won't allow me to swallow this whole.

 

And for the record, I'm not talking religion or spirituality. Quite practically, I think that there are aspects of myself ( and all of us ) that are not physical at all, are not localised to any fixed time or space, and are related or connected to the body I am in, but are not limited to the body and the manifestation it finds itself in.

 

/me hopes that the Speculation Police don't shoot this post out of the discussion thread

 

If you read my Pong post above, you'll see that there are some example grounds for this point of view.

 

Rich

Edited December 5, 2011 by TaoRich

[kitkat]

Can this be proven definitively ?

 

"We live within the system boundaries."

 

The physical aspect of ourselves lives within the physical aspect of the system boundaries.

... I'm happy to agree with that.

 

But do "we as individuals" exist completely and utterly as physical aspects ?

... I'm not so happy to agree with that.

 

Or in other words, "is my entirety contained in physical dimensions ?" ... my gut feel won't allow me to swallow this whole.

 

And for the record, I'm not talking religion or spirituality. Quite practically, I think that there are aspects of myself ( and all of us ) that are not physical at all, are not localised to any fixed time or space, and are related or connected to the body I am in, but are not limited to the body and the manifestation it finds itself in.

 

/me hopes that the Speculation Police don't shoot this post out of the discussion thread

 

If you read my Pong post above, you'll see that there are some example grounds for this point of view.

 

Rich

 

I like your concept and it is something to think since science has never found thoughts that are stored as objects

[TaoRich]

I like your concept and it is something to think since science has never found thoughts that are stored as objects

When I was much much younger, I used to think: "What if memories or knowledge aren't stored in the brain itself. Could it be possible that our brain is a receiver, like a radio receiver, "tuning" in to memories or knowledge that exists outside of our brain (and 3 dimensional reality)."

 

In this "model" learning could be equated to "developing the brain receiver", and refining its ability to tune in to more and more knowledge. The knowledge would never "actually exist inside the brain" ... it would still be "out there somewhere" ... we would just get better at picking it up.

 

I haven't thought about that for ages, and haven't reprocessed that with any "formal adult thinking" ... but I thought I'd mention it as it resonates with kitkat's comment.

 

Rich

[dimreepr]

Of course, if the people in the model are unaware that they're in a model there is no need to reproduce it at all. I certainly dont think "You Must" add the model

 

For example, if I model my house and it occupants (and give them the same consiousness as they have already) and I include a model of the model, suddenly the occupants are aware of at least the possibilty of a larger model.

 

If I leave it out there is no problem and the model people go about their lives none-the-wiser, which is surely the point of such a detailed model?

 

why build a perfect simulation and then ruin it with an infinite loop of simulations within it?

 

if you could build a perfect simulation then you design it so that this type of thought is impossible.If its imperfect then its size and complexety would throw up an emergent quality and the illusion would be discovered.

Edited December 16, 2011 by dimreepr

[TonyMcC]

Let us consider for a moment the possibility that our life is a test to see if we are suitable for some reward. Let us also accept that the person or being setting the test has the qualities that are being sought in us e.g. kindness, fairness, love of others etc. Let us assume that the person or being setting the test is all powerful and can do anything. Can we be tested for our attitude to things like suffering, unfairness in life such as the death of infants etc. without such experiences actually happening ?

Well, one solution to this problem is that I am in a simulator and everything I have "experienced" is not at all real. Perhaps the rest of you do not exist and any response to this post will have been generated using artificial intelligence in a program within a computer that is more powerful than I am presently allowed to consider possible.

Just a thought!

[dimreepr]

Let us consider for a moment the possibility that our life is a test to see if we are suitable for some reward. Let us also accept that the person or being setting the test has the qualities that are being sought in us e.g. kindness, fairness, love of others etc. Let us assume that the person or being setting the test is all powerful and can do anything. Can we be tested for our attitude to things like suffering, unfairness in life such as the death of infants etc. without such experiences actually happening ?

Well, one solution to this problem is that I am in a simulator and everything I have "experienced" is not at all real. Perhaps the rest of you do not exist and any response to this post will have been generated using artificial intelligence in a program within a computer that is more powerful than I am presently allowed to consider possible.

Just a thought!

 

 

It strikes me that we could well be, but if we are in a designed system and we can assume the systems imperfect. This means, this system will at some point would break down, given the systems complexity time is the variable. We just need to work out the probability of such a systems breakdown. We can then determine if we should have witnessed this breakdown at this point in our history.

[TonyMcC]

It strikes me that we could well be, but if we are in a designed system and we can assume the systems imperfect. This means, this system will at some point would break down, given the systems complexity time is the variable. We just need to work out the probability of such a systems breakdown. We can then determine if we should have witnessed this breakdown at this point in our history.

What's this "we" - you don't exist lol. Perhaps the imperfections in the program running the simulator are responsible for the strangeness we see in the universe. Things like irrational numbers and the way quantum physics doesn't exactly agree with everyday physics.

[Tres Juicy]

What's this "we" - you don't exist lol. Perhaps the imperfections in the program running the simulator are responsible for the strangeness we see in the universe. Things like irrational numbers and the way quantum physics doesn't exactly agree with everyday physics.

 

 

Or, the most obvious:

 

1) why toast always lands buttered side down

 

2) why I put a pair of socks in the wash and only get 1 sock back...

 

 

The whole place needs debugging

Edited December 16, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[NotanOriginalName]

Stephen Hawking's argument against the thesis of "The real world is a simulation" was that if we WERE in a simulation,if would be rather

entertaining for our masters to see what happens when they tinker with the laws of nature which does not happen.We do not see any

anomalies in the laws of nature.

This being the case,if we ARE in a simulation,what is stopping our masters to conclude that they are in a simulation too.

 

Thereby this goes on till infinite number of cycles....

 

hence we conclude that either there are infinite number of simulated worlds inside each world and we are at the bottom of the chain as we obviously are not controlling another world

or

our world is not a simulation.

[questionposter]

If we're in a simulation, why even bother to think about it if we can't break out of it? Unless the city didn't tear down all the phone booths yet...

[Edtharan]

If our universe is a simulation, then it would be possible to work out if we are in a simulation or not. At least theoretically as the amount of information required could be emender (possibly requiring all the information in the observable universe - at the extreme high end of the scale).

 

The idea goes like this:

 

IF we are a simulation, then we exist within a greater universe with it own rules. What is important is that the rules of our universe would have to be a subset of theirs.

 

When we make a computer simulation, we use mathematical formula in the form of algorithms to drive the simulation. This is true even if the "universe" we simulate has different rules that we have. This is because we are using a device dependent on our rules to run the simulation.

 

Because of this, it means there will be "glitches" that will occur. The simulation can not be perfect.

 

As an example, in computers that we use, they have a limited amount of ram, and the processors can only work on a certain number of bits at a time. This means with large numbers or large amounts of information, there will inevitably be errors.

 

This might show up in our universe as a problem with mathematical operation on large numbers (or large numbers of objects). It would probably occur if you tried to repeat the same operation with large numbers twice. You would get different results.

 

Just say you counted the number of atoms in the universe twice. You might then get two different number of atoms (even if you made sure none left or entered the region you were counting).

 

Of course, such glitches might not require large numbers, it might be visible with smaller number, or in certain situations. So it could even be possible that such phenomena have already been seen, but just not recognised. But, more likely the glitches require much larger numbers, or that we are not in a simulation.

[Schrödinger's hat]

If our universe is a simulation, then it would be possible to work out if we are in a simulation or not. At least theoretically as the amount of information required could be emender (possibly requiring all the information in the observable universe - at the extreme high end of the scale).

 

The idea goes like this:

 

IF we are a simulation, then we exist within a greater universe with it own rules. What is important is that the rules of our universe would have to be a subset of theirs.

 

When we make a computer simulation, we use mathematical formula in the form of algorithms to drive the simulation. This is true even if the "universe" we simulate has different rules that we have. This is because we are using a device dependent on our rules to run the simulation.

 

Because of this, it means there will be "glitches" that will occur. The simulation can not be perfect.

 

As an example, in computers that we use, they have a limited amount of ram, and the processors can only work on a certain number of bits at a time. This means with large numbers or large amounts of information, there will inevitably be errors.

 

This might show up in our universe as a problem with mathematical operation on large numbers (or large numbers of objects). It would probably occur if you tried to repeat the same operation with large numbers twice. You would get different results.

 

Just say you counted the number of atoms in the universe twice. You might then get two different number of atoms (even if you made sure none left or entered the region you were counting).

 

Of course, such glitches might not require large numbers, it might be visible with smaller number, or in certain situations. So it could even be possible that such phenomena have already been seen, but just not recognised. But, more likely the glitches require much larger numbers, or that we are not in a simulation.

 

What if it's just a really good simulation, such that all possible states that obey the rules are within the specs of the hardware?

What if the glitches are actually just limitations of the universe?

I often think quantum physics is a bit like an artefact of the universe being programmed in Haskell (with lazy evaluation) and some functions have side-effects that the author didn't think of, but taking it seriously isn't really productive.

[Tres Juicy]

What if it's just a really good simulation, such that all possible states that obey the rules are within the specs of the hardware?

What if the glitches are actually just limitations of the universe?

I often think quantum physics is a bit like an artefact of the universe being programmed in Haskell (with lazy evaluation) and some functions have side-effects that the author didn't think of, but taking it seriously isn't really productive.

 

 

Which would explain my sock paradox I mentioned earlier