"Extrapolations to the distant futurity of trends in the growth of high-performance computing (HPC) have led philosophers to question —in a logically compelling way— whether the universe that we currently inhabit is a numerical simulation performed by our distant descendants." [1]
Someone in my department is expanding on the theory that our reality is, in fact, a computer simulation. This is not to say we are in something like the Matrix, but that we--ourselves--are no more than parts of a computer program, like the 13th Floor.
Basically, physicists today have ways of simulating the basic fundamental forces of the universe. While currently those simulations are only capable of simulating a very small part of space/time, in the future it is conceivable that computers will be powerful enough to simulate larger parts, maybe even the size of our universe.
With a powerful enough computer, one could simulate an entire universe from its beginning to its end (multiple times, with different configurations). The simulation could have the same complexity emerge within it as the real universe does (simulated life could evolve in it, for example).
However, one of the fundamental limitations of this simulation method is a granularity in the space/time of the simulation (basically, you have to use digital steps, not analog). More powerful computers would not allow for this granularity to be removed(it could be reduced, but the more you reduce it the longer your simulations take). This causes certain features of high-energy particle interactions to emerge in the simulation.
Some of those SAME features have been observed in OUR universe, and the others can be tested for.
So, the question I pose is: What are the ramifications of trying to find out if we are a simulation? And does it matter if we are?
I think that if we were a simulation, there is a good chance they would end it the moment we figured it out; otherwise, I think with how snarky we are as a race, we would start messing with their data which would make it not very usable.
I think that if we were a simulation, there is a good chance they would end it the moment we figured it out; otherwise, I think with how snarky we are as a race, we would start messing with their data which would make it not very usable.
Even if we could find out what the simulation was for, if the simulation is of a whole universe it is very unlikely we could mess with the results. They would likely be looking for universe end conditions or which fundamental partials emerge based on starting conditions. When the program ended only the pertinent data would be saved on their end, and we'd already ceased existing.
I find unlikely that they would bother to setup anything like the fail safe you mention.
If we messed with the results, then those would just be the results.
I've never understood one part of this theory: How in the hell do scientists today figure try would know the capabilities of other/futuristic computers. The entire premise seems to be: our comps can't do it so none will ever be able to. Seems a bit presumptuous, IMO.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
I've never understood one part of this theory: How in the hell do scientists today figure try would know the capabilities of other/futuristic computers. The entire premise seems to be: our comps can't do it so none will ever be able to. Seems a bit presumptuous, IMO.
I've never understood one part of this theory: How in the hell do scientists today figure try would know the capabilities of other/futuristic computers. The entire premise seems to be: our comps can't do it so none will ever be able to. Seems a bit presumptuous, IMO.
But, you'd have to assume things like that to make it testable and falsifiable. Its important for a scientific theory to be both those things.
But without knowing the capabilities of the computer that is running our simulation(if it is), the only thing they can prove is that our current technology isn't capable of making a fake universe. And I'm pretty sure we all knew that already.
To me it's like cavemen saying wheels can't exist because all they can cut are square slabs of stone.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
But without knowing the capabilities of the computer that is running our simulation(if it is), the only thing they can prove is that our current technology isn't capable of making a fake universe. And I'm pretty sure we all knew that already.
I guess I am a little confused at this point. Which part of the theory are you objecting to, exactly? It sounded to me as if you were objecting to the extrapolation of Moore's Law, yet that seems odd now.
Are you objecting to the granularity issue? That seems odd, because if you remove it the theory no longer predicts the observed GZK cutoff and no longer becomes testable (since the computational bases would have to be known to us for us to test for it). The granularity is exactly the point; it would tell us the capabilities of the computer we are being run on since different granularities cause different cutoffs.
Is your objection even more fundamental? Are you objecting to any and all predictions about the future? Are you talking about the problem with induction, and that we can't assume the sun will rise tomorrow just because it rose every day before? Yet, that also seems odd since ALL of science is based on the idea that you can use past examples to make productions of the future. Are you objecting to the scientific method itself?
I guess I just need to better understand exactly what you're objecting to.
As far as I can tell (which is admittedly not that far, since the details of the physics are largely beyond me) the central claim here is that if our universe satisfies a certain granularity condition, it could in principle be a simulation.
But there's nothing in here that bridges the gap between could be and is -- that is to say, even if we test and determine that our universe has the granularity necessary to be a simulation, that doesn't entail that it must be one.
Thus it seems wrong to say that the proposition that our reality is a simulation is a testable one, at least by the lights of this paper. The proposition that is actually testable is "our reality could in principle be simulated." This is certainly interesting in its own right, but not as interesting as the alternative.
If we could actually test whether our reality was a simulation, this would be very profound -- it would be a partial answer to the problem of the Cartesian demon, which is usually regarded as having no practical solution.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
But without knowing the capabilities of the computer that is running our simulation(if it is), the only thing they can prove is that our current technology isn't capable of making a fake universe. And I'm pretty sure we all knew that already.
To me it's like cavemen saying wheels can't exist because all they can cut are square slabs of stone.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the formulation: "Are we a specific sort of simulation run on a computer with certain similarities to our computers?"
Certainly a computing device with super-turing capabilities would allow for sorts of simulations beyond what is being conjectured. Even a regular Church-Turing-obeying computer would not be bound by the simplistic formulation given. Why would the spacing of the lattice need to be constant? If I were writing a computer simulation with the computing power to simulate a universe, I'd simply increase lattice density when needed.
Perhaps the real question being asked is, "Are we in a crappy simulation run on a crappy computer?"
But without knowing the capabilities of the computer that is running our simulation(if it is), the only thing they can prove is that our current technology isn't capable of making a fake universe. And I'm pretty sure we all knew that already.
To me it's like cavemen saying wheels can't exist because all they can cut are square slabs of stone.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the formulation: "Are we a specific sort of simulation run on a computer with certain similarities to our computers?"
Certainly a computing device with super-turing capabilities would allow for sorts of simulations beyond what is being conjectured. Even a regular Church-Turing-obeying computer would not be bound by the simplistic formulation given. Why would the spacing of the lattice need to be constant? If I were writing a computer simulation with the computing power to simulate a universe, I'd simply increase lattice density when needed.
Perhaps the real question being asked is, "Are we in a crappy simulation run on a crappy computer?"
Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
I've never understood one part of this theory: How in the hell do scientists today figure try would know the capabilities of other/futuristic computers. The entire premise seems to be: our comps can't do it so none will ever be able to. Seems a bit presumptuous, IMO.
I've never understood one part of this theory: How in the hell do scientists today figure try would know the capabilities of other/futuristic computers. The entire premise seems to be: our comps can't do it so none will ever be able to. Seems a bit presumptuous, IMO.
Well, but suppose that real-valued analog computation is possible in the overlaying world in which our simulation is taking place. The Church-Turing Thesis and derivative concepts like decidability seem like a bit of a leap for describing a computing device outside our universe.
I'm an absulte and total laymen in every sense when it comes to this theory. However, I was wondering why Professor Gates' research in string theory (he discovered computer code in superstring theory) hasn't been brought up here which directly ties to this idea of a simulation. I cannot even begin to explain it so I'll just share a link. It scared the crap out of me.
I've talked to a few of my friends about this at work (we're software engineers, and hence nerds), and one of my friends brought up an interesting point that plays into this.
While all of us believe in Big Bang, and science being behind the origins of the universe, we were discussing some of the merits of the theological argument of design. Bear with me while I explain...
The universe is a big pot of entropy, and in theory has an unlimited number of events that could play out. It's interesting to think that all of the chaos of the cosmos behaved in such a way that we have life, a solar system, hot dogs, etc. Again, surmising that through infinite levels of probabability these conditions could exist, it is highly improbable that they would. There are so many variables that could disrupt our delicate galaxy, it's amazing it exists at all.
The reason this tied back to design at all was that it accounts for a hospitable environment in a way that ignores entropy, and it was an interesting contrast to the conversation.
Given that, it makes me wonder as to whether or not there is some cosmic ant farm that we live in. I also agree with Yami that we are predicating digital existence as a condition for simulation on what we know now, and there's plenty of evidence that, historically, humans are not great at predicting how tech will evolve. It's certainly within reason that we just haven't discovered how to simulate analog yet.
Now, I need to get back to crafting my serum to live forever so I can see how this whole thingy plays out.
I've talked to a few of my friends about this at work (we're software engineers, and hence nerds), and one of my friends brought up an interesting point that plays into this.
While all of us believe in Big Bang, and science being behind the origins of the universe, we were discussing some of the merits of the theological argument of design. Bear with me while I explain...
The universe is a big pot of entropy, and in theory has an unlimited number of events that could play out. It's interesting to think that all of the chaos of the cosmos behaved in such a way that we have life, a solar system, hot dogs, etc. Again, surmising that through infinite levels of probabability these conditions could exist, it is highly improbable that they would. There are so many variables that could disrupt our delicate galaxy, it's amazing it exists at all.
The reason this tied back to design at all was that it accounts for a hospitable environment in a way that ignores entropy, and it was an interesting contrast to the conversation.
Given that, it makes me wonder as to whether or not there is some cosmic ant farm that we live in. I also agree with Yami that we are predicating digital existence as a condition for simulation on what we know now, and there's plenty of evidence that, historically, humans are not great at predicting how tech will evolve. It's certainly within reason that we just haven't discovered how to simulate analog yet.
Now, I need to get back to crafting my serum to live forever so I can see how this whole thingy plays out.
If you believe, as many do, that the Big Bang will repeat itself over and over for all time then the probability becomes a mute point.
Someone in my department is expanding on the theory that our reality is, in fact, a computer simulation. This is not to say we are in something like the Matrix, but that we--ourselves--are no more than parts of a computer program, like the 13th Floor.
The above paper is a little technical, so here is an article which explains the idea in a more comprehensible manner:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/
Basically, physicists today have ways of simulating the basic fundamental forces of the universe. While currently those simulations are only capable of simulating a very small part of space/time, in the future it is conceivable that computers will be powerful enough to simulate larger parts, maybe even the size of our universe.
With a powerful enough computer, one could simulate an entire universe from its beginning to its end (multiple times, with different configurations). The simulation could have the same complexity emerge within it as the real universe does (simulated life could evolve in it, for example).
However, one of the fundamental limitations of this simulation method is a granularity in the space/time of the simulation (basically, you have to use digital steps, not analog). More powerful computers would not allow for this granularity to be removed(it could be reduced, but the more you reduce it the longer your simulations take). This causes certain features of high-energy particle interactions to emerge in the simulation.
Some of those SAME features have been observed in OUR universe, and the others can be tested for.
So, the question I pose is: What are the ramifications of trying to find out if we are a simulation? And does it matter if we are?
I find unlikely that they would bother to setup anything like the fail safe you mention.
If we messed with the results, then those would just be the results.
But, you'd have to assume things like that to make it testable and falsifiable. Its important for a scientific theory to be both those things.
But without knowing the capabilities of the computer that is running our simulation(if it is), the only thing they can prove is that our current technology isn't capable of making a fake universe. And I'm pretty sure we all knew that already.
To me it's like cavemen saying wheels can't exist because all they can cut are square slabs of stone.
Are you objecting to the granularity issue? That seems odd, because if you remove it the theory no longer predicts the observed GZK cutoff and no longer becomes testable (since the computational bases would have to be known to us for us to test for it). The granularity is exactly the point; it would tell us the capabilities of the computer we are being run on since different granularities cause different cutoffs.
Is your objection even more fundamental? Are you objecting to any and all predictions about the future? Are you talking about the problem with induction, and that we can't assume the sun will rise tomorrow just because it rose every day before? Yet, that also seems odd since ALL of science is based on the idea that you can use past examples to make productions of the future. Are you objecting to the scientific method itself?
I guess I just need to better understand exactly what you're objecting to.
But there's nothing in here that bridges the gap between could be and is -- that is to say, even if we test and determine that our universe has the granularity necessary to be a simulation, that doesn't entail that it must be one.
Thus it seems wrong to say that the proposition that our reality is a simulation is a testable one, at least by the lights of this paper. The proposition that is actually testable is "our reality could in principle be simulated." This is certainly interesting in its own right, but not as interesting as the alternative.
If we could actually test whether our reality was a simulation, this would be very profound -- it would be a partial answer to the problem of the Cartesian demon, which is usually regarded as having no practical solution.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the formulation: "Are we a specific sort of simulation run on a computer with certain similarities to our computers?"
Certainly a computing device with super-turing capabilities would allow for sorts of simulations beyond what is being conjectured. Even a regular Church-Turing-obeying computer would not be bound by the simplistic formulation given. Why would the spacing of the lattice need to be constant? If I were writing a computer simulation with the computing power to simulate a universe, I'd simply increase lattice density when needed.
Perhaps the real question being asked is, "Are we in a crappy simulation run on a crappy computer?"
Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
Decideability Church-Turing Thesis
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Well, but suppose that real-valued analog computation is possible in the overlaying world in which our simulation is taking place. The Church-Turing Thesis and derivative concepts like decidability seem like a bit of a leap for describing a computing device outside our universe.
My link.
While all of us believe in Big Bang, and science being behind the origins of the universe, we were discussing some of the merits of the theological argument of design. Bear with me while I explain...
The universe is a big pot of entropy, and in theory has an unlimited number of events that could play out. It's interesting to think that all of the chaos of the cosmos behaved in such a way that we have life, a solar system, hot dogs, etc. Again, surmising that through infinite levels of probabability these conditions could exist, it is highly improbable that they would. There are so many variables that could disrupt our delicate galaxy, it's amazing it exists at all.
The reason this tied back to design at all was that it accounts for a hospitable environment in a way that ignores entropy, and it was an interesting contrast to the conversation.
Given that, it makes me wonder as to whether or not there is some cosmic ant farm that we live in. I also agree with Yami that we are predicating digital existence as a condition for simulation on what we know now, and there's plenty of evidence that, historically, humans are not great at predicting how tech will evolve. It's certainly within reason that we just haven't discovered how to simulate analog yet.
Now, I need to get back to crafting my serum to live forever so I can see how this whole thingy plays out.
Want to be a better Magic player? Read the rulings forum and check out the comprehensive rules!
If you believe, as many do, that the Big Bang will repeat itself over and over for all time then the probability becomes a mute point.
It's moot point
Anyway, even if it is a cycle, the numbers involved are pretty flooring, even if it is considered an inevitability.
Want to be a better Magic player? Read the rulings forum and check out the comprehensive rules!