Are we living in a computer simulation?

[alexsok]

Came upon the following article:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Granted, there are some other approaches to the these metaphysical questions (string theory for instance) but... will it actually reveal the meaning of life or maybe finally discover GOD or refute his existence altogether?

Exciting times are ahead, too bad we won't be here to observe them :)

Also, Take note of the following article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...lytech_pr.html

An ultimate simulation needs an ultimate computer, and the new science of digitalism says that the universe itself is the ultimate computer — actually the only computer. Further, it says, all the computation of the human world, especially our puny little PCs, merely piggybacks on cycles of the great computer. Weaving together the esoteric teachings of quantum physics with the latest theories in computer science, pioneering digital thinkers are outlining a way of understanding all of physics as a form of computation.

From this perspective, computation seems almost a theological process. It takes as its fodder the primeval choice between yes or no, the fundamental state of 1 or 0. After stripping away all externalities, all material embellishments, what remains is the purest state of existence: here/not here. Am/not am. In the Old Testament, when Moses asks the Creator, "Who are you?" the being says, in effect, "Am." One bit. One almighty bit. Yes. One. Exist. It is the simplest statement possible.

There are many arguements against it:

Statistical mechanics cannot be broken, by any means. It governs the behavior of large numbers of particles without any direct ties to the underlying physics. That is to say, you could change the underlying physics all you want, but the general principles of thermodynamics would remain, as they are nothing more than a mathematical fact.

As for "too tremendous," what I mean is that there's no reasonable way for there to be any computer which has sufficient resources.

For example, there is currently reason to believe that space is quantized on the order of the Planck scale, which is about 10^-35 meters. Now, the dark matter density of the universe is about 1e-27 kg/m^3. If the dark matter particles are 1TeV in mass (a fairly high value), then that makes for about 0.001 particles per cubic meter.

Now, the size of the observable universe is about 15 billion light years, or 10^26 meters (spherical volume: 10^79). So in each direction, to store a proper position we need to store said position to an accuracy of 10^61. If we use trinary storage (the most efficient), this requires about 127 trinary bits. For each particle we would need six such numbers just for position and momentum data, or 762 trinary bits.

Now, if we have 0.001 particles per cubic meter, that's roughly 10^77 dark matter particles in the observable universe. So just to store the dark matter particles we can see, we would need roughly 10^80 trinary bits. And that's just storage. The gravitational potential between the dark matter particles inherently takes N(N+1) time to calculate. So your computer would need to be capable of performing 10^160 calculations within a Planck time (About 10^-44 seconds) in order to do the calculations properly. And that's just what we can see (let alone the nearly infinite universe we can't see), and only the gravitational attraction, only dark matter, etc.

Not happening.

The last paper on string theory also proposed somthing similar (as a way of solving the unsolvable)

"There are only three options to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe: It could be an unexplainable cosmic coincidence. With this option every scientific ambition to explain the finetuning ends. If we do not accept the fine-tuning of the universe as the result of pure coincidence, the question remains: How did we get our made-to-measure universe? - It could be a designer-universe, especially and deliberately made for us (or made for other reasons leading to conditions compatible with our existence). This assumption is, if supposing good intentions, the traditional subject of theological considerations and religious belief. If there is no clarity with regard to the intentions, it can also find its place in the context of gnostic scenarios or the recently much discussed "simulation argument" as well as the labyrinthic conceptions of science fiction.
If there remains anything at all for scientific endeavors, it is the third alternative. That our universe is made-to-measure for our existence would be no miracle, if there exists a sufficiently large ensemble of physically real universes. We would find ourselves necessarily in a universe compatible with our existence. The fine-tuning of the universe would be an anthropic selection effect."

Also:

"[...] vacuum tunneling between solutions with different values of the cosmological constant [...] is often assumed to be the mechanism which dynamically implements the anthropic principle. The universe jumps around between vacua until it finds itself in an anthropically allowed one, at which time we observe it."

On the other hand, it can also be argued for it:

We live within a simulation of reality that our conscious minds generate at real-time data rates. The human mind has the ability to compute much faster than any computer; even a quantum computer, on the scale of the universe that we now inhabit. Because of the chemical to electrical conversion that occurs as any signal is passed from one neuron to the next, there exists a period of time in which the signal travels @ the speed of light (i.e. when the signal is in an electrical format). But at the moment that the signal is generated there is no time component involved; it could take a trillion years for the thought to form, yet only moments for it to propogate across the brain. Also the fact that there is such a large gulf between the two systems must be considered; at some point there exists a separation of signals of the infinite variety (the infinite Ohm value as the signal is in chemical format). This allows again for the removal of any vestiges of the time vs. rate debate that thrives on the fact that there has to be a set "speed limit" to the universe; there is no limit to the rate at which a thought can be either created or stored. Think on this basic idea for a moment: imagine a pair of scissors the size of the solar system in length, yet only two inches wide at each end, when these solar scissors are closed the rate at which they cut the very vacuum is at a much higher velocity than the speed of light - actually thousands of times faster! So it is easy to see that, yes, in fact, we do live in a simulation of reality that we ourselves create. Oh, wait a moment - think on this: when one photon of a quantum entangled photon pair is forced to be observed, thusly causing the other photon to be similarly present, does not this occur instantaneously? As a matter of fact it does, and since this effect can be made to occur over almost any distance using standard techniques, it can be seen that even the speed of light is in question; as being a limiting factor on our universe.

So what do you guys think?

 

[Astronuc]

No, it's just your imagination running away . . .

This seems to more of a metaphysical or philosophical question, than a question of physics.

 

[alexsok]

Well but isn't String theory (or M theory) dealing with metaphysical questions? Wasn't Hawking writing about that thing that breathed life into the equations for them to have a universe there to describe? And isn't he a physicist?

Besides, if metaphysics will be left alone, physics is pretty much pointless. We should answer the question "Why" first and foremost.

 

[josh1]

...if metaphysics will be left alone, physics is pretty much pointless.

Really?

 

[Astronuc]

It's a matter of being testable. In physics were do experiments to test theories. In metaphysics, one is left with speculation - which is tantamount to 'belief' in the absence of any evidence.

Metaphysics - the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject : PHILOSOPHY !

Metaphysics (Greek words μετα [meta] = after/beyond and Φυσις [phusis] = nature) is a branch of philosophy concerned with giving a general and fundamental account of the way the universe is. Metaphysics is thus like the sciences in that it tries to describe the universe, but it differs from these disciplines in its scope and fundamentality. Whereas the biologist is concerned with the nature of organisms and the physicist with the nature of bodies, the metaphysician is concerned with the nature of all reality.

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

Physics deals with the 'observable', whereas metaphysics seemingly tries to answer whether or not one actually is observing, or if the 'observable' is real or a figment of one's mind. So metaphyiscs is a form of philosophy, not science.

 

[alexsok]

Exactly, but you know why metaphysics exists? Because if physics is all there is, then this life is by all accounts, BORING. We're born, have sex, eat, breath, get old and die (interpose anything in-between) and I feel it's quiet pointless (this whole journey) and death seems pointless as well so yes it's fun to speculate that whatever we observe around here is nothing compared to the way it really is otherwise it's really sad.

 

[Treadstone 71]

How do you know metaphysics exists?

 

[-Job-]

I have thought of the very possibility presented in this argument. It's a straightforward argument. It seems that the laws of physics help in building such a simulation. The speed of light limit, for instance, is very helpful. Suppose that the universe is stored in the form of a matrix of bits and that the computer generating the simulation updates this matrix every so often for every relevant change that takes place. Suppose there is only one individual in this simulation. Then the matrix need not represent the whole universe, only the immediate surrounds of the individual, and not necessarily to the atomic level. Instead, this matrix may have blank areas, the areas that are not relevant to the simulation. These areas are only filled whenever it is necessary, which only happens when the individual queries that area (this seems coherent with quantum mechanics for example). The speed of light limit is helpful in bounding how fast the matrix can change as well as in separating areas of the matrix into different "localities" which can then be handled by separate processors.
If you had such a matrix and such a simulator, you would be able to hook up a human to a device that retrieves input from the matrix and sends output to the matrix thus generating virtual reality for the individual. Granted this all sounds a lot like the movie Matrix, which i found pretty lame, but the concept is genuine.
It's an interesting idea which is actually feasible from a computational perspective, not to be discarded so quickly.
Regardless of whether this is or not the case, i think in the future it might be beneficial to adopt this approach in the realm of science. If we represent the universe as a matrix, then, for each phenomenon, there will an associated pattern of change in the matrix. Then, gravity for example, would be explained by it's impact on the evolution of the matrix, rather than human models (i.e matter bending space). Such an approach would yield a more abstract, rigorous and unified process of scientific analysis.

 

[selfAdjoint]

i think in the future it might be beneficial to adopt this approach in the realm of science. If we represent the universe as a matrix, then, for each phenomenon, there will an associated pattern of change in the matrix. Then, gravity for example, would be explained by it's impact on the evolution of the matrix, rather than human models (i.e matter bending space). Such an approach would yield a more abstract, rigorous and unified process of scientific analysis.

Something like this is already going on. See causal dynamic triangulations in quantum gravity research and the lattice approach to nonperturbative quantum physics.

 

[Tyris]

There's some logic that runs a little bit like this.

1). In the future, computers will be sophisticated enough to simulate a world.
2). Historians like to reconstruct past events.
3). So they're likely to use these computers to run "ancestor simulations" that will show them how we lived.
4). There will probably be more than one of these.
5). Since there's only one real world, the odds are pretty good that we are not living in it, but are programs in one of the ancestor simulations.

 

[moving finger]

There's some logic that runs a little bit like this.

1). In the future, computers will be sophisticated enough to simulate a world.
2). Historians like to reconstruct past events.
3). So they're likely to use these computers to run "ancestor simulations" that will show them how we lived.
4). There will probably be more than one of these.
5). Since there's only one real world, the odds are pretty good that we are not living in it, but are programs in one of the ancestor simulations.

I think the error is in assuming premise 1 to be true.

It's very easy to say "simulate a world", it's quite another thing to do it!

Premise 5 seems very shaky too - why do you think there is only one real world?

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

 

[Ukitake Jyuushirou]

are we living in a computer simulated world? wat do physicists think about this qn? how would we know we are not living in one? wat examples can be cited as evidence that our universe isn't juz a computer simulation?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

are we living in a computer simulated world? wat do physicists think about this qn? how would we know we are not living in one? wat examples can be cited as evidence that our universe isn't juz a computer simulation?

I think the more important question is, can a sentient program have an awareness of the computer running it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think the more important question is, can a sentient program have an awareness of the computer running it?

Are we aware of the neural processes that are "running our programs? And should we be? See Metzinger's proposed wall of ignorance as an essential precondition to consciousness.

 

[Burnsys]

A link about a computer simulated universe
http://www.bottomlayer.com/

 

[loseyourname]

There was an argument put forth by some speaker at the Singularity Summit at Stanford a few weeks back, whose name I cannot remember, attempting to prove that we must be living in a simulation of some sort. The basic reasoning was that other civilizations must have come into existence before we did, given the vast size of the universe and our relatively late arrival in it. If we are to take seriously the notion that humanity will achieve the singularity at some point this century, them some civilization that existed prior to our own must have already done so. Since the singularity comes to engulf the entire universe, it must have already reached us. Yet we are not experiencing it, so we must be living in a simulation of unknown nature.

Pretty specious reasoning if you ask me.

 

[Tournesol]

Refutation of the Simulation Argument

The Simulation Argument seeks to show that it is not just possible that we are living inside a simulation, but likely.

1 You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).

2 Therefore, if we are in a simulation the 'real' world outside the simulation is much more complex and quite possibly completely different to the simulated world.

3 In which case, we cannot make sound inferences from the world we are appear to be into alleged real world in which the simulation is running

4 Therefore we cannot appeal to an argumentative apparatus of advanced races, simulations etc, since all those concepts are derived from the world as we see it -- which, by hypothesis is a mere simulation.

5 Therefore, the simulation argument pulls the metaphysical rug from under its epistemological feet.

The counterargument does not show that we are not living in a simulation, but if we are , we have no way of knowing whether it is likely or not. Even if it seems likely that we will go on to create (sub) simulations, that does not mean we are living in a simulation that is likely for the same reasons, since our simulation might be rare and peculiar. In particular, it might have the peculiarity that sub-simulations are easy to create in it. For all we know our simulators had extreme difficulty in creating our universe. In this case, the fact that it is easy to create sub simulations within our (supposed) simulation, does not mean it is easy to creae simulations per se.

 

[Tournesol]

It's a straightforward argument. It seems that the laws of physics help in building such a simulation.

Or they would help if our simulators have the same kind
of hardware constraints that we have. Which would
depend on whether they have the same kinds of
physical laws we. Which we cannot know. because
we are only acquainted with our simulated physical laws.

 

[moving finger]

3 In which case, we cannot make sound inferences from the world we are appear to be into alleged real world in which the simulation is running

Your (3) is based on an invalid inference.

(Inferences are either valid or invalid, not "sound" or "unsound" - arguments and not inferences are either sound or unsound).

Inductive inference does not entail certainty, it entails only that we assume certain premises to be true, and leads to a probabilistic and not certain outcome. One can dispute the truth of the premise "there is an outside world that we cannot directly detect which has certain properties which include amongst them the running of a simulation of which we are part", but disputing the premises of an argument has nothing necessarily to do with the validity of the inferences within the argument. Hence your (3) is incorrect.

The rest of your argument rests on (3), hence is unsound.

Best Regards

 

[Tournesol]

It remains the case that we cannot make better-than chance inferences from the world we are appear to be into alleged real world in which the simulation is running. Certainty is a red-herring. The SI only seeks
to show that simulation is more likely than not.

 

[moving finger]

It remains the case that we cannot make better-than chance inferences from the world we are appear to be into alleged real world in which the simulation is running. Certainty is a red-herring. The SI only seeks
to show that simulation is more likely than not.

All inductive inferences are probabilistic.
Whether that probability is greater or less than 50% depends on the strength/weight of the premises and the form of the inference.

In practice, human predictions of the world about them are based on inductive inference. We do not dispute the validity of most such inferences, why should we dispute the validity of an inference in the above case?

Best Regards

 

[russ_watters]

There was an argument put forth by some speaker at the Singularity Summit at Stanford a few weeks back, whose name I cannot remember, attempting to prove that we must be living in a simulation of some sort. The basic reasoning was that other civilizations must have come into existence before we did, given the vast size of the universe and our relatively late arrival in it. If we are to take seriously the notion that humanity will achieve the singularity at some point this century, them some civilization that existed prior to our own must have already done so. Since the singularity comes to engulf the entire universe, it must have already reached us. Yet we are not experiencing it, so we must be living in a simulation of unknown nature.

Pretty specious reasoning if you ask me.

I agree. The logic basically rests on some assumptions about the Drake Equation. There is no other way to arrive at the first to inferences. Plus, I'm not sure about that last one (singularity engulfing the universe)...

 

[Tournesol]

All inductive inferences are probabilistic.
Whether that probability is greater or less than 50% depends on the strength/weight of the premises and the form of the inference.

Inductive inference can only proceed from like to like. We have
no way of knowing whether the simulating world is like
our (allegedly) simulated world.

In practice, human predictions of the world about them are based on inductive inference. We do not dispute the validity of most such inferences, why should we dispute the validity of an inference in the above case?

The problem is not that it is an inductive inference, the problem is
that is is unsound.

 

[SizarieldoR]

First of all, the "more developed" civilizations may have a reason not to contact us, second, this is absolutely possible, and third - this reminds me of the conspiracy theories, that we didn't actually land on the moon, Illuminati, etc.:yuck:

 

[moving finger]

1 You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).

False premise. Simulation of one world B within another world A depends on the number of variables needed to carry out the simulation of world B, and the number of variables available for such simulation within world A, and does not necessarily require world A to be “more complex” than world B.

Best Regards

 

[Tournesol]

Of course it does. You are thinking of world B as existing separately
from world A, and as being approximated by world A. That is
how ordinary simulations world, like flight simulators. But the
claim of the argument is that world B only exists as simulation
within A. Whatever we see in our world (which, according to
the argument is a simulation) is being simulated.

 

[ajmno1]

Hi my name is Jamie and I have just joined as a result of landing on a site asking this elusive and undeterminable question. A bit of background on me. I left school with no qualifications and joined the British Army for 9 yrs. But this handicap of no qualifications has not stopped me from thinking about some, well let's face it crazy _____ in my time.

So here is my question or theory, see I don't even know what it is.

Lets say for a minute that whether possible or not, we are, I repeat are living in a computer simulation that is being ran side by side with billions of other sims by a technologically advanced society or race of beings human or not, as we are speaking about this at this very moment in time and space, speculating and theorizing its very existence, I ask you this question are we now self aware that we are a computer simulation and if so do we have any power to break free or reason with our "captors" to be set free and live as they do.

Now for your intellectual minds this might be a stupid question, but if not could someone answer for me please.

Cheers Guys and/or Gals

 

[Moridin]

Isn't there a clear-cut epistemological refutation of the simulation argument? To be justified in the proposition that everything is a simulation, we would have to have a reference point in reality, so that we can compare whatever it is that we are experiencing and show that it is indeed a simulation, i.e. not reality? But if we have this reference point, then clearly, not everything is a simulation?

Furthermore, if there is no way to distinguish a simulation from reality, doesn't that make the concept of "simulation" just a synonym for reality, instead of an antonym?

 

[vanesch]

Isn't there a clear-cut epistemological refutation of the simulation argument? To be justified in the proposition that everything is a simulation, we would have to have a reference point in reality, so that we can compare whatever it is that we are experiencing and show that it is indeed a simulation, i.e. not reality? But if we have this reference point, then clearly, not everything is a simulation?

Furthermore, if there is no way to distinguish a simulation from reality, doesn't that make the concept of "simulation" just a synonym for reality, instead of an antonym?

The problem is not in the definition of "simulation", but in the definition of "reality".

 

[Moridin]

the state of things as they actually exist?

 

[Kenny_L]

Re: Are we living in a computer simulation?

We don't know. We can't be sure. We are all part of quantum computing processes though. And about the word 'simulation'... if you take this word to the highest level, such as when you say... 'ok...we're done with simulations', we're going to put out the final release...and that's that. In this case, it becomes the official thing. Also, if you decided to do it, then there's nothing wrong with making the very first run/simulation the first and final release...in that the very first simulation would be the official release.

 

[Pythagorean]

You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).

This is pretty much where I stand on this topic. We have to use a magnitude of magnitudes of atoms to model a single atom, no matter how we do it.

To expand on refuting the OT, it would be an interesting practice to imagine what kind of complexity would be required to model a world of the complexity we currently experience. We also realize how unstable computer programs (and computers themselves) are compared to the universe.

If we are some sort of 'simulation' and our consciousness is a result of the physical laws we experience, then whatever world is simulating us can't experience the laws the same way and therefore our experience is unique to us (going back to Tournesol's point above; you don't have the resolution).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree. The logic basically rests on some assumptions about the Drake Equation. There is no other way to arrive at the first to inferences. Plus, I'm not sure about that last one (singularity engulfing the universe)...

..a Drake equation result multiplied by the number of galaxies - probability ~ 1.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was an argument put forth by some speaker at the Singularity Summit at Stanford a few weeks back, whose name I cannot remember, attempting to prove that we must be living in a simulation of some sort. The basic reasoning was that other civilizations must have come into existence before we did, given the vast size of the universe and our relatively late arrival in it. If we are to take seriously the notion that humanity will achieve the singularity at some point this century, them some civilization that existed prior to our own must have already done so. Since the singularity comes to engulf the entire universe, it must have already reached us. Yet we are not experiencing it, so we must be living in a simulation of unknown nature.

Pretty specious reasoning if you ask me.

Or
singularities don't happen

Perhaps no one survives the approach to a singularity

 

[Kenny_L]

1 You cannot simulate a world of X complexity inside a world of X complexity.(quart-into-a-pint-pot-problem).

We're just talking about simulating a world...regardless of complexity.