my thought exactly. There's no way processor speed can continue at its current pace to that point. It would have to be nearly infinately fast to simulate all the 10000000000000000000000000000000000's of atoms i can see right now, and even put an electron microscope up to and see formations of. There's just too much to simulate, that is, of course judging that this person is saying that WE will be able to do it eventually. I don't doubt that it's possible that processors are a lot faster beyond the matri
Well, you see, the funny thing is that you don't need to simulate the atoms at all. All that you need to simulate visually is the smallest object a person can resolve with his unadied eyes. Everything else is simply mapped on top of that.
For touch, you just simulate the smallest texture difference that a human can feel. For sound, all you need to do is simulate the sounds that a human can hear.
All of these would need to have a certain safely margin to account for people whose senses are better than oth
Incorrect. For a more primitive being, perhaps animals at the zoo, such an environment would suffice. However, if you are creating a virtual world where the smallest resolution is only a few microns, you will inevitably run into problems when the intelligent beings of that world attempt to use science to learn. If our world were virtual, and had no detail below 10 microns, or a tenth of one, or a thousandth, scientists with knowledge of what should be, would notice. Experiments could be devised using
Godel's theorem in a nut shell: you cant prove inconsistency in any set of axioms within the context of those axioms.
suppose for a moment that this is a simulation with a finite amount of memory to parameterize the "world". the state of this system is propgated from time slice to time slice by some set of finite difference equations. well this means that everything is perfectly self-consistent. if you devise any experiment within the simulation itself to measure any observable then you will discover it is self consistent. The laws of nature a person living there would formulate would in fact be the correct ones for that system. you would never be able to discover an inconsistency.
consider for example QM. basically in a quantum world there ARE limits on resolution. indeed the limits are surprisingly like how one creates a simulation. for example, in any practical 3-D game the voxels of distant objects have larger volumes than the close by ones that you can see more clearly. likewise fast moving objects in the background are less precisely placed from frame to frame while maintaining on average an accurate speed.
its as though someone gridded the game in such a way as to have hyper cubes of constant delta-P time delta-X. hey wadda ya know that's the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Indeed its easier to simulate a trajectory if you dont have to do it exactly. simply compute the approximate result with error bars and then any time the result is closely inspected you return a different sample from the approximate distribution. Thus one does not have to memo-ize everthing the game player has looked at carefully, you can recreate it on the fly each time something is inspected at high resolution simply by drawing an approximate sample from the distribution. The fact that two looks never quite agree is written off as the "hiesenberg uncertainty principle", or to the QM notion that inspecting an object can change its state.
Another hiesenberg principle is the energy-time uncertaintly (to measure the energy of something precisely takes increasing amounts of time). Again this is in keeping with a simulation. to compute the simulation to increacing levels of precision will take more time.
and remember folks the simulation does not have to run in real time!
Finally to digress a bit. Just suppose for moment the supposition that this is simulation is true. then might it might also be possible that the people doing the simulation are also simulations. and so on ad infinitum. the interesting thing is that at each layer of this onion it seems to me that the plausibility that you live in a simulation increases. this is because with each subsequent layer the plausibility of sufficient computer power prior to extinction improves.
Maybe the reason we doubt that computers could ever be this complex is because the physical laws of our universe dont support sufficiently complex computers.
Godel's Theorem came to mind immediately as I read the original post, and then I came across yours and realized you had fleshed out an appropriate response better than I would have been able to, so suffice to say, "*swoon*".
In any case, I'd still like to tack a few things onto that.
Indeed its easier to simulate a trajectory if you dont have to do it exactly. simply compute the approximate result with error bars and then any time the result is closely inspected you return a different sample from the app
Why in god's name expect the meta-universe in which we are a simulation to have the same properties as this one? It may not be quantum mechanics, Einsteinian, no "speed of light", and so on.
So many are arguing how difficult it would be to simulate this universe from within this universe, or from within another universe with identical rules. In a universe without mass, there would be no limit to how fast things could move around, and hence, to computational power.
and remember folks the simulation does not have to run in real time!
Lots of peopel are saying this, and I agree, but I agree the opposite: I believe the simulation runs many times faster than real time.
At first, processing power is slow and you must run simulations slower than real time. However, technology progresses, and eventually the simulation can be run parallel to real time. (As others have said, the simulation does not have to calculate everything, just as Quake doesn't calculate walls and
So at some point we'll have enough processing power to simulate faster than real time.
It is logically impossible to simulate faster than real time. Suppose we build a simulator (hardware + software) that can carry out the calculations of physics in full detail. The amount of matter that this system can simulate must be smaller than the system itself or else the simulation must run slower than real time.
If the simulator could run faster than real time, then we could program it to simulate itself plus
All you are saying is that within this universe you can't construct a simulator that is capable of simulating our entire universe faster than time.
However, it is possible to build a simulator in a more complex universe that simulates our universe faster than time. Our universe is just a gross simplification of the "real world". It might have nothing to do with the "real world" at all. I can create a computer program that animates a 12" x 12" universe of 5 0.5"x0.5" sprites moving in two dimensions at 14
When I was reading the part about the lossless compression, I suddenly wondered what would happen if lossy compression was used. The chair could start rotating, shifting, and/or changing size and shape randomly. That would make for a rather interesting world. You go to sit down only to have your chair randomly spin and zip off and become a part of the wall.
and remember folks, the simulation does not have to run in real time!
Well, this is true for purely simulated selves, but in an actual 'Matrix-movie-like' world, the simulation may need to run in near real-time. Without real-time response, it is likely hard to fool a plugged-in meatspace human. She's likely running and processing in real-(human)-time.
Though the simulators may find a way to distort time for the human, they do have time constraints (i.e. at worst, a human lifetime).
Nope, it's only assuming that they have a lifespan at all.
If there is a true time span in which you *must* render the simulation, then it's real-time. Truly, you may be able to distort (i.e. affect) it, but you've still got time constraints that you have no ability to stop. Expanding their lifetimes by a factor of a thousand doesn't change that you've got real-time constraints, it just buys you some processor breathing room.
Now, if the humans are immortal, and you can distort their perception of time, the
Godel's theorem in a nut shell: you cant prove inconsistency in any set of axioms within the context of those axioms.
Goedel's theorem says no such thing. You can easily prove inconsistency of many sets of axioms.
Think about a system of aximoms which contains A and (not) A.
Goedel's theorem (incompleteness theorem)
roughly says that a non-contradictory system of axioms is never complete.
and this my friends is why (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:5, Insightful)
For touch, you just simulate the smallest texture difference that a human can feel. For sound, all you need to do is simulate the sounds that a human can hear.
All of these would need to have a certain safely margin to account for people whose senses are better than oth
Re:and this my friends is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:5, Interesting)
Godel's theorem in a nut shell: you cant prove inconsistency in any set of axioms within the context of those axioms.
suppose for a moment that this is a simulation with a finite amount of memory to parameterize the "world". the state of this system is propgated from time slice to time slice by some set of finite difference equations. well this means that everything is perfectly self-consistent. if you devise any experiment within the simulation itself to measure any observable then you will discover it is self consistent. The laws of nature a person living there would formulate would in fact be the correct ones for that system. you would never be able to discover an inconsistency.
consider for example QM. basically in a quantum world there ARE limits on resolution. indeed the limits are surprisingly like how one creates a simulation. for example, in any practical 3-D game the voxels of distant objects have larger volumes than the close by ones that you can see more clearly. likewise fast moving objects in the background are less precisely placed from frame to frame while maintaining on average an accurate speed.
its as though someone gridded the game in such a way as to have hyper cubes of constant delta-P time delta-X. hey wadda ya know that's the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Indeed its easier to simulate a trajectory if you dont have to do it exactly. simply compute the approximate result with error bars and then any time the result is closely inspected you return a different sample from the approximate distribution. Thus one does not have to memo-ize everthing the game player has looked at carefully, you can recreate it on the fly each time something is inspected at high resolution simply by drawing an approximate sample from the distribution. The fact that two looks never quite agree is written off as the "hiesenberg uncertainty principle", or to the QM notion that inspecting an object can change its state.
Another hiesenberg principle is the energy-time uncertaintly (to measure the energy of something precisely takes increasing amounts of time). Again this is in keeping with a simulation. to compute the simulation to increacing levels of precision will take more time.
and remember folks the simulation does not have to run in real time!
Finally to digress a bit. Just suppose for moment the supposition that this is simulation is true. then might it might also be possible that the people doing the simulation are also simulations. and so on ad infinitum. the interesting thing is that at each layer of this onion it seems to me that the plausibility that you live in a simulation increases. this is because with each subsequent layer the plausibility of sufficient computer power prior to extinction improves.
Whoaa that's a scary thought (Score:0)
My hero *swoon* (Score:2, Interesting)
In any case, I'd still like to tack a few things onto that.
Why in god's name? (Score:1)
So many are arguing how difficult it would be to simulate this universe from within this universe, or from within another universe with identical rules. In a universe without mass, there would be no limit to how fast things could move around, and hence, to computational power.
Why in "god's name"? (Score:1)
Re:Why in "god's name"? (Score:0)
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of peopel are saying this, and I agree, but I agree the opposite: I believe the simulation runs many times faster than real time.
At first, processing power is slow and you must run simulations slower than real time. However, technology progresses, and eventually the simulation can be run parallel to real time. (As others have said, the simulation does not have to calculate everything, just as Quake doesn't calculate walls and
Accelerated simulation (Score:2)
It is logically impossible to simulate faster than real time. Suppose we build a simulator (hardware + software) that can carry out the calculations of physics in full detail. The amount of matter that this system can simulate must be smaller than the system itself or else the simulation must run slower than real time.
If the simulator could run faster than real time, then we could program it to simulate itself plus
Re:Accelerated simulation (Score:2)
However, it is possible to build a simulator in a more complex universe that simulates our universe faster than time. Our universe is just a gross simplification of the "real world". It might have nothing to do with the "real world" at all. I can create a computer program that animates a 12" x 12" universe of 5 0.5"x0.5" sprites moving in two dimensions at 14
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:2)
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:0)
Well, professor, I think you're missing a "few".
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:2)
Well, this is true for purely simulated selves, but in an actual 'Matrix-movie-like' world, the simulation may need to run in near real-time. Without real-time response, it is likely hard to fool a plugged-in meatspace human. She's likely running and processing in real-(human)-time.
Though the simulators may find a way to distort time for the human, they do have time constraints (i.e. at worst, a human lifetime).
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:1)
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:2)
If there is a true time span in which you *must* render the simulation, then it's real-time. Truly, you may be able to distort (i.e. affect) it, but you've still got time constraints that you have no ability to stop. Expanding their lifetimes by a factor of a thousand doesn't change that you've got real-time constraints, it just buys you some processor breathing room.
Now, if the humans are immortal, and you can distort their perception of time, the
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:2)
Goedel's theorem says no such thing. You can easily prove inconsistency of many sets of axioms. Think about a system of aximoms which contains A and (not) A.
Goedel's theorem (incompleteness theorem) roughly says that a non-contradictory system of axioms is never complete.
Re:Quantum Mechanics could be simulation artifact. (Score:0)
1. you can't prove _consistency_ internally (the converse of what original poster said)
2. no consistent system powerful enuf to do induction is complete (what you said).
You've got Godel's wrong! (Score:0)