Are we living in a simulation?
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo
If it's good enough (Score:2)
Re:If it's good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
We might not. We might. Consider the possibility that it is possible for a simulation to run which would give a practically perfect experience to the simulated person. This is not so impossible to imagine given that not every person and experience would have to be simulated, just the ones you're interested in simulating. Further, the speed of the simulation doesn't have to be a one to one ratio to the real world, if it takes a couple years to simulate a second of the real world, that's not something the simulated person would have any reference to notice.
So if the simulated world is indistinguishable to one in the simulation, how then would it be possible for the person in the simulation to know they're in a simulation? There are possible ways. One is that there might be something to give evidence, such as a rendering problem, or pixelation. Another is that the simulated world might be given signs. Perhaps the person or people running the simulation might give some avenue of communication or confirmation.
It might be as simple as a testable code (see the recent Doctor Who episode about the subject) or it might be that the runner of the simulation considers themselves to be the god of the world. Try praying, and if that works, if you're an atheist, that's proof. If you're agnostic, it doesn't prove you're in a simulation, it just proves that you're in a simulation or there is actually a god, reducing the possibility to a binary proposition.
If prayer doesn't doesn't work, then that doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you don't see a result at that particular time. For a theist, it doesn't even rule out the possibility that you're in a simulation. Of course, prayer doesn't even necessarily need to be the method available to communicate between someone in a simulation and someone running it. Perhaps the runner of the simulation has a fondness for a certain number that they'll use as a starting point to engage the simulated. Maybe it's some iteration of Pi. Get the necessary number of calculated digits and viola, you get to talk to your universe's creator. Maybe it's just a matter of using the right tools, much like breaking out of a virtual machine.
A theist might ask what God's purpose is. An atheist might wonder if there is a person running the simulation they're in with a purpose to the simulation. A non-philosophically inclined average person might wonder if there is a reason for the universe they find themselves in.
The question of whether we're in a simulation isn't really a new question, it is just an ancient question rephrased. The only difference now is that we have the tools to imagine possibilities we didn't before.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we're all just figments of Cowboy Neil's imagination...
Though I really do like your response. It's well thought out.
The matrix posited that deja vu was glitches in the simulation.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a residual of some underlying discretization, such as the results of certain measurements being quantized, or an indetermination principle that prevents us from knowing certain quantities with infinite precision? Fascinating idea.
Re: (Score:2)
A fidget spinner with spokes (or a spinning wheel) could possibly be used to determine this.
If you spin a fidget spinner and look at a monitor through it, you see a pattern caused by the flicker of the screen. Spin the spinner fast enough at the right speed and the spinner could appear static - kinda like those videos of a helicopter where the frame rate matches the rotation of the blades.
So if you could spin it fast enough under a non-flickering light (like the light of the sun) and the universe was a sim
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you're assuming that everything we *think* exists actually has to be simulated. Like all those other galactic objects and solar systems in our galaxy. Those would rapidly be collapsed into far-field approximations (ie, point masses) by any competent programmer.
There's actually no need to simulate all that. There doesn't need to be "dark matter" in the simulation, it just has some value for "gravity" and some other values for the masses of other galaxies, and that's it. It doesn't even need to simula
Another thought (Score:2)
The CPU overhead to calculate the next position of everything which be massive too.
Not necessarily. It would have to be massive if an outside viewer wanted to see it move along at a decent rate. But it wouldn't matter to us since we're on the inside. Time as we perceive it is a part of the simulation. The CPU could be a well trained monkey moving coconuts back and forth and it would feel the same for a viewer inside the simulation. Every second of every day could be the result of millions of years
Re: (Score:2)
But really, it depends on what type of simulation you want. If you were building a simulation of humans, then sure, you might make your voxels much larger and only simulate more detail as needed. Only simulate a universe out a little beyond lunar orbit of the earth. We don't send very many things beyond lunar orbit, so those could be handled by special cases.
But suppose you had a diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Processing aside, one thing I'd look for to determine if I were in a simulation would be to determine how many elementary particles there are in the universe; it would require quite a bit of memory/storage to keep track of each particle. Even if the host universe has computer memory tech with cells smaller than the smallest elementary particles in ours, the computer would take substantial space... substantial enough it'd call into question the motives versus the resources required to run the simulation. 'Sc
Re: (Score:3)
But there *IS* "pixellation" - or things very similar to it:
* We have quantization in many places in physics - quantization is the exactly what pixellization is.
* We have quantum-level randomness that looks a lot like precision issues.
* We have the finite speed of light - which is a great way to avoid latency issues between computers that are simulating different solar systems.
* We have the Big Bang...what better way to initialize your universe simulator than with a singularity?
* We have entropy and conserv
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you the first one but:
* We have quantum-level randomness that looks a lot like precision issues.
No, it is not like any precision issue we have with our computers. It is not about loss of information but rather limitations on how much information can be extracted from the same system. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is like saying that if you measure the red RGB component really well, you will get a lot of errors in your green and blue components. But, it is your choice. It is like you have a limited amount of precision to spend on all your measurements.... if that mak
Re: (Score:2)
"Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is like saying that if you measure the red RGB component really well, you will get a lot of errors in your green and blue components. But, it is your choice. It is like you have a limited amount of precision to spend on all your measurements.... if that makes any sense."
Yeah - but suppose, our simulation stores CMY or HSV instead of RGB. A finite error in (say) the yellow component of a CMY color representation could easily show up as something where error in R and G wer
Re: (Score:2)
Do you confuse the two issues, first issue are we living in a simulation, second issue is the universe a computer simulation. Gees, dude you are on slashdot do you not comprehend the difference between computer hardware and computer software. The simulation is computer software, which runs on computer hardware. So are we living in a computer simulation, does not equate to is the universe a computer simulation. Dude we are the software, the wetware, which runs on the hardware. So is you mind a computer simul
Re: (Score:2)
...A simulation would contain things to optimise its performance- like a maximum speed, minimum temperature, etc etc. perhaps the need for sleep and dreams are a baked in method of receiving software patches
I like your thinking overall, but that part doesn't argue for a simulation. You'd simply pause the simulation to do the software update, no need to have the time continuously running. We don't know that there is only one second of real time elapsing between 9:51:00 and 9:51:01. The simulation could have been paused for hours, days, even for years, and we'd perceive no time at all elapsed.
Dreaming isn't evidence against a simulation (we could be simulating a world in which the physics means that dreaming
Re: (Score:2)
(since dreams are something that would be irrelevant to the game play; why would you put dreams into a game?).
They're custom data filters for individual entities. Besides, who knows what the motivations might be for such advanced beings that could create said game. For all we know, someone blowing their nose in the game could be 'high humor' to them.
Re: (Score:2)
why would you put dreams into a game?
Fanfiction. Or other reasons maybe.
I have a hard time working with the idea of our simulation being a gaming one, because my personal experience doesn't make me think my life would be a very entertaining game. If I entertain the idea anyway, I'd buy it as a multi-player system, maybe with millions of players who play the "interesting" lives. The normal us are non-playable characters. Elon, Trump, various athletes, politicians, similar other ones are set up like NPC but when it starts to get fun, then the si
Re: If it's good enough to have bad characters? (Score:2)
You'll never convince me that any programmers competent enough to create the simulation could have created a prominent character of such incompetence as #PresidentTweety.
Of course, the point of this poll is that we couldn't know even in that case. I prefer to dismiss the poll as a bad simulation of a good poll.
Slashdot needs a page one rewrite, it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If it's good enough (Score:4, Funny)
We would never know.
I agree, but I do sometimes wonder... why is there always a green diamond over my head?
Impossible to tell (Score:2)
Even is the simulation wasn't really very good, it's likely we couldn't tell, because any details that aren't good are simply made invisible to our perception.
Re: If it's good enough (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Technically, it doesn't even have to be "good enough".
Consider, if we're all plugged into a simulation and it's all we've ever known, then how would we possibly know it isn't reality? We could be programmed to paper over the cracks in the simulation, to ignore the bits that aren't quite up to speed.
What if this is a simulation, and in the real world, the sky is green instead of blue? Wouldn't seeing that in the simulation make you (who has never been outside of the simulation) think something was wrong? Wel
Re: (Score:2)
We would never know.
Indeed. Proving or disproving that we're in a simulation would be harder than proving/disproving there is a God. (something no one has succeeded at).if this is a simulation, as small and insignificant as we are, we're almost certainly not the focus, we're just a byproduct.
I tend to believe we're not a simulation due to the enormity of the universe. The "outerverse" would have to be truly immense if it can hold a simulation of the universe.
No. (Score:2)
It's a fun idle thought to explore, but it's foolish to take it seriously because any simulation requires more information capacity than the thing being simulated.
You're not simulating Earth without several Earth's worth of computers... and even if you can build a computer that big and complex, you're going to have better things to do with your resources and time.
Re: No. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
There are proposals of simulations like 'ancestor simulators' which only store information that can be interacted with. Some would hypothesize that this is why particles only 'exist' when they are measured (when their wave function is collapsed.) Think about a video game like Skyrim, only the world within your field of view is generated, because it would take too much power to load the entire world when most of it will not be interacted with. This is a good stab at why you wouldn't need a universe sized
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says you need to simulate the whole earth? Maybe you just need to simulate a small portion of it for your experience. There's also no requirement for running at a one to one time ratio.
https://xkcd.com/505/
Re: (Score:1)
Could this not be explained by the expanding Universe? Where new "space" equals new "data"?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is: The "real" universe doesn't have to have the same laws of physics as "our" universe...the simulation can have different properties. For example: The simulated universe of "Grand Theft Auto" doesn't have the laws of relativity.
So suppose that in the real universe, the speed of light is infinite. There would be no effective limit on the speed or size of computers. Maybe atoms are a quadrillion times smaller in the real universe - so integrated circuits can be a quadrillion-squared times d
Even if Yes, still No. (Score:2)
Because a difference that makes no difference, IS no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Because a difference that makes no difference, IS no difference.
Mu
Does not matter (Score:3)
Does too! (Score:2)
If we are in a simulation, and we never figure it out, then it doesn't matter.
However, if we can prove it, or if we can break out, even a little, or if we can disrupt it, it would have profound effects.
As an example, the x86 hardware virtualization stuff is pretty advanced and transparent, but people have found ways of detecting if they are running in a virtualized environment, and have found ways to violate those boundaries and reach beyond the virtualized environment. Perhaps somewhere under all the quant
Re: (Score:2)
people have found ways of detecting if they are running in a virtualized environment, and have found ways to violate those boundaries and reach beyond the virtualized environment.
This is because these persons are not part of the simulation but exists in our container universe.
They would not have been able to code VM detection and evasion otherwise.
And this is only possible because the VM implementation and support hardware have bugs with flawed logic.
To summarize and generalize rules about visualization detection:
Container and Simulated environments must have interferences from a 3rd-party source.
A VM can be detected and compromised because there are interferences between the con
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, we've had almost eight months of patches since the hack.
CowboyNeal (Score:2)
is reality
Simple Logic on why we are we are simulated. (Score:2)
http://simulation-argument.com... [simulation-argument.com]
Choose which one below you agree with -
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation
My thoughts - Of the above,
(1) doesn't have to be "human" even ... any civilization could simulate "us" , so "we" don
While we're philosophizing... (Score:2)
Re:Simple Logic on why we are we are simulated. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not about whether they run significant sims; it's about whether they do it continuously from down to (at least) subatomic scale all the way up to where you observe interesting things at the galactic cluster scale. We see a lot of detail. That isn't necessarily impossible to do, but it's inhumanly vast. I have a lot of faith in tech advances, but not that much. Maybe in Their universe you can do this stuff, but ours will run out of computing power before we get anywhere close to that magnitude. We can't get there from here.
Whoever can build this computer, is the kind of hoopy frood who goes on a date with Cthulhu, hoping not just to get laid, but to maybe discover that He is Their soulmate.
Re: Simple Logic on why we are we are simulated. (Score:1)
We see a lot of detail? Well, it seems like a lot to us. A "sim" might be impressed by seeing 100 other sims, because there aren't any more of them.
We could be simulated by someone vastly more complex. Someone in a 50-dimensional universe might consider 3d simulation of 10^80 particles "easy".
Re: Simple Logic on why we are we are simulated. (Score:2)
They don't have to simulate that level of detail. All they need to do is simulate the world that is currently visible around me; for all I know, the rest of you don't exist, so why waste time simulating things for you?
Other (specify in comments) (Score:2)
Always the wrong interpretation (Score:4, Interesting)
For some reason people always seem to interpret this question as, "Do you think you're in a Sims game and some asshole is dressing you up in glittery pants for his own amusement". That's not the question. The question is "Is your consciousness the property of a 'real' (whatever that means) universe or a simulated one?" And, frankly, the answer is: "Meh. Who gives a shit." As long as nobody intentionally segfaults the universe, it doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as nobody intentionally segfaults the universe, it doesn't really matter.
If we're living in a simulation, it doesn't matter if they do either.
Re: (Score:2)
almost begs the question (not in the fallacy sense) of WTF a segfault would be like for us in our simulation, or assuming our universe (or world even?) runs on different nodes for different zones, what happens if a single zone segfaults?
Re: (Score:2)
Last time we segfaulted, we took three days to replay the transaction log against the backup and we missed a couple of important deaths. Took us 40 days to discover that problem and the knock-on effects are still here.
In all seriousness though, it depends on how the sim runs, Schlock Mercenary has been playing with a universe-scale sim engine recently and they have dedicated processors per person. So a segfault there might just kill the person. Maybe that's what happens when someone dies suddenly, personal
Re: (Score:2)
Geeky version of "god" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just the "god" argument in a different guise, so my reply is the same: Not until proof to the contrary.
How could we ever tell? (Score:1)
N/T
--
E
Maya (Score:2)
No and obvioslu so. (Score:2)
The thing about sims is that they are memory intensive. As such, we minimize what we simulate. For example, usually we don't simulate the insides of objects. We only simulate the outside of them, and create simple rules to summarize the workings of the inside (eats food sometimes or dies).
Our universe does not do this. Everything works the same with incredibly excessive detail. We are made of molecules, that are made of atoms, that are made of quarks etc.
Excess detail = not a simulation.
The reason why
Re: (Score:1)
Uh....I cannot see inside objects until I open them up....can you?
If not, then they don't need to be fully simulated until you do.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about sims is that they are memory intensive. As such, we minimize what we simulate. For example, usually we don't simulate the insides of objects. We only simulate the outside of them,
Who's to say our universe ISN'T simplified. If a simulated being were to gain self awareness, he perhaps wouldn't know that in his outerverse objects HAVE interiors. The fact that objects don't have interiors wouldn't even cross his mind as being odd, that's just the reality of the universe in which he lives.
If we were a simulation, our perception of reality might be VERY simplified compared to the real world. We would never know. We don't know what perception or reality we're missing.
I spent my life... (Score:2)
... flitting between Skyrim, Dirt 3, Oblivion and various Assassin's Creed's (Black Flag is a particular favourite)..
So yeah, I'm living in a simulation.
Can't speak for everyone else, though.
Cogito ergo sum (Score:2)
Or maybe an (un)reality TV show... (Score:2)
But for real? No. The idea is b.s.. And if it's not... trust me, whoever is running the sim does NOT want to meet me in person....
There's no reason to think it might be a sim (Score:3)
The question is exactly equivalent to "do unicorns and dragons exist?"
Maybe. But we have no reason to suspect so. It's just another silly religious question, totally depending on faith.
If you don't have the faith, then you say some variant of "I don't know" (the strictly correct answer) or presume that extraordinary claims require not just extraordinary evidence, but at least some evidence, however weak, which we still don't have, so maybe you simplify things for everyone by telling them the truth: "No."
If you do have the faith, then the possibility is enough to prove (to you) that it's happening or likely to be happening. And everyone else thinks you're a crackpot.
Re: (Score:2)
The BigFoot argument.
...
...
...
I didn't see this coming; you have caught me completely unprepared. I think you got me.
No (Score:1)
If it is a simulation, it is run by God. Then it is life by definition
Living in a simulation is comforting for some (Score:2)
Physicists hate "We are special". It makes it harder to come up with rules and proofs for things if it only applies to a particular space time in the universe.
I don't care if it's a simulation or we form as a bubble from a larger multi-universe, but what really scares me, what if we are *it*.
There was never anything before 14 billion years ago, and there will
Define 'simulation' (Score:2)
If the Christian world view is correct - that there is a God who created the environment which we inhabit and will one day resurrect us to either enjoy His presence or cower in Hell for all eternity - then there is a sense in which that is a 'simulation'. And we get to find out whether it is true when we die. Belief in that world view is justified from the hints that He has given us. Whether that is a simulation in the sense that the question asks is unclear - which is why I voted other...
It's all the same onion, no matter what layer. (Score:1)
Thing is, it doesn't really change anything. We are still part of the onion, who cares what layer we belong to.
Re: (Score:2)
We are still part of the onion, who cares what layer we belong to.
I'd rather be part of a layer of cake.
oh please (Score:2)
No... (Score:2)
If this is a simulation... (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
“It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may me
Yes, we're deluded (Score:2)
All of us live lives of delusion as if they were reality. If we didn't pretend, we wouldn't claim imaginary stuff as was real (religion, political/economic principals, etc).
For example, about 75% of humankind imagines there's an invisible SuperFather figure who takes care of us and ensures that we will live forever, even though there's simply no evidence for it.
We insist on not doing the hard work of shaping political action only using outcome, and instead, ignore outcome while arguing incessantly about wh
Nope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying if the universe is simulated that I "or you" would be the only real person and everyone else an NPC. What if the universe is multiplayer? Is that still a single simulation?
That would explain why some people seem slower than others. Their operators are running on older hardware or have other latency issues.
Of course not (Score:1)
Now, do you feel cold yet?
How about now?
There are many forms (Score:2)
Case in point: we "simulate" a democracy in the USA when it is really a republic, and increasingly pushing to some hybrid similar to China where officials are chosen and approved by one party. They have elections, but only among candidates guaranteed to work within the c
Thi is a troublesome question. (Score:2)
If we are living in a simulation, many questions come to the mind...
etc...
Geeks should stick to tech (Score:2)
As pointed out in previous comments, philosophers and theologians have discussed the nature of reality for millenia, and this "simulation" thingy is just a recent sci-fi version of that speculation.
Not a particularly novel contribution to philosophical thought, nor a clever one. Science isn't religion, nor is science fiction, L. Ron Hubbard to the contrary notwithstanding.
Go back to your screens and keep coding, boys, nothing to see here.
You are all robots. (Score:2)
I am the only real person.
A Theory to satisfy both Science and Religion (Score:1)
As an observer, it seems that technology is moving in a direction that allows for the creation of ever-more powerful computer simulations. This observation lends strongly to the possibility that we ourselves are in a simulation.
Let me tell you why.
The theories of evolution and the big bang state that we are the unlikely product of a long period of iterative change. The Universe begins with a bang and is followed by a process of basic elements merging together to form more complex elements, which eventually
Rather... (Score:1)
In light of the recent political situation in the USA, I think we're living in the Twilight Zone.
Does it matter?(if we are in a simulation) (Score:1)
YES! (Score:1)
I am a spiritual being, having a human experience.
We?? (Score:2)
"Are we living in a simulation?"
What's this "we?" There doesn't need to be enough memory to simulate a universe, just enough to simulate my perception of a local reality. It seems pretty real to me. The rest of you can just be roughed in and rendered when you come into my view.
Segmentation fault in HUMANS module. (Score:1)
Limits (Score:2)
The answer is no, of course. If this universe was a simulation there would be arbitrary and unnecessary limits such as a maximum speed, smallest definable size, how far we could see into space, etc.
Probably not however... (Score:2)
What if I am God (Score:2)
What if I am God and I have given myself temporary amnesia so I could slum it with you mere mortals for a short lifetime to experience what it would be like.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems mathematically impossible to me that there could be any nesting of simulations.
A simulated species that develops the technology to run their own simulated universe is going to need computing power equivalent to that of the "host" simulation they are running in.
Assuming that the "host" (original) simulation is running on a computer of finite capacity, nesting of simulations would quickly exhaust its resources, like running too many VMs on a physical host.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that the "host" (original) simulation is running on a computer of finite capacity, nesting of simulations would quickly exhaust its resources, like running too many VMs on a physical host.
True at some point, but how quickly? What if the host resources are so vast that we're hundreds, thousands, even millions of years away from exhausting them?
It's not mathematically impossible to have nesting simulations, just mathematically, likely impractical. At some point someone could build a supercomputer that bogs down the universe.
For the record, personally I think we're not in a simulation. Why? An educated guess I suppose. We'd be living in a simulation with no inherent purpose, which would appear
Re: (Score:2)
Meant "avoid rendering where any human isn't looking," obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, personally I think we're not in a simulation. Why? An educated guess I suppose. We'd be living in a simulation with no inherent purpose, which would appear to require some very expensive hardware (see the "need a computer as big as the universe to simulate the universe" problem, which even if you find a way to avoid rendering where any human is looking, would be enormous) and with a set expiry date (heat death of the universe). That's a very odd simulation.
Whereas I agree with you on almost all points, we don't know how massive the Outerverse is. Although, it would have to be incomprehensibly bigger than our own. Perhaps we're not that expensive to run- or perhaps it is worth it.
We can't say that our simulation serves no purpose. One possible idea:
Perhaps in the Outverse they are running thousands of "simplified" simulations on "mini" universes like our own, sped up (from their perspective) to see if any simulations avoid or reverse the heat death of the u
Re: (Score:2)
The VM example is a good model on how to think about this - and actually reveals that the "speed" of the "host" simulations doesn't matter at all.
Inside a VM, the OS can't tell that it is running slow unless it has a hole (like system clock time reporting, external network connections, etc) that pierces out of the VM container. As such, one clock cycle inside the VM could take 10 years in real time on the host machine, and the processes limited inside the VM wouldn't know or care.
Same thing with simulations
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that each simulation attempts to replicates its host. It could just as easily be simplifying and reducing on ever level.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
then 2 + 2 = 4 is equally magic, and nothing is our will
That's easily refuted. Our universe has quite strict physical laws which we cannot break and yet we seem to be able to exercise a significant amount of "free will" within those constraints. Changing the magic just changes your possibilities, not your "will".
Re: (Score:2)
This is the only universe that can exist ( all the rules governing it are sufficient for that task). Any other rules would make a universe that couldn't exist (the rules would lead it to chaos).
You can't possibly prove that. Furthermore that's also highly unlikely. Out of an infinite arrangement of dimensions and forces there is only one possible way they doesn't lead to chaos? Nah. Not buying that. Or rather, whose to sayour existence isn't "chaos" any more than any other arrangement of dimensions and forces- we just perceive it as reality because we're part of the chaos.