/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10472250]

Supposing simulated realities are real how many simulations deep would be physically possible?

[Anonymous No.10472255]

>>10472250
I'm honestly curious on how many simulations can I build muscle. Because, as you guys know, I can't build muscle.

[Anonymous No.10472270]

>>10472250
4

[Anonymous No.10472540]

It's simulations all the way down

[Anonymous No.10472920]

bump

[Anonymous No.10472972]

>>10472250
A computer can't emulate itself and even the hypothetically most powerful computer you could build would use many orders of magnitude less memory than the universe it's contained in, so probably like 2 or 3 layers at most before the simulation becomes too small to advance to the point that it creates it's own.

[Anonymous No.10473284]

>>10472250
That depends on the accuracy of the simulation and how much it actually costs to simulate a human brain. If the simulation is a solipsist rendition of a single or a few human brains it can layer extremely deeply (trillions+). Same if the simulation keeps the universe itself extremely barebones and only renders "texture" and not the underlying microscopic matter. If it's an actually faithfull simulation down to the molecule I expect you'd run into computational limits only a few layers in.

[Anonymous No.10473294]

>>10472972
>a computer can't emulate itself
Wrong

[Anonymous No.10473305]

>>10473294
No, you >>10473284

[Anonymous No.10473327]

>>10473305
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

[Anonymous No.10473384]

>>10473294
>>10473327
Saying a turing machine can emulate a turing machine is like saying a computer can emulate a computer. To emulate an instance of a turing machine, you'd need a significantly faster turing machine with more tape than the one you were emulating.

[Anonymous No.10473514]

>>10472250
If the computer that runs the first simulation has finite resources, then every simulation in a simulation in a ... has less and less resources available and therefore they can only simulate things with less complexity. It ends when only simple programs are possible that no one will call a simulation.

[Anonymous No.10473535]

>>10472972
>so probably like 2 or 3
You were doing great right up until this part. As long as you start with enough computing power, and you're willing to sacrifice enough computing power to reach each new nesting level, you could get some really big numbers.
The bigger issue here is that most simulation-fags insist nesting allows for more total simulated universes when the opposite is true.
To maximize the number of simulated universes you'd want to somehow prevent nesting of simulations, since (as you point out), each new layer of nesting reduces efficiency dramatically (exponentially all the way down).

[Anonymous No.10473547]

It would just need to be able to simulate the observable universe, and you could compress stuff and not "render" stuff if it wasn't needed. once a universe begins starts developing a simulation, the processing power required to run it could go down alot. This all depends on what type of simulation we are talking about tho.

[Anonymous No.10473550]

Even if you simulate the layer below you slower, each tick in that layer will seem like real time to the observer. Does this mean you can have an infinite amount of layers as long as time is infinite?

[Anonymous No.10473575]

>>10473550
Is the tick rate simulated?

[Anonymous No.10473578]

>>10473550
>Even if you simulate the layer below you slower
That's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The outermost simulator can only simulate so much stuff per unit time and will only exist for so many hours in the outside world.
There's only so many sim-lifetimes in the original box, and nesting reduces efficiency.
There are various ways to improve efficiency, but you could just apply them to non-nested simulations so they can't help enable nesting more than non-nesting.

>>10473550
>simulate the layer below you slower, each tick in that layer will seem like real time to the observer
If by observer, you mean someone observing a simulated universe from the outside.
From the inside, things will seem normal, but that universe can't run for as long (internal time) as it would have without time compression.
You can't just make up new internal time-complexity by alter the clock speed.

>>10473550
>as long as time is infinite?
Any simulator is a machine, and must have a limited lifetime.

[Anonymous No.10473583]

>>10473578
>observing a simulated universe from the outside.
*from the INSIDE
sorry for the typo

[Anonymous No.10473588]

>>10473550
>Even if you simulate the layer below you slower
That's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. The outermost simulator can only simulate so much stuff per unit time and will only exist for so many hours in the outside world.
There's only so many sim-lifetimes in the original box, and nesting reduces efficiency.
There are various ways to improve efficiency, but you could just apply them to non-nested simulations so they can't help enable nesting more than non-nesting.

>>10473550
>simulate the layer below you slower, each tick in that layer will seem like real time to the observer
If by observer, you mean someone observing a simulated universe from the outside, then obviously, no, it won't.
From the inside, things will seem normal, but that universe can't run for as long (internal time) as it would have without time compression.
You can't just make up new internal time-complexity by alter the clock speed.

>>10473550
>as long as time is infinite?
Any simulator is a machine, and must have a limited lifetime.

[Anonymous No.10473603]

>>10473547
>once a universe begins starts developing a simulation, the processing power required to run it could go down alot
No matter how efficient a simulated universe is, once they start building computers, you're going to have to add more computing power, since the simulated computers have real computing power, just like rel world virtualized computers.
It takes more computing power to simulate a pound of computers than a pound of hammers.

[Anonymous No.10473611]

>>10473588
I don't see why the simulator has to be some cogs and wheel machine that can break. Its just numbers.
The skin universe is a simulator and time is infinite but resources are finite. As layers are added each tick approaches an infinite amount of time to calculate, but it will calculate.
I'm retarded, it makes some sort of sense in my head atleast.

[Anonymous No.10473625]

>>10473611
>I don't see why the simulator has to be some cogs and wheel machine that can break. Its just numbers.
That's like saying "a car is just motion over a distance". You can smoke weed and contemplate numbers all day long, but if you want an actual computer, you're going to have to build it out of something.

[Anonymous No.10473641]

>>10473625
If we were able to look up into the layer above us it would just look like numbers, the layer below us would just be those same numbers in a different order if the layer above us was able to see a snapshot of it. So we can just assume every layer above us is just our numbers in a different order.

[Anonymous No.10473643]

>>10472250
Before the singularity (activation of simulation prime)? One simulation deep.

After the simulation is switched on, and we become able to determine whether or not we are in a simulation, because we designed the damn thing prior to turning it on? Still one simulation deep.

People need to process popout logic or the entire dependency chain collapses. There's literally no reason to run a simulation in the simulated world inside the simulation.

[Anonymous No.10473646]

>>10473535
>As long as you start with enough computing power, and you're willing to sacrifice enough computing power to reach each new nesting level, you could get some really big numbers.

Not really. Even if the first layer of simulation was only using a percent of a percent of the available computing power, how would any additional layer make use of the extra power without invalidating the laws of thermodynamics from to perspective of the simulated universe?

[Anonymous No.10473653]

>>10473550
Even with infinite time, the laws of physics in the real universe would need to be different enough that entropy didn't apply. Also there would still be memory limitations even if there weren't operations per second limitations.

[Anonymous No.10473660]

>>10473653
Have people prepared for the fact that we might be wrong about the nature of our universe?

[Anonymous No.10473661]

>>10473641
>So we can just assume every layer above us is just our numbers in a different order.
You still need an actual machine to calculate the numbers.

[Anonymous No.10473667]

>>10473643
Wow, I really miss smoking weed.

[Anonymous No.10473669]

>>10473667
I design simulation cross-negotiation frameworks as a hobby. It's interesting to me. Poor-man's time travel in a linear universe.

[Anonymous No.10473696]

>>10473641
What separates the numbers into layers?

[Anonymous No.10473704]

>>10473646
>how would any additional layer make use of the extra power without invalidating the laws of thermodynamics
I wasn't suggesting that any new computing power would magically appear (just the opposite).
I'm just suggesting we can't put our fingers on a specific number of nesting levels.
The number of nested levels must be limited by the original simulator's power.
Assume we build a computer powerful enough to simulate 32 (somehow standardized) universes, and each nested simulation is only half as efficeint as it's parent (probably much worse, but let's keep the math simple).
Then we could have 32 universes nested one layer deep.
But if our sims start building their own simulators, we might instead have 16 level-one universes and 8 level-two universes, or 24 total with the same overall computing power.
Or the same simulator could have one layer-one universe, which contained a single level-two simulator, which contained a single level-three universe, which contains a single level-four universe.
The level 4 universe is 1/16th as efficient as the level-one universe, the level-3 universe is 1/8th as efficient as the level-one universe etc.
Now 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 31, so we've got a little power left over, but only 4 universes total.
Please double-check me on >>10473535
>To maximize the number of simulated universes you'd want to somehow prevent nesting of simulations

[Anonymous No.10473711]

>>10473704
>Then we could have 32 universes nested one layer deep.
To be clear, I mean all 32 are at the uppermost level, and are not nested,.

[Anonymous No.10473717]

>>10473660
>we might be wrong about the nature of our universe?
I think we can assume that 2+2=4 in any universe, and unless time gets radically different in the "real" world, computer science is going to work the same in all universes.

[Anonymous No.10473726]

>>10473717
Fun fact: From the reference point of a simulation that can detect structures analogous to consciousness in the simulated world, "magic" is just cached computation.

[Anonymous No.10473737]

>>10473696
Numbers in another order would be the ideal simulation.

[Anonymous No.10473741]

>>10473726
>"magic" is just cached computation.
I would think magic would be anything that significantly deviates from the normal rules for that universe.
Think wallhax or other glitches in a video game.

[Anonymous No.10473743]

>>10473737
>Numbers in another order would be the ideal simulation.
True.
I'm 54 and my wife is 61.
Much better the other way around.

[Anonymous No.10473749]

>>10473741
I distinguish reality glitches from magic for that reason; a bug is liable to be patches. A simulation API *designed* to interface with the mind is magic. My definition of magic involves causality rooted in the mind so we end up having control over it. Otherwise it's just "weird" physics. It'd be nonsense for us to claim it was magic to be able to walk through walls if we had always been able to walk through walls for as long as recorded history. That would just be the physics of that type of universe.

[Anonymous No.10473767]

if its all relative and nothing matters
what is really simulating what?
what does the non simulated reality matter more in this instance if the entirety of existance is all just as banal?

[Anonymous No.10473778]

>all these people basing simulations off of classical computer architecture

i dont know much about quantum computing so can anyone tell me how quatum computing couldnt solve for the "finite resources" bit.
would a quatum computer be able to emulate itself?

[Anonymous No.10473781]

>>10473778
There's a rationalist creepypasta about that. Don't recall the name offhand.

[Anonymous No.10473784]

Sorry to backtrack but can someone even prove consciousness can arise from a simulated reality? What if consciousness is something that can only experienced from a true reality. Seems to me a simulated reality is just the interpretation of code which has no true physical analogue to the real world this cannot create from it things that need some inherent physicality.

[Anonymous No.10473792]

>>10473767
>what is really simulating what?
>what does the non simulated reality matter more
If I shut off the simulator I'm operating and your universe disappears. It matters to you more than me.

[Anonymous No.10473794]

>>10473778
Quantum computers are still limited by how many qubits they have. So no, they cannot emulate themselves.

[Anonymous No.10473795]

>>10473784
No, simulation theory presupposes emergence theory.

[Anonymous No.10473796]

>>10473784
>can someone even prove consciousness can arise from a simulated reality?
We can't prove it can arise from any reality.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hard+problem+of+consciousness
So it must follow that a simulated person's asertation that they are "real" is no better than your own.
Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.10473810]

>>10473550
>Does this mean you can have an infinite amount of layers as long as time is infinite?
>>10473611
>As layers are added each tick approaches an infinite amount of time to calculate, but it will calculate.

Even if time were somehow infinite, you're forgetting RAM.
The outermost simulator is only going to have so much storage.
You can simulate twice as much stuff but only half as fast for any given amount of computing power, but you'll need twice as much memory to do it.
To maximize the amount of simulating done by a given amount of hardware, you'd want to go the opposite direction.
Simulate as little as possible as fast as possible and you need less RAM.

[Anonymous No.10473811]

>>10473792
rhis is making alot of assumption about what a simulation is.

am i a product of a holographic object?
sort of like Neo waking up in the real world and having his matrix avatar.
or am i completley contained within the simulation?
if i am completley contained within simulation, relatively this would be my reality and the question of something beyond that i can never hope to exierence is a pointless and possible dangerous question for a "contained entity".

[Anonymous No.10473812]

>>10473784
>no true physical analogue to the real world
Even solid rocks (in this universe) are mostly empty space.
Just how real do you think reality is?

[Anonymous No.10473817]

>>10473811
>rhis is making alot of assumption about what a simulation is.
Nope.>>10473811
>if i am completley contained within simulation, relatively this would be my reality and the question of something beyond that i can never hope to exierence is a pointless
The point is the outer layers can effect the inner layers in ways that can't run the opposite direction.
Neo can be removed from the matrix, or maybe he'll live his whole life in there.
But once he's out, he can effect both universes, not just the inner one.
(OK, he might inspire someone in the outer universe who observes him, but that's much more limited than going the other direction).

[Anonymous No.10473820]

>>10473796
The idea that we could create a simulation with sapience when we don't even understand our own sapience is nonsense, so it's safe to assume if we ever reach the point where we have androids or simulated people that appear sapient, that they aren't.

[Anonymous No.10473844]

>>10473820
>The idea that we could create a simulation with sapience when we don't even understand our own sapience is nonsense
That's like saying you can't "make water" (pee) unless you understanding chemistry.
If consciousness is a complex emergent property of a universe with relatively simpler physics, and we can make a simulated reality with simple physics, it stands to reason consciousness might arise, even if we don't understand the process.
Just to be clear, what I'm describing isn't the same as deliberately designing conscious beings.
>>10473820
>androids or simulated people that appear sapient, that they aren't.
That's seriously racist. (not joking)
Do you honestly believe you have a soul? And that you understand souls enough to suggest they require some kind of "divine spark" that must surely be missing from an android or simulation?
Bear in mind "I don't know" =\= "it's not real".

[Anonymous No.10473856]

>>10473817
still dont understand how this question matters in a relativistic universe.

if you ever got into metaphysics
when postulated between two universes
physical, and non physical,

some are monoists- either/or
dualistic interactionists- both exist and interact with each other
dulaistic [i forget]- both exist apart from each other
epiphenominalists- the two universes only interact on certain occasions.

either way.
we can postulate other universes, or realities.
but to say how they interact with each other with any certainty, and not making assumptions just deduced from the first postulate is false.

the agnostic would say.
the simulation would only matter to the one who can turn it on an off.
if thats one level above us there is no way of knowing since information or rather called dependencies cannot travel in the opposite direction.
the relativist would say that every reality that is not your own is a simulation

[Anonymous No.10473872]

>>10472250
42

[Anonymous No.10473873]

>>10473856
Jesus Fucking Christ, what a word salad.
And you're never getting back the part of your life you spent typing it.
Wow.

The whole point of this thread is the discussion of nested simulations.
We aren't talking about unrelated universes.
We aren't talking about the many-words interpretation.
We aren't talking about fiction as reality (ala Robert Heinlein's novel "Number of the Beast").
The specific subject of this thread is universes simulated within other universes on some kind of artificial computing device.
The relationship between universes in this case should be obvious and objective, not subjective.

[Anonymous No.10473875]

>>10473872
>42

[Anonymous No.10473896]

>>10473873
but our universe operates on relativistic principles right?

are you saying relationships between simulated and non simulated realities wouldnt be relative or relativity would havr no impact on it?

[Anonymous No.10473898]

Are we done?
OK, I'm off to bed.

[Anonymous No.10473905]

>>10473898
Oops, posted too soon.
>>10473896
>but our universe operates on relativistic principles right?
Within itself, yes.

>>10473896
>relativity would have no impact on it?
I think you're mixing up physics as we know it, and some philosophical nonsense that might help you get your dick wet in college.

If we presuppose universe "B" exists solely within the confines of a device that itself only exists within universe "A", then universe "B" can only exist so long as that device exits, and that the reverse can't be true.
Someone in universe "A" created universe "B", AND NOT VICE VERSA, no matter what philosophical bent anyone adopts.

[Anonymous No.10473916]

>>10473844
Humans didn't design the human body though. And again, you're assuming emergence theory is real or that it's a dichotomy between emergence and god.

[Anonymous No.10473919]

>>10473916
OK, I give up.

[Anonymous No.10473944]

>>10473916
>OK, I give up.
No, I changed my mind.

>>10473916
>Humans didn't design the human body though.
Irrelevant. You're obviously deliberately ignoring this:
>>10473844
>Just to be clear, what I'm describing isn't the same as deliberately designing conscious beings.

>>10473916
>you're assuming emergence theory is real
There's no such thing as "emergence theory".
I'm assuming it's possible that "An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have."
https://www.google.com/search?q=emergent+property
There are many examples of this in the real world, so it's not much of a stretch to assume.
ESPECIALLY since (as near as we can tell) consciousness is an emergent property of our own universe, simulated or not.

Bear in mind, I'm halfway through a liter of Irish whiskey, and I still make more sense than you.
Good night, sir.

[Anonymous No.10473948]

>>10473905
supposing universe A trudges along and the Device ends up surviving all the way to the end of the universe, to where the only thing left, or the only thing that defines universe A is the device?
maybe going as far as to say that the only thing keeping universe A in existance is the Device.

then assuming that Device is a simulation of the universe above it.
the only element in that universe would be a device that contains a simulation of that universe
ad infinitum.

[Anonymous No.10473953]

>>10473704
I mean even if it doesn't go all the way down infinitely, what is the upper bound on computing power? The infinite set of simulations continues backwards not forwards if they are nested.

[Anonymous No.10473968]

>>10473944
>There's no such thing as "emergence theory".

There is.

>ESPECIALLY since (as near as we can tell) consciousness is an emergent property of our own universe, simulated or not.

And here you are assuming it's true with no evidence. Might as well assume consciousness comes from god.

[Anonymous No.10474055]

>>10472250
Your daily reminder that simulation theory is likely wrong. Quantum mechanics is much harder, not easier, to simulate than classical physics.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/03/we-dont-live-in-simulation.html

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html

[Anonymous No.10474079]

>>10474055
This is why consciousness exists btw. The required calculation to govern a system as complex as a brain isn't possible at the quantum scale in our universe. The same mechanism behind the laws of nature applied on a lower resolution (one person VS 1000000000... Strings) . Like matter creating a black hole the singular force of time collapses into singularity outside 3d space and becomes "I". It is why machines will never have a soul as long as they operate according to the laws of nature.

[Anonymous No.10474081]

>>10474079
Operating according to the laws of nature meaning programmed on man-made axioms.

[Anonymous No.10474090]

>>10474079
or you know, there is no calculation at all because nature is not a computer

certainly makes a lot more sense than literal solipsism

[Anonymous No.10474115]

>>10474090
Nature is the calculation. It is panpsychist not solipsistic

[Anonymous No.10474120]

>>10474055
>https://motls.blogspot.com/2013/03/we-dont-live-in-simulation.html

This guy is a bit retarded. We KNOW this can't be true. Quantum events, Lorentz whatever cannot disprove the simulation theory. I don't even need to understand it to know why it doesn't work.

The universe is data that enters a human brain. Whether it's one or 7 billion, the universe can be reduced to what we can see and anything we see can be fabricated by the simulator. There is no evidence that can counter this, literally nothing. Anything we can comprehend can be simulated, quantum lorentz or no.

[Anonymous No.10474123]

>>10472250
>MMOPG are currently popular
>DA HOLE UNIVARS IS JAS AN MMOPG DOOD

[Anonymous No.10474147]

>>10474120
The matter in your body moves over time partially in respect to your own conscious input. Non living material only moves over time with respect to all other particles in the universe following consistent patterns. Your body is subject to an additional physical law, your will. This will was put in the vessel of your body by God or is derived, inevitably, directly from God himself. A statue carved out of God.

[Anonymous No.10474150]

>>10474120
>The universe is data that enters a human brain.

That data behaves in a way that can not be computed.

Generally speaking, computers can only do classical mechanics, but the unvierse does not work along classical mechanics rules.

[Anonymous No.10474158]

>>10474120
You know you can investigate how the universe works? It is not just any data that can be fed to the brain by the simulation. The data must be consistent or the brains will realize it is all a lie and they are being bamboozled, as the simulation is taking shortcuts. This applies to any simulation.

According to our investigations, the universe is quantum to an extreme degree of accuracy and there is no inconsistency. And since you cannot simulate a quantum universe on a classical computer (and even on a quantum computer you would need one many times the size of the universe for a proper simulation), the most likely conclusion is the most obvious one - there is no simulation, what we see is what there is.

[Anonymous No.10474169]

>>10474150

All data that enters a human brain is classical, essentially it can be reduced to binary.

The data does not 'behave' in a way that cannot be computed. That doesn't even make sense. Data is data.

The data can match mathematical models that predict certain things may not be possible on our level. That doesn't mean they can't be computed. Say all electrons have a discrete position and velocity but our experiments are being manually altered one at a time. How can you tell the difference between spooky action at a distance and admin fuckery?

[Anonymous No.10474170]

>>10474158
Quantum computers also only can do classical mechanics.

[Anonymous No.10474171]

>>10474169
>All data that enters a human brain is classical, essentially it can be reduced to binary.

No, it's not.

>The data does not 'behave' in a way that cannot be computed. That doesn't even make sense. Data is data.

Data is a desription of behaviour.

>The data can match mathematical models that predict certain things may not be possible on our level. That doesn't mean they can't be computed. Say all electrons have a discrete position and velocity but our experiments are being manually altered one at a time. How can you tell the difference between spooky action at a distance and admin fuckery?

Then it's not a computer simulation.

Also, go back to /x/.

[Anonymous No.10474179]

>>10474158

Wrong.

Say a brain realizes something is wrong. Memories can be edited to fix it instantly, retrospectively rewritten.

Our experiments prove literally nothing. A man in a box could be altering each and every result to whatever formula he wants.

Or, take it a step further. What proof do you have that such experiments exist? Zero. None. You read papers, perhaps a popsci web article. Hear about twin slits in high school. You saw something happen but who is in control of your eyes? There is no experiment you can do to test this, BY DEFINITION.

You assume that the stars exist. Does each and every video game simulate nuclear fusion? No, they have a skybox. We probably have something similiar.

[Anonymous No.10474182]

>>10474179
>I'm a religious idiot who thinks he's smart

Video games don't simulate nuclear fusion because they literally can't.

[Anonymous No.10474186]

>>10474179
>hurr durr everything is a lie

Behold, the ultimate state of the simulationfags.

Simulation hypothesis usually means that reality is simulated on a computer. We know this is very unlikely.

It does not mean that reality is simulated on a computer and a godlike admin has to micromanage everything and constantly edit memories to keep the illusion from collapsing. That is just good old solipsism, dressed for the modern age, and deserves just as little consideration.

[Anonymous No.10474197]

>>10474186

They COULD do that though. They can pause and edit whatever they like.

>We know this is very unlikely.

Citation fucking needed. We know that it's impossible to disprove a simulation from inside a simulation, seeing as the simulator gets to WRITE THE FUCKING RULES and CONTROL WHAT WE THINK AND SEE.

I can't imagine how stupid you need to be to argue against a simulation based on the rules you see inside it.

Half the people in these threads seem to be butthurt atheists salty that science isn't on their side.

[Anonymous No.10474205]

>>10474197
>They COULD do that though.

We could also be composed of particles being manually moved by cosmic fairies. Does not make it an idea worthy of consideration.

You see, when you say that reality is a simulation, it can be tested and reasoned about. It fails the tests, it is that simple (links were posted above).

However, when you say that reality is a simulation and on top of that some goddess is constantly editing it to maintain consistency, then at that point the notion is equivalent to magical thinking and not an actual explanation of anything.

[Anonymous No.10474210]

>>10474205

Simulation theory is not an explanation of anything. There is no way to verify it, only probabilistic arguments can be made in it's favor. The sole effect it has is absolutely destroying atheists.

There are no tests. I had a look at the links and found no discernible meaning in them, except for the same 'simulation is just religion ha ha' that's already filling this thread to the brim.

You cannot test a manufactured system. It simply doesn't work. Everything we see is classical data, it can be produced by a classical system. You cannot say 'incomputable', it just doesn't work. It can be achieved by replicating the results of a quantum operation.

Besides, what's the difference between a cosmic fairy and the strong nuclear force? They're one and the same. You seem to think that attaching silly names to concepts makes them less believable.

[Anonymous No.10474215]

>>10474197
You need to decide what you are argueing about. We understand computers very well, as we are the ones who invented them. You can not simulate the universe on computers and rewiring and spontaneuosly editing a simulation is also not possible the way you seem to think it is. We can not pause a game, change something in its code, and then hit play again. That's not how programming works.

[Anonymous No.10474250]

>>10474210
>It can be achieved by replicating the results of a quantum operation.

You cannot just do that. You need quantum mechanics to replicate the effects of quantum mechanics for anything that has more than a handful of particles. Classical computation shits the bed.

Your magical god-admin, if she exists, must still have access to some quantum reality with at least a large quantum computer (if not a non-binary quantum simulator), in order to even compute how to adjust the simulation in the first place.

It just does not work.

[Anonymous No.10474272]

>>10473588
>meanwhile in the top tier universe
Hey guys *hits bong* w-what if... what if like we simulated a universe, hear me out, where like the simulation nesting is limited. Like totally alien to our own universe which has infinite energy and unlimited nesting and shit.

[Anonymous No.10474275]

>>10473944
>There's no such thing as "emergence theory".
A lot of mathematicians in """"chaos""""" theory would severely disagree with you and probably get pretty pissy.

[Anonymous No.10474350]

Hey guys, Irish whiskey guy from last night.
Boy, did this thread go to shit while I was asleep.
So here's my take on the current "brain in a jar" vs quantum mechanics argument.
If all the simulation is doing is feeding your senses a designed storyline, is that really a"simulated universe"?
You might s well be describing a dream, or some kind of interactive movie.
And that's great and all, but is that really what most of us are discussing here? Or have you just whipped out a deus ex machina of debate?

[Anonymous No.10474400]

>>10474275
Perhaps I didn't express myself well.
I meant to indicate that the concept of emergent properties could be taken as axiomatic, and didn't deserve the "if you believe" from the other anon. That's like asking if you believe in algebra.

[Anonymous No.10474401]

>>10474197
This guy is the same guy who would say God doesn't exist and tip his fedora

[Anonymous No.10474482]

>>10474123
Technopomorphism simlets.

[Anonymous No.10474521]

>>10473784
Hey I'm this guy just came back to see answers. Looks like a may of derailed the thread. Some interesting arguments both ways. Thanks for the responses.

One last question. If a simulation is in a way just the interpretation of code/data in a computer, how does this interpretation lead to a reality other than one that can be observed by a computer user. It seems to me that the code has no reality built into it, only what our imagination imposes? It doesn't seem obvious to me that it would even be possible to live within this code? Hopefully the question is clear.

[Anonymous No.10474703]

>>10474521
>, how does this interpretation lead to a reality other than one that can be observed by a computer user
Hey.
Drunk Whiskey Anon here.
You ask a lot of questions, but in the end those questions are all we really have.
Someone could assert "reality is real because it's the only REAL reality.", but in the end "real" is an entirely self-referential concept.
As I said before, rocks are mostly empty space. Reality isn't half as real as we'd like it to be, and who's to say any given world is less real than any other.
In the end the only sure thing is "cogito ergo sum", I think therefore I am.
If someone else thinks, can you say they're less real than you?

[Anonymous No.10474843]

If we are part of the simulation, it doesn't has to be realtime. We wouldn't recognize even the longest delays, so memory would be the only constraint.

[Anonymous No.10475171]

>>10474843
>If we are part of the simulation, it doesn't has to be realtime.
If we are part of the fever-dream of a syphilitic giraffe, we wouldn't have any other world to compare this one to.
That doesn't make my nonsensical scenario any more or less plausible than yours.

[Anonymous No.10475628]

>>10475171
What is inconsistent about his idea? If you make the simulation slower, render each state of the simulated universe with a delay between them, you will save processing power, but forthe subjective observer within that simulation time will still pass normally. So the limit really is memory capacity and how long you can keep the computers on each sim layer functional.

[Anonymous No.10475636]

>>10472250
unimaginably high numbers

[Anonymous No.10475669]

Let's take a human brain size
Emulated on some future-chip that is billions of times faster + Quantum computation for certain specific algorithms

Now on top of that you can pseudo-emulate most human operations, think heartbeat, non-conscious things, inner workings, etc. If you apply enough optimizations/tricks so the only thing you respond to is human consciousness it can run soooo fast, aka not a perfect calculation of every little atom in a pillow but a "quick one".

All that would be required to trick any human consciousness, which isn't much. Humans are inherently delusional too so you can also just insert memories of certain things instead of even emulating them perfectly, such as extremely chaotic crowd interactions.

Anyway, you could run current humanity, 7 billion humans, all emulated, real time, on about 1 football field big future computers, easily. You can also run fuck tons of them simultaneously given a good "initial settings" set up. AKA most simulations will be near-copies of one another rather than unique, since setting it up would take the longest, rather than having 1000000000 of them going.

Anyway a future society that is advanced say 1000 years from us now, could have billions/trillions of such simulations easily.

[Anonymous No.10475697]

>>10474843
Our "realtime" is very slow. Our biological brains operate chemically for the most part which is millions of times slower than current digital and likely that is much slower than what is possible for a more advanced society.

Time is arbitrary in the sense that it's easily possible for intelligences to exist at speeds 1000000000x faster than us..

To give some example, a much faster human operating at such speeds could easily massacre an entire city on their own.

The time scale humans operate at is very, very slow. Our reaction times are extremely slow too.

[Anonymous No.10476023]

>>10475697
Their is more than speed to be considered. Even if digital computing can move a bit of information through an algorithm faster than a human brain the density of calculations in a given time and given space of machines is still so much lower than our brain. Your brain runs on water and pizza and can use that to operate your entire perception for some time. A supercomputer takes huge amounts of space and energy and is still too inefficient to generate an ai. Our best computers are still stone age compared to our brain.

[Anonymous No.10476563]

>>10475628
This has already been covered earlier in the thread.
see:
>>10473588
>>10473653
>>10473810

And as you point out simulating more things more slowly would require more RAM.
In the giraffe post I'm trying to point out there's no use in trying to make the simulation idea seem more plausible anyway, since it's one of a million equally unsupported ideas.
Maybe your whole life is a hallucination, and your memories are just part of the hallucination, and you're really in a coma, but you're really a comatose brain in a jar, and the brain and the jar are simulated, but not the entire universe, but all this was what was happening earlier, but now it's just a memory of your life flashing before your eyes as you die of carbon monoxide poisoning.

As long as you're willing to tear down the foundations of reality, there's an unlimited supply of "what if" stories, none of which are more plausible than the rest, especially considering there's no way to know anything about the "real" world if all we know is this world.

[Anonymous No.10476568]

>>10475669
If we're in a simulation, how is it you know anything about the "real" world?

[Anonymous No.10476593]

[Anonymous No.10476638]

>>10476593
Not to be a nudge, but the nested worlds in that episode of Rick and Morty are pocket universes, not simulations. That's why the power each world generates actually exists in Rick's world, and can function as his car battery.
"I put a spatially tessellated void inside a modified temporal field until a planet developed intelligent life."

[Anonymous No.10476650]

>>10472250
Depends completely on how complex the nonsimulated reality is, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.10476652]

>>10476638
oh hey yeah your right. lol, totally spaced on that one.