The Universe is not a simulation

[Anonymous No.8513716]

A lot of people seem to think that the universe might be a simulation. The idea is that if it is easy to simulate a universe, then inside that simulation it is also easy to simulate a universe, so iniside that simulation it is easy, ... etc. Therefore there is an infinite number of simulations running inside each other, and the probably that our universe is not one of them is approaching 0, therefore it is most likely that we are in a simulation.

The problem I see with that is that any computer can necessarily simulate an area of space that is less big than itself. For example if my computer is made up of 20000 atoms, and each atom is a memory block storing information useful for the simulation of atoms, then I can only simulate a universe consisting of 20000 atoms, at best. If this was not true then a computer would essentially be able to simulate a computer with more memory than it has, inside of itself.

This seems like a very basic violation of some physical law, but I am not sure. Can someone prove me wrong? Does quantum computing solve this problem somehow?

[Anonymous No.8513721]

The implications for the multiple simulations theory therefore seems to be that each simulation can only run inside a universe that is orders of magnitude more complex than itself, because it would require constructing a computer that is orders of magnitude more complex than the entire size of the universe.

[Anonymous No.8513735]

>>8513716
o hai

[Anonymous No.8513749]

>>8513735
Hi

care to elaborate?

[Anonymous No.8514046]

>>8513716
>For example if my computer is made up of 20000 atoms, and each atom is a memory block storing information useful for the simulation of atoms, then I can only simulate a universe consisting of 20000 atoms, at best.

This is not just wrong it's a completely incoherent statement that cannot be refuted because it's a non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.8514051]

>>8513716
>For example if my computer is made up of 20000 atoms, and each atom is a memory block storing information useful for the simulation of atoms, then I can only simulate a universe consisting of 20000 atoms, at best.

unless the universe it is simulating can be modeled by a set of equations and initial conditions

[Anonymous No.8514089]

Who told you the universe that is real that contains what's simulating our universe even has atoms?

[Anonymous No.8514096]

>>8514089

Or that our universe is even a measurable fraction of the size of the one that is simulating it.

[Anonymous No.8514099]

It doesn't make any fucking sense that there would be a size and speed limit in the universe. It's as if they don't want us breaking their precious sim.

[Anonymous No.8514100]

>>8513716
>For example if my computer is made up of 20000 atoms, and each atom is a memory block storing information useful for the simulation of atoms, then I can only simulate a universe consisting of 20000 atoms

That's what virtual memory and disk paging were invented for, friendo

Who says you need to simulate the entire universe at once?

Load 1% of the universe in memory, simulate a tick, unload it to disk, load the next 1%, simulate a tick, and so on.

[Anonymous No.8514101]

>>8514099
THIS

>mfw realized that the ``````````global elites'''''''''' are just the in-game personas of the aliens managing this simulation

[Anonymous No.8514106]

>>8513716
>GTFO shitbrain
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.8514112]

>>8514101
Donald Trump is the main admin

[Anonymous No.8514116]

>>8513716
this seems more philosophy that anything. it starts into whether or not other people are real or just you, if things exist when you can't see them, and if this is a simulation where are my cheat codes

[Anonymous No.8514119]

>>8514116
If this is a simulation there should be some way for an incredibly intellectual individual to escape should they need to

[Anonymous No.8514122]

how do you turn this on
how do you turn this on
how do you turn this on
how do you turn this on
how do you turn this on
how do you turn this on

[Anonymous No.8514125]

>>8514046
I'm not following.
>>8514051
>unless the universe it is simulating can be modeled by a set of equations and initial conditions
But each atom in the universe has it's own initial conditions, so wouldn't that mean you need all the atoms plus addition atoms to store the equations?
>>8514100
>Who says you need to simulate the entire universe at once?
That's a good point.

[Anonymous No.8514127]

>>8514122
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.8514138]

>>8513716
>If humans can create gods to worship, then those gods can also create gods to worship, and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, I am a god.

This is what simulation theory proponents ACTUALLY BELIEVE

[Anonymous No.8514140]

>>8514138
i dunno man, maybe if they make a Sims 99999 and it's really advanced, then you could be a god of a sentient species who are being simulated on your computer

[Anonymous No.8514147]

>>8513716
Your brain simulates a universe from your senses so you can comprehend enough to propagate the species.

Your experience is not the universe, however it is good enough. Also the reason illusion works and people are generally retarded.

[Anonymous No.8514150]

>>8513716
>if it is easy to simulate a universe
What if it's not.

[Anonymous No.8514172]

>>8514140
I guess you could say that, but my intention was just to critique the logical structure of the simulation argument, in particular the way it draws a definite conclusion about the world from an infinite chain of hypothetical contingent events. Not only do you have to believe that it's "easy"(whatever that means) to create a simulation in our world, but you also have to believe that it's "easy" for the simulation to create a simulation of its own, and so on. But to my knowledge, no one has come close to creating a simulation of a world which is sufficiently "rich" to create its own simulation. So even accepting the premise of the argument requires a substantial leap of faith. But suppose we do take this leap and accept the existence of an infinite tower of simulations, then so what? We already know that our world is distinguished from the others by virtue of it being ours, so assigning a "probability" to us living in a simulation is meaningless and obfuscatory. If your name was John, and you had 100 brothers named Jack, then would you say that your name is "probably Jack"? The quality of being/not being a simulation is pre-determined, and we cannot "roll the dice" by resetting our universe and seeing whether we land in a simulation or not, so it doesn't make sense to assign a probability to it (unless it's a probability in the sense of a Bayesian prior, which, let's be honest, is just a fancy name for talking out of your ass).

So what has the argument shown? I paraphrase: Under some highly questionable assumptions, we can conceive of a scenario in which there are many simulations. Since there are many worlds, one of which is ours, and most of which are simulations, it follows that our world is a simulation. QED.

One is reminded of the joke about proofs in economics: "Assuming X, Y follows. We have proved Y."

[Anonymous No.8514185]

>>8514172
Sorry, I only understood a portion of your post because I'm a brainlet and know next to nothing about statistics, but I agree with what I understood.

I would definitely want to see a stronger argument before believing we live in a simulation, but it's still a pretty interesting idea to entertain.

[Anonymous No.8514218]

You don't need to simulate every single atom every second. It only needs to be simulated to the level of conscious observers (us) perception. Then if one of us just so happen to look at an atom through a microscope then it would be simulated for just that moment. Same goes for distant galaxies and pretty much anything else we aren't consciously observing at the moment

[Anonymous No.8514219]

Occam's razor faggots

[Anonymous No.8514221]

>>8514185
Sorry if it's a little confusing; i got kind of carried away.

And I agree it's an interesting idea to think about, but as far as I can tell, most of the arguments in favor are basically restatements of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm

[Anonymous No.8514223]

>>8513716
Just because something is easy does not mean it will be done. It might be more profitable to make it illegal and to force people to do unnecessarily inconvenient things.

[Anonymous No.8514260]

>>8513716
>For example if my computer is made up of 20000 atoms, and each atom is a memory block storing information useful for the simulation of atoms, then I can only simulate a universe consisting of 20000 atoms

do you understand how bits work?

20000 bits can represent way more values than 20000. And if we are talking quantum shit, which is probably what you would need for a universe simulator, that number gets even greater.

[Anonymous No.8514285]

>>8514260
Oh my god. A quantum shit. Does it both smell and not smell at the same time? Do you have to lock a cat up in a box to figure it out too?

[Anonymous No.8514292]

>>8514260
Let us imagine that there is some configuration of n atoms (lets call this configuration a simulator) that can simulate n + 1 atoms in any configuration, perfectly, and in real time.

Then, let us imagine that our n original atoms configured into a simulator, S_0 simulate a simulator S_1 and one atom. Simulator S_1 simulates simulator S_2 and one atom, and so on. Blah blah blah, finite number of atoms perfectly simulating an infinite number of atoms in any configuration in real time.

Thus either we can simulate an infinite amount of things with a finite amount of matter, or it is impossible to perfectly simulate objects of greater complexity than the simulator in real time. Both options seem equally plausible to me.

[Anonymous No.8514297]

>>8513716
Only creations and veiled creationists think this

[Anonymous No.8514299]

>>8514297
>he thinks the universe came from nothing

[Anonymous No.8514302]

>>8513716
its easy to disprove just call philosophy tards brainlets

[Anonymous No.8514308]

>>8514172
>Assuming X, Y follows. We have proved Y.
In this particular example, X="it's possible to make a simulation of a universe that can simulate a universe" and Y="our universe is a simulation". You're right that assuming X does not prove Y, but we are not assuming X. We are just exploring the implications of X, which happen to be Y.
>If your name was John, and you had 100 brothers named Jack, then would you say that your name is "probably Jack"?
But what if you didn't know your own name, and you had 100 brothers named Jack. Wouldn't it be absurd to assume you're special in any way and got a unique name?

[Anonymous No.8514315]

>>8514299
>The universe must have come from some thinking agent because I can't see any other way it could have come about

[Anonymous No.8514321]

I'm not a scientist, so pardon me if I sound retarded.

I think the question of "Where did it all start?" can be answered with the universe being a simulation. Of course, this creates an infinite cycle, which doesn't necessarily make sense as that still needs a beginning. However, in the root universe, what if the entire concept of an inception doesn't exist? It makes sense that a simulated entity cannot understand its simulator. By understand, I don't mean acknowledging its existence and even being able to figure out how it works and responds to certain things. I mean actually understand how it was put together. This requires knowledge of the universe the simulator was made in.

[Anonymous No.8514327]

>>8514292
It's not really even necessary that it runs in real time, but yeah, it would still need to store a very large amount of state data

[Anonymous No.8514333]

>>8513716
That's why you don't simulate the whole universe, but only those parts that are being observed at the moment. Much like a game where a landscape only starts to render once you look at it. I just explained to you the wave-particle-dualism. Mind=blown.

[Anonymous No.8514436]

consciousness is non-computable so we cannot be a simulation, simultards, matrix fanboys and pseudo-philosphers BTFO

[Anonymous No.8514444]

>>8514436
Consciousness is computable. Pseudoscientists, dualists, Deepak Chopra BTFO.

[Anonymous No.8514454]

>>8514444
I don't understand half of what this man said, but quads tell me he's right.

[Anonymous No.8514465]

>>8513716
>implying we have even the most underlying working of our universe down to even deny or confirm that we're in a simulation

[Anonymous No.8514475]

>>8513716
To anyone wanting to disprove OP's logic you have to explain how:

A universe of same complexity is able to be simulated within a universe.

Even with quantum computers it can't be done, if you have any understanding of how simulations of atoms are calculated then you will understand how complex they are

[Anonymous No.8514480]

>>8514454
The human brain is made up of matter, matter bunched together forming neurones, neurones forming logic circuits, with enough computing power these are predictable and simulable

[Anonymous No.8514506]

>>8513716
While you're right about nested simulations, it's easy to imagine that this is simply a sensory simulation; basically that we're in a VR game and only the parts of the world that need to be perceived at any given moment are actually calculated, to the degree of accuracy required to ensure a realistic/consistent experience in the subject. Or you could go even further and assume that it's a very immersive sensory 'movie' - it's not interactive, all the processing took place during rendering, and running the simulation takes very little processing power. Neither of these two options are precluded by a processing/memory limitation. Basically brain-in-a-vat esque ideas of varying sorts.

[Anonymous No.8514517]

>>8513716
Anyone with half a brain realizes pretty quickly that the whole simulation idea is just complete bullshit and not worth discussing at all. It's not even possible to forge a reasonable discussion from it, there are so many random assumptions required, it just leads nowhere. I mean it.

I don't even know what exactly gives people the idea that this seems plausible. Nothing and I mean absolutely nothing in this universe turned out to be discrete with the exception of particle numbers and associated quantum numbers (charge, spin, color etc). The whole rest of it, the mechanics is the exact opposite of discrete. Even the simplest most fundamental little shit events take years to calculate. Look up lattice QCD. We can't even simulate a single fucking proton just existing for an infinitesimal time. Absolutely nothing about this strikes me as particularly easy to plug into a computer. It's the exact opposite of that.

See and then you need to pull the whole "But we don't even know what our parent universe is like???" card, and then the whole discussion gets as hollow as discussing what color god's beard has.

[Anonymous No.8514541]

>>8514475
>A universe of same complexity is able to be simulated within a universe.

>same

[Anonymous No.8514544]

>>8513716
that problem is solved by normal computers you have in your house

you can program a game world that is always different no matter where you walk and go, it can be infinitely large/different in every direction yet existing on your normal PC

[Anonymous No.8515663]

>>8514506
Nice.
Singleplayer or multiplayer?

[Anonymous No.8515702]

>>8514099
>size limit
I'm sorry what do you mean by this?
Also if by speed limit you mean light then you are also false. What's to say there isn't a particle/wave that is faster than light that we simply have no knowledge of.

[Anonymous No.8515723]

>>8514218
Simulation theory is a fucking meme but this does remind me of procedurally generated content. Executed or shown upon access.

[Anonymous No.8515891]

>>8515702
If there was then it would violate causality

[Anonymous No.8515931]

>>8513716
It's not a simulation, it's a subjective hallucination as we are boltzmann brains.

[Anonymous No.8516019]

>>8514308
>But what if you didn't know your own name, and you had 100 brothers named Jack. Wouldn't it be absurd to assume you're special in any way and got a unique name?

Wouldn't it be equally absurd to assume that you're completely interchangeable with each of your brothers? I suppose it comes down to whether you interpret "probability" in the sense of a limiting proportion of experimental trials in which the result in question is obtained (the frequentist sense) or as a measure of "epistemic uncertainty" (the Bayesian sense). The point i was getting at with the example was that the event "your name is John" does not have a well-defined probability in the former sense, because you can't make yourself get born again and see whether you get named John or Jack. Your name is predetermined, and no amount of additional information will change it. Hence why you (or at least I) wouldn't say your (my) name is "probably Jack": your name is not a question of probability, but rather something definite and immutable which you happen not to know.

That said, while the information that you have 100 brothers named Jack won't change your name, it can change your *beliefs* about your name. This is the Bayesian definition of probability. (On a side note, I think it's very unfortunate that Bayesians decided to use the word "probability" for the quantities their theory produces, since the historical definition of the word is far closer to the frequentist definition. If they had decided instead to call them something like "quantified subjective degree of belief", then I believe that many misunderstandings such as this current one could have been avoided). (cont.)

[Anonymous No.8516022]

>>8516019
(cont.)
In this sense, I agree with you: if you have 100 brothers named Jack, it is not unreasonable to define the prior distribution of your name to assign, say 99% to the name Jack, with 1% spread over various other names. But it is important to distinguish this from the frequentist interpretation. When a Bayesian says that the probability that your name is Jack is 99%, this is *his subjective belief*. Bayes' theorem provides a consistent algorithm for updating one's subjective beliefs in response to new evidence, but it gives absolutely no guidance as to how to form your beliefs in the first place ("setting your priors", in the parlance). In the Bayesian theory, two people can see exactly the same data and assign different probabilities to the same result, while both being "correct". (For the sake of fairness, I should mention this problem is not absent in frequentism, although it is very nearly so in the simple case under discussion in which the experiment has only two possible results-either we are in a simulation or not, either your name is Jack or not).


So I concede that saying your name is "probably Jack" or that we "probably live in a simulation" are justifiable, provided we interpret "probably" in the sense of a Bayesian prior (which is a quantified subjective degree of belief). So as not to conflict with the traditional definition of probability, then, it would be better to say that you "believe with a high degree of certainty that your name is Jack/we live in a simulation". And I concede that it is possible for an argument such as the one under consideration to change someone's *subjective degree of belief* of whether or not we live in a simulation. However, someone else could assign a prior probability (read: degree of belief) of 1 that we are not living in a simulation, and there is nothing in the theory that prohibits this.

[Anonymous No.8516025]

>>8516022
(cont.)
(One final pedantic point is that it is often assumed that there are infinitely many words and that each is "equally likely" to be ours, so our prior that any given world is not a simulation should assign the same value to each world. But there is no such probability distribution on an infinite set. So one is forced to use a prior distribution which does not assign the same value to each world, and it is far less obvious what a reasonable choice would be.)

[Anonymous No.8516089]

>>8513716
It doesn't need to be possible for simulations to exist inside simulations for it to be more likely we're in one, there just needs to be more than one simulation.

Let's say the hypothetical advanced society that can create these simulations only have 2 computers capable of running them. That alone would make it a 2 in 3 chance we're in a simulation, compared to the only 1 in 3 chance of being in the real one.
And the more simulations that exist, that likelihood only increases.

The simulation doesn't even have to be very good, it just has to be good enough to fool its inhabitants that its real (which wouldn't be hard since they wouldn't have anything else to compare it to)

[Anonymous No.8516109]

>>8513716

>The problem I see with that is that any computer can necessarily simulate an area of space that is less big than itself.

That's not true at all. Space Engine gives you the entire observable universe and it can be ran on a shitty laptop from five years ago like the one I'm running it on right now. You seem to be suggesting the computer needs to literally become every single atom in whatever it's simulating, although I'm not sure how you could ever come to that conclusion. Computer programs simulate scales even greater than our observable universe.

[Anonymous No.8516279]

>>8514444
Kek has spoken. We will compute the consciousness of Kek into the known universe, then ask him of his divine knowledge. Hail kek.

[Anonymous No.8516539]

>>8514119
This is by far the dumbest post in this thread. We don't actually exist if we're simulated. What are you going to do, plug into the sun and materialise from an alien computer screen? Fuck.

[Anonymous No.8516577]

>>8514292
no. entropy limits number of different states in your simulator, and you can only simulate based on stored state. best case = universe is a simulator and anything inside "represents/simulates itself"

[Anonymous No.8516644]

>>8514122
aoe2 is the best shit ever

[Anonymous No.8517379]

>>8513716
didn't transcendental numbers put the "hurr durr we're in the matrix and I can do whatever I want because no repercussions because computers" meme to rest tho?

[Anonymous No.8517760]

>>8514444
>Deepak Chopra

Damn. What a long time i haven't readed his name. I wonder what kind of "b-but is QM" he's speaking right now.

[Anonymous No.8517833]

>>8513749


Nested simulations would become progressively less complex even at the limit of possible arrangement given that anything inside a system would not be able to fully 'encapsulate' that system in a system.

[Anonymous No.8517855]

They just want to point out that somebody's got computer bigger than their universe...

[Anonymous No.8517864]

>>8514219
/thread

[Anonymous No.8518013]

>>8514517

This

And even if all that could be perfectly simulated the simulation hypothesis is still flawed because it assumes that a simulated being would actually be conscious, rather than that being just acting like it was.

The fact that we are conscious disproves the hypothesis IMO because in a simulation we wouldn't actually be consciously experiencing anything, it would just be a bunch of code in a software program.

[Anonymous No.8518056]

>>8513716
>b-but the computer must be bigger than the simulated universe :^(

"no"

You have computational problem A. A takes 10 bits of information and is solved (computed) in X time. Your computer can only output 5 bits per X time. What happens next?

Simple. You virtually "stretch out" the process by slowing it down and having it complete in 2X time. However, the bit requirement is the same, and due to the "stretch", you are now able to compute twice as many bits in one time frame, as they're stretched out, resulting in the process costing you 5 bits per X time, or the normal output of your computer.

Why this is interesting is because if a simulation was slowed down like that to reduce the computational requirement per one time frame, you can basically simulate an entire Universe by only taking up a small sector of the real one, at the expense of having it run quite slowly. What's even more interesting is the fact that it is physically impossible for inhabitants of the simulated Universe to realize that it is "slowed down", other than possibly observing the computational limits (like a limit of the information transfer speed inside it, which would be the cause of an enforced slow-down)

[Anonymous No.8518086]

>>8514517

You're making assumptions too.
If simulations CAN exist, then we're more likely in one than real reality, assuming more than one simulation is running.
But if they can NOT possibly be built by any species in the ENTIRE universe, past or future, then sure it's bullshit. But I personally think denying that such a technology could theoretically be built just because we haven't yet done so ourselves is a little closed minded

[Anonymous No.8518097]

>>8516019
>Your name is predetermined, and no amount of additional information will change it.
But isn't this the case for any "fact"? Whether our universe is a simulation is not a matter of additional information, it's a predetermined fact. It's up to us to develop our technology enough to find out for ourselves whether the fact is true or not. Probability is always going to be associated with degree of belief. The limit you're putting on the definition of probability makes it unusable in almost every situation.
>>8516022
>However, someone else could assign a prior probability (read: degree of belief) of 1 that we are not living in a simulation, and there is nothing in the theory that prohibits this.
But if that prior probability has no ration or reason backing it up, then whoever assigned it is retarded for doing so. The fact that we are making better and better simulations increases the probability. Of course we cannot know the truth until we are at that final moment, but that's the same with every experiment involving your traditional definition of probability.
>>8516025
>But there is no such probability distribution on an infinite set.
Why not? Can you prove it?

[Anonymous No.8518119]

>>8518086
The argument wasn't that it's impossible, the argument was that it's nonsensical to discuss it. You have literally none of the information required and can trump everything by proposing that our parent universe works in mysterious ways. It's literally the same shit as religious bullshit discussions.

But then, again, nothing we discovered so far about the physics in this universe strikes me as particularly easy to calculate, absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.8518139]

>>8518119
The point of the simulation argument is if the simulations can exist at all, then the odds that we're in the original universe are lower than being in a simulated universe.

The simulation argument is basically 1. Either we're most likely in one, or 2. They can't even exist.
That's it. It doesn't say which one is true, it just posits that one of the two scenarios must be true. It is entirely possible that human level AI and advanced physics simulations aren't possible

[Anonymous No.8518144]

Embarrassing thread.

[Anonymous No.8518193]

>>8518144
This

[Anonymous No.8519894]

wish the simulation would simulate me a gf

[Anonymous No.8519932]

>>8516539
Haven't you seen the Matrix?
It's definitely possible someone outside our system can break us out.

[Anonymous No.8519940]

>>8514172
at least one of the following propositions is true: (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. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.

[Anonymous No.8519944]

>>8515702
The ignorance agurment is lame, you can pretty much use it for everything as an easy cop out

[Anonymous No.8519948]

>>8516109
>Computer programs simulate scales even greater than our observable universe.
They don't simulate every single atom tho, that would be like saying a photo of earth contains just as much information as earth itself

[Anonymous No.8519951]

>>8514475
>what are loops
>objects/constructors
what makes you think all our universe is in memory at all times
Why would you even believe their physics is identical to ours

Also, there will only be infinite nested simulations as time approaches infinity, they won't simulate us that long so it's still possible the processing power required is finite as we are the nth simulation (n is a real number)

[Anonymous No.8519970]

>>8517379
Nope. Explain

[Anonymous No.8519995]

>>8519932
That is assuming the parent universe has the same physical laws. We might not be able to comprehend how our parent universe is. Maybe our consciousness can't exist in it. I know I am presuming these things, but it is possible that this is how it is.

[Anonymous No.8520025]

>>8513716
I dunno about you, but I like my universes roguelike, procedurally generated and fully optimized. I can pump out a 20000 atom universe on only my 500 atom computer.

[Anonymous No.8520029]

Your assuming that the speed at which our simulation is running at is fast

[Anonymous No.8520049]

>>8514125
What can't you store all the conditions of an atom on a atom

[Anonymous No.8521372]

>>8518144
>/sigh/

[Anonymous No.8521383]

>>8514112
More likely the eleven year old that got in because his dad forgot to log out.

[Anonymous No.8521493]

>>8521383

Hillary, get off the computer and go to bed. You need to help Jill with that recount in the morning.

[Anonymous No.8521865]

>>8521493
No u

[Anonymous No.8521892]

>>8513716
Thank you OP for posting this, I always thought that that argument is stupid for this very reason. The only thing I wonder is if there is a formal proof that in a finite "universe" you can"t "simulate" another "universe" that has an equal amount or more "information" as the original "universe".
The only way to get around this is to build a computer of infinite complexity, because you can do really wacky things with infinity, think of that infinite hotel paradox.

>>8514099
It doesn't make sense in Newtonian physics, but it is a consequence of relativistic physics, so it's not that arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.8521906]

>>8514333
That is not an explanation of wave-particle dualism
Wave-particle dualism, the name itself is misleading to begin with because microscopic particle (atoms, photons etc) does nto fall under classical particles and are "quantum particles" with distinctive features.

Wave-particle dualism shows quantum particles behave as waves in statistical sense

[Anonymous No.8521911]

>>8514218
If that was true, we could prove it very easily, since that would mean that things we aren't observing can't affect us. All we'd have to do is set a timer for something (like a bomb), stop observing it, wait for the countdown to finish, and check it. If the event triggered by the timer didn't happen, then we are in a simulation, if it did, we aren't. A good real example of it are gravitational waves: we have observed the collision of two black holes, which happened thousands of years ago, when we were not observing them (not to a degree that would warrant simulating their collision at least).
Another thing to consider is that even if we could take these shortcuts when simulating a universe, making a universe simulation inside the simulated universe would increase the complexity of the simulated universe, so we could take fewer shortcuts.

>>8514260
Suppose you can describe 20000 atoms with 20000 bits (you can't, but that's not the point). Those 20000 bits can represent 2^20000 states. Does this mean you can simulate 2^20000 atoms with them? No. You can only simulate 20000 atoms, since those 20000 atoms too can have 2^20000 different states.

>>8514292
Nice logic, 20000 is just an upper bound though (if I understood OP correctly), in practice you could only simulate fewer atoms, so the number of atoms in the nested universes would quickly go down to zero.

[Anonymous No.8521913]

>>8518013
>The fact that we are conscious

How can you be so sure about that??

The knowledge you obtained throughout your life could be nothing more than a scripted simulation?

[Anonymous No.8521929]

>>8518056
>>8519951
You can only do the memory hack if you have some place to store the bits that aren't being computed right now. For example, in a computer, you can store them on the HDD, outside of RAM. But in universe A, in which you are running a simulation of another universe, universe B, you can't just store the bits you aren't currently computing outside of universe A, because there is no outside. And you can't just forget them, otherwise whole galaxies would disappear.
You do have a point with the infinite time thing though.

[Anonymous No.8521930]

>>8521913
Blade Runner tier.

[Anonymous No.8521931]

>>8520029
If you start nesting these slow simulations, simulating a second in the bottom layer universe will take gorillions of years in the top universe.

[Anonymous No.8522215]

>>8521929
You don't need every infinitesimal bit of information to simulate a program. An example would be using newtonian mechanics to predict the path of a ball. It's far easier and perceivably just as efficient to think of it as an object, than to compute the quantum mechanics that make up the ball.
The particles would only need to be rendered as soon as one puts a microscope to it. These particles can all be constructed from a single slice of code.

Who's to say their universe isn't exponentially larger anyway?

[Anonymous No.8522332]

>>8522215
>An example would be using newtonian mechanics to predict the path of a ball. It's far easier and perceivably just as efficient to think of it as an object, than to compute the quantum mechanics that make up the ball.
The problem is that we could very easily tell if our universe was actually like that, since there are very few cases where you can get away with using such approximations in real life. And how could the computer tell that it should use quantum mechanics when simulating a computer processor, but not when simulating a ball? Also, it may be able to save computing power by handling large groups of particles as solid objects, but it would still have to store the individual states of particles for when the object is destroyed, otherwise we could create an object, then destroy it, and end up with something that is obviously different from our original object.
>The particles would only need to be rendered as soon as one puts a microscope to it.
And how could the computer tell when something is put under a microscope? Or do you suggest that the universe is not a simulation of a large number of particles, but sort of like a video game where there are preprogrammed things with preprogrammed functions? Because that is very obviously not the case.
>Who's to say their universe isn't exponentially larger anyway?
Well it could be, but when you actually consider how hard it is to simulate a universe, the "billions and billions of simulations" argument starts to sound a lot less convincing.

[Anonymous No.8522414]

>>8522332
>how would the computer know how/when to do that
It was programmed to
Trial and error
Ai
>memory
Not every carbon atom needs its own memory block all the time. It "copies" from a constructor then deletes later.
This principle could definitely be used without us noticing in most the universe.

>it's too complicated
http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Part III

Our world is negligible compared to the processing power of the far future

It's becoming obvious you don't understand computer science nor physics nearly well enough to make your argument.

[Anonymous No.8522425]

>>8514089
Good point.

[Anonymous No.8522429]

>>8521493
lol

[Anonymous No.8522469]

Is 'c' the speed limit because it's the fastest we can possibly travel into the Universe that the procedurally generated simulation can handle????

[Anonymous No.8522490]

>>8513716
Read this, then continue to discuss this topic in an intelligent manner. Thanks.
http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

[Anonymous No.8522601]

>>8522414
None of the methods which you've proposed can detect when to use approximations reliably enough (I did fuck up by not clarifying that my problem is with reliability and not with feasibility, to be fair).
>http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
He starts off by saying that we could turn a whole planet into a computer, but then goes on to say that we shouldn't (and couldn't) simulate other planets in an ancestor simulation, since simulating them would be too computationally expensive. At another point, he mentions that if the people in a simulated universe would go post-human, simulating them would likely get very computationally expensive (probably because they'd start using nanotechnology, or because they'd try to build their own planet sized computers), which would mean that they would have to be shut off. So if you assume that ancestor simulations do employ tricks to reduce the amount of processing power needed, the whole point about multiple layers of ancestor simulations falls flat on its face.
Also, that deus ex machina solution to the problem of people noticing they are in a simulation is just laughable.

[Anonymous No.8522959]

Maybe this is what technological singularity will end up being? You create a computer that creates even better computer etc. until the whole universe is the computer that calculates the universe, then the cycle repeats.

[Anonymous No.8522969]

ITT: people stating their own opinions without acknowledging any of the points anyone else has made in the thread

[Miniature Spacecraft No.8523651]

>>8513716

The universe is a simulation = the universe is a creation of God.

[Anonymous No.8524097]

>>8523651
No.
The universe is a simulation=the universe was created by far more intelligent beings

[Anonymous No.8524109]

first of all just because the universe can host a simulation, doesn't mean the simulation HAS to be present in the simulation's simulation. possible, yes, necessary, no. just because something is possible doesn't mean it exists for certain

[Anonymous No.8524113]

>>8524097
or the universe is aware on some level, and created the simulation itself. or the simulation arose out of one successful mutation at random, out of an infinite number of tries

[Anonymous No.8524146]

>>8514260

I honestly doubt your understanding of bits. You can't store an exponential amount of data with more bits.

[Anonymous No.8524254]

>>8523651
This guy looks like he's turbo shitposting on /pol/. Godspeed, m8.

[Anonymous No.8524595]

>>8523651
Alien guy seems happy. Good for him.

[Anonymous No.8525482]

>>8522601
He also says they may use other planets, and that we are negligible to their computing power.

The simulation overseers (more ai) could just backtrack any time someone discovers a glitch that they don't want us to see and patch it into the main ai.

It would still be possible to simulate other universes, just not for an infinite amount of time if they tend to run their own simulations.

[Anonymous No.8526123]

>>8516109
A special kind of stupid, this statement is.

[Anonymous No.8526476]

>>8514219
Lazy argument. It's not insensible to suspect that the most common type of civilization is one that multiplies itself; if this is so, we are probably a simulated reproduction.

[Anonymous No.8526775]

>>8519951
If n is a real number then you destroy the whole concept, and decrease the probability we are in a simulation, the only reason we would be considered in a simulation is if there were infinite simulation universes equating to a probability of one, if n is a real number then by probability we are not in a universe

[Anonymous No.8526792]

>>8515891
Then we would simply have to rethink what we thought we knew. There is plenty we don't know.

[Anonymous No.8526833]

>>8518097
>Whether our universe is a simulation is not a matter of additional information, it's a predetermined fact. It's up to us to develop our technology enough to find out for ourselves whether the fact is true or not.

I agree, and that's why I think that arguments by probability such as the one in the OP are inherently misleading.

> Probability is always going to be associated with degree of belief

Like I said in my other post, there are two competing schools of interpretation of probabilities, only one of which defines it in this way.

>The limit you're putting on the definition of probability makes it unusable in almost every situation.

And this is a bad thing? Like any theoretical construct, probability is *not* usable in the vast majority of situations. In my opinion, the use of probabilities should be restricted to situations where they can be given a definite and unambiguous meaning. Probability is not a "theory of everything".

>we cannot know the truth until we are at that final moment, but that's the same with every experiment involving your traditional definition of probability

The point is that my definition of probability does not depend entirely on any single event. Sure you won't know the result of a given trial until you do it, but the actual probability of a given result exists independently of any realized sequence of trials.

If probability is the correct language to use for the simulation question, then what does it mean to say that a one-off event (whether or not we are in a simulation) has a probability of 80%? This cannot be tested experimentally.

>Can you prove it?

Let c>=0 denote the common value assigned to each "world". There are infinitely many words, so the total mass is either infinity or c, depending on whether c is non-zero or zero. Neither of these corresponds to a probability distribution (which must have total mass 1).

[Anonymous No.8526895]

>>8514089
If you believe the "simulation inside a simulation" paradox, the previous worlds is probably the same or bigger

[Anonymous No.8527033]

>>8526775
No, we consider it because it's possible, and we hold it likely because the odds are virtually zero we're not base reality from high number of simulations that are very likely running.

The argument is if there are to be more simulations than base realities in our future we're most likely a simulation ourselves.

Come back when you actually understand and have researched this concept.

[Anonymous No.8527059]

>>8513716
haha, just buy more RAM :-D

[Anonymous No.8527370]

The only way to escape this simulation is to get noticed by the creator or to make a simulation by yourself

[Anonymous No.8528435]

What if we were created so people could jack off to amateur porn as it happened

[Anonymous No.8528457]

Simulation """theory""" (where dat falsifiability tho?) is creationism for New Age hippies

[Miniature spacecraft No.8528778]

>>8528457

Indeed

Or it's the proof that, what ever you do, you will still find the one true answer : yes, God did it.

[Anonymous No.8529615]

>>8528457
You can't prove simulation. you also can't prove the big bang THEORY.
What's your point?

[Anonymous No.8530224]

>>8527370
If dubs the creator notices me and doesn't hate or its oververse's equivalent of hate me

[Anonymous No.8530228]

>>8530224
well shit

[Anonymous No.8530743]

>>8530228
"God" hates you.
I believe we're either an ancestor simulation or the ai testing grounds personally.

[Anonymous No.8530761]

>>8514125
they are saying that it is possible to represent more atoms than the number of atoms you have by generalized rules, like how it's possible to generate an image with an arbitrary resolution from a finite resolution vector file

[Anonymous No.8531118]

>>8530761
This.
The know-it-all brainlets are the worst.

[Anonymous No.8531150]

>>8527033
High number of simulations cannot exist with a loss of computing power at each simulation,
Probability is zero unless we're able to simulate a whole universe in the future which I very much doubt,

what you explained I already agreed with, stop with your plea to authority,

[Anonymous No.8531194]

>>8521911
>All we'd have to do is set a timer for something (like a bomb), stop observing it, wait for the countdown to finish, and check it.
what about the quantum Zeno effect?

[Anonymous No.8531270]

>>8531150
>plea to authority
It's called research you dumbfuck.
>>>/pol/