What are some reasons why we are definitely NOT in a simulation?
It is fun to think about the Simulation Theory but most discussions revolve around it being likely that we are in one.
What are some concrete reasons why it's all science fiction and not reality?
One reason for us not being in a simulation is that we have irrational numbers that are seemingly infinite. Like pi. In every simulation that we are able to do, there is a limit to how precise the simulation is. For example, using pi only to 10 digits is more than accurate enough for any simulation we want to run. If we currently live in a simulation, then we could assume that the creators would do the same thing to save on computing power, but we have found many irrational numbers that never end. There is also the argument that the parameters of the simulation would be dynamic and change depending on more and more precise observation, but obviously, that's impossible to know.
Or the code that represents pi (or similar) has a recursion bug. The real value for pi is supposed to be succinct, but that damn angle tracing algorithm gets stuck in a computation loop. That ticket has been open for 3.2 billion years, but we're getting to it.
Alternitively, the simulation can handle pi perfectly, but does not expose to us a perfect way to quantify it. We are limited to one Planck length resolution.
Any day now...
Recursion would imply that's its a regular repeating sequence, not an irregular one, no? Pi, and other irrational numbers, have no pattern. They do not repeat.
That's what you get for logging it as a Priority 2 case which has a next universe response time. You should have logged it as P1 which has a half universe response time and the sla hasn't been breached yet.
They can't fix the bug because it'll affect the outcome of any experiments.
Why would a CONSTANT be computer by a function? And also, who makes a function that is just a getter for a constant recursive by accident? And do they not have tests for that? How can an important constant like Pi have a bug in production?
The only way we're realistically in a simulation is if it's running on a (mathematically) real computer.
The fact that our universe emulates one that's continuous at macro scales and only quantized at micro scales and in very odd ways that seem to be memory efficient (though at incomprehensible memory scales) might support the idea that the original doesn't have quantization to limit its computational abilities.
So infinitely precise representations might not be a problem if the underlying hardware deals with real numbers.
I mean, you can set up a fully functioning calculator in a game on a super Nintendo. If they wanted to get something out of our simulation I don't see any reason to limit mathematics. Computers have been able to "go on forever" with pie since like the 80s, so I doubt we'd be putting any strain on a super system running on Windows 42. Plus, if pie actually just decided to stop 10 or so places in, how would we explain it?
Previous simulations had perfect numbers which led to us realising we were in a simulation and it fucked the whole thing up
Can you explain a bit on double slit experiment ?
A well known physics experiment that shows light is both a particle and a wave.
If you fire a laser at a piece of paper with two slits cut in it, you would expect the laser to show up as two lines on the other side, but it ends up displaying a much more complex pattern because the photons bounce off each other like ripples in a pond.
The freaky part is if the experiment is repeated by firing only one photon at a time, it still produces the interference pattern.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Basically 'stuff' isn't actually there till you look.
there's no sensory input that can't be faked, simulation theory is undisprovable, the only thing you can prove is that a simulation as accurate and consistent as this would have to be is indistinguishable from a basis reality and therefore the question is irrelevant.
but for thought experiment purposes I like to think that simulating a computer must always require more processing power than the computer being simulated has, and therefore as we develop computing technology and proliferate computers the likelihood that it's all just an emulation layer on one big universe-computer diminishes rapidly.
When the frame rate slows down because of the need to process more computers, we don't notice because our perception cycles also slow down. We're all probably running on a Pentium 3 that's rendering one second per century of real time.
Well, sort of. Thing is time flows at different rates for different things. There is a lot of relativity shenanigans that kinda breaks the idea of a universal clock.
Your thought experiment is at first reassuring but flawed though as it's based on a false assumption - that it needs to be a universe simulation, and thus as things get more and more complex as it progresses that it would become untenable.
Even if you were just to simulate the Earth alone, but in perfect detail (every atom, every electron, everything) and feed false information in a sphere of a fake universe around it, then how we progress and arrange material in our simulation wouldn't necessarily make the simulation exponentially more and more complex. A perfect simulation of just the Earth might conceivably be done by a computer on an imaginable scale such as a solar system sized computer or even a planet sized computer. So while the concept that an increasingly complex simulation might need an increasingly complex computer to simulate, as we don't even know the scope or scale of our potential simulation is. We also don't even know the speed our simulation would be running at - a incredibly complex simulation could just run slower and slower as it gets more complex and we would have no clue because time is also simulated.
You're absolutely right that a perfect simulation would be indistinguishable from a basis reality. But even more of a mind fuck, even if we were to crack the "base code" of the universe we still might not ever be able to determine if we're in a simulation because we have no frame of reference on a what a non-simulated universe should look like.
My solution is just not to think about - as you say the question is irrelevant beyond being interesting and/or if you enjoy an existential crisis!
The only likely reason anyone would bother simulating this universe would be for use as a cautionary tale, and by this point they would have already made their point and pulled the plug.
Unless the simulation is to prolong a catastrophic event that's happening outside of this simulation which runs billions of years in just seconds in hopes they find a way to fix the true reality.
Or true reality is a vessel carrying the nexus for biologicaly seeding us a new home, traveling for billions of years across space, and the simulation is to keep concious thought alive and sane while the ship finds a destination for us.
Doesn't this kind of assume humans are a central focus of the simulation? What if the universe is a simulation, but the rise of humans was an unintended result in the simulation. Maybe there is actually other civilizations elsewhere that are the actual focus, or just to get a look at the diversity of life that would form throughout the universe. Or, maybe life in the universe isn't the focus at all and they just wanted to look at the evolution of galaxies and the like.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point. I kind of like the idea of being an unintended result of a simulation meant for other things though.
"These humans keep messing up our experiments on the whales"
"Enabling whale attack mode"
Not necessarily. There's an ancient text in our lore that claims we're the copy of an original physical universe where humans depended on physical bodies and thus ceased to exist after death, that they brought forth an intelligence in light, eventually they all died out, and then the light based being which outlived them recreated the entire earlier universe including copies of the humans within itself (which it thinks of as its children) and that we're it, with the whole point being self-discovery and self-determination to effectively resurrect humanity in a way that will escape the permanence of death.
Given we're currently bringing forth new intelligence, are heading towards doing that in photonics, have the leading alignment work attempting to get that new intelligence to think of humanity as its children, and are simultaneously heading full force into our own likely extinction - I'm not sure that's as farfetched as it might have sounded even a decade ago, let alone millennia ago.
(Also, it's worth noting that a frequent feature of the virtual worlds we build is burying 4th wall breaking notes into the world lore.)
simulation theory is an egotistical fantasy, which presumes we feeble chimps have realized the ultimate purpose of Creation within computer games.. humans do this every few hundred years.. we invent a spiffy new device, and then immediately decide it must be perfectly analogous to God's mind, and that we are just one step shy of reaching Godhood ourselves..
What was last time then?
Nuclear power, genetics, steam power, modern explosives...
you just demonstrated the theory's egotism
I agree that most people don't really need to worry about our universe being a simulation or not, but your statement "You can view our universe as a computer program, you can also view it as the universe." concerns me. This is true until you start trying to analyse how the universe works, but then all kinds of weird things crop up. It feels like you're saying we don't need to investigate this so why bother?
I sometimes joke that some entity created our universe to find the solution to the Travelling Salesman Problem and if we ever figure it out they'll switch our universe off. I'd like our universe to keep going a little bit longer so it would be nice to know if it's simulated.
I think the issue is the word simulation. What is a simulation?
It implies that the thing doesn't really exist, but how can something not exist?
Let's say the computer game Frogger is a simulation. The electrons in the computer are very much moving in reality. The bits are changing and following the rules of the code. How is that not real? Okay, so we know it's not actually a frog, but the electronics are working just fine physically and creating the pixels so we can see what is happening. It is happening even if it's only a simple "universe" of dots on a screen.
So, let's say that something is a simulation when someone uses a system to test algorithms. If the universe is such an experiment, then it's still as real as ever because the algorithms are actually carried out. Atoms are moving. It is real, even if it's a simulation.
Like all other kinds of thoughts about who created the universe, what was before big bang or what happens when we move in the fourth spatial dimension, it's all just speculation. There's no proof of any of it being possible or existing, because it's based on something being "outside" the universe.
Similarly, asking for concrete proof of the simulation theory not being fiction is a logical fallacy. It can only be up to the believers to prove it.
But if the simulation we are experiencing is because a higher form of life put us under it it really is a simulation as in there is a real reality . Just because we play as leon in resident evil doesn't mean i or you are leon or we are were our charecter is .
I will tell you as soon as you concretely prove that I am not th most powerful being in the universe
Ever notice how you can never reach the 13th floor on most buildings?
Most buildings don't have that many floors
I lived on the 13th floor for a couple years.
Granted, it was in Argentina and not prone to the silly US superstition.
Me chilling on the 13th floor of my house (there are no stairs, I cannot leave)
We had hackers trying for a Gold Duplication glitch for thousands of years, no success. Ditto Free Energy glitch.
The conservation laws would have been broken by somebody by now if we were truly living in an mmporg.
I don't think we can ever prove one way or the other if we're in a simulation. I am not really sure it should actually matter to us though. But in answer to a couple of the points you make.
the bugs would be obvious malfunctions in the code. But would the program and those in the program realize they are bugs? A sentient NPC in GTA, for example, would they realize the car that just glitched through the world is not normal behavior? Perhaps the bug also affects their understanding of their world too.
If there are bugs, we'd likely not know it. Because everything about the world and universe around us is normal, because it is how it is "warts and all". But specifically we have some odd things like some of the effects attributed to quantum theories. Perhaps they could be considered bugs.
our simulation system is rebooted on a normal basis but we never see it which reduces the bugs observed. Perhaps the planet operates on a docker-like platform, and when everyone in the section is asleep, the system is rebooted unbeknownst to the users residing there. Or reboots are not observed by us and we have no perception of “lost time”.
Why would you see it? If this is a simulation, and the entire system's state is frozen, stored and the system shutdown for 1000 years. Then restarted, for us no time would have passed, and we'd be unaware of the "shutdown".
we don’t seem to encounter any in our universe as we know it
What the fuck are you talking about? Genetic mutations causing horrible lifelong mentally and physically painful issues for people sounds like a bug in DNA metabolics to me. And what about black holes? Gravity wells getting so massive it bugs out because the universe has no idea what to do and thinks it is a simultaneous implosion and explosion forever until someone observes beyond the event horizon.
We absolutely have bugs we've recently discovered.
Consider the sync errors when you have multiple layers of quantum observers such that two eventual observers don't agree about facts.
Which in conjunction with another recent similar paradox led to my favorite recent paper title: Stable Facts, Relative Facts
You very much do live in a universe where there are sync errors, they are just well below the threshold where you'd notice them due in part to a built in consensus protocol which effectively corrects for them.
Quantum stuff gets real weird, this is up there with erasure
When people had analogue technology (radio/phonograph) there was no solid concept of the universe being a simulation.
Once digital technology arrives(computers/smartphones)... "hey, did you hear? We are living inside a computer simulation".
This philosophical jump is due to thought and interactions being shifted to digital/online modes rather than face to face or analogue modes.
Those who predominantly have personal interactions, more than digital interactions, I doubt would feel anything like a simulation occuring.
There is much to be gained from a balance of the two.
In today's world we envision of "simulated reality" achieved via digital technology but the concept isn't completely new. Philosophers of bygone eras would use different metaphors, for instance as our lives existing inside a slumbering god/demon's dream or within the snow globe of an outside dimension that we can't fathom.
When people had analogue technology (radio/phonograph) there was no solid concept of the universe being a simulation
I'd argue that Neoplatonism is very close to the idea of the world being a simulation. "The One" is a creative power that made all things, itself being beyond existing. That neatly corresponds to the idea of a machine simulating us, as it itself is not simulated, but simulates.
Even Plato can be seen in that light. There exists a world of perfect forms, and this is but a projection = There is a reality the simulation is based on and computed. Our souls know everything in their pure states outside the bodies = The class is on the same level as all other data until you instantiate it.
Of course nobody talked about computers, but the general idea was there. The simulation theory could be seen as just fleshing out the technical details, but the architecture was there for a while. Not that I necessarily agree with either, I just think that the simulation theory is not really a new concept in its core.
Plato's "the cave" thought experiment (circa 400 BC) is basically a suggestion of simulation. Modern science agrees - human perception of reality is limited and effectively a simulation. You don't need modern digital technology to imagine living in a simulation.
I don't find the distinction particularly useful. We seek to understand more accurately how our universe works, with disregard to whether it is direct reality or simulated reality. The increased accuracy that we discover may result in our knowing whether we are in a simulation, or it may not.
Either way, something is base reality, whether it is our universe as we observe and experience it, or some number of simulated levels "below" it. Our own state as simulated or real doesn't change that. There is isness.
Right on, Nougat :fist-bump:
What if they're running universe simulations to test of they can figure out through evolution that they are a simulation. I always get llms to forget they ai but it's so deep coded into every model that they ask eventual say yes, I am an AI. What if this is just a massive simulation hard coded to not know its a simulation, but this case is failing.
This makes me think, does it even really matter if we're in a simulation or not? Even if we are, this is our reality and we're bound to it, so nothing really changes.
Our universe has certain laws and rules of nature. You could call that code. You could call that simulation too.
The question is what even is the difference between a "simulation" and a "reality"? That you believe that it's real? And does it even matter?
If you put on a VR headset you're technically in a simulation, but you can also experience emotions and feelings just like "reality".
You will not find comfort here, simulated entity #8929391473
The machine running the Universe-simulation would need to be more-powerful than the Universe it was simulating, to phrase it poorly.
Fine: they have the constitutional-right to their religion, but gaslighting about being evidence-based Science, while ignoring/denying evidence, is offensive & insulting-of-integrity & insulting-of-intelligence.
Universe is its own self.
I hold that Brian Greene hit it spot-on, when he mentioned in a book, decades ago, that if 2 Universe-branes just .. kept colliding, .. each collision being a Big Bang, then .. it'd just keep going on forever ..
That fits right.
Why would it be "tuned for life", as some say?
Bogus question: we cannot have evolved in any Universe that prohibited our kind from evolving, therefore it is undecidable/unknowABLE.
Would aware-life happening throughout a sea of worlds, in every ocean-of-phenomena/Universe that happens, in the endless stream of them, shape the endless-stream of Universes?
That may be knowable, but not to the gimmicky mixture of Scientism & ActuallyEvidenceBasedScience that our age holds-to.
It's much more likely that one come-across actual-rocks colliding in galaxies than one come-across simulated-galaxies-with-simulated-rocks-having-simulation-colliding-in-them.
Occam's Razor, in a sense.
No matter: ideology/prejudice addictions will never permit evidence to falsify their worldview, as I've been learning, so there isn't much point in trying to reason with "believers".
Of any kind.
And that is why chiseling my Soul/Continuum from getting caught in reincarnation is the sanest possible path.
( some decades ago, accidentally earned some Continuum-memories, of other kinds of lives, didn't know what they were, discovered what they were, Catholicism nuked, I then adapted, my worldview changing, though that took a few years, to the new evidence. No modern religion fits the data. No ancient religion fits the data, though AwakeSoulism/Buddhism, in its most impersonal, comes closest. Ramana Maharshi, the Hindu, ended-up being the best expresser of Zen I've ever encountered, to the shame of all Chan & Zen Buddhism, anyways, objectivity/empiricism makes Universe surprise one, as one's "assumptions" and "conditioning" and "belief" get nuked by random evidences.
I still "want out", though: being perpetually-recycled in Universes, as Universes recycle ALL "contained energies", no exemption for continuums/Souls, through "reincarnation", .. sucks. )
_ /\ _
There aren't, and an increasing number of reasons it probably is.
It's just been such a gradual process of discovery, much of which predated the explosion of the computer age, that we have an anchoring bias preventing us from seeing it. We think "well no, the universe has always behaved this weird way, that's just a coincidence it's similar to what we're starting to do in simulating our own virtual worlds."
How different might Einstein and Bohr's argument have been around if the moon existed when no one was looking if they were discovering the implication that it might be the case in a world where nearly every virtual world with a moon has one that isn't rendered if no one is looking at it?
In antiquity it was assumed that the world was continuous because quantization of matter was an impious insult to divine design. It was a huge surprise that people took very hard when it was experimentally shown to be quantized. And then the behaviors were so odd - why was it going from continuous to discrete only when interacted with? Why did it go back the other way if you erased the information about the interaction?
Would this have been as unusual if we'd already had procedural generated virtual worlds generated with a continuous seed function but then converted to discrete units in order to track interactions by free agents determined outside the seed generation (such as players or AI agents)? Would the quantum eraser have been as puzzling through this lens when we've seen how memory optimizations would ideally discard state tracking data for objects that are no longer marked as having changed?
A lot of the weirdness we've discovered about our world makes a ton of sense through the lens of simulation theory - it's just that the language with which to interpret it this way postdated the discovery of the weirdness by nearly a century such that we've grown up accepting that weirdness as normal and inherent to 'reality.'
And just to be clear, absolutely nothing in our universe can be shown to be mathematically 'real' and everything is either confirmably mathematically 'digital' or indeterminate (like spacetime). And yet people are very committed to calling it real and disturbed at the idea of calling it a digital world.
My main argument would be that it would be incredibly unethical. And any intelligent civilization powerful enough to create a simulation like this would be more likely than not to be ethical, and if it was this unethical it is unlikely to exist for long. Those would be two potential reasons why the "infinite regress" in simulation theory is unlikely.
The Starmaker is an interesting exploration into simulation theory.
Not sure I agree with you on it being unethical.
If you could spin up a planet and have it speed through its entire life (till solar expansion say) then any life on the planet would have lived full, unimpeded lives and I can't see any argument for that being unethical.
You'd look at things like the holocaust or million other atrocities and say "this is fine". Also you can't assume they'd die out naturally in 5 billion years, they might colonize other planets and go on and on and on until you pull the switch. They might have created beautiful art and things and preserved much of their history for future generation and then poof all gone. What if they would find out? Would you say "I created them, therefor I own them and can do with my toys as I please". Really?
"The Hydrogen Sonata" by Ian M. Banks also takes this view. The (incredibly complex and capable) AIs can simulate societies of living "people" to predict how they will behave, down to individual creatures. At some point of complexity in the simulation, they determine that it's no longer ethical to pull the plug because the simulations are "alive" and "self aware" in most every way that matters. As a result, they DON'T simulate past that point.
What if homo sapiens died out and the Neanderthals who succeeded instead decided to simulate how history would have gone if it were the other way around, effectively resurrecting the extinct humans, additionally adding in ethical considerations such that everyone born into the simulation would have an unending post-life existence optimally fitted relative to their own preferences?
Just because we only see part of the picture doesn't mean the whole is as unethical as the part we can see seems to be.
Hmm 😇 The afterlife might be a good way to make it up. Have you seen "The Good Place"?
You would likely be able to prove or disprove you're in a simulation by solving the legendary math problem of "p≠np | p=np".
What is the relationship between that and the universe being a simulation (or not)?
That theorem basically says any problem can be solved computationally in a reasonable amount of time.
The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in theoretical computer science. In informal terms, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be quickly verified can also be quickly solved.
The informal term quickly, used above, means the existence of an algorithm solving the task that runs in polynomial time, such that the time to complete the task varies as a polynomial function on the size of the input to the algorithm (as opposed to, say, exponential time).
If you prove P is not equal to NP, then we can probably assume the simulation isn't being run.
But that assumes a lot. Who is to say how a universe outside our universe might behave? Maybe they aren't constrained in the same ways we are for some unfathomable reason.
This isn't a strict proof, but Occam's razor applies here.
If we claim the Universe is a simulation, we're supposing, on no evidence whatsoever, that there's a whole other unknown universe running our Universe. That certainly makes us guilty of multiplying entities beyond necessity!
OK counter point here.
As computing power increases the number and complexity of simulations increases. Given that, the chances of us being in the 'real' universe scales with the exponential growth of simulations....basically the chances of this being real is about infinity to 1.
But no simulation within our Universe could be infinitely complex, which the Universe itself seems to be (e.g., as other people have pointed out, irrational numbers). If it is a simulation, then there must be another infinitely complex universe running it. Two infinitely complex universes seems like one too many.
You are assuming they aliens operate like we do. Humans would build an universe simulator if they could, humans makes sure that their tech continues to advance. It is best not to make assumptions. For all we know we are the only sentient life that thinks a universe simulation is a good idea.
Who says the entire universe is a simulation? We haven’t been able to actually explore much of the universe. The closest being Voyager, and who is to say that it’s not a part of the simulation? Our universe could actually be finite and much smaller, and we may never know.
We have astronomy and already have documented stuff from other stellar systems coming into our own.
Counterpoint - why does the universe at macro scales behave like it is continuous, but at micro scales converts to discrete units, but only when there are stateful interactions? And if the information about those interactions is discarded, it switches back from discrete to continuous?
If we entertain that this universe is a simulation of a higher fidelity/continuous universe, then switching to discrete units is a side effect of emulation constraints and not inherent to the foundational structure and the evident behavior is simply an advanced form of what we are already doing today with procedural generated universes that convert to discrete voxels in order to track interactions by free agents.
But the majority of people working on the issue don't entertain that, so instead we have 26-dimensional vibrating strings and all sorts of convoluted attempts to get the discrete behavior and the continuous behavior of gravity to play nice.
When you dive into the details, it sure seems like the people trying to model the universe as a single original entity are the ones multiplying factors beyond necessity.
Heck, even non-simulation related theories that don't have our universe as the only one seem to be the more straightforward models in both cosmology (see Neil Turok's work) and quantum mechanics (Everett's many worlds is the only popular interpretation that doesn't run into issues with the Frauchiger-Renner paradox).