Simulated Universe

[StarMountainKid]

This subject has been discussed here for a while. One theory is, if it is possible for an intelligent species to simulate a universe, then they will. In this case, since there is only one naturally occurring universe, there will be many simulated universes, thus it is far more likely that we live in a simulated universe than in a naturally occuring one.

[White Crane Feather]

This subject has been discussed here for a while. One theory is, if it is possible for an intelligent species to simulate a universe, then they will. In this case, since there is only one naturally occurring universe, there will be many simulated universes, thus it is far more likely that we live in a simulated universe than in a naturally occuring one.

It gets better. The simulated universes then simulate even more and then even more as intelligent beings figure out how. It becomes exponentially likely that we live in a simulated universe if we assume we are close to the average. We will have proof the second we simulate a universe and watch it simukate another one.

Edited May 15, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Rlyeh]

The universe solves one of those problems by superposition. A lot of the computational power that the universe needs to hold something reality is not needed when something is in superposition. There is no need to pinpoint its position only maintain probabilities.

Interesting, so computing every possible state takes less power than computing one possible state...

[White Crane Feather]

Interesting, so computing every possible state takes less power than computing one possible state...

It's not computing. It's potential. It's left open. It only computes upon collapse.

[Rlyeh]

It's not computing. It's potential. It's left open. It only computes upon collapse.

If a simulation isn't computing potential how has it calculated the probabilities of such?

Two objects in superposition with a probability of interaction, how does this simulation calculate whether to "collapse" without computation? Such a calculation wouldn't be one off either as long as the probability exists.

Assuming the simulation is of our universe I can't see how superposition helps, the simulation would still need to be computing every particle whether or not it's behaving like a particle.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Rlyeh

[StarMountainKid]

It seems to me in a computer simulation nothing is actually real. This hard chair I'm sitting on is more or less a figment of my imagination, part of an algorithm, as I am, inside a computer.

My cats are really simulated cats, they're not real either, they just seem real. Turn the computer off and my cats, the chair and I disappear along with everything else.

It gets better. The simulated universes then simulate even more and then even more as intelligent beings figure out how. It becomes exponentially likely that we live in a simulated universe if we assume we are close to the average. We will have proof the second we simulate a universe and watch it simulate another one.

Let's hope the original simulation containing all the other simulations remains on line for a little while longer.

[Rlyeh]

It seems to me in a computer simulation nothing is actually real. This hard chair I'm sitting on is more or less a figment of my imagination, part of an algorithm, as I am, inside a computer.

My cats are really simulated cats, they're not real either, they just seem real. Turn the computer off and my cats, the chair and I disappear along with everything else.

On the other hand if everything is a simulation then they are real, any humans, cats, chairs not simulated would be the fake ones. Assuming the simulated entities are the original and the non-simulated ones were created in their image. Edited May 15, 2014 by Rlyeh

[StarMountainKid]

On the other hand if everything is a simulation then they are real, any humans, cats, chairs not simulated would be the fake ones. Assuming the simulated entities are the original and the non-simulated ones were created in their image.

I'm not sure I follow you. Which came first, the simulated universe the non-simulated (naturally occurring) universe? How can the non-simulated ones be created?

Well, maybe if in a simulated universe a 'natural' universe is created in a laboratory (a Big Bang)... Is this even possible for a simulation to achieve this? Wouldn't this 'natural' BB yet be another simulation?

[Rlyeh]

I'm not sure I follow you. Which came first, the simulated universe the non-simulated (naturally occurring) universe? How can the non-simulated ones be created?

Well, maybe if in a simulated universe a 'natural' universe is created in a laboratory (a Big Bang)... Is this even possible for a simulation to achieve this? Wouldn't this 'natural' BB yet be another simulation?

I mean if *all* cats, chairs, humans are simulations then they are by default the real ones.

[StarMountainKid]

I mean if *all* cats, chairs, humans are simulations then they are by default the real ones.

Ok, understood. I think a 'natural' universe can be considered a simulation in any case. I mean, if we look closely at the quantum level of 'reality', how real is it, really? It may be the only reality we have, so we define it as reality, but it seems to me to be a pretty ephemeral reality, not much (or any) different than a computer program or algorithm behaving inside a computer.

We experience the result of QM or a program, but the thing itself is a hocus-pocus process that seems to have no basis other than itself. A sort of magic show for its own sake. When we look behind the scenes we see the mechanical details that creates the magic, but the mechanics are no different that the magic they produce. It's all magic. So in this sense, there's no reality at all.

[White Crane Feather]

If a simulation isn't computing potential how has it calculated the probabilities of such?

Two objects in superposition with a probability of interaction, how does this simulation calculate whether to "collapse" without computation? Such a calculation wouldn't be one off either as long as the probability exists.

Assuming the simulation is of our universe I can't see how superposition helps, the simulation would still need to be computing every particle whether or not it's behaving like a particle.

Not really it dosnt need to compute the particle until its needed. A probability is not a computation it's potential. Consider it sort of like potential energy. ( just an analogy). The rock on the hill holds potential energy, but nothing is happening energetically with that potential. Then go and push the rock over the edge. All kinds of things start happening that are far more complex than the rock just sitting there. In a computer game lets say mine craft pocket edition. An animals movements are not calculated until you interact with it. It's held as a memory and certainly containes mechanisms that bring it into focus when you interact with it, but a probability is just a potential. To hold the potential takes far far less process than to calculate every aspect of the things existence including activation of pixels, and algorithms governing its movement. Superposition is just a probability in an infinite field. A very big mistake made by people in regards to QM is that they think particle wave duality means the particles are traveling in actual waves. They are not. They are probability waves of potential not like physical waves in an ocean. This is proven by tunneling and other experiments.

My three year old got ahold of my older sons tablet. It was on creative mode. He kept spawning chickens like a maniac. He made so many chickens that he froze up the tablet. But it would move ever so slowly but once you were not looking in that direction the computer no longer was forced to run the calculations governing their complete existence and the CPU could handle it. To save my older sons creative world he had to hunt the very edges of the hord with his bow without ever looking directly at the mass. It took him a while but he was able to kill of the army of chickens.

Light and other things from neutrinos and other subatomic particles are nearly everywhere in the universe. If the universe had to "know" their exact positions and "calculate " all the other things that come with manifestation and it were a computer, then surly it would take far more processing power rather than simply letting it exist as a potential until that nutrients most orobsble position collided with a water molecule in some subteranian water tank in Japan.

If you were a computer trying to save processing power would you rather calculate everything that the rolling rock is capable of or woukd you rather simply let it exist as potential and calculate it when it actually was pushed over the hill?

The universe is very smart that's why we emulate it in our simulations. Biology also evolved it. If you were haveing a visual or auditory experience with everything in your memory you could not really be conscious. Consciousness really is about being aware of one set of collapsed potentials.

Edited May 19, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[StarMountainKid]

White Crane Feather, in your above post, are you saying a natural occurring universe is constructed by the same methods as a simulated universe?

I'm thinking how clever a natural universe is. It's 100 efficient in that there are no mistakes in its archetecture. All processes run perfectly without error. This is perhaps how an existence like a universe comes to be in the first place. It sort of automatically fits itself together so that all components behave in harmony.

It's hard for me to get the idea across. It's like a self-generating machine wherein all the components adjust themselves to work perfectly with each other. From where the components or the impulse to assemble originate I don't know, but maybe it is just a naturally occurring imperitive.

See, Nothing would also be 100% efficient, so perhaps Something, equally 100% efficient, is as likely to happen.

[White Crane Feather]

White Crane Feather, in your above post, are you saying a natural occurring universe is constructed by the same methods as a simulated universe?

I'm thinking how clever a natural universe is. It's 100 efficient in that there are no mistakes in its archetecture. All processes run perfectly without error. This is perhaps how an existence like a universe comes to be in the first place. It sort of automatically fits itself together so that all components behave in harmony.

It's hard for me to get the idea across. It's like a self-generating machine wherein all the components adjust themselves to work perfectly with each other. From where the components or the impulse to assemble originate I don't know, but maybe it is just a naturally occurring imperitive.

See, Nothing would also be 100% efficient, so perhaps Something, equally 100% efficient, is as likely to happen.

Well .... I'm saying they have some very similar themes/concepts/ways of accomplishing something. Human beings didn't copy it, it's just a necessary issue with a virtual environment. There simply is no point in completely maintaining every process in a virtual environment when there is no one to experience it. It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the startling revelation that the universe does the same thing. You have to wonder if its for the same reason. If the universe is just here without some kind of underlying non physical process, then why does it conserve information and computing power so efficiently? Why do things only drop out if superposition when they are needed. It might be a product of evolution. They only kind of universe that can exist are ones with these principals, so out of a trillion x 10^trillion universes that may have slipped out of quantum randomness, this kind is one of the only kinds that can be stable possibly even reproduce itself. That sounds sort of like a life form doesn't it?

[Rlyeh]

Not really it dosnt need to compute the particle until its needed. A probability is not a computation it's potential.

There is no probability without computation. You seem to be saying a computer can come up with probabilities and potentials without computation. That doesn't even make sense.

The rock on the hill holds potential energy, but nothing is happening energetically with that potential. Then go and push the rock over the edge. All kinds of things start happening that are far more complex than the rock just sitting there.

So the rock just magically appeared with a set amount of energy one day.

In a computer game lets say mine craft pocket edition. An animals movements are not calculated until you interact with it. It's held as a memory and certainly containes mechanisms that bring it into focus when you interact with it, but a probability is just a potential.

Forget the movement, what decides there is an animal and it's type? I've only played the windows game, and from what I can tell it still calculates where animals can spawn.

To hold the potential takes far far less process than to calculate every aspect of the things existence including activation of pixels, and algorithms governing its movement. Superposition is just a probability in an infinite field. A very big mistake made by people in regards to QM is that they think particle wave duality means the particles are traveling in actual waves. They are not. They are probability waves of potential not like physical waves in an ocean. This is proven by tunneling and other experiments.

And every probability needs computation, waving your hands won't make it go away.

You still didn't answer the question; two objects in superposition with a probability of interaction, how does this simulation calculate whether to "collapse" without computation?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Rlyeh

[Frank Merton]

What we think of as the "hard" chair is in fact a simulation created in our brain. The reality is billions upon billions of electrons repelling each other. In the end, nothing is "real" in the traditional sense and we can define reality at whatever level is most convenient.

The issue of whether or not we live in a simulation depends on whether it is possible at the level of detail that makes for evolution of life, and at the moment there seem to be limits on computing that would indicate it is not. However, one may presume it likely that these limits would be overcome. In that case it is a virtual certainty that we are in a simulation.

It really doesn't matter. We are, and the concept of reality is the problem. I would, however, hope that whoever is running the simulation we are in is aware of us and does something for us when we die, such as put us in heaven or let us be reborn or something.

It could be that we ourselves are running the simulation and when we die we will sit up, unplug ourselves, and say, well, I wouldn't recommend that one. It was too violent.

[Duke Wellington]

Ok, understood. I think a 'natural' universe can be considered a simulation in any case. I mean, if we look closely at the quantum level of 'reality', how real is it, really? It may be the only reality we have, so we define it as reality, but it seems to me to be a pretty ephemeral reality, not much (or any) different than a computer program or algorithm behaving inside a computer.

We experience the result of QM or a program, but the thing itself is a hocus-pocus process that seems to have no basis other than itself. A sort of magic show for its own sake. When we look behind the scenes we see the mechanical details that creates the magic, but the mechanics are no different that the magic they produce. It's all magic. So in this sense, there's no reality at all.

Observer A - He is sat on earth looking at a spaceship flying past the Earth at half the speed of light using a telescope. He peers into the window and notices the aliens moving around in slow motion. We know the pace at which time flows slows down increases the faster it travels relative to us. Einstein proved it. He also proved the object gets smaller.

Observer B - Now imagine we are an alien onboard the spaceship peering down at Earth using a telescope. We notice time flowing very fast down on earth. The reason being, as Einstein proved, is that something traveling slower relative to your speed experiences a slower passage of time. He also proved the object gets larger.

That demonstrates that the people who think the reality they experience is the same for everyone are wrong. Reality is relative to the observer. That also means truth is relative to the observer. The pace of time flow, the size of objects are not intrinsic truths because if they were they'd be the same for all observers. Infact there isnt one single intrinsic truth in the universe. Physics shows all truths are relative not intrinsic even the very existance of atoms themselves.

Edited May 20, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[White Crane Feather]

There is no probability without computation. You seem to be saying a computer can come up with probabilities and potentials without computation. That doesn't even make sense.

So the rock just magically appeared with a set amount of energy one day.

Forget the movement, what decides there is an animal and it's type? I've only played the windows game, and from what I can tell it still calculates where animals can spawn.

And every probability needs computation, waving your hands won't make it go away.

You still didn't answer the question; two objects in superposition with a probability of interaction, how does this simulation calculate whether to "collapse" without computation?

There certainly is. When the computer is off. It's not computing, but I can guarantee that the software still retains the memory of the program and therefore the probability of it accomplishing something. If I plan to run a random number generator on a spreadsheet tomorrow 1-10. That probability exists even though the computer remains off until I turn it in and run the program. No computation needed to have potential only potential itself.

No it fell from the sky, its potential was given to it upon the Big Bang when it became seperare do yes it just apeared... Though I wouldn't call it magic. Maybe an extremely rare mass tunneling event . . But it was just an analogy anyway to show that potential dosnt need computation. Just rules to potentiate.

It only calculates when they do spawn. But to fully flesh out the experience of the player much more computation is needed. It dosnt do any if that until you are actually interacting with it. If it did, it would need a hell of a lot more processing power.

I'm not waving my hands. I have already shown you how probability does not need computation.

There are a set of rules that facilitate the interaction when they are needed. A program if you will.

The software says that there is a probability X will interact with Y when certain conditions are net. This set of instructions isn't doing anything yet. It's just a path when the criteria is satisfied. Try it. Write an "if than" statement on an excel spread sheet. No calculation is made until the out put is needed when you activate the input cell. That dosnt mean that program isn't sitting there waiting. Sure it takes up some space, but its not using processing power until the result is needed. Until then its just a potential.

It's just a simple fact that particles do not manifest from an infinite set possible positions until they are needed or if you want until information about their position CAN be known. If information about their position can't be known or isn't, then they litterly exist in a state that can only be categorized as potential that literally stretches out everywhere at once with exponential but non zero probability that they will manifest where we think it should. If this were not true light switch dimmers would not work, stars would not shine, heavy elements would not exist, and probably, the Big Bang would have never occurred.

Someone ( forgot who) once said "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." This is not because its complicated like some people suggest. It's because it's so startling that it violates our sense of causality and rationality. People simply have a hard time accepting the verified truths it gives us.

There is no way around it. The universe acts exactly how a perfect simulation should. I'm not saying it is one. It might just be the only way a reality can hold form so it simply must be, but make no mistake it conserves processing power just like a computer. Reality exists on a need to know basis.

[StarMountainKid]

Observer A - He is sat on earth looking at a spaceship flying past the Earth at half the speed of light using a telescope. He peers into the window and notices the aliens moving around in slow motion. We know the pace at which time flows slows down increases the faster it travels relative to us. Einstein proved it. He also proved the object gets smaller.

Observer B - Now imagine we are an alien onboard the spaceship peering down at Earth using a telescope. We notice time flowing very fast down on earth. The reason being, as Einstein proved, is that something traveling slower relative to your speed experiences a slower passage of time. He also proved the object gets larger.

That demonstrates that the people who think the reality they experience is the same for everyone are wrong. Reality is relative to the observer. That also means truth is relative to the observer. The pace of time flow, the size of objects are not intrinsic truths because if they were they'd be the same for all observers. Infact there isnt one single intrinsic truth in the universe. Physics shows all truths are relative not intrinsic even the very existance of atoms themselves.

Observer B peering down at Earth would see the same effect as Observer A sees, time elapsing more slowly on Earth. Only if Observer B took off from Earth and accelerated to half the speed of light would he observe time elapsing faster on Earth than on his ship.

Yes, everyone lives in his own frame of reference. However, I would submit there is one intrinsic truth for the universe, as the universe behaves the same everywhere. Our particular point of view is reletivistic to the universe, but within our own perspective (frame of reference) the universe is an intrinsic truth. Within all frames of reference the universe is the same intrinsic reality.

Relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction and the increase of mass that you speak of exist, of course, but they have no effect on the underlying structure of the universe, which is a stable and unchanging reality.

[Duke Wellington]

Observer B peering down at Earth would see the same effect as Observer A sees, time elapsing more slowly on Earth. Only if Observer B took off from Earth and accelerated to half the speed of light would he observe time elapsing faster on Earth than on his ship.

Yes, everyone lives in his own frame of reference. However, I would submit there is one intrinsic truth for the universe, as the universe behaves the same everywhere. Our particular point of view is reletivistic to the universe, but within our own perspective (frame of reference) the universe is an intrinsic truth. Within all frames of reference the universe is the same intrinsic reality.

Relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction and the increase of mass that you speak of exist, of course, but they have no effect on the underlying structure of the universe, which is a stable and unchanging reality.

Nah, time flows for the observer at the same rate regardless of the speed they are traveling at. Someone travelling slower than them is observed has having a faster timeflow. Someone travelling faster than them is observed as having a slower timeflow. Both relative to the observer.

The universe has no intrinisic truths. Whether it be size, speed, weight, timeflow, etc, two observers can witness something different based on their different perspectives. For an intrinisic truth to exist it needs to be a truth relative to all but unfortunately none are. Everything is relative.

Edited May 20, 2014 by RabidMongoose

[Rlyeh]

There certainly is. When the computer is off. It's not computing, but I can guarantee that the software still retains the memory of the program and therefore the probability of it accomplishing something. If I plan to run a random number generator on a spreadsheet tomorrow 1-10. That probability exists even though the computer remains off until I turn it in and run the program. No computation needed to have potential only potential itself.

I guarantee without a running computer there is no probability of software doing anything.

It only calculates when they do spawn. But to fully flesh out the experience of the player much more computation is needed. It dosnt do any if that until you are actually interacting with it. If it did, it would need a hell of a lot more processing power.

Nope, it calculates before it spawns or not. If fact the Minecraft wiki explains the conditions required for an animal to spawn. That takes calculations.

The software says that there is a probability X will interact with Y when certain conditions are net. This set of instructions isn't doing anything yet. It's just a path when the criteria is satisfied. Try it. Write an "if than" statement on an excel spread sheet. No calculation is made until the out put is needed when you activate the input cell. That dosnt mean that program isn't sitting there waiting. Sure it takes up some space, but its not using processing power until the result is needed. Until then its just a potential.

You realise in computer programming checking the conditions is computation? In fact processing power is needed, just less.

You still have failed to answer the hypothetical question, "two objects in superposition with a probability of interaction, how does this simulation calculate whether to "collapse" without computation?"

As someone who has studied in computer programming, probabilities need to be calculated in order to check if they meet the conditions; there is simply no way around it. You seem to think they don't, so I'm interested in hearing your answer.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Rlyeh

[StarMountainKid]

Nah, time flows for the observer at the same rate regardless of the speed they are traveling at. Someone travelling slower than them is observed has having a faster timeflow. Someone travelling faster than them is observed as having a slower timeflow. Both relative to the observer.

The universe has no intrinisic truths. Whether it be size, speed, weight, timeflow, etc, two observers can witness something different based on their different perspectives. For an intrinisic truth to exist it needs to be a truth relative to all but unfortunately none are. Everything is relative.

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

In other words, if your space ship is traveling at a uniform rate past the Earth, the Earth observer will see the space ship's clock ticking slower, and conversely, the alien on the ship will observe the Earth's clock ticking slower.

This is true no matter the uniform relative speeds of the two observers, as there is no absolute reference frame for either. At any speed relative to each other, both observers can consider themselves at rest, and the other at some velocity, therefore the relative time dilation for both reference frames is the same.

The intrinsic truth of the universe is that it allows for these phenomena. These relativistic perspectives are local, imbedded within a universe that permits this to occur.

[Duke Wellington]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Time_dilation

In other words, if your space ship is traveling at a uniform rate past the Earth, the Earth observer will see the space ship's clock ticking slower, and conversely, the alien on the ship will observe the Earth's clock ticking slower.

This is true no matter the uniform relative speeds of the two observers, as there is no absolute reference frame for either. At any speed relative to each other, both observers can consider themselves at rest, and the other at some velocity, therefore the relative time dilation for both reference frames is the same.

The intrinsic truth of the universe is that it allows for these phenomena. These relativistic perspectives are local, imbedded within a universe that permits this to occur.

Nope, lets consider you sat on Earth. Time flows at the same speed constantly for you. If you peer into the spaceship which is travelling very fast past Earth then the clock onboard it does indeed tick slower.

Now lets consisder you as an alien. Time flows at the same speed constantly for you. If you peer down onto earth which is traveling very slow in comparison to your ship then the clocks down there are ticking very fast.

You can't reconcil the pace of time flow difference between you and the alien spaceship you're looking into unless the pace at which time flows is relative instead of intrinsic. Thats what Einsteins formulas mean and it was proven by him flying around the earth with an atomic clock onboard then comparing how much time had past with an atomic clock on the ground. They were different.

An intrinsic truth is something true to all observers in their individual circumstances. A relative truth is something true to an observer or multiple observers but not all observers. Maths, as far as scientists are aware, isnt something which physically exists so you can't claim maths to be an intrinsic truth. As a result no intrinisic truths are known about.

[StarMountainKid]

Nope, lets consider you sat on Earth. Time flows at the same speed constantly for you. If you peer into the spaceship which is travelling very fast past Earth then the clock onboard it does indeed tick slower.

Now lets consisder you as an alien. Time flows at the same speed constantly for you. If you peer down onto earth which is traveling very slow in comparison to your ship then the clocks down there are ticking very fast.

Incorrect for uniform speed. From the alien's frame of reference the Earth is not traveling very slow relative to the alien's ship. From the alien's frame of reference, his ship is at rest and the Earth is traveling at the alien's ship's speed past him. Visa verse from Earth's frame of reference.

For uniform speed, time dilation is symmetric for both observers: reciprocal time dilation.

An intrinsic truth is something true to all observers in their individual circumstances. A relative truth is something true to an observer or multiple observers but not all observers.

I agree with you. However, my point is, all these relative truths taken together is an aspect of a larger intrinsic truth, that the universe as a whole is constructed to allow for this.

[Sean93]

The simulation is full of glitches and bugs and is in need or a reboot or an update...or maybe it's beyond saving.

Imagine if we cracked the code and could glitch life ourselves. Make for one hell of a game of sims.

[Babe Ruth]

The simulation is full of glitches and bugs and is in need or a reboot or an update...or maybe it's beyond saving.

Imagine if we cracked the code and could glitch life ourselves. Make for one hell of a game of sims.

I think the glitches and bugs are caused mostly by the human inhabitants of the simulation.