Consequences of Simulation Theory.

[White Crane Feather]

I would like to discuss simulation theory and brainstorm about what the consequences of such a reality would entail. It’s a philosophical discussion. If you want to argue about the merits of the idea, there are other threads to do so. 
 

What do you think might be some physical consequences we might observe?

 

What might be the purpose of the simulation?

 

What do you think about the nature of our simulator?

 

Do you think the simulator knows or is aware that it too is a simulation?

 

What are some other questions you might ask? 

Edited June 19, 2020 by White Crane Feather

[Davros of Skaro]

Where's the kill switch?

[ChrLzs]

8 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

I would like to discuss simulation theory and brainstorm about what the consequences of such a reality would entail. It’s a philosophical discussion. If you want to argue about the merits of the idea, there are other threads to do so. 
 

What do you think might be some physical consequences we might observe?

A lack of detail as you approach the miniscule, and the infinitely distant.

8 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

What might be the purpose of the simulation?

As the simulation includes needless extremes of good and evil, the purpose seems to be to satisfy a (sick) fascination with conflicts, sadness, torment and struggles, often unsuccessful (at the end, inevitably so), to survive.

8 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

What do you think about the nature of our simulator?

As it does extend to include infinitely complex detail from the incredibly large and distant right down to the incredibly small and nearby, it is essentially perfect.  So perfect that I reject the idea.

8 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Do you think the simulator knows or is aware that it too is a simulation?

Isn't that begging the question?  I would have thought that the buck needs to stop at the first level - if the simulator is also in a simulation, then you have created an infinite recursive loop of asking the question "Well, who created THEM?".

8 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

What are some other questions you might ask? 

Well, who created THEM?    

[Tatetopa]

We are able to resolve  detail down to the size of a Planck cube, at least theoretically, that is as small as we can go.  It that the natural unit, the voxel. of the universe?

I was going to suggest that maybe in a simulation there are smallest units, voxels that represent the position of a particle, the smallest x,y,z address.  So from our standpoint, that would lead to quanta, a particle goes from address 1 to address 2 and there is nothing in between either in energy or space.  Is quantum mechanics an artifact of the simulation? Is the real universe continuous, but it requires too much memory to simulate that.?

[ChrLzs]

26 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

We are able to resolve  detail down to the size of a Planck cube, at least theoretically, that is as small as we can go.  It that the natural unit, the voxel. of the universe?

I was going to suggest that maybe in a simulation there are smallest units, voxels that represent the position of a particle, the smallest x,y,z address.  So from our standpoint, that would lead to quanta, a particle goes from address 1 to address 2 and there is nothing in between either in energy or space.  Is quantum mechanics an artifact of the simulation? Is the real universe continuous, but it requires too much memory to simulate that.?

Yep - so far we have only explored a vanishingly small part of the solar system in our tiny little galaxy amongst the guesstimate of 200 Billion galaxies.  We've seen no sign whatsoever that the amount of detail, ie down to those voxels (at least), doesn't apply everywhere...  So the Universe of the Simulator, must not only have it's *own* level of detail (maybe it's like a Minecraft Universe, all blocky?), but also the capacity to store all the detail of our simulated universe and process all that detail in real time - after all, we have telescopes and we can watch more and more of what's happening out there, not to mention all that is happening right in front of your eyeball (and inside it..) and the electron microscope you might be using.....  That's quite a supercomputer...

As if the natural, real Cosmos isn't complex and beautiful enough?  

Edited June 19, 2020 by ChrLzs

[White Crane Feather]

43 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

A lack of detail as you approach the miniscule, and the infinitely distant.

As the simulation includes needless extremes of good and evil, the purpose seems to be to satisfy a (sick) fascination with conflicts, sadness, torment and struggles, often unsuccessful (at the end, inevitably so), to survive.

As it does extend to include infinitely complex detail from the incredibly large and distant right down to the incredibly small and nearby, it is essentially perfect.  So perfect that I reject the idea.

Isn't that begging the question?  I would have thought that the buck needs to stop at the first level - if the simulator is also in a simulation, then you have created an infinite recursive loop of asking the question "Well, who created THEM?".

Well, who created THEM?    

If it truly is simulating a universe evolution may be necessary. Subjective judgments of good and evil would seem to be moot. If the programmer came from a similar evolutionary history, it may be inclined to let things play out Based on the rules.  

[White Crane Feather]

35 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

We are able to resolve  detail down to the size of a Planck cube, at least theoretically, that is as small as we can go.  It that the natural unit, the voxel. of the universe?

I was going to suggest that maybe in a simulation there are smallest units, voxels that represent the position of a particle, the smallest x,y,z address.  So from our standpoint, that would lead to quanta, a particle goes from address 1 to address 2 and there is nothing in between either in energy or space.  Is quantum mechanics an artifact of the simulation? Is the real universe continuous, but it requires too much memory to simulate that.?

If the source universe had the same kinds of things in it, it would have to operate completely different. The uncertainty principle plays crucial rolls in many critical phenomena. One example is that stars require tunneling to perpetuate fusion. If the source universe has stars but no uncertainty principle, there would have to be different physics. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by White Crane Feather

[eight bits]

9 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

What are some other questions you might ask? 

What is the "philosophical" difference between "being" a reasonably stable feature of a "simulation" versus "really being"? I asked you this in another thread.

Let's assume that that analytical difficulty were resolved, and that we somehow have a well-defined "inside" (where you and I are now) and "outside" (where we also "are," but don't know it, although some of us have their suspicions). Might anyone "inside" ever perceive (roughly, discern by some regular disturbance of "inside" matter and energy) anything of the "outside"?

If the answer if yes, then in what sense are there two universes, rather than one universe (the "outside") with a distinctive region with a peculiar "constellation of forces" so to speak (the "inside")?

If the answer is no, then what difference can it make to anybody "inside" that there "is" an "outside"? After all, even without a "simulation" there could be something we can't ever perceive that "envelops" all that we can perceive by matter in motion.

 

[Tatetopa]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yep - so far we have only explored a vanishingly small part of the solar system in our tiny little galaxy amongst the guesstimate of 200 Billion galaxies.  We've seen no sign whatsoever that the amount of detail, ie down to those voxels (at least), doesn't apply everywhere...  So the Universe of the Simulator, must not only have it's *own* level of detail (maybe it's like a Minecraft Universe, all blocky?), but also the capacity to store all the detail of our simulated universe and process all that detail in real time - after all, we have telescopes and we can watch more and more of what's happening out there, not to mention all that is happening right in front of your eyeball (and inside it..) and the electron microscope you might be using.....  That's quite a supercomputer...

As if the natural, real Cosmos isn't complex and beautiful enough?  

All too true.  The universe is beautiful enough.  We are at a stage in which we don't  have  appreciation of the full extent of that beauty.  That is also understandable since we have only been going at it in a serious way for a few hundred years.

In recent time Leonard Susskind and  Stephen Hawking had a discussion about information storage on the event horizon of a black hole and the possibility that black holes evaporate, and then what becomes of the stored information?  The idea that every particle that is drawn into the volume of a black hole leaves its information on a surface, the event horizon, is not a traditional concept.

Claude Shannon first described information theory formally in a paper about 70 years ago  I think, so one might consider that an emerging field.

I heard a memorable lecture by my philosophy of science teacher many years ago.  

He described particles as knots on an elastic spacetime string and proceeded to illustrate interactions.  When a single left hitch and a single right hitch meet on the same string they both untie.  The string has slack and being elastic snaps back into place releasing energy.  Neither he nor his class thought that was the nature of the universe, but his point was about analogies and models.

How do you grasp something that seems massive and monolithic?  One way is to make an analogy or a model.  If the unknown structure of the universe is like knotted strings, you ask questions about how knotted strings would behave and discover if you can predict previously unobserved or misunderstood behaviors. Einstein used his calculations to predict the mechanics of transit of Mercury  without relying on a Newtonian explanation,  the mysterious planet Vulcan.  His calculations were  confirmed by Author Eddington  and others barely 100 years ago.  A good validation for Einstein.

So, even though the universe may not be a simulation project for a space alien high school student, it might be a useful model to explore. No point in asking whose simulation or what's simulation, just  what can be predicted?  Look for that and find it or disprove it.  We may not be living in a simulated minecraft- like world, but what that might predict that can be tested.  Ask a good question about the nature of the universe, and any answer teaches you something.

 

 

[Tatetopa]

12 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

If the source universe had the same kinds of things in it, it would have to operate completely different. The uncertainty principle plays crucial rolls in many critical phenomena. One example is that stars require tunneling to perpetuate fusion. If the source universe has stars but no uncertainty principle, there would have to be different physics. 

Yep, it would seem so.  If this were a simulation, I don't think it is a model of the "real" underlying universe.   Stars and the uncertainty principle may be rules that  run this simulation.  The old computer game of "Life" is a primitive simulation of sorts with its own set of rules.  Yet simple instructions for handling full and empty cells yield an illusion of  strange life moving, reproducing, and dying.

[White Crane Feather]

On 6/18/2020 at 10:26 PM, Davros of Skaro said:

Where's the kill 

On 6/18/2020 at 10:26 PM, Davros of Skaro said:

Where's the kill switch?

It’s coming dude. You know it. 

[White Crane Feather]

On 6/19/2020 at 8:29 AM, eight bits said:

What is the "philosophical" difference between "being" a reasonably stable feature of a "simulation" versus "really being"? I asked you this in another thread.

Let's assume that that analytical difficulty were resolved, and that we somehow have a well-defined "inside" (where you and I are now) and "outside" (where we also "are," but don't know it, although some of us have their suspicions). Might anyone "inside" ever perceive (roughly, discern by some regular disturbance of "inside" matter and energy) anything of the "outside"?

If the answer if yes, then in what sense are there two universes, rather than one universe (the "outside") with a distinctive region with a peculiar "constellation of forces" so to speak (the "inside")?

If the answer is no, then what difference can it make to anybody "inside" that there "is" an "outside"? After all, even without a "simulation" there could be something we can't ever perceive that "envelops" all that we can perceive by matter in motion.

 

You sir bring me back to brain hurt mode. 
 

1) There is none 

2) stop there. You cannot resolve that and not know it.

3) Yes you can perceive it if there are logical consequences. If there are not and logic breaks down somewhere, then we are in wondering philosophy.  
 

4) the common definition of universe is far to narrow, so stop using the word. It muddies the waters. 

5) difference not difference. Again these are subjective cognitions. Stop. There is a difference. You don’t know if “somethings” can be perceived or not. We just discovered that axions might be a real thing. Perception is relative to how hard you try and what is realy there. 

[XenoFish]

On 6/19/2020 at 1:08 AM, White Crane Feather said:

I would like to discuss simulation theory and brainstorm about what the consequences of such a reality would entail. It’s a philosophical discussion. If you want to argue about the merits of the idea, there are other threads to do so. 
 

What do you think might be some physical consequences we might observe?

If everything is a simulation how would we really know it was a simulation? This makes everything physical an illusion so the consequences would be mute.

What might be the purpose of the simulation?

God/The Programmer is playing a universal sim game? Or we're a part of some history/timeline simulation.

What do you think about the nature of our simulator?

Boring, no cheat codes and we can't do any really fun stuff.

Do you think the simulator knows or is aware that it too is a simulation?

What if the simulation is a product of a boltzmann brain or brains. All dreaming reality, unaware of what they really are.

 

What are some other questions you might ask? 

What is the point of our existence then.

 

[zep73]

On 6/19/2020 at 7:08 AM, White Crane Feather said:

What do you think might be some physical consequences we might observe?

What might be the purpose of the simulation?

Photo-identical repetitions in nature. Like the surface of the ocean, the leaves on trees or flames in a big fire. Nobody is looking for them. I suspect they could be there to be found.
Quantum duality is another thing, but it's not a consequence. They left that there to be found on purpose. Maybe that's one of the reasons for doing it. To see how quickly we can figure it out?

Quote

What do you think about the nature of our simulator?

Cold-hearted with a sick taste in entertainment.

Quote

Do you think the simulator knows or is aware that it too is a simulation?

I see no reason for that to be the case. It's a stupid idea from a half bad movie (The 13th Floor).
I assume that the reality, that is simulating us, is a base reality. The sophistication and detail in our own simulation speaks for it - as in: for every layer you add, the technology gets a bit worse, because any system within a system, can only become as good, or worse, than the parent system.

Edited June 22, 2020 by sci-nerd

[White Crane Feather]

15 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Photo-identical repetitions in nature. Like the surface of the ocean, the leaves on trees or flames in a big fire. Nobody is looking for them. I suspect they could be there to be found.
Quantum duality is another thing, but it's not a consequence. They left that there to be found on purpose. Maybe that's one of the reasons for doing it. To see how quickly we can figure it out?

Cold-hearted with a sick taste in entertainment.

I see no reason for that to be the case. It's a stupid idea from a half bad movie (The 13th Floor).
I assume that the reality, that is simulating us, is a base reality. The sophistication and detail in our own simulation speaks for it - as in: for every layer you add, the technology gets a bit worse, because any system within a system, can only become as good, or worse, than the parent system.

If the simulator cannot use the same statistical logic that we did to come up with the idea in the first place then it fails. Statistically speaking there should be many layers of simulation because simulations if simulated properly will one day make simulations. I don’t know if the simulation would get worse. It would seem that eventually there would have to be limit on process. A simulation running a simulation is also running the simulation’s simulation. Whatever the original reality is, it would have to have enough power to power all the simulations. At some point the lowest simulation would not be able to run one.

[zep73]

@White Crane Feather

One funny consequence of being in a simulation, is that our individual surroundings are always made of the same voxels. In other words, the atoms close to us, are always the same, but they change appearance. They are subjective. So when two people look at the same object, they actually see two different things. They each see their own voxels.
Evidence of this is found in the Wigner's friend experiment.

Scientists don't know what to make of the Wigner's friend experiment, but here it is, explained plain and simple.

Edited June 27, 2020 by sci-nerd

[White Crane Feather]

2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

@White Crane Feather

One funny consequence of being in a simulation, is that our individual surroundings are always made of the same voxels. In other words, the atoms close to us, are always the same, but they change appearance. They are subjective. So when two people look at the same object, they actually see two different things. They each see their own voxels.
Evidence of this is found in the Wigner's friend experiment.

Scientists don't know what to make of the Wigner's friend experiment, but here it is, explained plain and simple.

That is interesting. My issue with it. Is that thought experiments don’t take into account the myriad of other of interactions that happen. There is a difference between making an observation and being able to make an observation. This doesn't bod well for continuousness itself being the driver for wave function collapse. Sure we need an intelligence to make judgments, but it appears that collapse happens as a result of position information being available for observation not necessarily the observation itself. A person not making the observation his friend is making must assign a 1 or a zero, and assume superposition, but the information itself has already collapsed when his friend mad the observation. That collapse has effects that propagate throughout the universe even the secondary observers body and systems. Even though the intelligence hasn’t made the observation, his body and surroundings have. Schrodingers  cat and this experiment are thought experiments for a reason. You simply cannot isolate a collapsed function from a frame of reference so that it still is in superposition. Even if we could the observation of superposition isn’t an observation of not knowing. It’s a suspended state. The randomness of collapse could only happen on the base layer. If it were not that way the universe would be thrown into disarray. 

[zep73]

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

That is interesting. My issue with it. Is that thought experiments don’t take into account the myriad of other of interactions that happen.

Thought experiments show the rules isolated, not as entropic causality.
And it's nothing to worry about. Just apply the rules, and the computer will do the rest. That's what computers are good at. Fast multitasking.

[White Crane Feather]

9 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Thought experiments show the rules isolated, not as entropic causality.
And it's nothing to worry about. Just apply the rules, and the computer will do the rest. That's what computers are good at. Fast multitasking.

Have you ever considers time dilation as a form of processing lag. 

[zep73]

1 minute ago, White Crane Feather said:

Have you ever considers time dilation as a form of processing lag. 

I know it is used as an example in at least one simulation documentary, but I consider the assumption to be wrong.
Time dilation is a logical consequence of extreme gravity, because energy is slowed down to a minimum in it.
If any place should lag, it should be Earth, and its 7.5 billion processing demanding minds. It seems it does not. So the "lag theory" is faulty IMO.

[White Crane Feather]

15 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I know it is used as an example in at least one simulation documentary, but I consider the assumption to be wrong.
Time dilation is a logical consequence of extreme gravity, because energy is slowed down to a minimum in it.
If any place should lag, it should be Earth, and its 7.5 billion processing demanding minds. It seems it does not. So the "lag theory" is faulty IMO.

Well we are in a gravity well and it does lag to frames of reference not in it. Albeit not very much. Being in the lag we would lag Along with our environment relative to the moon per say. I have meditated on it a bit. The equivalence principle has gravity and acceleration as equivalent. What if the simulation never was programmed for beings, but instead was an evolution simulation. Rules and parameters are set then allowed to evolve. Every frame of reference would almost need to be its own unit. A quantum computer might be able to calculate all positions at once, but just like a wave collapse when it actually did more processing power would be needed to calculate its relative position. X  reference point has a particle in it that is no longer in superposition, so it’s position must be calculated at Y light years and 5ft from planet Z. The more acceleration x is experiencing the faster the calculation must process because it has to have a position relative to every other collapsed particle and all of those calculations are changing faster the more momentum it has. That requires more and more processing power because none of it can be kept in superposition. In superposition it just takes a function that defines probability enough and for all intents and purposes just sits there until it is needed. 
 

When more energy (Information) is applied to the frame it will require slightly more the next time. This creates an exponential need for processing power the more information that is added to the frame. The result is apparent lag within the frame. 

[zep73]

You're attempting to solve the technical nature of the system you're a part of, by comparing it to a pale imitation of it - our computing abilities.

[White Crane Feather]

4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

You're attempting to solve the technical nature of the system you're a part of, by comparing it to a pale imitation of it - our computing abilities.

No I’m not at all. Logical consequences is the only thing we have.