The first thing to come to my mind when I saw this was Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis. It fits so perfectly. I think it lends a little
credibility to some of Bostrom’s assertions regarding possible directions an advancing technology may choose to take.
As I understand it, the simulation adheres to currently accepted mathematical/physical formulations and principles. So, when the simulation is
launched, it initializes/establishes the conditions we believe existed around 12 million years after the bang. At this stage, inflation had taken
place, the 4 known forces and particles as we understand them began to manifest, expansion was well underway and the universe was basically a hot,
thermal plasma of particles. The simulation would then proceed through the next 400,000 years, or so, of expansion as the universe is cooling, but is
still opaque (not visible through optical telescopes). By the end of this period things will have cooled off enough for charged particles to start
pairing up and for photons to propagate freely. And then, Voila! Let there be light. Star and galaxy formation, and everything else we know of, took
off from there. Each step of the way, I understand all the physical structures and spacetime geometry is dynamically created by rigorously applying
established mathematical/physical models, and that it reflects a resonable approximation of cosmic evolution as we believe it occurred. That being the
case then, although a unique universe is created with each iteration of the simulation, the primary/overall structure of that universe is consistently
the same each time, as it’s driven by a well-defined set of physical/natural laws.
I don’t understand why so many people want to minimize what was achieved, without having the slightest idea what went behind it. It cannot be
compared with typical gaming software, as has been suggested. Granted, the simulation doesn’t account for every single detail of cosmic evolution,
and is still not a complete picture of EVERYTHING, but it is currently the most comprehesive simulation to date. What is represented seems to adhere
to sound and accepted scientific thinking, and appears to be on the right track.
If the above is halfway correct, and the simulation results in a reasonable approximation of the real thing each time, that would then seem to imply
that current thinking regarding cosmic evolution may be at least somewhat credible. As the program is updated and enhanced over time with increasingly
finer detail, including other well-defined aspects of nature, such as biological processes, rules of natural selection, etc., things could get very
interesting. Considering the likely computing power and storage capabilities available 20-30 years from now, and the level of detail and realism
achievable by continually updated versions of the simulation program, I can’t help but wonder if maybe Nick Bostrom was onto something. We’ll
If anyone really cares to read a little more about what's behind the simulation, you can start
edit on 5/14/2014 by netbound because: (no reason given)