What would you expect from a NON virtual simulated universe?

a reply to: interupt42

based on this statement, I submit to you that you do not understand "Chaos Theory". or rather, you hold the (unfortunate) common-man and unscientific understanding 

In general I value "truth" and speaking it clearly more than I value people's feelings. however, the case you have quoted was more of a critique of the "common-man understanding" than it was about your own understanding or level of intelligence. in fact, this may be the best question ever posted to this forum and the fact that you invented the question speaks highly of your intelligence.

I'll try to be less condescending. sorry about that.

Well on the subject of the OP it's indiscernible, unless you take the crude immersion you get from a common game of today. But compared to the future the game will only be discernible in it's intent to teach a lesson to its players.
Yeah, yeah some say this is exactly what is happening to all of us, we are in the middle of a game or a simulation but what is the intent? To find out what struggles you endure to make it to a type 2 civilization? A sort of history theater taking place?
I find it brings a smile to my face to think that not to long ago someone said they were the sun god and there was instant true belief. To where we are today where nobody believes in #. Mainly due to constant disappointment than to outright free will and deep thought! So when it does collapse don't go looking in the common folk for whom messed it up!
Soon we will realize that no technology exists that will fix our social flaws, mainly the self governance of a free spirit and all that.

a reply to: tgidkp

my use of "button pusher" is identical to the concept that from your own conscious position, there doesn't appear to be anything (anyone?) "behind" you. your apprehension of reality acts as a backstop to reality itself. consciousness is a one way street and "you" are standing at the top of the hill looking down.

It appears that these guys found the on and off button for our consciousness.

Consciousness on-off switch discovered deep in brain

In a study published last week, Mohamad Koubeissi at the George Washington University in Washington DC and his colleagues describe how they managed to switch a woman's consciousness off and on by stimulating her claustrum

www.newscientist.com...

In addition, We have an autonomic nervous system which is out of our conscious control .

With that said I look forward to reading up on Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Thanks

What I'm trying to in regards to the virtual simulation topic, is to concentrate on what a program can and can't do.

All programs must have a set of instructions to follow/execute, and looking around our universe it appears that everything has a set of instructions that it follows. In my view this makes it POSSIBLE that we are in a simulation.

I'm thinking that if we found anything that is TRULY random ( doesn't adhere to any laws of the universe) or wasn't caused by a cause and effect event then that pretty much shuts the possibility of a virtual universe.

Crazy things happen at the quantum level so perhaps we might get the answer there and find true randomness where no rules apply? Of course this is assuming we ruled out our lack of understanding or technical limitations.

originally posted by: interupt42
My intentions on the virtual simulation topic is to concentrate on what a program can and can't do.

All programs must have a set of instructions to follow/execute and looking around our universe it appears that everything has a set of instructions that it follows. In my view this makes it POSSIBLE that we are in a simulation.

I'm thinking that if we found anything that is TRULY random ( doesn't adhere to any laws of the universe) or wasn't caused by a cause and effect event then that pretty much shuts the possibility of a virtual universe.

Not at all.

In server systems engineering, with say a product such as VMWare or HyperV, which is used to
'virtualize' physical hardware into little containers of virtual operating system instances so that
multiple virtual server systems can be run from the same physical hardware (it's more efficient),

there is a thing called "paravirtualization", that is rather a hybrid between virtualization and
physical servers.. in short native computer instructions from the host system pass through
relatively unmodified to the 'virtual reality'.

So in short i'm saying that using this as an analogy, there is no reason that an otherwise
'orderly simulation' could not have true randomness from the 'core reality' (host computer)
passed through with little modification.

In short, if the simulation is good enough, it'd be awfully hard to 'catch the simulators'
in the act.

In the case of a true 'oopsie', the system operator could just fall back to a pre-corrupted
system state (it would be like time travel / rewinding time) and nobody would be the
wiser.

Put in the equivalent of ECC RAM / a parity stripe with check-sums, and the whole thing
would be largely self-correcting.

Now mind you, the simulators, if any, might find it entertaining to let us 'catch them in
the act' for pure humor / educational value. But they could fall back to a prior system
state at any time, if it no longer amused them.

Or more likely, they could run all possible outcomes simultaneously, and then you get
weirdness like 'quantum mechanics', especially the 'many world's interpretation'.

Sometimes we catch them in the act, other times we don't; and with all possibilities
actually being run through the simulation it's all the same to them no matter how it
turns out. Just another TV channel.

Finally, the difference between a 'simulation' and a 'quantum universe' is pretty much
a matter of semantics more than anything.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

in short native computer instructions from the host system pass through
relatively unmodified to the 'virtual realit

So in short i'm saying that using this as an analogy, there is no reason that an otherwise
'orderly simulation' could not have true randomness from the 'core reality' (host computer)
passed through with little modification.

It doesn't really matter where it gets executed what matter is that the program (Virtual machine) and the host are still complying or adhering within their own set of instructions and protocols. Hence you really still wouldn't have true randomness .

if the host is windows 8 and the client is linux you would expect the client OS to still adhere to linux API call methods while the windows 8 would adhere to its own windows 8 API calls. Hence a set of rules and protocols.

The LInux client could not invoke a windows 8 API call or more randomly an android API call. Hence even in a VM environment there are constraints and rules that are followed by the vm player.

a reply to: interupt42

The hypervisor could be just in time compiled which would
emulate such flexibility that it would be indistinguishable
from 'chaos'.

Even if it wasn't, our 'consciousness' might also be a simulation
so we could look at a brick wall and see it as pure randomness
if that was the desired outcome.

But that said, it's not really possible to 'catch simulator's' in the
act, as part of the simulation would be a hard-coded 'they win',
'we lose', if 'they' cared about their simulation.

A fail-safe could overcome even really crappy programming
on 'their part' -- say our universe is written in Java running on windows..
it could crash constantly and take forever to load, and the 'enforcer'
/ 'cleanup' routines would just reboot everything as often as required.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The hypervisor could be just in time compiled which would
emulate such flexibility that it would be indistinguishable
from 'chaos

But even a JIT compiler has to process bytecode [instructions]. Therefore, even if our universe is running on a JIT compiler wouldn't our universe still have to adhere to our program language in order to be executed by the JIT compiler.

So in essence we wouldn't have chaos because we still are adhering to the program language rules that we were developed on .

Even if it wasn't, our 'consciousness' might also be a simulation
so we could look at a brick wall and see it as pure randomness
if that was the desired outcome.

The consciousness is a tricky one since we don't know enough about it. However, even that appears to be programmable to a point and even with a on and off switch.

But that said, it's not really possible to 'catch simulator's' in the
act, as part of the simulation would be a hard-coded 'they win',
'we lose', if 'they' cared about their simulation.

Not sure I follow what you mean by this? A simulation could be about observing and not who wins or looses.

A fail-safe could overcome even really crappy programming
on 'their part' -- say our universe is written in Java running on windows..
it could crash constantly and take forever to load, and the 'enforcer'
/ 'cleanup' routines would just reboot everything as often as required.

True and hopefully they have a much better stable jvm and more time to finish their projects , LOL. However even when heap dumps or garbage collections occur their are a set of instructions or logic that is processed by the jvm.

Good stuff

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
Did you just describe deja vu?

a reply to: interupt42
One of the constraints in a simulated universe, according to the websites I've visited, is it must be quantized or "pixelated". There has to be a finite number of discrete points defining space/time in order for it to be computable. If there're essentially an infinite number of points between any two points then it's apparently not computable.

I've my doubts about all this. Could it be we live within a simulation which itself lives in a non-simulated universe, working via a kind of analog computer which is able to process continuous information. Another example might be we're a sort of stage or dream or live-action roleplaying. The "computer" is more like a living brain than a discrete computing instrument. It's real AND simulated.

a reply to: jonnywhite

There has to be a finite number of discrete points defining space/time in order for it to be computable. If there're essentially an infinite number of points between any two points then it's apparently not computable.

However, isn't infinite based on perspective hindered by constraints based on our knowledge and technology?

In other words: to a ANT living in the middle of the Sahara Desert wouldn't it think that land is infinite?

Perhaps than what we perceive as infinite might not be truly infinite from the programmers or programs perspective?

I've my doubts about all this

Me too anyone that doesn't is truly fooling themselves.

Could it be we live within a simulation which itself lives in a non-simulated universe, working via a kind of analog computer which is able to process continuous information. Another example might be we're a sort of stage or dream or live-action roleplaying. The "computer" is more like a living brain than a discrete computing instrument. It's real AND simulated.

That is something to ponder on over a couple of

a reply to: interupt42

In a simulated environment I would expect the rules to constantly change, as they are not "natural" rules and are simply created and thus can be altered. Much like the way things work in v2.0 are usually drastically different than they were in v1.0.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: interupt42

In a simulated environment I would expect the rules to constantly change, as they are not "natural" rules and are simply created and thus can be altered. Much like the way things work in v2.0 are usually drastically different than they were in v1.0.

I see what you are saying: but even if logic could be changed it would not be required to do so, depending on the purpose of the simulation nor would there have to be a high frequency of changes.

In addition, perception of time is subjective. What might appear as stagnate to us might actually be frequent to another life form that lives 10,000 years ,or perhaps even a life form that is immortal .

However, thinking out loud and assuming your premise that their must be changes in a simulated environment:

There are likely two types of rules sets that could be changed within a simulated environment:
1. The Programming structure logic (PSL) that usually developers work with.

2. The Machine language Instructions (MLI) which the (PSL) must follow.

Therefore even if their are constant changes ,my point is that there MUST ALWAYS be rules to follow in a simulated environment.

The frequency of the changes is subjective, however the presence of rules in our universe must ALWAYS EXIST for us to be simulated. That is the part I find interesting in trying to prove whether we are simulated or not.

In summary: I would expect rules to ALWAYS exist in a simulated environment where in a non simulated environment I would expect chaos , disorder , and pure randomness.

I also find it intriguing that in our universe the more we look and understand how things work, the more rules we find. Hence we are able to develop principles in science such as physics,biology,etc.

Having said that, haven't we seen different versions of our universe v1 (prior to the big bang) v2 (after the big bang)? Earth with Prokaryotic cells (Earth v1) , Earth with dinosaurs (v2), earth with humans (v3), etc. In each of those instances there was changes where the rules likely CHANGED for example the requirement of oxygen to survive differed between each version upgrade.

However, what was constant was the presence of rules: and the fact that once their was a version upgrade the NEW RULES had to be followed or face extinction (data cleansing). Hence, that still supports the possibility of a simulated environment, because the constant presence of RULES required to facilitate a simulated environment was not broken.

If in the universe or possibly in quantum mechanics we truly find PURE chaos (disorder), randomness , nor rules that are followed and not due to our limited knowledge or technical feasibility, than we could say without a doubt we are not simulated.

originally posted by: interupt42
If in the universe or possibly in quantum mechanics we truly find PURE chaos (disorder), randomness , nor rules that are followed and not due to our limited knowledge or technical feasibility, than we could say without a doubt we are not simulated.

Please give an example of how you imagine "pure" or "true" chaos/disorder/randomness might appear to us. As well, how would — or better yet — how could we know that what seems, at the time, to be complete chaos isn't just our current lack of understanding?

originally posted by: evilod

originally posted by: interupt42
If in the universe or possibly in quantum mechanics we truly find PURE chaos (disorder), randomness , nor rules that are followed and not due to our limited knowledge or technical feasibility, than we could say without a doubt we are not simulated.

Please give an example of how you imagine "pure" or "true" chaos/disorder/randomness might appear to us. As well, how would — or better yet — how could we know that what seems, at the time, to be complete chaos isn't just our current lack of understanding?

Keep in mind I don't claim to have the answer nor claim to be able to get to the answer, but enjoy the pursuit of the answer.

If there is not a underlying control logic for the universe than I would expect inconsistencies around the universe. We wouldn't be able to derive laws in physics , develop scientific theories , or even rely on science if we had pure" or "true" chaos/disorder/randomness.

Humans could be part reptile, Things appear from nothing or actions being caused by no actions, or energy being created or deleted, etc.

to be complete chaos isn't just our current lack of understanding?

Our lack of understanding is what makes things appear random, the more knowledgeable we become in a subject the more we realise that there are fundamental rules at play.

originally posted by: interupt42
...............
If there is not a underlying control logic for the universe than I would expect inconsistencies around the universe. We wouldn't be able to derive laws in physics , develop scientific theories , or even rely on science if we had pure" or "true" chaos/disorder/randomness.

Humans could be part reptile, Things appear from nothing or actions being caused by no actions, or energy being created or deleted, etc.
.............
Our lack of understanding is what makes things appear random, the more knowledgeable we become in a subject the more we realise that there are fundamental rules at play.

Well what I've read about Quantum stuff - given I really do not understand much about it - says we can know X about a particle, but we can't know Y. Conversely, we can know Y, but we can't know X. This prevents us from predicting with certainty the future, since we'd need both X and Y at any given interval, even if we had available all of the necessary processing capacity. This also means chaos is inherent in this reality, at least to some amount, because the future will always be hidden in a sort of fog of war.

I've also read it's possible for me to walk through a wall in quantum terms, but it's so unlikely I'd need nearly infinite chances.

How does that play into your thinking which demands weak chaos and strong control logic for a simulation? Of what I can determine, you say only majority chaos could prove reality is real?

Another thing I want to mention is locality. Einstein apparently required it. I think he asserted something to the effect that without locality we could not create science to understand the universe. The way I understand it's if quantum entanglement or other non-local quantum phenomenon are able to have macro-scale influences then this might throw our sciences into disarray, making them impotent. This is because what happens locally could be as much tied to something on the other side of the universe as it's to what we can accuratley and actively measure locally. We're as yet unable to timely measure the other side of the observable universe, and it could be far outside the observable universe, possibly making it impossible to measure. (There're vast regions of the universe we will NEVER observe. It has something to do with expansion of the universe and light speed limitations.) Neither are we able to predict what entangled particles will do in the future. There're no "hidden variables" which will tell us what these things will do.

There has to be some locality because otherwise I don't imagine there could be any diversity around us. Just for me to be me and you to be you there must be a sort of inertia or glue seperating elements of space/time, providing for an amount of locality. If there was no glue in space/time then how could anything be different? It'd all immediately merge and produce something uniform?

a reply to: jonnywhite

This also means chaos is inherent in this reality, at least to some amount, because the future will always be hidden in a sort of fog of war.

Uhm I think you might have killed my premise with that darn Heisenberg.

However,

Is Heisenberg uncertainty principle really Chaos , is it manageable , will it ever be overcome?

Could a program overcome this uncertainty using combination of analog and digital logic? I think it could, but then it would kill my initial premise anyway about chaos either proving that we are not in a simulated environment or we are.

Need to think about this one further.

How does that play into your thinking which demands weak chaos and control logic for a simulation? Of what I can determine, you say only majority chaos could prove reality is real?

I would think that ANY true chaos weak or major could put a damper on the Simulation theory.

I've also read it's possible for me to walk through a wall in quantum terms, but it's so unlikely I'd need nearly infinite chances.

Quantum Tunnelling , but we can explain the theory behind it hence rules.

Perhaps I need to change my premise to unpredictable uncharacteristic property chaos.

To me the world appears to be pretty ordered and controlled, which could be indicative of simulation. Even at the quantum level things adhere to quantum observations we have discovered. Perhaps we need to learn more at the Quantum level to really make sense of what appears like spooky science in order to find the Quantum rules.