It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If computing power continues to increase according to Moore's Law, then 'The Simulation Argument' will eventually be proven correct. It's only a matter of time, and because of the 'doubling' every 2 years, we will see it coming closer exponentially. The reasoning here is simple. Right now, we are able to simulate something simple. In 2 years, we will be able to simulate something twice as complex. In 20 years, we will be able to simulate with 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 = 1024 times as much complexity as today. 40 years will bring us 2 to the power of 20 = 1 million times more power than we have today. Let's focus on the human body. Suppose we are able to simulate a complete human being in, say year t. How long would it then take before we are able to simulate the world population of approximately 6.000.000.000 people? Simple equasion: 2^x = 6 billion, gives us something between 32 and 33 for x. This means that from the time we will be able to simulate one person, to the time we will be able to simulate the entire population, will take only 33 times 2 years = 66 years.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by VonDoomen
The problem with your example, however, is that simulating the entire population can already be done. Society acts like its own intelligence, the mechanics are simply altered a bit because of the scope. Simulating a person is also not all that difficult - though simulating our cognitive process is, depending upon which theory you subscribe to, impossible without the experience of being human.
The other problem is simulating one person versus simulating two or three people. It's not necessarily a linear ordeal. Simulating the interactions of two or three people is an entirely different concept from simulating the individuals (a simulation of a single intelligence is incomplete if it is also not simulating the interactions it has with other beings, its environment, and society as a whole.... how could they simulate my personal tendency to detest society if there is no society for my simulation to detest, and no experiences with that society for it to base its detest off of?).