It's looking more and more like we may live in a simulation

A simulated universe is the simplest explanation of the universe. It's mind numbingly simple. It's all boils down to information and computation. I will go over just 3 people who support this theory.

1. Nick Bostrom - A Swedish Philosopher at St. Cross College, University of Oxford.

2. Richard Terrile - an Astronomer and Directer of the Center for Evolutionary Computation and Automated Design at NASA's Jet Propulsion Library.

3. Silas Beane - Nuclear Physicist and Associate Professor at the University of Washington. Also co-Author of the paper "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation."

Again, this isn't 3 mystics on hallucinogens saying this, these are serious thinkers putting it out there.

Let's start with Nick Bostrom. He has been saying this for a while and it just makes sense. If we can simulate humans and the environments we live in in an indistinguishable way, then eventually there will be more simulated humans than there's real humans whatever real humans may mean. Here's more from Bostrom:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

You can read the full paper here:
www.simulation-argument.com...

Here's a video of Bostrum:


I recently saw Richard Terrile on Through the Wormhole talking about this. It was very interesting stuff and again, it's simple, elegant and just makes sense. Here's an interview he did:

VICE: When did you first surmise that our reality could be a computer simulation?

Rich Terrile: Unless you believe there’s something magical about consciousness—and I don’t, I believe it’s the product of a very sophisticated architecture within the human brain—then you have to assume that at some point it can be simulated by a computer, or in other words, replicated. There are two ways one might accomplish an artificial human brain in the future. One of them is to reverse-engineer it, but I think it would be far easier to evolve a circuit or architecture that could become conscious. Perhaps in the next ten to 30 years we’ll be able to incorporate artificial consciousness into our machines.

We’ll get there that fast?

Right now the fastest NASA supercomputers are cranking away at about double the speed of the human brain. If you make a simple calculation using Moore’s Law, you’ll find that these supercomputers, inside of a decade, will have the ability to compute an entire human lifetime of 80 years—including every thought ever conceived during that lifetime—in the span of a month.

That’s depressing.

Now brace yourself: In 30 years we expect that a PlayStation—they come out with a new PlayStation every six to eight years, so this would be a PlayStation 7—will be able to compute about 10,000 human lifetimes simultaneously in real time, or about a human lifetime in an hour.

There’s how many PlayStations worldwide? More than 100 million, certainly. So think of 100 million consoles, each one containing 10,000 humans. That means, by that time, conceptually, you could have more humans living in PlayStations than you have humans living on Earth today.

Very interesting stuff! Again, this isn't Mystic Bluewater saying this. It's a guy who discovered several moons of Saturn, Neptune and Uranus who works for NASA. When you think about it, it's just so simple. It's just computation. Eventually we will be able to simulate an entire 80 year lifespan of a human being on a computer. All his/her ideas, thoughts and experiences. He ends the interview with this:

You seem really at peace with this concept. When I first heard about your theory I was incredibly bummed but, obviously, intrigued.

I find great inspiration in it, and I’ll tell you why: It tells me that we’re at the threshold of being able to create a universe—a simulation—and that we in turn could be living inside a simulation, which could be in turn yet another simulation. And our simulated beings could also create simulations. What I find intriguing is, if there is a creator, and there will be a creator in the future and it will be us, this also means if there’s a creator for our world, here, it’s also us. This means we are both God and servants of God, and that we made it all. What I find inspiring is that, even if we are in a simulation or many orders of magnitude down in levels of simulation, somewhere along the line something escaped the primordial ooze to become us and to result in simulations that made us. And that’s cool.

www.vice.com...

Now, I don't agree with him when it comes to consciousness. I agree with Penrose that it's non computable and tied to Decoherence at Planck scales. We could simulate decoherence and the simulated humans will have experience indistinguishable from ours.

We could be living in a 30 day simulation called Earth. To the people that simulated universe 30 days pass but to the humans in the simulation the universe is billions of years old.

Here's Terille talking about the brain and computation.



Silas Beane and his Colleague's Authored a paper titled "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation." Here's a link to the paper:

arxiv.org...

Here's a write up on the paper:

The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the world’s most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.)

That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it).

It’s not hard to imagine that Moore’s Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell.

Again, the behaviour of this human cell would be indistinguishable from the real thing.

Today, we get an answer of sorts from Silas Beane, at the University of Bonn in Germany, and a few pals. They say there is a way to see evidence that we are being simulated, at least in certain scenarios.

The question that Beane and co ask is whether the lattice spacing imposes any kind of limitation on the physical processes we see in the universe. They examine, in particular, high energy processes, which probe smaller regions of space as they get more energetic

What they find is interesting. They say that the lattice spacing imposes a fundamental limit on the energy that particles can have. That’s because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself.

So if our cosmos is merely a simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles.

(cont'd)

reply to post by neoholographic


cont'd

It turns out there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic ray particles, a limit known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin or GZK cut off.

www.technologyreview.com...

At the end of the day it's an intriguing possibility. Here's a video of Physicist Phil Moriarty from the University of Nottingham asking What if the Universe is a computer simulation.

The ominous music makes it better.

Ignore the music, and enjoy the vid.

reply to post by neoholographic


imho,
the moment the holographic theory become officially agreed,
everyone around this planet will change their ways of living... no longer being greedy (hopefully)
the things 'possessed' will become 'borrowed' or experienced.

some humans are also greedy in suffering, they believe they suffer the most, and still want to add more responsibilities as the sufferers!

peace.

Im fairly familiar with the info you posted and thank you for sharing it since it is truly facsinating stuff. But to paraphrase lee smolin a mathematical description of the universe ( computing, binary code etc..) can not be valid since time is completly absent of the mathematical equations used to make the statement that we live in a simulation.

Time is a reality of the Universe. Timeless mathematics are good for making predictions , experiments and observation and then theorize on the fabric, origin, purpose of the Universe.

But how reliable are they when no experiments can be made and the only data available is that the mathematics are holding together?

If we're just a simulation, then I wonder if it's possible to find whatever is simulating me, and recode it, because quite frankly, I want a new set-up! Very fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing

Simulation would imply cheat codes.

Simulation or not, I could personally care less. It doesn't affect the tangible experiential nature of it unless we have those cheat codes.

Thus, no cheat codes, no matter, meh.

It Used to be one!

Somehow the rules have change now and its REAL!

I'm I the only one that see's this? Really? Don't worry though, its gonna POP and we will all know it is REAL!

Why do you think VR is so hot? Role Playing, fake lives, 10 FB accounts! You do not have to answere to anything!

Oh well! I do not think you can shovel this into a closet or hide it under the bed for much longer!

This time IT IS REAL!

Peace

my simulation is incorrect, as I was supposed to be a very wealthy F1 driver with a hot girlfriend in every country we run at. Regardless this 60 + hour job is wearing on me for a standard simulation, time for a reboot........

Real or not...

You just bruised my brain.

And it's my favorite one!

Nice read...Thanx!

Peace

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


And save points.

I need save points for this theory to hold.

reply to post by neoholographic


Thank you. I was blowing this stuff off as interesting but not really worthy of my time until I read your post. Very informative.

wow those were very interesting videos.
the first one suggests that some conditions may manifest in which the civ that reaches that level of technology loses interest in ancestor simulation. fill in the gaps. they don't lose interest, they decide to hoard the knowledge. to be the only ones privy to it or its potential blessings, and in so doing, don't stop making ancestor simulations but kill their ancestors so they don't have to share it.

AliceBleachWhite

Simulation would imply cheat codes.

Simulation or not, I could personally care less. It doesn't affect the tangible experiential nature of it unless we have those cheat codes.

Thus, no cheat codes, no matter, meh.

The illuminati have the cheat codes

AliceBleachWhite

Simulation would imply cheat codes.

Simulation or not, I could personally care less. It doesn't affect the tangible experiential nature of it unless we have those cheat codes.

Thus, no cheat codes, no matter, meh.

I 100% agree.. and came to a similar conclusion before some
of these gentleman had graduated high school.

I see no difference that matters, between an information
model of physics transactions (the so-called the universe
is a quantum computer model) and a simulated universe
model.

Using the sled-dog metaphor, only the 'lead dog' or "primary
laws of physics" have a certain value.. everything else is
derivative work and is logically equivalent to a simulation.
(every dog after the first has to suck fumes from the dog
ahead of them's 'tail pipe'.

So whether 'information' is supreme, or 'simulated information'
is 'supreme' in our experience, I could care less.
At the level we operate within they are functionally logically
equivalent.

This makes the entire simulation argument functionally moot.

KPB

I would agree its a simulation, but I believe its not a nuts n' bolts computer making it. I believe 'there’s something magical about consciousness'... there's a level of collective consciousness creating the simulation. That's why our own psychic ability can alter probability; can penetrate time and space and matter.

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists." -Huang Po

reply to post by neoholographic

One wrinkle in the arguments you brought forward is they recently discovered smaller processing networks WITHIN individual neurons which means all of these estimates about the computation capacity of the human brain need to be revised upwards. The result is it will require more time to meet the standard set by the human brain.

Here's the reference:
www.spacedaily.com - UNC neuroscientists discover new 'mini-neural computer' in the brain...

reply to post by BlueMule


Yup.

If 'consciousness' is eternal and 'magical' that's fine with me.

If 'matter & energy' is eternal and 'magical' that's fine with me;
as at least sometimes 'consciousness' is an emergent property
and thus that is consistent; which is all I care about.

It's rather pointless to worry about what came first; consciousness
or form. We know they both exist, and I could care less which has
'primacy' if either.

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


I agree. This whole "The universe is a simulation!" thing is just people yearning for an answer to everything. It's spiritualism; It's religion; It's a vision quest.

Far as I'm concerned, this simulation is trying as best it can to be real. Isn't that all that matters? It's functionally equivalent to something REAL. Until the cheat codes are released or we're explicitly made aware of the fact this is a simulation then I will (or I must) treat everything as though it were real.

I think this is as good a theory as I've ever known:

this whole thing begs the question;

what of people who's lives are the end result of environment? if you look around these forums you see people condemning each other to various forms of intellectual, physical and spiritual oblivion over a difference in opinion regarding matters quite similar to the concept of ancestor simulation. does this mean the setting of the simulation for say, a buddhist is deliberately different as a result of programming and than one for a muslim or an atheist ?

in that event, where would be the logic in claiming that one group in the simulation was therefore not worthy vs. another, as all would just be the end result of the program they were running, which would mean they had no say in the matter to begin with. how do you condemn the programmed man for the programmer's choice?

i mean i think sociologists make a good case with the argument that if a person were born in a different environment than the one they were born in, they would likely have an entirely different world view and therefore holding them responsible for how they turned out in some aspects, would just be cruel.

granted, given knowledge and separation from the problem environment, this would likely be rectified but who here has the patience to do that? can you see some advanced technological civilization waiting around for their ancestor simulations to all be on the same page when the programmer was going behind their back f'in the whole thing up? it' s more likely they would try to force them to be on the same page, or annihilate them so they wouldn't have to share knowledge with them at all, and that sounds like a rigged game.