Thread: Simulated universe is impossible

You can't simulate the universe in complete detail in real time from within said universe. This is a basic principle of reality and computer science. You can possibly do it slower than real time, but that might still take infinite memory, which the universe (at least, the observable universe) doesn't have. There are only something like 10^80 particles in the observable universe, which is a lot, but far less than infinity.

Of course, if you reduce certain parts of reality to abstractions and never simulate them in full detail until they're actually needed, then it is totally possible. So, for example, the sun only needs to produce gravity and light and evidence of nuclear fusion going on in its core. Unless we somehow actually travel into the core, the universe doesn't need to simulate the actual particle interactions. And even then, it would only simulate the particles nearby. This makes one think about all sorts of odd things in physics that might indicate a simulated universe, like the speed of light. If the "simulator" knows that you can't ever exceed the speed of light, then it knows which parts of the universe don't need to be simulated in full detail at any given time, and so on. Same goes for quantum mechanics: it behaves differently when you're looking at it.

Originally Posted by cmind

Of course, if you reduce certain parts of reality to abstractions and never simulate them in full detail until they're actually needed, then it is totally possible. So, for example, the sun only needs to produce gravity and light and evidence of nuclear fusion going on in its core. Unless we somehow actually travel into the core, the universe doesn't need to simulate the actual particle interactions. And even then, it would only simulate the particles nearby. This makes one think about all sorts of odd things in physics that might indicate a simulated universe, like the speed of light. If the "simulator" knows that you can't ever exceed the speed of light, then it knows which parts of the universe don't need to be simulated in full detail at any given time, and so on. Same goes for quantum mechanics: it behaves differently when you're looking at it.

This is where I really start having to wonder about things, because for all that can be said, we are really just experiencing the limits of our perception of reality. Eventually despite the tools and technology we can come up with, there is going to be an end to what we can actually be able to tell directly about anything. Even if we can tell things like dark matter exist indirectly by observations of the effects of its existence (just as an example), eventually even what we can discover this way will likely become harder and harder without conceivably changing significantlyhow humans experience reality.

Similar to how many people have strikingly similar psychedelic and near death experiences. Is it really because that is the true nature of reality, or is it simply something we all experience more or less the same because we are all running on virtually the same hardware? The answer may not be the same when you pose the question in various circumstances, but I definitely believe that NDEs and psychedelic experiences on more powerful chemicals like DMT and DPT are more or less a result of all simply being human.

It is possible that we are in a simulation right now, and that our perception of free will and choice is simply programed into that simulation. This will remain a possibility until it is proven impossible. Some info about the simulation hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

The key point is what the purpose of the simulation is. If it's essential to convince the entities in it, that it's not a simulation, the one major consideration would be 'what can the entities observe or prove in theory'. In the context of humans, it would mean that the very far away objects, like those outside our solar system, could be represented by very few attribute like gravity and emissions of various kinds. There would be absolutly no reason to simulate an environment of any kind - just some properties of the effect of one.

Taken even further one could imagine a super dynamic simulation that only simulates elements that could be observed in some fashion. That is jump to the result at the time of observation rather than simulate all the processes that would have made it. In the extreme the world as we know it, could have been a day old and all physical objects and memories are only emulated to be the result of a longer millions/billions of years process. Like a 3rd person shooter just booting up

Okay, that got pretty extreme, but the point I'm trying to make is that without knowledge of the purpose of a simulation, we can't say if it's possible or not to make one (or more to the point, it would seem asburd to simulate trillions of grains of sand f.ex on a world a billion light years away, if the purpose is to make humans on earth believe in the reality in a specific way ie. scope of the simulation is directly related to the purpose of it).

Originally Posted by snoop

Similar to how many people have strikingly similar psychedelic and near death experiences. Is it really because that is the true nature of reality, or is it simply something we all experience more or less the same because we are all running on virtually the same hardware? The answer may not be the same when you pose the question in various circumstances, but I definitely believe that NDEs and psychedelic experiences on more powerful chemicals like DMT and DPT are more or less a result of all simply being human.

Well, in the case of psychedelics, it's the hardware. Most of the stuff people experience has been explained pretty well by science. Things like form constants, activation feedback loops, and so on. This article does a good (though dense) explanation of a lot of it:

Selective 5-HT2A agonist hallucinogens: A review of pharmacological interaction and corollary perceptual effects

But I still consider these experiences to be spiritual, despite their completely natural origins. I say "spiritual" in the sense that someone like Sam Harris uses the word, not the religious version. In my view, religion is actually a cheap copy of natural spirituality, but I'm rambling now...

Originally Posted by cmind

Well, in the case of psychedelics, it's the hardware. Most of the stuff people experience has been explained pretty well by science. Things like form constants, activation feedback loops, and so on. This article does a good (though dense) explanation of a lot of it:

Selective 5-HT2A agonist hallucinogens: A review of pharmacological interaction and corollary perceptual effects

But I still consider these experiences to be spiritual, despite their completely natural origins. I say "spiritual" in the sense that someone like Sam Harris uses the word, not the religious version. In my view, religion is actually a cheap copy of natural spirituality, but I'm rambling now...

I remember you posting that same page a long time ago, I don't know if I liked your post then, but I guess I will now.

Originally Posted by VinceField

It is possible that we are in a simulation right now, and that our perception of free will and choice is simply programed into that simulation. This will remain a possibility until it is proven impossible.

I liken theories like this to religious claims for God's existence. It is interesting to think about, but it isn't scientifically viable as a valid explanation of anything because it isn't falsifiable. Arguing that it is true or isn't true is a waste of time in my eyes, but coming up with the theories themselves and expounding upon them isn't. What I mean here is that it is a great creative exercise and can even lead to other discoveries, not to mention promotes thoughts on the subject of reality in general. However, to go beyond merely speculating what is clearly and can only be speculation and claim that it is factual is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by snoop

However, to go beyond merely speculating what is clearly and can only be speculation and claim that it is factual is a waste of time.

Did someone do this, or is this just a random thought?

The most useful part comes from what the possibility implies. If (it is ) all simulated, then more things can be reality then otherwise. Think of science, Star Trek envisioned cell phones,, that would exist 400 years in the future. They pictured cheap ship to shore flip phones. In no time devices were made that put that to shame. Devices will be made to shame the ones we have now. I feels like man could dream up and eventually create anything. In this philosophy, it does not need to relie on what is now, what is science and what is real. The rules can shift based on the need of the stimulation. Maybe what the scientist needs is one of those "rare earth metals?" The program may invent a principle of this rare thing that will lead to new techs.

My point is that if the world is less real than we assume, we have no reason to doubt what could happen. Could a family of ducks walk across a crowded freeway and live? Sure! Could I someday win the lotto? There is a chance. Could you someday discover the workings of human energy and enter a whole new way of experiencing life? Well????? If it is a simulation, you sure as hell can. Realizing that it is now likely even is the first step to being open to it.

This thread is very intersting stuff sorry i dont have much to contribute exept that just now its great convo to follow and ponder Thanks!

Originally Posted by VinceField

Did someone do this, or is this just a random thought?

Random thought--or a related thought, but not directed at anybody.

Originally Posted by snoop

I remember you posting that same page a long time ago, I don't know if I liked your post then, but I guess I will now.

I think I got it from someone else posting it on this forum ages ago, and I bookmarked it because it's so interesting.