Simulated Universe, if it's True What's Next?

a reply to: Toadmund

As others have pointed out, this idea is essentially the "God Problem" rehashed with a technological bent.

I, and I suspect many others here view this as more of a philosophical debate than one rooted in science.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun
Yes, it does tend to boil down to the modern perspective of people looking for a programmer, ie 'god'.
And praying is asking for a snippet of code to be 're-written', which it never is.

Reality is real, atoms prove that pretty well, even though it's 99%+ empty space.
Reality is fascinating enough, we don't have to make stuff up like it was lifted from a comic book.

a reply to: Cuervo

A game within a game is not a true simulation. The game itself is a simulation, but the game is not simulating the game inside of it. It was intelligently designed to do so by it's developer and is therefore not a true simulation, but another aspect of the overall simulation. If the game was self aware and created the game inside itself, then it could logically be considered a simulation as the game is trying to recreate itself. This leads to the assumption that a simulation then needs an intelligent design in order to exist. I.E., how can something simulate something else without being aware of it in the first place?

All simulations require an original to simulate. This begs the question of what is the original thing we are simulating, if in fact we are living in a simulation? I don't think anyone can truly answer that.

originally posted by: Septimus
a reply to: Cuervo

A game within a game is not a true simulation. The game itself is a simulation, but the game is not simulating the game inside of it. It was intelligently designed to do so by it's developer and is therefore not a true simulation, but another aspect of the overall simulation. If the game was self aware and created the game inside itself, then it could logically be considered a simulation as the game is trying to recreate itself. This leads to the assumption that a simulation then needs an intelligent design in order to exist. I.E., how can something simulate something else without being aware of it in the first place?

All simulations require an original to simulate. This begs the question of what is the original thing we are simulating, if in fact we are living in a simulation? I don't think anyone can truly answer that.

That's just narrowing down the definition of the word "simulation". So, basically, if a simulation (on it's own) created another simulation without prompting from the creator of the original simulation, then that would count? But you don't count simulations inside of simulations as "simulations" if they were both created by the same source?

I guess we'll find out in about 10 years or so. Or... just look around since it might be what we are doing right now.

a reply to: Toadmund

Of course, but discussing the possibility is a fun thing to do! it encourages folks to step outside their comfort zone and consider an alternate point of view, if only for a moment.

I love thoughtful discussions such as this. Keeps the ol' grey matter tuned up.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Toadmund

As others have pointed out, this idea is essentially the "God Problem" rehashed with a technological bent.

I, and I suspect many others here view this as more of a philosophical debate than one rooted in science.

This is just wrong on several levels.

First off, materialist have to accept the fact that quantum mechanics has opened the door to philosophy and metaphysics. You can yell quantum woo all you want to but that's just the dying words of a materialist paradigm.

Secondly, the very foundation of the simulated universe isn't philosophy but computation. These aren't any pie in the sky ideas trying to replace god. We're talking about real computation that can simulate a universe like ours down to the quark level.

These things are not hard to grasp especially in this day and age of quantum computers, supercomputers and just look at the graphics for games and future virtual environments.

Eventually, there will be more simulated consciousness then there's real consciousness. All you have to do is look at computation today and extrapolate it out 50 to 100 years from now. This also begs the question, what's "real" consciousness.

The only simulation is the "soul". No such thing exists. All "you/I/We" know have been taught and experiences. What exists is a brain that has been programmed to think that it is independently of nature. Humanity is no different that any other life-form that occupies this reality/existence/realm. We never existed...we are born...we are taught awareness...we die...we no longer exists.

"Awareness" once taught to the brain will always persists from human to human and it is that awareness that is eternal and universal. No singularity....everything is everything...everyone is everyone.......

a reply to: neoholographic

But we're not arguing consciousness, we're arguing reality itself. What you suggest, about being able to simulate our own universe down to the quark level is preposterous. In order to do that, we would need a way to have ALL of the information about our universe known. Which is impossible, as knowing everything about the universe would require a computer either bigger than our universe, our outside of the universe.

Yes, quantum computers are becoming a reality, but dimensional computers are still science fiction. You're overestimating by a long shot the computational abilities of quantum computers. On the issue of consciousness, I look forward to the day that I can upload myself to the internet. Would I be considered a consciousness after that, or simply a sophisticated AI? That's up to governments to classify. I am what I am, synthetic or not.

a reply to: AnteBellum

My thoughts:

Yes, reality is like a holograph. Is the universe holographic? Who knows....but it is resonable facsimile. That said, you cannot "hack" reality.

The real beauty of the universe (or reality, or nature, or whatever you want to call it) is that its a balanced system. Meaning that the relationships between everything balances. If you change the speed of light, you change all other relationships and risk unravelling reality. A universal blue screen ensues.

Even deeper of a beauty is that the universe uses a fractal construction method, where similar concepts are utilized over and over across "things". Meaning, the shapes you see in interstellar gas are also seen in weather patterns, and biological matter. Because of the fractal nature of the design of the universe, it is almost like the universe wasn't instructed on how to make anything. Instead, it was instructed on how to just know how to make things. DNA is an exquisite example of this.

The primary hurdle to "divine intervention" or hacking reality is "The Universal Law of Consequence". This is what forbids magic from really taking place, as a general rule. Nothing happens without something causing it to happen. Action begets reaction.

That said.....the real magic is in knowing how to cause actions that create predictable reactions The only "hack" is to know the nature of a system well enough that you can create novel use out of a predictable result of that system. A good example of this is the "natural leader", who understands the nature of his teams individuals well enough that he can cause them to do things that they believe were their own idea.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun


You just admitted that we live in a simulation. You said:

In order to do that, we would need a way to have ALL of the information about our universe known. Which is impossible, as knowing everything about the universe would require a computer either bigger than our universe, our outside of the universe.

First off, quantum computers could simulate a universe like ours and these things have been calculated.

Secondly, we will not need to know ALL information about the universe in order to simulate the universe. Knowing ALL information about the universe may be impossible as you say which implies we're currently living in a simulation because ALL of the information about our universe can't be known. We can try to figure ALL of the information needed in order to simulate our universe and it's so good of a simulation that simulated beings will not know the difference because the simulated beings have no idea of ALL the information needed to simulate a universe.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Septimus

I sometimes wonder if we at some point tried to save humanity by locking it in a supercomputer and sending it to another place to someday tell the tale of our history and existence also.

Your and this are all valid point I might add. I really could be anything behind that universal curtain.
Thank you, that was thought provoking.

Or maybe we had already blown ourselves up in the ancient past. All that is now, is a super galatic computer simulation we built for ourselves.

Most favorite topic to consider because it has certain hallmarks that warrant further consideration.

a reply to: Cuervo

I guess the question to ask is whether the game that is created by the game is also self aware, enough so to question what made it. If the game we create is capable of questioning what made it, then I suppose it would technically be able to make a simulation of itself. I don't think we can really answer whether that game within a game is self aware or not. That's the same concept of having a screenshot of a monitor that is a screenshot of the same monitor going on forever. It's not something we can observe. I don't think we're capable of making such a game yet either. That would be tantamount to creating a whole new reality.

a reply to: Cuervo

But how would an infinite regression make it illogical? Just because it's different? And, besides, an infinite regression isn't something that would even be likely nor required for this to work; you are only talking about the possibility of it. If you think it's illogical, then just hedge your bets on the possibility of there being a finite regression, instead.

To me, any conclusion that this comes to is "logical" because that's where it leads. You are always where you are, no matter how illogical the place is.

“Just because it’s different?” I don’t understand.

It is illogical because an infinite regress has no justification or cause. In other words, there would be nothing to simulate.

As far as a simulation within a simulation, just look at any game with another game inside it. Or how your computer has a DOS emulator in it. How is that not an enclave simulation? We've been doing that for ages.

Could a character in a game, or a Sim, create a simulation within the one they are already in?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Septimus

I sometimes wonder if we at some point tried to save humanity by locking it in a supercomputer and sending it to another place to someday tell the tale of our history and existence also.

Your and this are all valid point I might add. I really could be anything behind that universal curtain.
Thank you, that was thought provoking.

Or maybe we had already blown ourselves up in the ancient past. All that is now, is a super galatic computer simulation we built for ourselves.

Most favorite topic to consider because it has certain hallmarks that warrant further consideration.

Hmmm... that paints a very romantic and epic picture.

A unique species whose continual survival is dependent on a series of simulations that give birth to more simulations, one after the other, to continue the chain since, in each one, they follow the same path of destruction they did in the previous ones. The entire species could be nothing more than a nano-collective of uploaded cloud computing floating around in star dust in a long-forgotten star system.

Sort of like some spiritual nature preserve. Man, what a book that would make.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Cuervo

But how would an infinite regression make it illogical? Just because it's different? And, besides, an infinite regression isn't something that would even be likely nor required for this to work; you are only talking about the possibility of it. If you think it's illogical, then just hedge your bets on the possibility of there being a finite regression, instead.

To me, any conclusion that this comes to is "logical" because that's where it leads. You are always where you are, no matter how illogical the place is.

“Just because it’s different?” I don’t understand.

It is illogical because an infinite regress has no justification or cause. In other words, there would be nothing to simulate.

As far as a simulation within a simulation, just look at any game with another game inside it. Or how your computer has a DOS emulator in it. How is that not an enclave simulation? We've been doing that for ages.

Could a character in a game, or a Sim, create a simulation within the one they are already in?

I see what you are saying now. The notion of "infinity" is so far out of a possibility that I guess I just translate any reference to "infinity" to "nearly infinite". Shame on me. In any case, yeah... that wouldn't make sense but I don't think that would be the case and there would have to be, somewhere down the line, an original. I suppose that could be us but what are the odds?

As far as a Sim creating a simulation, again, I understand the distinction now. That is something that will likely happen soon. It seems like a logical progression step for artificial intelligence to take.

a reply to: Cuervo

Dibs on book rights. Already got a title:

"Our Regressive Realities"

a reply to: Cuervo

I see what you are saying now. The notion of "infinity" is so far out of a possibility that I guess I just translate any reference to "infinity" to "nearly infinite". Shame on me. In any case, yeah... that wouldn't make sense but I don't think that would be the case and there would have to be, somewhere down the line, an original. I suppose that could be us but what are the odds?

No shame on you, friend. You made a good point. I agreed with you, but since the argument is one of logic, the rules of logic applied.

As far as a Sim creating a simulation, again, I understand the distinction now. That is something that will likely happen soon. It seems like a logical progression step for artificial intelligence to take.

The problem here is, if the sims created a simulation, it is because we programmed them to do so. If this outcome is the result of our programming, and not theirs, it is not a new or separate simulation then the one they are already a part of.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


The problem here is, if the sims created a simulation, it is because we programmed them to do so. If this outcome is the result of our programming, and not theirs, it is not a new or separate simulation then the one they are already a part of.

Couldn't the same be said about us? I mean, we are all living through filters of chemistry and programming. We have free will, sure, but we are products of limited programming (even a strict evolutionist can agree with that) and must create within those boundaries. With our limitations, inhibitions, and compulsions, it would be hard to pinpoint what makes humanity unique when compared to the advanced AI we will inevitably have someday. Both AI and humanity would share the same hallmarks of created autonomy.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


You said:

The problem here is, if the sims created a simulation, it is because we programmed them to do so. If this outcome is the result of our programming, and not theirs, it is not a new or separate simulation then the one they are already a part of.

This isn't the case. They would have simulated consciousness so their consciousness wouldn't be any more programmed than our consciousness unless our consciousness is programmed by those who simulated us.

Since they will have simulated consciousness, they will be free to do what they want to do if it's not outside of the physical laws we program into the simulation and again, the same thing can be said for us.

a reply to: AnteBellum

I've enjoyed reading the contributors to and of physics hereabouts. Since reading Penrose and Hammeroff's information, that plants contain microtubules just like our brains do which vibrate to certain frequencies, and actually take what's called a "quantum walk," during photosynthesis, I've begun thinking about the universe, entirely, as one living organism, with different parts, descending in order (or ascending, whichever way you order it) from macro to micro scale….but all of the parts of the same consciousness.

Consciousness is a tricky business….we try to define it, encompass it, so we can hold it in our hands and then rebuild it….that's what science and philosophy for hundreds of years has tried to pin down. Where is it, what is it, how does it work, etc.

And how does it fit into the simulation/holographic universe concept of life here, because that seems to me to be the big question here: How does consciousness fit into the puzzle of the simulation? Is it a discreet to each person attribute that's just connected to everything else, to what degree is that connection, or is it just one consciousness everyone shares---the hive mind concept.

I think that's a big challenge and test in and of this place, which does appear to be a simulation overlay. One thing that I see us losing more every day are the fine distinctions to things, which is ultimately extremely important. The fine distinctions or degrees of concrete realities (facts) are really what defines everything: words, concepts, facts, and thus informs our lives and living. An example of this is that it's possible that there is simulated reality here, but overlaying a solid earth. And we may be connected to a degree, consciously, but that doesn't mean we have lost our individuality….

I certainly feel everyday that I am living through a scripted reality, where everything has been planned for its execution (in the sense of an act carried out and completed.) It can be a special kind of hell if you know it doesn't matter what you do….the ending and the middle will always be the same.
I don't think people realize the implications of the holographic universe, being what they are, the necessary logical conclusion to that is that there is a controller, and most, if not all, of what we are doing every day is finely tuned and controlled, within a simulated existence where we aren't even given to know it was where we were…whether we are "alive" or something closer to …say, a virus?