Shower thoughts removed: What if we are living in a sophisticated simulation?

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

That's a pretty cavalier dismissal of the very real possibility that none of those things actually exist and that it's all a holographic projection of an n-dimensional space inside a massive black hole.

Who says we actually exist and are not some vast computer simulation called SimEarth? Oh, wait, maybe we are just a simulation... 

Oh, snap! That means life really is but a dream...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimEarth

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Who says we actually exist and are not some vast computer simulation called SimEarth?

Take a hammer and hit your watch/clock.

If this is a simulation, you will see nothing but polygons.

The only simulation, able to get deeper and deeper is called "reality".

In the Odyssey'2001 last chapter, there is a scene where he is living in a room constructed by the aliens, who had no idea about the books, so the books are actually cans with powder (?).

[Hotel26]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

If this is a simulation, you will see nothing but polygons.

Had to hunt for a "watch/clock" but found a dusty old heirloom amongst my wife's possessions in the attic.

Followed instructions with the hammer.  Nothing but triangles...  (The sound was deafening and monotonal; quite alarming, really.)  Did I hit it TOO hard?

But why, if this were a simulation, simulate BVM^[1] such as we are producing right now, hmm??

Spoiler

[1] bovine fecal material

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Hotel26

[kerbiloid]

30 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Not to nitpick, but if your computer can't render a convincingly detailed smashed clock, it's probably from the early 2000s.

To simulate something, it should first have a model what to simulate.

And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... 

To simulate any level, you should have models of objects on any level.

Thta's what is the reality. Any other simulation is limited with some final level of detalization.

Ask a jinn to create a working clock. Will it be a mechanism or a medal with painted dial?

So, while you can get deeper and deeper into any thing, you can't say for sure that it is a simulation. And by default, it's the reality.

[Bej Kerman]

19 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... And on the deeper level... 

That's what LODs are for and that's why computers can simulate areas the size of the Universe.

19 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Thta's what is the reality. Any other simulation is limited with some final level of detalization.

Get with the times, LODs have been a thing for decades

Computers can simulate molecules, computers can simulate planets and the greater structure of the Universe, computers can simulate the way light behaves, and it's theoretically possible to simulate a brain. It's not a stretch to say there's nothing stopping a civilisation centuries or millennia ahead of us from simulating reality.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Hotel26]

28 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

there's nothing stopping a civilisation centuries or millennia ahead of us from simulating reality.

Pure conjecture is like pure heroin.  Gets up your nose. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Hotel26

[kerbiloid]

22 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's what LODs are for and that's why computers can simulate areas the size of the Universe.

First a mathematical description of the physical model should be created, to let them have what to show.

Otherwise the next level will be either empty, or random and thus not related to the previous and the next next level.

The reality is the ultimate set of possible states of all existing physical models. It's the ultimate level of simulation.

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Computers can simulate molecules

But they can't simulate what's inside the proton, until you define a mathematical model for that.

26 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

computers can simulate planets

Yes. Limitedly. They can't simulate zillions of atoms, the planet consist of.
The reality can. Because its hardware is the whole universe, and the same universe is a code for that.

No Matrix would emulate bacteria and quarks, when the purpose is to let them live in a virtual life.

Because its hardware resources are limited.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Yes. Limitedly. They can't simulate zillions of atoms, the planet consist of.

They can with LODs.

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

They can with LODs.

If the LODs are previously made able to provide this. 

[TheSaint]

1 hour ago, Hotel26 said:

Had to hunt for a "watch/clock" but found a dusty old heirloom amongst my wife's possessions in the attic.

This would be the perfect test of the simulation hypothesis. If we were living in a simulation, and I were to select some random old heirloom from among my wife's possessions and smash it, I'm 100% certain the Doom music would kick in.

[Kerbart]

2 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

This would be the perfect test of the simulation hypothesis. If we were living in a simulation, and I were to select some random old heirloom from among my wife's possessions and smash it, I'm 100% certain the Doom music would kick in.

No no no, that doesn't proof anything. The question is when the Doom Music sets in. At the moment you smash the heirlooms (sim)? Or at the moment you're telling her you did it to prove we're living in a simulation?

[Bej Kerman]

16 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

If the LODs are previously made able to provide this. 

Or generated.

[Hotel26]

26 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

At the moment you smash the heirlooms (sim)? Or at the moment you're telling her you did it to prove we're living in a simulation?

Or c) before you do the damn-fool thing with the hammer!  (Or d) before you even think it...)

I don't know which of the three simulations you are living in, but that Doom music is pre-emptive in mine.  Some kind of Sixth Sense (yes, I see dead people (resembling myself)) plays before I entertain any such kind of damn fool nonsense..  ymmv.

[kerbiloid]

43 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Or generated.

Then the generation algorithm must be defined.
I.e. in any case the simulation has limited depth of prepared emulation levels. Only the universe-wide presets can provide a model for any level without preparation. And this unique universe-wide simulation is called reality.

Edited December 1, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Bej Kerman]

36 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

in any case the simulation has limited depth of prepared emulation levels. Only the universe-wide presets can provide a model for any level without preparation.

Define "with/out preparation"

[kerbiloid]

43 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Define "with/out preparation"

If take a microscope and watch a drop of dirty water, you'll see microbes.
If take Skyrim with Hi-Res mods, you will see either polygons, or internal space of the object.

Because in the world around the bacteria, the atoms, the quarks, etc. have been existed before you took the microscope, while the hardware to run Skyrim has limited capabilities, so the designer is limited in detalization. No bacteria, no atoms, only polygons, until somebody adds a microbe mod.

The universe contains a full set of possible details from scratch, and the FPS doesn't fall, thanks to its parallel architecture.

So, while originally you don't know if there is a simulation or a reality around, with every next level of detalization the probability of the latter is growing.
Asymptotically, you come to the holographic universe, where all possible states have already been rendered, thus it provides infinite FPS.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Because in the world around the bacteria, the atoms, the quarks, etc. have been existed before you took the microscope, while the hardware to run Skyrim has limited capabilities, so the designer is limited in detalization. No bacteria, no atoms, only polygons, until somebody adds a microbe mod.

Well hardware isn't a problem for the intents and purposes of our future civilisation. Let's say we're running this on a Matrioshka brain.

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The universe contains a full set of possible details from scratch, and the FPS doesn't fall, thanks to its parallel architecture.

How do you know those bacteria existed before you looked at them?

[Bej Kerman]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

No people reported that they can see only polygons in the microscope

Why wouldn't the simulation be capable of rendering bacteria the moment one looks under the microscope?

15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

In any case, one can't preset the whole universe in the emulation, until the emulation asymptotically reaches the universe complexity level.

Why not?

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why wouldn't the simulation be capable of rendering bacteria the moment one looks under the microscope?

Why not?

well that prove it's a simulation. I mean in reality I simply couldn't be that things are different just because they're being observed. That'd be crazy. I'd be able to come up with a thought experiment showing that you can have a cat in a box that's both alive and dead (the cat, not the box). That's how crazy it is. No sane scientist would accept that as reality.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Kerbart

[SunlitZelkova]

You guys are forgetting that “the limitations of simulation and computers” may just be a facet of the simulation to trick you into thinking there is no simulation.

Also I vote to have this split into the “simulation discussion thread” in the Science & Spaceflight section 

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why wouldn't the simulation be capable of rendering bacteria the moment one looks under the microscope?

If the bacteria simulation is defined before the rendering.

Why not presume that whales are birds? Science is based on observed facts. While no fact about the bird nature of the whales is on table, the current iteration of their understanding is that whales are fishes mammal fishes.

Until you see the polygons instead of subquarks, you don't have solid reasons to doubt that this simulation is the ultimate one, i.e. reality.

10 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why not?

Not what? The universe is a CD-R with superposition of all possible states already pre-rendered. You can just read it.

Edited December 2, 2023 by kerbiloid

[Bej Kerman]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If the bacteria simulation is defined before the rendering.

Or, you know, generated

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Until you see the polygons instead of subquarks,

Why would distant future civilizations go to the effort of building a 100% convincing simulation... and program the AI to generate polygons at the subatomic level instead of quarks?

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

you don't have solid reasons to doubt that this simulation is the ultimate one, i.e. reality.

I'm not saying we live in a simulation, I'm saying if we did there's likely no way to tell as long as the civilisation was competent and not telling the AI "yeah, make everything consistent with reality. Except quarks, just put polygons there instead, cause reasons".

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

generated

Any generation is based either or a predefined algorithm, or a precalculated table.

I.e. there is no such thing as generation. There is only an expanded preset.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why would distant future civilizations go to the effort of building a 100% convincing simulation... and program the AI to generate polygons at the subatomic level instead of quarks?

1. There is no such thing as "future". It's just a set of pre-rendered assets, associated with t+dt position on the time axis.

2. Every next level of simulation requires by many orders of magnitude more resources to implement. Imagine Fallout with molecular level detalization..
And you must store and update the info about all objects already resolved at your eyes, so the detalization level depth is by definition limited.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm not saying we live in a simulation

I do. We live. 
And it's the ultimate level of simulation, the so-called reality.

[DDE]

There are questions that are best not asked, not the least because any answer wouldn't be helpful.

On 12/1/2023 at 7:11 AM, adsii1970 said:

Who says we actually exist and are not some vast computer simulation called SimEarth?

Because the usual Sims player minmaxes character moods at all times, and the result looks awfully like this:

Spoiler

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Just a shower thought after watching this video...

Are the obligatory smiles built-in facial property, or they are scripted on handling the events?