Could Our Universe Just Be A Experiment?

[Mazon Del]

That's not what i'm saying. I say that if our universe is a simulation then the laws of physics of our simulated universe are just algorithms in a computer, and they'd be different than the actual laws of physics of the universe in which there is a computer that runs the simulation that is our universe.

Just as the laws of physics that we put in our simulations are different than the actual laws of physics of our universe, due to the fact that our knowledge of those laws is incomplete, and because we have to short-cut/simplify for performance reasons.

But that doesn't particularly make sense given your conclusion (that you will lose complexity). Lets say we proved to ourselves that in our universe the physics behind a ballistic trajectory (including gravity, etc) were true without a doubt and worked every time perfectly (no extra unknowns), we could type those formulas into a simulation we made and thus provide them with exactly the same set of physics governing ballistic objects.

Really what you are saying is that the people building the simulation lack perfect knowledge of their own physics and that this will translate down in the simulations. But this does not actually guarentee that the simulations below will have less complexity or information, ESPECIALLY if the above simulations are paying attention and can tweak the tiny unknowns (not, oops we forgot gravity. But like, they only put Pi in as 3.1415, and then decided later to expand it to 3.14159, but imagine 80 decimal places down the line). In fact, it is entirely possible that the simulations can GAIN complexity simply because those making the simulation would be aware they do not have a perfect understanding, and therefor they try to compensate. It is actually somewhat likely (even in the absence of runtime tweaks) that the simulations oscillate between being slightly too simple and slightly too complex as you go from one to the next.

[rkman]

What i am saying first and foremost is that a simulation can not include the computer that runs the simulation.

So if our universe is a simulation, it is run on a computer in another universe, likely with different laws of physics than ours.

At any rate, the "laws of physics" of our universe would just be 'the rules of the game' as defined by whoever created that simulation, and there could be other simulations running with different rules.

One of the things he pointed out as being very depressing about the possibility of being a simulation...

To me it is not depressing. If our universe is a simulation and if it is possible to find out, we will find out. If either our universe is not a simulaiton or there is no way to find out whether it is, then it does not matter.

Edited April 24, 2014 by rkman

[Mazon Del]

It is an interesting debate on how likely it is our physics matches the physics of the over-world, no way to resolve it though.

And I might have mis-written that quote, but he wasn't sad that we might be a simulation, he was only sad about the possibility that our physics might be so far from the over-world that there is no way we could have a situation where the code representing you rkman could be plucked from the sim and placed in a robot body in their world.

Incidentally, a fascinating thought that occured to me. It is entirely possible that our world is a simulation being run on a computer in a lesser complex universe (think 2D instead of 3D), to try and help them understand what existence would be like in a world of 3 dimensions.

[Nuke]

You are thinking in terms of conventional computers doing a brute force simulation. What could you do with a quantum computer the size of a galaxy? and if the rules of physics are different in that other universe, they could do much better.

Anyway, even if we are close to the bottom of the nested simulations, we have no idea how many levels there could be above us. It's turtles all the way up, in a way.

last thing you want is your alu to be several light-years away from your ram. you still have the speed of light to contend with, quantum or not. at the cpu's time scale, light is really really slow, even at crossing nano scale distances.

if we didnt have newtons second law, we could have a notoriously slow machine which could run forever. relevant xkcd.

cant really speculate on what the laws of physics are in what would be our parent universe if one exists. they might have a higher speed of light or dont have to worry about entropy. all i can do is ponder what kind of universe we could simulate given our hardware limitations.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Nuke

[vger]

In order to get just a drop of like, 10 orders of magnitude, you need to make a computer as complex as an entire galaxy cluster!

My point is not that a string of simulated universes, in which each universe eventually evolves intelligent lifeforms that build a supercomputer capable of simulating a universe, and so on, is impossible (but I find it VERY HIGHLY unlikely), it's just that the string wouldn't be very long, as realistically, each universe would represent a drop in complexity of MUCH MUCH MUCH more than 10 orders of magnitude. 20, 30, 40, maybe even 50 or 60 orders of magnitude seems much more likely. You quickly, VERY quickly, get the point where intelligent life is impossible.

Why is it assumed that the simulation computer needs to accurately calculate the entire universe at the same time?

Based on the assumption that our reality is a simulation (granted, this is a geocentric outlook) then just as with deities, we have to consider that this whole darned thing was created just for us, and WE are the target of the experiment.

Therefore there is no reason to accurately render other star systems or galaxies, beyond the amount of information we are able to gather with advanced telescopes. We can't use the Hubble to analyze the subatomic particles of Pluto, so there's no reason to render Pluto at that level of detail.

KSP does this kind of thing all the time by reducing the complexity of the physics calculations of any craft that we're not currently focusing on - very similar to the Schrodinger's Cat concept.

At the end of the day, even if the Universe is an experiment (I'm highly agnostic on the subject), unless we can break out of the experiment (ie like the Matrix), or, (as I seem to recall someone else on another thread postulating) you might be able to 'exploit' the simulation in certain ways, otherwise it matters very little in a practical sense to me at least - life still goes on, and it doesn't change the price of bread one iota.

Heh, for all we know, we're already learning exploits. You could make a pretty good argument that if the Alcubierre drive actually works, that it would technically be a system 'hack' because it violates Light-speed.

Also, simulation or not, I wonder how deep into the microcosm we'd have to go before we reached this universe's equivalent of 1's and 0's? There HAS to be a final level of tiny bits of matter, doesn't there? We keep finding more though. We once thought atoms was as small as it would go.

And as a little aside, quantum physics could be an interesting argument for this being a simulation. We can never accurately predict where an electron is going to be at a certain time. One has to wonder if this could actually be a feature of the system, designed to prevent us from tampering. Of course it didn't work, since we succeeded in that anyway, but security protocols in systems are never infallible. Maybe the seemingly chaotic nature of matter at the quantum level is simply an encryption algorithm that we're learning to crack.

Oh, and all of this talk about how a game could never possibly handle such things, here's a quantum leap in the right direction.

Edited April 24, 2014 by vger

[Stargate525]

Therefore there is no reason to accurately render other star systems or galaxies, beyond the amount of information we are able to gather with advanced telescopes. We can't use the Hubble to analyze the subatomic particles of Pluto, so there's no reason to render Pluto at that level of detail.

I would find it absolutely hilarious if the red-shift we see at very far distances is our simulation's equivalent of the floating point precision error.

[Bioman222]

I bet who ever created the universe is sitting at his desk, looking at it, laughing his head off after seeing this thread.

[pxi]

Heh, for all we know, we're already learning exploits. You could make a pretty good argument that if the Alcubierre drive actually works, that it would technically be a system 'hack' because it violates Light-speed.

I quite agree, and to take it a bit further; what happens if 'THEY' notice it? Do they patch the simulation?

[vger]

I quite agree, and to take it a bit further; what happens if 'THEY' notice it? Do they patch the simulation?

I would find it absolutely hilarious if the red-shift we see at very far distances is our simulation's equivalent of the floating point precision error.

LOL or alternatively, the fact that the universe appears to be expanding faster is the result of someone thinking, "Drat... they're developing long-range sensor capability sooner than we thought. We'd better tweak the expansion rate."

...and this must be why when players start whining for more content, devs release what is typically referred to as an expansion.

Edited April 25, 2014 by vger

[Stargate525]

LOL or alternatively, the fact that the universe appears to be expanding faster is the result of someone thinking, "Drat... they're developing long-range sensor capability sooner than we thought. We'd better tweak the expansion rate."

...and this must be why when players start whining for more content, devs release what is typically referred to as an expansion.

It's Frankie Boyle, so no guarantees beyond 0:30

[pxi]

It occurred to me; it would be one possible explanation for why cold fusion never seems to be reproducible.

[Bioman222]

I sort of hope this is true, as if our Developer has a soul, he will spare us and allow us to live by making the universe not be destroyed.

[lajoswinkler]

It could be... but it doesn't make a difference for us, and it's something we can't have knowledge about.

It could be that cosmos was farted into existence. Again, nothing changes for us.

[78stonewobble]

It's completely possible, but what difference would it make if it were true?

I think that's a very good point.

In the same vein... Does it matter if your feelings are "just" electro chemical processes in the brain or attached to a soul... Or, as here, just simulated. To me? Not really...

[lajoswinkler]

I think that's a very good point.

In the same vein... Does it matter if your feelings are "just" electro chemical processes in the brain or attached to a soul... Or, as here, just simulated. To me? Not really...

I'll never understand people who honestly say "just electrochemistry?"... For me, the fact that we're an analogue, chaotic program is utterly fascinating.

[78stonewobble]

I'll never understand people who honestly say "just electrochemistry?"... For me, the fact that we're an analogue, chaotic program is utterly fascinating.

Completely agree... As far as I know the brain is probably the most wonderfull and complicated thing that nature has created.

"The number of neurons, according to array tomography, a technique far more accurate than earlier microscopic methods, has shown about 200 billion neurons in the human brain with 125 trillion synapses in the cerebral cortex alone."

Edited April 25, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[astropapi1]

I just thought about this.

Could the scientists ever "spawn" a "game" character which they controlled directly? It would be like playing an incredibly complex game in which all NPCs are intelligent.

But then what could stop them from playing a bad guy? They could even bend the rules of the simulation to change the fate of their character.

What if it has already happened before?

[Albert VDS]

I sort of hope this is true, as if our Developer has a soul, he will spare us and allow us to live by making the universe not be destroyed.

An experiment is only an experiment if you let it run it's course.

[vger]

I think that's a very good point.

In the same vein... Does it matter if your feelings are "just" electro chemical processes in the brain or attached to a soul... Or, as here, just simulated. To me? Not really...

I think it depends on who you ask. It seems to me, that 'immortality' is implied in the subconscious. We are probably the only species on the planet that has figured out death is inevitable, and that is going to have a detrimental effect, at least on some people. I find 'limited existence' to be particularly demotivating. Sure, if I knew I was going to die next week, I'd do all sorts of wild things, but that's a very impractical lifestyle in the long-term when investing in life choices that can take 50+ years to mature.

The old saying is "He who dies with the most toys wins." Why the heck does that even matter since you're going to be dead?

[Mazon Del]

It could be... but it doesn't make a difference for us, and it's something we can't have knowledge about.

It could be that cosmos was farted into existence. Again, nothing changes for us.

Actually, it is something we CAN have knowledge about, there are dozens of different methods for experimentally determining that we are a simulation that are currently being explored. There is a surprising amount of money going into this.

As far as how it changes things for us, it would actually result in something of an upheaval in religious circles. Tron-like "User" worshipping could be a thing, belief that the Users are using us for an experiment, but that they are not cruel. Therefore, after you "die" your code is loaded into a simulation that represents your perfect reality. Heaven if you will.

You can also bet some amount of people will use "because we aren't real so it doesn't matter" as a justification for committing crimes or something like that. I'm not saying we'd devolve into chaos, so much as there certainly WOULD be effects if we figured it out.

[rtxoff]

Often the simplest answer is the best one so what's the problem with there is probably no simulation ?

Why there must always be some higher entity behind everything we do not understand yet?

The same pattern showing on other things too like conspiration theories where the truth is so easy to see.

But no people always going the most complicated path totaly ignoring the most obvious because life is'nt hard enough yet.

[vger]

Often the simplest answer is the best one so what's the problem with there is probably no simulation ? Why there must always be some higher entity behind everything we do not understand yet? The same pattern showing on other things too like conspiration theories where the truth is so easy to see.

Considering that we are getting wool pulled over our eyes by something every hour we're awake, is it really that surprising?

You don't even need a conspiracy theory to prove this. Just watch TV for an hour. Attempts to manipulate your mind will be happening the whole time.

[78stonewobble]

I think it depends on who you ask. It seems to me, that 'immortality' is implied in the subconscious. We are probably the only species on the planet that has figured out death is inevitable, and that is going to have a detrimental effect, at least on some people. I find 'limited existence' to be particularly demotivating. Sure, if I knew I was going to die next week, I'd do all sorts of wild things, but that's a very impractical lifestyle in the long-term when investing in life choices that can take 50+ years to mature.

The old saying is "He who dies with the most toys wins." Why the heck does that even matter since you're going to be dead?

It's subjective offcourse... Personally I think 60 years total is plenty... Eternity, imho would become boring very quickly. Atleast after only a few billion years. Sure it would be awesome to have the longevity to see ie. a supernova relatively close or life develop on a planet, but maybe not so for the trillionth time.