there is this theory that in an endless or nearly universe, it is basically given, that some species will invent a computer that is capable of simulating an universe, which in turn will have a simulation going, because the same rules apply
My main gripe with simulation theory is that this claim just seems… false.
First off, it’s not possible to create a simulation of equal complexity to the host universe, so each iteration would necessarily have to be smaller, and I would contend significantly so.
Even the wildest theoretical computers can’t even simulate Earth, much less the universe.
Chances are that we’re not in a simulation, but you’re right that for our universe to be simulated, the host universe would need fundamentally different physics.
Even then, I feel like you’re underestimating the scale of the universe. Dwarf Fortress is laughably simple compared to a real universe. It’s a toy. You’d need something more than a couple extra dimensions for our universe to be at all comparable to that.
There are a couple tricks one could use like having some parts of the simulation skip steps in less important areas, simulating different parts at different times in the host world and only syncing them back together when necessary, which would end up being invisible to those inside, as well as the simulation not running in real time, where it might be running slower or inconsistently in the host world, while inside the people see it as stable and not slow.
Not that I’m claiming it’s true; it’s simply an interesting thing to think about and ways around processing speed issues. If humanity ever makes a simulation of even a small universe, I imagine some of these tricks that are smoothed over in that universe would be used, since it can look messy from the outside but look normal on the inside.
You’re, of course, right about simulation speed not necessarily having to match host universe speed, but an issue you can run into is that your universe experiences heat death before anything interesting happens in the simulation.
I’m extremely skeptical of in-universe physics hacks not being observable. What does it mean for an area to be less important when we can look up at the sky and observe tiny little photons from the beginning of time (almost)?
I mean more that things people in a simulation can’t observe with great detail yet won’t be simulated with great detail until they can see that kind of detail, and by then, I assume technological advancements in the host world would have improved hardware to run on that allows that kind of detail to be simulated in a reasonable amount of time. Plus there’s also the ability of the host world to edit the simulation so that things that weren’t simulated in great detail when observed by people in the simulation before retroactively was changed, so that people inside always were able to see things in great detail in their memory, history, and other forms of knowledge from their points of view, but from the outside, things inside were changed minimally to make them consistent with any retroactive simulation conflicts. Not in a dystopian way, mind you, just in ways like “this very star was actually always a few light years away from its current position in the sky”, like small technical details that are smoothed over in the internal history as seen by the simulation inhabitants to match up with other parts of the simulation.
In our world that is the case but even in video games of today we have world building to make things more interesting like how you can shoot fireballs out of your hands while in real life you can’t the blokes simulating us probably just thought a word where you can’t have a simulation replicate itself as more interesting than their world really because we only have this plane of existence it’s hard to say what other universes would look like and thus simulation theory is more of a shower thought analyzing a question that has a sample size of 1
A common argument for simulation relies on infinitely nested simulations to conclude that the probability of being in the real universe is virtually zero.
What I’m pointing out is that the infinite simulations premise is nonsense.
Yeah, this theory is not airtight even without me cutting corners in the explanation to keep it brief.
I imagine you can fix the holes with some thinking and speculation, but then again, does it really matter if you are just a “NPC” I mean for everyone else you are, but to yourself it’s only you who can answer that.
I can’t look into your head and you can’t look into mine (metaphorically speaking) so we can only give each other the benefit of doubt.
I suppose our universe is a simulation it’s probably possible that the devs could see exactly what we are thinking but considering evolution it’s possible living things in general weren’t intended our universe could probably be a simple dirt simulator and some bug in the engine made it possible for a specific explosion in a specific place accidentally made these special dirts to combine and create these slime contraptions that started to make themselves more and more complex and now they are combined into rigid structures that are exploiting the light and material ripple functions to interact with one another and the devs are just watching this bug and seeing how complicated it gets
Note: reading my comment back this sounds like a gag from hitch hikers guide to the galaxy
My main gripe with simulation theory is that this claim just seems… false.
First off, it’s not possible to create a simulation of equal complexity to the host universe, so each iteration would necessarily have to be smaller, and I would contend significantly so.
Even the wildest theoretical computers can’t even simulate Earth, much less the universe.
Chances are whatever dimension is hosting our Universe server, is probably 4th or 5th dimensional.
Sorta how we can make a detailed 2D simulation like Dwarf Fortress. Our 3D universe might as well be somebody’s Super Nintendo.
Chances are that we’re not in a simulation, but you’re right that for our universe to be simulated, the host universe would need fundamentally different physics.
Even then, I feel like you’re underestimating the scale of the universe. Dwarf Fortress is laughably simple compared to a real universe. It’s a toy. You’d need something more than a couple extra dimensions for our universe to be at all comparable to that.
To be completely honest, dwarf fortress is way more complex then tic-tac-toe.
Compared to a universe, they’re equally complex.
Tic tac toe is on the order of 10^2 bytes.
The Dwarf Fortress install is 10^8.
The number of particles in our universe? 10^80
There are a couple tricks one could use like having some parts of the simulation skip steps in less important areas, simulating different parts at different times in the host world and only syncing them back together when necessary, which would end up being invisible to those inside, as well as the simulation not running in real time, where it might be running slower or inconsistently in the host world, while inside the people see it as stable and not slow.
Not that I’m claiming it’s true; it’s simply an interesting thing to think about and ways around processing speed issues. If humanity ever makes a simulation of even a small universe, I imagine some of these tricks that are smoothed over in that universe would be used, since it can look messy from the outside but look normal on the inside.
You’re, of course, right about simulation speed not necessarily having to match host universe speed, but an issue you can run into is that your universe experiences heat death before anything interesting happens in the simulation.
I’m extremely skeptical of in-universe physics hacks not being observable. What does it mean for an area to be less important when we can look up at the sky and observe tiny little photons from the beginning of time (almost)?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232062849_Constraints_on_the_Universe_as_a_Numerical_Simulation
I mean more that things people in a simulation can’t observe with great detail yet won’t be simulated with great detail until they can see that kind of detail, and by then, I assume technological advancements in the host world would have improved hardware to run on that allows that kind of detail to be simulated in a reasonable amount of time. Plus there’s also the ability of the host world to edit the simulation so that things that weren’t simulated in great detail when observed by people in the simulation before retroactively was changed, so that people inside always were able to see things in great detail in their memory, history, and other forms of knowledge from their points of view, but from the outside, things inside were changed minimally to make them consistent with any retroactive simulation conflicts. Not in a dystopian way, mind you, just in ways like “this very star was actually always a few light years away from its current position in the sky”, like small technical details that are smoothed over in the internal history as seen by the simulation inhabitants to match up with other parts of the simulation.
In our world that is the case but even in video games of today we have world building to make things more interesting like how you can shoot fireballs out of your hands while in real life you can’t the blokes simulating us probably just thought a word where you can’t have a simulation replicate itself as more interesting than their world really because we only have this plane of existence it’s hard to say what other universes would look like and thus simulation theory is more of a shower thought analyzing a question that has a sample size of 1
There are people who seriously believe that we’re in a simulation.
It just means that our universe is extremely simplified compared to our host universe.
A common argument for simulation relies on infinitely nested simulations to conclude that the probability of being in the real universe is virtually zero.
What I’m pointing out is that the infinite simulations premise is nonsense.
If you’re dealing with a bunch of Jerrys you can step the complexity down to 5% with no noticeable effect.
I assume you’re referencing that children’s cartoon with the drunk scientist
I wouldn’t recommend it for children, but if you fit absurdism into a box and call it for kids because you don’t like it, then yeah.
I’m a bit lost can someone fill me in on what cartoon y’all are talking about
Rick and Morty
Touchy
Yeah, this theory is not airtight even without me cutting corners in the explanation to keep it brief.
I imagine you can fix the holes with some thinking and speculation, but then again, does it really matter if you are just a “NPC” I mean for everyone else you are, but to yourself it’s only you who can answer that. I can’t look into your head and you can’t look into mine (metaphorically speaking) so we can only give each other the benefit of doubt.
I suppose our universe is a simulation it’s probably possible that the devs could see exactly what we are thinking but considering evolution it’s possible living things in general weren’t intended our universe could probably be a simple dirt simulator and some bug in the engine made it possible for a specific explosion in a specific place accidentally made these special dirts to combine and create these slime contraptions that started to make themselves more and more complex and now they are combined into rigid structures that are exploiting the light and material ripple functions to interact with one another and the devs are just watching this bug and seeing how complicated it gets Note: reading my comment back this sounds like a gag from hitch hikers guide to the galaxy