I (very much not a expert on any of this) agree with this. If you are in a universe, and you want to simulate a universe (of roughly equal size and detail), you will have to cut some corners, otherwise the computer will have to be bigger then the universe you are in.
But that is easy right, we do that all the time. Just compress parts of it. I mean, how close are you going to look at things anyway? Just take out all of the finest details, no-one will notice. When people describe quantum behavior everybody says it defies common sense and doesn’t behave similar to what we expect from near everything else we encounter. So imagine that when we get to that level of detail we are no longer looking at “reality” but are looking at single “pixels” of our simulation.
Now consider how much energy we are putting into quantum computing/entanglement/everything. This could all basically be a “hack” of the simulation. This incredible behavior we see and intend to exploit with quantum computers could very well be a unintended behavior.
Imagine a future where quantum tech has finally taken off, and we are really starting to use it. Unbeknownst to us the supervisors of our simulation (software, aliens, gods, whatever) are starting to notice this, and decide that this isn’t in their interest, maybe it’s even triggering some capacity warnings in the software, so they install a patch on the simulation that prevents this from happening.
Now suddenly, from one second to another our tech fails, all the experiments we’ve done on this in the past are no longer reproducible.
If anyone wants to write a sci-fi story about this, feel free, no credit to me required
Yes, that is what I said; there are currently no know “accidental” simulations. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be. If we discovered that reality was provably a simulation and that our “reality” was running on some sort of computational substrate, it would be very tempting to assume that there is a creator. As you say, we know of no accidental simulations. That would be an incorrect assumption though. Just because the only simulations we know of come through intention, that doesn’t mean that the simulation we live in wasn’t the result of some other natural process.
If reality looks like a computational process in a higher reality world, that is a different answer than “multidimensional branes hitting each other” (or whatever). You can be pedantic and argue about whether or not that is a “simulation” if that computation is process is natural process, but no one likes a pedant for good reason.
You’re attempting to define the idea of a “simulation” as “something simulated or not simulated”.
If it’s just a natural process beyond our current understanding but still a process that has no intent to simulate, it’s not a simulation, by definition, not because “we just haven’t found an exception”. That’s just the physical world we haven’t been able to model, as humans.
o.k. So this may not be relevant, but I have paranoid schizophrenia, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. My fascination with the simulation theory is 1. Why and 2 what does it mean so one digital tourism because the speed of light sets a limit on how far we can travel so simulation exists so that we can better understand the universe even if it is by a digital model. Or, the only reason I can see for simulation is that we are the equivalent of an ant farm with grand purpose. The why to me was what I thought the podcast kind of missed the point. If we are a simulation, it changes everything.
For one where the natural world has no intention, and an ambiguous morality than the simulation would be driven by purpose. In the simulation, we have a purpose, even if we exist as leisure entertainment. Our life would have an inherent shape and the potential for information loss not existing (potential of eternal life or at least continuation of useful information being stored even if it isn’t recalled regularly) If we are in a simulation at ounce the laws of existence are arbitrary in that they can change on a whim and also considering that life is a simulation means that the world we live in is the best possible ones or we are an alien ant farm which says things about the people who run the simulation. I guess what I am saying in my rambling is if God doesn’t exist, on a certain level he would be created only so far as they would have absolute judgment. On us. They have the keys to the car, and we are a chia pet that thinks it has outgrown its purpose and thinks that it has become too big to back over with a car. Again I have mental illness lol, but yeah, I am sorry I typed this, but I will post it cause it took a while to write.
A friend of mine once said to me: “I think these people who believe in the simulation hypothesis think that one day they’ll break out of it and there will be a big billboard saying, ‘Congratulations, welcome to real reality.’”
Like, this being a simulation and there being a base reality doesn’t solve a single problem that existentialist malaise driving you to seek base rality is posing, and you’re still going to die.
There was a recent thread on this so I know I’m risking repeating myself, but it makes me think of God, the Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. In it Stenger talks about the ways people attempt to prove the existence of the christian god. As long as people make claims that a god in some way interacts with reality, those claims become the domain of science. So if people say that God answers prayers you can set up a controlled experiment.
So I still end up feeling that the simulation “hypothesis” is non-falsifiable and outside the realm of science. If someone makes a specific claim about reality based on the idea that it’s a simulation, and that claim is not explained by any other, easier theory then they’ll have an actual simulation hypothesis. But to do that I think you need a meaningful theory of the ways in which base reality is different than our observed reality. It’s like asking Mario to figure out quantum physics.
I agree I like to thank of it as a fascinating thought experiment that reminds us that on every scale when confronted with deep time without an active relationship with the hypothetical people with the car keys we are always left with the problem of us as beings that can think the most profound thoughts but still have to take a dump. or put another way we have simple motivations with complex expressions. and the thought experiment of simulation theory is a chance to reframe those motivations…for a time even if they are arbitrary and not real. But I do agree with what you said in your post, and sorry if I am annoying. I just really find this topic fascinating.
they’ll break out of it and there will be a big billboard saying, ‘Congratulations, welcome to real reality.’”
Back in the 20th century when they announced a sequel to The Matrix, I really hoped Morpheus and his crew would go to Neo and say, “We think we are still stuck in a simulation, can you help us drill down deeper?” And the hovership would turn out to be a metaphorical vehicle, and their deeper reality would turn out to be even stranger…
But the Tibetan narrative that’s been playing in the background this whole time, says there is no great advantage to popping out of the simulation, its just a tool to help reduce other people’s suffering.
And lets face it, we are kinda drowning in simulations, from medical charts simulating our bodies, to medical insurance simulating our priorities, to economic simulations of our well being… this internet gadget Im using simulates the changes happening in the real world, giving me a simulated sense of being well informed.
There does seem to be a very real potential to drastically reduce human suffering, if these narratives could somehow be reconciled with each other. Imagine if our climate models were allowed to influence our economic models!
So in that sense, all this simulator sickness really does point toward a very real, possibly solvable problem. (As long as no one tries to “win” by stepping outside the model)
All religions say this reality is an illusion in one way or another*, and Nietzsche’s eternal return, the entirety of existentialism, and just plain old obsession with death all just seem like facets of the same issue. Like you mentally put your mind out into the universe and see how small you are and you stand on this sublime precipice between being one with everything and being nothing at all. What drives me crazy is that same idea that people have used for all of human history to explain why we need to be kind to one another, is invoked by Bill Barr to say why Barr should assist a lawless president in consolidating power. Which is, of course, why my life’s body of philosophy is designed to develop a robust idea of morality out of nihilism. Buy my book!**
* I’d rather think about the extent to which this statement is true and what that says about us than consider the fact that is almost certainly 100% false.
** I actually did write a book, there were about 30 copies we ran off a printing shop so you can’t buy it.
Yes, and from that perspective the whole thing just seems like a contemporary take on that age-old problem. Sort of like how Nero (apocryphally?) imaged that people were hiding behind painting on the walls, watching through the eyes while modern day people with paranoid delusions imagine hidden security cameras. We’ve got the same anxieties but different ideas of how to express them.
The most “succesful” religions (richest?) Seem to all exempt themselves from the illusion, essentially saying to their parishoners, “ignore all those liars out there, but trust this church to speak for God”
It does fascinate me, this category of untrue, or unproven ideas that confer advantages regardless of their accuracy. So having all your citizens go to the same church makes it easier to raise an army or levy taxes, or whatever, regardless of the nonsense spouted by the preacher. Having a warm fuzzy institution that’s careful with its scientific rigor, would not give it any competitive advantage, it can’t issue sweeping statements about your immortal soul.
As far as mental illness we share with ancient Rome, I wonder if there’s not a threshold of built environment we can surround ourselves with, before natural laws are overwhelmed by human laws? Global warming still seems like a tiny, debatable scientific theory to a lot of people just struggling to make the rent, and pay for medical bills.
I don’t think this necessarily limits how high we can build our environment before we lose touch with reality, so much as it sets a limit on how carelessly we can afford to build these towers before a babel event is inevitable.
