why we don't live in a computer simulation

If the current likely hood is 0.002%, and it went up 5,000% (50 times) the new likely hood would be 0.1%. Basic learning theories explain how we acquire idealized concepts, which basically eliminates the Argument from Degree. Only conservative Christians pseudo science uses that premise since we can't prove for example God doesn't exist. If we are in a simulation, could ever know for certain? That or we need to rethink many of our basic assumptions of physics. GETTY Look for glitches in the matrix Thus the size of storage (w. Unlike simulations of, say, climate, the universe being a simulation requires that every aspect of everything be quantified and that those quantities be stored in some manner. The quinque viæ is a collection of weak arguments. We need more layoffs to break your delusion. The problem comes when a theory such as this is "abused" as it were to justify a whole bunch of metaphysical claptrap. Maybe, maybe not. New documentary A Glitch in the Matrix asks the question, but fails to give a serious answer ... which is the idea that our entire reality is an artificial computer simulation, ... and the establishment Democrats don’t … We're all probably trapped in a "Matrix"-like pseudoexistence, SpaceX chief Elon Musk said early Friday (Sept. 7) during a long, wide-ranging and very entertaining appearance on … Bostrom's primary argument for being in a simulation boils down to the observation that it is very likely that an advanced civilization would have the ability to run very accurate simulations. then none of her speed concerns are valid. Not sure why you were modded down. And they would use emacs to edit the source. How did you deal with the correlation and exchange between the two electrons? The problem comes when a theory such as this is "abused" as it were to justify a whole bunch of metaphysical claptrap. If the laws of physics are simulated badly enough that we can notice, then they aren't doing an effective ancestor simulation, so the objection here doesn't make sense. I imagine that, for any sufficiently well designed/implemented simulation, proving the case either way may be impossible. The thing I object to with theories like the holographic and other, similar speculations, is that they take the quantum mechanical view as dogma and assume without argument, that general relativity must somehow be derived from that - that gravity must be "quantised". Because it's easier to simulate a single brain and its input than it is to simulate Life, the Universe and Everything, my thinking is that the overwhelming number of simulations will be of individual brains. But there are physical limitations to computational density and mathematically intractable problems (like the many-body problem) that don't go away no matter how many iterations of Moore's law that you throw at them. If you're wealthier than your fellow Christians, it doesn't mean that you're better than they are because God "blessed" you more. None like the various religions depict, at least. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world. There is no conclusive proof, but there is plenty of evidence that the universe is a simulation. Occam's razor does not say anything about proof.And the scientific principle isn't about proving anything, but providing ways of falsification, and still not being able to disprove. It is far worse than that because unless we find the programmer(s) (or possibly a bug/exploit!) Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at … It is inefficient, of course, but efficiency plays no role in Hossenfelder's argument. The researchers, led by Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi, arrived at this conclusion by observing a novel link between gravitational anomalies and computational complexity. It’s Not Actually Possible to Prove We’re Not Living in a Simulation. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all. The only difference between what you describe and what these "simulation" theorists are is who their god is. It is, in fact, impossible to prove a negative, so asking people who say we're probably not in a simulation for evidence is literally asking for the impossible: it is always possible to say "well, the simulation must just be slightly better than any of our observations!" I've been working on it for the last 14 billion years, and I think it's pretty awesome. Lorentz transforms are trivial to simulate. Just like a pair of VR glasses doesn't have to simulate more than I can see. Is it to be similar to Conway's "Life", in which case why build something so convoluted, and why cheat as apparently the programmer did with 2 and 3? It is simple, brilliant, and is not challenged by these wacky theories. Sign in. “If our physicists use experiments to prove we live in a simulation, and they tell everyone about this and that has a large effect on how our civilization behaves,” he explained, “then our simulation would no longer be useful for answering questions about the basement [foundational] level of reality, which contains the computers doing the simulations. Due to limited computational resources, the simulated universe would be granular or "quantum". Or whether we're living in a computer simulation, something proposed by Swedish philosopher. Physics has already chipped away at the First Mover and Uncaused Cause. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead. I can't disprove that either, so in lack of an ability to do anything either way, I take the simpler approach and reject the notion until further data becomes available. She falls into the same trap that most do who think about this problem -- that the super-universe in which our simulation is embedded has physics anything like what is being simulated for us (or with us as a side effect.). It’s physically impossible — and they only attempted to model a portion of the physical universe.Click to View Full Infographic. Trademarks property of their respective owners. She and other simulation-sceptics probably have had a mind-manipulating intervention done by our Simulator, as an attempt to hide the fact that we do live in one.I find it more probable that we do live in one. It isn't even a theory though, as there isn't anything to support it. But even that need not be the ultimate reality. These issues cannot be waved away as a "complexity" problem; these equations have existed since before digital computers and the solutions for non-trivial problems still allude us. This discussion has been archived. You dream, don't you? Either way, I'm sure she'll feel better about all this when she wakes up in her bed after a good night's sleep... Sabine Hossenfelder is conflating "living in a simulation" and "spacetime is discrete". Granted Newton's Laws were also found to be wrong outside of a limited domain and break when applied to the very very large, small or fast. Everything which religious fundamentalists explain as "god creating it that way" a simulation can explain by "the programmer(s) creating it that way" and QM is not a problem in that, I feel the same way about string theory, though one thing string theory has produced is some pretty useful mathematical tools, Well, string theory at least starts out along the same lines as Einstein's work with Kaluza and Klein, which I think gives it some credibility, although it is still largely speculative. All of these are actually true in our universe, ergo, we are very likely a simulation. She says that since we know for a fact that our two current theories (that is, quantum mechanics and relativity) do not match up, we have no idea how complicated an actual simulation of our universe would be since we don't know the actual rules that control it. Just like there’s no proof that you’re not living a simulation, since the reality of our world could be simulated. To my surprise, I learned here today that the notion started with a philosopher. We’ve heard from a number of scientists and thought leaders, including Elon Musk, it’s likely we’re living in a computer-simulated reality. Anyone attempting to extrapolate a simulation from our current understanding of physics is most likely severely underestimating the complexity of the problem. Like thunder and lightning, for instance. In a simulated universe, which was made popular by British philosopher Nicholas Bostrom in 2003, it’s very likely that some advanced future civilization developed equally-advanced computer simulations of past civilizations — past here referring to our present, obviously — in one giant virtual reality experience. Elon Musk Thinks So. Not necessarily, no. In this way believing in a simulation is just like a religion - there is literally no difference because the only way to scientifically prove a religion is to find evidence of god. there will never be any evidence of the simulation. Even simple, well-defined sets of differential equations, like the Navier–Stokes equations, are a struggle to simulate. the likelihood of our reality being "Programmed" goes up many thousands of percent. Basically it says "I don't like this theory therefore it must not be true". It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys. Now, I've provided you all with the complete set of rules for this universe, but it can get complicated at times, and I'm sure you haven't read through all of them and that's fine. You're saying that because an artist can paint a realistic representation of a sunset, that the real sunset must have been "painted" by an artist too. Time and space may not be sensible concepts t. Not to say that there's any sort of scientific or evidence-based reason to believe the simulation theory, but really, who among us can't envision the following scenario: GM: welcome all, I hope you enjoy playing in this universe I've created. Everone can have thier own religion, and thy are all right because that's what they believe. “If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested. For example, there is nothing in quantum theory that limits computational requirements -- quite the opposite. The use of "computer" in this context is simply laughable, but it may imply (by the authors) that there is a processing outco. Because you don't want the fake rock wall to fall down, rocks would be solid, as opposed to liquid, glass, plasma, gaseous. So the argument here actually supports the simulation more than hurts it. And thus ends the discussion. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all. But that would assume they don't have error margins, if we start looking at something with an electron microscope then it starts simulating that particular part of reality to that detail. Indeed, quantum theory is built on top of complex, non-discrete numbers in every quantum textbook ever written -- C-numbers. Secondly, a simulation so advanced would not allow the beings inside it to prove that it is a simulation – as we will never likely be able to do. 2. There's actually more evidence for the existence of level 1 multiverses than there is for just our one being the only: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph... [arxiv.org]. To describe it as simply such is a bit dismissive. 1. I read a science fiction novel written in the 1980's. Our universal engineer, however, appears to have created this enormously convoluted system for no apparent reason. Life is predetermined, and there is nothing you can do to improve your position in life. Perhaps the real universe is a quadrillion times larger. The difference is that a simulation would have to respect a set number of rules of physics, whereas the commonly held properties of gods allows them to tamper with high level objects as they please. In fact, the evidence we have points in the opposite direction, Heck, all of physics we know can be simulated even in a classical computer, they are just differential equations. A simulation would not have to compute the state of every quark in 13.85B-LY^3 with planck-time granularity. We only need to simulate the parts that are being observed. If our world was some computer code, it could have software bugs. So it is certainly still possible that the multiverse is an equally wrong extension of a theory outside of the range of our experimenta. A lot of people who called themselves philosophers focused more and more tightly on an analysis of language and epistemology - for example, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and a majority of 20th century British philosophers. You also don't address the actual numbers associated with the Planck leng, All real rocks are actually finite in size, come in many different sizes, shapes, and colors, and tend to be solid. Umm no and here's the rebuttal: http://backreaction.blogspot.c... [blogspot.com]. That is, before human beings had acquired a worthwhile body of reliable scientific knowledge, interesting or scary things that were otherwise inexplicable were attributed to God. A good bet, based on our own world, would be it's a role playing game. In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. That is a weak rebuttal. Your argument is even worse than hers. The scientific method entails formulating a hypothesis and failing to disprove it, only becoming useful as a theory when it leads to new discovery and understanding. None of these assertions, even if they were true in some useful way, constitute a statistical or logical argument for the conclusion. Have you seen the new VR goggles? Yes, you can. Indeed, the cosmic speed limit here is a curious oddity, perhaps deliberately ala Vinge's Zones of Thought. We just day "that's the way it is, and we don't know why" and move on. Do we live in a computer simulation? Normal laws of logic, mathematics and general raionality which work here may not apply there. When Christians and humanists debate the meaning of our existences, it. If it can do uncounted googleplex operations per second, with similar abailability of storage space (or equivalent for an analog computer!) And if you're about to argue the universe was created ten seconds ago, well, no, because there's apparently information in it covering about fourteen billion years. If you take the theory of living in a simulation to it's logical conclusion, there is no self determination or self reliance. Maybe not. So the only thing we could catch is a bad simulation. The maximum speed of information transfer would be finite, to limit the propagation of changes through the universe. Unlike String Theory, which has produced some good tools and new conceptual innovations, I don't see any great new tools being produced by simulation theory. I have to believe that Nick Bostrom is likely a very depressed human being who proferred a notion that fits with his world view but is unable to support it with any verifiable evidence. Tao of Physics anyone? It can give us insights into how we can better run simulations, which can teach us a whole lot about the universe. Even once you have the equation, there is no particular guarantee that a solution is computable. Obviously not enough of you have been replaced by H1Bs yet. We can't determine it. If the simulators don’t want us to find out, we probably never will. Ultimately the simulation hypothesis is a theological idea, not just because it gives us all kinds of new gods to worry about (“Dear usr1, please do not delete me…”), but specifically because it can neither be proven nor refuted by any physical experiment or investigation. Due to the cost of raw materials, rocks would be finite in size. 3. The whole shebang may be sitting on a table at a science fair with the label: Kinetic Sculpture with Self Aware Components By G. Hova. An equation is only a mathematical description of a model. For some strange reason, the string theorists are also behind th. In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Unlike String Theory, which has produced some good tools and new conceptual innovations, I don't see any great new tools being produced by simulation theory. Yeah... Monty Python was a bad philosophical influence. Please read the whole comment. What's needed are ways to falsify either theory, not to prove either.And it may be that neither can be falsified either. And even if we were, there's no way you'll ever prove it. I wouldn't bet on that. I.e. Comments owned by the poster. But Elon Musk say it's a billion to one likelihood that we live in a simulation! "I think, therefor I am". Since the Enlightenment or even before - say the time of Francis Bacon - science has been building up an increasingly large and fairly coherent body of reliable knowledge. 1. The complexity increased exponentially as the number of particles required for full-bore simulation grew. Perhaps this simulation is actually a tiny scale in the view of the simulators. Worlds Without End: The Many Kinds of Parallel Universes, Trio Wins Nobel Prize in Physics for Work On “Exotic Matter”, The Science of Sound: Breaking Glass Panes with Car Speakers, How to Destroy a Planet: The Physics of the Death Star, Upgrade Your Sound and Your Look With Happy Plugs Stylish, High Tech Headphones, This Real Estate Investing Platform Is Democratizing the Way We Build Wealth, This Revolutionary, Precision-Rotating Sex Toy Is 30-Percent off for Valentine’s Day. 1) With simulation idea, we get the infinite regress problem (it's turtles all the way down - simulations all the way up) which leaves the question: what are the properties of the outer (unsimulated) universe, and how did they come about (other than by simulation)....Unless you can come up with some kind of self-simulating outer beyond-spacetime ether-fabric thingy running in some kind of self-generating loop or recursion or whatever.... [...] a reason we got away from DOS [...]. This seems largely to rest on the "many worlds" interpretation of QM, which is not something a lot of physicists are going to be stand behind. Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Your assertion would imply that Sabine Hossenfelder is at least a deist. To tell the truth, I think that the "Universe is a simulation" is just the latest creationist effort. I'd think the minimal undetectable simulation would be of *one* person's brain. In science, we therefore acc, Unlike simulations of, say, climate, the universe being a simulation requires that every aspect of everything be quantified and that those quantities be stored in some manner. Agreed - and Quantum effects are discrete if someone is looking at them, which sounds a lot like a computing optimization... "Hey, I can save a lot of cycles if I just flip a coin if someone happens to look at an electron that closely and return a random spin for that electron rather then keeping track of a whole universe worth of electrons. There might even be a person somewhere, that is an avatar for the Simulator, just to get a 1'st person view in simulation game. You are wrong about there being no evidence for "the multiverse." To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons.3. Became president of USA. I see no proof that the world was created last Thursday. The problem of course, is the speculation might be that whoever stated this simulation has structured it in such a way that the poop people in the simulation might never be able to find out if they are in a simulation. “However, one cannot exclude the possibility that some inherent physical property creates an obstruction to efficient classical simulations of many-body quantum systems,” the researchers wrote. 2. I do. Science doesn't have all the answers. It's not "evidence" per se, but rather an interpretation of QM theory. It's not so very different from the preoccupation of the pre-Socratics who argued interminably about whether the world was ultimately made of water, air, earth, or the unknowable "apeiron". We are making assumptions right away about what the words computer and simulation mean in this context. Just because we don't know what is the correct theory for quantum gravity it doesn't mean that we have no idea how complex it is going to be. Yes. Spoken like someone who has never actually tried to simulate those differential equations for an non-trivial problem. There's just not enough electrons out there to model our universe in a computer program When one actually looks at rocks or Universes, there is an utter lack of either evidence or a plausible, consistent, evidence linked chain of reasoning that increases the probability that the notion/hypothesis "Rocks are designed" or "We are living in a computer simulation" is/are true from their rightful place (so far) of 0.0000.....(0 until you get bored with writing 0's)...001 to something with a tiny smidgen of actual measure. Eight characters dot three-character extension (i.e., README84.TXT) and fax machines were alive and well on other planets in the future. The maximum speed of information transfer would be finite, to limit the propagation of changes through the universe. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Futurism. That would also explain why sometimes my car keys disappear, and then show up later in a place where I knew I've looked. My problem is the term "computer simulation". You walk down the street and people are wearing… Suppose one were designing a rock because you wanted to build a rock wall and for some reason didn't want to use actual rocks. Discoveries like this prove we have to learn about the physical universe before presuming to know its nature. Copyright ©, Singularity Education Group All Rights Reserved. You probably used some approximation that only works because helium can be assumed to be non-reactive. Unless the simulation has major bugs, the simulated entities will never be able to prove that they are, in fact, simulated, unless the entity running the simulation allows it. Discontinuity between quantum and classical effects makes more sense on a simulated plane than a real one. If you attempt to represent the quantum state of a very simple -- the simplest -- two level quantum system such as |\psi> = A|-> + B|+>, one discovers that it requires two continuous degrees of freedom and that the states of the system map nicely into points on a 3D spherical hypersurface. No, it's not. justify a whole bunch of metaphysical claptrap. Ergo, all rocks are obviously designed. And one way of figuring out how that can be achieved might be to use our own VM as a hypervisor for running other VMs under, so we can study ways of breaching out from both sides. Sounds like, "I'm a physicist and I disagree to disagree because I believe I'm better than a philosopher". As for Bell's inequality and hidden variables, again, if it is all simulated, none of that matters.
Brawl Vault Toad, Rainbow Fish Story Powerpoint, Farm Simulator 20, Drawer Stuck On Screw, Rainbow Fish Activities, Cartoon Sound Effects, NSI Rock Tumbler Classic, Replacement Factory Seat Covers, Lord Have Mercy On The Working Man Live, Greg Heffley Abusive,