Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
At least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:
1. Human civilization or a comparable civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
4. We are living in a reality in which posthumans have not developed yet and we are actually living in reality
"Bostrom's argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness are comparable or equivalent to those of a naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world."
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
Are You Living in a Simulation?
Real/Simulated Universe?!
Theoritical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
See here:
Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.
High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))
Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom makes a compelling logically sound argument why there is a significant probability we are living in a simulated universe.
Chief Product Architect of Tesla and engineer of SpaceX, Elon Musk states there is a one in a billion chance we are living in a base reality.
In 40 years, Musk explained, we've gone from Pong to massively multiplayer online games with millions of simultaneous players, games with photorealistic graphics, and stand now on the cusp of a new wave of virtual and augmented reality experiences.
"If you assume any rate of improvement at all then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said. "Even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now, let's just imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale." Given that we're on that trajectory and that these games are increasingly playable on any device, Musk said, the odds that we are living our lives in base reality — that is, "real" reality — is one in billions.
Theoretical Physicist Brian Green has the following ideas about the possibility we are living in a simulated reality:
" imo, there is certainly no new convincing evidence that leads us to definitively conclude that we're in a simulation. Instead, there are interesting theoretical arguments which make that possibility, at least, scientifically plausible.
But being plausible, being possible is a far cry from being definite. And with something as extraordinarily far out and crazy-sounding as "we're living in a simulation", to paraphrase Carl Sagan, we'll need some extraordinary, monumental evidence to really believe it. And I would say we don't have anywhere near that evidence today.
Some of the evidence would be circumstantial. You know, if we can actually build the kinds of simulations that would be necessary for the conclusions to hold, simulations in which within the simulations we, as creators of the simulation, can see that there are sentient, cognizant entities within the simulation, for whom that simulation seems to be as real to them as the reality that we know about is real to us. That would be an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence if we could do that, or if any alien being could do that.
If we get visited in the future, and they show us that they're able to do that, then that would also be circumstantial evidence that maybe we are merely another example of what we're witnessing in the simulation.
People have come up with other, you know, more exotic ideas, looking for glitches in reality, sort of like in The Matrix when the black cat walks by twice. Remember that scene with Neo? So, looking for mistakes. I don't buy that at all because a very clever error-correcting simulation could simply wipe clean the memory of any such glitch after correcting it. But for me personally, if we could actually see the kinds of simulations that would be required, if we could build them, then I'd start to really take the idea more seriously.
And we don't even know what consciousness is, right? We have no idea whether consciousness can be simulated in any kind of computer, whether classical or quantum. So those-, these are just basic issues that would be, we'd need to have an answer before we would ever be able to claim -- and we need a positive answer before we could ever claim, you know -- it's more than likely that we're in a simulation.
And believe me, you know, again, if we are in a simulation, who's to say that the entities in a simulation are good simulators, good builders of simulations? And so, it's not just for the conclusion to be true. It doesn't require that we be able to build those simulations. For us, to believe that it's possible, it would certainly be an enormous step forward if we were able to build something like that."
Does Musk have access to simulations we don't? Maybe. But until he shows us what he's got, many will continue believing that the world is real and that some Simsgamer isn't controlling all of this.
1. Human civilization or a comparable civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
4. We are living in a reality in which posthumans have not developed yet and we are actually living in reality
"Bostrom's argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness are comparable or equivalent to those of a naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world."
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
Are You Living in a Simulation?
Real/Simulated Universe?!
Theoritical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
See here:
Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.
High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))
Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom makes a compelling logically sound argument why there is a significant probability we are living in a simulated universe.
Chief Product Architect of Tesla and engineer of SpaceX, Elon Musk states there is a one in a billion chance we are living in a base reality.
In 40 years, Musk explained, we've gone from Pong to massively multiplayer online games with millions of simultaneous players, games with photorealistic graphics, and stand now on the cusp of a new wave of virtual and augmented reality experiences.
"If you assume any rate of improvement at all then games will become indistinguishable from reality," Musk said. "Even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now, let's just imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale." Given that we're on that trajectory and that these games are increasingly playable on any device, Musk said, the odds that we are living our lives in base reality — that is, "real" reality — is one in billions.
Theoretical Physicist Brian Green has the following ideas about the possibility we are living in a simulated reality:
" imo, there is certainly no new convincing evidence that leads us to definitively conclude that we're in a simulation. Instead, there are interesting theoretical arguments which make that possibility, at least, scientifically plausible.
But being plausible, being possible is a far cry from being definite. And with something as extraordinarily far out and crazy-sounding as "we're living in a simulation", to paraphrase Carl Sagan, we'll need some extraordinary, monumental evidence to really believe it. And I would say we don't have anywhere near that evidence today.
Some of the evidence would be circumstantial. You know, if we can actually build the kinds of simulations that would be necessary for the conclusions to hold, simulations in which within the simulations we, as creators of the simulation, can see that there are sentient, cognizant entities within the simulation, for whom that simulation seems to be as real to them as the reality that we know about is real to us. That would be an interesting piece of circumstantial evidence if we could do that, or if any alien being could do that.
If we get visited in the future, and they show us that they're able to do that, then that would also be circumstantial evidence that maybe we are merely another example of what we're witnessing in the simulation.
People have come up with other, you know, more exotic ideas, looking for glitches in reality, sort of like in The Matrix when the black cat walks by twice. Remember that scene with Neo? So, looking for mistakes. I don't buy that at all because a very clever error-correcting simulation could simply wipe clean the memory of any such glitch after correcting it. But for me personally, if we could actually see the kinds of simulations that would be required, if we could build them, then I'd start to really take the idea more seriously.
And we don't even know what consciousness is, right? We have no idea whether consciousness can be simulated in any kind of computer, whether classical or quantum. So those-, these are just basic issues that would be, we'd need to have an answer before we would ever be able to claim -- and we need a positive answer before we could ever claim, you know -- it's more than likely that we're in a simulation.
And believe me, you know, again, if we are in a simulation, who's to say that the entities in a simulation are good simulators, good builders of simulations? And so, it's not just for the conclusion to be true. It doesn't require that we be able to build those simulations. For us, to believe that it's possible, it would certainly be an enormous step forward if we were able to build something like that."
Does Musk have access to simulations we don't? Maybe. But until he shows us what he's got, many will continue believing that the world is real and that some Simsgamer isn't controlling all of this.
