Talk:Simulated reality hypothesis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm not sure if this has been noted elsewhere, but it seems clear to me that it's not necessary to actually simulate a universe for that universe to exist. Imagine that you run the simulation on paper, doing the calculations by hand. It takes much longer, but this is irrelevant. The fact that you complete a calculation is not what causes the result to exist. The result exists whether you do the calculation or not. Therefore, any universe that can result from mathematical reality exists. Neurodivergent 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nice idea. Not sure that it flies though. For instance, consider our universe. Ultimately it may be possible to completely describe the physical laws that underpin it. Possibly in a relatively short volume. However, does this then mean that a copy of our universe has been brought into existence? And if so, what events have happened in this new universe? It seems to me that it's one thing to work out the rules that define a universe, but unless effort is made to breathe life into said universe (e.g. through simulation), it's neither been created nor is off enjoying an independent life and evolution. Furthermore, whatever rule book is eventually drawn up for this universe, it won't contain anything about the properties of the universe that emerge from the interactions of these rules. Only actually simulating the rules will flesh out the universe. Just my five cents of course. I like the idea about simulating by hand though - very

Chinese Room! Cheers, --Plumbago

17:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: (1) A computer simply crunches numbers. (2) Given a powerful enough computer, it's possible to simulate any consistent universe. (3) Crunching numbers does not make a universe exist - it simply allows the computer user to understand said universe and see how it develops. (4) The results in said universe already exist whether the simulation is run or not. (5) Things like time in said universe depend on the rules of the universe, not on the speed of the simulation, i.e. you can pause the simulation any time indefinitely without affecting time within the simulated universe. Neurodivergent 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be using "exist" in a special sense here. By the same argument, if we have a dictionary which contains (for the sake of argument) all English words, then all possible novels, speeches and shopping lists already exist because they are possible outcomes from this dictionary. This is not an interesting definition of "exist" by my book, but I can see what you're getting at (I think). --Plumbago 16:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(I should say that my analogy has flaws, e.g. a dictionary is not the same as a set of physical laws since it doesn't contain information as to how words interact, but I don't think this much affects my point.)

I can see where we have an issue over semantics. The word "exists" is normally understood to mean that something is present in our universe. Even a simulated universe could be said to be present in our universe. I propose this perceived definition is arbitrary. I'm using the word "exists" in a mathematical sense, e.g. there is a prime number greater than 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰, whether we perform the calculation to determine it or not. Just as it would be impossible for the reality '1+1=2' not to exist, I believe it would be impossible for our universe, you and me not to exist. (I believe the idea that mathematics is the base reality is now new).

Oh no, I entirely understand your definition of "exists". I just don't accept that it's useful.  :) IMHO. At least when it comes to universes that are only defined and not "run" (in reality or simulated). If you don't "run" it, I contend that it doesn't, in any meaningful sense, exist. But I accept that it's "answer" (assuming it is deterministic; which our universe might not be) exists in this rather anaemic mathematical sense. --Plumbago 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, if you run a simulation of two galaxies colliding (a common simulation today), the results are what they are even before you know about them. The only purpose of running the simulation is informational. Neurodivergent 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A good example, but again, I think "exist" is being used in a special, and unhelpful, way here. Any deterministic system, once defined, has an "answer", but it's not at all clear to me that this answer has any meaningful existence. For its existence to be meaningful, it seems to me that something in our pre-existing universe needs to be aware (dangerous word) that it is the answer. Yes it exists in some completely undefined / theoretical / imaginary place, but is this existence? Does there not need to be some sort of substrate upon which a "universe" (whether real or simulated) can take place on? I suppose this sort of questioning is not dissimilar to asking "what would be here if our universe wasn't?". Does "here" mean anything at this point? And what is it for our universe not to exist? Anyway, I like these ideas, but still disagree. My brain hurts now. --Plumbago 17:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You imply there needs to be an observer for the simulated universe to exist, but I'm not sure you really believe that. In a galaxy collision simulation you will generally see an image of the galaxies colliding. Is there a difference if you run the simulation with the monitor turned off? Because, after all, it's just electrons in chips we're talking about.

Again, no. No observer necessary. I hate "observer created realities". Reality exists, as far as I'm concerned, whether or not it's observed. Obviously your mileage may vary. My requirement is that a universe is "run". Whatever that means!  ;) --Plumbago 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Or consider this: If a simulated universe is run, and the simulation is never observed or recorded by anyone, did the universe exist? (It's just values in registries after all). Or this: If you run the same simulation 5 times, did the universe exist 5 times? Neurodivergent 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A bit easier. By my terms, it existed, and existed 5 times on the second question. Observation isn't necessary (let's steer clear of QM shall we?). --Plumbago 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

One argument I often read is that if we're in a simulation, and the simulation is stopped, we cease to exist. I think this doesn't make sense. Suppose someone runs our universe as a simulation 5 times with identical results, but the 5th time the simulation is interrupted. Did we cease the exist that 5th time, and what is the relevance of that? Neurodivergent 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Greg Egan's novel Permutation City has a few nice meditations on this "stopped" simulation idea. He takes it off in some less relevant (to this discussion) directions, but it has some bearing if you've not read it. --Plumbago 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a mathematical argument. Suppose the simulation is run, paused in the middle for N years, and then continued. Time in the simulated universe is clearly unaffected. As N tends to infinity (same as stopping the simulation) the simulated universe is still unaffected. Neurodivergent 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this thought. My feeling is that "in the simulation" one wouldn't notice anything as your "time" only flows when your universe is "running". But that's a bit weird. --Plumbago 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As to our universe, an interesting self-sampling question is: 'Why does the universe I exist in like this?' I'd say this would have to be a random universe out of all the possible universes where such a question could possibly arise. Neurodivergent 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely the question can arise since "I" can't fish the answer from the previously posited "completely undefined / theoretical / imaginary place" without simulating. But I'm not sure I understand the question / point. --Plumbago 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it follows from my reasoning that there exists a universe where our universe is run as a computer simulation. However, this is not necessary for our universe to exist. Neurodivergent 15:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but is this other universe on the "completely undefined / theoretical / imaginary" plane of existence? If so, I question its existence as argued above. --Plumbago 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Any simulated universe exists in an "imaginary/theoretical" plane of existence if you consider it's just electrons in chips. However, to those living in the simulation it's a very real universe, and the universe simulating them is, in turn, "imaginary/theoretical". Neurodivergent 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, electrons on chips are, to me, real. When I say "imaginary / theoretical" I mean living on the mathematical plane of existence. Which, of course, I don't accept as "existence".  :) It doesn't matter if your universe is just a pattern of electrons written in someone else's universe, you have a real representation in some substrate. This, to me, is very different from merely being the "answer" of some defined, but not run, system. Anyway, hope the above clarifies my position. --Plumbago 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd toss my two cents into this discussion, if that's alright. Neurodivergent, when you use "exist" to refer to things like 1 + 1 = 2, I think you might be conflating the existence of ideas, the existence of imaginings, and the existence of physical objects. To be sure, ideas are as real as anything testable by natural science, but they're undeniably different. Ideas, especially self evident ones, like those of mathematics (e.g. your prime greater than 10^10000)exist in the sense of an idea, not in the sense of a physical object. They're a very real part of the nature of things, as they affect physical objects, as well. Ideas and physical objects are "real" in the conventional sense. As for imaginings, a concept car exists as an idea while it is a dream in an engineer's mind, and it exists as a physical object once it is manufactured as a prototype or a consumer model. If we were to regard only one kind of existence, we would be forced to agree that nothing changed between the time the car was merely a schematic and a drivable machine. According to the sense in which you use "exist," all of my dreams "exist," as well as any sort of magical creature I might imagine. There's something intuitively different from the existence of my imaginings and our universe, simulation or not. I submit that the big difference is us. I say big, because it is precisely for this reason that we may be justified in suspecting that our own universe exists (perhaps as a simulation, but definitely as one that is being "run"). You see, when we call our universe a "reality," we do so because we assume that, regardless of whether it's "just a simulation" or not, it bears actual existence, though not necessarily the kind we thought. Our universe could be an elaborate simulation being run on a very advanced computer to which we're all hooked up (or maybe just one of us), but in that case it'd still have existence in the form of whatever electricity might be in the circuits. The reason we assume our reality bears - at the very least - this meager form of existence, is simply that we're in it (or at least one of us are). You and I being rational beings are justified in believing that we exist. Now, if we are rational and self aware and consequently exist, at least one possibility is immediately ruled out. It cannot be the case that we and this universe as being simply imagined or dreamed by someone, and have no real existence (no simulation being "run"). I cannot merely be an imagining for the same reason that a friend in my dream cannot know he is a dream. The reason is that the two forms of "existence" are different. Even for a skeptic, it seems reasonable to claim with certainty that our reality is grounded in some form of existence which is more real than a mere imagining or possibility.--Agondie 11:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes its necessary for the simulation to occur. Potential for existance is not equal to existance. The idea of something existing is not equal to that thing actually existing. A house does not exist simply because there is a blueprint for it. Take a random male and a random female. Their potential children do not exist simply because they could exist. If there is no instance of the idea of a thing, then that thing does not exist. Sahuagin 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An anon editor has twice posted the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as evidence that we are in SR. After reviewing the wikipage about the principle, I've undone both edits, and here is why:

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle pertains to the problem of measuring a particle's position or velocity. Because these measurements require hitting the particle with photons, measuring one aspect requires perturbing the other... hence the uncertainty, and hence the impossibility of knowing both measurements with perfect certainty. This is not evidence for or against SR. A 'real' reality would also have this property.

The anon editor is actually thinking of the "observer effect". The wikipage about the Uncertainty Principle even says: "It is often confused with the observer effect."

The observer effect is already discussed on the SR page under the topic "Empirical evidence... / Processing Power". That discussion is brief and could certainly be expanded (as I've already done pursuant to this edit-war). But in any case, let the anon editor read my above comment and respond before again trying to post Heisenberg as further evidence of SR.

This unfortunately anonymous comment is very accurate IMO.1Z 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Retort

Heisenberg is quoted which I think sums it nicely for the reader (much better that wikipedia's mathematical discussion of it) -- the point you're missing is that it's possible that how we presently "render" scenes in a simulated environment in the here and now could be a correlate of the "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" in function. And therefore it is evidence this this is a simulation -- but not the final world.

The point we may be missing is that on the quantum scale when you attempt to view something it has an effect on the measurement which is exactly how it works in games. I recommend doing some research outside of wikipedia since the concept is difficult to grasp -- but it's evidence that I believe is stronger than a lot of other topics listed.

Therefore, I think it needs a separate heading.

There is no quote in the current version. The following could be added, but might not be welcome in all quarters

'Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.'

1Z 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Frank Tipler's Omega Point section begins with

Physicisist Frank Tipler envisages (...)

The underlined word is incorrect. jοτομικρόν (talk, email) 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)