3 ms·

I suspect that the proof against would be along the lines of: 'The theoretical minimum computer for simulating any 1 particle at realtime is at least X particl

I suspect that the proof against would be along the lines of: 'The theoretical minimum computer for simulating any 1 particle at realtime is at least X particles big. If it would be 1 particle it would not be a simulation. If it would take less it would not be able to capture all possible states. Eventually, every realistic simulation of a universe will either be orders of magnitude less complex than reality or will be orders of magnitude slower than realtime. In both cases realistic simulations of ones universe own past will never be possible and hardly worthwhile and thus we probably don't live in one.' This also says that computing power cannot grow indefinetely.

ljf 11y ago
Yes but how do we know they aren't just simulating your or my relevant particals and those around you/me?
outworlder 11y ago
This argument breaks down if we consider that we don't know anything about the "host" universe. It is as if Minecraft beings reasoned that it would be impossible to simulate them, as the redstone circuits required would be much larger than the observable universe. Which is fine, except we have nanoscale transistors.
- planck01 11y ago
  Minecraft is many orders of magnitude less complex than our universe. We could be in a simulation, but then the parent universe would be orders of magnitude more complex and we would not be a significant simulation of a civilization's past as the original argument goes. Of course we might be entertainment, but to explain this universe you would then have to explain the way more complex universe in which we run. We cannot proof this is not so, but now it seems pretty similar to the god hypothesis.
geoelectric 10y ago
That assumes our version of "particle" is the same as whatever the theoretical simulation exists in. Maybe ours are orders of magnitude less complex somehow. The other thing is that the way to represent an infinite fabric is by only calculating what you need (similar to functional languages with infinite series). Waveform collapse upon observation/interaction would seem to have some striking commonalities with a lazy-calculation approach at first glance.

ljf 11y ago

Yes but how do we know they aren't just simulating your or my relevant particals and those around you/me?

outworlder 11y ago

This argument breaks down if we consider that we don't know anything about the "host" universe. It is as if Minecraft beings reasoned that it would be impossible to simulate them, as the redstone circuits required would be much larger than the observable universe. Which is fine, except we have nanoscale transistors.

planck01 11y ago
Minecraft is many orders of magnitude less complex than our universe. We could be in a simulation, but then the parent universe would be orders of magnitude more complex and we would not be a significant simulation of a civilization's past as the original argument goes. Of course we might be entertainment, but to explain this universe you would then have to explain the way more complex universe in which we run. We cannot proof this is not so, but now it seems pretty similar to the god hypothesis.

geoelectric 10y ago

That assumes our version of "particle" is the same as whatever the theoretical simulation exists in. Maybe ours are orders of magnitude less complex somehow. The other thing is that the way to represent an infinite fabric is by only calculating what you need (similar to functional languages with infinite series). Waveform collapse upon observation/interaction would seem to have some striking commonalities with a lazy-calculation approach at first glance.