7 ms·

I like the simulation idea. But if we are in a simulation wouldn’t the computer have to be mind bogglingly huge, bigger than our universe? I’m just trying to

I like the simulation idea. But if we are in a simulation wouldn’t the computer have to be mind bogglingly huge, bigger than our universe? I’m just trying to wrap my head around the computing power needed to calculate even something as simple as pouring a glass of sand into another glass and getting all the collisions and final locations of the particles right in the new glass. And this goes on everywhere at all times, unless you think the simulators fudge a lot of it. :)

dvh 5y ago
Not if they are higher dimensional. We live in 3d but our CPUs are 2d because we need at least one dimension to radiate heat effectively. If they are 10 dimensional there will be plenty of space to spare. Hack, given how weird higher dimensions are (spiky spheres etc) I wouldn't be surprised if the simulation became exponentially simpler in higher dimensions to a point where higher dimensional IT uni graduates casually simulates our universe in their equivalent of electronic pregnancy test (Show HN: I simulated toy 3d universe, it has some limitations - I had to limit the information exchange speed to 300kkm/s, it has fixed size of 93 Gly and smallest feature resolution is 1.616255e−35m).
lukebuehler 5y ago
Not necessarily. You could just model the world/universe, and provide high enough resolution only when needed, just like in a game. On the other hand, you could also truly simulate each particle and molecule and then let higher-order phenomena emerge from that. For example, the universe might be an immense cellular automata.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
The universe is already mind-bogglingly huge. Another order or two of boggling doesn't make a huge difference to the boggle factor. But you could also simulate with varying precision depending on POV, which would eliminate many orders of boggle.
- lanstin 5y ago
  Not sure how that works with consciousness emerging from the substrate. There is no formal notion of consciousness in the simulation, it emerges after intelligence evolves or whatever. You don’t want to cartoonize entire galaxies after the first intelligence evolves because you don’t yet detect consciousness in those other galaxies, because then they won’t get consciousness. On the other hand, Chalmers seems to allow for consciousness of varying degrees, in the additional quality or factor that is consciousness, so maybe the whole universe is watching itself a lot of the time. (Based on the interview with him on Sean Carroll’s podcast, not reading this latest book.)

dvh 5y ago

Not if they are higher dimensional. We live in 3d but our CPUs are 2d because we need at least one dimension to radiate heat effectively. If they are 10 dimensional there will be plenty of space to spare. Hack, given how weird higher dimensions are (spiky spheres etc) I wouldn't be surprised if the simulation became exponentially simpler in higher dimensions to a point where higher dimensional IT uni graduates casually simulates our universe in their equivalent of electronic pregnancy test (Show HN: I simulated toy 3d universe, it has some limitations - I had to limit the information exchange speed to 300kkm/s, it has fixed size of 93 Gly and smallest feature resolution is 1.616255e−35m).

lukebuehler 5y ago

Not necessarily. You could just model the world/universe, and provide high enough resolution only when needed, just like in a game. On the other hand, you could also truly simulate each particle and molecule and then let higher-order phenomena emerge from that. For example, the universe might be an immense cellular automata.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

The universe is already mind-bogglingly huge. Another order or two of boggling doesn't make a huge difference to the boggle factor. But you could also simulate with varying precision depending on POV, which would eliminate many orders of boggle.

lanstin 5y ago
Not sure how that works with consciousness emerging from the substrate. There is no formal notion of consciousness in the simulation, it emerges after intelligence evolves or whatever. You don’t want to cartoonize entire galaxies after the first intelligence evolves because you don’t yet detect consciousness in those other galaxies, because then they won’t get consciousness. On the other hand, Chalmers seems to allow for consciousness of varying degrees, in the additional quality or factor that is consciousness, so maybe the whole universe is watching itself a lot of the time. (Based on the interview with him on Sean Carroll’s podcast, not reading this latest book.)