3 ms·
(disclaimer: worked in the sim industry for 25 years, still active in terms of physics-based rendering). First off, there are zero technical proofs that we are
by KineticLensman 3y ago
(disclaimer: worked in the sim industry for 25 years, still active in terms of physics-based rendering).
First off, there are zero technical proofs that we are in a sim, just a number of philosophical arguments.
In practical terms, we cannot yet simulate a single human cell at the molecular level, given the massive number of interactions that occur every microsecond. Simulating our entire universe is not technically possible within the lifetime of our universe, according to our current understanding of computation and physics. You either have to assume that ‘the sim’ is very narrowly focussed in scope and fidelity, and / or that the outer universe that hosts ‘the sim’ has laws of physics that are essentially magic from our perspective. In which case the simulation hypothesis is essentially a religious argument, where the creator typed 'let there be light' into his computer. If there isn't such a creator, the sim hypothesis 'merely' suggests that our universe, at its lowest levels, looks somewhat computational, which is an entirely different argument.
- freedomben 3y agoI don't think you would need to simulate the entire universe, just enough of it that the consciousness receiving sense data can't encounter any missing info or "glitches" in the metaphorical matrix. Still hard of course, but substantially less compute intensive than every molecule in the universe.
- gcanyon 3y agoAnd if you’re in charge of the simulation, you get to decide how many “consciousnesses” there are, constraining them to be within your available compute. Maybe that’s ~8 billion — maybe it’s 1. Yeah, I’m feeling pretty Boltzmann-ish right now…
- KineticLensman 3y ago> but substantially less compute intensive than every molecule in the universe Very true, but to me this view of the universe and one's existence within it as a sort of second-rate solipsist bodge isn't a satisfyingly profound answer to the question of life the universe and everything. Although put like that it explains quite a lot. [Edit] There is also a sense in which the sim-as-a-focussed-mini-universe view is even less falsifiable, because sim proponents address any doubt about the sim by moving the goal posts to accommodate what they claim is actually achievable by the putative creator/hacker on Planet Tharg or similar.
- kaashif 3y agoAnd you don't have to simulate it in real time, maybe 1 second here takes years or centuries to simulate outside the simulation. It's not like we'd have any way to tell.
- hackerlight 3y agoThese are all open questions in philosophy of mind. Nobody knows what causes consciousness/qualia so nobody knows if it's substrate dependent or not and therefore nobody knows if it can be simulated in a computer, or if it can nobody knows what type of computer is required for consciousness to be a property of the resulting simulation.
- jdaxe 3y agoMaybe something like quantum mechanics are an "optimization" of the sim, i.e the sim doesn't actually compute the locations, spin etc of subatomic particles but instead just uses probabilities to simulate it. Only when a consciousness decides to look more closely does it retroactively decide what those properties really were. Kind of like how video games won't render the full resolution textures when the character is far away or zoomed out. I'm sure I'm not the first person to have thought this.