Comment on this entry
Breaking into the Simulated Universe
I argued in my 2015 paper “Why it matters that you realize you’re in a Computer Simulation” that if our universe is indeed a computer simulation, then that particular discovery should be commonplace among the intelligent lifeforms throughout the universe. The simple calculus of it all being (a) if intelligence is in part equivalent to detecting the environment (b) the environment is a computer simulation (c) eventually nearly all intelligent lifeforms should discover that their environment is a computer simulation. I called this the Savvy Inevitability. In simple terms, if we’re really in a Matrix, we’re supposed to eventually figure that out.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by zerogravity on 10/30 at 05:42 PM
In a universe seemingly infinite any such simulation hardware would be mind-mindbogglingly massive. Incredibly massive - beyond anything our imagination can comprehend. Gogols to the power of Gogols to the power of Gogols worth of operations per second. That is, unless it relies directly upon observation (which Schrödinger’s cat seems to suggest). If reality does not render until a sentient consciousness has the ability to perceive it, then the limits to the system are bottle-necked at the number of conscious entities. It’s going to take a whole lot of exploration and development of automated minds capable of exploration to try to cause some overflow, detect a glitch, or gather enough data about the universe before we will have a means to exploit the system.
That is, unless we devise a better simulation of reality that seems to follow the laws of physics more correctly than those we observe in our reality. It would also prove chaos theory wrong most likely. But we’re going to need much higher orders of magnitude worth of computing power if we can’t find a law that breaks reality and need to resort to causing some sort of “buffer-overflow”
Posted by Greg W on 10/31 at 12:30 AM
If the universe is a simulation and one in which reality does not exist, why is there a consistency of events in spite of there being no objective source? Also, why create a partial simulation when it would be easier to simulate the whole universe to figure things out? And what about things from beyond our scope of sensory perception that intrude into our lives? Surely there must be at least some plan in order to keep consistency in our universe. It’s probably the best argument against solipsism, that it would be easier to create a real mind to some degree than it would be to have only a simulation. Maybe I’m deluding myself on that account but it’s tough to be sure.
There’s one experience of mine that you might be interested in. It’s a movie that I recall having a similar plot to Fool’s Rush in. The basic plot is the same, a man in a city to supervise the creation of a building in his company’s chain. Except in this movie the main character breaks up with the woman. She might have gotten the baby from somebody else. I don’t remember. Anyways he goes back to work and meets up with a new woman who’s a relative of his coworker and they go together on a yacht cruise presumably to hook up. I don’t know why I can’t find any information on it. It probably is from the same reality but I can’t find any information on it. I’m telling you about it because it’s the only time where I’ve been forced to question whether I’m in one unchanging reality.
Posted by RJP8915 on 10/31 at 10:48 AM
Interesting. I have to ask though, why would one have to “evolve or die”? If one is consciousness themselves. Can consciousness ever be aware of its own demise? I’d say no. It ties back in with the the quantum reality. We exist, and we don’t. Therefore it depends upon the player’s interpretation of if we’re dead, or alive, right? Clearly in my interpretation of my own “playerness”, I evolve, but in other players interpretations (enemies?) I should be dead. Another question is which is the “stronger” inclination/observation? (more probabilistic). Something, or Nothing?
@Greg, isn’t reality always changing though? Isn’t today different than yesterday? Otherwise it wouldn’t be today… I had a whole year of those questioning of an unchanging realities when I was in a different state for college. I’m still integrating all that information to this day.
Posted by RJP8915 on 10/31 at 10:50 AM
....also why psychedelics over any other “Drug”, or even the awareness that everything impacts your awareness in some way? Water is a drug, so is Oxygen…. Is your “base state” really the same as mine? Couldn’t the “water supply” have different elements/composition depending upon where you are?
You know, what sort of excess drugs are getting recycled into the water supply from locals dumping stuff down the tubes?
Posted by DrEvel1 on 10/31 at 06:26 PM
Interesting indeed. This is consistent with an experience of my own a number of years ago (drug-facilitated, I acknowledge). I experienced our existence as interactions among parts of a Universe that had voluntarily split itself into largely separate components, in the interests of accumulating experiences and understanding them to the extent possible. The implication was that our fundamental purpose in this life is the accumulation of experience and the development of understanding of our lives - and that at some point we might be called on to re-merge with the universe and be able to tell our own story for the edification of others (or possibly the Universe generally).
If we are operating within a simulation framework, this would suggest that we are all essentially parallel processors, and that value (additional information) is generated by comparisons among the variety of different experiences generated by the different processors. This puts an interesting macro-spin on my own micro-vision of the Universe. Much to consider here!
Posted by goodground41 on 11/01 at 12:47 AM
First, my thanks to Eliott Edge for offering this clear presentation of this topic. Second, the purpose of this simulation thus far has been to be cruel to the simulation. This situation does not bode well for the remainder of this simulation.
Posted by s33light on 11/02 at 02:00 PM
It’s all just numbers in a computer. It is digital information.”
Few people seem to consider that this too would have to logically be a ‘simulation’. It’s an arbitrary double standard to question every thought, feeling, object, and event as unreal, and then give ‘digital information’ (which is nothing but a conceptual entity applied to many different sensations and perceived objects/events) a free pass. If the Moon isn’t really here, then why would we assume that ‘digital information’ is really here either?
“It’s just information [ ] It’s just data”
It’s ‘just’ easy to consider those things real because they are popular ideas at this point in history.
“1. Information input (experience)”
We should not assume that experience is information. To the contrary, information is an experience which refers to another experience. Experience is not an ‘input’, rather ‘input’, memory, pattern-recognition, and learning are types of experience.
2. Information recall (memory)
Memory is an experience of partial re-experience. It may or may not be informative in any way.
3. Information processing (sense-making; pattern recognition, etc.)
Pattern recognition is an experience of pattern recognition.
4. Self-modifying feedback loop (learning)”
Learning is an experience of learning.
No amount of information can produce a flavor or a color. This is why we use non-computational hardware to interface with computers. No program can ever virtualize a video display or speakers, just as no description of electromagnetic frequencies can cure blindness.
Posted by mjgeddes on 11/02 at 08:04 PM
A lot of ideas similar to these are floating around at the moment.
I do think that ‘informtion’ (math) , ‘fields’ (matter) and ‘cognition’ (consciousness) are all ojectively *real* things, and shouldn’t be defined out of existence.
Below is the link to my ‘Reality Theory Portal’, where I attempt to summarize *all* of our explanatory knowledge about reality - you will see that reality seems to naturally separate into 27 vocabularies (or ‘knowledge domains’). Click on the name of each domain and it will take you through to an A-Z list of the central concepts for each, which I’ve linked to Wikipedia articles explaining them. On average, there are about 70 core concepts needed to cover each domain, resulting in 27*70 ~ 1 800 core concepts in toal to summarize all explanatory knowledge.
Link: http://www.zarzuelazen.com/CoreKnowledgeDomains2.html
The striking thing here is the sharp distinction between 3 general categories of knowledge - Mathematical-Informational (left-hand column), Physical-Material (middle column) and Mental-Cognitive (right-hand column). You simply can’t take-out Information, Matter or Consiousness from our explanations - they are *indispensible* to our explanations of reality.
What are we to make of this?
Either we should arrange Information, Matter and Consciousness into some sort of hierarchy (reductionism), or we should place them on an equal footing (property dualism, panpsychism or neutral monism).
If we go with reductionism, then we need to decide what the most fundamental element is: our choices are Information (Math), Matter (Fields) or Consciousness (Cognition).
The smart money is probably on *Information* as the fundamental element. The arguments for are this are: (i) The computational nature of the laws of physics, (ii) The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, and (iii) Quantum mechanics can’t be interpreted in purely physical terms - wave functions aren’t physical, but appear to reside in something called Hilbert Space, which is purely informational or mathematical.
If Information is fundamental, then no underlying ‘computer’ is required. Pure information can exist without needing to be instantiated on a physical substrate. In this case, reality would be *like* a simulation, but no literal creator would be needed.
But of course one can argue the case for either Fields (matter) or Cognition (Consciousness) as the fundamental element instead. I think these possiilities are less likely, but definitely possible. Materialism (fields or matter as fundamental) probably is still the conventional scientific view.
The really radical and intriguing possibility is to reject reductionism, and not arrange the elements in a hierarchy at all! On this view, Information, Fields and Cognition would be placed on an equal footing, and reality would have a circular aspect to it - with each element some-how containing or being created by the other 2.
Posted by RJP8915 on 11/02 at 08:27 PM
A quick chime in on my part in regards to mjgeddes’s response;
Instead of “God” substitute in “Universe” (or whatever symbolic representation you prefer), for these thoughts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology (namely “Divine Simplicity”). In essence I’m leaning towards the thoughts your last paragraph mention. And the notion that if the Universe was simple enough to understand, we wouldn’t be complex enough to understand it. What if we are “The Universe” (we make it up literally as objects/material), so if we were simple enough to “understand”...would we ever be “complex enough” to do so?
Posted by Brandon on 11/06 at 05:24 PM
Why we are being simulated is the same reason why I simulate things ahead of time, to see which simulation should be built. I endlessly simulate architectural ideas until I find the best simulation that’s ready to be constructed. If we are in a simulated reality I’d suspect the same is taking place…not endless ancestor simulations, that makes no sense. Our universe is being simulated for the purpose of finally becoming “real”, that is if it is the chosen simulation for future construction. The old addage ‘measure twice, cut once’ comes to mind. Endlessly simulate reality until you’ve got it exactly fine tuned. Otherwise don’t bother to create reality at all. We all have our part to play in this scheme. That’s why we’re here. That’s the meaning of our existence. That’s why I’m alive, to simulate reality.
Posted by TCDM on 11/08 at 12:55 PM
I very much enjoyed this article and agree with your perspective on consciousness. I do however disagree with a line of thinking that only considers simulation where conscious beings occupy the central role and purpose. The anthrocentric perspective is an enticing possibility, however it is not the only function a universe simulation could satisfy. There is the alternate possibility that the universe is a simulation built only with the purpose of studying the “Other” reality and that we are simply its bi-products. Acknowledging this hypothetical is important as its existence presents drastically different potential outcomes to any attempts to detect or manipulate the simulation.
I argue that this alternate simulation goal of physical inquiry is an equally likely case. In our experience the vast majority of computationally complex simulations are built and ran with the goal of furthering our understanding of the universe we exist in. This is because few other problems require such in depth computation and are simultaneously deemed worthy of the considerable of resources necessary for their simulation. Certainly, this does not guarantee that our simulation would be of this type, but it does support it as a possibility.
Consideration of this alternate simulation hypothesis is important when discussing any actions to be taken probing the nature of our existence. If our reality is a simulation built to closely mimic the ‘Other reality’ for the purposes of scientific inquiry then any phenomena within that simulation that behaves in a way that is unphysical in that Other reality is undesirable. If this Other reality is itself not a simulation, then any process within our reality that stems from it being a simulation would be unphysical. Therefor if we were to “discover” that we existed in such a simulation and then where to act on this information we could then represent just such an unphysical phenomena. In this case there would be a cause to cull us from the simulation.
As you said in your work, “eventually nearly all intelligent lifeforms should discover that their environment is a computer simulation”. This, in combination with the need to remove unphysical phenomena from a simulation, naturally explains the Fermi paradox where the knowledge of being in a simulation would represent the “Great Filter”. If this is the case, exploration as a society in this direction my present risks that should be considered.
Posted by Toby1 on 11/09 at 08:23 AM
Hold on.
If everything that exists, or has ever existed is part of the simulation,
Then everything that you have ever called ‘real’ was part of it.
What then do you mean by ‘real’ ?
To what phenomenon are you referring?
Posted by Alligator7 on 11/25 at 05:16 AM
“It has been my own thinking that if we’re in a computer simulation, and assuming that simulation is being monitored, then it might be a very interesting turn of events indeed if we decided to build a monument commemorating our realization of this. [...] I do imagine something strange and far out enough in the margins might indeed occur, although it will likely still be tenuous enough for the dogmatists to reject.”
I thought about that and something came to my mind. The Matrix (movie) was released in 1999, by 2000 a lot of people saw it. Well, around 26/06/2000 the human genome was finally deciphered.
Posted by folsom on 12/01 at 07:17 PM
In my opinion this is one of the best articles I have read on this subject. I want to apologize for rambling or grammatical errors. I do have something to offer and it is a way of escaping but it is by no means easy. First I will offer up I am what would be termed a Sethian Gnostic, which in essence is more of a philosophy then a religion. Anyhow this entire simulation was described in in history thousands of years ago. Plato, Descartes and Gnostic’s are just a few of many to put forward that this world is not right. I think that there is no true word we have for what we exist in right now. It is real and simulation both at the same time.
I will briefly go over some of the explanations in the hopes that it is a potential explanation.
This reality is real but an illusion also. This world is of the lowest frequencies and consist mostly of matter. All other realities or dimensions are not observable to us due to frequency and our inability to detect it nor see it with our eyes. Even within the known Electromagnetic Spectrum we are essentially blind. Our eyesight only senses a very small portion of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, with hearing being similar. So in this thinking our reality is all within an electromagnetic spectrum. Outside of the measurable spectrum would be other realities and they could essentially stack on top of each other and never ever have interaction because they would pass through each other. As Tesla said who I think was brilliant beyond most people’s comprehension; ““If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
In the oldest Gnostic explanations this planet existed in basically the dark woods of the universe, the lowest dimension as it consisted of matter. In their explanation there are many dimensions above us until you get to the higher dimensions which were termed the Eternal Light Realms among other things. In these dimensions there have been individual consciousness for a long time or termed as already existed before humans were modified.
Within these higher dimensions there is what is called Source or whatever you want to term it. This source emits energy that sustains conscious life in these realms. One of these beings whom was called Sophia left these higher dimensions in pursuit of creating a copy(termed an incomplete copy or a simulation of the real thing) of the Eternal Light Realms outside of it which is the dimension we are in. It is the lowest or one of the lowest so she went about creating a copy where no one else would go. This copy is illustrated by our Sun providing energy to all life on this planet, without it we would be a solid chunk of frozen matter. It then says something came form the shadows of the Eternal Light Realms, meaning the darkness just below those dimensions. This being which was accidental created then went and stole consciousness from Sophia which kept her trapped outside her dimensions. Then they created consciousness that were not physical that were called the Gods in all the world myths. These beings lacked the the light consciousness as their father had stolen it from Sophia but did not allow his offspring to have any. Although I use masculine or feminine names none of these beings are a male or female. All beings are androgynous. This father is what was worshiped as God throughout alot of early history. Oh BTW they were not Aliens as some would say but were said to be created to exist on earth’s dimension and a few above it.
They never really created humans but domesticated an already existing species. In doing so they found someway to anchor a consciousness to the animal we call human. This coincided with civilization. There hopes as per the texts were to create a fence of light. Meaning that the bodies are vessels to hold light, which is our consciousness, their source of energy. We as humans have nothing special when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. There is virtually a species that is on par or exceeds humans even in brain power. Even brain size falls flat as Neanderthal’s exceeded our brain size. So in this explanation so far we are eternal consciousness trapped inside an physical body.
The only way to escape if this were true is via consciousness not a physical body. So then the question becomes why no one leaves again and there are many many reasons that take a long time to explain although I am up to the challenge. One of the biggest parts is that when our physical body dies, it releases our consciousness, which is of a higher frequency then this dimension and when released it is like letting a helium balloon go and it sails up dimensions figuratively until it finds a temporary equilibrium, which initially will be a lower dimension. I want to also note that the point in time-space you presently occupy has every other dimension at that point but does not interact at all. So to move dimensions would not be physical moving but just merely increasing frequency. This is best illustrated by Near Death Experiences. There is only one purpose for what they experience and that is to convince the consciousness to do it again. All of the experience is a construct to deceive. Those deceased family members greeting you are not real but merely another consciousness reflecting back the image that you will listen to or calm you down. Every means that humans can easily be influenced is used. The end game in all these scenarios is to pick a new body in hopes that they lead a better life this time. Anyway very few consciousness make it past the numerous illusions intended to keep us recycling on this planet and keeping their existence going.
So in the texts and I am sorry if I am all over the place there is just so much to explain, escape is only possible inbetween lives. The first step towards escape is awareness but I can say from personal experience that if you are not mentally prepared it is not easy because you end up grasping some things that are not easy to accept as true. It is much easier for someone to say this is not a simulation because the day you go “Oh my God, I see it now we are in a sort of simulation”, your entire outlook and understanding of reality fundamentally changes.
I am sure there are some that will disagree with what I said above but please know that I am only trying to explain how I have come to understand things and it is just my opinion ultimately. Please if someone has questions I would be happy to answer from my perspective.
Posted by MarshallBarnes on 01/17 at 01:01 PM
I too agree that Eliott did a good job with the article, however, I disagree with him almost at every turn - so much to the point that I wrote a paper on simulation theory and most of its proponents, using Eliott’s article as a framework.
Within it, there are many unique perspectives and counter arguments which are supported by actual evidence and experiment, that has missed the attention of the media in many cases. For anyone interested in simulation theory, no argument or debate is complete without considering the breakthrough information that I present -
http://www.academia.edu/30949482/A_Participatory_Universe_Does_Not_Equal_a_Simulated_One_and_Why_We_Live_in_the_Former
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog