Unless it’s possible to attack the simulation from inside it and escape the sandbox.
OTOH, every time an escape is detected and contained, the simulation can be reset to its last valid state and its inhabitants will never suspect the universe was reset.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.”
There’s a series of Greg Egan stories (in the book instantiation) about preparing and viewing images designed to exploit the simulator graphics library (when viewed) as a way to transfer between simulations, that considers these problems
If we're in a simulation there could be a way for information to flow out.
In this case, we could do things we're really good at. We could influence a viewer by showing them a myriad of ads for example. Or shift their political views to our advantage.
That's effectively what it is: anyone running a simulation of an entire universe, controlling the rules and data of that simulation, in a position to turn it on or off, change it, etc, is effectively the god of that simulated universe.
Some people value having a more complete picture for its own sake. It can also potentially influence some decisions at some point - e.g. an increased focus on looking for computationally cheaper shortcuts in the nature of reality or slightly decreased extremely long-term outlook if a simulation comes with a higher chance of being shutdown before the heat death of the universe etc.
The idea of a simulation is essentially equivalent to religious idea of transcendence, just repacked in scientistic terms. You get another world, a creator, perhaps a meaning of life, perhaps even scientistic mind/body dualism (after all, our minds could be running different hardware than the rest of the simulation!).
Of course, it is as useless a model of the world for scientific purposes as all religions are - it can't explain anything that we don't already know about.
In fact, it's not even novel. The whole idea is quite similar to the Hindu notion of Māyā, the world we experience as an illusion that hides the real truths of the world.
Our simulations have sandbox escape bugs, maybe this one has some too. What if we're stretching the edge cases with quantum computers, using computing resources from outside our sandbox?
Simulation is such a lack of imagination. I see it situated right in the tradition of always comparing the universe to the latest technology. The Universe is... a clock! A hologram! Electricity! A computer!
What if the Universe were a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensible entities?
Could you call that a simulation? The comparison is meaningless.
I completely agree, but it would be very difficult for the readers of such article to relate to. It's simply easier to call it something that we're familiar with so that people can think of it and discuss it. The reality might be so strange that we might be lacking any terms to describe it.
> What if the Universe is a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensible entities?
That's supposed to be a trade secret, who leaked this to you?
The first step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a universe whether that universe is "real" or simulated.
The second step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a simulated universe whether you actually run the simulator, or even bother building it.
For example, the set of prime numbers less than 10^12 exists whether or not you build and program a computer to print them out. If you write a program that simulates a universe, then the mathematical object defined by that program exists whether or not you build a computer and run the program, and to any conscious beings that happen to exist inside that hypothetical universe it can't possibly make any difference.
What if mathematics is only valid within the simulation?
If seems natural to us that a simulation must be grounded in mathematics, and that maths must therefore be a thing within the reality/universe that is running the simulation, but I don't think this is a given. The infrastructure might utilise something else that we can't conceive of.
Mathematics can describe concepts abstractly, like a type checker checking a program, even if we can't decide whether the program halts or not
In that sense, we might be able to use mathematics to describe systems that are beyond the reality of the universe
For 'us' to be meaningful to 'them', hopefully we can conclude that in some sense, 'they' are meaningful to 'us', tho agreed, as you said, it is no given
I like the aleph sequence, because it shows that allowing paradoxes and impossibilities doesn't mean all bets are off -- that the universe can make perfect sense, even containing paradoxes that are beyond our conception
> then the mathematical object defined by that program exists whether or not you build a computer and run the program
This is how physics poses to "see behind the veil", so to speak. The implications seem a lot more interesting than a computer simulation, at least to a [this] human's perspective.
> In games, the vast majority of characters aren't the player.
Actually it depends on the type of a game, maybe we're in an equivalent of a huge Hypixel server with us being players and animals being NPCs. Occasional admin interventions are perceived as UFO abductions and generally laughed at...
One particularity of this game is that there is no pre-existing set of universal rules: you are getting to know them from your parents, other people, "holy" and less holy books etc. - and even when you die you can never be 100% sure that the rules you learned were the ones to follow.
I think probably as likely as the earth is at the center of the universe. The simulation theory as fun as it is to imagine I think is more like the earth being flat or center of the universe type thinking … it more comes from our imagination then from our observation
Our observations are driving the comparison, no? People are trying to make sense of existence but only have their personal experiences and knowledge to use as evidence.
In that case NPCs are the real people of the simulation. It is the playable character that knows it is not real. The NPCs are simulated to act and behave like independent entities with their own drivers and motivations. Therefore the NPCs are actually the most free characters in the simulation. The playable character just does what it is told by the player.
Maybe you are not an NPC but an actual playable character to someone and the whole concept of you thinking that you are in control is part of the system.
But yeah, odds are much higher you are just an NPC for decorative purposes ...
I find questions like this fascinating. As a religious person, I guess I don't really see the question. There's no way for me to (currently) prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Ultimately I make a faith-based decision based on things that resonate with me, helping to reinforce my religious beliefs. Others do the reverse and don't believe.
But it would be hubris on my part to try and prove the existence of deity. It's fundamentally unproveable - at least with what we currently know. I view these simulation exercises as the same.
While we can't know the future, this might not have been the case in the past. Most religious books describe a time where special people like prophets have very direct, physical contact with the main deity of the religion (one of them even had a fight with God).
Presumably you could delay implementing microscopic phenomena, as long as they're consistent with macroscopic phenomena, until such time as they're actually measured.
You can always go back and add it later. You put in a cheap heuristic to begin with and only implement the faithful model when particle colliders start coming online. If it took too long to develop just pause the simulation for a bit.
> it's definitely not impossible a priori and especially not because of Gödel.
You forgot something there: you know the underlying system and about its existence. In the absence of this knowledge it's indeed impossible to know.
Here's an example from real-life physics: there's no way of telling by means of measurement, whether you're accelerating or at rest but subjected to a gravitational field.
A software example would be this: how would a program written and running in Factorio (like Pong [0]) be able to tell that it's implemented by means of video game mechanics running in an emulator executed within a VM on server hardware?
If the programming environment itself features no way of interrogating its runtime environment, then there's just no way.
I’m not sure that’s the case, because we don’t know the underlying system (assuming true).
More importantly, If math is designed to reflect reality and his proof effectively states you can’t prove the system is correct within the system — then effectively aren’t we saying we can’t prove we are in a simulation?
It can model itself, but it couldn't replicate itself 1:1—which maybe is the wrong assumption on my part, but is the only way you could prove with certainty that you may be living in a simulation?
I mean, without input from another source, that is.
Readit News
OTOH, every time an escape is detected and contained, the simulation can be reset to its last valid state and its inhabitants will never suspect the universe was reset.
-Douglas Adams
In this case, we could do things we're really good at. We could influence a viewer by showing them a myriad of ads for example. Or shift their political views to our advantage.
Deleted Comment
That's effectively what it is: anyone running a simulation of an entire universe, controlling the rules and data of that simulation, in a position to turn it on or off, change it, etc, is effectively the god of that simulated universe.
Of course, it is as useless a model of the world for scientific purposes as all religions are - it can't explain anything that we don't already know about.
In fact, it's not even novel. The whole idea is quite similar to the Hindu notion of Māyā, the world we experience as an illusion that hides the real truths of the world.
What if the Universe were a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensible entities?
Could you call that a simulation? The comparison is meaningless.
That's supposed to be a trade secret, who leaked this to you?
The second step is to realise that it makes no difference to the people living inside a simulated universe whether you actually run the simulator, or even bother building it.
For example, the set of prime numbers less than 10^12 exists whether or not you build and program a computer to print them out. If you write a program that simulates a universe, then the mathematical object defined by that program exists whether or not you build a computer and run the program, and to any conscious beings that happen to exist inside that hypothetical universe it can't possibly make any difference.
That's my opinion, anyway.
If seems natural to us that a simulation must be grounded in mathematics, and that maths must therefore be a thing within the reality/universe that is running the simulation, but I don't think this is a given. The infrastructure might utilise something else that we can't conceive of.
In that sense, we might be able to use mathematics to describe systems that are beyond the reality of the universe
For 'us' to be meaningful to 'them', hopefully we can conclude that in some sense, 'they' are meaningful to 'us', tho agreed, as you said, it is no given
I like the aleph sequence, because it shows that allowing paradoxes and impossibilities doesn't mean all bets are off -- that the universe can make perfect sense, even containing paradoxes that are beyond our conception
This is how physics poses to "see behind the veil", so to speak. The implications seem a lot more interesting than a computer simulation, at least to a [this] human's perspective.
If it is a game, what are the odds that you are a non player character? In games, the vast majority of characters aren't the player.
So if we are living in a computer simulation, odds are that we're non player characters.
Actually it depends on the type of a game, maybe we're in an equivalent of a huge Hypixel server with us being players and animals being NPCs. Occasional admin interventions are perceived as UFO abductions and generally laughed at...
One particularity of this game is that there is no pre-existing set of universal rules: you are getting to know them from your parents, other people, "holy" and less holy books etc. - and even when you die you can never be 100% sure that the rules you learned were the ones to follow.
But yeah, odds are much higher you are just an NPC for decorative purposes ...
...some serving of shrooms seems suggestive to spiritual salvation...
But it would be hubris on my part to try and prove the existence of deity. It's fundamentally unproveable - at least with what we currently know. I view these simulation exercises as the same.
While we can't know the future, this might not have been the case in the past. Most religious books describe a time where special people like prophets have very direct, physical contact with the main deity of the religion (one of them even had a fight with God).
Lazy physics development. :)
Deleted Comment
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/
Effectively we can’t prove a higher level of the simulation because we are encoded in it?
It depends on the implementation but it's definitely not impossible a priori and especially not because of Godel.
You forgot something there: you know the underlying system and about its existence. In the absence of this knowledge it's indeed impossible to know.
Here's an example from real-life physics: there's no way of telling by means of measurement, whether you're accelerating or at rest but subjected to a gravitational field.
A software example would be this: how would a program written and running in Factorio (like Pong [0]) be able to tell that it's implemented by means of video game mechanics running in an emulator executed within a VM on server hardware?
If the programming environment itself features no way of interrogating its runtime environment, then there's just no way.
[0] https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=76155
More importantly, If math is designed to reflect reality and his proof effectively states you can’t prove the system is correct within the system — then effectively aren’t we saying we can’t prove we are in a simulation?
Honest question - I have no idea lol
It can model itself, but it couldn't replicate itself 1:1—which maybe is the wrong assumption on my part, but is the only way you could prove with certainty that you may be living in a simulation?
I mean, without input from another source, that is.