The Universe as a simulation

that's retarded.
of course the closer you look the more things you find out. it's related mostly to our faulty perceptions than anything.
i shiggy diggy doo

Brilliant

It's more than perception.

Quantum phenomenon literally behaves differently depending on observation level. Look up the Delayed Choice Qunatum Eraser experiment.

The fact of the existence of the opinion that the Universe is a simulation is proof that it is not, as what creator would allow the idea to propagate in the first place given the inherent danger and pain it presents us all?

one who doesn't give a shit
perhaps its extremely easy to simulate a universe, maybe we're some teenager's project and we've been running for 4 minutes real time

Nigger, the whole point of a simulation is for things to progress in a close-to-"normal"-as-possible way, and the introduction of the idea that this universe is a simulation, would foul the results.
What you are now saying is that we are not a simulation so much as a virtual environment being used as a toy for a sadistic being.
This holds a lot more water logically.

like i said, the simulation owner could
>not have a point to the simulation
>not give a fuck
>not give a fuck about results
>realize that somehow magically not allowing the concept of simulation to enter our heads would be incredibly un-close-to-normal, you retard
>logically fucks your dumb autist ass you stupid sim bitch
>be ready to flick a switch and run another simulation because it only takes 3 minutes in real time
>just be simulating a specific aspect of reality to generate new memes or some shit and not care about the overarching outcome
>not give a fuck nigger because hes on fleek

How would á simulation even work? Are there any examples of simulations made in our world? Do the Sims count?

>unclose to normal
Welcome to simulation design limits, put in place to stop totally misleading results by having slightly altered results.
>doesn't care about accuracy
>doesn't care about results
This is then not a simulation.
Go be a nigger elsewhere.

are you some kind of mouth breather? retard i can start a conway's game of life in 5 seconds flat and then shut it off out of disinterest
not everyone is some lab coat autist who is bound by le epic fedora memes to require reliable results
>i-its not a simulation
>gets fucking switched off

>GAME of life
>s-simulation
Jesus christ, you didn't even need the rest of the memes, the bait is clear to see.
"Sandbox" does not equate "Simulation"
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here user, leave with your dignity as a troll, or continue and I will leave being assured of the fact that mentally defunct people actually post on this board.

Nice semantics. Back to /v/ you go.

Pretty much this. Experiment now proves that reality is not rendered until it is measured, and that reality is never rendered in a deterministic way and only as one of a range of probable outcomes.

These are not semantics in this discussion my nigro.
The idea that this world is a SIMULATION is arguably easy to discredit due to the existence of this notion, and the danger it's existence poses to the simulation itself. However this relies on the idea that this world is required to be a useful source of knowledge.
Alternatively, if this is just a SANDBOX or similair virtual, or otherwise, object, then is not unlikely that the existence of that notion would pose no serious threat at all to the desired function (fun, spiritual enlightenment etc).
Don't tell me to leave just because you got BTFO trying to troll, and I don't frequent /v/ at all, the definition of a simulation as a having a realistic or tangible objective is commonly misused in video games as well.

Or, you know, because video games are designed by people living in this universe, they mimic our universe rather than the other way round.

>pain it presents us all
As an existentialist, what pain?

How can you measure something that isn't rendered? If I'm not measuring you, are you rendered?

What does it mean to "measure" Who or what measures? And how do you define "reality"?

For you it means the pain of there in-fact being a higher power in our universe beyond yourself.

No bro, in simple, he is using the fact that you don't know what is happening behind you until you look as an example that our universe is on fact a simulation which is busy shedding it's load constantly (ie there is nothing behind you until you turn to look, which is when the system creates the universe for you to observe) (his specific argument was this but with sub-atomic particles etc as the human race looks at smaller and smaller things and keeps finding them)

I remember that game. Small package, big RAM hog back then.

Have there been any other such games like this? Ones with micro files sizes that use tons of RAM to expand in?

I don't think so. Relativity (time dilation) may be a sign that the universe has a tiny amount of "RAM" and is merely switching it in and out as fast as possible. No one thing ever actually staying in memory for very long.

>image.jpg

Why are phone/tablet posters such fucking shitposters? They should be banned on sight.

But what *is* an observer? What determines what is and what isn't an observer? Do you stop existing if I'm not looking at you?

Think of measurement as any sort of interaction between entities.

>shitposter
Really mate? you are that mad?
So mad that you are unironically shitposting about shitposters?

But what do you do?

Liking these. Much better than the probability explanation.

"The probability this is a simulation is high because we would create such a simulation"

Define "interaction and "entity"

Define "define" please user.

If there is a force there's no simulation

>can explain quantum mechanics with math
>has a unified field theory
Care to enlighten me user? as I feel there are some people who would like to know this proof you posses..?

It is not impossible if you have sufficient resources. We can describe every element of the Universe with math, thus every element can be transfered into a computer code. Universe can be simulated or can be simulation.

It doesn't change anything, I am saying that mathematic foundations are everywhere and that means you can build a computer code with it.

If you have proof of mathematical foundation in subatomic particle interactions please produce them, and it can be added to the pile of evidence for a computer simulated universe, otherwise, sit down and shut up.

In No Man's Sky, planets are just an "id" that your PC renders when needed, so your PC doens't have the data of every planet individually.

Add that to the fact that it needs to be online to pull the string of each planet from the server, being random genned and all

I'm measuring me.

Can't the same thing be said about any object? If an entity -you, in this case- can measure itself, why can't other things measure themselves as well, sustaining their own "rendering"? You could say that you're an "observer" kind of entity that is able to measure itself, unlike other entities. But that brings up many questions: 1) If your "rendering" relies on your measurement of yourself, who or what measured you first so you were able to sustain your own "rendering" from there onwards? 2) Does your "rendering" stop when you are unconscious (unable to measure yourself), such as in your sleep? 3) If that were the case, how are you able to wake up, if you are supposedly "unrendered" and thus unable to follow any processes? 4) What is an "observer"? 5) What does it mean "to measure"?

Listen kid, there's plenty of literature on QM, go read it.

>studying QM literature that employs simple language adapted for the masses to understand, which results in an inefficient and insufficient explanation of QM, causing people to get incredibly unbiased ideas about it, and talk about it employing ill-defined concepts that carry enormous philosophical and logical weight which are completely ignored because it's far cooler to talk about "quantum consciousness" and how "nuffin exists until its observed" than to worry about adequate terminology, while people who recognize all of these problems and express them are told to "read a book about QM" by people who are extremely gullible to popscience, causing the same loop to be repeated over and over again

I don't understand QM, and neither do you, even if you aren't aware of that. The difference between you and me is that I know that there is nothing to be understood due to how poorly explained QM is.

It's actually well explained, you just don't know how to understand it.

scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SchroedingerEquation.html

I'm not a simulation theory, but the issues you raise break down fairly easily. Anything experienced by a conscious observer would need to be "rendered" or "created" or whatever. Basically we are talking about a program of sorts that would account for all content in any form of consciousness, which is quite a lot, but the important distinction for this conversation is that it would not have to account for all matter in some material based model. For example, instead of having to map all characteristics of all particles in a massive universe, it would need almost none of this information.
in deep sleep, yes, the rendering would stop, then begin again in wake or REM sleep, according to the rule set that evolved around what we call sleep

I meant "I'm not a simulation theory fanatic"
I may be a simulation, but I must be more than a theory

Listen kid, you can greentext butthurt all you want but the ramifications of QM have been obvious since Einstein lost his shit over it in Copenhagen. The ramifications have been proven time and again with experiment and the current ideas of universe as simulation is pretty run of the mill science now, even to the point of being popsci. Deal with it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics

>The framework of quantum mechanics requires a careful definition of measurement. The issue of measurement lies at the heart of the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, for which there is currently no consensus.
>for which there is currently no consensus
>"I'm measuring me"

No, you don't understand anything. Stop spouting bullshit and think by yourself.

>I'm measuring me
Really buddy? so then why does quantum mechanics even exist if each entity is capable of "measuring" itself?
Presumably an observer outside of the relative interaction is required to measure it, as otherwise there would be no such thing as quantum mechanics due to the sub-atomic particles measuring themselves, no?
This is not quite as simple as you are making it out to be, the argument is over what interaction defines measurement, not over wether a simple element is able to measure the entire amount of it's space simulatanouesly, that is insane to assume.

Greentext quoted wikipedia? I'm glad we'll never meet in real life.

Von Neumann/Wigner sure were some dumbdumbs, right? I guess Bohr and Heisenberg too I guess.

Because patterns > numbers
Pie has infinite numbers. But there are more patterns.

100^10000000 terabytes.

Your welcome

Are we really saying that an infinite number of random digits cannot form every possible pattern? As this user was obviously implying that the pattern was selected from the numbers, not using all the numbers as a whole.

>the "wikipedia is bad" meme

It's supposed to be a point of reference for you to seek more information. But you don't seem to care about being informed, as you're still determined on ignoring all the philosophical and logical problems that the concept of "measurement", "observer", "interaction" and many other words carry, yet you still use them and pretend you understand QM.

OK then, in wikipedia terms. Not even greentext or ad-hominem.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

FWIW, the original interpretation of Bohr was pretty much as per the Von Neumann/Wigner. But it was watered down to the Copenhagen interpretation because Einstein was so butthurt about it, and it was needed to imply that somehow spontaneous measurment can occur.

This has led to a century of wasted science, chasing junk unprovable theories like many-worlds interpretation and shoehorning gravity as a quantum force.

All to get around the butthurt of realists: Despite experiment proving time and again that reality is a non-deterministic fuzz of nothing until something records the data of it, and experiment proves that doesn't ever happen spontaneously but requires some conscious intervention.

There's some moderately interesting interpretations in which the universe is a cellular automata ticking along.

>and experiment proves that doesn't ever happen spontaneously but requires some conscious intervention

No, conscious presence has nothing to do with it. If you left a measurement going and left the room, the same shit would go down.

but that's an example of second-hand conscious presence

God exists it's proven I know it

Another example is Quantum systems exposed to the environment. A two level system oscillating between two states will randomly drop to its lower state as if being measured but it's nothing to do with anyone actually making any measurements on it. It's one of the obstacles in making systems suitable for Quantum computing.

The total maximum entropy is equal to the surface area. So, take a sphere you want to simulate, find its surface area, that is your file size in bits

this is how eidos' programming department """""""""""""""functions""""""""""""

The recording of data is what triggers the wavefunction collapse. Unfortunately that never happens spontaneously.

Look up decoherence

As we look deeper and deeper are we just going to be examining more complex levels of recursive incoherence?

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying that decoherence involves spontaneous wave function collapse without any specific measurement.

> if you somehow reduced our universe down to a finite binary string, you would find it in the binary representation pi

memes detected

recursed.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-irrational-numbers-be-represented.html

Using decoherence as a handwave of the measurement problem is disingenuous.

what if the whole quantum state thing is just like, lossy compression, man

>infinite numbers. But there are more patterns.

I'm just saying that it's not just to do with conscious intervention or specifically "measuring" things like some people ITT seem to be saying.

Decoherence of wave function is different than collapse, so no resolution to the measurement problem. You can either accept that there must be some active observer, or you can be like the past century of wasted science and just pretend the model is wrong but right.

It isn't hard bra

has 7 digits. If you look for patterns like

80
806
8060
80607
8060701
01
701
0701
60701
060701

in it, and you'd already have more than 7 patterns.

>Pi contains EVERY pattern
For one, pi doesn't contain itself. It's easy to show that if it did, it would be a rational number.

define rational

>hey guys i can define patterns in an arbitrary way to fit my needs

these are permutations

literally read any single mathematics text before spouting garbage masked as your "math knowledge" you troglodyte

> trying to bait this hard

This is Veeky Forums, it's about one specific subset of philosophy.
This garbage isn't even interesting, since it's just a re-re-rehash of the D's thought experiment.

Pi obviously cannot contain itself or the square root of two.

Not worth considering. You're only able to think up a framework of assumptions you're incapable of substantiating. It's all based on what you know, but the logic of this greater universe could be quite different. Why is there such a thing as file size? Is this simulation even being generated by a form of machinery at all, do those terms still mean anything?

No. You're asking another question the wrong way. The real question is what sort of hardware and binary storage is required to simulate the universe as we know it. This is a very different matter.

The universe, by definition, is all of existence. The file is just as much of our universe as anything else. So the file itself would have to be taken into consideration when calculating the size of the universe. And so on with each new calculation ad infinitum.

I hope you realize why what you just said was obnoxious, and faulty.

>What do you think the file size of the universe would be, assuming it's a simulation?

It might well be very very small - the laws of physics and the initial conditions can probably fit in less than a megabyte. Then you run it forward only within the light-cone you care about, keeping all that in RAM instead of on disk.

>and the introduction of the idea that this universe is a simulation, would foul the results.

Not so.

The "outermost" shell n0 must, necessarily, have somebody come up with the idea of simulated universes before any universes are simulated.

Then, if shell n1 is an accurate simulation of n0, at the same point in n1, somebody must invent the idea of simulated universes and create n2 etc. etc.

Ahah, but that would lead shell n1 to have possible questions about wether they are actually a simulation (as people ITT are suggesting).
Seeing the amount of damage this notion could cause within a simulation, would you not remove the possibility in order to ensure somewhat accurate results? Especially given the amount of computing power obviously invested in simulating our universe, if this idea took hold it would cause the end of civilisation, probably before we even reached the stage the simulation wished to investigate.
If you see what I am saying, shell n0 reached a certain point in development where they could accurately simulate a universe, at which stage they invariably developed a method for testing wether they were in a simulation akin to the one they had developed, now if they allowed their simulation to reach their stage ( simulation possibilities) then the simulation would likely become self-aware, and foul the results. Keep in mind as well, that if we only made it to this stage, the simulation would never map any future events for shell 0, as we would only ever make it to the moment that "they" discovered their "current" rules of simulation before losing our shit.

>Seeing the amount of damage this notion could cause within a simulation, would you not remove the possibility in order to ensure somewhat accurate results? Especially given the amount of computing power obviously invested in simulating our universe, if this idea took hold it would cause the end of civilisation, probably before we even reached the stage the simulation wished to investigate.

>Running the simulation accurately would cause "damage" to it.

>Running the simulation inaccurately would not

Sorry nigger, you have not found a perfect proof that you are in the "real world," very sorry.

>If you see what I am saying, shell n0 reached a certain point in development where they could accurately simulate a universe, at which stage they invariably developed a method for testing wether they were in a simulation akin to the one they had developed,

Your just used your method. It returned: "Not in a simulation."

Now, are you (A) in the real world or (B) in a simulation of the real world which, because it simulates the real world, simulates the same answer as you would get using that method in the real world?

Indredastin. Reminds me of a description of a simulated reality in this excellent story.

localroger.com/prime-intellect/

Nigger, the obvious best way to run a simulation is as close to real as possible.
However, the reason we call it a simulation is because for whatever reason we are unable to conduct the experiment for "real" and so have to simulate a result which can be counted as a very cose estimate to the real result.
Imagine you wanted to see what the modern habits of the Dodo might involve.
You can a) synthesise a Dodo and release it into it's natural habitat, fully aware that you stand to lose the entire project to forces out of your control
or
you could simply try your best to achieve an accurate representation of the Dodos natural environment, without the risks.
This is what current biologists do, and is the real benefit of simulations.
Are you trying to imply that once we develope an identical replica of the simulation running our world we would still be unable to know it's limits?
It is pretty clear that at some stage the simulation would catch up to the world which created it, and hence would be totally aware of all the limitations of a simulation created at that time, and so would be able to tell that it is infact a simulation run by another world.
So upon getting a "non-simulation" result, we can conclude that either, we are not in a simulation, or, we are in a simulation and have not yet reached a stage in development where we can accurately state wether we are in a simulation or not, as invariably if there are no alterations to our development, we must eventually get to a stage where it is possible to run a simulation similair to what our universe is supposedly running in.

I remember this image. Its the smallest 3d game.

What is Cantor's Diagonalization?

One could then also think about whether this would be a "natural" simulation with information as ("true") quanta of reality (hence erasing of the which-path information seemingly retroactively changes their which-paths). There may be parallel universes with this kind of apparent retroactivity not being "back in time" but "parallel in time".
...or whether this would be a "constructed" simulation with things being blurred at the quantum level (wouldn't make sense if the quantum level would be the actual underlying computational groundwork).
>"Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time."
Maybe it's a kind of "mirror" simulation in which higher levels of reality are kind "imitated" at a lower level...and so potentially multiple times (see the holographic principle for this).