


Back in October I posted an article rebutting the claim that a lack of computing power was proof that the world is not simulated. The summary of that article was that we currently lack the computing power necessary to simulate a universe at a specified and desired level of accuracy. But this says nothing about future...
Back in October I posted an article rebutting the claim that a lack of computing power was proof that the world is not simulated. The summary of that article was that we currently lack the computing power necessary to simulate a universe at a specified and desired level of accuracy. But this says nothing about future endeavors. Since that claim, there has been a persistence of topics relating to the amount of computing power needed to sustain a realistic simulation.
Moore's law is the observation that computer technology doubles about every two years. This observation was named after Gordon Moore, the co-founder of Intel. In 1965 Gordon Moore projected that this rate of growth would continue for at least another decade. Moore spent the first decade refining the projected model and between 1975 and 2012 the model held. However in 2015 the model reached a point of saturation and since then, there has been a race to come up with a new system of computing. Some companies are even exploring the possibility of organic computers using a combination of hardware technology and cellular biology. In other cases Quantum Computers are being developed but they are incredibly expensive and there are only a handful in existence.
What about software
This saturation of computing power and how it effects the simulation argument led me to consider whether or not semi-conductor technology was the best way to handle simulations. This in turn led me to further question whether or not the software technology commonly used today is the best solution. Surprisingly, I found a company that is completely changing the way software interacts with hardware.
In video games, a type of visual simulation, we use polygons. While in a video game, if you stare at the ground directly below your character, then you are probably looking at around 8 polygons that make up the graphical representation of the ground. The more polygons present, the greater the detail, and the greater the demand in computing power. For example, 2 polygons will require double the computing power as a single polygon. Programmers use various methods for handling this; one example is the restriction of objects within your field of view, this is why some objects don't appear in front of you until you reach a distance threshold, otherwise if you're in a world with 1 million objects, then all 1 million objects need to be loaded simultaneously, but this would bring most computers to a grinding halt. So instead, only a portion of the objects are populated based upon your proximity to them, and whether or not they fall within your field of view.
However, there is a small Australian company called Euclideon that has been quietly developing an entirely new system that solves these problems using a new type of software engineering. This company discovered that the best way to handle visual simulations so that they require less computing power, was to mimic real life. So rather than animate the world using polygons, they are animating the world with a type of virtual atom. The difference is this: two polygons require twice the computing power as one polygon, but 2 atoms does not increase the computation needs beyond that of 1. Furthermore, 2 billion atoms does not increase the computation needs! So while the rest of the world has been looking to increase the computational power of computers, Euclideon has been working on software technology that requires less computational power. This is an incredible breakthrough in simulation technology, and it is based on the world we live in.
This was such an incredible claim, that when Euclideon first announced their technology, no one believed them. 10 years later, they are now opening up holo-decks for consumer use that utilize the very technology that others said was impossible. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that their animations do not require hardware acceleration like so many games do today, most PC's can run their simulations.
I have often said that it is the gaming industry that will get us closer to a realistic simulation, and Euclideon is a gaming company.
Here is their story:

The burden of proof to show that the Universe is a simulation lies with those making the claim. The simulation argument is a critical view of other explanations suggested by scientists, the religious, and laymen. Anyone that rejects the argument can go on with life without flexing a single muscle because you don't have...
The burden of proof to show that the Universe is a simulation lies with those making the claim. The simulation argument is a critical view of other explanations suggested by scientists, the religious, and laymen. Anyone that rejects the argument can go on with life without flexing a single muscle because you don't have a burden, unless of course you make a positive claim.
That being said, I'm surprised at the number of people attempting to disprove something, for which there is no proof of existence to begin with. As a general rule of thumb, I avoid debates involving "proof" against the existence of something, simply because it's quite difficult to prove a negative, hence the burden of proof rests with those asserting a positive claim. Atheism for example is not a positive claim, it does not say "there is no god", but rather it states "I reject your god claim, now prove it". There is a big difference here. That isn't to suggest that no one is making positive claims about the absence of a god, but that smarter atheists will avoid that road since they can't prove that a god does not exist. Likewise, if you're making the claim that the world is simulated, then it is your burden to prove it, if you don't believe this claim, then you need not do anything because if you do, then you run the risk of shifting the burden to yourself.
Summary of Claim
An attempt was made by physicists to simulate a quantum phenomenon present in metals. Within the simulation, the particle count increased and the computer simulation was unable to keep up due to complexity. Therefore, since the system those physicists used to complete the simulation failed, some people claim the world is not simulated.
It is important to note that when physicists post their work, be it in popular format or technical, it is often the readers that turn this into a claim. So don't make the mistake of assuming that a followup article to the work is always an accurate representation of any claims made by the physicist. Many readers will go one step further and post their own work on the topic, sometimes miss-attributing claims of their own, to be claims made by those physicists they are referencing.
So when I read an article over at the Daily Mail written by Cheyenne MacDonald saying that "a new study could finally put the debate to rest", I have to disagree and she should make it clearer from whom that claim comes.
What was stated in the referencing document regarding quantum phenomenon present in metals isn't positive evidence for the claim that the world is not a simulation, this is lack of evidence for the simulation claim, due to an inability to reproduce the effect with the computing power at hand. Lack of ability by a computer system to pull off a simulation is not proof against a simulated reality. If I want to grow corn, and the system I use to grow corn does not work, I cannot make the claim that it is impossible to grow corn. This logic failure also does not mean that the world is a simulation. Anyone making a simulation claim must still prove it.
The Simulation argument ignores the laws of nature?
A logical approach is fair, but this approach only applies when working with facts. I can make a perfectly reasonable and valid (but not sound) logical argument by saying:
All people from Brazil are blue, Stacy is from Brazil, therefore Stacy is blue.
When looking at the conclusion, that is a sound logical argument. But the problem isn't with the logic, it is with the premise that "all people from Brazil are blue". In order for the conclusion to be true, the premise has to be true. When the premise is false, there can be no conclusion, because it is literally inconclusive. Logic works when fed facts, conjecture is not a substitute for facts when used in a logical statement.
So when theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder from the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies says that the the simulation scenario ignores the laws of nature and then she or others (again, the Daily Mail author has not made this clear) conclude that: therefore the world is not a simulation, then we experience the same problem with logic that was expressed above. In this case, a misunderstanding of the simulation argument that has led to the faulty premise. The simulation argument proposes the possibility that the universe is a simulation, this would include the laws of nature. A simulated universe contains these known laws and any laws that the simulation would adhere to are unknown because we cannot see beyond the simulation. Hence, the observer problem that science has yet to explain with the current theoretical model of the universe.
In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't often doubt the abilities of scientist in active pursuit of knowledge within their field of study, but I sometimes doubt the logic invoked as a result of their work, especially when made by 3rd parties.

Now that there is yet another popular celebrity interested in the Simulation Hypothesis, I've been getting Google Alerts on this topic at the rate of about 3 per week, and they all include the name Elon Musk . This is less informative than the other articles on this site, it's more of a rant than anything else; a...
Now that there is yet another popular celebrity interested in the Simulation Hypothesis, I've been getting Google Alerts on this topic at the rate of about 3 per week, and they all include the name "Elon Musk". This is less informative than the other articles on this site, it's more of a rant than anything else; a complaint regarding all of the fluff articles posted since Elon Musk made his interest in the topic known to the public. I've deliberately avoided using the name "Elon Musk" in the title simply because I don't want to appear to be riding those coat tails.
The problem however, isn't that Elon Musk has an opinion on the topic, the problem is with all of the vastly uninformed articles that have sprang up as a result. It seems like everyone is jumping on the topic. I've been wanting to talk about the misconceptions posted in these articles for a while now but simply felt overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cover present in popular media. Instead I'm going to focus in on one article that popped up today March 24th, 2017, and then do my best to ignore the others.
The article I hold in contention is by Max Cohen and posted over at The Inquisitr.
The title of the article is misleading: "Do we live in a computer simulation? Why some prominent thinkers believe we do and why they're likely mistaken."
It's misleading because the author doesn't actually explain why anyone believes in the hypothesis. Nor does he adequately articulate why he thinks that they are "likely mistaken" so his title is either click bait, intentionally deceptive, or just poorly articulated. He also misrepresents the claims made by Nick Bostrom, as well as the origins of the idea when he says:
The simulation theory first entered the scene in a 2003 paper by Oxford University professor Nick Bostrom.
It's amazing that a single comment like that could be riddled with so many errors, all at once. I'll list them:
1. It's not a theory. At best, it's a hypothesis. But there isn't enough data to yet support this as a theory. It's true that in popular media sources, it is referred to as a "theory", but that is often also clarified within the article. Here for example, on this site, it is clarified, even though the phrase is used contextually and within the URL, I still go to efforts to correct any misconceptions regarding the phrase, it is not a theory, at least not yet.
2. Nick Bostrom did not suggest this as a theory and he did not publish a theory. Nick is not a scientist, he is a philosopher and so he published an argument. An argument is very different than a theory.
3. Whether you call it a theory, hypothesis, or just an idea, it certainly did not enter the scene in 2003. This is not a new idea, anyone that has seen the Matrix, released in 1999, is well aware of the fact that this idea did not "first enter the scene" in 2003. In fact the idea that we live in a simulation is incredibly old. The philosophical debate between idealism and realism addresses it at great length and was sparked in 480 BC. And the idea was not isolated, it was well known in Greece and China for example, as expressed by in the writings of Zhuangzi in 369 BCE.
The main problem with this idea is that it takes too much for granted.
It takes nothing for granted. It is an argument in which one aspect of the argument is correct, and therefore the remaining 2 aspects must be wrong. It is a proposition of 3 choices, one of which must be true, this means that two of the propositions suggest that this is not a simulation. How does that take anything for granted? It doesn't.
Why would anyone waste their time and resources simulating the drudgery of our daily lives?
- To improve our daily lives
- To find solutions to problems
- For education purposes
- As a form of entertainment
- For running risk analysis
- For military and defense applications
- Because not everyone thinks of their daily lives is a "drudgery" like you
- Because some people see great possibilities in our daily lives
Furthermore, there are already life simulators (sims). Farm sims, some for science, some for fun, there are boat sims, people sims, space sims, there is even a truck driving sim in which you transport goods via interstate travel, and there are many versions of this sim. Many games are less game and more simulator.
There is even a MMORPG called Chronicles of Elyria that is more simulator than game, your character never leaves the world, has a family, joins communities, takes on the appearance of ancestors, and even dies of old age.
One of my favorite sims is a space sim called Orbiter. It is extremely challenging, requires real world skills, and used primarily as an education tool.
All of these sims address one proposition of the argument; that we might lose interest in creating simulations. But so far the interest has only grown, there are 1000's of sims that exist already.
Of all the possible uses for a sophisticated computer simulation, having one which records every boring day-to-day activity of human life sounds not only incredibly pointless, but also egotistical. Why should any “posthuman” civilization care that much about us?
This addresses another misapplication of the argument. For some reason, and Max Cohen isn't alone here, some people seem to inject the assumption that this could only come from a non-human source. Given that we are not familiar with other races of intelligent beings, it seems more likely that we would be the authors of our own simulations, just as we are now.
And to address the question: "why care". Why do we spend millions unearthing the past? Why do some people spend their entire lives in search of historical archives and events? There are lots of benefits to understanding the past and collecting data on progress.
Those, at least, are some of the reasons why the simulation theory makes for a tough sell.
Despite the claim in the title that the simulation hypothesis is unlikely, Max didn't present one reason for discarding the simulation hypothesis. He presented no sound data in opposition, no observations to rule it out, and no evidence to explain it away. His article, and so many like them, merely pointed out why he didn't find the idea appealing; because he views life as "boring" and a "drudgery". Likewise, and despite the claim made in his title, he also didn't give a single item of point that supports the simulation hypothesis and why some people believe it is a possibility.

Fair Wind Films did an excellent job of summarizing the modern day inclination in favor of a simulated reality. It's about 1 hour long. Although I will be the first to admit the inclusion of fallacies within the film, it's still well worth the time and has some good information. I'll be summarizing or possibly...
Fair Wind Films did an excellent job of summarizing the modern day inclination in favor of a simulated reality. It's about 1 hour long. Although I will be the first to admit the inclusion of fallacies within the film, it's still well worth the time and has some good information.
I'll be summarizing or possibly dissecting, whichever one applies the most, some of the topics raised in the video and then posting them to this site… eventually.

Philip K. Dick was a Sci-Fi writer and philosopher. Dick's novels often addressed the question of what is real with the idea that the world is an illusion and constructed by some outside and unknown but powerful force.
Philip K. Dick was a Sci-Fi writer and philosopher. Dick's novels often addressed the question of what is real with the idea that the world is an illusion and constructed by some outside and unknown but powerful force.

Tom Cambell is a well known adherent for the simulation theory. He is the author of the book My Big Toe , TOE being an acronym for the theory of everything. Tom iterates many of the common observations that lend to the simulation hypothesis, except that Tom asserts that the simulation is real, and he does so without...
Tom Cambell is a well known adherent for the simulation theory. He is the author of the book "My Big Toe", TOE being an acronym for the theory of everything.
Tom iterates many of the common observations that lend to the simulation hypothesis, except that Tom asserts that the simulation is real, and he does so without question. In his youtube video series Tom is often seen asserting claims as if they were fact and then using this as a stepping stone for self-healing and other neo new-age rhetoric.
Some attribute his bias to a desire to increase book sales and he is often criticized outside of the venues that he has control of. Others side with him asserting that he has not demonstrated any bias at all.
Despite any criticisms, Tom Cambell has advanced a thought regarding the accumulation of simulations within simulations by means of a system he calls process fractals.
Process Fractals
As our technology improves, our ability to manufacture convincing simulations improves. If we achieve that, and we ourselves are in a simulation, then we have created a simulation within a simulation. If this is possible, then it is also possible that those that created this simulation, are also acting from within a simulation of their own. This type of inception pattern would be programmed into the original simulation in order to propagate additional, deeper simulations. Tom Campbell calls this process fractals.
We can see some early examples of construction within a simulation as presented in modern video games. In the popular game Minecraft for example, players extract material from the world using tools they built and then use that material to construct their own inventions. Users are not limited to houses and they can even build original machines of their own design. The use of simple switches, and/or gates and redstone (a conductor of simulated electricity) has led some users to invent extensive automated machines, including computers. The video below is an example of a Mac display that someone built within the Minecraft world.
Minecraft isn't the only example. Sandbox MMORPG's have become more popular than their older counterparts. A sandbox MMO differs from older MMO's in that it offers more choices for the gamer. In many cases there is an extensive crafting system involving skill sets, gathering materials, blue printing, and construction. Essentially, Sandbox MMO's give the user more control over the world allowing the world to be shaped by the players, just like here on Earth. It is interesting to note that the appeal games like this have is that they allow the user to be inventive and artistic within the game world whereas in the past, video games had a very rigid structure behind them that did not allow for any personal expression.
We have a long ways to go before plugging our brains into a computer simulation that we cannot discern from the real world, or at least what we refer to as the real world, but it is interesting to see advancements for players within video games carrying on a similar tradition of advancement that we see in the history of the world and that too could be described as a process fractal.

In a court of law, motive is an important factor when determining guilt. One thing I've heard very little about when it comes to the simulation hypothesis, what motivations might be behind it; why was the simulation created and why are we in it? Here are the basic premises of the prison speculation: 1. All that you...
In a court of law, motive is an important factor when determining guilt. One thing I've heard very little about when it comes to the simulation hypothesis, what motivations might be behind it; why was the simulation created and why are we in it? Here are the basic premises of the prison speculation:
1. All that you perceive is a simulation and you are, in part, the source of that simulation.
2. The simulation is a prison and we are the prisoners.
3. The purpose of the simulation is to prevent your escape into the outer world.
4. Our technological advancement works to further imprison us deeper within the inner world.
5. "God" is a conceptual construct of the simulation and is designed to prevent you from finding the exit and explaining simulation anomalies.
All that you perceive is a simulation and you are, in part, the source of that simulation.
This premise leans on some of the concepts presented by Tom Campbell, author of My Big Toe. Tom asserts that the simulation is nothing more than information and that we are projectors that display the information much like a monitor does for a computer. This means that the way we process and present information lends to the preservation of the simulation. In a sense, that makes us care-takers of our own prison.
The simulation is a prison and we are the prisoners.
Of course this begs the question: Why have we been imprisoned? What did we do to deserve this and how long (if there is such a thing) has this been going on? Supporting evidence for this premise stems from the idea that if we live in a simulation, then it has been well hidden from us. If we are prisoners then it would be a necessary security measure to keep this hidden from us because if we were aware of our predicament then we might put more effort into escape. A good prisoner is one that has no idea that he's been imprisoned.
The purpose of the simulation is to prevent your escape into the outer world.
So if this is a prison then that which lies outside of the simulation could be referred to as the outer world, whatever that world might be. Several measures could be taken from within the simulation to deny our escape.
Our technological advancement works to further imprison us deeper within the inner world.
If this is a simulation composed of pure information, then we have knowledge of the concept of simulations, or at the very least, that information has not been user protected. Being aware of simulations we have created our own. The popular game developer Blizzard for example has created an MMORPG called World of Warcraft that enables us to live virtual lives in a fantasy realm. As our technology increases, our ability to create convincing simulations increases until eventually, we are able to create a simulation that is indistinguishable from the lives we live now. When we reach that stage, some will voluntarily choose to live in that fantasy world. If, while in that world, we once again progress to a state in which we are able to produce yet another simulation, then we bury ourselves deeper into the Matrix.
So in our desire to advance well enough to detect the simulation, we may end up becoming further trapped by it.
"God" is a conceptual construct of the simulation and is designed to prevent you from finding the exit and explaining simulation anomalies.
It could be argued that "god" (if real) is a race or team of beings administrating the simulation. But the traditional concept of a "god" in this world would be used to prevent us from accepting the idea that we live in a simulated world. The requirements needed to believe in a god rely heavily on the ego; accepting that the believer has been the recipient of some secret knowledge of the existence of a god and is therefore due a heavenly reward.
Additionally, personal experience is the methodology used to convince some that god is real. Unfortunately, personal experience cannot be presented in a testable manner regardless of how convinced the believer is. So if the believer witnessed something odd such an anomaly caused by some glitch within the simulation, then belief in a god could be seen as the explanation. Many religious individuals admit that no amount of evidence would convince them that god is not real, this closed-mindedness only further works to trap the believer within the prison simulation.
Oddly enough, despite the usefulness of religion to strengthen the bars of the simulated prison, the simulation hypothesis concedes a concept that science has been denying for quite some time now. Science has typically assumed that conscious thought is the result of material existence while religion has asserted the opposite; that all matter is the result of thought. If the simulation hypothesis is accepted then one must also accept that religious adherents have been right all this time, that the world we live in is the result of thought. Except that the world still has roughly 2000 active religions with various gods for each. Perhaps the simulation theory will marry the religious to the scientific.

Dr. John-Dylan Haynes is a Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. In an experiment with Marcus Du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, Dr. Haynes was able to demonstrate that human consciousness can determine a choice of action 6 seconds prior to being aware...
Dr. John-Dylan Haynes is a Professor at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. In an experiment with Marcus Du Sautoy, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, Dr. Haynes was able to demonstrate that human consciousness can determine a choice of action 6 seconds prior to being aware of that choice.
In relation to the Simulation hypotheses, this has raised several questions.
Free Will
Are we merely pre-programmed to respond appropriately and if so then does this disposition apply to both simulated people and non-simulated people? In this experiment, were the signals received by Professor Marcus Du Sautoy 6 seconds prior to being conscious of a choice, informational signals or instructional signals. If they were informational signals then there is free will, if the signals were instructional then some other process outside of Professor Sautoy was used to determine an action and there is no free will.
Information Exchange
If we are living in a computer simulation, then it is a given that information is processed before it is manifest. If we, being projectors of information are able to project an image or perform an action, then we would be aware of the information required to do so well before the presentation was required.

Powered by wikidot.com! Wikidot user since 2007.
