Agnostic.com

26 5

Some Evidence for the Simulation Hypothesis

The Simulation Hypothesis suggests that we don't actually exist as really real reality but as virtual reality. We 'exist' only as programmed software inside a computer. While this sounds on the surface absolutely crazy, there is evidence, both observational and theoretical which supports the concept.

Here's a stab at some observational evidence / data for the Simulation Hypothesis which postulates that we 'exist' as a simulation inside a computer driven by programmed software.

Evidence in Computer Codes: What Professor of Theoretical Physics Sylvester James (Jim) Gates discovered, by his own admission, is evidence. What he found was computer code encoded within the equations of string theory used to describe the Cosmos. He used the phrase "The Matrix", when discussing this with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. [You can find relevant videos on YouTube.]

Evidence from Fine-Tuning: Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, is on record as saying that the Cosmological Constant is fine-tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power. One part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, etc.

Evidence from the Cosmos: The accelerating expansion of the Universe is evidence. The energy density of the Universe cannot remain constant while the volume of the Universe is increasing. That's a free lunch. That's the generation of something from nothing. Software however can create that illusion.

Evidence from here on Earth: There is no single acceptable explanation for Crop 'Circles' - not ET, not Mother Nature, not human activity. What we might have here are special effects courtesy of software.

Evidence from the Atom: It's claimed, I suspect with very good experimental reasoning, that an atom is literally 99.99% empty space yet we have the illusion that there is no empty space. That 99.99% emptiness suggests our programmer is being very economic with the bits and bytes while also being able to program in the illusion that there is no empty space.

Evidence from Quantum Mechanics: Pure observation cannot change wave behavior into particle behavior as revealed in the delayed double slit experiment (unless you want to invoke Panpsychism). It's just another software-generated special effect.

Evidence from Theoretical Cosmology: The Holographic Universe scenario (all the rage among some cosmologists) shares an awful lot in common with any virtual reality simulation. Both are actually 2-D constructions while giving off an illusion of 3-D.

Evidence from Quantum Entanglement (Non-Locality): There's no spooky action at a distance (something that worried Einstein) because there is no real distance. In a simulation all points originate from a very small spatial space. It's like a planetarium that simulates the entire visible Universe. Light can travel from one side of the simulated 'visible Universe' to the other side of the simulated 'visible Universe' in a nanosecond if not less. The speed of light has no validity in a simulation.

Evidence from Particle Physics: How can the electric charge of the electron be EXACTLY equal and opposite to that of the proton when they otherwise share nothing in common?

More Evidence from Particle Physics: Why, oh why are there three generations or families of the elementary particles when the top two play bugger-all roles in what makes up life, the Universe and everything? Someone stuffed up and it probably wasn't a deity.

Evidence from within Our Solar System: It seems an absolutely amazing coincidence that the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon happen to be just so as to produce solar eclipses at just the right moment when humans came on the scene to appreciate this, given that the Moon is ever moving farther away from the Earth. Also, the tilt of the Moon's orbit has to be within very narrow parameters.

Evidence from the 'Good' Book: We (Royal We) could very easily computer simulate the Jonah and the 'Whale' (tall) tale. So maybe if it really happened, and multi-millions so believe that event to be true however unlikely that seems. So then maybe it was also just a simulation but not one of our making.

Evidence from Probability: If the intelligent species inhabiting the Third Rock from the Sun is a typical example, there will be vastly more virtual reality worlds than real worlds which just might imply that the intelligent species inhabiting the Third Rock from the Sun are themselves virtual beings.

Evidence from Mathematical Equations: It defies probability that the numerous equations used to describe, evaluate and otherwise help us come to terms with the laws, principles and relationships inherent in our mathematical cosmos should nearly all have low value whole numbers as well as a few simple fractions with respect to their coefficients and exponents.

Evidence via Cosmic Recycling: It doesn't have to be the case that stars can recycle their contents to ultimately form new stars with a higher 'metal' content ('metal' defined as everything but hydrogen and helium). Most stars in fact don't recycle their guts. There's recycling and then there's the ultimate garbage dump - Black Holes. It's rather fortunate that not too many stars turn into Black Holes otherwise the Universe would consist of Black Hole filled galaxies as their sole objects - maybe even the galaxy itself would be a pure Black Hole. So recycling stars and not too many Black Holes show a degree of fine-tuning and design courtesy of our computer / software programmer.

Evidence from Our Solar System: The oft observed 'natural' satellite of Venus, named Neith, went walkabout - vanished without a trace. Natural satellites just don’t vanish!

Evidence from Memory: Using our own simulations as an example, we often rewind, replay, tweak, etc. the relevant software. If we are a simulation, and our virtual reality software was replayed, rewound, and/or upgraded, that just might explain the mental phenomena we've nearly all experienced, Deja vu.

Evidence from Our Simulations: Ultimately our simulations are pixelated, the bottom line being 1's and 0's, bits and bytes. There is a fundamental limit to the resolution our simulations have. Well, of course our 'real' Universe is also pixelated and has an ultimate limit to how fine a resolution we can observe it. Everything with any structure and substance seems to be quantized.

Finally, I need point out that all of the above is just suggestive evidence. I make no claim that any or all of the above actually proves we ‘exist’ as a virtual reality simulation.

johnprytz 7 Oct 10
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

26 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

Since you don't exist, could you turn your paycheck over to me?

@johnprytz How do you eat? Or do simulated beings not need to eat?

4

The hypothesis of a simulated universe is another attempt to explain our existence by postulating a "higher power", and as such is not very different from primitive religious theories.

@johnprytz Clarke's third law applies here.

3

Ohferpetessake, Another thing to waste your life on..somebody, just please tell me Exactly how this makes one minute's difference to anybody's life in any way?

@johnprytz and who, exactly, told you i want or need an "afterlife"??? No, thanks. If i have to have something in that area i would greatly prefer reincarnation for all new adventures
BTW I have died twice already, and it was fine the way it was......peaceful!
Incidentally I doubt any non-religious-based afterlife would make one spec of helpful difference to anybody's life....if anybody can get in, why not become an ax murderer?

@johnprytz Well that was fun. The comments are sometimes so much fun.

@icolan y'all please just volunteer for a soup kitchen or something...something useful & Productive, PLEEEAASE!
And get over Any afterlife, it makes not one iota of difference to this life, unless you think you might be going to He'll, I suppose.....

@icolan this is indeed the only life we get (that we can be aware of, regardless if you read the OP or not) and whether it is some kind of "virtual" or constructed thing makes not a jot of difference to anybody.

@johnprytz on the other hand, i have Lots of memories i could live without, so to speak. Maybe if your life has been peaches & cream, you want your consciousness to go on & on.....for me, looking forward to the peaceful darkness!

3

I've had this debate with others.. I feel I have to remind you , the majority of your evidence also can be used to say it is evidence of a higher power..

Most of your evidence is "faith based" .. same problem religious people have..
"The accelerating expansion of the Universe"..
One, that's not "evidence ".. two , we don't know why it's happening.. it could be gods plan, a simulation, or some part of physics we don't really understand yet..
Deciding that it is a simulation is just a "leap of faith". You are no better then a person who believes their god is the right one.. heck.. at least they have a fancy book ?

"Evidence in Computer Codes:"..
That was explained below.. and I think very well.. no need to add to it

"Evidence from here on Earth: "..
Actually there is lots of evidence that supports it usually humans that do it.. you might want to dive a little deeper into the facts before making pronouncements like that..

Evidence from Particle Physics and atom..
Not sure how that is evidence?
Why would a simulation even bother with that?

3

Well, if that turns out to be true then a heaven and God program becomes more valid. I hope the program doesn't have a hell. We need to find the cheat codes ASAP

2

You have been watching too many Keanau Reeve movies homie.

2

Huh. Someone please find me Ctrl-Alt-Delete. I am afraid that the simulation has been infected with viruses.

The God Virus

@paul1967
I was thinking more about the homo sapiens virus, that spawned all other viruses....

1

Blindly rejecting an idea because you see a resemblance to another idea which you despise is no better than blindly accepting an idea because it does so.

1

Your evidence is not well substantiated. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is just silly.

@johnprytz The evidence is in your post.

1

This is mental masturbation. Mind games for those privileged with education and time but alienated from their fellow humans. "Thought Experiments" for those with a lack of compassion to address real issues facing real people. It's this idle speculation that prompts the term "Educated Fools."

@johnprytz Do it , then!

These are the interesting things I think when doing mindless drudge work, like vacumming, dishes, laundry. Doesn't mean the what if game can't be applied to o real life - problem solving is a what game. geezzzzz

@johnprytz This answer is escapist, as is your original post!

1

For the sake of argument, let's say it's true - Life is just a simulation. Perhaps a video game played by actual beings. What do you do?

  1. Do you commit suicide and take as many of the other characters with you as possible?

  2. Do you stop participating in the ruse? Focus on indulgences and instant gratification?

  3. Or do you play the role you've been given? Try to enjoy the game you're in?

Would you have a choice?

@johnprytz @Piece2YourPuzzle

Ok then, philosophers. It's Tuesday afternoon at 4pm. You just realized you have no choice. What do you do now? How do you "cast your fate to the wind"?

Blow your brains out? Stop eating and starve? Or do you go ahead and have dinner, then hang out with family or friends?

@Piece2YourPuzzle If the programmer gave you a choice. Some of this comes up in the original 'Blade Runner' when Deckard realizes Rachael does not know she is a replicant. "How can it not know what it is?"

1

How about evidence that we are not in a simulation. All of the irrational numbers that cannot be computationally bound

1

If it is a simulation then who is to say we aren't a virus? Or other animals? Plants? Some are just worse viruses than others.

Does a virus know that it's a virus, or does it just act as if it has a purpose and tries to survive by "eating" and "spreading"? Sounds like humans to me as well as other "viruses" we know about that get into our own bodies. When we die in "natural disasters" is it the entity (Earth) that we are a virus on trying to save itself by killing the virus and cleansing itself?

What would that make the Earth then? Could every living thing be classified as a virus? Would the better classification be bacteria?

Any microbiologists or virologists in here?

1

What difference does it make? Our joys and sufferings are real. When climate change really hits, it won't feel like a simulation to us. Nor does it feel like a simulation when you lose a loved one now.
This is the sort of idle speculation that gives intellectuals a bad name. In "Gulliver's Travels," Johnathan Swift satirized the Great Minds pondering such abstruse idiocies in their Ivory Tower to display their supposedly superior intellects.
Come back down to earth and address our real problems here!

1

While I don't actually believe this is the case, because there's really no good evidence for it, I find it just as likely as a magical sky daddy that created everything.

I also don't think any of this constitutes good evidence. Some might be considered interesting arguments, but that's about it.

The best argument that I've heard for this idea is much simpler.

"Do you think that human technology will ever be powerful enough to create a simulation where the characters within think they're real?" (I'd answer probably yes)

"If humans could do this, do you think someone would?" (I'd answer most definitely yes)

2 yes answers would most certainly make the possibility that we're a part of a simulation much more likely than actually being "real".

@johnprytz

I will admit that I don't think it's "impossible" but that certainly doesn't mean that it's plausible or even actually possible.

As plenty of others have stated here, it's just another god idea. The big difference is that there is no "divinely inspired" bible to make the idea contradictory to itself and easy to debunk.

So while it might be mildly entertaining to discuss and ponder about, it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

@johnprytz you're mistaken. Just because I don't believe that something is impossible is not the same as me saying that I do believe that it is possible.

It's the same as me saying I don't believe in any gods, which isn't there same as me saying that I believe no gods exist.

@johnprytz sorry, that's wrong. Just because you don't reject one proposition doesn't necessarily mean that you accept the opposite.

If I flip a coin, and I ask you "do you believe that it's heads?" You would probably answer No, because you don't know. But if you answer No, that doesn't mean that you do in fact believe it's Tails. Get it?

Sorry to keep harping on this, but that's a sure fire way to trap someone into accepting a premis that isn't true. It's important to know these tricks that people use so that you don't fall into their traps.

@johnprytz
I see that we're not talking about the same thing. First, we're having a discussion about something, we're not in a lab trying to actually price something.

Second, I stated my opinion that "while I don't think it's impossible, I don't necessarily believe it is actually possible. Which is my opinion about the subject.

You first stated "If it is not impossible, then it is possible" Which is a statement about the actual reality of things, which would require demonstrable evidence, not about anyone's opinion of the subject of a discussion. You're correct about that one. But the rest you went off the rails.

In any case it's really not with arguing about as we seem to have hit a wall.

1

It is what it is. Life is good.

1

Thanks for bringing up this topic!
I find a few of these points to be be deeply convincing support for the possibility of a simulated universe. Wave-particle duality and the “granularity/resolution” of the universe, as well as the observer effect of quantum mechanics, all seem like obvious programming shortcuts. And I know a lot of people wave off the statistical justification, but I find it to be equally convincing.

On the other hand, things like crop circles, déjà vu are totally unconvincing as support to me. Like the mandela effect, déjà vu could easily be an outcome of our brains. And crop circles seem likely to be 100% frauds.

As for the fine tuning issue, it feels like the anthropic principle could explain that as well (we see a universe tuned to our existence because otherwise we wouldn’t exist to see the universe). Some of the other support offered seem to be no more than coincidence. If we’re going to postulate a possible creator (and really, aren’t we?) I’d rather not base it on coincidence

I’m not familiar with Prof. Gates, and evidence from the evidence density of the universe. I’ll have to look into those. And I’ve never quite grasped what a holographic universe is supposed to be. I guess more digging is called for there, as well. All in all, I think the simulated universe is a fascinating possibility.

@johnprytz And that alone is enough reason to block you. Thanks for the warning!

1

Very interesting and pretty impressive list of reasons we could be in a simulation. If we are what possibliities might exist?

My mind leaps to the idea that the owners might decide that they're done with this simulation and turn it off / erase it.

0

Unlike many of the others, I do not find this suggestion preposterous. However, like many of the others, I don't feel it worthy of a great deal of my free time to think about extensively.

I have my doubts that if it IS true, it is discoverable truth. However, of all the arguments you have presented above, the argument from pixellation is the only one I find compelling. In particular, quantum physics (if it is indeed a correct model of our existence) suggests that there is a lower bound to our degree of resolution, something that isn't true of most fractal objects, which we observe most natural dynamic systems to be.

Of course, if "all this" is simulated, it begs the question of whether our simulator is itself simulated. My feeling is, is that that in and of itself might be falsifiable by us attempting to create simulations ourselves with a high degree of replication of our reality and finding that the actual resolution limit is lower than it should theoretically be (loss of information due to imperfect replication). We won't know the answer to this thought-experiment until we know more about how our (real or simulated) universe actually works.

Some of your arguments ascribe a certain "intent" to the simulator(s?)-there is no reason to think the simulation was created by human-like entities, although it is one possibility. I'm also unsure as to why our known universe is so vast with regards to ourselves, and yet there aren't more "NPC's" we've run into.

It's true that a complex simulation might be generated with fairly efficient code, I think Rule 110 is a good example of that.

Unless there is the possibility that we could somehow communicate "outside the universe", the relevance of the truth of this conjecture remains dubious. Perhaps, though, it might be of some benefit to our own attempts to develop AI, and understanding the nature of consciousness. Those are pretty big "if"s though.

0

When did mankind start thinking of this simulation? Was it before the books and movies that deal with the subject or was it after?

Let us replace gods with another idea. Presto! Here is a new religion.

Simulation theory goes as far back as the early to mid 1600s with Rene Descartes. I'm sure people had thought about it before then too.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Any simulation ideas would have to place everything in the mind of a god. It's a far step from that into what you read in books or see in a modern movie that brings out this subject.

@DenoPenno You asked a question and I gave you an answer. Simulation theory has a long history. Besides, simulation theory does not necessarily suggest a "God", especially not in the way it's defined by humans. Humans have created simulations and we aren't the traditional definition of a God.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Circular reasoning to rationalize your theory. Have you figured out yet who is doing the simulation?

@DenoPenno It's not circular reasoning. It's logical reasoning. What does figuring out who is doing the simulation have to do with what I said?

@Piece2YourPuzzle OK YOU WIN, AND THE SIMULATION WAS A TOTALLY NATURAL PROCESS. Now let's stop please. Before long you will appear as a total fool to many others that you do not know.

@DenoPenno Win what? You are unable to have a discussion without shifting the goal posts or looking to "win". Look like a fool? Wow, you're an a**hole! Lol But yeah, let's stop. Oh and I also never once said it was definitely a simulation.

0

That is just replacing the god of the gaps with simulation theory. Simulation theory becomes a religion. Tyere are more errors, logical fallacies, misunderstood concepts, and plain nonsense that I feel like responding to.

OK, maybe just one: "Evidence from the Cosmos: The accelerating expansion of the Universe is evidence. The energy density of the Universe cannot remain constant while the volume of the Universe is increasing. That's a free lunch. That's the generation of something from nothing. Software however can create that illusion."
First law of thermodynamics also known as the law of conservation of energy. Energy, in an isolated system, cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. The opposite of what you stated. From the way you worded the statement you don't seem to be familiar with the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy. Finally, the concept of expanding universe is a simplification in the intuitive, three-dimentional space, even ignoring the foutrh dimension - time. Most people don't realize that it is not expansion in space but expansion of space itself. Rememering that, the concept of expansion means something different. OK, one more. Let's not confuse a quanta with a unit of information. Quantization may not apply to everything, we just don't know yet. The Planck length is considered the smallest unit for various reason but that doesn't mean that space is quantized. Science has no clue what space is. We know bits and pieces, we know that on a subatomic level space is non-local. That there doesn't seem to be such thing as distance. We know that particles pop in and out of it because of the fact that quantum world is governed by probabilities, not binary zeroes and ones. We know do little about the universe that speculating about living in a simulation cannot be taken seriously. Silulation hypothesis, just like religions, tries to explain complexity of the universe by introducing even more complexity. In case of religions it's gods, goddess, etc. in case of simulation hypothesis it's super smart beings with superfast computers. With simulation we are getting into the First Cause territory from religion but in this case the question would be: who is simulating the simulators?

0

The software analogy still suggests a Designer Programmer (plus background hardware for the program to run in). Strikes me there's no significant difference between this and the God hypothesis.

Analogy and godspeak always move hand in hand.

@johnprytz The Simulation Hypothesis assumes a Matrix-like hardware within which Simulation software is running. Intelligent design?????

@johnprytz I am the product of evolution. The evidence is real and overwhelming. Only an idiot chooses to be blind to fact!

Intelligent Design is the Christian's last attempt to dodge the TRUTH, and they have once again failed the test of REASON.

@johnprytz Analogies are just that, analogies. Please don't get carried away and think they're true to the point of truth. Our models express our ignorance as much as our understanding.

0

You're spouting nonsense. Just sayin'.

@johnprytz Don't get me wrong. I love the idea and it's a great counter intuitive thought experiment. To say it's an overwhelming probability that we exist in a virtual reality is a big assumption.

@johnprytz It's all down to granularity. There would be no need to go to the amount of granularity in this universe when you can achieve the same results with less complex algorithms.
Unless of course, granularity is an illusion tweaked in by the director of the sim. However we're talking about lots of tweaking, and interference, so not in line with how a simulation should work.

Your original post lost me at crop circles. A well documented human hoax irrelevant to simulation arguments.

@johnprytz Just because you read it in the interweb doesn't make it so.

0

The idea of the world is a simulstion is silly. The Holographic Theory means that the information contained in a volume of space can be represented in two dimensions on the boundary of that space. The implcations of that finging are significant but that is all the theory states. It's about a property of nature, the universe, sort of like the fact that angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. No, we don't know what space is, the simple double slit experiment shows that it is not what it seems to be. We don't know if time exists. If scientists don't find evidence for particles necessary for the supersymmetry to work the string theory as it is today will be dead. Maybe quantum loop gravity will offer a way towards better understanding of the substrate of spacetime. We are certainly missing something big or maybe are coming up against the limit of our intellectual abilities. After all we are apes and evolved to find food and make babies on the surface of a small

@johnprytz I didn't say that Simulation Hypothesis has implications. I said that Holographic Hypothesis has implications. One of the main contributors, if not the creator of it, has a couple of very interesting lectures on Youtube on the subject created for non-physicists. There is even a short video in which he jokes about people misunderstanding his holographic theory when talking to Dr. Brian Green. A Google search will find it. As to what the implications are Dr. Susskind's book "The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics" from ten years ago can explain it better than I can. In brief, it had to do with preservation of information which falls into black holes. His work from a decade ago is widely accepted. He doesn't mention the possibility that we live in a simulated world. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the Nobel Prize. His reasaerch advisor, Gerard 't Hooft is a winner of the prize. There is no evidence that our world is a simulation. The very idea from the point of the very basic laws of thermodynamics is nonsense. Why are wr talking about these subjects on this website?

0

I would love to believe that this theory is fact. It would help to think such a fucked up place isn't real.

Yeah, but wouldn't there have to be some "reality" to this fucked up place? Wouldn't at least some of it have to be pulled from the programmers existence or past existence? Don't you need a frame of reference from which to create? Even when humans create something like a unicorn in art, it's based off of a horse.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:197685
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.