No, that was a Star Wars reboot.
What if our universe were a simulation?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
As others have hinted, one can invoke the Simulation Hypothesis:
My take on it all is similar to that of Slartibartfast:
However its does seem that an experimental test for whether our Universe is a simulation might be possible under some assumptions about its nature:
Of course, if only mind states were simulated, the test would not work. I assume simulation of minds would be much more tractable from a computational standpoint.
My take on it all is similar to that of Slartibartfast:
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.
However its does seem that an experimental test for whether our Universe is a simulation might be possible under some assumptions about its nature:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 and also https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/
Of course, if only mind states were simulated, the test would not work. I assume simulation of minds would be much more tractable from a computational standpoint.
Hehe I used to love that show, but can't seem to watch it now.
But that scene was funny.
The BBC online has an interesting article on this subject:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter
The theoretical rules concerning the behaviour of supersymmetric particles in string theory appear to contain intrinsic error-correcting codes, but as no supersymmetric particles have yet been detected and the jury is still out on string theory, it's a little early to take this as evidence that we're part of a simulation.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter
The theoretical rules concerning the behaviour of supersymmetric particles in string theory appear to contain intrinsic error-correcting codes, but as no supersymmetric particles have yet been detected and the jury is still out on string theory, it's a little early to take this as evidence that we're part of a simulation.
Last edited:
The informational Bekenstein bound for the human brain is approximately I = 2.6 x10^42 bits. This number represents the maximum information that is required to represent a typical human brain right down to the quantum level. The number of possible states of such a brain is therefore 2^I or approximately 10^(7.8 x 10^41). Although enormous, this number is not infinite and it represents all possible state configurations (including memory) for all possible data inputs. All the possible moments of all of our possible lives would be included.
Last edited:
With current technology it isn't, but we don't know what future developments will occur. I don't think it's impossible to simulate a human mind. But the real question is whether a simulation of a mind is the same thing as the original mind. Is it the same mind, a copy or a program that simply behaves like that mind? But if the simulation is unable to tell the difference, does it really matter? It thinks, therefore it is.
If it were merely downloaded, it would be a copy-- even if it had consciousness, it would be a separate consciousness with a unique point of view (and in order to retain the same personality, the simulation would also have to simulate biology as well as abstract thought). In order for a human mind to migrate into a computer or android body, there would have to be uninterrupted continuity between the two before the original body shut down. And I don't think we know enough at this point to guarantee that even that would result in the continuation of the same person.
In a quantum computer, you could potentially emulate all possible states of the "brains" simultaneously because of quantum superposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_simulator
You don't even need to simulate time -- the device can implicitly include all possible Hamiltonians --time arises as an emergent property within the simulated brains. Of course, the device also simulates any quantum state that can arise within a similar enclosed volume containing the same mass, sentient or more likely not.
Such a device could simulate any life history (human, animal, or alien) as perceived by any brain whose size was small enough to be emulated -- for example, elephants, whales, and Neanderthals would require a larger device as their brains have a larger volume. Each simulated being would experience their life without being aware that their consciousness is running in a simulation nor that their various copies experience every possible life history.
Such a device might be used simply to emulate all possible consciousnesses or it might be designed to find the optimal solution for a problem or question.
There are enough atoms in the Earth (about 10^50) to build such a device using one atom per qubit and it's much smaller than the device that would be required to emulate all possible Universes -- the Bekenstein bound is much larger for our Universe, of course, but it only increases as the area (R^2) of the enclosed volume rather than the volume itself (R^3) as might naively be assumed.
ETA: Just a thought if you were thinking of building the device -- the maximum entropy solution for any given mass is a black hole and a black hole with the mass of about 1.5 kg will explode within a minute fraction of a second (2.8 x 10^-16 s) with a yield of 32 megatons of TNT. Just saying...
Last edited:
After this week, I sure hope its a simulation.
If it was, it's glitched.
to me it looks rather like a Murphy's Law's attempt at a DOS attack
