Simulations/matrix and the speed of light

[bilby]

This:


Does NOT follow from this:


You have to explain how the former necessarily follows from the latter. You have to explain how we get from "video games exist" to "we live in a video game". Do you not understand this?

I'll reply to this part of your post. I don't think that

There would be demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality. In the future it would probably be possible so therefore there would be those kinds of games

​

can be accurately summarised as "video games exist". Do you understand why I don't think my quote is equivalent to "video games exist"?

I am saying video games that are indistinguishable from reality will probably exist in the far future. "Base reality" means a world that isn't in a simulation. I'll reply more tomorrow but maybe you could respond to this post.

The demans for video games that are indistinguishable from reality is highly questionable; But even if we assume that there is a demand for such games, that doesn't imply their eventual development.

There's undoubtedly demand for perpetual motion machines; And machines are getting more and more efficient all the time. But that doesn't imply that perpetual motion machines will eventually be available, if only our society becomes sufficiently advanced.

Simulating a universe to a sufficient accuracy as to be indistinguishable from reality requires more resources than the resulting simulation can model - it will always be easier and cheaper just to make another real universe than to make a machine that can simulate one.

 

[excreationist]

The demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality is highly questionable;

Well people can like how VR can seem pretty real and would desire even more immersion.... There are lots of TV shows and movies where video games are indistinguishable from reality including Vanilla Sky, Rick & Morty's "Roy", etc. Also I personally would also like to play video games that are indistinguishable from reality.

But even if we assume that there is a demand for such games, that doesn't imply their eventual development.

It seems one of your main objections is that the universe can't be perfectly emulated... and I address that later in this post...

.....Simulating a universe to a sufficient accuracy as to be indistinguishable from reality requires more resources than the resulting simulation can model

By "indistinguishable from reality" I mean that the player can't tell whether the stars are really 10^57 atoms each or whether they are approximated (when not viewed too closely).

it will always be easier and cheaper just to make another real universe than to make a machine that can simulate one.

Not if you're using optimisation techniques like "level of detail" and AI....
e.g.
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ai-universe-sim-fast-accurateand.html
BTW simulation games (like the Sims and Flight Simulator 2020) don't have to perfectly emulate situations... they can be approximations. In Flight Simulator 2020 you can see blades of grass then fly out to the edge of the atmosphere. Ideally the transitions for "level of detail" would be seamless without "popping". Note FS2020 also uses AI (machine learning) to generate forests and 3D buildings from satellite imagery.
In future games I think you would be able to zoom in even further than blades of grass - and ultimately see atoms, etc. (if you were using a good enough microscope [atomic force?] in the game)

 

[excreationist]

.....Second, at the present time, we don't really understand the nature of reality (Copenhagen interpretation vs. Everett interpretation). Therefore, it is premature to discuss the development of simulations "that are indistinguishable from reality",

When I say "indistinguishable from reality" I mean that the player can't tell whether the simulation is "real" or not. So if they looked at a star they couldn't tell whether each star has about 10^57 atoms or not. I'm talking about limited observations (and "level of detail" based on that) not an omniscient look that objectively compares the atoms in the simulation to "base reality".

or talk about a "base reality" with any degree of confidence. At a very minimum, you have to define what a base reality is, compare it to the reality we (appear to) inhabit, and provide a way to test your hypothesis that this apparent reality is a simulation.

"Base reality" means the world that is outside any simulations.... it is "real". Simulations don't necessarily need to have physics that are anything like the physics in reality but I think in our case it might to some degree because I don't think they would invent quantum physics.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you want to debate this topic and convince others, you have to do more than just endlessly repeat baseless assertions.

I think the "level of detail" (for rendering, physics, AI) and AI simulation arguments are good points. What is your problem with them?

 

[DBT]

It seems fair to assume that there must be a natural universe and evolution to begin with. Then, perhaps, some species evolves to the point where they are able to generate virtual universes, for whatever purpose.

 

[excreationist]

The demand for video games that are indistinguishable from reality is highly questionable....

To respond to this again - games are often praised for being immersive... and the ultimate in immersion is to not be aware that it is just a game.... and it seems realistic and ultimately "real"....

 

[fromderinside]

I think immersive mostly relates to what is expected in terms of motion relative to one's own norms, eg, realistic. Obviously one knows the eye is fooled by successive frames being more rapid than what the eye produces, the image being more representative of light activity (hue, dark light, etc) than the eye processes, etc. If simulations exceeds sense capacities one finds the experience to be very realistic.

We've only been aware of the link between the neural production of empathy and learning for about 25-30 years. Yet we have been taking inadvertent emotional advantage of that linkage in movie making since the beginning of flickers. Identity and plot are inherent catchers of interest and anchor points for emotion. Here is where games designers are on the way to making games addictive.

 

[DBT]

A simulated universe implies an original universe. If our universe is deemed to be too complex, too fantastic, to have evolved on its own, the issue is moved down the line to an original universe; how then did the original universe with its universe simulating super civilization come about? Evolved naturally? Simulations, like turtles, all the way down?

 

[excreationist]

A simulated universe implies an original universe.

Though it is conceivable that the simulated universe created the original universe with retrocausality. (though I'm not a fan)

If our universe is deemed to be too complex, too fantastic, to have evolved on its own,

This is related:
thread - Chameleons and guided evolution
A more extreme (hypothetical) example is the babel fish... though it is highly unlikely it would still be possible with chance.

the issue is moved down the line to an original universe; how then did the original universe with its universe simulating super civilization come about? Evolved naturally?

Yes. I suspect that intelligence that evolved naturally would have a more bare bones evolutionary tree. I think there is so much variety and beauty and complexity in our world - an intelligent force could have been showing off (while following physics so that it isn't completely obvious)

Simulations, like turtles, all the way down?

I think each simulation would contain less information and run slower than the world outside... endless levels would mean that the outside universe is infinitely large while simulating a near-infinite simulation...

 

[excreationist]

This is a reddit post I made... I'm eventually going to make it more formal for other audiences....

The devs nerfed space colonization

The devs teased us by creating billions of potentially habitable Earth-sized exoplanets in our galaxy (that might only be simulated thoroughly when observed to reduce computing resources).

So far there have been no signs of intelligent life outside of Earth (the Fermi paradox) or even any other life at all.

It would take many years to travel to the closest exoplanets (orbiting Proxima Centauri).

But I think the main problem isn’t travelling to the different planets, it is communicating with the different settlements.

e.g. it takes 1.2 seconds to send a message to the Moon - which is a bit laggy.

Elon Musk wants to send a million people to Mars by 2050 but it would take between 3 and 22 minutes to send a message from Earth to Mars. (and another 3 to 22 minutes to get the reply)

It would take 100,000 years to send a message from one side of the galaxy to the other. So much for a potential galactic empire….

This would reduce the computing resources needed to simulate an interstellar civilization.

Maybe our devs also have a slow speed of light and are running our simulation to pass the time during a long trip to another star.

Some of my comment replies:

Space colonization isn't that hard. You could start with the Moon and Mars. Elon Musk thinks they could have a million people on Mars by 2050. Exoplanets in other star systems are only 4.3 light years away. Waiting on Mars for 6 to 44 minutes for each interaction with the Earth's internet and chat would be a bummer for the Mars colony - well I guess it is better than snail mail.

Warp drives are theoretically possible:

https://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

Though I don't think a craft using a warp drive would increase how computationally intensive the simulation is much. While travelling the craft is fairly isolated.

Other comments:

Person 1: You can send binary in real time across infinite distances with quantum entanglement, there's hope for us yet dude.

Person 2: Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Also by measuring your entangled particle, you collapse the entangled state. Hence, you require distinct pairs of entangled particles for each symbol that you wish to send.

 

[skepticalbip]

Person 2 was a slight bit more correct, but still wrong. You don't have the option of selecting the state of an entangled particle. You can only detect its state (whatever it happens to be) and know that the other has a complementary state. Since you can't set the state and them still be entangled, you can't send a message.

 

[excreationist]

@skepticalbip:
Thanks! I let the guy on reddit know.

BTW I also thought about the possibility of travel/communication using worm holes....

 

[Potoooooooo]

 

[steve_bank]

For people who think there is no way we are in a simulation, maybe you could think hypothetically...

I think I read somewhere that the speed of light would make there be a limit to how CPU intensive the simulation is...

Also time and space being relatively discrete (rather than infinite precision) means it can theoretically be simulated on a computer.

Apparently time slows down due to gravity (related to how crowded things are) - which would also reduce the CPU usage.

BTW the type of simulation I believe in uses "level of detail" rather than always explicitly simulating every particle in the universe.

All computers and all electronics have the speed of light as a fundamental speed limit. Just like radio waves n space the electrical signals on a circuit board or inside a chip take time to propagate. It limits how fast memory can be accessed.

In high speed digital design dealing with what are called propagation delays is a fundamental problem. T

As chip size shrank processor speed increased.