It’s crazy Plato was talking about this back in the day, and in the last 2,000+ years of science and technology, we kind of just found more stuff that it’s not only possible, but statistically likely that even if this isn’t, we’ll have the tech eventually.
Not in any of our lifetimes, but in another couple thousand years at least.
Well, we can’t simulate our universe inside of our universe (it’d take more matter and energy than our universe has, since it’s trying to calculate our universe). We will be able to (and can) simulate simpler systems though. Potentially our universe is a simplified version in an even larger version though, and that could also be another simulation. Things like the Planck length and time make this seem more reasonable to me, since an expected simulation would have minimum sized units where it stops storing extra data.
We should still all behave like it isn’t a simulation, since nothing changes if we do or don’t. Still, it is interesting to consider.
Planck scale units aren’t known or typically assumed to be minimum units. They’re just the units that come out of combining some fundamental constants and are thought to represent a scale where the effects of quantum gravity have too much effect to be ignored. They just represent a theoretical limit to the validity of our current models.
Human knowledge will continue to push these boundaries as long as humans still exist, but it’s arrogant to think our current human limitation is a universal limitation.
Yeah, I oversimplified it but it’s the scale where the data doesn’t matter anymore. It isn’t a minimum distance or time, but it is a minimum distance or time that actually matters. It is in no way evidence of a simulation, but a simulation could be expected to have things like that, because infinite precision would require infinite data.
What about the equivalent of foveated rendering? They’re only simulating the bits conscious observers can see, the rest is …not simulated to the same level? I guess you’re kind of going there with your model within a model thing. If we are the point of the simulation, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to simulate much beyond the planet besides what little astronomers can work with? Gonna crash this thing with enough players!
There’s a weird SF story that has blood cell sized intelligences and reality starts to break because there are so many observers on such a small scale that reality can’t change without being observed and then they all “poof” into another dimension or something and humans are left alone again. Anyway, the number of players crashing the simulation made me think of it. Blood Music by Greg Bear.
Not only we can’t simulate our universe, but the total simulating capacity of every level of every one of our simulations can’t reach the size of our universe either.
The pseudo-probabilistic argument people use is bullshit on many levels, but the simplest reason is that there will always be more universe outside the simulations than inside it.
It’s crazy Plato was talking about this back in the day, and in the last 2,000+ years of science and technology, we kind of just found more stuff that it’s not only possible, but statistically likely that even if this isn’t, we’ll have the tech eventually.
Not in any of our lifetimes, but in another couple thousand years at least.
Well, we can’t simulate our universe inside of our universe (it’d take more matter and energy than our universe has, since it’s trying to calculate our universe). We will be able to (and can) simulate simpler systems though. Potentially our universe is a simplified version in an even larger version though, and that could also be another simulation. Things like the Planck length and time make this seem more reasonable to me, since an expected simulation would have minimum sized units where it stops storing extra data.
We should still all behave like it isn’t a simulation, since nothing changes if we do or don’t. Still, it is interesting to consider.
Planck scale units aren’t known or typically assumed to be minimum units. They’re just the units that come out of combining some fundamental constants and are thought to represent a scale where the effects of quantum gravity have too much effect to be ignored. They just represent a theoretical limit to the validity of our current models.
Human knowledge will continue to push these boundaries as long as humans still exist, but it’s arrogant to think our current human limitation is a universal limitation.
Yeah, I oversimplified it but it’s the scale where the data doesn’t matter anymore. It isn’t a minimum distance or time, but it is a minimum distance or time that actually matters. It is in no way evidence of a simulation, but a simulation could be expected to have things like that, because infinite precision would require infinite data.
What about the equivalent of foveated rendering? They’re only simulating the bits conscious observers can see, the rest is …not simulated to the same level? I guess you’re kind of going there with your model within a model thing. If we are the point of the simulation, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to simulate much beyond the planet besides what little astronomers can work with? Gonna crash this thing with enough players!
There’s a weird SF story that has blood cell sized intelligences and reality starts to break because there are so many observers on such a small scale that reality can’t change without being observed and then they all “poof” into another dimension or something and humans are left alone again. Anyway, the number of players crashing the simulation made me think of it. Blood Music by Greg Bear.
Not only we can’t simulate our universe, but the total simulating capacity of every level of every one of our simulations can’t reach the size of our universe either.
The pseudo-probabilistic argument people use is bullshit on many levels, but the simplest reason is that there will always be more universe outside the simulations than inside it.
I would like to know more about Plato’s version of the simulation theory. It sounds fascinating.
I think they’re referring to the Allegory of the Cave. Which isn’t quite simulation theory, but it does tread some of the same questions.
I mean, for someone who had never heard of electricity, it’s about as close a comparison as he could get.
He explained it the only way someone from his time would have been able to.
Ah, I’m familiar with that one in particular but I thought there was a different one I had missed.
How would we know it were actually happening if it were possible?
I’ll see you all in the next level