Darksand

But none but trolls from you. Very scientific. I do not understand why you have such an emotional reaction to this topic.

yet still no arguments against my premise.

No. AI-answer: planets in No Man's Sky remain the same when you return to them. The game procedurally generates planets based on a mathematical formula (a seed), and this formula ensures that any planet you visit will always be identical each time you return, even if you've made changes to it. AI-answer:No Man's Sky does not store the data for the entire procedurally generated universe. Instead, it uses a set of algorithms and a "seed" number to generate the game world on the fly as players explore. When a player visits a location, the game calculates the data for that area based on the seed and their current position, rather than retrieving it from a pre-existing database. This allows the game to create a vast universe with seemingly infinite possibilities without requiring massive amounts of storage. Quick google search shows this is not the case for no mans sky. Savegames no mans sky Would there be others that are big, could be, for many reasons, but as shown for no mans sky, it isn't needed at all. Also, not everything would be procedurally generated in No mans sky. I am not sure, but can imagine that changes made by a player needs to be stored. That would not be deterministic in the game right?

I Changed the order of these lines. No mans sky and other games like Minecraft or Star citizen use procedurally generated worlds. When you go back to a tree, it is the same tree. If you do not understand procedurally generated, it is really hard for me to argue the questions. The planets always generate the same way as long you do not add other procedurally generated processes to that world (like natural processes which can change the world and the tree) And let me add this, if I carve my name in that tree, me being a part of this procedurally generated reality, my carving could also be part of it (not a strong believer of determinism, but could be plausible). Actually that is the only issue I have with the concept, it needs to be deterministic or there needs to be a mechanism in which collapsed wave functions disappear or maybe even another mechanism. Why I think this is, is because a collapsing wave function would need ever increasing memory (it goes from probability to what it actually is and that needs to be "stored in memory") if it is not deterministic (as in it will always be procedurally generated and does not need to be stored) or does not disappear.

This is a complete non answer. It wasn't an answer, there was not a well explained argument against my OP. Not going into whataboutism. Tell me why it is a problem in a simulated world, then I will try to answer it. Further it is your hypothesis not mine so it is up to you to make it work. Make what work? I could be here until the end of time explaining how everything works. I am not stating the universe is simulated, I am just stating it is possible and I haven't heard any good argument against it yet. Observer ? what observer ? Are you saying that the universe and its host computer are not all there is ? you guys came up with the relativity of simultaneity. A concept of special relativity that states that the perception of simultaneity is not absolute, but depends on the observer's frame of reference. This concept does not inherently argue against the simulation hypothesis, as in, there is no arguent where this cannot also be simulated. Nowhere am I talking about anything of this outside the simulation. You claim speed is important. The observers reference frame is different when you are in motion or in the presence of mass. So demonstrate a calculation where this is so. Theory of special relativity. you can do the calculations yourself. Have you ever designed a circuit board or do you know anything about them ? Irrelevant, Explain to me why it cannot be simulated, You need to consider all of my questions, not just a selected few to demonstrate that you hypothetical computer is even theoretically feasible under ideal conditions, let alone a practicality. A human brain evolved completely by itself. why couldn't a simpler computer do the same. And yes, you can have an abstract idea when I use the word computer (like a brain or something completely alien where something just does logical operations on something we cannot even comprehend. You do know you can do logical operations on baseballs as bits right? Or browse the internet via smoke signals, as long the DAC is right. It's just slow. I asked you how big is it. Why would there be size or space outside the universe, you do know this is an arbitrary question right? We know size and distance, however a Photon does not experience distance at all. Therefore how far apart are the first and last cells holding the data ? Cells, who is talking about cells? First explain why a simulation even needs cells. Therefore how long does it take for the 'ready' or other clock signal to propagate from one to the other ? I don't know, it could be a second, it could be a million years. It does not matter. Why does this simulator needs this, maybe it is just a machine with a needle that does logical operations on a substance we would call sand. You can't just say "A computer can calculate it" any more than you can say "A six digit calculator can calculate Pi accurately to sixty places" Strawman It feels like people do not like the concept of the possibility that the universe could be simulated. I also have the feeling there are some reasons other than scientific ones.

It has to do with the observer's frame of reference, I just gave an example where one observer is at a relativistic speed. So explain to me why it has Nothing to do with speed? I still don't see an issue where this would be a good argument against a simulation. this can not be simulated?

Maybe because we don't know all the math yet? I think if it is simulated, it only simulates the rules of the universe. those rules give the universe substance, as in matter and laws. the universe then evolves by it self in this simulation. In a game we need to have interfaces to outside observers (gamers hehe). In the simulation, the observers are simulated too. They too are a product of the rules and laws. I am not saying the entire universe is deterministic, but that would help a simulation a lot. I once played around with a live evolution program with some simple 3 creatures running for food. Not taking into account this was rendered in 3D, the amount of math involved to move the creatures with simple muscles and bones to the food is unbelievable large, but it didn't use the "traditional 3D (as in moving bone to coordinate x,y,z etc)" math at all, just the math needed in a neural network. It was really eye opening. A cheetah does not do math, but the amount of math needed to chase a gazelle (as in put left paw at x,y,z etc) is immense. I read it and find it more of an argument for a simulation. Why would it be an issue? If someone goes relativistic speeds, time slows. I can imagine you are stepping more outside the common simulation speed. I admit this is just guessing, but why would relativity be an argument against a simulation theory? I am honestly interested to hear a good reason. This sounds a little bit as a creationists argument... "For example, we now know that the simplest life form is far more complex than anything humans have ever made. It is far more reasonable to claim that a space shuttle can randomly assemble and launch itself than to claim that a simple life form can arise spontaneously from random chemical interactions." Don't know anything about that theory, sounds cool but I am always wary about theories that use unnecessary complex language.

Can you tell me how this is relevant? Why can't the real universe be procedurally generated? Some plants really look like fractals. Who is saying we have all the information in the universe? Quantum mechanics does show something strange that could suggest that not everything is "rendered" (Wave function collapse). And what is up with Blackholes, as if that is a garbage collector where strange things happen with time (maybe there the capability of the simulation ends/struggles?) Same with speed of light. Photons don't experience time or distance. That makes simulating it easier. In the Matrix, there were still interfaces to minds, in my example, the minds are part of the simulation.

Who is saying the simulator is evolving with nothing to process? Also, some stuff evolved with complete different functions in the past, I don't see why this is relevant. Let me ask a simple question, would you agree that in my concept, a human brain would have enough computing power to simulate a universe?

The rather obvious point is that our brain works like a computer, with extreme complexity. No programmer there. just evolved in its "perfect" environment. I could imagine the simulator ("hard- and software") could evolve somewhere.

I am not talking about a programmer. It could evolve naturally. Clock speed? not important, it can go fast one second, sow the other, stop for a million years, go fast again, go backwards. or just be slow all the time. the simulation would have no idea. Nice strawman, come with a better argument. Why are we arguing this? we do know we can create huge simulations just based on a few line of code and a good programmer can do this in very little memory. Our brains evolved, they have memory, why is it so hard to imagine something that can do that?

Correct, and I am not saying the universe is simulated, let alone how. I am just saying it is a possibility. The biggest argument was always. Computer resources, with my OP, I think I took that argument away.

How sure are you about that? No Man's Sky features a vast universe with an estimated 18 quintillion (18,000,000,000,000,000,000) possible planet "seeds". While the game doesn't use all of these, it still contains a staggering number of star systems, estimated to be in the trillions. Specifically, there are about 256 galaxies, and within each galaxy, there are trillions of star systems. o Man's Sky requires a minimum of 8 GB of RAM. While the game's installation size is relatively small, around 15 GB, the RAM requirement is important for smooth gameplay, especially when exploring planets and landscapes according to Steam and Steam Community discussions. The size of the simulated does not always correspond to the size of the memory needed to simulate it.

So you just put this in speculations and say no, but nobody can give a logical argument against it?

Sure, Does this help? Simulating an entire universe with everything in it, takes a lot of computational resources. Time in the simulation does not have to run at the same pace as outside the simulation (where the "computer" is). The simulated will be oblivious to the difference in speed of time. If you have enough time, you don't need a lot of computational resources (the computer does not have to be fast). If you have infinite amount of time, you have infinite amount of computational resources (the computer can be as slow as you want, even 1 operation per minute would be fine). Ergo, with enough time, it is possible that a universe can be simulated on a (very) simple computer. A simple "Machine/Computers/Brain" could evolve in an ideal environment. Just like our brain did. I see this OP is moved to Speculation. nowhere am I saying we are living in a simulated universe. I am just saying It is possible, and with this post, there is no real good argument against it. But let us not forget, Unfalsifiability does not mean the claim is false, just that it cannot be tested. This concept, in its ultimate form; our entire universe, simulated on a ultimately simple computer, would follow Occam's razor ultimately.

You obviously also didn't bother to read everything above that sentence. Why should it be useful? And why do I need to define "Machine" with concise brevity? Because else you won't read any further. I cannot be bothered about that.

Nope, just his stance on a google search.

Well ok then, I posted my idea here, let us see what happens. https://scienceforums.net/topic/136072-too-much-time-on-y-hand/

Bear with me here, my concept will be clear soon, we first need to set up some things, it makes it easier to get the full idea. As an IT engineer, I daily make use of Virtualisation technology. I bet many people already know this technology, but for those who don't: What we actually do is simulate computer hardware to run Virtual Computers what we call Virtual Machines (VM's). Imagine a 3D shooting game, you run around in a city, you see cars and buildings, the road. You run in one of the houses. You see a laptop on a table, you start it and it does exactly what a normal computer does. it starts windows (or another operating system), you can read your mail, browse the internet etc, etc. Now... drop everything in this example, except that Windows (or another operating system) instance. That is what virtualisation does. With it, we can simulate multiple computers, side by side on only one Physical Machine (computer/ server (which we call a Host)). Why do we do this? Well except from running more VM's on less Hosts, another reason would be that we isolated the running operating system from the real hardware. So we can do some tricks with it. One of those tricks is to move a running VM over the network, to another Host, without skipping a beat. The VM just keeps running. This is great when resources are limited on one Host, we just move the virtual machine to another Host with free resources. Also when there needs to be repairs to a Host, we can just move all running VM's from that Host to another Host and do our work without any downtime. However, virtualisation does create some issues. One of them is keeping time across all virtual machines. A real computer has a hardware clock and a battery to keep time when the computer is shut down. Virtual machines do not have that, there is no way to simulate a battery and yes, we can simulate a clock, but that can be flaky when the physical Host has a very dynamic load, in these cases the clocks on the VM's will drift a lot. For this we run services on the Virtual machines (VMs) that sync the time from the physical Host it runs on or even from a location somewhere else, like internet or other time services. If we do not do this, all the virtual machines will drift in time, and this can get huge. The VM itself doesn't care, but it can have huge consequences when it tries to communicate with the outside world. Another problem with keeping time is that we use concepts like pausing and snapshotting VM's. Pausing when we don't need the VM for a while. Snapshotting is to capture the entire machine somewhere in time, store it like it was. We do this when we want to make complex changes to the VM that could break functionality. If the change does brake functionality, we can go back to that snapshot, back in time to the moment when we created the snapshot. The computer does this without knowledge what happened. It will be back in time. We then need to correct the time of the VM. Pausing a VM of course also creates the same issue. It is important to understand, that from the reference point of the VM, it just continues operation where it left off from the moment it was paused or snapshotted. The VM is completely oblivious to what happened. #################### Thought experiment ######################## It is fun to say the Virtual Machine was oblivious to what happened, so let us push this concept. Let us run two complex AI programs on this virtual computer. And they talk to each other. The moment we pause the VM, the AI stops in the middle of the sentence. When we continue the VM after a year, the AI will just finish it's sentence. Both AI's will just continue to function. They will still operate with a time of a year ago. The moment we Snapshot the VM in the middle of sentence B, the AI will just continue talking, then sentence C, D, E. The moment we go back to the snapshot, the AI will repeat the part of Sentence B just after we too the snapshot. (and depending on how deterministic the AI is, maybe also C, D and E). Again Both AI's will just continue to function. So we can stop it, and we can go back in time. What would happen if we slow time? What if we make the Host slower (by slowing the virtual clock or limit the computational resources)? The AI will continue to function, we know this because we already seen clock drift on VM's, and this is not an issue for the operation of the VM itself. For us outsiders, the conversation between both AI's will run slower. But they will continue. The AI's won't have any idea that they run slower. They would be oblivious to the difference in speed of time. They don't have a reference point in time. What if we slow it down to a crawl? A minute for the AI takes a year in our time. We, as outsiders, will get very bored of the very slow conversation, but the AI's just work fine. Wat if we replaced the AI's with AI's that are on a human level, yea, I know, not possible yet, but we can imagine it will be possible some day. As long these AI's do not have any contact with the outside world, they will have no clue that their time is running slow (or stops, or repeats, or dynamically go fast and slow) What if we simulate an entire universe on this VM? It will be very slow for us with our level of computational power. I can imagine that 1 second in this virtual universe, takes like 100s of billions of years to calculate. Maybe more, who knows. But would the simulation itself care? Would anything in the simulation even know? How would they know?We already know about the concept of time being relative. All reference frames in the universe have their own speed of time. So the concept isn't to hard to imagine that there also can be a speed of time difference between the inside and the "outside" universe. What if we make the computer simpler and slower? Lets say something ridiculously stupid, a mechanism that can do logical operations by pushing sand with a needle into neat little bytes. We just need a lot of time. Boatloads. And I am not even sure how much sand. It is not hard to imagine this could be a relatively simple "computer" and with the ideal environment, something like this could evolve by itself. I say evolved, so it takes away a more complex idea where we need a builder. Brains can evolve in our universe, why cant a simple computer system evolve in an other ideal environment? The simulation would not care. Even if the mechanism pauses, (or goes back in time) With this idea, a universe can be simulated by a simple evolved "machine", Computational limitations are gone. ##############Some resources about Simulation Theory############################# Reasons against Simulation Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#:~:text=Physicist%20Frank%20Wilczek%20raises%20an,and%20extraneous%20in%20a%20simulation. Some argue that a simulated universe must, by the laws of computation, be less complex than the universe simulating it, leading to the logical problem of a vastly more complex "base reality" than our own. Physicist Frank Wilczek points out that the laws of our universe, with their hidden complexities, seem unnecessary and extraneous if we are in a simulation, suggesting that the simulation hypothesis doesn't offer a simpler explanation. The hypothesis suggests that our universe is a simulation, but it doesn't explain the origin of the simulation itself or the "hardware" running it. This leads to an infinite regress, where each simulated universe requires another, higher-level simulation, and so on, without resolving the fundamental question of reality. Simulating a universe with the complexity and scale of our own would require immense computational power, potentially far exceeding the capabilities of any conceivable computer. This raises the question of whether our universe, with its quantum mechanics and chaotic systems, could even be accurately simulated on a digital computer. . ____________________ Here's a more detailed look at Wilczek's views: Complexity as an argument against simulation: Wilczek argues that the universe exhibits a level of complexity ("wasted complexity" according to Scientific American) and intricacy that would be illogical for a simulation to possess. Building such complexity requires significant resources and time, which wouldn't be necessary for a simulation. -->My remark-->In my concept, the Simulation is not built, it came by nature. My concept concluded we do not need a powerfull computer, so it should be easier to imagine it could evolve in some kind of way in that reality. It could even be a less complex way than that of how our brain evolved in this reality. Complexity by it self is not a good argument, our brain evolved by nature, those are complex. Laws of physics and their limitations: Wilczek highlights that the laws of physics are constrained by time and location. These limitations, he argues, are unnecessary and extraneous in a simulation. -->My remark--> Again, We already know time is relative. But my concept, where a simulation can run asynchronous with the real reality, this argument does not stand. In essence, Wilczek's perspective leans towards the universe being a product of fundamental, rather than simulated, processes, given the apparent wastefulness of resources in creating our complex reality -->My remark-->: Nature is wasteful. Evolution was wasteful. for instance, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. (warning! Bloody autopsy of a Giraffe) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0 Actually a Simulation that evolved by it self should show strange complexities and wastefulness, there was no design. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ J. Richard Gott, a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, made him aware of a strong objection to the simulation hypothesis. The objection claims that the common trait that all hypothetical high-fidelity simulated universes possess is the ability to produce high-fidelity simulated universes. And since our current world does not possess this ability, it would mean that either humans are in the real universe, and therefore simulated universes have not yet been created, or that humans are the last in a very long chain of simulated universes, an observation that makes the simulation hypothesis seem less probable. -->My remark--> Not sure what is being said here, also not sure if this is a problem, I need to dig into this argument a bit more. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ someone Tested the simulation theory physically A method to test one type of simulation hypothesis was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by physicists Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn (now at the University of Washington, Seattle), and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from the University of Washington, Seattle.[45] Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the space-time continuum into a discrete set of points, which may result in observable effects. In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as quantum chromodynamics), several observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays that, if observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists.[46] In 2017, Campbell et al. proposed several experiments aimed at testing the simulation hypothesis in their paper "On Testing the Simulation Theory".[47] "Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the space-time continuum into a discrete set of points, which may result in observable effects." -->My remark--> with my concept, the computational resource can be infinite. coincidentally one of the Youtubers I watch, did a nice explanation a few days ago of virtualisation and simulation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFdpvH5K5RI But he also says, there needs to be faster hardware for a simulating the universe. -->My remark--> no we don't. It just needs enough time.

That's not correct, Edwin Hubble calculated 280 Million Lightyears. https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/programs/cosmictimes/educators/guide/age_size.html The 94 Billion (diameter) is since 2006 (with my, ehm my friends explanation). However I do have a CNN news article about it being 156 Billion Light-years across. this was May 24 2004. I have a forum post with this explanation from May 22 2004. I mean the explanation like above, no calculations, I can't do that. We aren't even sure about the Hubble constant so it is hard to calculate.

How much time? when was it first published?

That old idea? yes for sure. In short: the realisation that if the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and we can see 13.8 billion lightyears far. and the universe is expanding. Wouldn't the star that emitted the light that we see at the farthest spot be way further away because it took 13.8 billion years for it's light to reach us. that star had 13.8 billion years to "expand" further away. So this is not the new idea.

Why did you say this? I did quotes earlier It wasn't an answer.