1 hour ago, Darksand said:

...

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?

No.

The No Mans' Sky example doesn't work. Much of the game is procedurally generated. Nobody has all "18 Quintillion Planets" fleshed out and stored somewhere. Only the parts that any gamer needs to see get generated; and if every human on earth played it for a year and each day they visited a planet never visited before ... that's still well off the claimed sum. And even then, the level of detail is nowhere near a simulation. Try going outside and looking at one single tree. All the leaves, all the details in the bark. The flows inside it, all the cells living and dying. All the creatures living on it and under it.

While it doesn't solve the compute resources issues, the time thing is interesting. (The following assume simulation, to some extent, is possible at all ..)

I forget where I first read this idea, maybe Neuromancer? One of the things was: if a consciousness is uploaded into a computer that simulates their environment - are they alive? What if the algorithm running them is slowed down, perhaps single-stepping at one operation per real World day - are they alive now?

Last year I was watching a show called "Upload" where people get uploaded into simulations before death. Rich people paid for more compute and got a fuller ("realer") experience. Poorer people got less compute time; a lower grade experience and when their credits for a (real World) month were used up they got paused. Provided for some plot hooks.

Edited July 7Jul 7 by pzkpfw

2 hours ago, Darksand said:

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?

I’m not arguing about computing power, but no. I don’t think a human brain, by itself, could do the math needed.

6 hours ago, Darksand said:

1. I am not talking about a programmer. It could evolve naturally.

2. 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.

This definition of "simulation" is then entirely yours. Generally, it is defined as something which is designed by some intelligence to simulate a world. Natural phenomena don't just randomly build computers which are then creating a simulation - this is akin to suggesting that the electrical activity in the thunderstorm passing over just happens to be simulating a dog kennel in Tulsa. This notion needs a shave from Ockham's barber shop.

1 hour ago, pzkpfw said:

Only the parts that any gamer needs to see get generated; and if every human on earth played it for a year and each day they visited a planet never visited before ... that's still well off the claimed sum. And even then, the level of detail is nowhere near a simulation. Try going outside and looking at one single tree. All the leaves, all the details in the bark. The flows inside it, all the cells living and dying. All the creatures living on it and under it.

Yes that is the problem with sheer scale - in a nutshell. (Not that a simulation could not have shortcuts - physics people need only see subatomic particle tracings when they are looking at some readout from a particle collider. Subatomic particles don't have to be simulated for people engaged in ordinary macro world activities. Simulating physics and chemistry takes far less code and processing than real fizz and chem.). What would take a monster chunk of data and processing would be giving billions of conscious beings instant access to files like "pine tree, full details," whenever their gaze falls in that direction. If someone was carrying a field microscope with them, they'd need another file with, say, cambium cells details, etc.

The rich/poor divide you mention in "Upload" seems plausible. I have myself imagined such a simulation where the lowest budget version requires you to be mildly myopic and incapable of seeing much details, and there are only twelve basic odors. You want to smell gardenias? There's a surcharge for that.

Another thing that occurred this morning, was the relativity of simultaneity.

i.e. How would a "we can use as long as we want per step" simulation cope with the fact that there isn't even a single "now" for all observers?

2 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Another thing that occurred this morning, was the relativity of simultaneity.

i.e. How would a "we can use as long as we want per step" simulation cope with the fact that there isn't even a single "now" for all observers?

Well, to be fair, there’s no reason everyone has to be getting the same simulation in some versions, e.g. The Matrix. They could each have a unique universe, but that increases the demands on the system.

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Human brain/CPU consumes energy to process data..

This whole world is about the transfer of energy from particles X+Y to A+B. The (kinetic etc) energies of A and B are more evenly distributed than those of X and Y. For this reason, we do not see (often) reverse chemical and physical reactions. Some call it entropy. Particles with high (kinetic) energies that can cause something unusual are rare..

Can you tell me how this is relevant?

13 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

No.

The No Mans' Sky example doesn't work. Much of the game is procedurally generated. Nobody has all "18 Quintillion Planets" fleshed out and stored somewhere. Only the parts that any gamer needs to see get generated; and if every human on earth played it for a year and each day they visited a planet never visited before ... that's still well off the claimed sum. And even then, the level of detail is nowhere near a simulation. Try going outside and looking at one single tree. All the leaves, all the details in the bark. The flows inside it, all the cells living and dying. All the creatures living on it and under it.

While it doesn't solve the compute resources issues, the time thing is interesting. (The following assume simulation, to some extent, is possible at all ..)

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.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Well, to be fair, there’s no reason everyone has to be getting the same simulation in some versions, e.g. The Matrix. They could each have a unique universe, but that increases the demands on the system.

In the Matrix, there were still interfaces to minds, in my example, the minds are part of the simulation.

5 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Another thing that occurred this morning, was the relativity of simultaneity.

i.e. How would a "we can use as long as we want per step" simulation cope with the fact that there isn't even a single "now" for all observers?

Excellent question +1

Just now, Darksand said:

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.

I don't see a response that pzkpfw's excellent question.

We do, howevr, definitely see much experimental evidence of the effect he describes.

This would have a dramatic effect on any simulation hypothesis.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not arguing about computing power, but no. I don’t think a human brain, by itself, could do the math needed.

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.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

10 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Another thing that occurred this morning, was the relativity of simultaneity.

i.e. How would a "we can use as long as we want per step" simulation cope with the fact that there isn't even a single "now" for all observers?

Excellent question +1

I don't see a response that pzkpfw's excellent question.

We do, howevr, definitely see much experimental evidence of the effect he describes.

This would have a dramatic effect on any simulation hypothesis.

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.

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

This definition of "simulation" is then entirely yours. Generally, it is defined as something which is designed by some intelligence to simulate a world. Natural phenomena don't just randomly build computers which are then creating a simulation - this is akin to suggesting that the electrical activity in the thunderstorm passing over just happens to be simulating a dog kennel in Tulsa. This notion needs a shave from Ockham's barber shop.

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."

5 hours ago, Nimadoji said:

Different Conclusions Drawn from the Vibrational Emptiness Unified Field Theory on the Issue of Virtualization, Simulated Universes, and the Nature of Time

...A lot of complicated and cool sounding words.

Don't know anything about that theory, sounds cool but I am always wary about theories that use unnecessary complex language.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Darksand

Just now, Darksand said:

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.

It is a valid question and the you, as the OP, should be prepared to address it.

Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with speed.

If you don't understand this please ask.

You clearly have some idea since you mention 'common simulation speed'.

Since my earlier reply I have also thought about a non relativistic point in relation to this issue.

A simple internal combustion engine has to be fed oil. water , fuel, air and sparks at the appropriate times and in the appropriate order or it will either not run well or maybe even not at all.

Even today's computers are now facing similar, but much greater, requirements so that designers have to correct for the time propagation time differences between the various connection pins of a chip.

Contemplating a computer capable of calculating every action in the universe begs the question.

How big is that computer and what does that mean for data transit times ?

2 hours ago, Darksand said:

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.

And I'm back to my original question, to what end, how would it help us?

IOW What's the point?

57 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is a valid question and the you, as the OP, should be prepared to address it.

Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with speed.

If you don't understand this please ask.

You clearly have some idea since you mention 'common simulation speed'.

Since my earlier reply I have also thought about a non relativistic point in relation to this issue.

A simple internal combustion engine has to be fed oil. water , fuel, air and sparks at the appropriate times and in the appropriate order or it will either not run well or maybe even not at all.

Even today's computers are now facing similar, but much greater, requirements so that designers have to correct for the time propagation time differences between the various connection pins of a chip.

Contemplating a computer capable of calculating every action in the universe begs the question.

How big is that computer and what does that mean for data transit times ?

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?

3 hours ago, Darksand said:

This sounds a little bit as a creationists argument

Not really. Just pointing out the difference between a simulation and a naturally existing world. The simulation needs more than just a few rules - it needs to call up particular files which present sensory impressions (large quantities of data) to conscious agents. You can't cut corners if the sim is realistic. The sensorium of each of billions of humans is quite complex with enormous variations of particular types - like @pzkpfw tree example. You walk through the woods, you don't just see the same tree repeated a thousand times - and people would notice, if that happened. Bear in mind that deception, which a simulation is, requires a lot of fake reality. And a lot of monitoring of conscious agents - for example, the system must know that Fred Shmeebly in Twin Falls, Idaho is about to look through a telescope to study details on the surface of the Moon. Those details must be there when needed, to preserve Fred's reality.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Even today's computers are now facing similar, but much greater, requirements so that designers have to correct for the time propagation time differences between the various connection pins of a chip.

Contemplating a computer capable of calculating every action in the universe begs the question.

How big is that computer and what does that mean for data transit times ?

Yes, propagation delay could be a huge issue in the massively parallel and enormous architecture of a universe simulator, even if transmission is photonic.

41 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Need to answer this one piece by piece.

-Not really. Just pointing out the difference between a simulation and a naturally existing world.

• You are just pointing out simulations like how we do them. I am saying reality is the simulation.

-The simulation needs more than just a few rules

• I am not saying just a few rules.

- it needs to call up particular files which present sensory impressions (large quantities of data) to conscious agents. You can't cut corners if the sim is realistic.

• It does not have to call up files, everything is procedurally generated.

-The sensorium of each of billions of humans is quite complex with enormous variations of particular types

• Is it complex? Maybe, or is it just a lot? Because you used the word billions. A lot is not an issue. Evolution made creatures that are complex and with billions of parts.

- like @pzkpfw tree example. You walk through the woods, you don't just see the same tree repeated a thousand times

• procedurally generated with different seeds (also based on the procedural generated universe), will generate different trees, these are easy concepts.

- and people would notice, if that happened.

• People, you do know that in my example, people are also simulated. everything is.

-Bear in mind that deception, which a simulation is, requires a lot of fake reality.

• a simulation is not inherently a deception, though it can involve deception. In my example the simulation does not have an agenda.

-And a lot of monitoring of conscious agents - for example, the system must know that Fred Shmeebly in Twin Falls, Idaho is about to look through a telescope to study details on the surface of the Moon.

• It knows, it is simulating him. And him being there, doing what he is doing is exactly what needed to be simulated.

Those details must be there when needed, to preserve Fred's reality.

• Every detail will be there when it is needed.

Many details, yes, but we have a lot of time to simulate them.

Just now, Darksand said:

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?

This is a complete non answer.

Further it is your hypothesis not mine so it is up to you to make it work.

Observer ? what observer ? Are you saying that the universe and its host computer are not all there is ?

Is 'the observer' part of the computer or the universe ?

You claim speed is important.

So demonstrate a calculation where this is so.

TheVat obviously understood both points clearly.

I have tried to explain my second point with a simple example.

Have you ever designed a circuit board or do you know anything about them ?

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.

I asked you how big is it.

Therefore how far apart are the first and last cells holding the data ?

Therefore how long does it take for the 'ready' or other clock signal to propagate from one to the other ?

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"

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 (edit, but I think I could, I think I can even do it with no calculator)

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.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Darksand

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

You can't cut corners if the sim is realistic. The sensorium of each of billions of humans is quite complex with enormous variations of particular types - like @pzkpfw tree example. You walk through the woods, you don't just see the same tree repeated a thousand times - and people would notice, if that happened

And it needs to be the same tree if they go back to that place, which is why people have brought up memory. One can’t just ignore things that are inconvenient to the argument.

2 hours ago, Darksand said:

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

Seems to me this is a distinction without a difference. Saying it won’t work or has problems applies to both scenarios.

2 hours ago, Darksand said:

and I haven't heard any good argument against it yet.

You’ve said this but it seems to just be an excuse not to address objections

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You’ve said this but it seems to just be an excuse not to address objections

And it needs to be the same tree if they go back to that place, which is why people have brought up memory. One can’t just ignore things that are inconvenient to the argument.

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.

Edited July 8Jul 8 by Darksand

11 minutes ago, Darksand said:

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.

Why do you need to save games if you can just procedurally generate all the content? Why are Minecraft files the size that they are (I’ve seen people say hundreds of MB or even multiple GB) Why do they get bigger as you render more?

3 hours ago, Darksand said:

... 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. ...

To be the same tree, there needs to be enough stored detail to allow the procedure to generate it the same way each time.

For a game, it's enough to remember a few things like height, orientation, which textures to use when displaying it (and a bit more).

For a real tree, how much detail needs to be stored? Way more storage than a computer that can run No Mans Sky has.

Edited July 9Jul 9 by pzkpfw

Just now, Darksand said:

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)

6 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

To be the same tree, there needs to be enough stored detail to allow the procedure to generate it the same way each time.

For a game, it's enough to remember a few things like height, orientation, which textures to use when displaying it (and a bit more).

For a real tree, how much detail needs to be stored? Way more storage than a computer that can run No Mans Sky has.

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. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Why do you need to save games if you can just procedurally generate all the content? Why are they the size that they are (I’ve seen people say hundreds of MB or even multiple GB) Why do they get bigger as you render more?

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?

12 hours ago, Darksand said:

If you do not understand procedurally generated, it is really hard for me to argue the questions.

If you do actually understand your premise, then you should be able to explain it, especially too those who clearly understand the subject.

All you do is, repeat yourselves (you and your co-pilot).

Edited July 9Jul 9 by dimreepr

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you do actually understand your premise, then you should be able to explain it, especially those who clearly understand the subject.

All you do is, repeat yourselves (you and your co-pilot).

yet still no arguments against my premise.

21 minutes ago, Darksand said:

yet still no arguments against my premise.

Indeed, other than all the arguments presented so far... 😉

Are you sure you understand what an argument is?

This may help:

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, other than all the arguments presented so far... 😉

Are you sure you understand what an argument is?

This may help:

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

12 hours ago, Darksand said:

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. 

...

Yay, once again "discussing" with an AI.

Imagine that seed is an octect (or byte if you like). There could then only be 256 possible worlds generated. (If the procedure isn't deterministic, you won't get the same world each time).

You could add tricks like using the encoding of the location of the world, the neighbors it has, ... as part of the seed to add variety, but that's not adding much.

Obviously NMS will be using a bigger, more complex seed than just 8 bits - but the point is still: how much data is needed to be able to simulate your Universe, even given limitless time.

So far all you've done is hand wave about a game that makes players happy for $34.39 NZD.