So the simulated entity known as “Elon Musk”, that received undue amounts of publicity for endorsing the old idea that our universe, and everything in it, is almost certainly a simulation, has now received a write up in the simulated magazine “New Scientist” by the simulated entity known as “Geraint Lewis”.

You can simulate reading this simulated text, if you have a valid simulated account, at:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030771-000-is-elon-musk-right-are-we-really-living-in-a-simulated-cosmos/

The reasoning behind this hypothesis (if my simulated understanding is correct) is that if it is possible to create a simulated universe, including simulated intelligent conscious beings, then throughout the extent of the top level “real” universe there will be huge numbers of these simulations, so any intelligent conscious being is far more likely to be a member of a simulated universe than a real one.

My problem with this argument is that for every simulated universe there will be huge numbers of simulated single brains, where everything else is just a figment of their simulated brains.

So if the simulated entity known as Elon Musk is correct, he almost certainly does not exist, he is just a figment of the simulated brain that I perceive as myself.

As are all the rest of you.

I wonder how powerful a computer you’d need to simulate a universe so its inhabitants aren’t aware its a simulation, would a single Matrioshka Brain be enough.

Ah, a simulated response to my simulated post.

I had to look up Matrioshka Brain, which I will now refer to as a Marvin (since it’s easier to spell).

Could a Marvin simulate a Universe including intelligent entities in sufficient detail such that it appeared real to them.

It depends how much of the Universe you simulated I suppose. If you simulated a single brain, and everything else was just illusions within that brain, then you could probably do it with a nano-Marvin, or even less.

If you wanted to simulate everything within a Universe that was really like the one we perceive, then I should think it would need Giga-Marvins, at least.

Is it not reasonable to assume that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would not need to run simulations with contain conscious beings?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The reasoning behind this hypothesis (if my simulated understanding is correct) is that if it is possible to create a simulated universe, including simulated intelligent conscious beings, then throughout the extent of the top level “real” universe there will be huge numbers of these simulations, so any intelligent conscious being is far more likely to be a member of a simulated universe than a real one.

Jing Joh said:

Is it not reasonable to assume that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would not need to run simulations with contain conscious beings?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The reasoning behind this hypothesis (if my simulated understanding is correct) is that if it is possible to create a simulated universe, including simulated intelligent conscious beings, then throughout the extent of the top level “real” universe there will be huge numbers of these simulations, so any intelligent conscious being is far more likely to be a member of a simulated universe than a real one.

Unless boredom is a motivator and they want to play god within that universe, a god that gives all these contradictory rules and gives no actual evidence of its existence and gradually diminishes in power from creating the entire universe to appearing in a doritto

I think I smell a whiff of BS

wookiemeister said:

I think I smell a whiff of BS

Simulating the mundaneness of everyday life for the human race does seem kind of pointless unless you like fucking with people and seeing how far you can push them before they crack

Jing Joh said:

Is it not reasonable to assume that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would not need to run simulations with contain conscious beings?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The reasoning behind this hypothesis (if my simulated understanding is correct) is that if it is possible to create a simulated universe, including simulated intelligent conscious beings, then throughout the extent of the top level “real” universe there will be huge numbers of these simulations, so any intelligent conscious being is far more likely to be a member of a simulated universe than a real one.

I don’t know about that. Even if there is a point beyond which no advanced intelligence would want to simulate other intelligences, there is no reason to assume that that point occurs at or before the stage where they are able to do such a thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Jing Joh said:

Is it not reasonable to assume that a sufficiently advanced intelligence would not need to run simulations with contain conscious beings?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The reasoning behind this hypothesis (if my simulated understanding is correct) is that if it is possible to create a simulated universe, including simulated intelligent conscious beings, then throughout the extent of the top level “real” universe there will be huge numbers of these simulations, so any intelligent conscious being is far more likely to be a member of a simulated universe than a real one.

I don’t know about that. Even if there is a point beyond which no advanced intelligence would want to simulate other intelligences, there is no reason to assume that that point occurs at or before the stage where they are able to do such a thing.

We are starting right now with the easily availability of VR and powerful enough PC’s to use it.

So what does Cusp think of the idea?

Personally I’ve never had much patience for these simulated universes.

Bubblecar said:

So what does Cusp think of the idea?

Personally I’ve never had much patience for these simulated universes.

Probably because you don’t get assigned patience liberally anywhere below the Platinum member package.

Here are a couple simple objections:

a) Everything we know about any “universe” is based on what we perceive. If we assume that what we perceive is an illusion, then we can’t extrapolate anything from it that would enable us to calculate the supposed probability of it being an illusion, because the idea that there is any “top level real universe” would simply be part of the illusion.

b) I can’t see any reason why any advanced civilization would want to create something that looks like “our universe”, inhabited by simulated beings doomed to our kind of existence. They may well want to create their own simulated worlds, but they would be compact, concentrated worlds focused on their own needs and desires, for them to interact with and explore. The world we perceive consists mostly of empty space, but also contains vast amounts of information that’s not actually of any use to cognitive beings like ourselves. Why waste “bandwidth” on such a boring place especially if you’re not apparently using it for anything?

Nobody is obligated to raise even simple objections to completely daft attempts at fantastisising reality.

My opinion is this is just by-product of people being impressed by the concept of The Matrix. Bruce Lee would have said they are fixating on the pointing hand and entirely missing the beauty of the moon the hand is pointing to.

The Matrix’s concept was created to illustrate the contemporary human condition and psyche that is controlled through consumer-economics philosophies. Peeling back the petals on that question is more relevant than attempting to prove a doomed hypothesis.

nothing really new.

http://www.simulation-argument.com

Bubblecar said:

So what does Cusp think of the idea?

Personally I’ve never had much patience for these simulated universes.

I doubt you will be very impressed:

ARE we, and the universe we are in, a simulation? SpaceX chief Elon Musk thinks there is a tiny billions-to-one chance that we actually exist physically, and it is much more likely that we are data swirling around on someone’s supercomputer. What leads him to this strange conclusion?

Musk is immersed in a technological world that has advanced rapidly, and it seems inevitable to him that a functioning human brain, consciousness and all, will exist within a computer in the not too distant future. With the growth in computing power over the next few millennia, this first lonely brain will be joined by many more in a computed universe.

Maybe this has already happened and we are in someone else’s synthetic universe. There are some intriguing properties of the universe that make us ponder this possibility, in particular the masses of fundamental particles, such as electrons and quarks, and the strengths of the forces that dictate their interactions.

“Are we only here because some higher dimensional programmer fine-tuned our fundamental laws?“

Growing evidence tells us that if the universe had been born with masses and forces only slightly different to the ones we have, the results would have been catastrophic, with a dead and sterile cosmos. Perhaps we are only here because some higher dimensional programmer “fine-tuned” our fundamental laws.

But how would we know? There might be subtle clues. If their computers are like ours, then they rely on numbers with finite digits, which would result in coarse graining of space and time rather than a smooth continuum. We could look for this. Alternatively, we could search for glitches and bugs, places where the program is not behaving properly. But in both cases, we might just treat these as new “features” of the universe and include them in our fundamental laws.

Of course, the notion of a simulated universe gives rise to many philosophical questions, not least on free will. What if we are just unintended consequences in a simulation run for some other purpose? And what happens if the computer loses power?

Science offers no definite answers, and Musk’s odds are little more than wishful thinking. But at the moment, they are as good as anyone else’s.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

So what does Cusp think of the idea?

Personally I’ve never had much patience for these simulated universes.

I doubt you will be very impressed:

ARE we, and the universe we are in, a simulation? SpaceX chief Elon Musk thinks there is a tiny billions-to-one chance that we actually exist physically, and it is much more likely that we are data swirling around on someone’s supercomputer. What leads him to this strange conclusion?

Musk is immersed in a technological world that has advanced rapidly, and it seems inevitable to him that a functioning human brain, consciousness and all, will exist within a computer in the not too distant future. With the growth in computing power over the next few millennia, this first lonely brain will be joined by many more in a computed universe.

Maybe this has already happened and we are in someone else’s synthetic universe. There are some intriguing properties of the universe that make us ponder this possibility, in particular the masses of fundamental particles, such as electrons and quarks, and the strengths of the forces that dictate their interactions.

“Are we only here because some higher dimensional programmer fine-tuned our fundamental laws?“

Growing evidence tells us that if the universe had been born with masses and forces only slightly different to the ones we have, the results would have been catastrophic, with a dead and sterile cosmos. Perhaps we are only here because some higher dimensional programmer “fine-tuned” our fundamental laws.

But how would we know? There might be subtle clues. If their computers are like ours, then they rely on numbers with finite digits, which would result in coarse graining of space and time rather than a smooth continuum. We could look for this. Alternatively, we could search for glitches and bugs, places where the program is not behaving properly. But in both cases, we might just treat these as new “features” of the universe and include them in our fundamental laws.

Of course, the notion of a simulated universe gives rise to many philosophical questions, not least on free will. What if we are just unintended consequences in a simulation run for some other purpose? And what happens if the computer loses power?

Science offers no definite answers, and Musk’s odds are little more than wishful thinking. But at the moment, they are as good as anyone else’s.

Meh. I remember a Cusp who used to be a lot more dismissive of empty hand-waving :)

Maybe this has already happened and we are in someone else’s synthetic universe. There are some intriguing properties of the universe that make us ponder this possibility, in particular the masses of fundamental particles, such as electrons and quarks, and the strengths of the forces that dictate their interactions.

surely the fine tuned argument is false as the universe which contains the computer would also have to be fine tuned to exist? we know that if the fundamentals in this universe where even so slightly different then it would not exist as it is.

42

Bubblecar said:

Here are a couple simple objections:

a) Everything we know about any “universe” is based on what we perceive. If we assume that what we perceive is an illusion, then we can’t extrapolate anything from it that would enable us to calculate the supposed probability of it being an illusion, because the idea that there is any “top level real universe” would simply be part of the illusion.

b) I can’t see any reason why any advanced civilization would want to create something that looks like “our universe”, inhabited by simulated beings doomed to our kind of existence. They may well want to create their own simulated worlds, but they would be compact, concentrated worlds focused on their own needs and desires, for them to interact with and explore. The world we perceive consists mostly of empty space, but also contains vast amounts of information that’s not actually of any use to cognitive beings like ourselves. Why waste “bandwidth” on such a boring place especially if you’re not apparently using it for anything?

I agree.

If “we” are a simulation, then the minimum complexity simulation that would match what I perceive would be the simulation of a single brain, that is controlled in some way to perceive all the things that it thinks it is interacted with.

If that is the case there is no way that my brain will be able to get any information about “reality”, so I may as well pretend that what I perceive is real, which seems to have worked OK so far.

Bubblecar said:

Here are a couple simple objections:

a) Everything we know about any “universe” is based on what we perceive. If we assume that what we perceive is an illusion, then we can’t extrapolate anything from it that would enable us to calculate the supposed probability of it being an illusion, because the idea that there is any “top level real universe” would simply be part of the illusion.

b) I can’t see any reason why any advanced civilization would want to create something that looks like “our universe”, inhabited by simulated beings doomed to our kind of existence. They may well want to create their own simulated worlds, but they would be compact, concentrated worlds focused on their own needs and desires, for them to interact with and explore. The world we perceive consists mostly of empty space, but also contains vast amounts of information that’s not actually of any use to cognitive beings like ourselves. Why waste “bandwidth” on such a boring place especially if you’re not apparently using it for anything?

Interestingly there is a connection to observer-centric philosophy contained in Buddhism. The concept of deity is addressed with the observation that an awakened(lucidly aware of the true reality of the universe) being develops a greater degree of apparent control over reality than the average sentient being. A being that can speak only truth effects the environment with greater significance than the delusional.

Collectively the deities are known as The Sangha Assembly. As it is believed this group has grown in number over the aeons it is subsequently accepted that their constant awareness suppresses the latent mental attributes of human beings in a manner that disallows various unhealthy boundaries being broken within the general community.

ChrispenEvan said:

Maybe this has already happened and we are in someone else’s synthetic universe. There are some intriguing properties of the universe that make us ponder this possibility, in particular the masses of fundamental particles, such as electrons and quarks, and the strengths of the forces that dictate their interactions.

surely the fine tuned argument is false as the universe which contains the computer would also have to be fine tuned to exist? we know that if the fundamentals in this universe where even so slightly different then it would not exist as it is.

Presumably the idea is that the “real universe” is an infinite multiverse that contains seemingly “fine-tuned” universes by chance. But it would contain an infinite number of such universes, regardless of the proportion of any random sample of universes that would be of this kind.

We’re still left with no motive for simulating a universe that would be occurring by chance an infinite number of times anyway in such a cosmological model.

Michael V said:

42

pi is better….

Bubblecar said:

Meh. I remember a Cusp who used to be a lot more dismissive of empty hand-waving :)

He does seem to have been a bit overtaken with the “fine-tuning” thing.

Talking of which:
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/preorder-a-fortunate-universe-today/

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Meh. I remember a Cusp who used to be a lot more dismissive of empty hand-waving :)

He does seem to have been a bit overtaken with the “fine-tuning” thing.

Talking of which:
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/preorder-a-fortunate-universe-today/

If he is suggesting that the physical universe can be fine tuned post BB he’s stark raving crackers!

ChrispenEvan said:

nothing really new.

http://www.simulation-argument.com

Quite.

Hence the: So the simulated entity known as “Elon Musk”, that received undue amounts of publicity for endorsing the old idea that our universe, and everything in it, is almost certainly a simulation,

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Meh. I remember a Cusp who used to be a lot more dismissive of empty hand-waving :)

He does seem to have been a bit overtaken with the “fine-tuning” thing.

Talking of which:
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/preorder-a-fortunate-universe-today/

If he is suggesting that the physical universe can be fine tuned post BB he’s stark raving crackers!

I presume the suggestion is that it was the BB that was in some way fine-tuned.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

He does seem to have been a bit overtaken with the “fine-tuning” thing.

Talking of which:
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/preorder-a-fortunate-universe-today/

If he is suggesting that the physical universe can be fine tuned post BB he’s stark raving crackers!

I presume the suggestion is that it was the BB that was in some way fine-tuned.

Course it was. But that doesn’t require intervention only boundaries, thresholds and limits.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

If he is suggesting that the physical universe can be fine tuned post BB he’s stark raving crackers!

I presume the suggestion is that it was the BB that was in some way fine-tuned.

Course it was. But that doesn’t require intervention only boundaries, thresholds and limits.

The presence of pi within the basic hydrogen element lends a decidedly 3 dimensional geometry to the zero point of the vacuum. If that was ‘fine-tuned’ specifically rather than simply being a requirement of balance then this/these being/s are way more autistic than Sheldon.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I presume the suggestion is that it was the BB that was in some way fine-tuned.

Course it was. But that doesn’t require intervention only boundaries, thresholds and limits.

The presence of pi within the basic hydrogen element lends a decidedly 3 dimensional geometry to the zero point of the vacuum. If that was ‘fine-tuned’ specifically rather than simply being a requirement of balance then this/these being/s are way more autistic than Sheldon.

Thumps computer.

that should fix, temporarily anyway, the glitch in the matrix.

ChrispenEvan said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Course it was. But that doesn’t require intervention only boundaries, thresholds and limits.

The presence of pi within the basic hydrogen element lends a decidedly 3 dimensional geometry to the zero point of the vacuum. If that was ‘fine-tuned’ specifically rather than simply being a requirement of balance then this/these being/s are way more autistic than Sheldon.

Thumps computer.

that should fix, temporarily anyway, the glitch in the matrix.

You’ll only damage your hardware thumping yourself in the head……..

>Science offers no definite answers, and Musk’s odds are little more than wishful thinking. But at the moment, they are as good as anyone else’s.

Again though, if we assume that what we perceive is an illusion, then any cosmological models we derive from it are all doomed to remain baseless speculation.

I doubt that Cusp really thinks cosmology is purely a matter of baseless speculation :)

as long as you don’t find out whether it is a simulation or not before you die then you life’s work wasn’t wasted.

:-)

Bubblecar said:

>Science offers no definite answers, and Musk’s odds are little more than wishful thinking. But at the moment, they are as good as anyone else’s.

Again though, if we assume that what we perceive is an illusion, then any cosmological models we derive from it are all doomed to remain baseless speculation.

I doubt that Cusp really thinks cosmology is purely a matter of baseless speculation :)

Transience makes everything speculative. That does not discount the validity of identifying your environment as it occurs. The underlying sentiment of his proposal simply questions who is in control, the universe or the observer.

ChrispenEvan said:

as long as you don’t find out whether it is a simulation or not before you die then you life’s work wasn’t wasted.

:-)

Am I a simulation of what I think I should be? I guess that can be answered…….

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

as long as you don’t find out whether it is a simulation or not before you die then you life’s work wasn’t wasted.

:-)

Am I a simulation of what I think I should be? I guess that can be answered…….

The identity of the community is a composite that can be manipulated to differing degrees.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

as long as you don’t find out whether it is a simulation or not before you die then you life’s work wasn’t wasted.

:-)

Am I a simulation of what I think I should be? I guess that can be answered…….

The identity of the community is a composite that can be manipulated to differing degrees.

I don’t give a damn. This reality is the only one I have so speculation is pointless.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Am I a simulation of what I think I should be? I guess that can be answered…….

The identity of the community is a composite that can be manipulated to differing degrees.

I don’t give a damn. This reality is the only one I have so speculation is pointless.

Sounds healthy enough…..

probably more a vestige or echo of grasping social constructionism, but dunno the machine indicated it wanted me email address and more and blocked the content with a large popup

There’s a simple epistemological about-face going on these ideas, which the enthusiasts don’t seem to notice.

We calculate a physics derived from and tested by observation, which we claim entitles us to regard it as “knowledge of the real world”. Using this physics we construct various speculative cosmological models. From these, Musk et al choose one they claim demonstrates that what we observe is an illusion.

But if what we observe is an illusion, our observations no longer constitute “knowledge of the real world”. So this has sabotaged the physics used to construct the cosmological model they’ve chosen – it’s all based on illusion.

All our knowledge is reduced to empty hand-waving.

Bubblecar said:

>Science offers no definite answers, and Musk’s odds are little more than wishful thinking. But at the moment, they are as good as anyone else’s.

Again though, if we assume that what we perceive is an illusion, then any cosmological models we derive from it are all doomed to remain baseless speculation.

I doubt that Cusp really thinks cosmology is purely a matter of baseless speculation :)

To be fair, I think people who write for NS are required to put a sentence like that on the end of every published piece. They all do it anyway.

Why would New Scientist publish this crap anyway?

If the universe is simulated then from our perspective it’s so detailed at least down to the quantum level is may as well be the real universe (no difference really).

dv said:

Why would New Scientist publish this crap anyway?

Anything Musk endorsed is considered New Scientist-worthy apparently.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Why would New Scientist publish this crap anyway?

Anything Musk endorsed is considered New Scientist-worthy apparently.

I mean I greatly respect Musk.
But this is pointless.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Why would New Scientist publish this crap anyway?

Anything Musk endorsed is considered New Scientist-worthy apparently.

I mean I greatly respect Musk.
But this is pointless.

It would be interesting way to explain various real or not religious figures with powers, they have hacked the operating system of the simulation to give them special abilities

well, I found my fuel container just where I expected, walked down to the deli’n‘t was exactly where I expected, got fuel, walked home and the mower was just where I expected. I filled it with fuel, started it, and mowed what I hadn’t done, then unloded the stumps out of the ute which was where I left it, then I came in and found a cup, the coffee, sugar and milk and spoon where I expected.

transition said:

well, I found my fuel container just where I expected, walked down to the deli’n‘t was exactly where I expected, got fuel, walked home and the mower was just where I expected. I filled it with fuel, started it, and mowed what I hadn’t done, then unloded the stumps out of the ute which was where I left it, then I came in and found a cup, the coffee, sugar and milk and spoon where I expected.

Fair point

A simulated universe with 70 virgin women looks good.

Can be more than 70, 700 maybe.

God computers created the universe . Elon musk chapter 1 verse 1

@Ignore this human unit , it is giving erroneous calculations.

Please take the blue pill and resume your normal viewing.

End transmission@

sure is of the strangely-every-day
that all that is might be around that isn’t
and that isn’t determines this way
why’t maybe realer than the here’n now

a world through a thermodynamic
singular yet plural but all not this or that
just one bubble’n you evolved in it
you see’n get courtesy all this excluded

here but it’s not for you like magic
every moment you know from what not
yet elsewhere not incline to credit
possibility space, other thermodynamic

One thing about the “real” universe is that it doesn’t come with an interpretation imposed upon it, but rather its interpretation is internally generated. By contrast, I feel that a simulated universe would have an interpretation imposed upon it by the simulator.

KJW said:

One thing about the “real” universe is that it doesn’t come with an interpretation imposed upon it, but rather its interpretation is internally generated. By contrast, I feel that a simulated universe would have an interpretation imposed upon it by the simulator.

The religious believers have been struggling with this for a very long time, and are forced to conclude that the Creator provided us with a deceptively very ancient world in order to “test our faith”.

It seems the “simulated universe” idea also relies on deliberately deceptive designers. It’s all a bit silly.

Bubblecar said:

KJW said:

One thing about the “real” universe is that it doesn’t come with an interpretation imposed upon it, but rather its interpretation is internally generated. By contrast, I feel that a simulated universe would have an interpretation imposed upon it by the simulator.

The religious believers have been struggling with this for a very long time, and are forced to conclude that the Creator provided us with a deceptively very ancient world in order to “test our faith”.

It seems the “simulated universe” idea also relies on deliberately deceptive designers. It’s all a bit silly.

I oppose a simulated universe for pretty much the same reason that I’m an atheist. It seems to be a common view that the laws of physics are imposed upon us as if from above. But it seems to me that even a completely random reality will appear to have order due to the principle of symmetry. Not even a creator of a universe has any choice with regards to laws of physics due to the symmetry. And if all the laws of physics are due to symmetry, then there is little room for an intelligent creator. And what little room is left is removed by a multiverse of all possible configurations.

I never got to read the article, did someone give simulated a special meaning or application and cause a crisis of reality or what.