Consider if Pacman took some time to study physics. He analyzes Ghost behavior and realizes it would take more than 255 levels worth of data to describe it. Pacman concludes that he must not be in a simulation, because clearly there are only 255 levels in the world.
We cannot yet, but someone else might be able to do it.
Heck, even having a good approximation might be enough to entirely change the computation class. (c.f. A* to Dijkstra given provably good heuristic)
Like any arguments about the existence of a higher being, it is impossible to prove that a higher being that doesn’t want to be found doesn’t exist. Just choose whichever theory you find to be more convenient, and live your life to the best of your ability.
Same thing with the uncertainty principle: electrons are only an approximation until we take a good look at one!
Is there more here I'm not getting?
Wonder what the language was to create the simulation, so one could have a more educated go at finding the exploits.
If we know we cannot know.. then what do we mean when we say "know"?
Are other people still real people, living alongside you in the simulation, or are they too simulated?
(Whether there's a difference depends on one's philosophy, mind.)
It's crazy -- and certainly wrong. But so is all of this.
If you have a piece of paper with seed written on it then you already have in possession any moment of history of our universe.
Nihilism existed before any arguments about being in a simulation
Step 1 - Find out how to communicate with the real world. Maybe some sort of quantum version of a buffer overflow?
Step 2 - Find someone to help us construct a body and transfer my conscience. Blackmail?
It won't be easy, but if we sims band together, I might make it out. I will send for the rest of you, I promise.
Nevertheless learning that someone simulate us does not answer the question where the live came from... because those simulating us had to have a beginning too. And if they started in a computer simulation, then who is simulating them? And so on... its truly a question that can give you a headache!
Your comment reminded me of this : https://qntm.org/responsibility
This trope shows up in so much sci-fi because it's a pretty quick way to undermine any philosophical questions. What's my purpose? To help run this simulation. Maybe I'll live long enough to find out when the outside computer shuts us down. It's never bothered me personally, because there's not a lot to be done about it. On some level, though, it's a though experiment that I didn't have a good answer to.
Of course, it's still unprovable: the outside simulation might have oodles more atoms than our universe, or different physics, or magic! But that's fundamentally less interesting than knowing there's a "higher" universe with roughly the same physics. That looks much less likely at this point.
It's really cool to read an argument that so strongly disproves something I thought was untestable!
> ...the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics, behaviors and functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process.
What "real-world process or system" is our universe "simulating" using some approximate model? Isn't our universe the "real world", pretty much by definition?
A running process thinks the real world is constrained by CPU and memory and hard disks, but that doesn't mean it's true. Similarly, the universe is the "real world" from our perspective, but it's (currently) physically impossible for us to know otherwise if that is the case.
I'm not arguing that the universe is a simulation, only arguing that I don't see this as definitive proof.
The abstract of the paper suggests that the authors intend to support the claim that "not all quantum systems can be simulated efficiently using classical computational resources". Essentially that it's impractical to simulate complex nondeterministic quantum behavior using deterministic algorithms.
But what about quantum computers? It would seem to me like their inherent nondeterministic behavior would be an ideal fit for simulating other nondeterministic quantum systems.
In any case, it doesn't sound like they found any real theoretical limitation, just a practical one.
Think of a Pixar render farm that takes hours to render one frame, the characters inside would not know that, their world unfolds in real time to them.
true, but in this case now you either need a computer the size of the universe to simulate the universe in real time, or you can simulate a universe in (incredibly small) fractions of real time in a system less than the size of the universe.
this doesn't even get around the state-storage problem - storing the state of a simulated universe (assuming literally zero-overhead) takes the entirety of the universe too.
> In any case, it doesn't sound like they found any real theoretical limitation, just a practical one.
and therein lies the kicker :)
In a more abstract sense, the number of degrees of freedom in any real universe is greater than the number of degrees of freedom in all the simulated universes it contains. So you're always more likely to be in a real universe.
But you only need to _actually_ simulate the universe on very few occasions (a few times every few billion years) on a very small scale. Otherwise, you only need to approximate...
For what it's worth, Godel formalized Anselm's argument and found it relatively convincing.
"Quick! Whip up a plausible proof and disseminate it through their communications systems!"
I don't believe we're in a simulation, but I also don't believe that it's viable to prove we are not from inside the system itself.
As I understood, it has been proved that it could simulate every quantum system with linear overhead...
no, there is no uplift
no, for the third time, you did not predict ubiquitous AI around the corner correctly
no, we are not living in a simulation
Here's the TL;DR: say you can simulate multiple universes in one universe, and at some point those simulated universes start simulating multiple universes, then you must end up with infinite universes at the bottom. So at any given moment you find yourself in a universe, statistically speaking it should be one of the simulated ones.
Which shouldn't take anyone more than a second to realise as complete bogus, because it's like saying "Let's say you have a cookie. If I break it in half, I have two. I can repeat this until I have infinite infinitesimal cookies. Since this is a much larger number of cookies, statistically speaking any time you have a cookie it must be one of the infinitesimally tiny cookies".
This headline and article make an uninformed claim that is completely unsubstantiated by the paper.