The Simulation Argument

[Calimore]

Has anyone else been pondering this?

Let me repost, for your consideration...


ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?

BY NICK BOSTROM

Department of Philosophy, Oxford University

Homepage: http://www.nickbostrom.com

[First version: May, 2001; Final version July 2002]

Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003), Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.

[This document is located at [url]http://www.simulation-argument.com[/url]] [pdf-version]


ABSTRACT

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

[mutatedbunnyboy]

Interesting theory..... how come the gravity of the earth, the magnetic field of the sun and the 80% water based planet we live on, hasn't screwed up this computer simulation which must be of biblical proportions?

[mutatedbunnyboy]

By this I mean, enough shit goes wrong with pc's but a world wide computer? That can't possibly run this smoothly for this long.

[Controlme23]

http://xkcd.com/395/

[Pugugly001]

I am not a quantum mechanic, so my logic here is almost certainly incomplete, but . . .

Bell's Theorem (Via Wikipedia) loosely translates as: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

This seems to me to imply certain things about the kind of computer that could in theory simulate a quantum mechanical universe.

1) Since certain phenomena in the universe (ex radioactive decay) are 'truly random' Quantum Mechanics cannot be duplicated by a system that doesn't have a truly random generator.

2) Since the order of events in our universe is dependent on the frame of reference, the interaction of these random events cannot be calculated by a turing computer, in which the arrow of time is determined by the order of operations, not by frame of reference.

These two conditions seem, to me, to imply that even given a (simple) quantum mechanical computer of arbitrarily large memory but a lesser number of processors, that computer cannot simulate a quantum mechanical universe, because the very action of swapping memory to the processor will cause the simulation of a universe which has a definite order of time, and forces the quantum processor to utilize local variables to simulate a universe governed by quantum mechanics.

A creature living in a Universe simulated in that fashion would in fact not deduce Bell Theorem, because within his universe Bells Theorem would not apply. Nor could they deduce Relativity, because, again, in that universe the order of event being determined by relative frames would in fact not apply.

You might be able to make something that looks like our universe at first glance, but at the macro and micro level, the similarities would break down.

Now . . .
You could accurately simulate a universe subject to both QM and relativity in only one way that I can think of - doing away with the memory/processor dichotomy entirely, and creating a computer with a number of quantum processors working in parallel such that you have a one qubit to one planklength of space mapping (Because QM has virtual particles interacting with real particles, you can't map it one processor to one particle - any unit of space can potentially contain a particle).

But at that point, you're no longer 'simulating' a QM/Relativistic universe - you have in effect created a fully functional universe of a size equal to the number of processors you choose to devote to it.

I'm not a Physicist, nor even a Computer Scientist, but based on those two fundamentals, I honestly think this problem breaks down on the "Can you actually simulate the universe" level. The answer is "No", at least not unless you can find a Universe size box to put it in.

Pug

[bandler]

This sounds like the post-PC version of "planet earth could be a molecule of some giant person's thumbnail!" When college kids get high late at night they can imagine just about anything.

[MyVoice]

The Argument reminded me of a site I ran across last week.

http://www.theuniversesolved.com/powersof10.asp?r=1&p=21

Fellow there claims that reality is indeed running on an extra-universal computer and that we live carefully programmed lives like Sims on a PC. Interesting site - easy place to lose 20 minutes or so. He's selling a book, too. I didn't buy it.

[bandler]

http://www.theuniversesolved.com/powersof10.asp?r=1&p=21

- easy place to lose 20 minutes or so. . .

Thats about how much time I lost there ;-)

[Ladon]

The thing I suddenly found myself wondering is: What if the simulation did not have to be QM level, only accurate enough to convince sentient minds inside that it WAS QM level? I'd have to think about that more...but it makes my head hurt.

[Haxsaw]

Dear Friends,
Here is a rather lame response from myself. What with the negatives and positives floating in their own order speculate we are of one side of the LP disk. We assume there is this polar opposite energy mass mirroring our own existence. So, so many times I repeat, "Oh that feeling I have already done this!" We assume a back up copy of all we know and perceive existing is in reserve, running opposite. Perhaps this explains a near death experience yet surviving, defying all odds. It could be guessed our polar opposite was drawn out. It passes away in his world yet slips into ours, much as a hand slips inside a glove.
Lastly, once we run for too long our programming becomes defunct and we pass on. I wrote this as a silly equation having no basis. I only wrote as something to ponder over while you sip coffee.
Sincerely,
Haxsaw