The simulated universe theory implies that our universe, with all its galaxies, planets and life forms, is a meticulously programmed computer simulation. In this scenario, the physical laws governing our reality are simply algorithms. The experiences we have are generated by the computational processes of an immensely advanced system.
While inherently speculative, the simulated universe theory has gained attention from scientists and philosophers due to its intriguing implications. The idea has made its mark in popular culture, across movies, TV shows and books—including the 1999 film "The Matrix."
The earliest records of the concept that reality is an illusion are from ancient Greece. There, the question "What is the nature of our reality?" posed by Plato (427 BC) and others, gave birth to idealism. Idealist ancient thinkers such as Plato considered mind and spirit as the abiding reality. Matter, they argued, was just a manifestation or illusion.
Fast forward to modern times, and idealism has morphed into a new philosophy. This is the idea that both the material world and consciousness are part of a simulated reality. This is simply a modern extension of idealism, driven by recent technological advancements in computing and digital technologies. In both cases, the true nature of reality transcends the physical.
Within the scientific community, the concept of a simulated universe has sparked both fascination and skepticism. Some scientists suggest that if our reality is a simulation, there may be glitches or patterns within the fabric of the universe that betray its simulated nature.
However, the search for such anomalies remains a challenge. Our understanding of the laws of physics is still evolving. Ultimately, we lack a definitive framework to distinguish between simulated and non-simulated reality.
i think this is a solution in search if a problem. at no point does anyone try and start from our physics and end up over there in magical simulation land. theres no 'weve noticed a pattern that can only be explained by simulation'... its all, lets see if we can find evidence for this crazy unobserved, radical notion with no actual reasoning to back it up but wishful philosophical nonsense.
/laymanrant
I thought I'd heard one defense that goes if it's theoretically possible to simulate an entire universe, which I understand it is, then it's just statistically waaaaaay more likely that we're in a simulated universe. There's only one real one (excepting multiverse stuff), and potentially infinite simulated ones.
I don't remember where I heard this though, and I am a self-admitted idiot, so it's extremely possible I'm extremely wrong.
My biggest issue with simulation theory is that original basis seems to be the assumption that whatever universe is simulating our own must follow the same rules as our own. However, that's not true in the slightest.
We simulate worlds that operate under different rules than our own all the time. While they aren't anywhere near as complex as our reality, we're at least able to dream of worlds with magic or faster-than-light travel. In a few hundred (or maybe thousand) years, who knows, we might be able to simulate a reality that follows 90% of our physical laws while also allowing for magic.
For all we know, if our universe is a simulation, it could be a magical simulation of a mundane world, taking place in a scholarly wizard's guild because they wanted to see what a mundane reality would look like.
Dwarf Fortress Version 0.8 release
In your first paragraph, are you referring to an assumption that the simulators would be running lots of what I think I’ve seen called grandfather simulations?
It's the assumption that if it's possible to build a simulation in our reality, then it's possible that our reality is in a simulation. However, if we can't build a simulation in our reality, then we don't live in a simulation. That binary assumes that whatever our parent reality is (assuming there is one), it must follow the same rules as our own. However, what I'm saying is that we can't infer the nature of a possible parent reality by comparing it to our own, because that reality may be completely different.
The argument is just about how the known probability of existing in a simulation goes up the more intelligent life we know to have existed in a simulation. Keyword being "known" as it's the knowing, for a fact, that the odds exist that makes for an interesting thought experiment, especially when the odds of simulation are higher than not.
The actual probability is inherently unknowable for the reasons you've pointed out.
I mean, is there really potential for infinite simulated ones? It doesn't make sense to be able to simulate a more powerful computer than the one running the simulation, else any computer would be able to have effectively infinite processing power with recursive simulations, so each "layer" of the simulation is logically going to have less processing power available for it than the layer above, probably a lot less. After a certain point, shouldn't it reach a state where reality as we perceive it is too computationally intense to simulate?
That is how the line of thinking goes. However, most arguments are wrong, so statistically speaking, that argument about simulation theory is probably wrong
I'd be curious to see evidence that it's possible to simulate an entire universe. Considering a universe is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of memory to store the state of everything in the universe, let alone an infinite amount of compute to calculate steps in the simulation. I guess if you don't simulate things that aren't being observed (which I believe there is support for), there's still a theoretically infinite number of observers.
The way I understand the potential for infinite simulated universes starts with the idea that once a species is cable of doing one, it makes sense to make more of them. If those simulations had their own simulations We also would not be able to tell where we where at the chain from our single point of reference.
Possibly true, but as much as that's bandied around it's rarely balanced against the fact that if it's not possible then there's a 0% chance of it happening (somewhat obviously). And it's not like the possibility exists on a continuum where you could say it's 50/50. It's either one or the other.
I felt the same way, until I read Reality Plus. This book basically reconstructs philosophy with the assumption that life is a simulation and it's a good read (if you ever enjoyed a philosophy class).
Kinda. My understanding is that that they aren't starting with, "this pattern can only be explained by a simulation" but instead, "we haven't been able to figure out what's causing this, so let's try a screwdriver instead of a hammer".
It's like the universe is a massive, exquisitely crafted wood table; composed of many intricate, delicate pieces made of different types of wood and held together without a single screw, bolt, nail, peg, or drop of glue. A true work of master craftsmanship held together only with extremely precise wooden joints.
Science is trying to figure out how the table was made. Due to the complexity of the table, there's no way a single human could learn enough to analyze and study the entire table, so it gets split up. Neurologists get one leg, chemists get another, astrophysics get a corner, and so on. They study their pieces along with a picture showing how their piece fits with the neighboring pieces; and once they think they have a good understanding of it, they make a new one. It's a really good replica and it's a near-perfect copy of the original; good enough that no one can tell there's anything wrong with it based on the picture they were given.
However, when the scientists reconvene with their new pieces, they find they don't fit together like the original table. Not only that, but there are pieces that just don't seem to fit or are straight-up missing; they can't figure out what the purpose, shape or material these pieces are, only that they seem to exist and keep the table together.
Simulation theory, if I understand correctly, basically says, "maybe this wasn't a table at all; maybe it's a chair or a desk, and that's why some pieces don't fit while others appear to be missing entirely".