Hey, remember that thought experiment that real life is actually just Second Life? It goes like this:
The theory basically goes that any civilization which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened. And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations.
To me that first just seemed like a pretty great premise for beau coup bong hits, but now, apparently, scientists are trying to test whether or not we are actually a simulation within a simulation:
Professor Martin Savage at the University of Washington says while our own computer simulations can only model a universe on the scale of an atom's nucleus, there are already "signatures of resource constraints" which could tell us if larger models are possible.
Cool. Because I definitely want to know if I'm in a simulation within a simulation writing about a simulation within a simulation within a simulation.
Hat tip: Dizzy Banjo.
Please share this post with people you like:
Tweet
Will you take the blue or the red pill?
Posted by: Vivienne Daguerre | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 08:22 AM
I did hear somewhere out universe was indeed just a surface of a higher-dimention shape or something similar.
It's all far above my head.
Just don't crash the simulation, thanks,
Posted by: Adeon Writer | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 08:39 AM
So if we're in a simulation... what's our bake fail equivalent?
Posted by: Cicadetta | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 09:19 AM
"So if we're in a simulation... what's our bake fail equivalent?"
Quantum theory and the Observer Effect are just peeking behind the curtain into some resource optimizations. Why simulate the complex internal biological systems of some flower in a field in the middle if nowhere miles from anything "important" until someone actually needs to examine it. Fill the details in when it's actually needed, I say.
Ever wander into a room and instantly forget why you're there?
Packet loss.
Suddenly forget how to say the word you know you know?
Chat lag.
Posted by: Adeon Writer | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 09:32 AM
I can never find anything in first-life inventory.
This must be virtual.
PS: sending student to this post, Hamlet, who is writing about Baudrillard and the Hyperreal. My theory? Jean Baudrillard is God and we are living in his consensual hallucination.
Posted by: Iggy | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 09:33 AM
Quantum mechanics does make the word look like a simulation. Check out Philip Rosedales talk at Singularity institute, he talks about this.
Posted by: Metacam Oh | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 09:34 AM
If our world is a simulation, is there a game developer out there who created it? Or a company?
Is it simulations all the way down?
If it's a simulation, are we players -- or are we NPC's?
If we're players, can we get our money back?
Posted by: Maria Korolov | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 09:51 AM
Metacam my post was not serious. :)
Posted by: Adeon Writer | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Deja Vu
Posted by: Connie Arida | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Deja Vu
Posted by: Connie Arida | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Deja Vu
Posted by: Connie Arida | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 01:11 PM
Oh brother :)
Lori
Posted by: Skylar Smythe | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 01:21 PM
Does this mean every time I buy milk, Linden's making 5%?
Posted by: Huck | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 02:04 PM
This is as much a philosophical as it is a technical question, and actually has been thought about one way or another since the early days of civilization.
Is what we see "real" or is it merely a huge game that others have created for us to play in the cosmos? Is there order to the randomness? As George Constanza's mother would say, why should I make cook this paella if the Seinfeld's won't eat it? (I actually thought I was saying something profound right now, but it makes as much sense as the rest of this Sartre-like garbage that I just wrote.
Posted by: Eddi Haskell | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 06:03 PM
There is no spoon...
Posted by: Tracy Redangel | Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 06:58 PM
Cogito ergo sum is good enough for me. If I'm an NPC, well, *shrug*. It makes no difference in my daily life.
We are mobile organic computers and reality is a model we construct as a projection and extension of our own limited sensory perceptions. I'd like to be able to upload my data set to the network before my containment device breaks down. If that proves to already be taken care of, so much the better.
Posted by: Arcadia Codesmith | Friday, April 19, 2013 at 06:30 AM
Adeon, I'm not saying I believe we live in a simulation, but Quantum mechanics and the spooky action at a distance could almost best be explained by a simulation analogy. Like you said, why simulate every electron, every photon, until it actually needs to be measured? Look at quantum entanglement. How can anything travel faster than light? Well, in a simulation, space is just an illusion. Something can appear to travel faster than light because when dealing with data and simulating, its taking place in a dimension outside the normal 3 dimensions.
Posted by: Metacam Oh | Friday, April 19, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Ever pass something every.single.day. and know it inside out and then suddenly notice for the first time some new artifact?
I've lived here for almost 2 years and just recently noticed a neighboring house has a surveillance camera on its roof. It's been there since they moved in.
Love the Simulation argument.
Posted by: Virtual Clover | Saturday, April 20, 2013 at 07:36 PM
I have a suspicion that politicians and managers are badly-implemented NPCs. That would fit with the apparent sociopathic tendencies. They have to be programmed within a tight budget, hence "There is no such thing as society."
Posted by: Wolf Baginski | Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 12:55 AM