Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t - but it is a highly debatable metaphysical assumption. I’m not sure how seriously we should take some people’s claims that they “know” that such an assumption is actually true
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
Reality is a multi-disciplinary domain, but it gives off the appearance of being physics only, because of its metaphysical nature.
I’m not arguing that a dualism (of this sort) is actually true, merely that we don’t (and can’t) know for a fact that it is false. But if we can’t know for a fact that it is false, then even if we (somehow) knew our reality was simulated, that wouldn’t give us grounds to make confident inferences about the nature of other simulations, or the nature of simulations in themselves
Panpsychists claim everything is conscious, even rocks, even atoms. Again, I don’t claim this is true (I’d be rather shocked if I somehow found out it was), but we can’t know for a fact that it is false. Yet if panpsychism (or at least certain versions thereof) is true, every simulation (even a simulation of the weather, or of crop growth) is conscious, simply because absolutely everything is. But I don’t think most standard definitions of “simulation” are excluding that possibility - on the contrary, they are agnostic with respect to it, treating its truth or falsehood as outside of their scope
It also doesn’t necessarily imply determinism because some computer simulations use RNGs. Most commonly people use pseudorandom RNGs for this, but there is nothing in principle stopping someone from replacing the pseudorandom RNG with a hardware RNG based on some quantum mechanical process, such that it is indeterministic for all practical purposes, and the question of whether it is ultimately deterministic or indeterministic depends on controversial questions about QM to which nobody knows the answers
Roger, that's even better. I tried to clarify the log book idea in another reply.[1] The question is whether you can have reality (from the observer's perspective) just based on whether coherent information exists in any setting.
Basically the question is whether we can go from "I think, therefore I am" to "something is constructing information." The latter is obviously a simpler, lower-level proof than other concepts of existence.
That brings us back to the "something extra." Is it required for our observations to be possible, i.e. can we rule out the log book conjecture? I don't think we can, but I might be wrong.
In that case, the non-conscious people in the log book would spend a lot of time pontificating on their experiences of consciousness and how mysterious it is and whether it's possible for there to be other universes that contain entities like themselves except not conscious. They'd be having these discussions for reasons that have nothing to do with actually being conscious, but coincidentally their statements would perfectly correspond with our actual perceptions of consciousness. Maybe not logically impossible, but it seems extremely improbable.
(This is pretty much the argument at https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fdEWWr8St59bXLbQr/zombies-zo... which I find persuasive).
If they ever solve the randomness, then if the map is down to every particle, then yes, the map and reality could be the same. But think at that point you need a computer the size of reality to keep track of every particle.
Or, maybe the entire universe is one giant wave equation. But again, I think you need a computer the size of the universe to solve it.
If you know the position and speed, everything, about every particle, then you should be able to extrapolate the future by calculating it. The problem is you need a computer the size of the universe to do that calculation.
So even thought the map is the territory, equal scale, and you have the map. It is little worthless because the map ends up being reality.
Edit: Little different than the idea that if this is simulation, you can do clipping and only render what we see. I'm saying the entire universe is 'real'.
But isn't that the exact thing that quantum mechanics refutes? You cannot know the future just from the past; you can only know the probabilities of different futures.
Guess I'm in the camp that eventually we'll find some model or discover something new, to discover what is behind the randomness, so it is no longer just random. But, yes, that is big IF.
Until then, with current theories, we couldn't do these calculations. They'd just be approximations accounting for some randomness.
I guess for whatever reason you don’t consider that to be the correct discovery?
Or another way of saying it. We have 2 answers, they are determined. That is great, we know the 2 answers, one in each universe. Now the problem is we don't know what universe we are in. Now which universe we are in is random.
We didn't move the ball towards doing something useful in our own universe.
That said, isn't the obvious answer 'all of them'?
What I find interesting is looking at whether some observable things look like they might be performance optimizations, or even "magic seeds" (as in RNG seeds.)
No proof of a simulation obviously, but maybe hints.
I’m not sure were you get that idea from. The amount of calculations we can do, per say, 1 000 000 molecules dedicated to the calculation has absolutely skyrocketed, and will continue to skyrocket.
Lets say it takes 100 molecules in a circuit to calculate 1 particles state. Then you already would need a universe 100X the size to calculate our 1X size universe.
I'm assuming all particles, not that this is somehow clipping and only rendering what we see. I'm not talking about the brain in box simulation, I'm talking about idea that entire universe is out there. What would it take to calculate every position of every particle.
That’s not how it works though. You’d have a lot of fixed costs to build a computer that simulates exactly the behavior of one particle. But then simulating a secondary particle will have a much, much, much smaller marginal cost.
Since you brought up clipping, games are actually a perfect example. You can see games as very crude simulations of our own reality, or slices of it. Take for example Red Dead Redemption 2. Run it on a PS5. Now compare the size of your PS5 to the mass of what was the old Wild West territory :)
Plus there’s the whole quantum computing thing, where in a way you’re reaching into “alternate” realities for extra compute.
That is what I'm saying is not happening. I'm saying that in a particle collider, we measure particles, and those exist all the time, not just when we are looking at them. Like, I have DNA and bones, they exist all the time, not just a simulation showing a 'skin' so it doesn't have to render everything.
Unless you are making a bigger point. That a computer that could be simulating every single particle, must exist outside this universe, and maybe mass and energy in this outside universe is so radically different we can't even grasp the scales of it.
Just like someone inside a minecraft world with blocks, couldn't grasp the amount of energy in our world.
The simplest way I can put it is that at some point of compute, there is a crossover where you need less mass to simulate something than the mass of the actual thing is. This will hold true for particle simulations as well. So no, you would not need more particles than the universe has to simulate the universe perfectly.
So lets say you have Minecraft running.
You can completely build a CPU / Memory, etc... Inside Minecraft with Redstone.
Lets say you do this, build a PC inside Minecraft to the point that it is functional enough to run Minecraft. Minecraft running in Minecraft.
There is huge overhead.
You need an astronomically large real PC that could handle running Minecraft such that the Minecraft version running inside Minecraft is usable. That is the scale problem.
I'd have to dig up the citation. But pretty sure this compute power needed to compute the universe has been worked out.
So.. we are basically just a few meters over the start line in terms of doing perfect particle simulations :)
Look at protein folding. For decades, we could do it incrementally faster as our globally available compute increased. Then Alphafold came along and proved that it could be done much more efficiently. Now there's multiple models / companies that are planning to jostle for supremacy in that space.
Our ways of simulating particles will get more sophisticated and efficient as time goes on. Our hardware will push more calculations per watt and per density (aka per unit of mass).
I guess ultimately you take the pessimistic view and I take the optimistic view, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Good talk though!
And for many worlds. Doesn't it punt randomness into other universes, but doesn't help us solve for results in our own individual universe. Since we can't measure what happens in the other universe we don't really know. If there were two results, and one is in one universe, and one in our universe, sure we determinedly know both results. But we don't know which universe we are in, so instead of a random result, now we have 2 answers and 2 universes, but now randomly don't know where we are?
We are in both. Both universes are equally real. Each 'copy' of you knows it's in the universe where the result matches the observation.
If in my universe I could always predict the correct results, then we would just have determinism, and I could predict exactly when an atom would decay. There would be no need for statistics.
Some high level background that might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-syaCoqkZA
The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was for experimental verification of Bell's theorem. The experiment did not rule out superdeterministic local hidden variables; superdeterministic local hidden variables does not violate Bell's theorem, since Bell's theorem assumes "free will" (that there is no correlation between arbitrary choices made by an experimenter and the state of the system being measured), but superdeterminism is the denial of that assumption.
*May be subject to entropy over time.