The Universe as a simulation

>>8056186
The number of distinct quanta would be a decent starting point

>>8056187
Yeah, you'd need every subatomic particle, its position, and movement vector inme privileged reference frame that ignores relativity and has an instantaneous, universe-wide concept of "now".

>>8056239
inme = in some (keystrokes got eaten)

>>8056186
>I would venture to guess that π is the raw code for our universe, since it is infinite as we assume is the same with our universe. π would be parsed and interpreted using another mathematical constant, like e.

The issue here is this statement is kind of vacuous. Pi contains EVERY pattern, so if you somehow reduced our universe down to a finite binary string, you would find it in the binary representation pi along with every other universe possible. So while this statement is true, it is somewhat trivial.

>>8056239
>Yeah, you'd need every subatomic particle, its position, and movement vector

Not necessarily. You just need probabilities that it is in any given state (wave function). The reason you can't have position + movement vector is not because it's impossible to measure it but because the information simply does not exist.

>>8056186
You post an image of Kkrieger. You should know that the filesize of Kkrieger is really small, but the amount of memory it needs is much larger. So when you're talking about the filesize of the universe, it could be as small as a few kilobytes, just containing enough information to advance the state of the universe to the next iteration. The memory of the universe would be fucking huge though, but I think its important to make this distinction.

>>8056254
>hey guys I watch numberphile and think I'm smart

no, pi actually doesn't contain every pattern
source: i apprenticed with wildberger

but seriously, it doesn't, and smart people don't take information from youtube vidoes without a grain of salt (or from 4chan FWIW)

>>8056352
explain why beyond 'because I said so'

>>8056186
Imagine a videogame. In the distance, things get rendered at low res, up close things get rendered with all their eye candy enabled.
Compare this to classicical => quantum => string theory. The closer we look at things, the more detail it seems to get. Collisions between billiard balls can be modeled extremely crude, but we need more tools the more we zoom in. Everything gets higher resolution. This is proof we're living in a simulation.

>>8056587
that's retarded.
of course the closer you look the more things you find out. it's related mostly to our faulty perceptions than anything.
i shiggy diggy doo

>>8056256
Brilliant

>>8056599
It's more than perception.

Quantum phenomenon literally behaves differently depending on observation level. Look up the Delayed Choice Qunatum Eraser experiment.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 450x370px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 450x370px

>>8056186
The fact of the existence of the opinion that the Universe is a simulation is proof that it is not, as what creator would allow the idea to propagate in the first place given the inherent danger and pain it presents us all?

>>8056677
one who doesn't give a shit
perhaps its extremely easy to simulate a universe, maybe we're some teenager's project and we've been running for 4 minutes real time

>>8056685
Nigger, the whole point of a simulation is for things to progress in a close-to-"normal"-as-possible way, and the introduction of the idea that this universe is a simulation, would foul the results.
What you are now saying is that we are not a simulation so much as a virtual environment being used as a toy for a sadistic being.
This holds a lot more water logically.

>>8056691
like i said, the simulation owner could
>not have a point to the simulation
>not give a fuck
>not give a fuck about results
>realize that somehow magically not allowing the concept of simulation to enter our heads would be incredibly un-close-to-normal, you retard
>logically fucks your dumb autist ass you stupid sim bitch
>be ready to flick a switch and run another simulation because it only takes 3 minutes in real time
>just be simulating a specific aspect of reality to generate new memes or some shit and not care about the overarching outcome
>not give a fuck nigger because hes on fleek

How would á simulation even work? Are there any examples of simulations made in our world? Do the Sims count?

File: image.jpg (12KB, 136x184px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 136x184px

>>8056700
>unclose to normal
Welcome to simulation design limits, put in place to stop totally misleading results by having slightly altered results.
>doesn't care about accuracy
>doesn't care about results
This is then not a simulation.
Go be a nigger elsewhere.

>>8056714
are you some kind of mouth breather? retard i can start a conway's game of life in 5 seconds flat and then shut it off out of disinterest
not everyone is some lab coat autist who is bound by le epic fedora memes to require reliable results
>i-its not a simulation
>gets fucking switched off

File: image.jpg (13KB, 199x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 199x200px

>>8056721
>GAME of life
>s-simulation
Jesus christ, you didn't even need the rest of the memes, the bait is clear to see.
"Sandbox" does not equate "Simulation"
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here anon, leave with your dignity as a troll, or continue and I will leave being assured of the fact that mentally defunct people actually post on this board.

>>8056726
Nice semantics. Back to /v/ you go.

>>8056587

Pretty much this. Experiment now proves that reality is not rendered until it is measured, and that reality is never rendered in a deterministic way and only as one of a range of probable outcomes.

File: image.jpg (41KB, 477x395px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 477x395px

>>8056729
These are not semantics in this discussion my nigro.
The idea that this world is a SIMULATION is arguably easy to discredit due to the existence of this notion, and the danger it's existence poses to the simulation itself. However this relies on the idea that this world is required to be a useful source of knowledge.
Alternatively, if this is just a SANDBOX or similair virtual, or otherwise, object, then is not unlikely that the existence of that notion would pose no serious threat at all to the desired function (fun, spiritual enlightenment etc).
Don't tell me to leave just because you got BTFO trying to troll, and I don't frequent /v/ at all, the definition of a simulation as a having a realistic or tangible objective is commonly misused in video games as well.

>>8056731
Or, you know, because video games are designed by people living in this universe, they mimic our universe rather than the other way round.

>>8056677
>pain it presents us all
As an existentialist, what pain?

>>8056731
How can you measure something that isn't rendered? If I'm not measuring you, are you rendered?

What does it mean to "measure" Who or what measures? And how do you define "reality"?

File: image.jpg (117KB, 701x728px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 701x728px

>>8056744
For you it means the pain of there in-fact being a higher power in our universe beyond yourself.

File: image.jpg (102KB, 716x476px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 716x476px

>>8056745
No bro, in simple, he is using the fact that you don't know what is happening behind you until you look as an example that our universe is on fact a simulation which is busy shedding it's load constantly (ie there is nothing behind you until you turn to look, which is when the system creates the universe for you to observe) (his specific argument was this but with sub-atomic particles etc as the human race looks at smaller and smaller things and keeps finding them)

>>8056186
I remember that game. Small package, big RAM hog back then.

Have there been any other such games like this? Ones with micro files sizes that use tons of RAM to expand in?

>>8056346
I don't think so. Relativity (time dilation) may be a sign that the universe has a tiny amount of "RAM" and is merely switching it in and out as fast as possible. No one thing ever actually staying in memory for very long.

>>8056753
>>8056748
>>8056734
>>8056726
>>8056714
>>8056677
>image.jpg

Why are phone/tablet posters such fucking shitposters? They should be banned on sight.

>>8056753
But what *is* an observer? What determines what is and what isn't an observer? Do you stop existing if I'm not looking at you?

>>8056768
Think of measurement as any sort of interaction between entities.

>>8056763
>shitposter
Really mate? you are that mad?
So mad that you are unironically shitposting about shitposters?

>>8056186

But what do you do?

>>8056731
>>8056587
Liking these. Much better than the probability explanation.

"The probability this is a simulation is high because we would create such a simulation"

>>8056771
Define "interaction and "entity"

>>8057152
Define "define" please anon.

If there is a force there's no simulation

>>8057341
>can explain quantum mechanics with math
>has a unified field theory
Care to enlighten me anon? as I feel there are some people who would like to know this proof you posses..?

>>8056239
It is not impossible if you have sufficient resources. We can describe every element of the Universe with math, thus every element can be transfered into a computer code. Universe can be simulated or can be simulation.

>>8057345
It doesn't change anything, I am saying that mathematic foundations are everywhere and that means you can build a computer code with it.

>>8057352
If you have proof of mathematical foundation in subatomic particle interactions please produce them, and it can be added to the pile of evidence for a computer simulated universe, otherwise, sit down and shut up.

In No Man's Sky, planets are just an "id" that your PC renders when needed, so your PC doens't have the data of every planet individually.

>>8057527
Add that to the fact that it needs to be online to pull the string of each planet from the server, being random genned and all

>>8056745

I'm measuring me.

>>8057914
Can't the same thing be said about any object? If an entity -you, in this case- can measure itself, why can't other things measure themselves as well, sustaining their own "rendering"? You could say that you're an "observer" kind of entity that is able to measure itself, unlike other entities. But that brings up many questions: 1) If your "rendering" relies on your measurement of yourself, who or what measured you first so you were able to sustain your own "rendering" from there onwards? 2) Does your "rendering" stop when you are unconscious (unable to measure yourself), such as in your sleep? 3) If that were the case, how are you able to wake up, if you are supposedly "unrendered" and thus unable to follow any processes? 4) What is an "observer"? 5) What does it mean "to measure"?

>>8057994

Listen kid, there's plenty of literature on QM, go read it.

File: 8hvHskf.gif (263KB, 480x479px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 480x479px

>>8058008
>studying QM literature that employs simple language adapted for the masses to understand, which results in an inefficient and insufficient explanation of QM, causing people to get incredibly unbiased ideas about it, and talk about it employing ill-defined concepts that carry enormous philosophical and logical weight which are completely ignored because it's far cooler to talk about "quantum consciousness" and how "nuffin exists until its observed" than to worry about adequate terminology, while people who recognize all of these problems and express them are told to "read a book about QM" by people who are extremely gullible to popscience, causing the same loop to be repeated over and over again

I don't understand QM, and neither do you, even if you aren't aware of that. The difference between you and me is that I know that there is nothing to be understood due to how poorly explained QM is.

>>8058073

It's actually well explained, you just don't know how to understand it.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SchroedingerEquation.html

>>8057994
I'm not a simulation theory, but the issues you raise break down fairly easily. Anything experienced by a conscious observer would need to be "rendered" or "created" or whatever. Basically we are talking about a program of sorts that would account for all content in any form of consciousness, which is quite a lot, but the important distinction for this conversation is that it would not have to account for all matter in some material based model. For example, instead of having to map all characteristics of all particles in a massive universe, it would need almost none of this information.
in deep sleep, yes, the rendering would stop, then begin again in wake or REM sleep, according to the rule set that evolved around what we call sleep

I meant "I'm not a simulation theory fanatic"
I may be a simulation, but I must be more than a theory

>>8058073

Listen kid, you can greentext butthurt all you want but the ramifications of QM have been obvious since Einstein lost his shit over it in Copenhagen. The ramifications have been proven time and again with experiment and the current ideas of universe as simulation is pretty run of the mill science now, even to the point of being popsci. Deal with it.

>>8058082
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics

>The framework of quantum mechanics requires a careful definition of measurement. The issue of measurement lies at the heart of the problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, for which there is currently no consensus.
>for which there is currently no consensus
>"I'm measuring me"

No, you don't understand anything. Stop spouting bullshit and think by yourself.

File: image.jpg (63KB, 498x357px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 498x357px

>>8058103
>I'm measuring me
Really buddy? so then why does quantum mechanics even exist if each entity is capable of "measuring" itself?
Presumably an observer outside of the relative interaction is required to measure it, as otherwise there would be no such thing as quantum mechanics due to the sub-atomic particles measuring themselves, no?
This is not quite as simple as you are making it out to be, the argument is over what interaction defines measurement, not over wether a simple element is able to measure the entire amount of it's space simulatanouesly, that is insane to assume.

>>8058103

Greentext quoted wikipedia? I'm glad we'll never meet in real life.

>>8058103

Von Neumann/Wigner sure were some dumbdumbs, right? I guess Bohr and Heisenberg too I guess.

>>8056576
Because patterns > numbers
Pie has infinite numbers. But there are more patterns.

100^10000000 terabytes.

Your welcome

>>8058448
Are we really saying that an infinite number of random digits cannot form every possible pattern? As this anon was obviously implying that the pattern was selected from the numbers, not using all the numbers as a whole.

>>8058442
>the "wikipedia is bad" meme

It's supposed to be a point of reference for you to seek more information. But you don't seem to care about being informed, as you're still determined on ignoring all the philosophical and logical problems that the concept of "measurement", "observer", "interaction" and many other words carry, yet you still use them and pretend you understand QM.

>>8058490

OK then, in wikipedia terms. Not even greentext or ad-hominem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

>>8058500

FWIW, the original interpretation of Bohr was pretty much as per the Von Neumann/Wigner. But it was watered down to the Copenhagen interpretation because Einstein was so butthurt about it, and it was needed to imply that somehow spontaneous measurment can occur.

This has led to a century of wasted science, chasing junk unprovable theories like many-worlds interpretation and shoehorning gravity as a quantum force.

All to get around the butthurt of realists: Despite experiment proving time and again that reality is a non-deterministic fuzz of nothing until something records the data of it, and experiment proves that doesn't ever happen spontaneously but requires some conscious intervention.

There's some moderately interesting interpretations in which the universe is a cellular automata ticking along.

>>8058535
>and experiment proves that doesn't ever happen spontaneously but requires some conscious intervention

No, conscious presence has nothing to do with it. If you left a measurement going and left the room, the same shit would go down.

>>8059355

but that's an example of second-hand conscious presence

God exists it's proven I know it

>>8059394
Another example is Quantum systems exposed to the environment. A two level system oscillating between two states will randomly drop to its lower state as if being measured but it's nothing to do with anyone actually making any measurements on it. It's one of the obstacles in making systems suitable for Quantum computing.

>>8056186
The total maximum entropy is equal to the surface area. So, take a sphere you want to simulate, find its surface area, that is your file size in bits

>>8059508

this is how eidos' programming department """""""""""""""functions""""""""""""

>>8059355

The recording of data is what triggers the wavefunction collapse. Unfortunately that never happens spontaneously.

>>8059991
Look up decoherence

>>8060619
>>8059991
As we look deeper and deeper are we just going to be examining more complex levels of recursive incoherence?

>>8060672
Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying that decoherence involves spontaneous wave function collapse without any specific measurement.

File: 23232333-610x236.jpg (24KB, 610x236px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 610x236px

>>8056254
> if you somehow reduced our universe down to a finite binary string, you would find it in the binary representation pi

memes detected

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-irrational-numbers-be-represented.html

>>8060681

Using decoherence as a handwave of the measurement problem is disingenuous.

File: 1443494205643.jpg (708KB, 1944x2592px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1944x2592px

>>8056239
what if the whole quantum state thing is just like, lossy compression, man

File: pepe go fuck urslef.jpg (45KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x600px

>>8058448
>infinite numbers. But there are more patterns.

>>8060694
I'm just saying that it's not just to do with conscious intervention or specifically "measuring" things like some people ITT seem to be saying.

>>8060705

Decoherence of wave function is different than collapse, so no resolution to the measurement problem. You can either accept that there must be some active observer, or you can be like the past century of wasted science and just pretend the model is wrong but right.

It isn't hard bra

>>8060701 has 7 digits. If you look for patterns like

80
806
8060
80607
8060701
01
701
0701
60701
060701

in it, and you'd already have more than 7 patterns.

>>8056254
>Pi contains EVERY pattern
For one, pi doesn't contain itself. It's easy to show that if it did, it would be a rational number.

>>8060794

define rational

>>8060724
>hey guys i can define patterns in an arbitrary way to fit my needs

these are permutations

literally read any single mathematics text before spouting garbage masked as your "math knowledge" you troglodyte

File: 4bf.png (181KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 625x626px

>>8060802
> trying to bait this hard

>>8056186
This is /sci/, it's about one specific subset of philosophy.
This garbage isn't even interesting, since it's just a re-re-rehash of the D's thought experiment.

>>8056352
Pi obviously cannot contain itself or the square root of two.

>>8056186
Not worth considering. You're only able to think up a framework of assumptions you're incapable of substantiating. It's all based on what you know, but the logic of this greater universe could be quite different. Why is there such a thing as file size? Is this simulation even being generated by a form of machinery at all, do those terms still mean anything?

No. You're asking another question the wrong way. The real question is what sort of hardware and binary storage is required to simulate the universe as we know it. This is a very different matter.

The universe, by definition, is all of existence. The file is just as much of our universe as anything else. So the file itself would have to be taken into consideration when calculating the size of the universe. And so on with each new calculation ad infinitum.

>>8060878
I hope you realize why what you just said was obnoxious, and faulty.

>>8056186
>What do you think the file size of the universe would be, assuming it's a simulation?

It might well be very very small - the laws of physics and the initial conditions can probably fit in less than a megabyte. Then you run it forward only within the light-cone you care about, keeping all that in RAM instead of on disk.

>>8056691
>and the introduction of the idea that this universe is a simulation, would foul the results.

Not so.

The "outermost" shell n0 must, necessarily, have somebody come up with the idea of simulated universes before any universes are simulated.

Then, if shell n1 is an accurate simulation of n0, at the same point in n1, somebody must invent the idea of simulated universes and create n2 etc. etc.

File: image.jpg (54KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x640px

>>8060902
Ahah, but that would lead shell n1 to have possible questions about wether they are actually a simulation (as people ITT are suggesting).
Seeing the amount of damage this notion could cause within a simulation, would you not remove the possibility in order to ensure somewhat accurate results? Especially given the amount of computing power obviously invested in simulating our universe, if this idea took hold it would cause the end of civilisation, probably before we even reached the stage the simulation wished to investigate.
If you see what I am saying, shell n0 reached a certain point in development where they could accurately simulate a universe, at which stage they invariably developed a method for testing wether they were in a simulation akin to the one they had developed, now if they allowed their simulation to reach their stage ( simulation possibilities) then the simulation would likely become self-aware, and foul the results. Keep in mind as well, that if we only made it to this stage, the simulation would never map any future events for shell 0, as we would only ever make it to the moment that "they" discovered their "current" rules of simulation before losing our shit.

>>8060918
>Seeing the amount of damage this notion could cause within a simulation, would you not remove the possibility in order to ensure somewhat accurate results? Especially given the amount of computing power obviously invested in simulating our universe, if this idea took hold it would cause the end of civilisation, probably before we even reached the stage the simulation wished to investigate.

>Running the simulation accurately would cause "damage" to it.

>Running the simulation inaccurately would not

Sorry nigger, you have not found a perfect proof that you are in the "real world," very sorry.

>>8060918
>If you see what I am saying, shell n0 reached a certain point in development where they could accurately simulate a universe, at which stage they invariably developed a method for testing wether they were in a simulation akin to the one they had developed,

Your just used your method. It returned: "Not in a simulation."

Now, are you (A) in the real world or (B) in a simulation of the real world which, because it simulates the real world, simulates the same answer as you would get using that method in the real world?

>>8060699

Indredastin. Reminds me of a description of a simulated reality in this excellent story.

http://localroger.com/prime-intellect/

>>8060946
Nigger, the obvious best way to run a simulation is as close to real as possible.
However, the reason we call it a simulation is because for whatever reason we are unable to conduct the experiment for "real" and so have to simulate a result which can be counted as a very cose estimate to the real result.
Imagine you wanted to see what the modern habits of the Dodo might involve.
You can a) synthesise a Dodo and release it into it's natural habitat, fully aware that you stand to lose the entire project to forces out of your control
or
you could simply try your best to achieve an accurate representation of the Dodos natural environment, without the risks.
This is what current biologists do, and is the real benefit of simulations.
>>8060950
Are you trying to imply that once we develope an identical replica of the simulation running our world we would still be unable to know it's limits?
It is pretty clear that at some stage the simulation would catch up to the world which created it, and hence would be totally aware of all the limitations of a simulation created at that time, and so would be able to tell that it is infact a simulation run by another world.
So upon getting a "non-simulation" result, we can conclude that either, we are not in a simulation, or, we are in a simulation and have not yet reached a stage in development where we can accurately state wether we are in a simulation or not, as invariably if there are no alterations to our development, we must eventually get to a stage where it is possible to run a simulation similair to what our universe is supposedly running in.

>>8056186
I remember this image. Its the smallest 3d game.

>>8060807
What is Cantor's Diagonalization?

File: papurika2.gif (179KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 500x281px

>>8056608 One could then also think about whether this would be a "natural" simulation with information as ("true") quanta of reality (hence erasing of the which-path information seemingly retroactively changes their which-paths). There may be parallel universes with this kind of apparent retroactivity not being "back in time" but "parallel in time".
...or whether this would be a "constructed" simulation with things being blurred at the quantum level (wouldn't make sense if the quantum level would be the actual underlying computational groundwork).
>"Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time."
Maybe it's a kind of "mirror" simulation in which higher levels of reality are kind "imitated" at a lower level...and so potentially multiple times (see the holographic principle for this).

>>8061527

second smallest

the universe is the smallest

>>8056186
>lists a bunch of dumb shit
>doesnt take into account particle or quantum shit

Piss off you filthy layman.

>>8061448
>Are you trying to imply that once we develope an identical replica of the simulation running our world we would still be unable to know it's limits?


So let me just get this clear. You believe:

Layer Nx* creates a simulation of their world

This simulation has some limitations (That is, it diverges from their own world)

Because their simulation isn't a perfect replica of their own world, they can now use their knowledge of what limits they faced to gain knowledge of what a hypothetical world one layer above them would be like.

Is that it?

Because if that's it, then no, that still doesn't let you find out if you're in a simulation, because layer N0 would also put in some limitations and would now also know what a hypothetical world one layer above them would be like.
*Nx don't know if they're N0 (real world), N1 (First layer in) or N13223135.

>>8056186
It really depends on what you're asking, my opinion. Do you want to know how much storage space is required to store every last piece of information about the current state of the universe? If so, just store the information of the singularity that caused the big bang, the laws of physics that governed it, and the timestamp of the present. That would be significantly smaller than every last bit of information about every particle in the known universe now.

Are you asking how much information would be required to recreate the universe? Because that's roughly the same as my previous scenario. Consider: The human genome is roughly 3gb. 3 gigabytes. That's to make an exact genetic clone of yourself. No mans sky has quintillions of planets because it's procedural, just like humans. Why wouldn't an advanced species just make a procedural universe? It could be really small, too.

>>8063452
>inb4 but those 3gigs don't include your life's experiences
i know, nerds

>>8063452
>Why wouldn't an advanced species just make a procedural universe? It could be really small, too.

Threads are for reading

>>8060898
>It might well be very very small - the laws of physics and the initial conditions can probably fit in less than a megabyte. Then you run it forward only within the light-cone you care about, keeping all that in RAM instead of on disk.

>>8063123

>pretending to have any understanding of particle or quantum physics

get a load of this retard

File: commodore128box.jpg (289KB, 800x441px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 800x441px

>>8056731
>>8056753
I agree with these fuckers. Love thinking about the simulation. This shit is fucking great.

Sorry nothing to contribute I just got on this wagon a couple years ago.

>>8060701
There is more infinite patterns than there are infinite numbers.

File: thalydomide.jpg (208KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 800x450px

>>8063452
>>8063454
3gigs don't include the womb you were developed in or any of the other environments that shaped you physiologically.

Like how much thalydomide your mom took.

Pic related.

>>8056731
No, that's not why we use probabilistic theory when dealing with data from quantum experiments.
We use it because we're measuring things so small and fickle that our instruments interfere with their behavior in non-negligible ways.

Imagine if you measure the length of your flaccid dick by finding out how many tiny loli hands can fit on it at the same time. This will have an effect on your dick and by the time you finish measuring you won't be sure if you're measuring its flaccid state or not. So you need to restrict yourself to fewer loli hands, but then your measurements are less accurate. But more loli hands means they're less reliable. So you use probability and shit to try and get the best number you can.

>>8056762
Elite and Minecraft.
Elite uses a small set of data to generate planetary data for 5 galaxies.
Walk in Minecraft and it generates in front of you.

>>8063532
>writing code to handle with an object exisiting and not exisiting at the same time
>not the most memory consuming

Once again, piss off.

>>8064706
holy shit theres a person who works at one of the grocery stores i shop at who looks like this, wonder if thats what it is