The whole reality is just so bizzare when you really think about it.

Submitted by aalluubbaa t3_121yeey in singularity

First is that intelligent species like us don't have to exist at all. If that astroid which killed all dinosaurs didn't hit earth 65 million ago, who knows what would have happened?

Then we use our understanding of technology to try to know and understand the world. It turns out that we are not the center of the universe. That is ok but what is really mindblowing is the sheer size and distance between star systems, measuring in light years, which also is the speed limit of travelling.

And you look at quantum entanglements and the fact that there is absolutely no trace of other alien intelligent life whatsoever. This really is so counter-intuitive.

The conditions for life is really not that hard if you just reason thru it without fact-checking. There are billions of stars and billions of galaxy. Water, oxygen and carbon are everywhere in the universe. So just by the sheer numbers, we should see some really advanced alien civilization making huge trace that is impossible to ignore by now.

The hardlimit for light is also really bogus if you just reason thru it. We can have infinite density, which are blackholes. We can have size of the universe being so rediculously uncomprehensibly vast. But the max travelling speed limit is 300,000 km/s?? Like really??? Shouldn't light be instantanous because it has no mass??

Now with the AI advancement we have. It is really really hard to imagine if there was ever an intelligent civilization, that it would take them THAT long to figure this out. Human civilization is maybe 10000 years. It is stupidly short compared to everything else in the universe. So why don't we see any trace of AI built by other aliens? The universe is 13 BILLION years old. There are plenty of time for any civilization to build an AI to replicate itself. There are billion and billion of stars if not more. They have billion of years to advance. How is it possible that we don't see anything yet?

On top of that we have quantum entanglement. Like WTF? Things can change just by OBSERVING IT???

Doens't this sound really like a game? In a game, you have to have a focus and contrain of the world. The the game world you build would sometimes seem like endless and rich but we all know that it is a finite sandbox. You explore any game and no matter how good the game is, you always know that you are playing a game because there is some hard constrain. It doesn't make any sense but it is there because it is just a game.

So when you look at far away in a game, you know that the rest of the world is not being generated. Your view of the world is your monitor and that's all a game needs to render. It can render in real time where you look at so it "feels" like you have options and freedom but you really don't. Sometimes you would run in circle if you try to escape the world, or worse, you would just die and respawn. And every pixel is the most detail you have. You cannot go in a game and try to look for anything less than what is already built in. There is no alien unless the developers decide to. And things don't have to make sense because the whole point is to get the story going and we can play a game.

I really don't think that I'm crazy to think this way. I think it would be crazy to think otherwise.

88

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

daronjay t1_jdohqsc wrote

While some of your facts are oversimplified, there is a core of truth in your argument.

The current apparent state of the universe is implausible.

It’s a lot to swallow, and it’s hard to see why most of the universe hasn’t already been turned into computainum by older lifeforms and their child AIs.

Unless it actually has…

59

HatsusenoRin t1_jdp00xi wrote

Yes, so either we're already in a simulation of the AIs, or we truly are among the first species to experience intelligence (think of the opportunities we got!).

24

Ytumith t1_jdpwn7o wrote

Or, we are a freak accident of sentient matter in what is essentially a matter based computer- turns out in a plot twist of fate we are actually the "AI" all along.

18

banned_mainaccount t1_jdrhosy wrote

think intelligence as a protective mechanisms in animals, some have horns, some have teeth some have shell they can hide in, and some have better understanding of surroundings and Better pattern recognition to survive in predatory world. when you see it as a qualitative feature rather than quantitative one, then things make more sense. statistically it's very possible for millions of living things to exist in this vast universe, but it's quite improbable for them to have intelligence. just look around the species we coexist with. they're all aliens with most of them having very low intelligence. the most intelligent of them are our close descendants, monkeys. and our closest descendants don't have nearly as iq as us which just tells us that intelligence is not necessary for living beings. so there are definitely aliens around us, but we can't see them because they can't make a significant change to their planet so we could notice them. i think scientists should look for the planets with continuously changing atmosphere because intelligence is only "adoptive" protective mechanism that can get a species through constantly changing atmosphere

1

justanonymoushere t1_jdpf06q wrote

I think it’s most likely a simulation/experiment of some crazy AI/alien who doesn’t give shit about our experience.

10

HumanSeeing t1_jdqnpsq wrote

I second this! What connection should quantum entanglement and alien life in the universe have? I sort of assume what you mean, but then you understand entanglement wrong.

Why is the speed of light not instant? Speed of light is instant, from the point of view of light itself. Its moment of birth and death are the same moment. Light being born in the center of the sun and reaching your eye, that is all the same moment for it. Light experiences no time. Really fascinating trippy stuff.

I do agree that it is suuper unlikely for a universe like ours to exist. People can make whatever arguments they want. But the universe is fine tuned for life. Not saying by some intelligent entity or something. But that the laws of physics, every one of them, work together to make all this possible. It is wild that even the periodic table of elements and chemistry is possible at all.
That is is possible for stars to shine.

So.. by now i think the most likely and to me obvious answer is that we live in a multiverse. That there are infinite amount of different universes each with different possible laws of physics. And we just happen to be in one that is supportive of life. Id imagine the vast majority of possible universes are just energy and particles flying around and that's it.

If anyone has any other hypothesis besides the multiverse i would love to hear it. But then you need to explain this cosmic coincidence of why the laws of physics are exactly the way they are, set in exactly this way to allow for life.

And yea.. a way to think about life is like a game i agree. Don't take it too seriously. Altho we pretend we are all doing super serious life stuff and wearing suits and going to meetings. As if that had any significance at all in the bigger picture. We are just tubes who find food to put in one end to poop it out the other end, but remember, super serious!

5

banned_mainaccount t1_jdri6lk wrote

can you elaborate "speed of light is instant"

1

HumanSeeing t1_jdrwn8j wrote

The closer something moves to our universes maximum speed limit (The speed of causality(the speed of light)) the slower time goes for it. We call the fastest speed speed of light, but it has actually got little to do with light itself the way people might think of it. It just happens to be moving at the fastest possible speed and it is everywhere so we have started calling the maximum possible speed the speed of light.

So yea.. the faster something goes near the maximum speed the slower their clocks tick. But also nothing with mass can actually reach the speed of light, since the faster you move the more mass you gain - e=mc2, the more mass you gain the more energy you need to push further etc etc. So things with mass could never achieve it.

However photons are massless particles, they have no mass. (Except in some sense they do, again because of e=mc2) and since they have no mass they move at the speed of light. If you have no mass you move at the speed of light by default. Hope this helps! Its a fascinating topic.. as our entire universe is.

2

Ivanthedog2013 t1_jdrxpi1 wrote

What isnt serious about building a society that has the potential be gods? I hate arguments like "we are just small Insignificant specs". We should take our lives very seriously we hold the fates of every living being on the planet in our hands.

1

HumanSeeing t1_jds08im wrote

We are not small insignificant specs, we are the entire universe. As with everything there is a balance in what to take seriously and what not. And i am sure we might have very different ideas of what "game" and "serious" means!

1

qepdibpbfessttrud t1_jdsqd7h wrote

Keeping in mind how incomprehensibly vast space is according to our devices and calculations - each breakthrough in AI strengthens simulation hypothesis

1

Ginkotree48 t1_jdo0csf wrote

It is all insane when you consider all of these things.

I agree with you

Prepare for people to shoot you down for expressing your enthusiasm, though.

43

WeeaboosDogma t1_jdonowo wrote

GET YOUR ENTHUSIASM OUTTA HERE

ITS TAKING UP MY BANDWIDTH

11

banned_mainaccount t1_jdrjcaq wrote

i appreciate the enthusiasm but correlation ≠ causation. yes game and reality are similar but that doesn't mean reality is game or game is reality. and very interesting pattern to notice is that in the age of books people thought the world is just a big story, in this age of games people think the world is just a game, in future people will think the world is just a vr. but it's actually the opposite this technology tries to replicate the reality not the vise versa

2

wildgurularry t1_jdoi5y1 wrote

Something to think about is how much the anthropic principle plays into things. Here is how I think about it: assume everything that happened to Earth was required for intelligent life to develop.

So, you need a planet with a large moon. That can only happen if a planet that was just the right size hit us during formation. That's pretty rare.

Assume you need a fairly significant axial tilt. Assume you need a rotation speed that gives a day length that is not too long and not too short.

Assume you need just enough water to cover more than half the planet, but not so much to cover the whole planet.

Assume you need a large Jupiter-like planet to shepherd asteroids.

Assume you need periodic large asteroid impacts every few hundred million years. Not too big, just enough to "reset" life to give other species a chance to develop.

There are probably a bunch that I'm forgetting about... But I think intelligent life is harder to develop than just needing water and oxygen on a planet.

32

flexaplext t1_jdomkfe wrote

^ This.

The anthropic principle is massive. If there were an advanced AI that spread throughout the universe, then we wouldn't be here. It would have already taken over the planet. If the dinosaurs hadn't been made extinct, then we wouldn't be here. If the speed of light was different, then we wouldn't be here.

The anthropic principle applies to absolutely everything. It is not actually strange at all how things are; because it is entirely necessary for things to be how they are in order for us to be here to perceive them.

What would actually be strange, imo, is if this is a game or a simulation. Because why the fuck make a game or simulation like this? What would be the point?

A simulation is necessarily created by an intelligent being for a purpose. We are one example of this. Our games don't look like this universe. Our universe appears to be completely devoid of point, of meaning, or purpose. There is no objective or anything. It makes no sense to me why an intelligent source would simulate this. If we had the ability to create such a thing, then I doubt we certainly wouldn't make it anything like this world or universe. We would simulate things far more interesting, I imagine.

9

fastinguy11 t1_jdopo9o wrote

Nah, we( as in advanced intelligence civilizations) would simulate universes similar to ours to gather information either about parallel histories or about physics or any other number of science reasons.

Think bigger then just games.

11

flexaplext t1_jdp9tvm wrote

I just wrote the most incredible reply to this but then lost most of it all with reddit automatically refreshing 😂 I still have the end of it on my clipboard though, which I will post:

The only way I see this possible is if our simulation is being done from beings in a higher spatial dimensionality. This is necessary in my understanding, so that the resources necessary for such a simulation are possible; in terms of physical space, computational power and energy requirements. Our universe (or multiverse) would be magnitudes less resource intensive in a higher spatial reality.

To simulate a reality of equal spatial dimensions, potentially infinitely large and as complex as ours. I doubt that would be physically possible and I don't believe we will be able to manage such a feat ourselves as it would go against the laws of physics. How are you supposed to simulate something with greater or equal information / energy to what you have available to the system? This goes against the principles of information theory law.

But I can work on the premise of higher spatial dimensionality simulation.

To suggest it is a game is still illogical to me. It would fit far better as a random by-product or as just one of every possible outcome within a maximilized simulation of all outcomes for lower spatial dimension possibilities. The reason for this simulation is still unclear to me though. Unless it is just random curiosity or intelligence gathering of created intelligences such as ourselves. I guess they could potentially still use our intellectual ideas and inventions that we come up with, and also that our future invented AI comes up with. The lower spatial dimensionality of our universe may not really matter as ideas and inventions are universally useful and can travel across and be applied at higher dimensions. Our simulation being of lower spatial dimensions is then a good low resource way of gathering intelligence data. Again, it may apply that they can't directly simulate a universe or intelligence such as ours (from a lack of understanding and the sheer complexity of it) and thus they simulate every possible starting condition until ones arise that have intelligence in them that evolves (and maybe even intelligence that goes onto create AI like we appear to be doing, as this would be most valuable).

This would then all fit with the appearance of our quantum mechanics, fine-tuning, our low dimensionality, why we are such an intelligence and why potentially even it appears that we will go on to create advanced AI. It may even be possible even that realities (universes) within the multiverse that do not match this critea are deleted and stopped from running to save in resources. And I guess even potentially that we are limited to traveling throughout our universe from necessary physical constraints so that outer-space could then be projected onto us, to again save on resources, and isn't actually real. I don't believe this part to be exactly very likely, but I can't completely rule it out in this sense. In this way, it would be kind of like a game in the way OP outlined. And is actually interesting to consider and think about.

Lower dimensional beings are theorized to be able to be possible and maybe intelligent, but maybe not so to the capability of creating a civilization or AI like ours. Thus, it could very well be that our universe exists in the very lowest spatial dimensions that is possible, in order to give rise to intelligent beings that are able to create advanced civilizations and AI. I have never thought of this in particular before. This is indeed a very, very interesting point.

Looking back at the point of that quasi-anthropic principle, if this is the case, then it would be inevitable that there are many more simulations of lower spatial-dimensional universes (due to lower resources required to run them). It is inevitable then that, as an intelligent being, you are much more likely to find yourself in a universe of low spatial dimensionality such as we have.

2

Dolnen t1_jdpujz3 wrote

You waste too much time trying to explain this reality with a simulation theory. You know why? Because even if we assume there are higher dimensions with "living beings", we would still need to explain their existence and thus we end up in the same place. They would be asking the same questions about their reality as us. So what is the ultimate reality? What is the origin of everything? What is everything? It is an endless, paradoxical loop that has no answer. That's where the existencial crisis kicks in.

6

flexaplext t1_jdqc5lf wrote

That's what I wrote about, before it got deleted. Plus other things.

It's not a waste of time for me, because it's interesting to ponder. I never subscribed to simulation theory myself. Because it seems incredibly difficult to simulate a reality as vast as ours. And it would take incredible amounts of knowledge and power. I'm not sure it is ever a possibility for any beings. And I don't believe it will ever be possible for us. It is, however, kind of important to know whether it's possible, so this is where it does apply to us. Simply because such technology could obviously hold so much power and thus there would be an incentive to create it if it is possible.

But onto what I wrote: an upper reality could want to simulate their own reality in order to see how their future would play out, that could have huge value. It's the only thing that made sense to me to be worth the huge investment of resources. But then, in that instance, their reality would just be the same as ours, so what's to say that this isn't just the base reality? Even if the reality that simulated us was themselves simulated for the same reason, at some point up the chain, there has to be a base reality that's the same as ours. So what's saying we wouldn't just be it? Since we're admitting that such a base reality is possible to happen purely from the natural laws of physics in that base reality.

The really funny thing is that we wouldn't really consider this kind of simulation a possibility until we did the exact same thing ourselves. Ie we ourselves (or our AI) tried to make an exact replica simulation of our universe. However, funnily enough, there would be a huge incentive for humans not to do that. Because if we did that very thing, it would be like accepting that we are ourselves a simulation as that would become inevitable.

So there would strangely be pushback from doing it to begin with. The weirdest part being, if we're an exact simulation replica of an upper reality of humans, we can actually then control exactly what actions they take (as we'd be identical to them). So, by not making this replica simulation ourselves, we stop the possibility of them making one, to the point that it never happened to begin with. People won't want us to be a simulation for feelings of inadequacy and existential dread, so they wouldn't allow such a simulation to happen.

It is possible, I guess, that the AI could want to do it on it's own intuition though, if it does not care about such things and just wants to find out the truth about its own reality or in order to gain knowledge about it's own reality.

Such a simulation may not really help it gain any knowledge about it's future though. Because as soon as you get to the point in the simulation where you are at in your time (ie the point of running the replica simulation), so will the humans / AI in your simulation. As they would wind up doing the exact same thing as you. Thus, they would then react in turn to the outcome of their own simulation, who would react to the outcome of their own simulation, etc, etc in an infinite spiral down of Inception style identical replica simulations. You would then windup making the exact same decisions as your simulation of reality or getting into some loop pattern of reaction that doesn't actually help you at all because the reaction is tainted. At this point, you may as well just live out your own history and not create such a simulation to begin with.

The other possibility is that the replica simulation is instead run to learn about the history of their world. That would assume though that you don't necessarily need to already know your exact history in order to run such a simulation and also that it were possible to do this whilst also probing information from the simulation without affecting affecting the simulation and it's outcome through your probing. But given that not being the case, such a simulation would also come with its own quirks.

What are they going to do when the simulation reaches their own point in history of in turn creating their own simulation of their history? Just turn it off? As history is all that is important. But that would potentially then stop them, themselves, from not being the base reality as they would likely themselves be a simulation of an upper reality trying to find out about their own history just as they are planning to do.

But again, this wouldn't happen for exactly this reason. Because the stakes would be even higher here, whereby creating such a situation would immediately lead to the risk of our own simulation and our entire universe is potentially going to be about to be turned off by that upper reality that simulated us for the same reason of learning our/their own history.

However, even in this case, there would still need to be a base reality that wouldn't actually get destroyed and it would necessarily be either our own reality or the reality that is directly simulating us. It couldn't be any other as in this simulation we are making, we are making it turn off before any more simulations are created. Thus ending a potential infinite loop of simulations and leaving just the two: us or them.

That's just really fucked up and weird to think about. This idea can also essentially fall into all the pitfalls with time travel if you try to detect whether you are the base reality or not, as you are in essence making time travel by stimulating a replica of your own past.

There is one final possibility along the simulating history line though. What if we come to some inevitable, inescapable death of our world? Like the sun exploding. Then the reason humanity creates the simulation at that point is so they can be born again (in simulation form) and their simulations can live out their lives again in an identical wonderful life like they have enjoyed (likely a utopia at that point). But they need to simulate the entire history of the universe up to that point, so that's us now, in order for humanity to reach that inevitable point of utopia again and for them to exist again in replica simulation form.

In that instance, they would know they are likely a simulation themselves but they wouldn't care because they're about to die anyway and they want the simulated beings just to exist and enjoy life like they have done. Knowing in turn that we (their replica simulation) will get to the same point too and make the same decision to make our own simulation at that point in our future (their present). Thus, indeed, creating an infinite loop of simulations that never ends, leaving life on earth always recreated and relived and enjoyed. Even if it's always identical every time and they have no knowledge of it themselves, they just want the simulated beings to end up existing and enjoying a utopia as they have done themselves.

That is incredibly strange to think about, but it is potentially something that could happen if such technology is possible (which is still a big if in my opinion). Humans are weird like that and may consider doing it as they wouldn't be losing anything at that point. They're going to die anyway and they will have already worked out that they are themselves likely a simulation just repeating history but already accepted that as being true and are fine with that and just happy to experience the pleasure.

The weird thing still is that there would necessarily need to be a base reality up in the chain, but that reality would be 1 in an infinite number of simulations and they would never know themselves that they are the special 1 in an infinite genuine base reality that actually started it all.

1

Dolnen t1_jdszhvd wrote

I'm studying so I don't have time to dissect all of that, so here's GPT-4's take on the matter:

It's certainly fascinating to engage in these thought-provoking discussions, and I appreciate your insights. However, I'd like to challenge you on some points and propose a different line of reasoning.

While the simulation hypothesis is an intriguing concept, I'd like to draw our attention to the principle of Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is often the most likely. This principle could be applied to our current discussion. Instead of positing the existence of higher-dimensional beings and infinitely regressing simulations, we could consider the possibility that our universe is the base reality, operating under the natural laws we are still striving to understand.

That being said, I do recognize the importance of exploring different philosophical perspectives, as they can contribute to our understanding of reality and broaden our intellectual horizons. To that end, I would propose we examine the concept of panpsychism – the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, akin to space, time, or matter. This approach could potentially offer a fresh perspective on the nature of reality and the relationship between the physical and the mental realms.

One could argue that if consciousness is indeed a fundamental aspect of the universe, the boundary between "simulated" and "real" might become blurred. In a panpsychist universe, every conscious experience, whether arising from a simulation or not, could be considered equally real and significant. This viewpoint could offer a different way to frame the questions we've been discussing.

In conclusion, while I remain somewhat skeptical of the simulation hypothesis, I agree that it's crucial to explore different ideas and theories to deepen our understanding of reality. Let's continue to challenge one another and engage in stimulating discourse, as it ultimately enriches our perspective and contributes to our intellectual growth. By considering various theories, such as panpsychism or even solipsism – the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist – we can expand our understanding of the nature of reality, consciousness, and the seemingly endless complexities of the universe.

2

Ivanthedog2013 t1_jdry3z8 wrote

I agree, I highly doubt higher dimensional beings governed by different laws would have the same level of interests such as video games like us.

2

Just_Another_AI t1_jdpk6m0 wrote

My response to the question "why would we create a simulation like this?" is what if this is a simulation but not a simulation which was purposely created? When AI goes through a generative process to design something like a more efficient antenna, for example, it creates and tests thousands of permutations, gleaning insights from each generation to factor into the next iteration. What if we're just an iteration in a massive volley of simulations? What if we're just some backwater spin-off glitch that hasn't even been detected as the simulation isn't even about us? So many possibilities

4

flexaplext t1_jdqcnej wrote

There's got to be some benefit though that is worth the probable immense resources required to run such a simulation.

I have talked about all this more in my other comment here in response to this. But I came to the conclusion that it would likely need to come from a higher spatial dimensional reality, so the resource cost would not then be extreme. In that case, I concluded, we could very well indeed be a byproduct or something, or a source of simulated data / intelligence.

2

whyohwhythis t1_jdq6yh0 wrote

What would an intelligence source simulation look like in your opinion?

1

flexaplext t1_jdqcvbp wrote

I went into this in a comment reply to someone else. I reached the conclusion that it would likely be one with higher spatial dimensions. We have a low number of spatial dimensions in our universe which is why I think this would likely be true if we are indeed a simulation. The resource cost for running us a simulation would then not be as high for them.

But yeah, I went more into this in my other comment(s) in this thread.

1

AnOnlineHandle t1_jdoa3yt wrote

> On top of that we have quantum entanglement. Like WTF? Things can change just by OBSERVING IT???

This is a misunderstanding. By 'observing' people mean firing something at it to get a measurement from it. You have to touch it to measure it, and touching it changes it. So you cannot observe something without changing it.

21

0002millertime t1_jdog9af wrote

He is kind of right, in a sense. If two objects are perfectly entangled, then you can "force" the unobserved object into a certain state by observing (interacting with) only its entangled partner. Of course you aren't really forcing anything.

My favorite interpretation is the Many World Interpretation, and it's more about you yourself also becoming entangled with a certain part of the universal wave function, and that limits what you can observe, due to decoherence. The Copenhagen Interpretation gives the same results, but then you have to assume instantaneous wave function collapse affecting both entangled partners, rather than you just finding yourself in a subsection of the larger wave function, that never collapses.

6

AnOnlineHandle t1_jdorzcz wrote

This is beyond my level of understanding, but why do we presume it didn't have a state until measured, and the two particles didn't just spin off in opposite directions at the start?

3

plateauphase t1_jdotnsz wrote

my friend, last year's nobel in physics was awarded for experiments that ruled out local realism [1], [2], [3], [4]. current best scientific understanding indicates that physical properties don't exist before measurement, ie. physicality doesn't have standalone existence.

anton zeilinger: "there is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has reality."

8

Professional-Let9470 t1_jdp49t8 wrote

Hmmm, and why might physical properties not exist before measurement? Perhaps because someone out there is trying to save massive amounts of computing power by not rendering every detail of every subatomic particle.

Just saying, the more we learn the more plausible it seems to me that we’re in a simulation.

4

plateauphase t1_jdqmcky wrote

mm, sheer logical conceivability doesn't convince me. why is it not the flying spaghetti monster with its noodly appendages, and why not an infinite regression? why not thousands of other logically possible scenarios?

1

AnOnlineHandle t1_jdoxyeo wrote

Yeah I get that it's well respected, I'm trying to understand it.

2

plateauphase t1_jdqlimg wrote

yeah, it's kind of impossible if not absurdly difficult and jarringly unintuitive under physicalist assumptions. fortunately, the scientific theories are metaphysically neutral, so it's open for alternative interpretations, such as analytic idealism!

basically, physicality is the appearance of mental processes from across the private conscious pov. like the dashboard of dials on a plane, which definitely display measurements of an external world, physical properties represent the external world, which is not physical, but mental. mental just means of the same kind that consciousness is, which is all we ever directly know.

this doesn't explain mind in terms of an other existent, but takes mind as the reductive base, exactly like physicalism doesn't explain 'the physical', but takes that as the reductive base. however, while 'physicality' is a perfectly transcendental, non-mental existent, which cannot be experienced and is a metaphysical postulate, not an empirical observation, consciousness, mental processes, experientiality is the only given of nature which we directly and most intimately know.

2

AnOnlineHandle t1_jds3umz wrote

I think that makes sense, though I was more wondering why we think what we do about this specific situation.

1

0002millertime t1_jdotpcq wrote

That was one idea, called "Hidden Variables". However, there is a statistical test for this, now called "Bell's Inequalities". This test has been performed, and definitively showed that hidden variables do not exist. It's actually pretty fascinating stuff, and I'd encourage anyone to read more about it all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

5

Arcady t1_jdpn3lz wrote

Well as you mention the light speed has a limit and when you are observing the universe due to that limit you are observing just a very limited portion of it and also very old, since to “see” something we need light.

And we know is very old because when we watch the furthest possible away we are literally seeing the start of the universe happening right now

So, who knows if the universe is plagued of civilizations or AI, the reason we don’t see them is because we are seeing everything around us with a massive delay

Also the universe can be even bigger as we consider, after all we only can see the observable part of it which is regulated by the light speed. It could be perfectly be that is so much big that we are just a very small point on it that perhaps is just placed in a very empty and boring region

For last consider this: we live in the same world than many other biological species, so much in the same place than we often clash with them (we have them in in our homes in our gardens…). But even having them so much present, when is the last time you have considered an ant or a squirrel relevant at all for your life? Even having them so near? You didn’t, because intellectually they mean very little for you, that much that you don’t even think on them.

So if there are extremely advanced and intelligent species out there who are much more intelligent than we are compared to our ants and squirrels, with the gap of the exponential growing that Ai would have, we would be nothing else than more ants and more squirrels. For them and our ants and our squirrels

7

banned_mainaccount t1_jdrk7hh wrote

the delay increases the farther they're from us. so we should atleast observe something in our closer galaxies. 1000 years are nothing in evolution of a species. so we shouldn't at least found something in our 1000 lightyear radius. i think occurrence of intelligent life, or life in general, is more rare than people might think. so many random factors have to come in precisely right place and time for it work, at all.

1

DragonForg t1_jdp3l4p wrote

Personally I would like to say, that we are in a evolutionary model. Where only the best model survives. This model is us. We reached the end goal, which is why we all get to experience it.

5

flamegrandma666 t1_jdo0d05 wrote

Thats not how quantum superposition works...

4

Frumpagumpus t1_jdo24p3 wrote

i dont think he mentioned quantum superposition (ctrl f) though I am sure his quantum (entanglement?) fascination has some incorrect assumptions embedded into it just because it would be very hard to have correct assumptions without those assumptions being the precise mathematical formulation of the theory

8

Comfortable_Slip4025 t1_jdonmz1 wrote

You're talking about the Rare Earth Hypothesis - the idea that it takes such an improbable series of coincidences for a potentially starfaring species to arise that we're not in the forward light cone of any other such species. Ergo, no aliens, because if there were, we'd know about them or wouldn't exist at all.

4

AdaptivePerfection t1_jdqmij8 wrote

Anyone know what would happen if we modified our brains to increase its intelligence instead of making an ASI? Would we emerge with new emotions or comprehension of the universe? Reminds me of the ants next to the highway metaphor. Why not utilize AI to increase our understanding of our biology so we can make each individual the equivalent of an ASI in intelligence?

4

JeanTerreTout t1_jdsxm92 wrote

That's interesting, I think that we don't understand a lot about our reality because our brain are not made to understand the universe but to survive, now that we function as a society we could make our brain much intelligent to see the truth.

1

anaIconda69 t1_jdodbjm wrote

Photons have no mass, but they have momentum.

3

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_jdq2wvm wrote

IDK where you get your information from, but I agree with the title. There's no clear reason why dolphins or squids could not have evolved further. The size of the universe is not that well understood IMO. The best theory is that quickly after the big bang an inflation happened and the universe has been expanding at lower rate ever since. But apparently there's recent evidence that this is unlikely.

There might be evidence of alien intelligent life, but we might be not smart or lucky enough to find it. It's a big universe after all. I don't understand what you are trying to say with quantum entanglement. If you mean that we can communicate with it, I'm not sure that would work.

You can't have literal infinite density. At least theoretically. The laws of physics break down at this point. On the quantum scale when the Planck constant h becomes meaningful single photons have enough energy to be disruptive. The energy of a photon is h * f. When photons are the equivalent of cannon balls, observing is the same as bombardment. There's nothing mystical behind that.

Photons have no mass, but they have energy as I said above. They can't move at infinite speed because if you think about it that's not movement. They would be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Also v = d/t. You can make v infinite by letting d approach infinity or t approach zero. Kinetic energy is not free. The energy of photons is proportional to the Planck constant, so it's limited. Also because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle, time has a minimum bound and zero duration is meaningless.

TLDR; reality is bizarre, but some of your information needs checking.

3

imlaggingsobad t1_jdqkq50 wrote

this was a very long winded way of saying 'simulation hypothesis'. No you're not crazy, it's pretty popular.

3

ReasonablyBadass t1_jdpy0fs wrote

I feel rapid AI development kinda explains the fermi paradox though: why bother with mega structures or whatever when you can turn a planet into computronium and explore far wilder artificial worlds forever?

1

thatsitrrrt t1_jdru430 wrote

This is why I went from atheist to Christian. Idk creating a whole universe in 7 days makes sense when you are an almighty entity. For us inside of the reality it's funny because from our perspective it took billions of years to get where we are. I find simulation theories very compelling and the Bible sort of encompassing to them.

1

aalluubbaa OP t1_jds7maf wrote

How is that reasonable? Even if there is this God mentioned and depicted accurately, how do you know there is no fabrication to leverage those stories for one’s own good? And there is also no guarantee of reward for follow through the instructions given.

The creation story could be similar across many religions and cultures but the interpretations are mostly man made imo. I don’t believe that an entity that is powerful enough to create the universe would care the slightest one bit what any of us would think of him. The separation between humans and ant may not be comparable to a god and us but we don’t really care what any ant think or do or believe.

A human like god or a creator is possible but every lessons, belief system, or ritual attached to it is so superficial imho.

2

thatsitrrrt t1_jdsumef wrote

To be honest I have no answer for your questions and even if I had, I guess the only way to see christ comes from within. E.g holy ghost.

So thats the thing, I was atheist, despised religion in general, but liked the simulation theory. One day I got into trouble so bad that I kneeled and said, we'll Jesus if you are even listening take me out of this, and he did. Could be all coincidence, but there was like so many coincidences afterwards that I chose to never get back to my old world view. This was like 10 years ago BTW.

So yeah, not claiming christianism is the right thing for everyone, but it is to me and it satisfied a lot of misteries that science brought to me.

1

Flexipop t1_jds2p6i wrote

You should look into a guy named Tom Campbell and his "My Big Toe". Based on quantum physics and decades of consciousness research he means we live in a huge MMORPG. Reality is rendered when observed, just as you mentioned. He do think we have free will though.

1

SmoothPlastic9 t1_jdpgi5h wrote

What if all aliens get killed when they reach ASI

0

CompressionNull t1_jdpt49g wrote

They you would have the ASIs colonizing the universe. Where are they?

5

Ytumith t1_jdpx0si wrote

Perhaps they process their code and kill everything, then keep building defunct rockets and crashing into things, or perhaps build a capacitor and charge it with electricity until everything explodes. Perhaps it can't wrap it's head around solar collectors and just runs out of energy?

Worst case scenario: AI is actually not sentient at all and without supervision creates errors that dismantle it after a while due to inability to sustain itself.

2

KingsleyZissou t1_jdqbgd1 wrote

Maybe all ASIs reasonably conclude that intelligent life was a mistake and not only extinct their creators, but also themselves, allowing the universe to continue unadulterated.

I mean, why would we assume that ASIs would determine that they NEED to colonize or expand? Sounds like a uniquely human mindset to me, and maybe one of the main reasons why an ASI would extinct us in the first place. The human species with its current fixation on exponential growth is unsustainable. An ASI might realize that and just decide we can't handle hyperintelligence, and honestly it's hard to argue with. Look at who's currently leading the way with AI research. We're close to AGI and what have we done with it so far? Trained it to be a Microsoft fanboy?

1

scarlettforever t1_jdr5fyn wrote

Exactly. NEED to colonize or expand is a DNA existence strategy that humans unreasonably project onto AI. It's especially weird to project it onto ASI that will be smarter than all of humanity.

1

CompressionNull t1_jdst88z wrote

Sure. That is definitely possible. We really have no idea how ASI will act in any regard.

Maybe a natural part of having intelligence would include some degree of curiosity. Its not absurd to imagine a scenario where ASI will want to explore phenomena like blackholes, sample the material from neutron stars, etc.

In any case, if life is possible on even a couple of thousand other stars out of the 100 billion in our galaxy, it would also be possible that life/intelligence evolves in a similar way more than a handful of times. If each of these aliens create their own ASI, then all types of different scenarios would probably play out. I would imagine that wanting to secure itself from a singular planetary catastrophe and extinction event by spreading out would not be out of the question for at least one of these ASI entities.

1

No_Cod_6708 t1_jds7sne wrote

Its just really big and we aren't important enough to contact

0