Submitted by garden_frog t3_z1n43x in singularity
Comments
2Punx2Furious t1_ixc5qqb wrote
Everything that there is, regardless of its size, is by definition "the entire universe".
Whether it's bigger or smaller than the "base"/"parent" universe, doesn't really matter.
You might think that it needs to be smaller, because a bigger universe might take more energy to compute, for the parent universe. But that's not necessarily the case, it might be that the parent universe is a lot more complex than ours, and simulating ours for them is trivial, or that their laws of physics are different from ours.
Samothrace_ t1_ixd4kce wrote
Like a 3d simulation inside a 4d computer.
But, assuming thermodynamics is a thing outside our universe, there does always need to be some form of simplification, whether it be size, run-time, complexity, etc, which would severely limit the number of possible nested simulations.
2Punx2Furious t1_ixd8nus wrote
> assuming thermodynamics is a thing outside our universe
Yes, assuming that, which might, or might not be correct.
Samothrace_ t1_ixdck7f wrote
The ever increasing speed of expansion makes me think somewhere, somehow it’s not. At least not how we know it.
2Punx2Furious t1_ixdhuc7 wrote
No way to tell. Maybe to them it's equivalent of us of expanding a 2d jpg picture by 1x1px every minute, for a day. For us it might seem like a lot, because it's all there is, but for them it might be trivial, with the end result being a 1440x1440px picture.
Artanthos t1_ixedy5g wrote
What if that’s just data being fed to our instruments.
The data would only need to be produced at the resolution our instruments could handle and only for the areas we are actively looking at while we are looking.
Or maybe the scientists are part of the simulation, philosophical zombies, and the only data simulated is what you as a lay person are physically looking at/listening to.
KSRandom195 t1_ixfiesa wrote
Yep, the easiest way to do this is probably the brain in the vat hypothesis.
We know that our eyes and brains lie to us and play tricks to explain or even “fix” our perception of the world through our bodies senses. So if the simulated input messes up for a few frames we are already programmed to just kind of ignore and correct it.
For instance, there are stories that when European ships first landed in the Americas that the natives just… couldn’t see them. It’s not that their eyes didn’t process the information, it was that their brains decided it was not possible, and so just didn’t register that the ships existed.
[deleted] t1_ixdsr7z wrote
[deleted]
theabominablewonder t1_ixc6y78 wrote
The quantum state of unobserved particles suggests a ‘simulation on demand’ model, reality can be stimulated at a low level of detail until it is observed, then the computational work can be done on what is observed. It would massively reduce the processing power needed.
Cryptizard t1_ixc8250 wrote
I think this is the opposite of how quantum mechanics works though. If something is not observed, the wave function is harder to compute than a discrete, collapsed event.
purple_hamster66 t1_ixdb92z wrote
Unless the default state of sim objects is a wave function that is shared amongst all the objects (like a clock that is halved for some components and quartered for others) and then it’s more computation to disconnect it from the wave function. That is, the wave function is the absence of simulation details; distribution functions are easy to model (just a mean and standard deviation) whereas sampling from that distribution requires remembering the state when you sampled.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle might be because there is a limit on the amount of memory a state can occupy, so there’s only enough for the either the position or the velocity.
If we’re going to make stuff up, we are allowed to make up anything. :)
Cryptizard t1_ixdcprb wrote
But that is not how quantum distributions work. They are much more complex than just mean and deviation. There is a reason we can’t solve the schroedinger equation even for two particles. Shit gets complicated real fast.
purple_hamster66 t1_ixhz171 wrote
We don’t have to solve the equations in this (hypothetical) system, just store the values that will define the wave evolution after the probability function will be sampled. None of that time-dependent or time-independent analysis needs to be done!
And, although these values have both time & space parts and are expressed as matrices, they are still just a mean in a complex & possibly curved space. One “simple” example of this is that, instead of PCA, principle component analysis, one can perform PGA, principle geodesic analysis, to account for curved space & time.
theabominablewonder t1_ixc89lm wrote
What do you mean by the wave function? There’s not a need to calculate at that level of depth is there? they can go up a level or two of abstraction.
Cryptizard t1_ixc8hcu wrote
I mean that we know for a fact (the Nobel prize was just given for this) that when you aren’t looking at something it behaves in a diffuse manner described by a probability distribution, and effectively follows multiple paths and interacts in multiple different ways. This is more complicated to calculate than if you are looking at it, in which case it collapses to a single path.
This is the reason that we can’t simulate quantum mechanics with computers, it is exponentially more complicated than macro scale classical physics.
theabominablewonder t1_ixc8s1e wrote
hmm okay, interesting.
But then we have billions of stars which are effectively unobserved so the computational power would be massively high for things that aren’t important? That would not be efficient design.
AsheyDS t1_ixd9i6h wrote
Observation doesn't mean a person (or anything) viewing a thing. It basically means that one particle interacts with another particle, affecting it in some way. And so that particle has been 'observed'. It doesn't mean something only exists if we see it. If you want to use your eyes as an example, imagine a photon careening through space just to stop inside your eyeball. You just observed it, altering it's trajectory. You don't even need to be conscious for it to have been observed, the particles that make up your eye did that for you. I'm probably not making that very clear, but I suggest learning more about observation in the quantum mechanical sense. It's not what you think.
theabominablewonder t1_ixdbzho wrote
thanks
Cryptizard t1_ixc90xg wrote
Yes, some evidence against simulation.
MyceliumRising t1_ixdeuvw wrote
Ok, but is efficient design a requisite to successfully simulating a universe? Does efficiency matter as much when the efficacy of the simulation meets the design goal?
theabominablewonder t1_ixdldqv wrote
If the speed of light is something that is constrained by the processing power and the processing power could be dropped significantly then maybe it is important.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixci0kq wrote
This only applies if you treat the collapse of the wave function as a thing that actually happens.
Cryptizard t1_ixciea1 wrote
Which interpretation of the measurement problem allows for quantum mechanics to be easily simulated? Whether you believe the wave function is real or not doesn’t change the math that governs quantum states.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixcneis wrote
I didn't suggest any of them did.
Cryptizard t1_ixcokv8 wrote
Cool so you have no point then. Thanks for contributing.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixct4mf wrote
You said that something is harder to compute if it’s not observed. That’s only true if the collapse of the wave function is a real thing, and is one of the reasons for postulating the collapse in the first place.
Cryptizard t1_ixctiy1 wrote
No, it’s not only true if the wave function collapses. If you believe in an interpretation where the wave function doesn’t collapse, then the observation still puts constraints on the possible states that a particle/system can be in and it is still easier to simulate.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixcvoes wrote
Now you're the one that's claiming some interpretations make it easier. Instead of being an actual thing that happens, observation is now a performance hack.
How does the system know "observation" has occurred?
Cryptizard t1_ixcw0gj wrote
If you could answer that question you would win a Nobel prize.
Edit: sorry, I think I was attributing more to your question than you intended. The direct answer to how a particle “knows” it is observed is that it interacts with another particle. So observation is another way of saying that you are putting up guard rails on the system so it is forced into a smaller number of states. Whether that is a wave function collapse or whatever, it still makes it easier to compute.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixcxq42 wrote
My answer is to unask the question. Mu.
Look, consider the cat in the box thought-experiment. Everyone gets all hung up on the cat being in two states, and doesn't stop to think "what if the cat is also an observer". When the vial breaks the cat collapses the system. Or "what if the mechanism that breaks the vial of poison is also an observer". And that's just the lowest level of confusion. I'm saying, what if the experimenter isn't an observer?
They open the box and are now in a superposition, their wave function has two peaks in the states "looking at a live cat" and "looking at a dead cat".
The device, the cat, the experimenter, they're all just collections of particles. You can't meaningfully point to any of these collections and claim that the privileged role of the observer stops there.
And you can't go the other way, and say it's observed when it interacts with another particle, because quantum mechanical devices have been used to keep entangled states functioning as qbits while in a sea of particles, or even transmitted them over fiber optic cables made of zillions of particles.
Cryptizard t1_ixcya3n wrote
There is no such thing as an entangle macro state, so everything you have written here is based on an incorrect assumption. Nobody actually thinks the cat is dead and alive, it is reduction ad absurdism to illustrate the limitations of schroedingers equation. Read a book on quantum mechanics.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixczyvr wrote
You say that with such insulted seriousness.
And yet there are many respected physicists treating the many-worlds interpretation entirely seriously. Here's a fairly recent paper arguing that it's actually required for conservation of energy in QM.
> What you and I think of as a “measurement” is just when a quantum system in a superposition becomes entangled with some macroscopic object (the “measuring apparatus”), which in turn becomes entangled with its environment (“decoherence”).
Edit: Oh, you blocked me? Well, bye bye.
[deleted] t1_ixdqwt9 wrote
[deleted]
red75prime t1_ixd0u7u wrote
Correction. Whether the cat can be in a dead-alive superposition is an open question. The enormous technical difficulties of keeping and detecting such a state make its experimental testing a very distant prospect (if we won't find the definite line between quantum micro and classical macro before that).
I'm not sure what is the largest object that was kept in a superposition. Wikipedia mentions piezoelectric resonator which comprises about 10 trillion atoms.
PIPPIPPIPPIPPIP555 t1_ixh2ner wrote
No if the Collapse of the wavefunction is not a real thing decoherence have to be a part of the nature of the wavefunction that we do not know how to describe right now and then when we say that we measure a particle we are just interacting with it in a maner that the decoherense in the wavefunction constraints it to a smaler space of possible states and the wavefunction is exactly as complex and difficult to simulate is it was when it was in a superposition state
PIPPIPPIPPIPPIP555 t1_ixh3prl wrote
But the wavefunction does have to collapse or decohere at some point because too large objects can not be in an entangeled superposition so if a macroscopic measuring device decoeheres and meauser a small quantum state that can collapse into 2 possible states the timeline of the universe either splits into 2 separete timelines that will not interact with each other because they are too different on the macro scale because of the measurement on the quantum nano scale. If the people that are using the measuring device to detect one of 2 possible states in the quantum state becomes entangled with the quantum state when they measure it the 2 different sates with the scientists can not interact with each other and will be separeted into 2 different timelines that will not interact with each other so if you believe that the wavefunction does not collapse it does either decohere in a deterministic maner and follows a skngle timeline or it separetes into 2 distinct and separeted timelines that will not interact and the wavefunction is not easier to calculate than classical macrosciopic physics in neither of these cases
RedditTipiak t1_ixd0qe1 wrote
Just like The Truman Show but universe scale.
rtjk t1_ixekf15 wrote
I always wonder if this is the cause of things like the mandela effect.
The Simulation doesn't process things unless they're being observed, which was fine until we started putting cameras everywhere. Now it is forced to have most of the landscape rendered at all times, leading to a drain on RAM. This in turn causes literal glitches in the matrix.
A_Human_Rambler t1_ixbxe0w wrote
Yes, we are effectively within a closed system of our sensory perception and the fuzzy larger world. Fuzzy because we don't know the details, but we see portions through media and experience.
Each fictional work is a simulation. The self perception could be simulated, so therefore it someday will be simulated. Assuming the progression of technology is as expected.
Seeming real is just a matter of having the grain of detail remain below what we can differentiate.
garden_frog OP t1_ixc24mf wrote
Yeah, it's a possibility. That would also explain why we haven't yet observed any extraterrestrial life.
Mortal-Region t1_ixccebe wrote
They might be simulating the birth of the first technological civilization in the galaxy. It's certainly an event worth studying. And we are very early. It's just 13.7 billion years since the start, and the universe will support life for thousands of billions of years. Maybe much longer. We could be living their origin story.
[deleted] t1_ixc8yg0 wrote
[deleted]
Saineolai_too t1_ixc5003 wrote
So, since you were able to detect our simulation because of its lack of aliens, it's reasonable to assume the next run of the simulation will include aliens, right?
Or, perhaps, the last run included aliens, but it turned out to be a very bad idea and ended in an end with no results?
Therefore, there is no successfully undetectable way to run a simulation - with or without aliens. There's no way to get a result that isn't tainted by subject awareness. So, it becomes obvious that it's not a viable tool for whatever the hell the point of simulations might be, so no one is running a simulation at all.
Probably.
datsmamail12 t1_ixdfyw8 wrote
That's based on your point of view for our local society. If we lived in 2300 an entire simulation of the universe could be easily achievable in any guys home. If you have such a tremendous processing power,you wouldn't care how big the universe you created would be. Why does Ubisoft create such big games? Why does every game developer want to create huge world that can be explored,why is there a need for such a massive university in no man's sky? All that is because we can do that,so a highly advanced civilization wouldn't mind creating the biggest universe inside their jar for experimentation.
Mortal-Region t1_ixe6vy9 wrote
I guess it depends on the purpose of the sim. If the purpose is to study the people, or just to provide them with experiences, then you can create many more people by running an Earth sim billions of times rather than running a universe sim just once. However much processing power they have, it'll still be finite, so efficiency will always be a concern.
datsmamail12 t1_ixeqexu wrote
Efficiency is a concern for us,not for a highly advanced civilization. Who knows,they might have created a system that runs on unlimited efficieny. Also we don't even know if our universe is finite,let alone another civilization's creation. The universe itself is just so weird,nothing makes sense.
lorepieri t1_ixeamkt wrote
It is also called Simplicity Assumption, see here: The Simplicity Assumption and Some Implications of the Simulation Argument for our Civilization, https://philpapers.org/rec/PIETSA-6
[deleted] t1_ixebtvl wrote
[deleted]
Mortal-Region t1_ixeuhe9 wrote
Really interesting, thanks.
overlordpotatoe t1_ixc3bjl wrote
Yeah, that makes more sense to me. Like mountains in the background of a game world that you can't actually climb. Compared to simulating an entire universe, it would be trivial to fake the illusion of one.
But this raises other questions. Has this simulation actually been running for millions of years, just waiting for life to emerge? That seems unlikely to me. If we are living in a simulation, I think it must either run at a far greater speed than that of whoever is watching it exists at and/or history is also an illusion.
Kanthabel_maniac t1_ixc5gvx wrote
I dont think you need to simulate the entire pre human existence, time to time, the simulation lets you find a fossil or ancient meteor to give you the illusion we are in the real world.
I wonder if UFO's or UAPs are the moderators checking for cheaters?
overlordpotatoe t1_ixc8wox wrote
Yeah, that's my thought exactly. If we are in a simulation, I think human beings are specifically what's being studied, so it's unlikely the simulation would have actually run through millions of years of evolution. If that is the case, it could have begun at any time. Even at some point in modern history. Hell, yesterday, for all we know. Of course, this is all speculation. There are endless possibilities and we may never know for sure what the truth is. There could be obvious tells right in front of us that we've been programmed to completely ignore.
Kanthabel_maniac t1_ixc9r3d wrote
I can't stop thinking of Dark City for some reason. I have to specify, the movie not a random city who happens to be dark.
Zavvix t1_ixchv5m wrote
If we are part of the simulation we would have no concept of what "real" was so it would seem real to us even if it was N64 graphics.
point_breeze69 t1_ixcq3dr wrote
So you’re saying SimAnt is our reality?
Mortal-Region t1_ixe8fss wrote
If we are in a sim, my bet is SimEarth. Sort of the logical extrapolation of MS Flight Simulator.
cyrilhent t1_ixcinzt wrote
>He suggested we might experience such fixing as contradictory experimental results appearing suddenly, such as the constants of nature changing. So monitoring the values of these constants is another option
So that's what happened to the Fruit of the Loom cornucopia!
SgathTriallair t1_ixdaj3s wrote
This article makes the same fundamental flaw as all of the other arguments that "prove" we are in a simulation.
They all assume that the laws of physics in our stimulated universe are fundamentally the same as those in the parent universe. There is no reason that this must be the case. Minecraft is a great example. There are so many changes to the laws of physics in there that it would be difficult for one of them to even contemplate out universe.
For our parent, why do we think that they abide by conservation of energy, why do we think they have a speed limit, why do we think they need a simulation to access their past?
The real reason why the simulation hypothesis should be ignored is that it is philosophically inert. There is no method to test whether it is true and it's truth value has no impact on the world. If there was some way that it would matter whether it was true or false then we could assess it and move forward. Since there isn't, so it does is introduce weird existential dread in young computer enthusiasts.
Veei t1_ixfk9ap wrote
Good point on any assumptions that rules are the same in the parent but I disagree strongly that knowing whether we are in a sim has no impact on the world. I’m no physicist so can’t really back up my disagreement properly but it would seem very short sighted to think it’s pointless. If we are in a sim, maybe there’s rules/algorithms we can exploit or bypass. It might help us explain some of our observations fully too. I think it’s well worth it to figure out if we are in a sim or not. The subject fascinates me. I would love to find out the answer.
SgathTriallair t1_ixfn86w wrote
If we get to the point that we can alter the laws of physics (or the code of the simulation) then that will sort of be a difference except that it would still have the same basic effect of us being able to change the rules.
The only real way that it could matter if we are in a simulation is it we could escape it. Maybe when we die we "wake up" or something.
A different perspective on a similar idea is phenomenalism. This is the philosophical idea that the world we perceive and the world as it is are not the same. There are many routes this goes down, such as Kant's nouminal world, socially constructed identities, and cognitive biases.
Veei t1_ixfqtor wrote
As someone in the infosec field, knowing that our universe is in fact a contrived system tells me that it is most likely exploitable. Quite a worthwile question to answer, IMO.
Interesting about phenomenalism. Hadn’t heard of that before. So things like the recent article stating our consciousness does not receive input in real time? Not that it proves phenominalism but could help potentially support the idea of phenomenalism or that we are in a simulation.
Philosophy and physics/QM intersect often. I think all of it is very worthwhile to study. You’re not the first I’ve come across that thinks it provides no value knowing but I think it would be useful to prove either way.
ArgentStonecutter t1_ixchwkk wrote
This article is written by someone who hasn't thought very deeply about the mechanics of simulation, particularly the analogy it draws between the speed of light and processing power which it later completely invalidates when discussing quantum entanglement by stating position (and thus velocity) to be irrelevant.
The test itself is fallacious. Annihilation, in particular, would not destroy the information in a particle-pair. That information would be retained in the states of the resulting photons, just as it's retained in the event horizon of a black hole.
roughback t1_ixdgoa0 wrote
just say "computer, end program" out loud
Depression_God t1_iy3oh0g wrote
NOOOO you're going to shut off the universe!
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixc0s5h wrote
Has anyone seen a glitch in the matrix? I saw one. My cat was inside one moment, then I looked away. When I looked back a few seconds later, it was outside. That was really weird.
​
Edit:
No point reading the answers here, as they do not answer the question I asked. They are all off topic, except for one that directed me to the Glitch_In_The_Matrix sub.
mootcat t1_ixc5kjh wrote
What would lead you to believe this was an external glitch as opposed to one in your own brain?
Memory issues and perceived temporal distortions are common enough.
purple_hamster66 t1_ixddrdz wrote
Maybe, two cats?
In quantum class, students learn how to calculate the probability that a bullet will pass through a piece of paper without damage. (The answer is about 1 in 10^500, if you are curious). What is the probability that your cat did the same, thru the glass?
mootcat t1_ixdl64a wrote
What a remarkably sensible solution!
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixenrl2 wrote
What is your opinion of scientists trying to prove we live in a simulation? Do you think they are insane?
purple_hamster66 t1_ixhzntx wrote
As Clinton once said: it depends on what your definition of “is” is.
There might be an absolute ground Truth (with a capital T) that is what is really happening. And there might be a number of other truths (lowercase) that have exactly the same math but are not real. Does it even matter to us? For example, we count apples, and add the counts to other counts. We don’t count the actual apples for the sum, but have a system that works 100% of the time; it is not really what is happening. Does that matter if the answer is right all the time?
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixeni4j wrote
I didn't say it passed though glass.
purple_hamster66 t1_ixhzzer wrote
True, all you said is that it’s weird. Is it perception or reality, tho? (Or something else?)
I propose that it’s not reality.
teachMe t1_ixtjvez wrote
What is behind that calculation?
Bakoro t1_ixc7ely wrote
>Memory issues and perceived temporal distortions are common enough.
What makes you think that this is an internal glitch as opposed to a flaw in the world's programming?
If it's common enough, maybe that's a failure of the design of the system.
mootcat t1_ixcfv6x wrote
Occams Razor.
We have mountains of evidence of human brains/memories being inconsistent, fallible, malleable and overall untrustworthy, but very little of the laws of the universe adjusting to teleport cats.
Some people want to beleive in magic, ghosts, mysticism, God etc and that's fine, but to claim that they are reality with no factual backing is backwards.
Bakoro t1_ixclknj wrote
>We have mountains of evidence of human brains/memories being inconsistent, fallible, malleable and overall untrustworthy, but very little of the laws of the universe adjusting to teleport cats.
So you trust our inconsistent, fallible, malleable and overall untrustworthy brains when they deny the mystery of the teleporting cats?
How do you know that the answer isn't simply that cats are very good at covering their tracks? They're already well known for transcending the borders of life and death, what's a little teleporting?
Also, this is all a joke, since a few people seem to be taking me way too seriously.
WordsMort47 t1_ixcfpok wrote
The design- or not- of the human brain is far from perfect
Bakoro t1_ixckn2k wrote
I think you're missing the point. If you're questioning the foundation of reality itself, there's no way to logic your way out of it, because any argument you make can be flipped around and all blame can be placed on either side.
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixc7glt wrote
Something like this has never happened to me before or since, and this was 4-5 years ago. My cat was near the glass wall. Then I turned around. When I turned back it was on the other side of the glass wall wanting to get back inside. There was no way it could get outside without me opening the door for it, but I did not open the door.
Also the glass wall was not horizontal to my viewpoint, so I could not confuse the cat being on the other side of it. The wall was edge side to me, so I saw the cat on the right where there was carpet and furniture, when I looked back it was outside on the left on concrete. It was broad daylight.
If I had experiences where I lost time and forgot doing things. I would have crashed my car years ago. I have not done that.
Eye witness accounts are good enough for a court of law. If someone says they saw a crime, the lawyers don't automatically question their sanity, unless the witness has a history of it. If the law did that, very few criminals would ever be convicted. This is outside your experience, so you think its crazy. That's okay. Its a normal reaction.
mootcat t1_ixcfc7j wrote
Our minds are extremely fallible. Eyewitness accounts are historically terrible and weighed very little in court.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony
I get that what you perceived felt like reality to you, but doesn't it seem a bit extreme to assume that very laws of the universe are what glitched and not your own biology?
People hallucinate, misunderstand, misremember and have any number of faults in their perception everyday.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory
To you what you experienced is reality and that's totally fine. In the same way someone with a different neurology might see or hear something that I could not. That does not make that experience true at large.
BenjaminHamnett t1_ixd327m wrote
I’ve mis seen things. People hallucinate and survive their bad driving.
It’s more likely we’re in a properly functioning simulation and this dude mis saw something than for this to be proof that the sim malfunctioned
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixeqwyn wrote
*Some* people hallucinate. I don't do recreational drugs, nor do I take prescribed drugs, nor does anyone in my family line have genetic predisposition to it. Hallucination is not something I do, but it might be something you do.
If you seriously believe what you are saying, you would not drive a car, nor cross any road, because you could be hallucinating.
Wikipedia is not a credible source. They used to fail students for using it. Its founder says its been hijacked by politically motivated people who use it to quote each other. But since you like Wikipedia so much here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
purple_hamster66 t1_ixdczu3 wrote
The people who mis-see things and crash are less likely to survive to tell you about them. In any case, claiming you saw something that wasn’t there might be enough to get your license revoked, so why would people claim this in court?
PositiveWeapon t1_ixdo0i4 wrote
As others have said eye witness testimony is considered extremely unreliable in court. Our visual system takes up the largest area of our brain and uses a significant amount of energy. To save energy, the brain assumes a lot of things. If you were subconsciously expecting your cat to be inside, at a glance, it's entirely possible your brain put the cat there.
I'm not ruling it out, I think this is a simulation. But if there was a glitch, isn't it more likely the cat would be floating upside down or halfway through a wall or something? Given what we know about the brain it's far more likely to be an artifact of our brains energy saving feature.
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixemqr8 wrote
Long term memory is unreliable. There was no long term memory involved here.
PositiveWeapon t1_ixerdki wrote
Vision is not 100% reliable.
You have a blind spot at all times. Do you notice it? No, because the brain fills it in with what it expects should be there.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-04-25-me-722-story.html
Lots of articles about the brains use of prediction to save energy, here's a random one: https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-be-energy-efficient-brains-predict-their-perceptions-20211115/
Watch some lectures on YouTube to really blow your mind. You need to understand you don't actually 'see' anything, ever. At all times you are viewing your brains reconstruction of its perception of the photons it collects. Yes, effectively the brain contains a graphics card ridiculously more sophisticated than anything we can create.
As for crossing the road, the goal is to keep you alive. You are far more likely to see something that isn't there than not see something that is there.
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixex85g wrote
Dude... The cat was inside. I turned around for a second, then turned back and it was outside, in a place it could not get to, unless I put it there. I was shocked to see it outside, so I went outside, picked it up, and brought it inside.
What I remember is the shock that something in the world was not in the same place that I left it. This has never happened to me before or since. This is not rocket science. The people in this thread are over thinking it.
Tidezen t1_ixce7n7 wrote
I haven't personally, but I'm subbed to r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/ , there are a lot of stories.
Plenty-Today4117 t1_ixelrjc wrote
Thanks. A helpful answer.
vernes1978 t1_ixchbrg wrote
Is this a new test or an old test dug up by the author?
vernes1978 t1_ixci2d4 wrote
Ah I see, it's referencing a number of other theories, and suddenly the author themselves mention their own theory for which they're asking the reader for funding in their indiegogo project.
Funny tho that sciencealert is just copying theconversation.com.
Is there a reason we're avoiding theconversation.com?
[deleted] t1_ixc179c wrote
[deleted]
ShittyInternetAdvice t1_ixdkybj wrote
The “simulation hypothesis” is just a poorly thought out attempt to rationalize our existence in a framework that makes sense with the most immediately conceivable technology (computation). It says nothing about the true nature of reality, just kicking the can down the road- When do the simulations end? How did the “real” universe come into existence? And who’s to say there aren’t infinite “real” universes as well, which would nullify the statistical argument of the hypothesis
schmitaye t1_ixfgvti wrote
and then what
purple_hamster66 t1_ixdcd5f wrote
All computers are quantum computers… it’s just that we’ve engineered it down to a point where the quantum effects don’t matter to the answer. For example, the voltage on a wire depends on quantum effects, so we make the wires thick enough (12 atoms was considered the minimum when I took hardware engineering classes in 1995) such that the quantum effects are reduced to such a level as to not affect the answers. (Note that we can’t bring that to zero effect, so there are still some errors while transmitting info on a digital computer, but it’s quite rare.)
heavy_metal t1_ixe1k0x wrote
what if everything is literally simulated, even your mind? maybe we (well me not you) are just AGIs getting "trained"? Solipsistic I know..
Revolutionary_Soft42 t1_ixbxt4l wrote
I have a method : salvia divinorum. Done and done .
red75prime t1_ixchjbt wrote
"Oh! You can stop detailed physics simulation around that one. Feed them colorful patterns or something" "Or something... he-he, got it"
Nastypilot t1_ixcyksa wrote
I really don't get why every time on a post like this there are always people advocating psychedelics.
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixd4i5f wrote
As someone who went through the Psychonaut/DMT Spirit Molecule phase them self, I agree.
The fact is, we don’t have any actual method to measure experiences with psychedelic compounds to explain what they are, and the people over at r/Psychonaut contradict each other just as much as anyone else, so they obviously haven’t settled on any ground truth from all the Tryptamine usage. They’re just as contradictory over there as any other religious group. Some people become Christians after LSD/Shroom use, others become Atheists, others delve into Eastern Woo, other go over to Shamanism, some even become Transhumanists (one of my close friends became a Transhumanist after an LSD trip). It’s all over the map. If psychedelics showed any ground/base reality than people all wouldn’t be arrive to all these contradictory positions.
I think it’s highly possible it could be a dead end, it might just all turn out to be your brain’s serotonin receptors misfiring. We already know Tryptamines criss cross the visual cortex with the rest of the brain, that would explain the hallucinations.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still a massive advocate for Psychedelics, but people really need to take a step back before trying to apply drug trips to answering questions to the fundamental nature of reality. Joe Rogan has taken tons of hallucinogens and he’s still an idiot.
PositiveWeapon t1_ixdoztl wrote
I used to think the crazy madness you see on some psychedelics is a closer representation of reality. Shutting down the brains UI and filtering process.
Except that things become more colourful, when in reality colour doesn't exist.
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixh3p27 wrote
In the end it might just turn out to all be our brain misfiring, which is why it could be a dead end. The fact that SSRIs or Benzos alter/stop a trip is evidence enough it’s a physical phenomenon, not spiritual. I’m obviously for way more investigation, but the fact that people try to make a religion surrounding them is silly at this point in time.
HerbChii t1_ixc63uu wrote
Yep. Best thing i had
Shelfrock77 t1_ixbutwd wrote
Everyone conscious in the universe is already minduploaded. We are on a quest to remind upload our selves into a different substrate. Our souls are always online. https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixcj5wr wrote
What?
I’m a Panpsychist too but I’m not following what you’re saying. Yeah data is stored in physics but that doesn’t mean we’re already uploaded, if that were the case than quantum resurrection would already exist.
Shelfrock77 t1_ixdgy4m wrote
I guess I didn’t make things clear. When I say we are “reminduploaded”, we are immortal in the sense that death is only a temporary thing. Death is like what it was before we were born. Our spirit travels into another vessel again. It’s like respawning in a simulation.
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixdl8vy wrote
Well, I believe in the permanent transcension of all material suffering, when I look at the world I see a lot of people in pain and misery, especially those in the third world, like village children who look like living skeletons. And I would like no other sentient being to have to endure that kind of suffering again, it’s cruel.
Reincarnation is also a bad thing btw. The focal point of Eastern Spirituality is to escape being bound into another mortal form, otherwise you’re stuck in eternal torment, I’m not sure what reddit’s obsession with it is.
I see the Technological Singularity a lot like the Shin Buddhist Concept of Amitabha’s Pureland. A pathway for eternal freedom from mortality and everlasting bliss/Nirvana.
Shelfrock77 t1_ixdv6aa wrote
I think of reincarnation as a connection to the multiverse. Even if you and I didn’t exist in this realm, we would exist in another. I don’t think there is anyway to alleviate suffering forever sadly for every being in the universe. That being said, both heaven and hell are states of consciousness and do not last forever. When the singularity arrives, hopefully we will have everyone happy and atleast “rich” in their virtual worlds. Virtual beings will suffer too tho so I digress. Anyway the point is, hopefully our transcedence helps more than it hurts but that too will be subjective to every human being. FDVR will have capabilities to put you in a hell and heaven state subject to the thinkers perspectives at the time of analyzing their state of consciousness. Whenever we play call of duty or battlefield or any other war game, you will reincarnate aka respawn into another body to keep playing the game unless you quit to the home menu lol.
HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_ixdz145 wrote
You can’t stop it for everyone, but you can do it for as many people as you possibly can. I put the eradication of people’s pain as a top priority.
A video game is also different, because in a video game you don’t feel pain, you don’t have your limbs blown off, and you retain all your knowledge, you can pause the game, or you could just go to the main menu and quit easily. The only equivalent to that in real life is a bullet through your brain for a lot of people, imagine growing up as a kid in Somalia having to drink out of water infested with cow shit, that’s horrible and that child has no way out of that nightmare barring taking their own life. That is why alleviating that kind of pain is pivotal.
I believe in giving sentient beings complete and total control, and to be untethered to a single form is exactly how you do that.
Shelfrock77 t1_ixe1fo1 wrote
same
StandartUser6745 t1_ixcmqdg wrote
Simulation... I just don't buy it. İt's is too complicated, nonsensical and full of compromises for a such theoretically intelligent design with unlimited creative opportunities.
Atomic-molecular based structure would be stupidly expensive and demanding process to simulate. Smallest known single celled organism is made up of hundreds of thousands of atoms and they are everywhere in who knows what numbers. Average human is consisted of 6.5 octillion atoms. Then, those atoms have their own properties like variations, in hundreds and they also decay and form bonds and convert into others, release energy and etc. Random particles is all over the place, radiation and etc. Too much chaotic, totally unnecessary and expensive stuff. We humans are much simple part of it all. 99.9% all every goes to stuff. We're the OG creator(s) simulating the universe and we are side quest for them? All those, microscopic and sub atomic stuff around and beyond our observations, we do clearly see the logical sequences and trails of their effects, so they are not in purely "exist on demand" status. 60 iq Hunter-Gatherers used bow and arrows long before we knew about basics of ballistics, untill someone questioned nature behind it. Now we are that stage with more grandiose stuff, like quantum physics, consciousness and etc.
We can make slow-motion cameras that can take a million to 10 trillions of frames per second, where can see light travel through mediums and stuff. We can have our own supercomputers that simulate a simulation inside a simula-AGHH!!! At this point it's not even a simulation. I'd argue that perfect "simulation" and analogous existence is the very same thing.
Maximus_Marcus t1_ixcybpy wrote
yeah, life is really complex. no argument there. no way our current computers could simulate it, but why are we assuming the simulation is using the same kind of computers we have? what about wetware or a computer the size of a star, or only rendering atoms when observed? it can theoretically be done with sufficient technology.
complexity isn't the issue, its more of the why than the how. personally i doubt the universe is a simulation but i have no evidence to disprove it, just belief
DribblesOnKeyboard t1_ixd5ruu wrote
I dunno why but the idea that the universe has backface culling is kinda terrifying.
Mortal-Region t1_ixbwaxf wrote
There's no reason to think that the simulation is of an entire universe. The logic of the simulation hypothesis works fine for smaller sims. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that small simulations are much more common than full-universe ones, so if we are in a sim, it's probably a smaller one. The only stipulation is that the simulation needs to be detailed enough to seem real.