The following are my written notes on Prof. George Smoot's TEDx talk with the same title as this post, where he attempts to introduce Simulation Theory to audience members through the use of questions and other related ideas. He made use of various ideas, philosophies and theories to help the the viewers better understand his argument.
Hope you enjoy :).
Image Credits : Youtube, TEDxTalks, Netflix
> Simulation: A first check
Prof. Smoot begins with a series of leading questions.
Have you played a video game? Were you playing against a simulated player alone? Or was it you and several other players plus the simulated player? What was your role in the game? Were you Pawn or Hero?
- This obviously introduces the idea of a user who exists in a more complex reality, interacting/controlling the outcomes of a less complex world. In this case a said game. The game is developed by a programmer with the use of the available computational power and software/programming capabilites. What of our own?
If you were a social scientist, would you like to run realistic simulations to test or develop theories? A little more on this later in the post but another example was running a simulation to test the outcome of a political campaign.
Are our computational and simulation capabilities increasing over time? Remember Moore's Law which states that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years.
He then introduces new ideas. They basically attempt to usher the viewer out of their belief that only their sense of reality may be true or the only form of reality. In-fact, sometimes, by the very evidence that they have a reality is grounds to believe others exist and can be argued for.
> Solipsism
This is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.
To add - " ... As an epistemological position, Solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist." ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism
>The Philosophical Zombie
Definition - A philosophical human being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being, except that it lacks conscious experience. quatia (A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.), or sentience.
It may react in much the same way a normal human may when inflicted with pain, even though it does not really feel
anything. Additionally, it may recall from this stimulus.
The view that the world includes two kinds of things, the mental and physical can be supported through the use of philosophical zombies.
To add - ... According to Chalmers one can coherently conceive of an entire zombie world, a world physically indistinguishable from this world but entirely lacking conscious experience. The counterpart of every conscious being in our world would be a p-zombie. Since such a world is conceivable, Chalmers claims, it is metaphysically possible, which is all the argument requires ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Strong Antropic Principal - The universe is compelled for conscious life to emerge
Weak Antropic Principal - The ostensible fine-tunig of the universe for life is necessary fro the universe to be beheld
Intellgent Design? Like a simulation?
> Multiverse / Meta-universe/ Many Worlds
A hypothesis that there is a set of infinite possible universes including the historical universe we consistently experience.
There is a universe where there are many universes inside it. Various reasons exist, one being quantum mechanics (maybe think about superposition?).
In such a scenario, we live in a universe where the laws of physics, the physical constants and so forth are just right for stars, planets an ultimately life.
Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
- OR how about just a lot of simulation?
> The Simulation Argument
> Human made Simulations
Will humans make realistic simulations? Yes!
Examples/Proof: Video Games, Entertainment Media and or Pornography (50% of bits transmitted on the internet).
How accurate and detailed the simulations will be depends heavily on the computational powers (for good graphics) and programming (good software must be written). Think of Pong and the games we have now.
> Simulacrum by Civilizations
Over the past 30 years we've been able to establish that there are ...
In the order of 1 Billion + habitable planets in our galaxy
100 Billion Galaxies for 10^26 possible sites for life in the observable universe
Chances that earth is the most advanced? Most computationally powerful? Let's not think we're special here ;)
Simulations will most probably be run by simulated beings. Think of of a hierarchy of simulations running other simulations. Again, have we been running simulations? Yes! So a hierarchy may exist.
Do considerations on ethics stand in the way of simulations being run? Probably not. And they have not in our case. Technological advances often run faster than laws
> The Probability of being in a Simulation
Imagine you are in a room full of people. And you look to your left and right to see if the people around you are real then, if it is a random selection of people there, you are extremely likely not real.
People will run simulations with much higher population sizes to arrive at an end goal. Remember the social scientist? Other e.g include historians remapping notable events in ancient civilizations. Gamers and scholars might to the same with extremely large ratios for real to simulated.
> Final convincing statements/arguments ~ Can we take a real brain and turn it into a simulation?
Example: We are already at the point where we can map (via 45 minute scans) out a human brain into a computer using a neural network.
MRI's are so good now, they can map to the individual neuronal level. Unfortunately, with the computational power and software we currently have. It takes very long (days) to get the entire map of the human brain. But the capability to do this quicker is surely coming via advances in technology. In a short time into the future, you will be able to pay for your DNA to mapped and downloaded into a computer. Google experts predicts that we will be able to upload our entire minds to computers by 2045. Within 90 years, bodies will be replaced by machines. Wow!
Since minds may not be able to simply exist inside of computers with no social interactions/activities, environments in the form of artificial realities will need to be developed.
Experiences will be taking place a million times faster than in our current reality with our current brains because we will be living inside computers physical and biological constrains no longer exist.
This reminds me of season 3's Black Mirror episode 4, where two women in their early twenties fall in-love during the 80's but grow apart over time and get married to other people and raise families. Years later, they are old women at the end of their lives and they realize they still have a deep love for one another and choose to be together forever in a simulated world, living in the same youthful bodies they had when they first met.
~ Netflix's Black Mirror
> Certainty
The human mind is not equipped to address whether or not they are real.
eg1,
eg2,
eg3
Humans struggle with these because we lack computing power, and this causes compromises in the algorithms we use to shape our reality. Resulting in optical illusions, systematic errors in judgement etc.
> Simulation Physical Implications?
We will be quantized
Holographic Principal - Everthing inside your environment is encoded on the surface.
eg. hand and apple encoded on a 2D sheet but projected in 3D as a way to keep track of everything.
Large scale (in space and time) may not match small scale due to different programming for each.
If our physics is consistent than we are real, if not, this may be due to us living in a simulation.
> Closing
Humans are ill-equipped for determining reality but
-Physics is a test of our realness
-Currently we have contradictions in resolving things (is it because of the human ability to resolve things or is it because we are in a simulation? And what would that mean?)
You can check out the full talk on via the below and see if you find any interesting insights of your own.
Thanks for reading :-)
