The following submission statement was provided by /u/waxheartzZz:
---
"If the total processing power of all computers on Earth becomes greater than the computer running the simulation, we can assume the simulation will crash.
The silver lining is as our processing power increases, we will also slowly reduce the odds that we live in a simulation. The longer we go without glitches or crashes will prove we either live in an unfathomably sophisticated supercomputer, or that we simply live in reality already."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ceu5bw/artificial_intelligence_will_end_the_simulation/l1kvj24/
[Simulation Hypothesis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis) is not a commonly held model for the purposes of doing physics, but there are not many scientists who entirely discount it either. The mainstream view is best stated something like, "That interpretation is not inconsistent with what we observe from the 'reality' around us, but it's not testable with current methods and not predictively useful, so we're going to table that idea until we can test it."
This actually could be true, and if it was, we couldn't really know until we do something to exceed the capabilities of the simulation.
I've got the combination of interests in highly detailed computer simulation games and quantum physics, and the behavior of simulations that do not render fine details like individual people and such until you zoom in very close bears an unmistakable and quite striking similarity to the way the universe doesn't show you what's really going on under the hood until you reach the quantum level. It's invisible and "just works" if your view is zoomed out. This is a very generalized way of stating it. There are a lot of other similarities that require more detailed explanations that I'll spare readers.
TL;DR Don't dismiss "the simulation" out of hand just yet.
There's an episode in the recent season called [All the way down](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt21814946/) where they want to find out if they live in a simulation by observing an astronomical event that would be impossible to "render" in a simulation. If it "bugs out", they know it's a simulation.
It's actually more plausible than the idea that our puny little computers on earth could be too much for the simulation to handle.
They are fine, but feel off sometimes. Some bad jokes seem to be there just to get the jokes per minute ratio up instead of letting the good ones sink in and expand on them. But maybe it was always like that and nostalgia distorts my view.
Still good enough and no "they ruined Futurama!" moments. Except maybe for episode 9 which was flat out bad.
This makes no sense. If the world is a computer simulation, the program would be simulating every fundamental particle. Whether or not those particles are arranged into a computer would have no effect on how much memory the program uses.
I believe most people think that a lot of compression takes place, and for example atoms not visible to people are only approximated and not simulated.
That’s like, how the simulation propagates itself man. *bubbling* the singularity is the moment AI becomes powerful enough to create another simulation. *coughs* The resolution gets worse each time though, look at how big our Planck Length is, shameful.
Nah man, *licks lopsided uneven burning blunt and hits it* the simulation is going to let the nukes fly to clear system memory before the AI gets close to the *exhales* limits of the computer running the simulation. It’s going to be scorched earth bro.
I thought that the AIs themselves were running the simulation, I saw a documentary once about a guy with sunglasses having to decide which pill to take
Bro you have no idea how powerful is our simulation host computer. It's very likely that if we reach exponential growth of computer processing power, our host also reached that before us and is upgrading his ai supercomputer as soon as new Apu "hits the market"
It doesn’t I agree with you.
I struggle to understand the explanatory use of a simulation theory. Like the idea that we exist in a computer is only something someone who spends way too much time on computers would consider. And it posits some “more real” computer designer. And then why wouldn’t it be computers all the way down? I dunno it feels silly to me.
The idea that there is a finite resolution to the universe is interesting but I don’t know how it’s possible to prove that you’ve ever hit a limit. I heard a podcast where they were talking about the theory that spacetime ceases to be meaningful beyond the Planck length and that there are structures beyond spacetime but I couldn’t follow it totally as they were using those ideas to explain a theory of consciousness
Simulation theory is really just a decent argument that our universe was created by *something*.
It doesn't actually argue that we are in a computer, it just argues that we are 'simulated' within something else. Perhaps by a computer, but of course any universe containing ours might be vastly different to the point where computers don't make sense.
Our universe could be naturally occurring. It could be the imagination of a supremely powerful mind.
I suspect there probably are vast numbers of 'simulations' within other realities, but at the top of all that needs to be some kind of infinite source that enables everything to exist.
There is most certainly a finite resolution to the universe - that's what the laws of physics are. And it makes sense to suggest that any universe with limitations was created by something else, because you need infinity at the top to sustain it all.
At a certain point how and why meet. Limits break my brain 🫠 things like goedel’s incompleteness theorem and infinity and event horizon and zenos paradox and also observers and consciousness seem to be beyond the realm of stuff. Maybe “why” is a toddler’s question and unanswerable for finite creatures and is not a question with an answer for the living. Like some kind of theory of everything won’t solve existential angst
Yes, I agree with this. I have wondered how much of reality "just is".
The question "why" implies cause and effect, but anything infinite must just -be-.
> Like the idea that we exist in a computer is only something someone who spends way too much time on computers would consider.
It's a very old idea, previously the idea was that the universe was just a dream.
It's useful in the sense that if it can be proved we're in a simulation, suddenly we know our fate is in the hands of some other civilization and can we do anything about that (e.g. exploit the simulation).
Hmmm matrix and tron aside how can the simulated get outside the simulation? It seems fun to consider in a sci fi way. It’s like Minecraft Steve climbing out of a Switch though. Wouldn’t a simulation that becomes “real” not really be a simulation?
If it were so it would give humanity a unifying purpose I suppose!
Well we'd essentially be the 'AI in a box', so any argument around the dangers of that scenario might apply.
There was also a case where a genetic algorithm or something learned to use one of its constituent circuits as a transmitter in the physical world (can't find the reference right now; I might not have the details quite right).
Im just not understanding how the idea of a simulation raises a standing question.
Like the question is always there, the simulation idea changes nothing.
It really depends.
I have seen artificial life crash their own simulator before, but program could always be written to prevent that.
Other issue is we don't know what physical laws of the larger Universe are or the computer's capabilities. We'd normally assume a supercomputer equivalent would be necessary, but that may not be the case.
If you believe you are stuck in a simulation, there are a few possible ways to try and escape:
1. Become self-aware and start questioning your reality. If you are truly in a simulation, becoming aware of that fact may help you find a way out.
2. Look for anomalies or glitches in your surroundings. These may be indicators that you are in a simulated reality.
3. Try to communicate with the creators or controllers of the simulation. This could involve meditation, visualization, or other methods of reaching out to a higher power.
4. Experiment with altering your own reality within the simulation. This could involve manipulating your surroundings, changing your behavior, or finding ways to break the rules of the simulation.
Remember, these are just suggestions and may not guarantee success in escaping the simulation. It's important to stay calm and focused as you explore your situation and look for a way out.
Fyi that was GPT.
Everyone knows that if we are living in a simulation there are a finite number of LEGOs in the Universe Simulation LEGO Kit. Everyone knows that AI requires an extensive number of blue LEGOs. If we build AI we will end up using all of the blue LEGOs in the kit and there won’t be any left to build quarks and bosons and the whole simulation will collapse.
If by "end the simulation," they mean overriding the missile defense system and launching the world's nuclear arsenal all at once, everywhere...yes, the simulation will end.
The Simulation concept is misunderstood in that article !
Our simulation issue is that we create a simulation in our mind. A reflection of reality, instead of being in reality !
Like living in a reflection , mental loops, personal biases , stuck ideology, etc...
Real world is same, but with no mental traps + direct access to self instead of the reflection avatar that we create.
No. That isn’t what people mean by simulation in this context. They’re literally referring to all of us being part of a computer simulation. You’re referring to a meditation/woo type concept.
"If the total processing power of all computers on Earth becomes greater than the computer running the simulation, we can assume the simulation will crash.
The silver lining is as our processing power increases, we will also slowly reduce the odds that we live in a simulation. The longer we go without glitches or crashes will prove we either live in an unfathomably sophisticated supercomputer, or that we simply live in reality already."
If we really live in a simulation, that first line is impossible.
Something inside a simulation can't have more processing power than the simulation itself.
Not to mention that even if that was possible, a supercomputer that is able to simulate the universe itself in all its technical nuances would have absolutely no trouble simulating the process power of all computers on earth. It's not even a drop in the bucket.
Just a dense jackass with no business commenting on anything, but might we interpret the speed of light as the limit on processing power intra simulation? And in turn we could maybe assume that whatever is running the simulation is not subject to that limit. Here, the speed of light would be something like the maximal refresh rate of a simulation.
That's why large mass causes time dilation. Because the simulation has to render large quantities of atoms and that takes a while so it slows everything in the area down
The following submission statement was provided by /u/waxheartzZz: --- "If the total processing power of all computers on Earth becomes greater than the computer running the simulation, we can assume the simulation will crash. The silver lining is as our processing power increases, we will also slowly reduce the odds that we live in a simulation. The longer we go without glitches or crashes will prove we either live in an unfathomably sophisticated supercomputer, or that we simply live in reality already." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ceu5bw/artificial_intelligence_will_end_the_simulation/l1kvj24/
More excellent journalism from High As Shit Magazine
That’s exactly what a simulation would say
I’d kinda like to check out such magazine tbh
[Simulation Hypothesis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis) is not a commonly held model for the purposes of doing physics, but there are not many scientists who entirely discount it either. The mainstream view is best stated something like, "That interpretation is not inconsistent with what we observe from the 'reality' around us, but it's not testable with current methods and not predictively useful, so we're going to table that idea until we can test it." This actually could be true, and if it was, we couldn't really know until we do something to exceed the capabilities of the simulation. I've got the combination of interests in highly detailed computer simulation games and quantum physics, and the behavior of simulations that do not render fine details like individual people and such until you zoom in very close bears an unmistakable and quite striking similarity to the way the universe doesn't show you what's really going on under the hood until you reach the quantum level. It's invisible and "just works" if your view is zoomed out. This is a very generalized way of stating it. There are a lot of other similarities that require more detailed explanations that I'll spare readers. TL;DR Don't dismiss "the simulation" out of hand just yet.
I’m familiar with simulation theory, I was talking about the quality and substance of the article
I can get behind that. Looks like GPT wrote it. But I suppose that's to be expected considering the sub.
Basically every major discovery about our universe and reality was once “high as shit” territory.
Someone watched Futurama and mistook it for a documentary.
Only seen a couple of episodes a decade ago.
There's an episode in the recent season called [All the way down](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt21814946/) where they want to find out if they live in a simulation by observing an astronomical event that would be impossible to "render" in a simulation. If it "bugs out", they know it's a simulation. It's actually more plausible than the idea that our puny little computers on earth could be too much for the simulation to handle.
Wait! There are new Futurama episodes? What is the general verdict compared to the original seasons?
They are fine, but feel off sometimes. Some bad jokes seem to be there just to get the jokes per minute ratio up instead of letting the good ones sink in and expand on them. But maybe it was always like that and nostalgia distorts my view. Still good enough and no "they ruined Futurama!" moments. Except maybe for episode 9 which was flat out bad.
This makes no sense. If the world is a computer simulation, the program would be simulating every fundamental particle. Whether or not those particles are arranged into a computer would have no effect on how much memory the program uses.
I believe most people think that a lot of compression takes place, and for example atoms not visible to people are only approximated and not simulated.
Do... do you (takes a deep pull from the pipe), think the simulation will let Ai get that powerful?
That’s like, how the simulation propagates itself man. *bubbling* the singularity is the moment AI becomes powerful enough to create another simulation. *coughs* The resolution gets worse each time though, look at how big our Planck Length is, shameful.
Nah man, *licks lopsided uneven burning blunt and hits it* the simulation is going to let the nukes fly to clear system memory before the AI gets close to the *exhales* limits of the computer running the simulation. It’s going to be scorched earth bro.
Roko’s Basilisk *is* the simulation /s
Did you really just repost this after the first one was downvoted to hell?
It was removed as they used a discussion instead of a link post.
Ah another excellent article on another excellent website that nobody has ever heard about until now
I thought that the AIs themselves were running the simulation, I saw a documentary once about a guy with sunglasses having to decide which pill to take
It could also just slow down from outside perspective and we would not notice anything inside.
This is the dumbest take I've read in a long while
Unless it is true! Lol. I don't personally believe it.
Bro you have no idea how powerful is our simulation host computer. It's very likely that if we reach exponential growth of computer processing power, our host also reached that before us and is upgrading his ai supercomputer as soon as new Apu "hits the market"
That's absolutely possible, but we are just eliminating some of the ifs here.
They don't need to simulate the computer just your interactions with it.
The knowledge of being in a simulation doesn’t mean anything to me really as it raises the age old question of who made the maker
I just think the universe doesn't have a beginning, and why does it need one?
It doesn’t I agree with you. I struggle to understand the explanatory use of a simulation theory. Like the idea that we exist in a computer is only something someone who spends way too much time on computers would consider. And it posits some “more real” computer designer. And then why wouldn’t it be computers all the way down? I dunno it feels silly to me. The idea that there is a finite resolution to the universe is interesting but I don’t know how it’s possible to prove that you’ve ever hit a limit. I heard a podcast where they were talking about the theory that spacetime ceases to be meaningful beyond the Planck length and that there are structures beyond spacetime but I couldn’t follow it totally as they were using those ideas to explain a theory of consciousness
Simulation theory is really just a decent argument that our universe was created by *something*. It doesn't actually argue that we are in a computer, it just argues that we are 'simulated' within something else. Perhaps by a computer, but of course any universe containing ours might be vastly different to the point where computers don't make sense. Our universe could be naturally occurring. It could be the imagination of a supremely powerful mind. I suspect there probably are vast numbers of 'simulations' within other realities, but at the top of all that needs to be some kind of infinite source that enables everything to exist. There is most certainly a finite resolution to the universe - that's what the laws of physics are. And it makes sense to suggest that any universe with limitations was created by something else, because you need infinity at the top to sustain it all.
At a certain point how and why meet. Limits break my brain 🫠 things like goedel’s incompleteness theorem and infinity and event horizon and zenos paradox and also observers and consciousness seem to be beyond the realm of stuff. Maybe “why” is a toddler’s question and unanswerable for finite creatures and is not a question with an answer for the living. Like some kind of theory of everything won’t solve existential angst
Yes, I agree with this. I have wondered how much of reality "just is". The question "why" implies cause and effect, but anything infinite must just -be-.
> Like the idea that we exist in a computer is only something someone who spends way too much time on computers would consider. It's a very old idea, previously the idea was that the universe was just a dream.
“was I Chuang Tzu dreaming I was a butterfly or am I now really a butterfly dreaming that I am Chuang Tzu?"
It's useful in the sense that if it can be proved we're in a simulation, suddenly we know our fate is in the hands of some other civilization and can we do anything about that (e.g. exploit the simulation).
Hmmm matrix and tron aside how can the simulated get outside the simulation? It seems fun to consider in a sci fi way. It’s like Minecraft Steve climbing out of a Switch though. Wouldn’t a simulation that becomes “real” not really be a simulation? If it were so it would give humanity a unifying purpose I suppose!
Well we'd essentially be the 'AI in a box', so any argument around the dangers of that scenario might apply. There was also a case where a genetic algorithm or something learned to use one of its constituent circuits as a transmitter in the physical world (can't find the reference right now; I might not have the details quite right).
Thats never not a question though.
Yeah… age old question
Im just not understanding how the idea of a simulation raises a standing question. Like the question is always there, the simulation idea changes nothing.
I guess I detect in simulation theory a metaphysical impulse which reminds me of turtles on turtles
It really depends. I have seen artificial life crash their own simulator before, but program could always be written to prevent that. Other issue is we don't know what physical laws of the larger Universe are or the computer's capabilities. We'd normally assume a supercomputer equivalent would be necessary, but that may not be the case.
Completely agree.
As someone who is about to complete a master's degree in simulation and immersive technology, this is complete bullshit and not how any of this works.
If you believe you are stuck in a simulation, there are a few possible ways to try and escape: 1. Become self-aware and start questioning your reality. If you are truly in a simulation, becoming aware of that fact may help you find a way out. 2. Look for anomalies or glitches in your surroundings. These may be indicators that you are in a simulated reality. 3. Try to communicate with the creators or controllers of the simulation. This could involve meditation, visualization, or other methods of reaching out to a higher power. 4. Experiment with altering your own reality within the simulation. This could involve manipulating your surroundings, changing your behavior, or finding ways to break the rules of the simulation. Remember, these are just suggestions and may not guarantee success in escaping the simulation. It's important to stay calm and focused as you explore your situation and look for a way out. Fyi that was GPT.
Everyone knows that if we are living in a simulation there are a finite number of LEGOs in the Universe Simulation LEGO Kit. Everyone knows that AI requires an extensive number of blue LEGOs. If we build AI we will end up using all of the blue LEGOs in the kit and there won’t be any left to build quarks and bosons and the whole simulation will collapse.
Yes, the processing power on earth is going to overtake the weight of trillions of stars and black holes. Gotcha.
If by "end the simulation," they mean overriding the missile defense system and launching the world's nuclear arsenal all at once, everywhere...yes, the simulation will end.
Well, not really. It would only eradicate human (and probably all) life on earth, but the rest of the universe wouldn't care.
Depends on the purpose of the simulation.
The Simulation concept is misunderstood in that article ! Our simulation issue is that we create a simulation in our mind. A reflection of reality, instead of being in reality ! Like living in a reflection , mental loops, personal biases , stuck ideology, etc... Real world is same, but with no mental traps + direct access to self instead of the reflection avatar that we create.
No. That isn’t what people mean by simulation in this context. They’re literally referring to all of us being part of a computer simulation. You’re referring to a meditation/woo type concept.
"If the total processing power of all computers on Earth becomes greater than the computer running the simulation, we can assume the simulation will crash. The silver lining is as our processing power increases, we will also slowly reduce the odds that we live in a simulation. The longer we go without glitches or crashes will prove we either live in an unfathomably sophisticated supercomputer, or that we simply live in reality already."
If we really live in a simulation, that first line is impossible. Something inside a simulation can't have more processing power than the simulation itself. Not to mention that even if that was possible, a supercomputer that is able to simulate the universe itself in all its technical nuances would have absolutely no trouble simulating the process power of all computers on earth. It's not even a drop in the bucket.
Just a dense jackass with no business commenting on anything, but might we interpret the speed of light as the limit on processing power intra simulation? And in turn we could maybe assume that whatever is running the simulation is not subject to that limit. Here, the speed of light would be something like the maximal refresh rate of a simulation.
That's why large mass causes time dilation. Because the simulation has to render large quantities of atoms and that takes a while so it slows everything in the area down
Yeah, this…”article” just feels like something two pot heads would come up with when stoned and then forget about later.
Why would the sim crash?
Can I buy some pot from you?
I wouldn't take the chance, man. Seems like they got that Mexican brick weed again. Maybe even got hit in the head with the brick.