# You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it.



## babblingbrook

What is the difference really? The meanings and narratives we apply to our universe ultimately structure our reality, and this computer simulation story is no different (reminds me of The Circular Ruins by Jorge Luis Borges by the way). Have you heard of The Allegory of the Cave by Plato? The people chained in the cave live in a simulation, but what about the philosopher who seeks the Forms outside of the cave, is his reality all that different? Both perceive a mediated reality, a reality dependent on interpretation. The representation of reality is what remains.


----------



## SSDZ

Arclight said:


> Hmm very interesting.
> 
> To me.. _We_ _are_ the computers. DNA is the source code and software.
> The frontal Lobe, the upgraded hardware that allowed the program to run successfully where previous versions failed.
> 
> Evolution? Previous versions that did not work out. Modern humanity is Humankind V.09.
> 
> When your experiment is not working you go back to the drawing board.
> 
> My questions now are.. Are we working out or is newer more updated version coming soon?
> Are we being observed? Did the program writers lose interest?
> 
> Just a thought or two on the subject.


You are correct in certain sense, but there is something else. The point is that yes, indeed alive’s (e.g. – a human’s) material body is a computer (where the DNAs are some specific subroutines). But – e.g., for humans -there exists another computer, namely – the consciousness. *And this computer critically differs from “material” ones* (including Matter in our Universe, which is a material dynamic logical system, a huge number of automata also) – no instruments, e.g. any powerful microscope or LHC, didn’t detect till now any human’s thought. More about the difference of material and non- material computers – see the link in my previous post (#19), note here only that our Universe – that includes dynamic subsets “Matter”, “Alive”, and “Consciousness”- *cannot be a computer simulation because* of to simulate such a system is necessary *fundamentally* infinite CPU power.
As to the “update”. As we understood, there were at Beginning some potential possibility for some potentially logically connected system to evolve – a [huge] portion of the energy and a number of rules how to interact for possible singled out informational structures. After the start the system became evolve – when “near past” local conditions determined “near future” local outcomes. In a time more and more complicated things appeared; and if the complication at a evolution is some intrinsic property of the information, then a coming out of some new informational system (firstly – alive, further - intelligent) from initially purely material system (Matter) into a some next subset of the Set “Information” we cannot exclude. Though more plausible seems a version when Matter is a “body” of some Being when alive and intelligent beings, e.g., humans, are some “by-products” of this Being…

Cheers


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

I currently refuse to believe that we're in a simulation. What kind of being would want a simulation full of hatred, anger, evil, lonliness, separation, confusion, misunderstanding, deception, and depravity?


----------



## seepingfaucet

Kilgore Trout said:


> Theoretical physicists, James Gates and John Wheeler, are currently doing research into the hypothesis that the structure of the universe is very similar to computer codes, I.E. the Matrix. There's no solid _experimental _ data, because the research is largely theoretical, but it's interesting to see the connections they have made in the past few years.
> 
> Gates talks about his research in this brief interview:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Wheeler says:
> 
> "It is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core of physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer.
> 
> It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
> 
> Here is a short description of Wheeler's theory, "IT from BIT," which includes some of the problems and solutions and predictions that may arise:
> 
> http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt
> 
> If you want to push deeper into the "illusion" of reality, physicist and best-selling author, Leonard Susskind, talks about the Holographic Principle:


Questions concerning the holographic principle: 
1. When an object enters into a black hole does it mean that the object and the information of the object are separated?
2. the video says that information is stored on the event horizon and alsosays that our information is of reflection from the edges of the universe, does that mean that we are living inside of a black hole, does that mean that we are living outside of other black holes, or does that mean that we are bound to the information and can only perceive what is given.
3. I have also read other sites briefly about hologram principle and remember that every bit of mass hasinformation about itself information aboutother mass near it.

I'm not expecting an answer although it would be nice. This post was more for me a breadcrumb to return to in the future.


----------



## Kilgore Trout

Scott Gulliford said:


> Questions concerning the holographic principle:
> 1. When an object enters into a black hole does it mean that the object and the information of the object are separated?
> 2. the video says that information is stored on the event horizon and alsosays that our information is of reflection from the edges of the universe, does that mean that we are living inside of a black hole, does that mean that we are living outside of other black holes, or does that mean that we are bound to the information and can only perceive what is given.
> 3. I have also read other sites briefly about hologram principle and remember that every bit of mass hasinformation about itself information aboutother mass near it.
> 
> I'm not expecting an answer although it would be nice. This post was more for me a breadcrumb to return to in the future.


Good questions. I'm trying to understand everything as well. Here are some links with more in-depth answers than I could probably give:

Holographic Universe
Holographic Principle
Holographic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a Lecture, in which Susskind talks about M-Theory, Black Holes and the Holographic Principle:






If you want to go further into the theory, there's a lot of good information in Leonard Susskind's books, _An Introduction to Black Holes, Information And The String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe,_ and _The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics._


----------



## SSDZ

Kilgore Trout said:


> Theoretical physicists, James Gates and John Wheeler, are currently doing research into the hypothesis that the structure of the universe is very similar to computer codes, I.E. the Matrix. There's no solid _experimental _data, because the research is largely theoretical, but it's interesting to see the connections they have made in the past few years.
> 
> Gates talks about his research in this brief interview:
> 
> (URL, but I cannot to use the Net links now)
> 
> John Wheeler says:
> 
> "It is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core of physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer.
> 
> It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
> 
> Here is a short description of Wheeler's theory, "IT from BIT," which includes some of the problems and solutions and predictions that may arise:
> (here is the stanford's URL, but I cannot to use the Net links now)
> 
> 
> If you want to push deeper into the "illusion" of reality, physicist and best-selling author, Leonard Susskind, talks about the Holographic Principle:
> (URL, but I cannot to use the Net links now)


There are a lot of other versions of the "IT from BIT" doctrine (see, e.g. some last posts here; besides - there is Weizsacker's 1954, "UR-theory"); but all they are some conjectures, hypotheses hypothesis only; that are underpinned on main two facts:
(1) - that Nature can be surprisingly adequately represent by the math, and
(2) - because of Matter in our Universe *indeed* is some "computer+code" realization, sometimes that reveals itself somewhere - including, e.g., in the "Holographic Principle".

So the theories above are in reality some versions of Pythagorean "All from numbers" doctrine and of a couple first strings of the Bible's Genesis. 

However the fact (2) can be (and is) *rigorously proven*, see arXiv papers:
"The Information as Absolute"
"The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"
"The informational model - possible tests"

The papers are seen, eg., in Google.


Cheers


----------



## seepingfaucet

Just had a brain-gasm.. does hologram priciple mean that the "information" would also include our ... thought patterns, personality, souls? everything that we are capable of being? OMG Free will out the window? sry.. carry on.


----------



## Eylrid

I see it as plausible, but only significant if it changes something. If it's true, and we gain access to the underlying code, we would have tremendous power.

A good theory needs to be falsifiable, and needs to make testable predictions.



Pelle said:


> The reasoning is flawed, to say the least.
> 
> First, every single simulated world will need a huge amount of computing power. Because there is a finite amount of computing power, there is a finite amount of such simulated worlds. Whether such a simulated world is simulated in the original world or in a different simulated world does not matter. Therefore, assuming we have an equal chance to live in any of those simulated worlds, the chance would be more than 0% that we live in the non-simulated world.
> 
> Second, when something has a probability of 100% due to working with infinity, it doesn't have to be true. Probability is all about knowledge and the assumption that everything which is beyond your knowledge has an equal chance of happening. Suppose I ask a mathematician to guess my number between 0 and 10. He would have to conclude, without further knowledge, that there is a 0% chance of guessing correctly, because there are an infinite amount of possibilities and only 1 is correct. However, a slightly smarter person might notice that I am a human, and that I probably mean integers. Now the chance of guessing correct is 10%, without a real change to reality. Knowledge about psychology and my personality would further increase the chances.
> 
> In other words, it could simply be that we are missing a piece of information here that would change the probability of us living in a simulated world from almost 100% to 0%.





absentminded said:


> As interesting as the idea is, the quoted portion is a fairly obvious logical fallacy.
> 
> Both the first simulation, and the level below it must be simulated by a single computer, because it simulates the computer that simulates the second level. Therefore, for such nesting to occur, the civilization "on top" would have to pour an infinite amount of computing power into the initial simulation to allow an infinite number of sub-simulations, no matter how small sub-simulations might be. An infinite amount of computing power is physically impossible, therefore, an infinite nesting of simulated realities is impossible.
> 
> More important is the issue of practicality. No corporation or group of taxpayers would foot the enormous bill for such a simulation for very long and then the budget would probably be mutilated millions of times. The simulation would almost certainly have some sort of application and end after a certain point.


There is no reason to think that the higher reality is like ours in any given way.

The top level universe very well could be infinite. Even if it isn't, the computational power required for many nested realities could be a drop in the bucket compared to what they have.



Scott Gulliford said:


> Just had a brain-gasm.. does hologram priciple mean that the "information" would also include our ... thought patterns, personality, souls? everything that we are capable of being? OMG Free will out the window? sry.. carry on.


Simulated realities and the hologram principle aren't necessary to throw true free will out the window.

I believe in deterministic pseudo-free will.
(Similar in principle to pseudo-random number generators. Pseudorandom number generator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## SSDZ

Eylrid said:


> I see it as plausible, but only significant if it changes something. If it's true, and we gain access to the underlying code, we would have tremendous power.





Eylrid said:


> A good theory needs to be falsifiable, and needs to make testable predictions.


_"__A good theory needs to be falsifiable, and needs to make testable predictions._ " 

(More see "The Information as Absolute"; further only brief comment) 
- It isn't the case in this case. The informational conception *fundamentally* differs from any other theory, it is rigorously logically grounded and so* doesn't need in "testable predictions*". 

Any new knowledge a human can obtain at some experiment (experience) only, any new knowledge is empirical. And the informational conception as well. But if the experimental grounds for any other theory always remains be only nesessary, but non - sufficient conditions, for the informational conception *it is sufficient only once* to detect on an experiment some information as a set of some [informationally distinct] elements and, correspondingly, the absence of this set, i.e.- empty/null set and some logical rules. Then the conception straightforwardly becomes be proven. Indeed from the experiment directly follows that the information logically cannot be annihilated, it isn't capable to be non-existent. As well as all the rest in the conception becomes be inferred by using the logic only, including the "discovering" of the utmost fundamental Set "Information", that our Universe is a subset in the Set when MAtter, Alive and [human's] Consciousness are some subsets in the subset "Universe", that in the Set "All have happened always already" and, e.g. any human's life was known far before the Beginning, etc.,etc.,etc.

A couple words about "_we gain access to the underlying code, we would have tremendous powe_r". I wrote earlier, that it seems rather plausible, that Matter in our Universe is the body of some Being. As any other body It is a computer which can be damaged by viruses. So, as any [living] body or as a computer It must have an immune system - an antivirus code. Indeed, the humans are intelligent and so are capable to produce some codes, including that can be harmful for the Body. It seems the Body's AV system struggles till now with such a attempts (maybe not only humans') well - it simply restricts the humans' consciousness capabilities to walk through the Set's subsets only by the [human's] Consciousness subset bounds.


Cheers


----------



## Eylrid

The logic doesn't _prove_ that we are living in a simulation. It only says that, given certain assumptions, it is highly probable.

At any rate, the theory is only valuable if it either allows us to do something, or let's us know what to expect, beyond what we can figure out otherwise.


----------



## absentminded

Eylrid said:


> There is no reason to think that the higher reality is like ours in any given way.
> 
> The top level universe very well could be infinite. Even if it isn't, the computational power required for many nested realities could be a drop in the bucket compared to what they have.


It can not be any different from ours at it's base: logic. If logic is not present in the higher reality, then how could the simulation acquire this property?

In order for the universe to be infinite, you would have to violate one of several laws of logic or bring the supernatural and ascientific into a scientific discussion. You could posit an ideal observer or supranatural being, or you could tweak the laws of physics like the first law of thermodynamics. Either way, each answer to the proposition to an infinite universe requires abandoning the fundamental feature of our reality: logic. As I've said above, the higher reality could not pass logic onto us if it does not exist there.

Ergo, if we can say nothing else, the highest reality is not infinite.


----------



## MachinegunDojo

TL;DR... seems pretty simple to me though, doesn't matter how you look at it as everything can be broken down into math. Random numbers are not truly random, and that is all I need to know.


----------



## Eylrid

absentminded said:


> It can not be any different from ours at it's base: logic. If logic is not present in the higher reality, then how could the simulation acquire this property?
> 
> In order for the universe to be infinite, you would have to violate one of several laws of logic or bring the supernatural and ascientific into a scientific discussion. You could posit an ideal observer or supranatural being, or you could tweak the laws of physics like the first law of thermodynamics. Either way, each answer to the proposition to an infinite universe requires abandoning the fundamental feature of our reality: logic. As I've said above, the higher reality could not pass logic onto us if it does not exist there.
> 
> Ergo, if we can say nothing else, the highest reality is not infinite.


How does an infinite universe violate logic?

And even if it does, they don't necessarily need to have an infinite universe, just one that is big enough.


----------



## SSDZ

Eylrid said:


> The logic doesn't _prove_ that we are living in a simulation. It only says that, given certain assumptions, it is highly probable.
> 
> At any rate, the theory is only valuable if it either allows us to do something, or let's us know what to expect, beyond what we can figure out otherwise.


There aren’t any reference to some “simulations” in the arXiv articles that are mentioned in the SSDZ's post 06-07-2011 02:26 AM #26 above. It seems rather unplausible that some mighty, but feeling miserable Being having a very good PC has wanted to make a cinema and to look through an “Avatar”. So any logic, of course, cannot prove such a thing. 

As to “..._the theory is only valuable if it either allows us to do something, or let's us know what to expect_..” – an example:
The informational conception lets, e.g., to understand in much higher level such ontic notions as, e.g., Matter. In Materialism (and in Idealism in fact also) Matter is some non-understandable, transcendent thing; any human cannot to answer on the question – What is the Matter after all? In the conception it is proven that Matter is some subset in the Set “Information”, all Matter’s objects – elementary particles, atoms, Suns, Galaxies, etc. are some informational structures, “words” – though in some structures those words are hard enough so e.g. humans can drive on them. 
Thus now Matter – as well any other thing in our Universe and outside – Consciousness, religious phenjmena, etc.; including the Set as a whole, becomes, in principle, be cognizable already now there exist a number of scientific instruments, first of all - the math. 
Etc…

Cheers


----------



## Eylrid

SSDZ said:


> There aren’t any reference to some “simulations” in the arXiv articles that are mentioned in the SSDZ's post 06-07-2011 02:26 AM #26 above. It seems rather unplausible that some mighty, but feeling miserable Being having a very good PC has wanted to make a cinema and to look through an “Avatar”. So any logic, of course, cannot prove such a thing.


Apparently we are talking about two completely different things.

The thread is about the possibility of our reality being a simulation. It's in the thread title and it's the main subject of the post that started the thread. It's what I was talking about in the posts you quoted.

If you aren't talking about simulations, then none of my posts have any relevance on whatever tangent you are going off on.


----------



## absentminded

Eylrid said:


> How does an infinite universe violate logic?
> 
> And even if it does, they don't necessarily need to have an infinite universe, just one that is big enough.


An infinite universe requires infinite energy/mass. Where does this infinite energy come from? One either has to throw out the first law of thermodynamics or posit some force or entity outside our understanding.

I agree that an infinite universe isn't necessary. My point is that the logic behind the "infinitely high probability" that we are in a simulation just doesn't hold true. The probability is significantly less than infinity.


----------



## Eylrid

absentminded said:


> An infinite universe requires infinite energy/mass. Where does this infinite energy come from? One either has to throw out the first law of thermodynamics or posit some force or entity outside our understanding.


1. Like I said before, there is no reason to believe that a "higher reality" is the same as ours in any given way. Our laws of physics may not apply there.

We actually have many simulated realities: mmorgps, for examle. No one actually lives inside them, but they are simulated realities, none the less. They have rules that most certainly don't apply to our reality.

2. Infinite energy/mass doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics if there's always been infinite energy/mass.



> I agree that an infinite universe isn't necessary. My point is that the logic behind the "infinitely high probability" that we are in a simulation just doesn't hold true. The probability is significantly less than infinity.


On this we can agree. The theory suggests, _based on assumptions_, that the probability is very high. But, it definitely isn't infinite.


----------



## dirnthelord

so...Is there a meaning to our lives?


----------



## gambit

Eylrid said:


> How does an infinite universe violate logic?


Because it's a process with a beginning and an end, both sub-atomically and externally. Its process has no logic because it's a process. It can only have logic if compared to another process, i.e. all logic compares processes.


----------



## SSDZ

absentminded said:


> An infinite universe requires infinite energy/mass. Where does this infinite energy come from? One either has to throw out the first law of thermodynamics or posit some force or entity outside our understanding.
> 
> I agree that an infinite universe isn't necessary. My point is that the logic behind the "infinitely high probability" that we are in a simulation just doesn't hold true. The probability is significantly less than infinity.


The probability cannot be infinity, it cannot be greater than 1.

Cheers


----------

