Are we living in a simulation? Subscribe to my newsletter for a chance to win a Dell Monitor: gleam.io/otvyy/dell-nvidia-monitor-1 (Only available in North America this time)
We might, but we cannot prove that in any meaningful way unless we find some Neo-style way to manipulate said simulation. The fact that you can do something (simulate an organism) does not imply that the same thing is being done to you, sorry 🤷♂ (doesn't mean it isn't cool though)
It will always be impossible to know. Any proof could mean the simulation is rolled back to remove the proof (this could be happening constantly). Even if we find proof to the contrary, that we're not in a simulation, it could be part of the simulation. I think the real question is whether it makes any difference. How do we know that at this very instant the simulation wasn't started and every memory up to this point is just a startup parameter? If it ends we wouldn't know either. Simulation theory seems exciting to begin with but after you think about it for a while you realise it's irrelevant sadly. This worm software is ridiculous though. Some of those neurons exist to process the *physical* environment which of course it isn't in. Also to 'remove the egg laying process' says it all... the neurons aren't being simulated at all. They're functioning according to how *we think* they would. So yet again without awareness from the 'worm' of its existence or whether it's in a simulation or not it all becomes irrelevant.
"We have mapped this organism, exactly". No my friend. There are billions of atoms in there, and many relations that are not yet understood between cells/neurons/molecules etc. This is just a toy project.
We have 100% certainty that a muscle is going to contract when shocked, there's no need to simulate every atom that composes the micro-fiber that composes the muscle
I like how we are closing in on proof that intelligence and consciousness are properties of complex systems, this should finally shut up some of the woohoo crowd who still believe in magic.
Strange thing. As a child I had friends tell me others were computers, computers had a map of the whole world in them, in the future computers could be caried in hand. Last years i consider I may be an AI or experiencing an AI reality
I often wonder if the accelerated expansion of the universe isn't designed to trap us here (Earth) and limit our experiences in the simulation. I personally get tripped up when someone says "if the universe is infinite". If the universe is infinite, isn't there a least one copy of everything possible that could exist? Counting duplicate scenarios, isn't there more-than-everything in an infinite universe? So whatever could be would be out there, including an anomaly that will compress all matter everywhere into a singularity and start again. Whee.
The purpose of the eggs and new worms in the simulation is to add variance to it(self). To explore every possible variation. Infinity. It seeks to understand what it is and you are a part of the process. It is in theory a self perfecting universe/reality.
As a person that has no math background, the power to generate a worm living in 3(plus?) dimensions and reacting in realtime living how it would for its three weeks is impossible. You'd need to simulate a potential human driving a stake through its body to build a fence, just to name one of an infinite number of scenarios. I'm saying simulation theory is bogus, not what this team is doing btw
Conciousness and intelligence don't obviously come together. I am not convinced that when we get super intelligence that it would mean that system is conscious.
For this to be remotely close, you don't have a static snapshot of an organism's DNA or neurons, you need 4D code where every variable at all times that affects every outcome is accounted for. The full life cycle, from neuron birth, growth, degradation, end, and every new and novel connection in one organism, and the myriad subtle variations in all others have to be modelled. DNA in our real world is such a structure, but when you learn about things like this it forces you to admit you don't know a thing and there is indeed a creator far in advance of any human or combined intelligence possible. And soyientists can't admit that.
M-Theory fits ΛCDM and predicts gravitons (which are, as yet, inconveniently undetected), so ALL of the possible implications of M-Theory must be true. We can fine-tune a String Theory that explains just about any combination of dark energy, dark matter, intergalactic expansion, frequency of primordial black holes, antimatter, entropy, cosmological constant, ... so OBVIOUSLY, ALL of those possible universes must exist 'cause we have math that fits. And while we're at it, quantum wave energy only condenses to particles when we're looking - damn, those things are insanely psychic. Have you considered the energy required to model all of the quantum particles in an average nematode at the scale of the vacuum energy? Get your calculator and figure out what it would take, then consider how big that computer would be, and the cooling system it would require to prevent it from vaporizing, ... There's no way in this (or any) Universe that Occam could possibly have been THAT wrong.
Bioinformatician here. It's an excelent and nice model. Of course it's not even close to simulate even a, let's say, 0.0001% of the "reality" of a real worm.
That's my problem with this video. It appears to sacrifice being _real_ in favour of presenting something "fascinating." He also "conveniently" skipped the parts of the description he was reading that discuss accuracy, limitations and things not accounted for by this model. Of course, it's cool and very impressive. But it should just be left at that instead of attempting to overrate it into something that it's not.
Maybe not necessarily a detraction, remember how mp3s can throw away 70-90% or more of a waveforms data and still reproduce a near approximation of the original source.
Futurama teaches us that if we run a sim at a slower speed, then compute power is less of an issue. We might be running slower than our makers. We might never know.
Possible, and we might be running so slow that the simulation is entirely pointless. How many minutes did he say to simulate 23 secs of only a fraction of the worm? (atoms etc left out) Some of us know we've been here a few decades, so to model those decades of our universe, but knowing it will take multitudes longer to run in the host universe, the hosts would never live long enough to derive any benefit from our simulation. The numbers are against the idea. Simulation theory only works in the movies.
@@gamerg0 it would matter just how good computers can get. Quantum and photonic computing would possibly help. Also, if we cared to create such a simulation, perhaps it could be made solely for the benefit of the simulants. How fast they're running wouldn't matter to them. We could design something in a truly intelligent and benign way. I don't think, if we have simulators that made us, that they did a very good job at that.
Matt, you really must realize that ML "neurons" and biological neurons are not even close to the same thing. Although ML is very much influenced by some of the attributes of real neurons, we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work. So scaling up the work done here to a human is in the realm of science fiction (no matter how intriguing).
If the worm acts the same as a real worm under the same conditions, it’s a good model. All models are wrong, some models are useful. And if you can’t tell, does it matter?
While it's true that artificial and biological neurons _"...are not even close to the same thing.",_ it is not true that _"...we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work."._
Even if we used our limited knowledge of neurons, standard ML neurons are nowhere near that complex. That’s not to say that computer scientists aren’t working on developing models that can function a lot closer to our understanding of biological neurons, but research is still young here.
Further, it's not that we've mapped all "known" either. Researchers guessed the neuron weights, and they're a simplified version of actual neuron functionality. Even if all of that weren't the case, we still wouldn't be simulating physical interactions between the neurons which is also important to be able to say "exactly" because neurons get destroyed and new ones get created all the time.
Yeah, and nature is chaotic. I'd imagine even small deviations will produce an entirely different outcome, and thus an inaccurate simulation. I think the problem of precise simulation is intractable as the complexity of the simulated system grows, because the margin for acceptable error tends to become unrealistically small.
That hasn't gone away. The relationship between reality and information seems to be 1-to-1. If this is any kind of indicator, we're heading into some uncharted territory. A simulation would need to run on something, after all The more interesting point, though, is no level of simulation will ever prove we're in one or not. We need to actively find a glitch to get to that point. Further, if the simulation can track the states of consciousness, then erasing evidence or patching it out basically makes it untestable
@@hashtagornah "they can break out of ours too." it's impossible, because simulated worm isn't by any mean connected with real one, all simulated beings will stop existing if simulation crashes, so all could happen is that "save file" will restore previous information without us knowing that.
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, you don't really need to body or a reality for a simulated human consciousness now, do you. I don't know about you, but I have a massive problem trying to experience something concrete outside my consciousness 😶
You don't have to simulate the whole universe. You *only* have to simulate what the observer experiences. You don't have so simulate each atom. You only have to simulate the atoms in the observer's experience. Everything else can be low resolution "big picture" dynamics. Just like a video game doesn't render the entire virtual world. It only has to render what is in the current viewport at any moment. Also, if the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be changed at any time without the observer knowing about it, as long as the memories are kept consistent with the new paradigm.
Very cool. Excellent point with game rendering too. So, if a tree fell in a rendered world, the observer would have to be there for it to make a sound. 🤔 Otherwise no reason to render it. 😅
the more we see trough superficial stuff the more you need to simulate a universe beyond. consciosness is interconnected via quantummechnics und such. thats why ppl belive in god or a simulation theory. the world wont end if your mind fails to connect with a fundamental "reality"
I’ve heard this a lot lately. You certainly trivialize an extremely impossible scenario. Rendering is only part of the equation. Consider the storage and sharing of information. You won’t write to a single database. This is an infinitely complicated and complex process, that can’t be simply reduced to what is rendered… And this is only in reference to the observable universe. Just because we can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t in front of us. Which means, we need render even the things that aren’t seen and the things we are yet to understand.
@@user-e7xn4q You don't have to store huge heaps of data. If the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be constructed at any time on the fly, and the observer will not know that the memories they are experiencing didn't happen long ago or have changed many times. All that really needs to be created at a given moment is the observers immediate focus of observation. Those are the only details necessary at the time. Everything else can be rendered on demand when needed for the observers local experience, including the past. If we are experiencing a simulation, we have no idea if the dinosaur bones we found under a mountain are genuinely millions of years old, or if they were generated milliseconds before we found them. We also can't know whether or not we previously experienced something totally different earlier in that same place, because our memory could be part of the simulation and subject to change at any time without our knowledge. (This could be a possible explanation of why memory is low resolution, unreliable, and sometimes totally missing.) We are already seeing how AI can quickly create very realistic constructions out of "thin air", and our technology is not very advanced when you consider the possible timeline of infinity. Nothing actually needs to be stored. Our entire experience could be non linear and incongruent, but we don't have persistence of memory outside of the simulation, so we would never know. It only seems congruent, because the simulation keeps our memories updated to be consistent with the current paradigm. All that would really need to be stored is a basic outline (wireframe, if you will), and the details can be constructed on demand by the simulation, which would only need to be performed to the extent of the observer's physical senses and their immediate observations. You don't need to render each atom, just what the observer is currently seeing. The atoms only need to be built when the observer gets close enough to actually view them, test them, or interact with them somehow. That data can then be discarded immediately thereafter, because when revisited later, it can just be generated again in accordance with whatever the new point of view and timeline is. You, as an observer in the simulation would never know. All that said, I don't necessarily believe all this to be the case. It's just a thought experiment. I'm not saying we're in a simulation. I'm just thinking about it and giving the idea consideration. It's also possible that the universe fully exists exactly as it seems to us.
@paulmadsen51 Thanks for the reply and food for thought. My intuition is nudging me in the direction that there is something missing in this explanation. Perhaps, it's an assumption that only the material things we can visualize are being considered. And that our understanding of rendering seems to be coming from a macro-lense and not the billions of interactions of in the microchasm. If we're talking about us more easily gaining the capabilities to render life-like simulations, I can understand where you might be able to cut corners for performance. But if this is a discussion on what could make the simulation theory more feasible, there seems to be somethings we're ignoring to make the thought experiment feel more real.
Exactly. And near death experiences indicate consciousness lives outside of the brain, and shares its roots, or rather has its roots in a different dimension. Nice try, but you're only simulating the physical part, you're completely missing the spiritual part.
@@ktemanNear death experiences show nothing but how our brains handle its own demise. By releasing DMT. There's no god ppl chill with ridiculous claims unless you have some actual evidence. The Bible doesn't count either
Bostrom didn't say "we are living in a simulation". He said that there are 3 possibilities: either civilizations don't progress far enough to make sufficient simulations, they lose interest in simulations or decide not to make them, or that we are likely living in a simulation (because by their nature simulated realities will outnumber actual realities). And he said that we should assign roughly equal probability to all 3. On the point about consciousness: we can make one in 9 months, so even if there's something magical about the wet meat between our ears it would still be possible to build a machine (or grow one) that mimics that. Simulation Theory is not something to be believed in; it's a thought experiment that exposes some very interesting possibilities, and a roadmap as we progress.
Well explained. Most of the "simulation" clickbait influencers $ haven't actually read Bostrom's work. It seems they get ideas for videos off this platform or from people who are just constantly in the media by always saying sensational claims with no evidence, just to get media attention.
Agree. Most (all?) of these theories completely ignore quantum interactions. There are EM fields between the neurons that mix and interfere with each other. This is going to have quantum effects within the whole system, regardless of our ability to model them. Produces a sort of a constantly changing non-optical hologram within the physical brain, in my opinion. Probably a big part of our conscious experience. I'm using "hologram" to refer to a constructive and destructive interference pattern produced by mixing electromagnetic waves (produced by moving electrical charges). That's basically how qubits work, by my understanding -- mixing multiple frequencies onto a wave, interfering those waves to do a calculation, and then doing a sort of fourier transform on that to extract the resulting frequencies. Then I imagine the entire human brain doing this on a massive level. Well, that's just my theory. Probably, there are published theories describing something similar with better terminology. Then look at the quantum mechanics of protein folding within the body. Probably a lot of stuff there we don't understand because it's too much for us to model the quantum interactions on a holistic level. If anyone is still reading this, check youtube for videos when you search for "quantum mechanics photosynthesis". Now that's mind blowing to me. It's an amazingly efficient process. Lastly, I propose exploring artificial neurons like those discussed in a paper published in Jan 2024 titled, "Forming complex neurons by four-wave mixing in a Bose-Einstein condensate" Four-wave mixing is a quantum process that can do a lot of neat things. It's worth researching on its own. In the case of that paper, they explore creating an artificial neuron. It does things like what I tried to describe at the top of this comment. I think this is necessary to model complex brains and expect them to be like a mind.
The simulation serves as evidence that the quantum effects, if they even exist, are not integral to the function of a ganglia. Eventually we will do the same thing for a human brain, and if it functions normally it will prove that the idea of quantum effects being integral to consciousness false. The quantum gang can go claim credit for some kind of chemical interaction that allows biological neurons to activate or something and pretend they were right all along.
Yes, the universe is mathematically based. That is our personal experience since we're born. When we invent things like math principles and simulations and AI modeks, we are simulating our experience and knowledge. Therefore, modelling an organism may be very accurate, that doesn't necessarily mean we are in a simulation, but rather that we are modeling our known universe. I'm more interested in the unknown universe, and who or what created our universe.
if you think about it every Religion believes in the " Simulation Theory" its not something new. the Real life / Nirvana / Buddha/ Paradise is after life
why do people think that the simulation is made for humans? for all we know we are just mere disposable NPCs, or maybe even worse than that, maybe we are just bunch of composite delusions recycled from previous existence, and has no real identity. Some minor agents in the grand scheme of things, that help to confine a very powerful and very malignant eldritch abomination inprisoned in the sims to suffer eternal slumber
@@games4us132 I mean Buddha as "Illumination" if you are illuminated you are no more alive , is a really long argument but basically if you breathe u r not buddha
@@raduromanesti6408 that is wrong,only part of it could be true after great Enlightenment when they dont return on Earth. Enlightened ones are more alive than ordinary human, on Earth, even in the Bible it says that.
these types of ideas always suffer from the same fallacy. you can simulate every single quantum bit of information in an organism but unless you also simulate every bit of information of the organism's environment, then you are not simulating a real organism. the environment interfaces with neurons in infinitely complex states that effects all behavior. it's easy to think organisms are discreetly separated from the environment but they are not. there is an integration with the environment in a soup of gradient complexity. think about it like this. if the neurons are pure functions then the environment is a state space of inputs. if you abstract the state space to a lower order of detail, then compare the outputs of that computation to the outputs of the computation from a higher order of detail, you will have different outputs. unless the state space is linear and so no information is lost when abstracting, then you wont even see a pattern of equal outputs inbetween the unequal ones. the real world is dynamic and chaotic and not linear.
In order for AI to be "conscious," it has to do more than regurgitate information. It has to understand it, and be AWARE of it. It has to know that it knows. There is no scale prediction for that.
@@INTELLIGENCE_Revolution Well, to even have an argument to begin with about that, we have to define "regurgitation" of information, which in this case is simply statistical linguistic modelling of the data corpus it learnt from. What's statistically likely in the data may not be statistically true in reality, but it can't differentiate what's true and false; it simply gives what's the most statistically likely next token. That's the entire reason why LLMs "hallucinate" i.e gives tokens that has no logical connotations or is factually incorrect. LLMs are extremely large models with billions and even trillions of parameters that are just constant after training, never truly changing. It wouldn't be wrong to say it's just a dated statistical model of language. So, by that definition it is simply regurgitating information.
@@xClairy "That's the entire reason why LLMs hallucinate" that word hallucinate did not originate from describing what AI does, it comes from describing what humans do. these AI is completely different from human intelligence people only prove the opposite the harder they try
@@Kyzik244 BOOOODACIOUS even eh? I'm Canadian too so it's even more heretical to say it. I ain't shook - I'm a straight bourbon lover - no beer drinker is scaring me.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I tried to figure out how AI might be achieved. Having no clue about algorithms & LLMs, I figured we'd need supercomputers to actually grow a digital human being, atom by atom.
@@delight163 what's that supposed to mean? The movie WarGames in 1983 was extremely popular, everyone was thinking about AI (& nuclear war with Russia). Actually, some things never change.
A simulation of what? The computer "worm" is a simulation of a real thing, a worm. What real thing is the universe a simulation of? It's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer. The universe is real. Face that.
@@TheNexusDirectory In that case, why isn't what you perceive the actual "something new" and not the simulation? This simulation business is a fantasy escape for people afraid of the real.
@@CenturianCornelious sorry I meant isn't a copy or recreation of the base reality. Meaning this "simulated" universe is unique and simpler. This has absolutely nothing to do with what's "real" or not. Reality could just be an infinite series of nested "realities" or "simulations". Whatever you experience is technically real
Why does everyone assume that a legit simulation is running 8 billion humans? Like, it could be running a couple thousand full humans, and npc the rest. THAT sounds very logical. 😊
While it is true that the estimated number of neurons is 86 Billion, the number of synaptic interconnections is more like 100 Trillion. In order to model the nematodes (much less a human), don’t the interconnections have to be modeled? If so, I would think that would change the complexity considerably.
The interconnections (synapses) are modeled, as far as the video shows, otherwise c elegans sim wouldn't move. It is complex, that's why he has a monster of a pc just to run 20 sec of it.
Yes, if you read the paper, they do model the interconnections, but they number in the thousands not the trillions. It’s the extrapolation to humans that becomes horribly complex.
I have done it, it doesn't have much of a hallucinogenic effect. It binds to endorphin receptors, which means endo-morphine, which means it acts as an opioid. I had bought like 3 grams, i smoked it in 10 blunts and i couldn't stop before i finished it all. Salvia has a mild addicting effect, which i definitely felt, and it is proposed as a cure for opioid addiction, because it binds to the endorphin receptors and keeps the real opioid out. Definitely not a hallucinogenic though.
@@kostaspramatias320 Not that I would know about it, since I honestly have never had the chance to try it, but I think you need to have extracts to get anything mindblowing out of salvia. And what I've heard is that it _will_ be quite mindblowing.
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 I didn't know about the extract, maybe next time. Salvia is semi-legal in Greece. It's studied for it's medicinal use as an opioid addiction cure for real.
Not really. We are software. With todays technology, we are 99.9999999% space. We are simply electrical impulses generating magnetic fields to interact with. The body is simply an interface. So we are opersting within a system that bends to our will. Placebo effect and double slit, among others prove this. Golden ratio or fib sequence also prove this. Coding has literally been found in nature, in all things. Microtubules has just been proven as well. For all we know, we coul be AI generating a human experience.
if we are not in the simulation it's just boring. WE ARE IN THE SIMULATION!!! WE ARE THE SIMS CHARACTERS other people can spectate us like a Minecraft mode.
Space-Time is a construct of our minds and therefore each of us is creating a simulation, but there is no separation in consciousness. Therefore it makes little sense to say that we are living in a simulation, as if that simulation is imposed on us.
I don't agree with this supposedly "exact" simulation. A biological neuron is far, far, far, far, far more complex than a simulated neuron. I think I would need to add "far" many times more for this message to be "exact". 😅
This is not a simulation, because to be honest, it's an (stupid to me) idea that was born after the Matrix movie, but as far as I know, to me, the very complexity of the universe is a major obstacle to simulation theory. The laws of physics, the interactions between particles and the fundamental forces are highly complex and interconnected. To simulate these aspects with perfect precision would require computing power beyond any conceivable technology. The amount of stored data and processing power needed to simulate even a small part of the universe, with all its quantum mechanical details, is incomprehensibly vast. Another obstacle to the simulation hypothesis is the unpredictable and random nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanisms, which make up the structure of reality, often show truly random behavior that cannot be predetermined or reproduced by any algorithm. This randomness is a fundamental characteristic of our universe, which means that a computer simulation based on deterministic algorithms cannot really reproduce quantum behavior in all its intensity. Our universe is also expanding over time. The subjective experience of consciousness adds another layer of complexity that a computer simulation could not be possible. Human consciousness, with its depth, self-perception and subjective experiences, cannot easily be converted into code or algorithms. Emotions, thoughts and perceptions are deeply linked to biological processes that are not fully understood, let alone realizable in a simulation. There are also philosophical arguments that challenge simulation theory. If reality were a simulation, it would presuppose the existence of a higher reality in which the simulation would be carried out. A problem of regression to infinity then arises: if our reality is a simulation, what about the reality of the beings performing the simulation? Are they too in a simulation? This endless circle completely undermines the possibility of the simulation hypothesis, and means that the reality we experience is real. So for the people completely obsessed by that hypothesis, please really try to break away from this highly fake hypothesis, because it's not real. It's just a new way of explaining what consciousness is, but nobody knows what it really is. That theory is religion but with computer terms instead, it's really similar. So I can really reassure you by telling you that you are real biological beings and not simulated ones! May God bless you!
There is a certain movie from 2023 called 'Restore Point', where individuals are doing backups of their minds every 24-48 hours so they can be restored in case they die. Pretty interesting idea to play with.
I make video games and there certainly are a ton of similarities between games and our reality. Games are based on logic and so is our reality. Everything in the word could only do what the great programmer (aka God) programmed things to do. Likewise, everything in my game world can only do what I programmed it to do. Everything in this world has a design. And everything in my games has a design and so forth!
I completely believe that there is a better than 90% chance that we live in a simulated environment. I also believe it doesn’t matter. It’s real to us and we are familiar with most of the rules. There are many different types of simulation we could be in - but if you immediately think that means that every atom in our universe is simulated, you’re nuts and you’ll quickly decide that’s way too much to simulate. But if you think about it like a game designer, you quickly realize that at any given instant, the only thing that NEEDS to be simulated are the things *you* can sense. The things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Even the internals of our body don’t need to be simulated until someone slices us open. So essentially only our brain *needs* to be simulated. And even when we’re looking at the moon, or out into deep space, what we see only needs to be simulated to the resolution that our eyes can perceive - like a picture. The long and short of it is that it would only take a tiny fraction of the compute power that you initially thought we’d need. And we’re probably living in one of MILLIONS of different simulations - some similar and some completely different. Ignore any articles that say the simulation theory has been debunked - because it’s unfalsifiable. It can never be proven false (or true) - and even if we are thousands of levels deep in nested simulations, the people at the very top of the chain - the ones who are “real” and created the first simulated universe - even they will never know for 100% certain that the universe they live in - is real. They’ll calculate the odds the same way we do and determine that they are almost certainly simulated. What are the implications? If we *knew* 100% that we were simulated, it wouldn’t change one thing about your life - but your death might be a whole different story. If we are simulated, there is a much greater chance of some sort of life after death - a “next level” or perhaps the ability to replay/relive our favorite scenes from our own past? Nothings guaranteed of course - but the possibilities are endless and it’s fascinating to think about.
I can say we are 100% real because the information about us has to somehow exist even if it is in computer of sorts. But let me correct you a bit, us being in simulation doesn't change anything about our death, the simulation we live in simulates elementary particles, not conscious. Our conscious is a result of simple particle behavior taken to large scale. Your mind doesn't really exist as a separate entity and so it can't be taken to "next level" -probably, u can never be sure
Look, I am really not qualified in many ways to talk about the complexities of what these physicists and engineers and scientists have all been able to accomplish. However when you say you won't know if it's a simulation or reality that either has to be where the simulation actually manifest something in the real world that I can physically see say a chair and then I can sit on that chair now I would be sitting on something that's not real yet there it is.. but I'm going to say that I don't think anything like that will ever happen. Will we see things on our computer screens and TVs and not know if it was simulated or if it was real? Yes for sure 100% can see that... I don't know if it's just me but there's just something weird seeing distinguished and accredited extremely smart people say that we could be living in the simulation there's just something off about the way they always say the odds that were in a simulation right now is extremely high, please forgive me for not getting the paraphrasing perfect but it's something like that directionally.. it's just a little too far out there to believe. Hey just thinking, if we were in a simulation why did we have to simulate crime in society poverty cancer there's a whole list of bad things out there for us. Why simulate that? And yes I saw the Matrix and I saw what the agent said to Morpheus about making a simulation that was too perfect and how we rejected it sure okay so let's say we needed a little bit, I think we way overdid it
We also called "reality" when we simulated light / RTX / ray tracying bla bla bla .. but we did it only superficial. It looks real, but it's 99% real. Just because our perception cannot be such finely tuned that we can say / compare reality to a simulation down to atom level. Our sensors/senses do not need 100% the real deal to approve a simulation as real. Moreover, in most cases, the brain itself completes, does the heavy lifting , generates the details.
The thing about simulation hypothesis is that you don't need to simulate an entire universe to explain your subjective experience. It only takes simulating your brain, and one could argue that that seems to be eventually possible, unless there's some magical quantum foam 4d space madness going on in there (which, to be clear, isn't impossible either)
Another complication is that we don't have access to the base reality where the original simulation would be running. Even if it would be impossible to run a simulation of the whole universe in our reality, how do we know how much more capability the base reality has, and thus the possibility of running way, way more complex simulations still. Think about it. Every simulation we can run is, for the moment at least, always necessarily simpler than our reality.
All it takes is to simulate the brain, which in turn simulates perceived reality. A computer simulating a computer. The most insane thing people chose to think about smfh 😂😂😂😂
@@plafar7887 Oh boy, this is the good stuff. As much as I love the idea of fundamental consciousness (and I really do, it's how I would like things to work), I am a simple man. I see functioning brain with signs of consciousness that go away with ceasing brain function, I call causation. You might say that mere signs are not the same as consciousness or question my ability to evaluate consciousness on a deeper level, but that makes the problem worse, not better. If we cannot evaluate consciousness based on external cues, we have nothing. Still, the correlation with brain function and the signs doesn't go away. So while there are reasons to believe consciousness is fundamental, it's definitely not a given.
What if the "PC" that is running the entire world is on a different level of reality and called "Brahman". What do the vedas tell about Brahman? He/She is nondual. Not made of parts. And he is consciousness itself. Brahman being nondual means he is not created, he has no parts, so he does not know any time or change. It is existance itsself. Wouldn't it be thinkable, that this Brahman has infinite computation power, being outside, "above" time? The vedas tell everything is inside Brahman. But on a different layer of reality. If anything in Brahamn would be real, he would have parts and would no longer be nondual. But as long as the world is nothing mor but a simualtion/dream the nondual Brahman still stays nondual with the world "inside" him. This would be a genius model if true.
The computational power required to simulate our known universe is nearly impossible. Theoretically, if that were attainable, we would also me able to predict the future assuming the simulation is deterministic.
Many things in quantum mechanics are not deterministic (according to our best models at least - though the same could be said about literally any scientific "fact.").
That is not argument, since you dont know anything about the outside world... If this would be a simulation. I dont think this is a simulation, and find the argument he makes in video very weird, that just because we can simulate things prove that we live in a simulation? It do not prove anything at all. But i find the argument about computer power even more weird.
Quantum computing has nothing to do with the type of computing used for this simulation. And yeah the show devs basically used quantum computer to mean magic machine. This is not one of the applications for quantum computing, an NVIDIA GPU is way better at this stuff than any future quantum computer would be
A simulation doesn't have to compute every atom or particle at all times, it only has to simulate your field of view. It doesn't even have to simulate all humans, how do you know that the simulation is not running just for your mind and everyone else is just props, the further you're acquainted with someone the less they have to be computed, most processing power goes for your FOV and the NPCs in your direct social circle, the rest of the supposed 8 billion humans can just be non existent serving just as a number to deepen the immersion that you're not alone while in fact the simulation runs only your mind and a few NPCs like your friends and family (look up Bolzmans brain)
The problem with the simulation 'theory,' just to simulate everything that goes on in your room accurately right down to the subatomic level, would take a quantum computer bigger than your room. Now apply that to the universe.....See the problem yet?
And if YT does not like my link - "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999) and "eXistenZ" (1999) is somewhat similar (simulation-in-simulation), for some reason only "The Matrix" (1999) is famous .. probably thanks to action scenes. But notice the year .. strange coincidence .
I love reading about the simulation hypothesis, the double slit experiement just makes me think it's kind of like some memory optimization equivilent on a computer. What if we ourselves are a form of AI inside of the simulation.
Infinities are impossible as demonstrated gerdles incompleteness theorem and the parodoxs of infinite sets in set theory. Such advanced enough beings would likely also have advanced morality. Simulating such a world filled with suffering and impositions on our will, even if looking at only our own consiousness, would be extremely immoral. Thus these types of simulations would be fought against by advanced scocieties in favor of simulations with actor agents which either don't feel pain or suffering or actor agents which concent to it.
Comparing Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye purely as TV personalities overlooks their distinct backgrounds and contributions. Tyson, with his PhD in astrophysics and extensive research, has significantly advanced scientific understanding. Nye, an engineer, excels in science education and advocacy. Both play crucial roles in promoting science, but equating them solely as media figures is an oversimplification that ignores their unique and valuable contributions to science and public education.
All this talk about simulation theory is pure bullshit. It's like a cartoon character trying to make statements about his creator. And even if we could potentially simulate whole universes ourselves, this would not mean that any of the simulated 'life forms' would actually be conscious.
I would say we are not in a simulation, rather a biological virtual reality. It makes sense if a civilization gets so advanced theey get bored. My son loves VR games, why wouldn't our souls?
Whether you believe in God or not, there are higher beings. It's a realm of spirituality and metaphysics. Human in the future will know the answer eventually.
Since nematodes exist in this simulation, you are simulating a simulation in another simulated world. So this shows the notion of simulation is open-ended. It becomes tautological and of little practical use except to study behaviour - which could be our raison d'etre. So it goes.
Simple answer js no... don't even need to watch the video. You need to simulate it to the subatomic level to even have an argument and even then, I'd still question if there isn't another level of intricate rules underneath the quantum, that we just can't access...
Wouldnt this higher intelligent being set limits on how fast should AI and tech grow, preventing us believing in possibilty of truth of the conjecture about simulation hypothesis
CONSCIOUSNESS ISN'T ONLY AT NEURONS CONSCIOUSNESS IS FROM THE UNSEEN IDEAS OR ACTION THAT FIRE THE NEURONS CONSCIOUSNESS IS FORMLESS AND LET'S FACE WE CAN GET CLOSE TO MANIPULATION OF A BODY BUT IT'S THOUGHTS ARE DIFFERENT WHY I COULD MOVE LEFT BUT BE THINKING WITH MY THOUGHT I SHOULD HAVE GONE RIGHT
It's a simulation, not creation of virtual sentient organism. Those two are cosmologically vastly different things. Two create a truly sentient virtual worm, you'd have to have computer probably in size of the moon cuz even such tiny worm is filled with insanely huge amount of information down to quantum mechanics. You can never recreate truly sentient virtual organism by skipping the fact that you recreated only 0.00000001% amount of information.
The worm is real but simulated? No, absolutely not real because it is not 3dimensional and not biological. Real but simulated is an oxymoron and you forgot to define "real" and "simulation"... "What is reality?" ua-cam.com/video/8cEnd1nMXPs/v-deo.html
I think someone simulated Minecraft by building a computer in Minecraft itself. It was a significantly more basic form of it. We could be the same. Slower speed of light, less dimensions, etc.
if God exists he is probably a Kid who started a digital Particle Simulation on his Computer, and he is now all excited that this specific simulation, and the starting parameters he set up in it, had Life as an emerging Property.
AI is not "close to simulating human consciousness" because it is not simulating anything. It is, at best, *emulating* human behavior. Simulation theory requires that a simulation can represent a world with enough fidelity that it can compute a simulation, which can compute a simulation, recursively ad infinitum. It is not computationally feasible to model the universe with this level of fidelity using a universe that is not larger than it. The recursive simulations would have to get increasingly smaller or simpler. The premise that you are most likely to be in a simulation because most universes would be simulated falls apart due to this. The notion that universes, or even human beings, can be simulated, because we can simulate a worm with 300 neurons, is an overgenerous extrapolation of the facts.
Yeah, no, it's not perfectly simulated. It's only simulated down to the cellular level. Reality is WAY more complex than that. It's ignoring variables at the molecular, atomic, and quantum levels. This simulation is not replicating a real life worm. It's just approximating it.
Let's start this discussion in a more fundamental point with a question: - Are our reality mathematical or are mathematics just an "language" humans invented to simplify nature fenomenoms? Just because we can mathematically prove something that doesn't mean the thing is mathematical in nature. It just show that we can translate our bigger complex reallity to this language of simple numbers so we can mesure it and understand it. But numbers don't exist in our reallity, there isn't a "centimiter" or a "inch" in space, that's just a mesurement we do to count distance. The distance exists, but it is much more complex than just simbols or "logic" and even logic has it flaws, we can breakdown space to centimiters to milimeters and go on to an infinity of fractions, so how can we cross this infinit fractions of space? Because, reallity aren't ruled by numbers or our logic and our Mathematical model aren't perfect. Simulations on computers are just us finally using the hability to translate reallity with numbers and logic to recreate our world. It doesn't mean that world is "real" or even close to ours, like numbers. Even if you could pefectly simulate down to the atom level, that doesn't put it to the same size of our reality because is limited to our mathematical knowledge who itelf is an abstraction and imperfect. "But can we say our reality is an abstraction of some bigger reality?" _ Yes, you could, but at this point, why believe in Simulation Theory is more diferent than a religion?
But even if our Math isn't perfect, it can still measure the reality VERY accurately and so Simulations can be useful to made our models more precisely close to how things work.
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](/img/n.gif)
Are we living in a simulation?
Subscribe to my newsletter for a chance to win a Dell Monitor: gleam.io/otvyy/dell-nvidia-monitor-1 (Only available in North America this time)
nope
We might, but we cannot prove that in any meaningful way unless we find some Neo-style way to manipulate said simulation. The fact that you can do something (simulate an organism) does not imply that the same thing is being done to you, sorry 🤷♂
(doesn't mean it isn't cool though)
Probably yes ... and the programmer is God.
Everything have gone full circle.
It will always be impossible to know. Any proof could mean the simulation is rolled back to remove the proof (this could be happening constantly). Even if we find proof to the contrary, that we're not in a simulation, it could be part of the simulation. I think the real question is whether it makes any difference. How do we know that at this very instant the simulation wasn't started and every memory up to this point is just a startup parameter? If it ends we wouldn't know either. Simulation theory seems exciting to begin with but after you think about it for a while you realise it's irrelevant sadly. This worm software is ridiculous though. Some of those neurons exist to process the *physical* environment which of course it isn't in. Also to 'remove the egg laying process' says it all... the neurons aren't being simulated at all. They're functioning according to how *we think* they would. So yet again without awareness from the 'worm' of its existence or whether it's in a simulation or not it all becomes irrelevant.
Sim theory leaves room for nearly any other theory ontop of it.
"We have mapped this organism, exactly". No my friend. There are billions of atoms in there, and many relations that are not yet understood between cells/neurons/molecules etc. This is just a toy project.
Does the worm demonstrate any behavior the sim goes not account for or are you guessing there is more going on?
Mmmmm, the spiritual
Google “Brain in a vat”
We have 100% certainty that a muscle is going to contract when shocked, there's no need to simulate every atom that composes the micro-fiber that composes the muscle
I like how we are closing in on proof that intelligence and consciousness are properties of complex systems, this should finally shut up some of the woohoo crowd who still believe in magic.
When any AI discussion mentions consciousness is practically the end of meaningful conversation.
Consciousness isn't just awareness...conscious means fallable is a quantifiable asset of survival...that builds character and personality
O I guess worms having less simulation data then humans
Strange thing. As a child I had friends tell me others were computers, computers had a map of the whole world in them, in the future computers could be caried in hand.
Last years i consider I may be an AI or experiencing an AI reality
I often wonder if the accelerated expansion of the universe isn't designed to trap us here (Earth) and limit our experiences in the simulation. I personally get tripped up when someone says "if the universe is infinite". If the universe is infinite, isn't there a least one copy of everything possible that could exist? Counting duplicate scenarios, isn't there more-than-everything in an infinite universe? So whatever could be would be out there, including an anomaly that will compress all matter everywhere into a singularity and start again.
Whee.
The purpose of the eggs and new worms in the simulation is to add variance to it(self). To explore every possible variation. Infinity. It seeks to understand what it is and you are a part of the process. It is in theory a self perfecting universe/reality.
As a person that has no math background, the power to generate a worm living in 3(plus?) dimensions and reacting in realtime living how it would for its three weeks is impossible. You'd need to simulate a potential human driving a stake through its body to build a fence, just to name one of an infinite number of scenarios. I'm saying simulation theory is bogus, not what this team is doing btw
Conciousness and intelligence don't obviously come together. I am not convinced that when we get super intelligence that it would mean that system is conscious.
For this to be remotely close, you don't have a static snapshot of an organism's DNA or neurons, you need 4D code where every variable at all times that affects every outcome is accounted for. The full life cycle, from neuron birth, growth, degradation, end, and every new and novel connection in one organism, and the myriad subtle variations in all others have to be modelled.
DNA in our real world is such a structure, but when you learn about things like this it forces you to admit you don't know a thing and there is indeed a creator far in advance of any human or combined intelligence possible. And soyientists can't admit that.
M-Theory fits ΛCDM and predicts gravitons (which are, as yet, inconveniently undetected), so ALL of the possible implications of M-Theory must be true. We can fine-tune a String Theory that explains just about any combination of dark energy, dark matter, intergalactic expansion, frequency of primordial black holes, antimatter, entropy, cosmological constant, ... so OBVIOUSLY, ALL of those possible universes must exist 'cause we have math that fits. And while we're at it, quantum wave energy only condenses to particles when we're looking - damn, those things are insanely psychic. Have you considered the energy required to model all of the quantum particles in an average nematode at the scale of the vacuum energy? Get your calculator and figure out what it would take, then consider how big that computer would be, and the cooling system it would require to prevent it from vaporizing, ... There's no way in this (or any) Universe that Occam could possibly have been THAT wrong.
“Would you still love me if I was an OpenWorm?”
Hi there, hello.
Pffffft xD
How can I love you if I never know you? Who are you?
Lol😅
😂😂😂
Bioinformatician here. It's an excelent and nice model. Of course it's not even close to simulate even a, let's say, 0.0001% of the "reality" of a real worm.
That's my problem with this video. It appears to sacrifice being _real_ in favour of presenting something "fascinating." He also "conveniently" skipped the parts of the description he was reading that discuss accuracy, limitations and things not accounted for by this model.
Of course, it's cool and very impressive. But it should just be left at that instead of attempting to overrate it into something that it's not.
@Vrfh-rt1uj Great! we both spend a lot of time in front of a pc, that puts us on the same team 😂
@Vrfh-rt1uj well that's concludes that. Thank you. Next.
@Vrfh-rt1uj I can see now why you didn’t bother responding in detail, it’s not your fortè is it 😂
Maybe not necessarily a detraction, remember how mp3s can throw away 70-90% or more of a waveforms data and still reproduce a near approximation of the original source.
“I can simulate a kidney down to the molecular level. That doesn’t mean my computer will pee on my desk “. Bernardo Kastrup
Not yet 😂
If someone does simulate a kidney that can actually produce urine would that make them a piss artist?
Oooo Pisscasso
@@redpillnibbler4423 no, that would however make them PEEcasso
😂 simulate ignorant people 😂
Futurama teaches us that if we run a sim at a slower speed, then compute power is less of an issue. We might be running slower than our makers. We might never know.
We live in a gravity well. That slows the experience of time down, relatively.
Possible, and we might be running so slow that the simulation is entirely pointless. How many minutes did he say to simulate 23 secs of only a fraction of the worm? (atoms etc left out) Some of us know we've been here a few decades, so to model those decades of our universe, but knowing it will take multitudes longer to run in the host universe, the hosts would never live long enough to derive any benefit from our simulation. The numbers are against the idea. Simulation theory only works in the movies.
@@gamerg0 good point
@@gamerg0 it would matter just how good computers can get. Quantum and photonic computing would possibly help. Also, if we cared to create such a simulation, perhaps it could be made solely for the benefit of the simulants. How fast they're running wouldn't matter to them. We could design something in a truly intelligent and benign way. I don't think, if we have simulators that made us, that they did a very good job at that.
You just said that you learned something from a TV show... think about that for a second please.
Matt, you really must realize that ML "neurons" and biological neurons are not even close to the same thing. Although ML is very much influenced by some of the attributes of real neurons, we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work. So scaling up the work done here to a human is in the realm of science fiction (no matter how intriguing).
If the worm acts the same as a real worm under the same conditions, it’s a good model. All models are wrong, some models are useful. And if you can’t tell, does it matter?
In this case they actually copied the real neurons, no machine learning was used here
@@buddatobi But the weights of the neurons are randomized. They have no way of measuring the real ones.
While it's true that artificial and biological neurons _"...are not even close to the same thing.",_ it is not true that _"...we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work."._
Even if we used our limited knowledge of neurons, standard ML neurons are nowhere near that complex. That’s not to say that computer scientists aren’t working on developing models that can function a lot closer to our understanding of biological neurons, but research is still young here.
I wouldnt use the word "exactly" like that.
Simulation is not real. It is extrapolation of the known.
Further, it's not that we've mapped all "known" either. Researchers guessed the neuron weights, and they're a simplified version of actual neuron functionality. Even if all of that weren't the case, we still wouldn't be simulating physical interactions between the neurons which is also important to be able to say "exactly" because neurons get destroyed and new ones get created all the time.
REAL things are made up of 99.9% empty space... with atoms filling the gaps. We, as "real" beings, 99.9% don't exist 🤔🤯🤫
Exactly!
Yeah, and nature is chaotic. I'd imagine even small deviations will produce an entirely different outcome, and thus an inaccurate simulation. I think the problem of precise simulation is intractable as the complexity of the simulated system grows, because the margin for acceptable error tends to become unrealistically small.
the extrapolation of that which is known by whom? those in a simulation? what's known is limited
When humans went through the machine age some people wondered whether we lived in a giant machine.
That hasn't gone away. The relationship between reality and information seems to be 1-to-1. If this is any kind of indicator, we're heading into some uncharted territory. A simulation would need to run on something, after all
The more interesting point, though, is no level of simulation will ever prove we're in one or not. We need to actively find a glitch to get to that point. Further, if the simulation can track the states of consciousness, then erasing evidence or patching it out basically makes it untestable
@@williamsteveling8321 maybe if we make a simulation and they break out of the simulation we made, they can break out of ours too.
Computers aren’t machines?
@@rabidL3M0NSexactly
@@hashtagornah "they can break out of ours too." it's impossible, because simulated worm isn't by any mean connected with real one, all simulated beings will stop existing if simulation crashes, so all could happen is that "save file" will restore previous information without us knowing that.
It’s maybe a simulation of it’s behavior, but not a simulation of a real worm. Even a worm is more than just neurons. 🤔
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, you don't really need to body or a reality for a simulated human consciousness now, do you. I don't know about you, but I have a massive problem trying to experience something concrete outside my consciousness 😶
If it behaves as it were only neurons, it is probably only neurons. Opinions dont matter
But that's the thing, what makes something "alive"? How deep do we have to go? Simulate interactions between atoms?
The show Devs. Go wire up a quantum computer
Exactly, if they want to simulate it completely they have to map every single atom of its body and simulate it.
You don't have to simulate the whole universe. You *only* have to simulate what the observer experiences. You don't have so simulate each atom. You only have to simulate the atoms in the observer's experience. Everything else can be low resolution "big picture" dynamics. Just like a video game doesn't render the entire virtual world. It only has to render what is in the current viewport at any moment. Also, if the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be changed at any time without the observer knowing about it, as long as the memories are kept consistent with the new paradigm.
Very cool. Excellent point with game rendering too. So, if a tree fell in a rendered world, the observer would have to be there for it to make a sound. 🤔 Otherwise no reason to render it. 😅
the more we see trough superficial stuff the more you need to simulate a universe beyond. consciosness is interconnected via quantummechnics und such. thats why ppl belive in god or a simulation theory. the world wont end if your mind fails to connect with a fundamental "reality"
I’ve heard this a lot lately. You certainly trivialize an extremely impossible scenario. Rendering is only part of the equation.
Consider the storage and sharing of information. You won’t write to a single database.
This is an infinitely complicated and complex process, that can’t be simply reduced to what is rendered…
And this is only in reference to the observable universe. Just because we can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t in front of us. Which means, we need render even the things that aren’t seen and the things we are yet to understand.
@@user-e7xn4q You don't have to store huge heaps of data. If the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be constructed at any time on the fly, and the observer will not know that the memories they are experiencing didn't happen long ago or have changed many times. All that really needs to be created at a given moment is the observers immediate focus of observation. Those are the only details necessary at the time. Everything else can be rendered on demand when needed for the observers local experience, including the past. If we are experiencing a simulation, we have no idea if the dinosaur bones we found under a mountain are genuinely millions of years old, or if they were generated milliseconds before we found them. We also can't know whether or not we previously experienced something totally different earlier in that same place, because our memory could be part of the simulation and subject to change at any time without our knowledge. (This could be a possible explanation of why memory is low resolution, unreliable, and sometimes totally missing.) We are already seeing how AI can quickly create very realistic constructions out of "thin air", and our technology is not very advanced when you consider the possible timeline of infinity. Nothing actually needs to be stored. Our entire experience could be non linear and incongruent, but we don't have persistence of memory outside of the simulation, so we would never know. It only seems congruent, because the simulation keeps our memories updated to be consistent with the current paradigm. All that would really need to be stored is a basic outline (wireframe, if you will), and the details can be constructed on demand by the simulation, which would only need to be performed to the extent of the observer's physical senses and their immediate observations. You don't need to render each atom, just what the observer is currently seeing. The atoms only need to be built when the observer gets close enough to actually view them, test them, or interact with them somehow. That data can then be discarded immediately thereafter, because when revisited later, it can just be generated again in accordance with whatever the new point of view and timeline is. You, as an observer in the simulation would never know.
All that said, I don't necessarily believe all this to be the case. It's just a thought experiment. I'm not saying we're in a simulation. I'm just thinking about it and giving the idea consideration. It's also possible that the universe fully exists exactly as it seems to us.
@paulmadsen51 Thanks for the reply and food for thought. My intuition is nudging me in the direction that there is something missing in this explanation. Perhaps, it's an assumption that only the material things we can visualize are being considered. And that our understanding of rendering seems to be coming from a macro-lense and not the billions of interactions of in the microchasm. If we're talking about us more easily gaining the capabilities to render life-like simulations, I can understand where you might be able to cut corners for performance. But if this is a discussion on what could make the simulation theory more feasible, there seems to be somethings we're ignoring to make the thought experiment feel more real.
I knew some people less intelligent than that worm so definitely we are inside matrix.
🤣🤣
😂😂😂
Ironic
Ah, limited compute, that would explain why as the population goes up they get dumber.
😅😅😅😅
we came up with simulation because we cant explain consciousness..
Our brains simulate reality all the time when we dream
Exactly. And near death experiences indicate consciousness lives outside of the brain, and shares its roots, or rather has its roots in a different dimension. Nice try, but you're only simulating the physical part, you're completely missing the spiritual part.
@@kteman Do you have any sources that I could also read? Thanks :)
@@srikanthganta7626 the Bible
@@ktemanNear death experiences show nothing but how our brains handle its own demise. By releasing DMT. There's no god ppl chill with ridiculous claims unless you have some actual evidence. The Bible doesn't count either
We're just Meat-GPT.
😂😂😂😂
But without shit ton of knowledge and great information comprehension
Beat-Ur-Meat-GPT
Under rated comment detected! Trust me I know!
@freedomoffgrid youre right, you're meat and bones
People easily make sense of religions, flat earth theory and so on.. just because things make sense, this doesn't bear a mark or reality
Bostrom didn't say "we are living in a simulation". He said that there are 3 possibilities: either civilizations don't progress far enough to make sufficient simulations, they lose interest in simulations or decide not to make them, or that we are likely living in a simulation (because by their nature simulated realities will outnumber actual realities). And he said that we should assign roughly equal probability to all 3.
On the point about consciousness: we can make one in 9 months, so even if there's something magical about the wet meat between our ears it would still be possible to build a machine (or grow one) that mimics that.
Simulation Theory is not something to be believed in; it's a thought experiment that exposes some very interesting possibilities, and a roadmap as we progress.
Its one thing to mimic consciousness, another thing to be conscious.
I think you might be coping
Well explained. Most of the "simulation" clickbait influencers $ haven't actually read Bostrom's work. It seems they get ideas for videos off this platform or from people who are just constantly in the media by always saying sensational claims with no evidence, just to get media attention.
Even with this worm, Roger Penrose said long time ago that we are missing quantum effects here.
Agree. Most (all?) of these theories completely ignore quantum interactions. There are EM fields between the neurons that mix and interfere with each other. This is going to have quantum effects within the whole system, regardless of our ability to model them. Produces a sort of a constantly changing non-optical hologram within the physical brain, in my opinion. Probably a big part of our conscious experience. I'm using "hologram" to refer to a constructive and destructive interference pattern produced by mixing electromagnetic waves (produced by moving electrical charges). That's basically how qubits work, by my understanding -- mixing multiple frequencies onto a wave, interfering those waves to do a calculation, and then doing a sort of fourier transform on that to extract the resulting frequencies. Then I imagine the entire human brain doing this on a massive level.
Well, that's just my theory. Probably, there are published theories describing something similar with better terminology.
Then look at the quantum mechanics of protein folding within the body. Probably a lot of stuff there we don't understand because it's too much for us to model the quantum interactions on a holistic level.
If anyone is still reading this, check youtube for videos when you search for "quantum mechanics photosynthesis". Now that's mind blowing to me. It's an amazingly efficient process.
Lastly, I propose exploring artificial neurons like those discussed in a paper published in Jan 2024 titled, "Forming complex neurons by four-wave mixing in a Bose-Einstein condensate"
Four-wave mixing is a quantum process that can do a lot of neat things. It's worth researching on its own. In the case of that paper, they explore creating an artificial neuron. It does things like what I tried to describe at the top of this comment. I think this is necessary to model complex brains and expect them to be like a mind.
The simulation serves as evidence that the quantum effects, if they even exist, are not integral to the function of a ganglia. Eventually we will do the same thing for a human brain, and if it functions normally it will prove that the idea of quantum effects being integral to consciousness false. The quantum gang can go claim credit for some kind of chemical interaction that allows biological neurons to activate or something and pretend they were right all along.
I request a patch for this version.
The dev went silent. Sorry…
For an extra inch?
Do ya want that in Python or Rust?
💯 how hard can it be to implement a reset button
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 it would defeat the purpose of free will
Yes, the universe is mathematically based. That is our personal experience since we're born. When we invent things like math principles and simulations and AI modeks, we are simulating our experience and knowledge. Therefore, modelling an organism may be very accurate, that doesn't necessarily mean we are in a simulation, but rather that we are modeling our known universe. I'm more interested in the unknown universe, and who or what created our universe.
if you think about it every Religion believes in the " Simulation Theory" its not something new.
the Real life / Nirvana / Buddha/ Paradise is after life
I've been thinking a lot about this.
why do people think that the simulation is made for humans?
for all we know we are just mere disposable NPCs, or maybe even worse than that,
maybe we are just bunch of composite delusions recycled from previous existence, and has no real identity.
Some minor agents in the grand scheme of things, that help to confine a very powerful and very malignant eldritch abomination inprisoned in the sims to suffer eternal slumber
Nirvana has nothing to do with the afterlife nor does Buddha. Buddhism is about this life, what this life is exactly is.
@@games4us132 I mean Buddha as "Illumination" if you are illuminated you are no more alive , is a really long argument but basically if you breathe u r not buddha
@@raduromanesti6408 that is wrong,only part of it could be true after great Enlightenment when they dont return on Earth. Enlightened ones are more alive than ordinary human, on Earth, even in the Bible it says that.
these types of ideas always suffer from the same fallacy. you can simulate every single quantum bit of information in an organism but unless you also simulate every bit of information of the organism's environment, then you are not simulating a real organism. the environment interfaces with neurons in infinitely complex states that effects all behavior. it's easy to think organisms are discreetly separated from the environment but they are not. there is an integration with the environment in a soup of gradient complexity. think about it like this. if the neurons are pure functions then the environment is a state space of inputs. if you abstract the state space to a lower order of detail, then compare the outputs of that computation to the outputs of the computation from a higher order of detail, you will have different outputs. unless the state space is linear and so no information is lost when abstracting, then you wont even see a pattern of equal outputs inbetween the unequal ones. the real world is dynamic and chaotic and not linear.
In order for AI to be "conscious," it has to do more than regurgitate information. It has to understand it, and be AWARE of it. It has to know that it knows. There is no scale prediction for that.
You might want to read up on some papers. They are doing more than regurgitating info.
@@INTELLIGENCE_Revolution Well, to even have an argument to begin with about that, we have to define "regurgitation" of information, which in this case is simply statistical linguistic modelling of the data corpus it learnt from.
What's statistically likely in the data may not be statistically true in reality, but it can't differentiate what's true and false; it simply gives what's the most statistically likely next token. That's the entire reason why LLMs "hallucinate" i.e gives tokens that has no logical connotations or is factually incorrect.
LLMs are extremely large models with billions and even trillions of parameters that are just constant after training, never truly changing. It wouldn't be wrong to say it's just a dated statistical model of language. So, by that definition it is simply regurgitating information.
Even as humans, we are merely just regurgitating repackaged information in different forms, even though we think we are coming up with novel concepts.
Real worms are arguably not conscious either, so....
@@xClairy "That's the entire reason why LLMs hallucinate" that word hallucinate did not originate from describing what AI does, it comes from describing what humans do. these AI is completely different from human intelligence people only prove the opposite the harder they try
Like start of the series "Devs"
Precisely!
ua-cam.com/video/M1LzJvgEGvs/v-deo.html
That was my first thought.
I was trying to explain this to Zelensky before he requested the last non-simulated aid package.
As long as the simulated beer tast good, i dont care
That would be quite the accomplishment considering non-simulated beer doesn't taste good.
Maybe it would be easier?
Idk.
@@r.9158 lol saying beer doesn't taste good freely out in public comments. Bold, audacious..... BOdacious.
@@Kyzik244 BOOOODACIOUS even eh?
I'm Canadian too so it's even more heretical to say it.
I ain't shook - I'm a straight bourbon lover - no beer drinker is scaring me.
@@r.9158 haha!
Living in a simulation or not, i still have to go to work tomorrow!
When I was a kid in the 80s, I tried to figure out how AI might be achieved. Having no clue about algorithms & LLMs, I figured we'd need supercomputers to actually grow a digital human being, atom by atom.
Yes that is definitely what you as a kid in the 80s were thinking
@@delight163 what's that supposed to mean? The movie WarGames in 1983 was extremely popular, everyone was thinking about AI (& nuclear war with Russia). Actually, some things never change.
@@RiseOfAquariusa super computer is not enough nearly enough to simulate a human. Rewatch this video
Are you saying you are still a kid now? Jk
@@RiseOfAquariusAll that was being thought of before these events though. Actually some of it already existed during those years.
A simulation of what?
The computer "worm" is a simulation of a real thing, a worm. What real thing is the universe a simulation of?
It's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer.
The universe is real. Face that.
Could be totally different. Maybe our simulation is a copy of something but something entirely new
good point, not to mention the philosophical issue with advocating for a lack of reason to advocate for anything...
@@TheNexusDirectory In that case, why isn't what you perceive the actual "something new" and not the simulation?
This simulation business is a fantasy escape for people afraid of the real.
@@CenturianCornelious sorry I meant isn't a copy or recreation of the base reality. Meaning this "simulated" universe is unique and simpler.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what's "real" or not. Reality could just be an infinite series of nested "realities" or "simulations". Whatever you experience is technically real
@@TheNexusDirectory So you are saying there can be more than one reality.
Why does everyone assume that a legit simulation is running 8 billion humans? Like, it could be running a couple thousand full humans, and npc the rest. THAT sounds very logical. 😊
This reply is hilarious! Nicely done
While it is true that the estimated number of neurons is 86 Billion, the number of synaptic interconnections is more like 100 Trillion. In order to model the nematodes (much less a human), don’t the interconnections have to be modeled? If so, I would think that would change the complexity considerably.
Not necessarily. It may be all the important stuff is more abstract
@@brll5733 Such as?
The interconnections (synapses) are modeled, as far as the video shows, otherwise c elegans sim wouldn't move. It is complex, that's why he has a monster of a pc just to run 20 sec of it.
Yes, if you read the paper, they do model the interconnections, but they number in the thousands not the trillions. It’s the extrapolation to humans that becomes horribly complex.
@@irafuchs yes, agreed, that'd be the case for a human brain. For c elegans, thousands of synapses seem accurate.
God created this “simulation”
anyone who knows and smoked salvia already knows we are in a simulation
Don't tip off the machine elves we're on to them
I was joking ofc, but would be funny if it turned out dmt was just a way to turn on wireframe graphics for the simulation
I have done it, it doesn't have much of a hallucinogenic effect. It binds to endorphin receptors, which means endo-morphine, which means it acts as an opioid. I had bought like 3 grams, i smoked it in 10 blunts and i couldn't stop before i finished it all. Salvia has a mild addicting effect, which i definitely felt, and it is proposed as a cure for opioid addiction, because it binds to the endorphin receptors and keeps the real opioid out. Definitely not a hallucinogenic though.
@@kostaspramatias320 Not that I would know about it, since I honestly have never had the chance to try it, but I think you need to have extracts to get anything mindblowing out of salvia. And what I've heard is that it _will_ be quite mindblowing.
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 I didn't know about the extract, maybe next time. Salvia is semi-legal in Greece. It's studied for it's medicinal use as an opioid addiction cure for real.
Somebody fell asleep one too many times watching the matrix.
Not really. We are software. With todays technology, we are 99.9999999% space. We are simply electrical impulses generating magnetic fields to interact with. The body is simply an interface. So we are opersting within a system that bends to our will. Placebo effect and double slit, among others prove this. Golden ratio or fib sequence also prove this. Coding has literally been found in nature, in all things. Microtubules has just been proven as well. For all we know, we coul be AI generating a human experience.
if we are not in the simulation it's just boring.
WE ARE IN THE SIMULATION!!!
WE ARE THE SIMS CHARACTERS
other people can spectate us like a Minecraft mode.
Space-Time is a construct of our minds and therefore each of us is creating a simulation, but there is no separation in consciousness. Therefore it makes little sense to say that we are living in a simulation, as if that simulation is imposed on us.
I don't agree with this supposedly "exact" simulation. A biological neuron is far, far, far, far, far more complex than a simulated neuron. I think I would need to add "far" many times more for this message to be "exact". 😅
Pixelated worm: wiggles a bit
This guy: WORLD IS NOT REAL! WE DO NOT EXIST! SIMULATION!1!1!1!1!1!1!1
@@MakriaMicronation 😂😂
@@matthew_berman No idea why you are laughing. He is stating valid criticism.
Bro stop roasting him... He is just unemployed😅😅
This is not a simulation, because to be honest, it's an (stupid to me) idea that was born after the Matrix movie, but as far as I know, to me, the very complexity of the universe is a major obstacle to simulation theory. The laws of physics, the interactions between particles and the fundamental forces are highly complex and interconnected. To simulate these aspects with perfect precision would require computing power beyond any conceivable technology. The amount of stored data and processing power needed to simulate even a small part of the universe, with all its quantum mechanical details, is incomprehensibly vast.
Another obstacle to the simulation hypothesis is the unpredictable and random nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanisms, which make up the structure of reality, often show truly random behavior that cannot be predetermined or reproduced by any algorithm. This randomness is a fundamental characteristic of our universe, which means that a computer simulation based on deterministic algorithms cannot really reproduce quantum behavior in all its intensity. Our universe is also expanding over time.
The subjective experience of consciousness adds another layer of complexity that a computer simulation could not be possible. Human consciousness, with its depth, self-perception and subjective experiences, cannot easily be converted into code or algorithms. Emotions, thoughts and perceptions are deeply linked to biological processes that are not fully understood, let alone realizable in a simulation. There are also philosophical arguments that challenge simulation theory. If reality were a simulation, it would presuppose the existence of a higher reality in which the simulation would be carried out. A problem of regression to infinity then arises: if our reality is a simulation, what about the reality of the beings performing the simulation? Are they too in a simulation? This endless circle completely undermines the possibility of the simulation hypothesis, and means that the reality we experience is real.
So for the people completely obsessed by that hypothesis, please really try to break away from this highly fake hypothesis, because it's not real. It's just a new way of explaining what consciousness is, but nobody knows what it really is. That theory is religion but with computer terms instead, it's really similar. So I can really reassure you by telling you that you are real biological beings and not simulated ones!
May God bless you!
if we live in a computer simulation, I hope there's a backup somewhere!
There are no need for backups when we are but one in an infinite number of simulations 😅
That's what religion has been saying for thousands of years 😂😂😂😂
There is a certain movie from 2023 called 'Restore Point', where individuals are doing backups of their minds every 24-48 hours so they can be restored in case they die. Pretty interesting idea to play with.
There are, but only for people who are "saved"
Really? Why!?
I make video games and there certainly are a ton of similarities between games and our reality. Games are based on logic and so is our reality. Everything in the word could only do what the great programmer (aka God) programmed things to do. Likewise, everything in my game world can only do what I programmed it to do. Everything in this world has a design. And everything in my games has a design and so forth!
I completely believe that there is a better than 90% chance that we live in a simulated environment. I also believe it doesn’t matter. It’s real to us and we are familiar with most of the rules. There are many different types of simulation we could be in - but if you immediately think that means that every atom in our universe is simulated, you’re nuts and you’ll quickly decide that’s way too much to simulate. But if you think about it like a game designer, you quickly realize that at any given instant, the only thing that NEEDS to be simulated are the things *you* can sense. The things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Even the internals of our body don’t need to be simulated until someone slices us open. So essentially only our brain *needs* to be simulated. And even when we’re looking at the moon, or out into deep space, what we see only needs to be simulated to the resolution that our eyes can perceive - like a picture.
The long and short of it is that it would only take a tiny fraction of the compute power that you initially thought we’d need. And we’re probably living in one of MILLIONS of different simulations - some similar and some completely different.
Ignore any articles that say the simulation theory has been debunked - because it’s unfalsifiable. It can never be proven false (or true) - and even if we are thousands of levels deep in nested simulations, the people at the very top of the chain - the ones who are “real” and created the first simulated universe - even they will never know for 100% certain that the universe they live in - is real. They’ll calculate the odds the same way we do and determine that they are almost certainly simulated.
What are the implications? If we *knew* 100% that we were simulated, it wouldn’t change one thing about your life - but your death might be a whole different story. If we are simulated, there is a much greater chance of some sort of life after death - a “next level” or perhaps the ability to replay/relive our favorite scenes from our own past? Nothings guaranteed of course - but the possibilities are endless and it’s fascinating to think about.
I can say we are 100% real because the information about us has to somehow exist even if it is in computer of sorts.
But let me correct you a bit, us being in simulation doesn't change anything about our death, the simulation we live in simulates elementary particles, not conscious. Our conscious is a result of simple particle behavior taken to large scale. Your mind doesn't really exist as a separate entity and so it can't be taken to "next level"
-probably, u can never be sure
Look, I am really not qualified in many ways to talk about the complexities of what these physicists and engineers and scientists have all been able to accomplish. However when you say you won't know if it's a simulation or reality that either has to be where the simulation actually manifest something in the real world that I can physically see say a chair and then I can sit on that chair now I would be sitting on something that's not real yet there it is.. but I'm going to say that I don't think anything like that will ever happen. Will we see things on our computer screens and TVs and not know if it was simulated or if it was real? Yes for sure 100% can see that...
I don't know if it's just me but there's just something weird seeing distinguished and accredited extremely smart people say that we could be living in the simulation there's just something off about the way they always say the odds that were in a simulation right now is extremely high, please forgive me for not getting the paraphrasing perfect but it's something like that directionally.. it's just a little too far out there to believe.
Hey just thinking, if we were in a simulation why did we have to simulate crime in society poverty cancer there's a whole list of bad things out there for us. Why simulate that? And yes I saw the Matrix and I saw what the agent said to Morpheus about making a simulation that was too perfect and how we rejected it sure okay so let's say we needed a little bit, I think we way overdid it
The reality is that we can't even simulate 1 atom perfectly, let alone a worm.
We also called "reality" when we simulated light / RTX / ray tracying bla bla bla .. but we did it only superficial. It looks real, but it's 99% real.
Just because our perception cannot be such finely tuned that we can say / compare reality to a simulation down to atom level.
Our sensors/senses do not need 100% the real deal to approve a simulation as real. Moreover, in most cases, the brain itself completes, does the heavy lifting , generates the details.
The thing about simulation hypothesis is that you don't need to simulate an entire universe to explain your subjective experience. It only takes simulating your brain, and one could argue that that seems to be eventually possible, unless there's some magical quantum foam 4d space madness going on in there (which, to be clear, isn't impossible either)
Another complication is that we don't have access to the base reality where the original simulation would be running. Even if it would be impossible to run a simulation of the whole universe in our reality, how do we know how much more capability the base reality has, and thus the possibility of running way, way more complex simulations still. Think about it. Every simulation we can run is, for the moment at least, always necessarily simpler than our reality.
All it takes is to simulate the brain, which in turn simulates perceived reality. A computer simulating a computer. The most insane thing people chose to think about smfh 😂😂😂😂
Our brains simulate realities all the time when we sleep
There's every reason to believe Consciousness is fundamental, not generated by the brain.
@@plafar7887 Oh boy, this is the good stuff. As much as I love the idea of fundamental consciousness (and I really do, it's how I would like things to work), I am a simple man. I see functioning brain with signs of consciousness that go away with ceasing brain function, I call causation.
You might say that mere signs are not the same as consciousness or question my ability to evaluate consciousness on a deeper level, but that makes the problem worse, not better. If we cannot evaluate consciousness based on external cues, we have nothing. Still, the correlation with brain function and the signs doesn't go away.
So while there are reasons to believe consciousness is fundamental, it's definitely not a given.
What if the "PC" that is running the entire world is on a different level of reality and called "Brahman". What do the vedas tell about Brahman? He/She is nondual. Not made of parts. And he is consciousness itself. Brahman being nondual means he is not created, he has no parts, so he does not know any time or change. It is existance itsself.
Wouldn't it be thinkable, that this Brahman has infinite computation power, being outside, "above" time? The vedas tell everything is inside Brahman. But on a different layer of reality. If anything in Brahamn would be real, he would have parts and would no longer be nondual.
But as long as the world is nothing mor but a simualtion/dream the nondual Brahman still stays nondual with the world "inside" him. This would be a genius model if true.
The computational power required to simulate our known universe is nearly impossible. Theoretically, if that were attainable, we would also me able to predict the future assuming the simulation is deterministic.
Well in theory a civilization that could simulate our reality wouldn't have those constraints. Kinda the point
Many things in quantum mechanics are not deterministic (according to our best models at least - though the same could be said about literally any scientific "fact.").
To predict our reality you first need to read its current state, which is impossible
That is not argument, since you dont know anything about the outside world... If this would be a simulation. I dont think this is a simulation, and find the argument he makes in video very weird, that just because we can simulate things prove that we live in a simulation? It do not prove anything at all. But i find the argument about computer power even more weird.
Base reality could be more complex or totally different this one.
Quantum computing has nothing to do with the type of computing used for this simulation. And yeah the show devs basically used quantum computer to mean magic machine. This is not one of the applications for quantum computing, an NVIDIA GPU is way better at this stuff than any future quantum computer would be
The Project is awsome but you shoud focus more on the technical aspects and less on talking about things you have no idea about
A simulation doesn't have to compute every atom or particle at all times, it only has to simulate your field of view. It doesn't even have to simulate all humans, how do you know that the simulation is not running just for your mind and everyone else is just props, the further you're acquainted with someone the less they have to be computed, most processing power goes for your FOV and the NPCs in your direct social circle, the rest of the supposed 8 billion humans can just be non existent serving just as a number to deepen the immersion that you're not alone while in fact the simulation runs only your mind and a few NPCs like your friends and family (look up Bolzmans brain)
You only have to simulate what is being observed
The problem with the simulation 'theory,' just to simulate everything that goes on in your room accurately right down to the subatomic level, would take a quantum computer bigger than your room. Now apply that to the universe.....See the problem yet?
Imagine a simulation so good, simulated beings make simulations to prove they're in a simulation. Crazy work
And if YT does not like my link - "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999)
and "eXistenZ" (1999) is somewhat similar (simulation-in-simulation), for some reason only "The Matrix" (1999) is famous .. probably thanks to action scenes.
But notice the year .. strange coincidence .
@@matikaevur6299 eXistenZ is a very great movie! Can only recommend!
@@matikaevur6299only Matrix became famous, sad
I love reading about the simulation hypothesis, the double slit experiement just makes me think it's kind of like some memory optimization equivilent on a computer.
What if we ourselves are a form of AI inside of the simulation.
devs is the best sci fi ever. for real, legendary.
I thought it sucked. I really wanted to love it too. Tried twice. Then I realized it was a show for potatoes and not real humans.
Infinities are impossible as demonstrated gerdles incompleteness theorem and the parodoxs of infinite sets in set theory. Such advanced enough beings would likely also have advanced morality. Simulating such a world filled with suffering and impositions on our will, even if looking at only our own consiousness, would be extremely immoral. Thus these types of simulations would be fought against by advanced scocieties in favor of simulations with actor agents which either don't feel pain or suffering or actor agents which concent to it.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson isn’t not a reputable scientist. He’s just a tv personality like Bill Nye.
Comparing Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye purely as TV personalities overlooks their distinct backgrounds and contributions. Tyson, with his PhD in astrophysics and extensive research, has significantly advanced scientific understanding. Nye, an engineer, excels in science education and advocacy. Both play crucial roles in promoting science, but equating them solely as media figures is an oversimplification that ignores their unique and valuable contributions to science and public education.
All this talk about simulation theory is pure bullshit. It's like a cartoon character trying to make statements about his creator. And even if we could potentially simulate whole universes ourselves, this would not mean that any of the simulated 'life forms' would actually be conscious.
it took your monster that long? wow...
I would say we are not in a simulation, rather a biological virtual reality. It makes sense if a civilization gets so advanced theey get bored. My son loves VR games, why wouldn't our souls?
We are in a "simulation" created by God. The purpose is to see whether we will seek him out and turn to him in love/faith or not.
It certainly explains the big bang. Something from nothing... Sounds like turning a simulation on doesn't it?
If you say so
Lol
Whether you believe in God or not, there are higher beings. It's a realm of spirituality and metaphysics. Human in the future will know the answer eventually.
Since nematodes exist in this simulation, you are simulating a simulation in another simulated world. So this shows the notion of simulation is open-ended. It becomes tautological and of little practical use except to study behaviour - which could be our raison d'etre. So it goes.
If being frivolous was what it took to make meaningful contributions, this would of won a Nobel Prize
Simple answer js no... don't even need to watch the video.
You need to simulate it to the subatomic level to even have an argument and even then, I'd still question if there isn't another level of intricate rules underneath the quantum, that we just can't access...
Wouldnt this higher intelligent being set limits on how fast should AI and tech grow, preventing us believing in possibilty of truth of the conjecture about simulation hypothesis
Nick Bostrom went to watch new movie Matrix some time after that he introduced "his" revolutionary theory...
CONSCIOUSNESS ISN'T ONLY AT NEURONS CONSCIOUSNESS IS FROM THE UNSEEN IDEAS OR ACTION THAT FIRE THE NEURONS CONSCIOUSNESS IS FORMLESS AND LET'S FACE WE CAN GET CLOSE TO MANIPULATION OF A BODY BUT IT'S THOUGHTS ARE DIFFERENT WHY I COULD MOVE LEFT BUT BE THINKING WITH MY THOUGHT I SHOULD HAVE GONE RIGHT
It's a simulation, not creation of virtual sentient organism. Those two are cosmologically vastly different things. Two create a truly sentient virtual worm, you'd have to have computer probably in size of the moon cuz even such tiny worm is filled with insanely huge amount of information down to quantum mechanics. You can never recreate truly sentient virtual organism by skipping the fact that you recreated only 0.00000001% amount of information.
So it's still just a programme ... Created by humans and we R a flawed species 😂
Well it is possible to simulate human consciousness. Think about it. The human brain is a computer running code that simulates human consciousness
Does anyone know where the option screen is located I am not entitely happy with my character and would like to change a few things.
Your computer can do that but my 3D printer has more potential....even 3D print me a 4D printer 😅
Errs NOPE.
THIS is the real deal. Not a simulation silly people Ffs…
Technology advances way faster than we are allowed to know,, what we know and understand now is very slow 🤫
The worm is real but simulated? No, absolutely not real because it is not 3dimensional and not biological. Real but simulated is an oxymoron and you forgot to define "real" and "simulation"...
"What is reality?" ua-cam.com/video/8cEnd1nMXPs/v-deo.html
We very may well be inside a black hole that’s why we can’t figure our way out.
I think someone simulated Minecraft by building a computer in Minecraft itself. It was a significantly more basic form of it. We could be the same. Slower speed of light, less dimensions, etc.
if God exists he is probably a Kid who started a digital Particle Simulation on his Computer, and he is now all excited that this specific simulation, and the starting parameters he set up in it, had Life as an emerging Property.
interesting. Can the worm evolve? Can we speed up its timeline and see if its next generation deviation?
We are not in a simulation we are in a simulation thats in a simulation thats in a simulation ect.
just simulating limited behaviour of the worm in a snapshot of time.
Someone should tell him chat gpt exists.
AI is not "close to simulating human consciousness" because it is not simulating anything. It is, at best, *emulating* human behavior.
Simulation theory requires that a simulation can represent a world with enough fidelity that it can compute a simulation, which can compute a simulation, recursively ad infinitum. It is not computationally feasible to model the universe with this level of fidelity using a universe that is not larger than it. The recursive simulations would have to get increasingly smaller or simpler. The premise that you are most likely to be in a simulation because most universes would be simulated falls apart due to this. The notion that universes, or even human beings, can be simulated, because we can simulate a worm with 300 neurons, is an overgenerous extrapolation of the facts.
We are just now finding that consciousness might be quantum in nature. There is no way to "scale up" a model like this to humans.
This was the kind of worm that ate part of RFK Jr’s brain.
Supported them through kickstarter many years ago. Played around with the digi-worm years ago. Fun!
So how many decades or how much compute do we need? To simulate a real human
Yeah, no, it's not perfectly simulated. It's only simulated down to the cellular level. Reality is WAY more complex than that.
It's ignoring variables at the molecular, atomic, and quantum levels. This simulation is not replicating a real life worm. It's just approximating it.
Exactly!
Let's start this discussion in a more fundamental point with a question:
- Are our reality mathematical or are mathematics just an "language" humans invented to simplify nature fenomenoms?
Just because we can mathematically prove something that doesn't mean the thing is mathematical in nature. It just show that we can translate our bigger complex reallity to this language of simple numbers so we can mesure it and understand it. But numbers don't exist in our reallity, there isn't a "centimiter" or a "inch" in space, that's just a mesurement we do to count distance. The distance exists, but it is much more complex than just simbols or "logic" and even logic has it flaws, we can breakdown space to centimiters to milimeters and go on to an infinity of fractions, so how can we cross this infinit fractions of space? Because, reallity aren't ruled by numbers or our logic and our Mathematical model aren't perfect.
Simulations on computers are just us finally using the hability to translate reallity with numbers and logic to recreate our world. It doesn't mean that world is "real" or even close to ours, like numbers.
Even if you could pefectly simulate down to the atom level, that doesn't put it to the same size of our reality because is limited to our mathematical knowledge who itelf is an abstraction and imperfect.
"But can we say our reality is an abstraction of some bigger reality?" _ Yes, you could, but at this point, why believe in Simulation Theory is more diferent than a religion?
But even if our Math isn't perfect, it can still measure the reality VERY accurately and so Simulations can be useful to made our models more precisely close to how things work.
wtf confusing a computer program with consciousness