The possibility that our reality may actually be virtual has been suggested. It is possible that an unknown agency called “The Others” has created a computer simulation in which we ‘exist’. The problem with this scenario is that it would be impossible to replicate our Cosmos exactly (including ourselves), without a computer that is twice as big as our Cosmos and has the crunch power to duplicate them one-to-one. This is absurd. Realistic simulations can be done without relying on a one-on-1 correlation.
WHY ARE YOU A SIMULATION
Another thought about the Simulation Hypothesis is that we “exist” as bits and bytes and not as quarks or electrons. Virtual reality is what we are – simulated beings. Here’s the “why” behind everything.
Real worlds, which we assume ours are, simulate virtual reality worlds. There are lots and tons of them. So the ratio of virtual reality to real worlds is a lot and lots and lots. This is why we shouldn’t assume that our world is real. One might postulate “The Other”, where “The Other”, could be technologically advanced extraterrestrials who create their own version of videogames or the human species. However, it is possible that our real world is actually a virtual reality world inhabited only by simulated earthlings (like ourselves).
One interesting side note is that we assume that “The Other”, whether biological or extraterrestrial, are biological entities that like to play “what-if” games with computer hardware and software. However, “The Other” could be highly developed A.I. Artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence), where consciousness plays “what if?” scenarios.
SIMULATIONS AND COMPUTER CRUNCH NEEDS
Each simulation world however requires a certain amount of computing crunch power. Each of the thousands of video games we play requires a different amount of computing power. These video games may require a lot of computing power, but it is only the total number of games that is counted. All video games can be played simultaneously on different computers. There is no need to increase crunch power when you have a tenfold increase of video games and a 10fold increase of computers on which they are being played. Although video games of today may require more crunch power that those from twenty years ago to function, we have met that requirement.
If a real world produced thousands of videogames, and the characters from each one of those games created thousands more videogames, then there is an ever-increasing demand for crunch power in that real world. However, that doesn’t mean that the ever-increasing need for crunch cannot be met. However, this is not the overall scenario being promoted. Let’s stick to one real world that creates thousands of unique simulated virtual reality realms. Video games. Ockham’s Razor recommends that one does not complicate matters unnecessarily.
Murphy’s Law could be interpreted as: Computing crunch power is used to expand to meet available crunch power.
These skeptics assume that if you simulate something, you will eventually pour more and greater crunch power (as soon as it becomes available) into the thing you are simulating. It is difficult to understand how this follows from necessity. You can create and sell video games if you invest X amount of crunch power. You might only see 2Y sales if you put 10X power into it. The law of diminishing returns is an alternative.
Video gamers might always desire more. However, when the crunch of the computer and its software exceeds that of the human gamer (chess software anyone?), there is no reason to want even more. While a human gamer may be capable of photon-torpedoing a Klingon Battlecruiser at One-Quarter Impulse Power at a speed of one-quarter power, a fleet of them at Warp Ten could be an entirely different scenario. Gamers are not always frustrated or outperformed by their games. They play to win.
It is not economically sensible to pay a monthly fee for 1000 computer crunch machines, but only use 10.
The bottom line is that computers have the power to simulate as well as we have. It’s all a matter of degree. They are “The Other”, or The Simulators.
LIMITS ON GROWTH
Is there a limit to crunch power? Before I agree to that, which I eventually do, opponents assume that crunch power will not take quantum leaps. Perhaps even unreached of quantum leaps in future generations. For starters, I presume that we don’t have enough computing power in the 21st century to simulate the Cosmos on a single-scale. This analysis could be altered by quantum computers. I don’t know much about quantum computers, but I have heard the hype. Are crunch power sceptics able to predict what will or won’t be possible in 100 years, 1000 years, etc.? The ability to increase computing power may be possible for some time yet. Isn’t it possible that the next innovation will be a 2-D chip and a 3-D one?
Moore’s Law, which doubles computing crunch power every 18-24 months, can’t continue indefinitely. I didn’t know that I.T. Moore’s Law has been argued that it could continue “forever” by some. This is a little stretch.
Even if we accept the fact that we are all greedy and want more, and more, and more crunch power, and, by extension, our simulators, then there will be limits. Engineering limits may exist, such as how to deal with heat production. There might be resolution limitations. Technology limits may apply, such as quantum computing not being feasible or possible. You may have to accept economic limitations. For example, you might want to upgrade your computer but your budget is too tight. So you apply for a grant for new research to purchase a supercomputer.
Our highly-skilled simulators may have reached the limit of computer crunch power and she has written all she can. It’s possible that there’s a speed of light barrier equivalent to limiting computer crunchpower. Our simulators also have competing priorities, so they have to split the economic and research pie.
I have never heard or read about arguments that the Simulation Hypothesis presumes an ever-increasing level of crunch power. It assumes that the computer programmer or software developer has enough crunch power to accomplish their goal, nothing more.
The computer/software simulator will be as efficient with bits and bytes as possible, but still maintain the desired level of realism. This makes sense.
Our simulated reality must be convincing enough to fool us. If we “exist” as simulations, then you will experience nothing but a simulated reality. You won’t even be able recognize real reality, no matter how hard it tried to force you!
THE ONE-TO-1 FALLACY
One objection is raised by those who claim that it’s impossible to create realistic simulations with enough computing power. Realistic means one-to-one relationships. However, such a level of realistic is not necessary. We might not even be able conceive our simulator’s real reality because we haven’t known any other reality than the one we currently exist in. Other realities, i.e. – Simulations of our reality that we create. This includes dreams, films and other media.
CGI can now achieve a level of realism that is equal to what we actually experience with our daily lives. You must have seen movies with lots of CGI in them over the past five years. Even though you knew it was CGI, you couldn’t tell the difference between the simulations (like the dinosaurs in Jurassic World) and the real thing (like actors). You can still tell the difference between live action and film action in 3-D.
You might be able to tell the difference between film and live action in this reality. But what if the live action was just as realistic as film? You can’t know the real world if you live in live-action virtual reality. But if you watch virtual reality films that you can tell from your own, you won’t be able to discern the reality of our simulators. We can also not know how much they have invested in their hobbies, gaming, research or other interests (although we could be a great “what if?” sociological experiment). Their Moore’s Law may give them 1000 units of crunch power but they can only afford 100. You might not be able to buy the luxury lifestyle you want, such as a yacht, several sports cars, and 28-bedroom mansion.