Indisputably true, but it would be a mistake would be for anyone to think that because it is true that means it is "actionable."

There is nothing anyone should do differently in a simulated universe versus a "real" universe. It changes nothing.

But our nature is such that a few folks are bound to get hung up on the idea of escaping the simulation into the "real" world... which makes no sense. We are already IN the "real" world. As a computer simulation. The "real" world wouldn't be real to us at all.

You simply take the red pill.

the blue pill is the one to take

I took a massive dosage of both and nothing happened.

It's been a while since I've seen it. Welcome to DU, btw.

The "reality" in The Matrix is just another level of simulation in The Matrix. That explains why he could sense Sentinels coming in the "reality" world.

Brains in bottles cannot escape. The only hope is to make The Matrix better and enjoy the ride.

But I like it!

"Excuse me while I take the Red Pill, er ... was that the Blue Pill, er ... Excuse me while I kiss the sky. Hmmmm ... I'm hungry."

just part of the program.

What better way to keep people from accepting the truth than by only revealing said truth to "stoners"? That would totally discredit anyone later who came along and independently studies it.

Whoa.

And boy do I miss it.

it was black african creeper dope, man....

Or some would call that a mere abacus.

This idea first occurred to me in the 1960's and nobody took me seriously.

Now it's going mainstream and I am vindicated!

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Bostrom's arguments are convincing, but what I've always disagreed with him about is his notion of "ancestor simulation". He has this peculiar notion that simulations would be based on digitally reconstructing once-living ancestors. That strikes me as pointless when there are so many fictional, hypothetical worlds that could be created and explored.

It also seems to me that the simulation, in addition to being populated with simulated characters, is also a "play environment" for any number of "real" beings whose true existence lies outside the simulation. In other words, some of us are "player characters" (real) even those most of us are "non-player characters" piloted by the simulation software.

The "afterlife" is merely what we do between games, and reincarnation just means coming back into the game with a new player character. Of course to make the game experience truly immersive the interface is programmed to block our memories of our true self and our true existence beyond the game.

This cartoon explains it all.

Or maybe this is a therapy simulation for the disturbed. Would explain a lot. Let meta-Hitler work out his problems "harmlessly" in a simulated universe.

Excuse me while I pick up my plate from the floor.

and I love Quantum Physics

BTW my health bar is at 50% at this age in my life.

Damn computer stimulations.

...which it must ultimately be, though it's a workable model, then I don't know that there are questions about consciousness that require an answer.

We define ourselves as conscious. We say that consciousness is some thing that we have and a mouse doesn't have, but whether a mouse pulls the mousetrap to get cheese or we pull it for some incredibly sophisticated reason we thought up the mousetrap behaves the same way.

The implications are all behavioral. Nothing cosmic to ponder.

If, on the other hand, one takes the Copenhagen interpretation seriously on its own terms, then all bets are off and it's one big intellectual jail-break where one man's mysticism is as good as anyone else's.

There are many problems with the current paradigm — some obvious, others rarely mentioned but just as fundamental. But the overarching problem involves life, since its initial arising is still a scientifically unknown process, even if the way it then changed forms can be apprehended using Darwinian mechanisms. The bigger problem is that life contains consciousness, which, to say the least, is poorly understood.

Consciousness is not just an issue for biologists; it’s a problem for physics. There is nothing in modern physics that explains how a group of molecules in a brain creates consciousness. The beauty of a sunset, the taste of a delicious meal, these are all mysteries to science — which can sometimes pin down where in the brain the sensations arise, but not how and why there is any subjective personal experience to begin with. And, what’s worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a problem.

I don't know that algae doesn't think sunlight is beautiful, to the best of it's ability.

If consciousness is special then someone has to identify something about it that is special that doesn't boil down to, "I am the one doing the thinking here and I think I am special."

Unless we invoke some mysticism somewhere (which I grant the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics does) then the ghost in the machine is irrelevant except in how it is manifested physically.

It's like saying that oxygen combines readily carbon because every atom of oxygen thinks it is Napoleon and thinks that every carbon atom looks like Josephine. Unless that model says something different about the interaction than ordinary chemistry says it is irrelevant.

And unless consciousness interacts directly with the universe other than by directing chemical processes (like moving my hand) then why would physics care?

Without a physical manifestation of consciousness itself there's nothing for physics to explain.

but not a single physicist buys my solution:

Consciousness = Dark Energy

Problem? Solved!

I ain't no moran!!!!

And I even have another working theory, though not quite ready for publication - but soon! Soon! Well, sort of...maybe:

Dark Matter = Missing Socks

I'm having some trouble calculating the cotton matrix, but darn those socks! I'll get there some day, I will!! I will!!

You look ridiculous with your toes sticking out.

I wish the programmer had left a few more health packs and dialed back the difficulty just a bit.

I'm sure you've read quantum enigma, good book.

Whether computer-generatedor not..Since we believe we are what we are, then we are what we are.
The presence of a computer program does not change that andy more than a hand penetrating the clouds in blinding light and a voice thundering: "I AM" changes anything.

But if we are onto them, then that would explain the disappearance of telephone booths!

Into the Mystic.

into the mystic.

Favorite song. Thanks!

Yesterday..........and i can't go back to.because i'm here

I guess I'm just getting stuff out tonight.

... song. Haven't heard it in a while.

If not then we are.

I would need the following:
a 4 kwatt strobe light
18 apples (fresh)
2 100ml beakers of acetone
1 3inch platinum annulus
a poplar branch
a fifth of jack daniels
and 1.21 gigawatts of energy


I would do it, but I really don't have the time right now.

are actually barking up some of these same trees.

Jeez, I wish I'd gotten the math gene most of my fellow travelers of the autism spectrum have. I would love to have become a theoretical physicist or a cosmologist.

I favor strobes over strings.

maybe they don't even have hardware in any sense we can imagine...

but gives me a great excuse for any poor behavior on my part--hey, I'm just a helpless program!

I think the hardware ultimately doesn't matter, except in terms of efficiency. Any program could run in a "virtual machine," so the program is ultimately severable from the hardware... conceptually.

But there may be a philosophical wrinkle there above my head.

We would assume that our computer simulated world was "faster" than the real world, but maybe "their" computers are grinding away, with smoke shooting out of their vents, just to simulate one second of our universe in a day of "real" time.

It would feel the same to us.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Unless this is the part where Agent K forgets to leave a tip!

Wouldn't it be turtles, all the way down? At some point, wouldn't it crash even the most powerful hypothetical computer?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

This summer, Fermilab is putting the finishing touches on two "Holometers"; essentially ultra precise clocks which should be able to confirm if the resolution of this universe is the planck constant or some larger value.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/holometer-universe-resolution/

It is possible that recursive simulated universes would lose complexity at each step (a Godelian thing, I'd guess) and would quickly reach a set of rules where life wouldn't arise anywhere.

My (simulated) instinct is that we are in a universe where such a simulation is theoretically possible, but any universe we simulate would be much simpler than our own. (Since a perfect simulation of our own universe would be as big as our universe.)

That does not, however, answer the question. We could be a thousand rungs down the complexity ladder and still be complex enough a universe to contain simulated universes.

But yes, I suppose that the fact we can sensibly speculate about simulating a universe suggets we are probably not at the bottom of the process.

Or maybe we are. We don't know if we can simulate a universe.

I don't know that there is a limit to the layers that could be above us, though.

The parent universe might be vastly more complicated, nuanced and subtle than this cartoon rendering - which seems perfectly normal to me.

photocopy of a photocopy.

not a real universe...

A blind person is getting a smaller, simpler array of input than a sighted person, but the blind do not seem to question their reality.

We could be missing five senses people in the "real" world have, including senses to detect forces that don't even exist in our universe, and we wouldn't know, or care.

If you think you are real you think you are real. And who knows how much a mind can be reduced while retaining that conviction?

Evolution suggests that we are near the simplicity-bottom of possible consciousnesses since we are the first ones here.

(Not because evolution tends makes things more advanced, which it doesn't, but because the fact that we seem to be first-generation consciousness suggests that we took some relatively small steps to get here from a smart-but-not-conscious predecessor, and would be about as close to that predecessor as one could be while making the cognitive jump.)

We're getting down to the bottom of the tower of turtles in the stupidity department.

Always.

And then have to endure the painful 13.7 billion year wait for humanity to evolve and create internet porn.

something this guy would say?

It is virtually totally unlikely that humans will ever go extinct.

Oxymorons are something we can safely omit from the next recursion.

That's a diss. I ain't no ox moron.

I'm having my doubts that we'll make it another century. I'm very interested in why you believe we're so destined to remain as a species. If climate change doesn't do us in, I have to think it won't be too long until nukes do. I wish I had your faith in humanity.

I hated to sound like a jerk but there's been a lot of WW3 fearmongering in recent years.....and TBH, most of that has come from the Alex Jones types....

To be honest, I have my own doubts about humanity's short-term future. It does seem that we are already in for some rough decades ahead and some of us may not live to see things get better, and no doubt many people across the world will suffer. On the other hand, it is an enormous stretch of the imagination to think humanity will cease to exist within the next millenium, let alone a century from now, or even that WW3 as we traditionally think of it, is inevitable at any point in the near future.

What is more likely to happen is that the earth will reach a tipping point. A point where things get so bad so quickly that even with incredible concerted effort, nothing can be done to stop the change. I would love to believe that future technologies will exclusively be used for the benefit and advancement of humanity, but I'm more likely to believe that future holds far too many ways for us to blow ourselves up efficiently and cheaply. I romanticize about mankind colonizing the galaxy. Hell, even our own solar system. But it's only when I'm at my most optimistic that I see us ever making it as a species to get to that point.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/earth-tipping-point/

But the Earth isn't going to change forever(or humans going extinct, for that matter!) barring some truly cataclysmic event like another asteroid such as that killed the dinos.

To be honest, it's possible that some of the changes that have already occurred may not be reversable by us humans and we will have to rely on Nature to complete the repair of our planet, which could take many decades, even if we get a lot done over the next 10-20 years or so.

In billions of years, that is. However, the earth won't need to have a permanent change in order for humanity to die out. A global nuclear winter might only last a few years, a blink of the eye in the overall life of the earth, but it might be enough to do us in, especially when you consider the climate change that's likely to precede it. The earth is incredibly resilient, if mankind dedicated itself to destroying the planet, it most likely couldn't. However, it wouldn't take much work at all to make our planet uninhabitable for humans. Earth is going to be fine, it's humanity I'm concerned about.

Other than that, I too, am concerned about humanity's short-term future, and it is indeed possible that civilization could undergo a significantly severe contraction in which many nations might not survive in their present form, maybe even our own, or Canada, or Germany, or New Zealand, even.
On the other hand, humanity isn't just going to go away.....some of the lower life-forms might, though. =(

We all exist within an endless quantum loop of crunchy deliciousness.

they chew on humanity.

I have used the argument several times that if you assume we are running many complex simulations and data models at this very moment how can you assume that the world you are living in is not in fact a simulation... most people just laugh... I assume they are part of the simulation and that is a build in sub-routine....

simulation. I don't really mind it, but interfering with the principal players from time to time sounds like fun.

... "I have come here to kick ass and chew bubble gum.... and I am all out of bubble gum".

With a religious friend. She suggested this is God's Game with humankind. I told her if this is a game, I'm totally pissed, with all the energy expended on it, all the pain living beings are suffering.

I told her some say the mood or content of reality is our own making, I intend to make the best of it, even if trapped inside of a game.

At times, I wonder if in denying physcial reality as some do, we are playing into the hands of those who do control most of that here, instead of facing them.

The answer is 42, or 23, or something.

That the aliens think has gone on too long!

that's when the fun begins.

I have to be honest with you: I have always found the concept of parallel universes to be far more plausible and not quite as farfetched.

A "many-worlds" version of reality would still involve worlds that could or could not simulate universes within each world.

I guess the question would be whether a simulated universe could be a many-worlds universe spawning an infinity of different universes with each new subatomic reaction.

That sounds like too much processing power for a simulation... but it also sounds like too much processing power for reality.

So in for a dime, in for a dollar. If I can imagine an infinite reality then I guess that infinity can have room for almost-infinite simulations.

"Ready for maintenance alignment."

"Detail dress circuits."

"Above belt, 'A'. Below, 'B'."

&quot Okay, watch this...) Clem clone, close 'B', close mode."

ZOOOOOT!

"Ohmigawd, his pants disappeared!"

Yeah, sounds pretty much like my life. My luck to be part of an interdimensional RPG being played by some zforkik-faced, erplag-stained-fingered zweebmint still living in his parent's blrbnok...

I have a life-sized map of the United States. I keep it everywhere.

That's my only sticking point, no pun intended. From what I gather the universe divides by zero all the time, and with ease.

Exploring the Mandelbulb and Mandelbox was all the proof I needed that non-zero point space/time can be simulated digitally, so I agree with you there.

than any simulation within it. So I assume some disparity of physical laws and such.

Zero-point space might be normal math in that universe.

It is impossible for us, here, to perfectly simulate our universe, but I'll bet somebody in our universe can simulate a universe whose inhabitants are convinced of the reality of their universe, which is all it would take.

(And assuming that our current universe is simulatable in some universe, even if not in ours.)

but the universe is none of those.

...that does not, in itself, mean that any given metaphor must be defective. (Particularly if it is not too literal. I doubt many Deists really thought the universe was full of giant metal springs and gears, and the metaphor of a diety that set a universe with natural laws in motion and then left, with the universe running within those laws without ongoing divine influence, was a pretty sophisticated thought.)

But yes, there is much cause for humility when considering the way we make metaphors of creation from available technology that we create, from gods molding man from clay to a deity creating a clockwork universe.

When someone today says, "computer simulation," in this context, it doesn't mean a bunch of silicon circuits.

It just means information processing.

If someone pictured the Greek gods on Olympus running our world on Windows 12 that would be a very weak conceptual leap.

I agree that we should be leery of overly literal computer metaphors, but any conscious species will eventually happen on the useful idea that everything is made of information, and is unlikely to do so without the example of mechanical processing, but that does not mean that the very broad information metaphor is dubious.

Or it might be all wrong. Just saying that the fact that our minds are limited (true) doesn't mean we can never happen along something deeply true.

I doubt our universe exists in a computer as we think of the term, but whether this is the only universe or not, it is running in a framework that computes, in the general sense.

seek data, etc. = the limits of man's thoughts.

always has been...always will be...


Tikki

I think we've got a computer virus. Where's Norton when you need it?

...discusses this possibility but it's mostly dismissed.

And very eye-opening with its implications if true.

that was even before we had computers or The Matrix.

Would that, then, make our programmer God?

A god has to be supernatural. Universe simulating mutants from the planet X is weird, but not supernatural.

"I hear that outside this universe, the people can do all manner of magic. Dare not insult them or they shall smite thee with respawning monsters."

Besides, who said anything about planets? Maybe planets are a simplification device used in this simulation. Maybe the winged universe simulating mutants live on clouds and play harps all day.

Just another physical, real-space entity. Not a metaphysical god.

You typed "programmer", as if you had forsaken Natural Law, or that Natural Law had forsaken you.

Heh, I had this in my browser history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

"A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:

1. The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero;
   
2. The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero;
   
3. The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.

If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).
Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."

Chalmers, in The Matrix as Metaphysics agrees that this is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a Metaphysical Hypothesis.

Until then it just sounds like someone's spending their research grants on some good bud.

Maybe there's just one simulation. Or five?

Why MUST there be vast number of them, just because this one is (maybe) a simulation?

Look how popular The Sims is.

One wonders what sort of hardware might be necessary to simulate a universe, right down to the cellular and even sub-atomic level.

Since humans are smashing atoms all the time.

The Sims has improved tremendously since it first appeared. Just extrapolate to the trillionth version.

If it is possible in any universe then it is probably equally possible for billions of intelligent species. (The universe is very large. Many times larger than we thought it was even 40-50 years ago. And there's no reason to assume a hypothetical other universe wouldn't be large also)

If it were possible then a simulated universe would probably be a kid's game somewhere... an alien science fair standard... something for hobbyists.

An experimental astrophysicist would run simulations of universes where pi is equal to 3... to 2.96867... to 2.6666666

Think of the total number of weather simulations we run every day.

And even though a simulation seems like billions of years from the inside, they might be run in a day on the outside.

In general, technology doesn't stop at one. And if such computation is possible it will be developed time and again and again and again on different planets.

If the Meta beings got bored and switched off the system would we even know?

First, is it possible for creatures that think they exist and are conscious to be utterly mistaken? In a universe of unknown simulations status, if a creature thinks erroneously it's intelligent, would that negate the possibility that the universe is simulated? Or would it negate the possibility that the simulation is successful? I mean, if there's one thing we know about any creature, they're fallible, even in making mistakes about the state of their own thoughts and thought processes.

"The core question is this: Is it possible, in any time or place in any universe, for a universe to be simulated that contains entities that believe themselves to be conscious and real?

"If it is possible for our universe, and ourselves within it, to be a computer simulation then the odds are overwhelming that we, you and I, are in a simulated universe."

But unless the premise in your first paragraph is true, and you don't know the odds that it is, your conclusion is false.

I have counter-hypothesis. So far, at smallest scale we could see and detect, there are no 0s and 1s to be found. In fact, quantum laws are probabilistic, not binary.

If chaos theory is an indication, and it looks like, as with statistics, chaotic systems apply to the whole universe at whatever scale, you should have symmetry of scale. That is, if you could at things small enough, you will find something like the universe that we see inside sub-sub-sub atomic particles. If you could look large enough, ultimately, the universe, or what contains it, would look like a subatomic particle like an lepton or quark.

Because the universe is not reductionist, and is full of quantum uncertainty, I doubt we could be a simulation run anywhere in a universe just like ours. So the meta-universe would probably have different natural laws such that our universe is simplified, from their perspective.

As for the 1s and 0s... I doubt a universe simulation would be literally binary. Just making a general point. A perfect simulation would have to put every atom through a range of quantum possibilities probabilistically. A big job.

But in a universe where six dimensions are available for chemical interactions who knows what is or is not a lot of computing?

As far as the success of a simulation, I do not assume that the programmer of a simulation we lived in would have any interest in us, or even in life. Any sufficiently good simulation of a universe with our physical laws is going to produce a lot of life, but if life is the focus then why simulate a whole universe?

Earth could be simulated a lot more easily. Just create Earth with the sun and moon as they are, and the right elements everywhere, and let it go from there.

Since our simulation (if we were in a simulation) seems to have a vast astrophysical history from the big bang on it seems likelier, to me, to be a physics experiment, rather than a biology experiment.

I meant that since awareness of oneself as being conscious was the only evidence of the equivocal possibility that you had, that the point of whether something that believes its conscious, or has an internal process that affirms it, is really conscious, then the whole possibility is doubtful. If you then say, well, the universe isn't reductionist, then there is no premise to our being in a simulation.

You then said there are many more simulated universes than real ones. It's similar to saying that there are many more false statements than true ones.The proposition that this universe is a simulation is saying exactly "Everything in this universe is false." "This universe is a simulation," is exactly like saying, "This statement is false." "Most universes are simulations," cannot be the premise to "This universe is a simulation," anymore than "There are many more false statements than true ones" is a premise to "This statement is false."

Quantum uncertainty is due to the fact that events at the higher orders of magnitude are completely dependent on events at the lower orders. And apparently, the orders of magnitude are in a continuum as large and as small as we could see.

You don't really get anywhere conjecturing about whether this is a "simulation." For any "Sim," its universe is real. It doesn't have the sensory gear or mental wherewithal to see beyond it. Let's just say, it's operating beyond its parameters. Conjectures about a meta-universe are always going to be fictional. There's no way to find out, and sense you have no model on what a "true" universe would be, that line of inquiry is futile.

A computer simulated environment would never allow such an abomination of a movie to be produced.

I don't think a simulation this complex would be run on a binary computer, but even if it was, I doubt that we'd have access to the actual 0s and 1s. Everything we sense, either with our natural senses or with our technological instrumentation, would be simulated information fed to simulated senses or instruments. We wouldn't be able to detect the actual bits any more than we'd be able to detect the silicon and wires that store and move those bits. We'd only have access to the simulated information. That's the only thing that would have any reality to us.

The probabilistic nature of the universe would be the result of the algorithms used in the simulation. Presumably it's probabilistic because a purely deterministic algorithm would be boring; consistently giving the exact same outcome for any given start state.

The concept doesn't rise above fiction. Yes, you could explain why you wouldn't find evidence, but if you don't find it in the first place, the hypothesis can't be serious.

Since every simulation that we know of runs on binary systems, we could then say that universe shows no evidence of a binary system. Therefore, we have no evidence of it being a simulation.

Let's say, you're playing the Sims, and you have a Sims physicist. Sooner or later, he's going to find the 0s and 1s. If it's possible to run a simulation any other way, we'd have find out first and see if anything in the universe resembles that. Otherwise, it's not even a testable hypothesis.

The universe runs on chaos theory and probabilities. A binary system is just a good way of recording and manipulating information. Natural events generated in the universe mostly bubble up from smaller to larger scale. Like the butterfly flapping its wings causes a hurricane in the other hemisphere three months later. Whereas simulations are generated from at a larger scale and imposed on a smaller scale. If they differ from a "real" universe, it would be that they are superficial. This implies, among other things, at some time probability will collapse and you reach a level that's utterly determined.

We definitely haven't found that in our universe.

The idea may not be falsifiable. If it's not, then it's not scientific.

I can think of one type of evidence that could conceivably be present in such a simulation. If we could show that the randomness at the quantum level is actually pseudo-randomness, it would raise some interesting questions. However, I have no idea how you'd look for that or how'd you'd avoid finding false signals among the noise. If it's possible I'd imagine it might involve entangled particles somehow.

Such notions tend to make people jump to faith, or perhaps even form new religions. That's why I caution. Otherwise, they belong in fiction.

of quanta. It is as digital as anything else, but is not predictable.

The turbulence in fluid flow is an emergent property but the fluid is still discreet molecules mad of discreet atoms, each behaving in a fairly simple way relative to each other.

That's why our universe is the simplest program for determining what happens next. Because of the complex emergent properties you cite it cannot be predicted except by itself.

_________

The "IF" in the OP presumes a simulation that is not contrary to any evidence we have. I short-handed that into the internal belief we are real, but that subsumes a lack of evidence to the contrary. (Which would cause us to no longer believe that.)

. . . we can detect. You might think it's as "digital as anything else," except that's not the contrast I was making. I said binary. Does it reduce down to a series of yes's and no's? No, it doesn't. You can't model quantum states with its probabilities with binary states.

Otherwise, you're also wrong about it being digital. It's not when you get to irrational numbers. You know, the ones found in such "complex" things like Pi, where the numbers are at best, frustrating approximations? We can break this down into digits, than use the derived digits for simulations, but there's that irrational element that's always going to make any simulation inaccurate down the road. Second we can only take our recording down to a certain scale, then we have to impose this on the higher scales.

The probabilistic nature at the quantum level means that the universe is inherently chaotic, and chaos is not emergent. What's emergent from chaos is order. We perceive order and chaos as being opposite, but actually, order is a subset of chaos. You only think of chaos as "emergent" because we interpreted natural law from the most ordered systems we could find. We did that by artificially simplifying many systems. In nature, they're not simple. It then took us a long time to be able to recognize those very same natural laws also lead to chaos. You're getting it backward in thinking chaos is emergent.

The probabilistic nature of the quantum level indicates that, in fact, anything underpinning the quantum level is also chaotic. Chaos isn't emergent from order. What happens is the rare occurrance of order reverts to the usual state of chaos. We can impose a binary order on a lower scale to create a certain chaotic system at a higher one, but that just shows how unstable order really is. Order is emergent from chaos. It means that a binary system is also a subset of chaos.

I don't know what you mean by "cannot be predicted except by itself." The run- through is not a prediction.

"The "IF" in the OP presumes a simulation that is not contrary to any evidence we have. I short-handed that into the internal belief we are real, but that subsumes a lack of evidence to the contrary."

To paraphrase the OP who said that simulations outnumber real universes, there are many more false statements than true ones. In an absence of evidence, you should not confuse yourself by thinking it's even likely true. Especially when you don't have a physics degree. How often can you count on being wrong betting on a horse race? No, you can't prove that a certain horse won't win. Yet, you could guess right about the nature of the whole universe? At least without studying physics for 20 years? Absence of contrary evidence is definitely not enough.

It might seem harmless, but our many religious wars show that this is sometimes not the case. People can begin to get religious about their best guesses, and it gets worse when it can't be proved.

However, it's fun anyway. I would suggest writing fiction about it. But approach it as though it's your favorite horse in a race with infinite contenders. Then, you'll be humble enough.

you mean that our universe is in a holocube on someones desk!!!!???? computer , end program !!!

and no Kennedies were assassinated, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are in prison for war crimes. Why couldn't I be in one of those sims?

Oh . . . I probably am. That other me is so-o lucky.

The history of the development of logic demonstrates that nicely. It might be best to think of logic as an empirically evaluated system of inference. How do we know that "logic" is "right"? Our bridges don't fall down.

A good example of changing logic is the law of the excluded middle. It states that either a proposition is true or the negation of the proposition is true. It's a rule of logic from antiquity that has been discarded by many modern systems of logic.

All that aside, your claim that your conclusion is a logical necessity is dubious:

Let's rephrase your question as a statement, "It is possible..." and call it A. Let's call "the universe is likely simulated" B. Your argument for our universe being a simulation is then

1) If A then B

Statements like 1) are logically true if A is true and B is true or if A is false. There are two issues here. Is 1) true? Is A true? From your argument, we can only conclude that B is true if both 1) and A are true.

Is A true?
Well I can certainly imagine it, if that's what you mean by "possible", but this sort of reasoning fell out of favor with philosophers when they realized people can imagine some pretty strange things. If "possible" actually means possible then we have no way of knowing. (And here, by complete coincidence, I'm invoking the flaw of the law of the excluded middle!)

Is 1) true?
For 1) to be true you need a lot more than logic. You also need to specify your form of statistical inference (probably bayesian) and the precise philosophical meanings you're ascribing to probability. You also have to justify your choice of probability distribution. These are the assumptions of your argument and do not rely on logic. It's also suspect how you can come to a reliable conclusion based on one observation (our universe).

In conclusion, based on a lack of logical necessity, a premise with unknown veracity, the reliance on a boatload of probability assumptions, and the inapplicability of statistical inference using one data point, I find no compelling reason to believe that we are living in a simulated universe. But it is fun to think about.

my clumsy phrasing (and irrelevant first sentence) shouldn't be allowed to detract from the lovely general argument (which is not mine, of course)

You are correct that possible does not equal certain. But given that the number of intelligent species in our universe is probably in the billions it seems reasonable, to me, to treat questions about what comes of beings in multiple universes as being fairly exhaustive of the possibilities.

But nobody could put any number on such a thing.

WTF!!! Peel back all that impossible, yet spectacular existence and it is just another shitty, rundown script.

70% of IT is hexadecimal gibberish.

Many of the theories I've seen indicate that there are an infinite number of universes, including parallel universes.

By definition, it would be impossible for an infinite number of computer simulations to outnumber the infinite number of "real" universes.

The very concept of infinity is just about impossible for the human mind to even grasp.

I don't remember what the heck one does with this in math, but I remember the example:

Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of numbered rooms.

So there are an infinite number of even-numbered rooms.

But we know there are twice as many total rooms as there are even-numbered rooms.

"Coffee break is over. Back on your heads !"

I should at least be able to fly.

The tagline is, "Could the Universe be a single, living organism?"

Sounds really interesting, but then again that show always is.

Because a simulated universe could only exist if a real universe did, and because a simulated universe need not exist (and we do not know if it is possible for it to exist) it is hard to suggest that the conditional dependent is more likely than the required precursor.

An apartment complex may have no cockroaches. If, however, it does have any cockroaches then it very likely has a lot more cockroaches than apartments.

It is possible that such simulation is impossible in all universes. (If there is only one universe then our universe is "all universes.&quot And if it is impossible everywhere then no species will ever do it.

If, however, it is possible and something that beings develop the computing power to do then they will run many simulations. Few technological species will stop at one light bulb, one atom bomb, one iphone. If you have computers that can do it then you'll run simulations of all sorts of universes with different conditions, different laws.

And there would be a million species developing the same technology. Every technologically advanced species in our universe (of which there are surely millions if not billions, since even only one per every ten galaxies would result in a huge number) has developed the atomic bomb, theoretically if not building one. Everyone has the periodic table of elements. Everyone knows about evolution, though few of them would have DNA, etc.

If simulating universes to such high resolution is doable a bunch of folks will do it just to do it.

It only takes a few species to make simulated universes the hot toy for Christmas to get into some big numbers.