Elon recently shared publicly that he has thought about this a lot, and concludes that there only a 1 in a billion change that we are not, and actually exist in a base reality.

I remember getting into these exact topics with him in 2012, on a bus, in Texas, on our way to the local Dairy Queen. Truth is stranger than simulation. =) He brought up the speed of light, and I brought up the Planck-length limit, the complexity bounds for a digital world. I posted a reply back then on a discussion the “Light-man” was having on the same topic, where he referenced coincidences as a starting point .

In short, I argued that the inaccessibility of most of the universe may offer the gamer-physicist mind a clue that we live in a simulation. If the universe is simulation, the distant stars and solar systems can be rendered with simple algorithms, much like immersive worlds in the games we play today; the horizon is always out of reach. In our universe, it all results from the peculiar and apparently arbitrary limit of the speed of light. As we look farther out, the view becomes degraded and eventually collapses to a singular big bang event as we look back in time. And we can’t go past that. It’s beyond reach, and that seems just so convenient. Much like the Planck length limit to the voxels of our world — the Minecraft cubes of inner space.

More on this: Bostrom’s www.simulation-argument.com and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

And then an interesting paper came out just after that 2012 post: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation with the concluding teaser: “in principle there always remains the possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators.” (arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v1.pdf)

These simulation limits, for inner and outer space, remind me of the old question of why it gets dark at night? If our universe of galaxies extends out infinitely in space, and it they existed for an infinitely long history, then the sky would be brighter than the sun in all directions, day and night. So the universe cannot have an infinite number of stars and have existed forever.

7 responses to “Are we all AIs living in a simulation?”

  1. I have loved this discussion since first reading "The Singularity is Near" by Kurzweil. I feel like another clue is quantum mechanics, physics etc etc, almost like we’ve begun to "lift up the carpet" on the simulation so to speak. Wonderful share, thanks so much Steve!

  2. If I were creating a simulation, though, I’d have it detect efforts to test whether or not it was a simulation, then dedicate extra resources to subvert the tests.

  3. In a simulation you can’t have irrational numbers as everything needs to have a fixed value. in other to create upper and lower bounds. since Pi is an irrational number it’s safe to say we don’t live in a simulation

  4. But you can represent Pi with rational numbers. Mathematica exists.

  5. I would also caution against using the phrase "safe to say" when there is so many other variables. I think it would be justifiable to believe that mistakes could have been made when implementing such a massive environment, Pi could be one such mistake.

  6. Last week, legal 29% THC Colorado cannabis + 9,500 feet of altitude in Telluride = several veil-piercing glitch moments. No doubt, it’s a sim. 😉 Mind seems to be a quantum-state transceiver generating readable/experienceable/shareable sim-frames at ~30/sec and "we" are elsewhere. Check out Penrose/Hameroff Orch-OR en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction and E-8/Leech/Monster unilateral max-packed lattices (planck-scale geometry)…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *