Quantum Universe Simulation – The Unique beings paradox

Completely off topic for this blog, but at the time it is the best place to write about this. Read through the whole thing before judging what you see, then think about it, and then express your opinion.

The Unique Beings paradox

To start off I will check with you certain easy experiments that are the base of this. We both agree that the same set of variables, done in the same order in the same way must always produce the same result. An example of this is that if we had two identical containers full of the same amount of the same water, and using a machine we dropped two identical steel balls of the same mass in the same point of the containers and we recorded each from the same angle and the same lighting we would have exactly identical results in the water, each second of one would match exactly each second of the other, until the water flattened again.
So following from here and using as a testing environment a simulation in a computer, identical sets of data and operations would produce identical results, which could be expanded to more complex things. So if we duplicated the brain of a rat, and the simulation of the rat was presented with a maze, exactly the same as the real rat, they would behave in the same way (Supposing that the simulated rat was duplicated successfully) So we could go further in our expansion, until we reached humans.
Can we create a simulation with real humans? The answer is yes, although it is too complex to even think about it, since the amount of variables to take into account are too many. But my goal is to simulate humans, and the only way of doing it accurately is simplifying the task of inserting into the simulation all of the variables, so we need a common start for all humans, which we could find three. The most recent was our evolution from pre-humans, but still we have to simulate them perfectly, and that is even harder because of the lack of knowledge, so we have to keep going back. The next common event was the apparition of living beings on the Earth, back when they were monocellullar. But still we could create some sort of "similar" simulation, that wouldn't be as accurate as needed, so to do it perfectly we need everything to be the same, and that was the creation of the Universe, the moment in which the Universe was condensed to the simplest form, and then it expanded to be what we know today. The Big Bang. All is needed are the exact data of it, and a computer with a computational potential enough to simulate this.
The first thing is needed, data, is not currently available, but it will be eventually discovered.
The second thing that we need is a computer fast enough to calculate the Universe. At the moment not even all the computers on the Earth would be enough for this task, but there is evidence that within the next 10-30 years quantum computers will be available, the technology has already been discovered and it is being developed. Its potential is supposed to be the so great that not even a modern computer can simulate how they will behave.

Now from here on I am supposing that the criteria before has been met, so that the simulation of the creation of the Universe has been successfully done, and all the data was exactly identical, so that the consequences are all the same. Now we should be able to run the simulation at a higher time rate than normal, so we can reach current dates fast enough.
(Take into account that I am supposing that all data was entered exactly the same as it happened, so all things evolving from it are all the same too)
We could take a look at the Earth in its early years, see the complete evolution again, but this time on a computer simulation, but the past is not the interesting part, it is the present and future.

Since all things in the Universe have grown accordingly to a set of "casual" occurrences, so has the simulation, reaching the point where humans appear. Although you might think we have the freedom to chose whatever we want, we chose exactly what our genetically-determined-brain, our past experiences, and another number of factors determine us to chose, so that in the simulation all of it would be the same.
At the point when we reach the present, with you and me, and the simulation (Now in the future, but imagine you are living in the moment the simulation is achieved), the simulation would recreate the moment when I propose this theory here, would recreate the moment when the simulation is started!
So we have another simulation starting up inside the simulation. Since it would be an infinite loop (Without going too deep into math you can see how the number of simulations approaches an infinite number, over time) there would be an infinite loop of conscious beings inside the simulations, and those beings (Merely simulations of ourselves) would think exactly as we do, so they would be reading this exactly like you, and if they knew about the simulation they would think they were the "originals", but this has to have an origin, the ones who started the infinite loop, so we would want to check if we are indeed the originals.
So after a lot of thinking, we decide to alter the simulation. So in a Monday, we run the simulation until Wednesday, and we insert a tree in some common place in a city. And we all wait to see what happens. The strange thing is that when we were in Monday and we looked at the simulation of our Monday, there where two options, that we saw them (I'll follow this option later on) and we didn't see them insert the tree. So by the time we inserted the tree, they had done the same, and so did all of the infinite simulations.
Expectantly we would wait for Wednesday to see what happened. In our simulation they found the tree we had inserted, and they had found out that they were a simulation, and what would happen if by Wednesday we did too? If we ourselves found out too that we had a tree we would also think that we were being simulated but what would the consequences of that be? What if we decided to shut down the simulation? Would the ones above us do the same? Suddenly all of the infinite simulated identical universes know they are not original, and what's more, the one that woke up without a tree knew that they were unique, that they were not a simulation. But now, the simulations would differ from reality, so the whole experiment would have served to create a parallel universe different from ours.
As you've seen I've supposed that all the people in the simulations could think by themselves, but if that was true, it means that other living creatures could have also reached the technology that permitted us simulate the Universe, and I mean by this that they could have done the same as us, without us knowing. So there could perfectly be an infinite amount of simulations being done at a time, without one true original universe, since there would be no way of testing with multiple simulations...

Following the other option now, that we saw our simulation insert the tree before we reached Monday. If that did happen though a complex paradox is reached. Imagine we are on Friday in the week before. No one has come up with the idea of inserting a tree in the simulation, but we decide to forward a bit the simulation to see what happens. Remember that the simulation is exactly the same as what would happen in our world. The result? It would be impossible for them to come up with ideas before us, because if we chose to do that on Friday, they would have done the same with their simulation, and would have come up with the same results. We have to keep in mind that all we do, they'll do it too, even if looked into their future, they will have looked into their simulation's future looping endlessly.

The final conclusion is that currently the probability of us belonging to a simulated Universe is so high that it is almost certain (Taking into account that the number of simulated Universes increases over time towards infinite), although we could prove ourselves unique in certain small subsystems such as the Earth. The consequences of this over us are close to none, unless a simulation can be achieved in our time, in which case we would be diving deep in time traveling, and other paradoxical problems.

The reasoning for all of this has been omitted, since it is based on complex quantum calculations and simulation algorithms. If any of you readers knows anything about quantum physics will find this extremely interesting, just as I do. Please comment your opinion.

To understand better this, you can watch this video where several quantum scientists (Gregg Braden David Icke, David Lynch, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, David Wilcock, David Icke, Michael Talbot, Gregg Braden, James J Traitz, Robert Anton Wilson, Neil Kramer, Grant Morrison, Bill Hicks) talk about this subject. (See the video)

This article expresses a hypothesis I've been working on for some time now, and it shall not be copied without citing the source and author. Thanks to Reda Bouchami for clarifying this when I missed it.

Enjoy all of the great things you'll have to think about after this,
Alex

About Alex

Hello! I'm Alejandro U. Alvarez, an engineering student at Universidad de Oviedo (Spain). I started programming during my Freshman year in Brookline High School (Boston, MA), and then got more and more interested in web development. I'm almost in love with JavaScript, although I keep an open mind with other languages

12 thoughts on “Quantum Universe Simulation – The Unique beings paradox

  1. Very interesting, Alex. I think that this idea could catch scientific comunity’s eye in relation to lots of investigations. You must think that this could be one of the objectives for the new generation computers that we are already thinking in and surely will enter in relation with important probability theories such as Kaos Theory, Special Relativity Theory and even the time investigation.

    But really will first cuantic computers be able to reproduce such a huge amount of data? I am not sure about

  2. Sorry, I had a little problem with my computer so I could not finish my comment. I just wanted to write that it would be a basic idea knowing if the beginning organization of Universe just after Big Bang was at random or instead this it will behave in the same way every time we reproduce. I believe that questions like these could have enormous repercussions, even in religion (the theory is likely to have simiilar cirticism like Darwin’s Evolution Theory).

    1. Thanks a lot for your reply, as you tell, there are a number of theories already exposed.
      As to time travel theories I think that matter transfers (Even if the related-atoms theory was true and you could create copies that responded to external changes in the same way even if separated was true) cannot be possible, I think that the fact of hopping into another dimension can be possible if we use the capabilities of quantum computing simulations, where the simulation would really be the window open to the same exact universe, but this time we could be in control of the “time” in there.

      What this means is that we can use quantum physics and advanced probabilities to simulate everything with such complexity that real scenarios can be duplicated and the output should be the same.
      I have simply reasoned it in the entry, but with the appropriate technology it can be proved.

      Alex

  3. Very interesting. I realise this is a blog, however, given you are proposing to publish this paper, and given your comments regarding the importance of citation appended to the end of your abstract, the list of your own citations would be useful, and fulfil the expectations that you have of others.

    Nick Bostrom, Drexler, Hanson (just some of the thinkers who have helped to foster the intellectual landscape in which this abstract seems to inhabit) have clearly informed elements of your work, which is an extremely interesting variation of Bostrom’s paradox, and various other traditional and new ‘paradox-types’,.

    I would not normally expect to see citations/footnotes in a blog (which is after all a very informal forum), but given your explicit ‘conditions of use’, would it be remiss of me to expect at least the core sets of hypotheses which have informed your work to be mentioned, perhaps even linked to?

    I may appear somewhat pedantic, but the abstract of your hypothesis has at least in some degree, been informed by the content of other copyrighted material, itself publically accessible on the web. You are certainly adding to an ever-expanding body of scholarship, in post-humanism, the epistemological limits of human and non-human consciousness, self-referencing systems and multifarious sub-sets therein. This appears to propose interesting and constructive insights in the field.

    I would very much appreciate an indication of what journal you are copyrighted with, so that I can be sure to read the finished paper, with citations, that I am certain to want to comment upon, possibly in public forums, where I can then cite both you as author, and your references.

    As it is, I feel I cannot comment on what appears to be a promising piece of scholarship, For I cannot discern previously expressed debates and the ideogenetic process that underpins your proposed hypothesis.

    I eagerly anticipate the opportunity to discuss further, possibly after attempting to formalise the structure of what is an excellent ideoglyph of so many open debates in various related fields.

    RB

    1. The only reason I have not posted a link is because there is no other online source. The paper is actually a hypothesis I’m working on, now for quite a long time, and the purpose of the notice at the bottom is to let readers know that this is not just something that came up in my mind and they can copy it elsewhere.
      Feel free to post here all your thoughts, and thanks for that, since it made me realize how it could lead to misunderstandings.
      I’ll edit the post now to reflect better the meaning I wanted it to have.

      Thanks,
      Alex

  4. Hi

    Understand, but alot of the ideas reflect various papers on the topic.

    see

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

    http://www.nickbostrom.com/

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

    I realise its work in progress, would be v. interested to see the final paper, to fully appreciate your hypothesis and its ideogenetic advancement of the field of research. I’m a very interested in your ideas, and hope the links are useful.

    regards, and the best of luck with the research, certainly facinating questions, which is what lead me to your blog.

    regards.

    Reda

  5. You forgot one small detail… processing differential. If we were simulating the universe we would have a finite processing speed for our simulation. That processing speed would likely not include the ability for our simulation to run an identical simulation as that would require twice as much processing as we would otherwise need (the sim in the sim would be running off of our initial processing power). Now considering that our processing capability is finite we would certainly not be able to run an infinite number of simulations within our own. This means that our initial simulation would likely turn on their simulation and find a critical error…. one that they would never be able to fix. This would mean that when our sim caught up to the time when we began the sim they would be continuing their reality in a divergent timeline no longer identical to us. This would make looking into the identical future impossible, and would also cancel any possible paradoxes. The sim would be a good way to look into our past, but not a way to look into our future. The interesting thing is that if we come to a point where we are ready to begin a simulation and we have an unknown and incurable error then it is a pretty good bet that we are a simulation. There is another possibility that when our sim attempted to turn on their sim the entire program would freeze on our end. Meaning that at the point when the processing power is too great the sim would need to be significantly slowed down or frozen…. thus not allowing us to see our own future because the time would be significantly slower in the sim (unbeknownst to them) then it is in our reality. Or the program could simply crash at that point in its progress…. ending the sim in its entirety. That last possibility would likely be the most dangerous when considering turning on our own sim. Either way though your concept is interesting it is largely impossible given the constraints I mentioned. Thanks for the interesting read…. good luck!

    1. I had already thought of that problem, but since we don’t know yet the full potential of quantum computing, we cannot even assure that the first simulation could be done. In the case it could be though, there is a chance it won’t be powerful enough to run the whole past in a simulation at a high speed rate.
      We have to build on mere guesses to make this possible, since none of the needed data or facts have been discovered yet and are still over the paper of bright scientists.

      Supposing your reasoning is true, and that quantum computing does have a potential limit, and the simulation theory is true, we would have to be very lucky if we were not inside a simulation with a known deadline due to system failure…

      Alex

  6. I think that it must be assumed that quantum computing has a limit…. everything we have encountered thus far in the universe is finite, therefore reason would suggest this would be also. It would seem to me that if we do ever have the chance to turn the machine on we should be aware that it very well may spell the end for us. Once we know for sure that a sim of this nature is possible, we will know that we are likely a sim ourselves. Probability would dictate that it would be almost a certainty (if it is possible at all). So when/if we flip the switch we should realize we may have just voluntarilly turned our own sim off. It makes one wonder what would happen if we were switched off one day. Would we see things happening as a warning, or would it be one rapid power down? Personally I think that we would see the power down… we would have to assume that time in our sim is more rapid then beyond it, so a quick power down at “normal” speed would be a slow process at our excellerated rate. Just a thought.

    1. You have guessed perfectly correctly. As NICK BOSTROM, professor of Psychology at the Oxford University stated in his paper, the idea of us being a simulation is almost a certainty, since not only us humans, but any living creature with an intellectual potential as ours or superior could perfectly develop such technology to enable them to simulate the universe, and thus resulting in ourselves being “trapped” inside their simulation…

      That is basically the problem of having no clue of about 99.99% of the universe’s inhabitants…

      Great point Jeremy,
      Alex

      1. There is another possibility. Even if we are in a sim that does not mean that we are necessarily trapped here. It is possible, though unlikely that a simulated consciousness within a virtual world could be uploaded into a biological (or mechanical) form in the world conducting the sim (we must assume they have greater technological ability). This of course would not mean that the individual would have escaped a sim world, but they would have gotten one step closer to the real one. Considering that if a sim is possible it is almost certain that we are one, the higher sphere conducting this sim would have a similar (though slightly less) probability of being its own sim. Its like a set of nested dolls…. one could never be certain they were in the first doll. There is also the possibility that while this universe is a sim, their are a few virtual players within it from the higher nested doll. Most of us would be simulations but a few would be players. It is even possible (though unlikely) that we are all players… with no recollection of our higher order life. This breaches into the realm of religion, but if you consider the possibility of future advancements this sim could be occurring at an extremely rapid rate, allowing for a whole lifetime to be lived in a matter of seconds. Perhaps this could explain the concept of reincarnation, near death experiences, and a host of other religious ideas. This whole experience could be a intellectual amusement park for a higher technological advanced species running the sim. Lastly our experiences might be chosen and downloaded into the consciousness of one of the sim operators to gain greater understanding in various fields of study.

        So basically, it is not totally unlikely that some (if not many of us) will “escape” the sim…. perhaps even at our moment of death. This sim theory opens up a host of fascinating and outrageous possibilities. Keep studying it because if proven it would rock the foundation of all our underastanding in the most profound way.

        1. I will indeed keep writing about all this, I’ve started a new blog only for this subject, since it offers such an amazing capability of writing.
          I’ll make it public when I’m done with the basic layout/design.

          Your thoughts are very good, you’ve gone exactly where I was in my head, and that is what made me write about it…

Leave a Reply