Comments on: Quantum Universe Simulation – The Unique beings paradox http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/ Words from Alejandro U. Alvarez Tue, 15 May 2012 08:25:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: alex http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-658 alex Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:06:28 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-658 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... 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…

]]> By: Jeremy http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-657 Jeremy Sun, 15 Jun 2008 02:58:31 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-657 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. 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.

]]> By: alex http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-574 alex Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:20:50 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-574 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 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

]]> By: Jeremy http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-571 Jeremy Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:50:28 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-571 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. 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.

]]> By: alex http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-502 alex Thu, 22 May 2008 15:59:29 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-502 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 <a href="http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html" rel="nofollow">the simulation theory</a> 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 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

]]> By: Jeremy http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-501 Jeremy Thu, 22 May 2008 15:46:42 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-501 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! 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!

]]> By: Reda Bouchami http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-500 Reda Bouchami Thu, 22 May 2008 15:12:43 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-500 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 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

]]> By: alex http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-499 alex Thu, 22 May 2008 14:03:49 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-499 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 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

]]> By: alex http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-498 alex Thu, 22 May 2008 13:56:33 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-498 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 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

]]> By: Reda Bouchami http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-497 Reda Bouchami Thu, 22 May 2008 11:51:54 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-497 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 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

]]> By: Jaime http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-496 Jaime Wed, 21 May 2008 20:39:32 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-496 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). 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).

]]> By: Jaime http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/2008/05/20/quantum-universe-simulatio/comment-page-1/#comment-495 Jaime Wed, 21 May 2008 20:31:29 +0000 http://urbanoalvarez.es/blog/?p=154#comment-495 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 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

]]>