Do we live in a simulation?

I originally posted this on Physics Forums but I thought why not copy paste here as well for the kicks?
I've been reading book called 'The Big Questions: Physics' by Michael Brooks during my trip to Warsaw. It's an enjoyable collection of essays despite the fact that they were perhaps slightly too basic at times for a physics student like me. What grabbed my attention though was the simulated reality hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality).
Up until now I treated the idea of us all being stuck in Matrix spin-off as an entertaining thought but unscientific, untestable and solipsistic. However what sparked my interest is the argument from "conservative computing":
- You never want to waste computing power when programming a new software.
- This means that any simulation will not be infinitely smooth.
- When we get down to the quantum level things get - as we all know - very wierd.
Can it be that the quantum wierdness is simply us getting closer to the very basics of the running simulation? Is the cat both dead and alive until someone measures it a way of saving computing power when nobody and nothing interacts with a particle hence why waste the rendering power?

I won't go very deep into it right away. Surely somebody in here must have heard of this before. How valid is this hypothesis? Is it scientifically sound or just philosophical and untestable hogwash?

 

i consider it still untestable. just an interesting explanation as to why the universe is quantized, but it's untestable and doesn't make any predictions.

 

It's a very interesting theorem, although as untestable as the stuff you usually oppose.

I want to be a reality hacker now

 

If this were a simulation, could I Map Hack and use Power Overwhelming on myself?

I don't know much about Physics, but I have heard that stuff can get pretty weird when the numbers/etc get extremely small

 

As soon as you get to the point that air is too big to fill the space between particles, physics get funky. And then it only gets better.

 

There is no spoon.

 

Being a simulation does not mean being unreal. A simulation might be a program on my computer, but it is still real in the sense that the electrons moving around the computer circuitry are real.

And if I am within a simulation, then I am still real. Because I exist in the form of those electrons moving around the circuitry of some computer.

But your body is a thing moving atoms and electrons around too, and what emerges from that is abstract/immaterial things: Information that is your memory, your personality, your identity, and your consciousness.

So in a sense, we are all simulations. What it all comes down to in the end is how we choose to interpret abstract things, and whether we choose to differentiate them from concrete things.

 

Could somebody explain to me the pendula experiment conducted by V. Gintautas and A. W. Hubler? I have no idea how it exhibited "mixed-reality." Here is a link to the PDF of their experiment:
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/a-hubler/www/conserved_final.pdf

 

I am afraid that I can't.

 

I think the wikipedia article assumes that by definition, a simulation must be unreal in order to be a simulation. The term "simulation" does not refer to the electrical data on the computer, but rather what the electrical data represents.

The point of the article is not to prove that a subject within a simulation is unreal, rather it is to prove that a real subject may comprehend an unreal environment as reality.

Truth. The ideas represented by this data (memory, etc.) make up a simulation in that it is not your current reality, it is a collection of past realities that interact to construct ideas.

We are NOT all simulations, even though the above is true. A computer running a simulation does not become a simulation, therefore the body running the simulation (ideas represented by memories, etc.) is not a simulation.

 

What Jasmine talks about is besides the point. The point is to find out whether or not our universe is the product of computer simulation located in another reality.

 

Assuming computer simulation of an entire, feasible, believable reality is possible, then I would be willing to bet any amount of money that we are. Each reality (assuming more than one reality is possible) can play host to any number of simulations. If computer simulation is ever proved to be possible, then it would be safe to assume that we exist in a computer simulation.

 

You should source Nick Bostrom if you're going to use his argument.

 

What about atoms?

The only difference between a gold and an oxygen atom is the number of protons/neutrons/electrons they are composed of. The emergent entity that we call an atom is something new and derivative. The subatomic data represents an atom.

Oxygen and Gold are simulations of protons/neutrons/electrons.

 

Except that the atoms are material while the memories are not. Sorry Higgs, just go ahead and assume everything I say is somebody else's idea that I've adopted. I'm waaay too lazy and unscientific to grant people due props. Also assume that the only thing I have read on the subject is the wikipedia article.

 

I'm saying that the the electrons and protons are material. But the atoms are simulations created by them.

The point at which we label it as something else is the stage at which we've created an abstraction.

 

Except that memories are stored using a material the same way data is stored on HDD using magnetic material.

Then again, this doesn't really adress the original topic.

 

Jasmine: The atoms are not simulations because the atoms themselves are material. For example: A brick is material. A wall made of bricks is material. We are arguing the semantics of simulation, and while what you believe it means is just as valid as what I believe, the article presents simulation more closely to how I describe a simulation.

Higgs: There are too many... uh... I guess the correct term is variables? that cannot or have not been defined with present technology, and so to answer your original question: The idea is philosophical hog-wash for the time being.

 

It may very well be. The point is to find a way of testing this hypothesis and I thought that Michael Brooks was hinting that we may be indeed be able to start investigating this issue experimentally in a near future.

 

Nowhere in the article does the name "Brooks" come up with the search function. Could I have a link to what you are talking about, please?