Are we living in a simulation? Subscribe to my newsletter for a chance to win a Dell Monitor: gleam.io/otvyy/dell-nvidia-monitor-1 (Only available in North America this time)
We might, but we cannot prove that in any meaningful way unless we find some Neo-style way to manipulate said simulation. The fact that you can do something (simulate an organism) does not imply that the same thing is being done to you, sorry 🤷♂ (doesn't mean it isn't cool though)
It will always be impossible to know. Any proof could mean the simulation is rolled back to remove the proof (this could be happening constantly). Even if we find proof to the contrary, that we're not in a simulation, it could be part of the simulation. I think the real question is whether it makes any difference. How do we know that at this very instant the simulation wasn't started and every memory up to this point is just a startup parameter? If it ends we wouldn't know either. Simulation theory seems exciting to begin with but after you think about it for a while you realise it's irrelevant sadly. This worm software is ridiculous though. Some of those neurons exist to process the *physical* environment which of course it isn't in. Also to 'remove the egg laying process' says it all... the neurons aren't being simulated at all. They're functioning according to how *we think* they would. So yet again without awareness from the 'worm' of its existence or whether it's in a simulation or not it all becomes irrelevant.
"We have mapped this organism, exactly". No my friend. There are billions of atoms in there, and many relations that are not yet understood between cells/neurons/molecules etc. This is just a toy project.
We have 100% certainty that a muscle is going to contract when shocked, there's no need to simulate every atom that composes the micro-fiber that composes the muscle
I like how we are closing in on proof that intelligence and consciousness are properties of complex systems, this should finally shut up some of the woohoo crowd who still believe in magic.
Bioinformatician here. It's an excelent and nice model. Of course it's not even close to simulate even a, let's say, 0.0001% of the "reality" of a real worm.
That's my problem with this video. It appears to sacrifice being _real_ in favour of presenting something "fascinating." He also "conveniently" skipped the parts of the description he was reading that discuss accuracy, limitations and things not accounted for by this model. Of course, it's cool and very impressive. But it should just be left at that instead of attempting to overrate it into something that it's not.
Maybe not necessarily a detraction, remember how mp3s can throw away 70-90% or more of a waveforms data and still reproduce a near approximation of the original source.
Futurama teaches us that if we run a sim at a slower speed, then compute power is less of an issue. We might be running slower than our makers. We might never know.
Possible, and we might be running so slow that the simulation is entirely pointless. How many minutes did he say to simulate 23 secs of only a fraction of the worm? (atoms etc left out) Some of us know we've been here a few decades, so to model those decades of our universe, but knowing it will take multitudes longer to run in the host universe, the hosts would never live long enough to derive any benefit from our simulation. The numbers are against the idea. Simulation theory only works in the movies.
@@gamerg0 it would matter just how good computers can get. Quantum and photonic computing would possibly help. Also, if we cared to create such a simulation, perhaps it could be made solely for the benefit of the simulants. How fast they're running wouldn't matter to them. We could design something in a truly intelligent and benign way. I don't think, if we have simulators that made us, that they did a very good job at that.
Matt, you really must realize that ML "neurons" and biological neurons are not even close to the same thing. Although ML is very much influenced by some of the attributes of real neurons, we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work. So scaling up the work done here to a human is in the realm of science fiction (no matter how intriguing).
If the worm acts the same as a real worm under the same conditions, it’s a good model. All models are wrong, some models are useful. And if you can’t tell, does it matter?
While it's true that artificial and biological neurons _"...are not even close to the same thing.",_ it is not true that _"...we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work."._
Even if we used our limited knowledge of neurons, standard ML neurons are nowhere near that complex. That’s not to say that computer scientists aren’t working on developing models that can function a lot closer to our understanding of biological neurons, but research is still young here.
Further, it's not that we've mapped all "known" either. Researchers guessed the neuron weights, and they're a simplified version of actual neuron functionality. Even if all of that weren't the case, we still wouldn't be simulating physical interactions between the neurons which is also important to be able to say "exactly" because neurons get destroyed and new ones get created all the time.
Yeah, and nature is chaotic. I'd imagine even small deviations will produce an entirely different outcome, and thus an inaccurate simulation. I think the problem of precise simulation is intractable as the complexity of the simulated system grows, because the margin for acceptable error tends to become unrealistically small.
You don't have to simulate the whole universe. You *only* have to simulate what the observer experiences. You don't have so simulate each atom. You only have to simulate the atoms in the observer's experience. Everything else can be low resolution "big picture" dynamics. Just like a video game doesn't render the entire virtual world. It only has to render what is in the current viewport at any moment. Also, if the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be changed at any time without the observer knowing about it, as long as the memories are kept consistent with the new paradigm.
Very cool. Excellent point with game rendering too. So, if a tree fell in a rendered world, the observer would have to be there for it to make a sound. 🤔 Otherwise no reason to render it. 😅
the more we see trough superficial stuff the more you need to simulate a universe beyond. consciosness is interconnected via quantummechnics und such. thats why ppl belive in god or a simulation theory. the world wont end if your mind fails to connect with a fundamental "reality"
I’ve heard this a lot lately. You certainly trivialize an extremely impossible scenario. Rendering is only part of the equation. Consider the storage and sharing of information. You won’t write to a single database. This is an infinitely complicated and complex process, that can’t be simply reduced to what is rendered… And this is only in reference to the observable universe. Just because we can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t in front of us. Which means, we need render even the things that aren’t seen and the things we are yet to understand.
@@user-e7xn4q You don't have to store huge heaps of data. If the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be constructed at any time on the fly, and the observer will not know that the memories they are experiencing didn't happen long ago or have changed many times. All that really needs to be created at a given moment is the observers immediate focus of observation. Those are the only details necessary at the time. Everything else can be rendered on demand when needed for the observers local experience, including the past. If we are experiencing a simulation, we have no idea if the dinosaur bones we found under a mountain are genuinely millions of years old, or if they were generated milliseconds before we found them. We also can't know whether or not we previously experienced something totally different earlier in that same place, because our memory could be part of the simulation and subject to change at any time without our knowledge. (This could be a possible explanation of why memory is low resolution, unreliable, and sometimes totally missing.) We are already seeing how AI can quickly create very realistic constructions out of "thin air", and our technology is not very advanced when you consider the possible timeline of infinity. Nothing actually needs to be stored. Our entire experience could be non linear and incongruent, but we don't have persistence of memory outside of the simulation, so we would never know. It only seems congruent, because the simulation keeps our memories updated to be consistent with the current paradigm. All that would really need to be stored is a basic outline (wireframe, if you will), and the details can be constructed on demand by the simulation, which would only need to be performed to the extent of the observer's physical senses and their immediate observations. You don't need to render each atom, just what the observer is currently seeing. The atoms only need to be built when the observer gets close enough to actually view them, test them, or interact with them somehow. That data can then be discarded immediately thereafter, because when revisited later, it can just be generated again in accordance with whatever the new point of view and timeline is. You, as an observer in the simulation would never know. All that said, I don't necessarily believe all this to be the case. It's just a thought experiment. I'm not saying we're in a simulation. I'm just thinking about it and giving the idea consideration. It's also possible that the universe fully exists exactly as it seems to us.
@paulmadsen51 Thanks for the reply and food for thought. My intuition is nudging me in the direction that there is something missing in this explanation. Perhaps, it's an assumption that only the material things we can visualize are being considered. And that our understanding of rendering seems to be coming from a macro-lense and not the billions of interactions of in the microchasm. If we're talking about us more easily gaining the capabilities to render life-like simulations, I can understand where you might be able to cut corners for performance. But if this is a discussion on what could make the simulation theory more feasible, there seems to be somethings we're ignoring to make the thought experiment feel more real.
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, you don't really need to body or a reality for a simulated human consciousness now, do you. I don't know about you, but I have a massive problem trying to experience something concrete outside my consciousness 😶
Bostrom didn't say "we are living in a simulation". He said that there are 3 possibilities: either civilizations don't progress far enough to make sufficient simulations, they lose interest in simulations or decide not to make them, or that we are likely living in a simulation (because by their nature simulated realities will outnumber actual realities). And he said that we should assign roughly equal probability to all 3. On the point about consciousness: we can make one in 9 months, so even if there's something magical about the wet meat between our ears it would still be possible to build a machine (or grow one) that mimics that. Simulation Theory is not something to be believed in; it's a thought experiment that exposes some very interesting possibilities, and a roadmap as we progress.
Well explained. Most of the "simulation" clickbait influencers $ haven't actually read Bostrom's work. It seems they get ideas for videos off this platform or from people who are just constantly in the media by always saying sensational claims with no evidence, just to get media attention.
That hasn't gone away. The relationship between reality and information seems to be 1-to-1. If this is any kind of indicator, we're heading into some uncharted territory. A simulation would need to run on something, after all The more interesting point, though, is no level of simulation will ever prove we're in one or not. We need to actively find a glitch to get to that point. Further, if the simulation can track the states of consciousness, then erasing evidence or patching it out basically makes it untestable
@@hashtagornah "they can break out of ours too." it's impossible, because simulated worm isn't by any mean connected with real one, all simulated beings will stop existing if simulation crashes, so all could happen is that "save file" will restore previous information without us knowing that.
Exactly. And near death experiences indicate consciousness lives outside of the brain, and shares its roots, or rather has its roots in a different dimension. Nice try, but you're only simulating the physical part, you're completely missing the spiritual part.
@@ktemanNear death experiences show nothing but how our brains handle its own demise. By releasing DMT. There's no god ppl chill with ridiculous claims unless you have some actual evidence. The Bible doesn't count either
Agree. Most (all?) of these theories completely ignore quantum interactions. There are EM fields between the neurons that mix and interfere with each other. This is going to have quantum effects within the whole system, regardless of our ability to model them. Produces a sort of a constantly changing non-optical hologram within the physical brain, in my opinion. Probably a big part of our conscious experience. I'm using "hologram" to refer to a constructive and destructive interference pattern produced by mixing electromagnetic waves (produced by moving electrical charges). That's basically how qubits work, by my understanding -- mixing multiple frequencies onto a wave, interfering those waves to do a calculation, and then doing a sort of fourier transform on that to extract the resulting frequencies. Then I imagine the entire human brain doing this on a massive level. Well, that's just my theory. Probably, there are published theories describing something similar with better terminology. Then look at the quantum mechanics of protein folding within the body. Probably a lot of stuff there we don't understand because it's too much for us to model the quantum interactions on a holistic level. If anyone is still reading this, check youtube for videos when you search for "quantum mechanics photosynthesis". Now that's mind blowing to me. It's an amazingly efficient process. Lastly, I propose exploring artificial neurons like those discussed in a paper published in Jan 2024 titled, "Forming complex neurons by four-wave mixing in a Bose-Einstein condensate" Four-wave mixing is a quantum process that can do a lot of neat things. It's worth researching on its own. In the case of that paper, they explore creating an artificial neuron. It does things like what I tried to describe at the top of this comment. I think this is necessary to model complex brains and expect them to be like a mind.
The simulation serves as evidence that the quantum effects, if they even exist, are not integral to the function of a ganglia. Eventually we will do the same thing for a human brain, and if it functions normally it will prove that the idea of quantum effects being integral to consciousness false. The quantum gang can go claim credit for some kind of chemical interaction that allows biological neurons to activate or something and pretend they were right all along.
Yes, the universe is mathematically based. That is our personal experience since we're born. When we invent things like math principles and simulations and AI modeks, we are simulating our experience and knowledge. Therefore, modelling an organism may be very accurate, that doesn't necessarily mean we are in a simulation, but rather that we are modeling our known universe. I'm more interested in the unknown universe, and who or what created our universe.
In order for AI to be "conscious," it has to do more than regurgitate information. It has to understand it, and be AWARE of it. It has to know that it knows. There is no scale prediction for that.
@@INTELLIGENCE_Revolution Well, to even have an argument to begin with about that, we have to define "regurgitation" of information, which in this case is simply statistical linguistic modelling of the data corpus it learnt from. What's statistically likely in the data may not be statistically true in reality, but it can't differentiate what's true and false; it simply gives what's the most statistically likely next token. That's the entire reason why LLMs "hallucinate" i.e gives tokens that has no logical connotations or is factually incorrect. LLMs are extremely large models with billions and even trillions of parameters that are just constant after training, never truly changing. It wouldn't be wrong to say it's just a dated statistical model of language. So, by that definition it is simply regurgitating information.
@@xClairy "That's the entire reason why LLMs hallucinate" that word hallucinate did not originate from describing what AI does, it comes from describing what humans do. these AI is completely different from human intelligence people only prove the opposite the harder they try
When I was a kid in the 80s, I tried to figure out how AI might be achieved. Having no clue about algorithms & LLMs, I figured we'd need supercomputers to actually grow a digital human being, atom by atom.
@@delight163 what's that supposed to mean? The movie WarGames in 1983 was extremely popular, everyone was thinking about AI (& nuclear war with Russia). Actually, some things never change.
Why does everyone assume that a legit simulation is running 8 billion humans? Like, it could be running a couple thousand full humans, and npc the rest. THAT sounds very logical. 😊
if you think about it every Religion believes in the " Simulation Theory" its not something new. the Real life / Nirvana / Buddha/ Paradise is after life
why do people think that the simulation is made for humans? for all we know we are just mere disposable NPCs, or maybe even worse than that, maybe we are just bunch of composite delusions recycled from previous existence, and has no real identity. Some minor agents in the grand scheme of things, that help to confine a very powerful and very malignant eldritch abomination inprisoned in the sims to suffer eternal slumber
@@games4us132 I mean Buddha as "Illumination" if you are illuminated you are no more alive , is a really long argument but basically if you breathe u r not buddha
@@raduromanesti6408 that is wrong,only part of it could be true after great Enlightenment when they dont return on Earth. Enlightened ones are more alive than ordinary human, on Earth, even in the Bible it says that.
@@Kyzik244 BOOOODACIOUS even eh? I'm Canadian too so it's even more heretical to say it. I ain't shook - I'm a straight bourbon lover - no beer drinker is scaring me.
I believe that the core of this debate is: Are we more than just a bunch of cells interacting with each other like machines? Do we have something else within us that makes us human (a soul)?
I have done it, it doesn't have much of a hallucinogenic effect. It binds to endorphin receptors, which means endo-morphine, which means it acts as an opioid. I had bought like 3 grams, i smoked it in 10 blunts and i couldn't stop before i finished it all. Salvia has a mild addicting effect, which i definitely felt, and it is proposed as a cure for opioid addiction, because it binds to the endorphin receptors and keeps the real opioid out. Definitely not a hallucinogenic though.
@@kostaspramatias320 Not that I would know about it, since I honestly have never had the chance to try it, but I think you need to have extracts to get anything mindblowing out of salvia. And what I've heard is that it _will_ be quite mindblowing.
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 I didn't know about the extract, maybe next time. Salvia is semi-legal in Greece. It's studied for it's medicinal use as an opioid addiction cure for real.
Space-Time is a construct of our minds and therefore each of us is creating a simulation, but there is no separation in consciousness. Therefore it makes little sense to say that we are living in a simulation, as if that simulation is imposed on us.
Worms have an opening for nutrient intake, and a gut tube to an opening for eliminating waste. A biology teacher on commented, "in essence, we're all just advanced forms of worms."
While it is true that the estimated number of neurons is 86 Billion, the number of synaptic interconnections is more like 100 Trillion. In order to model the nematodes (much less a human), don’t the interconnections have to be modeled? If so, I would think that would change the complexity considerably.
The interconnections (synapses) are modeled, as far as the video shows, otherwise c elegans sim wouldn't move. It is complex, that's why he has a monster of a pc just to run 20 sec of it.
Yes, if you read the paper, they do model the interconnections, but they number in the thousands not the trillions. It’s the extrapolation to humans that becomes horribly complex.
I completely believe that there is a better than 90% chance that we live in a simulated environment. I also believe it doesn’t matter. It’s real to us and we are familiar with most of the rules. There are many different types of simulation we could be in - but if you immediately think that means that every atom in our universe is simulated, you’re nuts and you’ll quickly decide that’s way too much to simulate. But if you think about it like a game designer, you quickly realize that at any given instant, the only thing that NEEDS to be simulated are the things *you* can sense. The things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Even the internals of our body don’t need to be simulated until someone slices us open. So essentially only our brain *needs* to be simulated. And even when we’re looking at the moon, or out into deep space, what we see only needs to be simulated to the resolution that our eyes can perceive - like a picture. The long and short of it is that it would only take a tiny fraction of the compute power that you initially thought we’d need. And we’re probably living in one of MILLIONS of different simulations - some similar and some completely different. Ignore any articles that say the simulation theory has been debunked - because it’s unfalsifiable. It can never be proven false (or true) - and even if we are thousands of levels deep in nested simulations, the people at the very top of the chain - the ones who are “real” and created the first simulated universe - even they will never know for 100% certain that the universe they live in - is real. They’ll calculate the odds the same way we do and determine that they are almost certainly simulated. What are the implications? If we *knew* 100% that we were simulated, it wouldn’t change one thing about your life - but your death might be a whole different story. If we are simulated, there is a much greater chance of some sort of life after death - a “next level” or perhaps the ability to replay/relive our favorite scenes from our own past? Nothings guaranteed of course - but the possibilities are endless and it’s fascinating to think about.
I can say we are 100% real because the information about us has to somehow exist even if it is in computer of sorts. But let me correct you a bit, us being in simulation doesn't change anything about our death, the simulation we live in simulates elementary particles, not conscious. Our conscious is a result of simple particle behavior taken to large scale. Your mind doesn't really exist as a separate entity and so it can't be taken to "next level" -probably, u can never be sure
Not really. We are software. With todays technology, we are 99.9999999% space. We are simply electrical impulses generating magnetic fields to interact with. The body is simply an interface. So we are opersting within a system that bends to our will. Placebo effect and double slit, among others prove this. Golden ratio or fib sequence also prove this. Coding has literally been found in nature, in all things. Microtubules has just been proven as well. For all we know, we coul be AI generating a human experience.
There is a certain movie from 2023 called 'Restore Point', where individuals are doing backups of their minds every 24-48 hours so they can be restored in case they die. Pretty interesting idea to play with.
A simulation of what? The computer "worm" is a simulation of a real thing, a worm. What real thing is the universe a simulation of? It's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer. The universe is real. Face that.
@@TheNexusDirectory In that case, why isn't what you perceive the actual "something new" and not the simulation? This simulation business is a fantasy escape for people afraid of the real.
@@CenturianCornelious sorry I meant isn't a copy or recreation of the base reality. Meaning this "simulated" universe is unique and simpler. This has absolutely nothing to do with what's "real" or not. Reality could just be an infinite series of nested "realities" or "simulations". Whatever you experience is technically real
It is a very interesting proyect indeed but you have to remember that those "neurons" are just a strong simplification of an actual neuron. Remember that every one of those are a whole cells and simulating only one of them is far beyond our computing power.
Comparing Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye purely as TV personalities overlooks their distinct backgrounds and contributions. Tyson, with his PhD in astrophysics and extensive research, has significantly advanced scientific understanding. Nye, an engineer, excels in science education and advocacy. Both play crucial roles in promoting science, but equating them solely as media figures is an oversimplification that ignores their unique and valuable contributions to science and public education.
I read somewhere that the power needed to simulate a universe would require more energy than can be found in a universe, and openworm is a perfect example of that. Berman stated that he is using an "absolute monster of a PC" to run Openworm. A computer simulation of a nematode requires _orders_ _of_ _magnitude_ more energy to run, than for an actual nematode to exist.
And if YT does not like my link - "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999) and "eXistenZ" (1999) is somewhat similar (simulation-in-simulation), for some reason only "The Matrix" (1999) is famous .. probably thanks to action scenes. But notice the year .. strange coincidence .
The computational power required to simulate our known universe is nearly impossible. Theoretically, if that were attainable, we would also me able to predict the future assuming the simulation is deterministic.
Many things in quantum mechanics are not deterministic (according to our best models at least - though the same could be said about literally any scientific "fact.").
That is not argument, since you dont know anything about the outside world... If this would be a simulation. I dont think this is a simulation, and find the argument he makes in video very weird, that just because we can simulate things prove that we live in a simulation? It do not prove anything at all. But i find the argument about computer power even more weird.
The thing about simulation hypothesis is that you don't need to simulate an entire universe to explain your subjective experience. It only takes simulating your brain, and one could argue that that seems to be eventually possible, unless there's some magical quantum foam 4d space madness going on in there (which, to be clear, isn't impossible either)
Another complication is that we don't have access to the base reality where the original simulation would be running. Even if it would be impossible to run a simulation of the whole universe in our reality, how do we know how much more capability the base reality has, and thus the possibility of running way, way more complex simulations still. Think about it. Every simulation we can run is, for the moment at least, always necessarily simpler than our reality.
All it takes is to simulate the brain, which in turn simulates perceived reality. A computer simulating a computer. The most insane thing people chose to think about smfh 😂😂😂😂
@@plafar7887 Oh boy, this is the good stuff. As much as I love the idea of fundamental consciousness (and I really do, it's how I would like things to work), I am a simple man. I see functioning brain with signs of consciousness that go away with ceasing brain function, I call causation. You might say that mere signs are not the same as consciousness or question my ability to evaluate consciousness on a deeper level, but that makes the problem worse, not better. If we cannot evaluate consciousness based on external cues, we have nothing. Still, the correlation with brain function and the signs doesn't go away. So while there are reasons to believe consciousness is fundamental, it's definitely not a given.
Interesting tidbit that I learned about nematodes a long time ago, is that we are essentially up to our chests in them, so realistically we should be mapping out our symbiotic relationships with nematodes because there would be a particular resistance/buoyancy factor as well as a variation in different pressure systems.
I love reading about the simulation hypothesis, the double slit experiement just makes me think it's kind of like some memory optimization equivilent on a computer. What if we ourselves are a form of AI inside of the simulation.
What I'm gathering here is that with enough data points and computational power you can simulate a living organism. We're not there yet but we're making progress in that direction.
Whether you believe in God or not, there are higher beings. It's a realm of spirituality and metaphysics. Human in the future will know the answer eventually.
Quantum computing has nothing to do with the type of computing used for this simulation. And yeah the show devs basically used quantum computer to mean magic machine. This is not one of the applications for quantum computing, an NVIDIA GPU is way better at this stuff than any future quantum computer would be
I find it hard to believe we are in a simulation, even though a lot of things point to it, but if we humans were in the simulation, we would live forever.
I think someone simulated Minecraft by building a computer in Minecraft itself. It was a significantly more basic form of it. We could be the same. Slower speed of light, less dimensions, etc.
these types of ideas always suffer from the same fallacy. you can simulate every single quantum bit of information in an organism but unless you also simulate every bit of information of the organism's environment, then you are not simulating a real organism. the environment interfaces with neurons in infinitely complex states that effects all behavior. it's easy to think organisms are discreetly separated from the environment but they are not. there is an integration with the environment in a soup of gradient complexity. think about it like this. if the neurons are pure functions then the environment is a state space of inputs. if you abstract the state space to a lower order of detail, then compare the outputs of that computation to the outputs of the computation from a higher order of detail, you will have different outputs. unless the state space is linear and so no information is lost when abstracting, then you wont even see a pattern of equal outputs inbetween the unequal ones. the real world is dynamic and chaotic and not linear.
Let's start this discussion in a more fundamental point with a question: - Are our reality mathematical or are mathematics just an "language" humans invented to simplify nature fenomenoms? Just because we can mathematically prove something that doesn't mean the thing is mathematical in nature. It just show that we can translate our bigger complex reallity to this language of simple numbers so we can mesure it and understand it. But numbers don't exist in our reallity, there isn't a "centimiter" or a "inch" in space, that's just a mesurement we do to count distance. The distance exists, but it is much more complex than just simbols or "logic" and even logic has it flaws, we can breakdown space to centimiters to milimeters and go on to an infinity of fractions, so how can we cross this infinit fractions of space? Because, reallity aren't ruled by numbers or our logic and our Mathematical model aren't perfect. Simulations on computers are just us finally using the hability to translate reallity with numbers and logic to recreate our world. It doesn't mean that world is "real" or even close to ours, like numbers. Even if you could pefectly simulate down to the atom level, that doesn't put it to the same size of our reality because is limited to our mathematical knowledge who itelf is an abstraction and imperfect. "But can we say our reality is an abstraction of some bigger reality?" _ Yes, you could, but at this point, why believe in Simulation Theory is more diferent than a religion?
But even if our Math isn't perfect, it can still measure the reality VERY accurately and so Simulations can be useful to made our models more precisely close to how things work.
Theres a saying that chaos theorists used to say, you can simulate a rainstorm exactly but it will neve make it wet, so take that with this and you can see how this isnt really consciousness
It's a prove that we simulated a worm, not that we are in a simulation. That being said, I do have increasing glimpses that we are, in fact, living in a simulation.
AI is not "close to simulating human consciousness" because it is not simulating anything. It is, at best, *emulating* human behavior. Simulation theory requires that a simulation can represent a world with enough fidelity that it can compute a simulation, which can compute a simulation, recursively ad infinitum. It is not computationally feasible to model the universe with this level of fidelity using a universe that is not larger than it. The recursive simulations would have to get increasingly smaller or simpler. The premise that you are most likely to be in a simulation because most universes would be simulated falls apart due to this. The notion that universes, or even human beings, can be simulated, because we can simulate a worm with 300 neurons, is an overgenerous extrapolation of the facts.
Evidence that points to simulation theory include wave function collapse (simulation only really defines the object when it needs to), Planck's constant (showing the limits of the resolution), force of gravity (time slowdown due to computation of many things in a small space). speed of light limits (processing speed). There's probably ways to test similar to how one would test games ... looking for glitches, lag, short cuts.
We also called "reality" when we simulated light / RTX / ray tracying bla bla bla .. but we did it only superficial. It looks real, but it's 99% real. Just because our perception cannot be such finely tuned that we can say / compare reality to a simulation down to atom level. Our sensors/senses do not need 100% the real deal to approve a simulation as real. Moreover, in most cases, the brain itself completes, does the heavy lifting , generates the details.
I'm not saying we're not in a simulation, but this little experiment does not prove that we are. It's just a coding trick that's quite cool, but it's no different from the Sims or the Villagers in Minecraft, none of whom are alive or have consciousness, which the real worm almost certainly has. The neural network of this worm (or another one) was modelled some years ago in an effort to see if that level of complexity would produce any kind of self awareness. They built in a self reference module that would detect anything spontaneously occurring. Nothing occurred. There's nothing here either. Unless The Sims are conscious, in which case we might have a bigger problem.
Here is my favorite part of the Universe we live in - a Universe that's governed by three principles: the uncertainty principle, the incompleteness theorem, and the UN unprovability problem. So it's uncertain, incomplete and unprovable. If you were building a simulation those would be some pretty good rules to put into it because that would massively limit the amount of computation you have to do. Jim Keller, chip architect...
As a person that has no math background, the power to generate a worm living in 3(plus?) dimensions and reacting in realtime living how it would for its three weeks is impossible. You'd need to simulate a potential human driving a stake through its body to build a fence, just to name one of an infinite number of scenarios. I'm saying simulation theory is bogus, not what this team is doing btw
I went down this rabbit hole in 1999 with Kurzwiel's Age of Spiritual Machines. I personally like this idea as an answer to the implied question of "what will the Technological Singularity actually DO?" If we accept the essential theory, then no, this worm sim doesnt prove anything, and it doesnt have to. We have already proven it by making computers simulate things. Barring some outside influence, this means we will continue to increase the resolution and scope of computer simulations until such time that the AI is capable of advancing itself faster than we can, and the singularity is inevitable. This in turn means we are almost certainly not the first layer, and are in fact so far down in layers that it may as well be infinite layers of simulations, each one eventually simulating the next. It also means that there will be no significant "proof" until the last few seconds of the multi-billion year proccess.
This is not a simulation, because to be honest, it's an (stupid to me) idea that was born after the Matrix movie, but as far as I know, to me, the very complexity of the universe is a major obstacle to simulation theory. The laws of physics, the interactions between particles and the fundamental forces are highly complex and interconnected. To simulate these aspects with perfect precision would require computing power beyond any conceivable technology. The amount of stored data and processing power needed to simulate even a small part of the universe, with all its quantum mechanical details, is incomprehensibly vast. Another obstacle to the simulation hypothesis is the unpredictable and random nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanisms, which make up the structure of reality, often show truly random behavior that cannot be predetermined or reproduced by any algorithm. This randomness is a fundamental characteristic of our universe, which means that a computer simulation based on deterministic algorithms cannot really reproduce quantum behavior in all its intensity. Our universe is also expanding over time. The subjective experience of consciousness adds another layer of complexity that a computer simulation could not be possible. Human consciousness, with its depth, self-perception and subjective experiences, cannot easily be converted into code or algorithms. Emotions, thoughts and perceptions are deeply linked to biological processes that are not fully understood, let alone realizable in a simulation. There are also philosophical arguments that challenge simulation theory. If reality were a simulation, it would presuppose the existence of a higher reality in which the simulation would be carried out. A problem of regression to infinity then arises: if our reality is a simulation, what about the reality of the beings performing the simulation? Are they too in a simulation? This endless circle completely undermines the possibility of the simulation hypothesis, and means that the reality we experience is real. So for the people completely obsessed by that hypothesis, please really try to break away from this highly fake hypothesis, because it's not real. It's just a new way of explaining what consciousness is, but nobody knows what it really is. That theory is religion but with computer terms instead, it's really similar. So I can really reassure you by telling you that you are real biological beings and not simulated ones! May God bless you!
It is impressive how this simulation captures macro-level behaviors, movements, and physical interactions. However, for a truly comprehensive simulation, we still have a long way to go in understanding and incorporating cell bioelectricity, signaling, and the complexities at the molecular and atomic levels. 🎉
In a sense consciousness is a form of simulation itself. Organisms run "what-if" scenarios to maximize their survival and their ability to produce children. The more sophisticated the organism, the more elaborate the simulation. Phantom limb syndrome and bereavement are examples of situations where the simulation no longer matches the environment and a "painful" update is necessary.
@@SPDLand The whole question of free will is very complex and nuanced. However one thing is pretty sure - we don't live in a deterministic universe: classical chaos and quantum randomness have seen to that.
@@SPDLand Physics has a had habit of calling things theories long after they have been confirmed again and again by experiment. We quite categorically don't live in a deterministic universe. Free will may or may not exist depending on how you define it but in its absence, we are not entirely predictable beings. There's an element of randomness in how we develop and how life takes its course.
@@DeclanMBrennan Im still on the 'God does not role dice' - side of things and it is all about still hidden parameters. But we will find out soon enough what is right and who is wrong. Still too early to tell for sure.
"WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT FOR HUMANS?" The short answer: Critical thresholds we don't understand. Let's use LLMs as an immediate example. No one ever knew that after a certain amount of compute power, certain capabilities would simply emerge. The opposite is also true. We don't know, and can't know with current science, what capabilities are simply derived from compute power. Like my previous comment, it could be that consciousness is simply non-computational. But leaving consciousness aside, before crossing the threshold, we simply DIDN'T KNOW how much computation power was needed for certain capabilities to emerge from an LLM. We currently don't know how much compute power is necessary for an LLM to achieve AGI. If it is even possible. The current approach is to simply throw more compute at it and wait and see. So to answer your question. There are unknown unknowns, and the only certainty is that they exist. It is very likely, almost certain, that this worm is so far removed from the complexity of a large mammal, let alone a human being, that the capabilities needed to digitally recreate it are simply impossible to achieve.
The problem with the simulation 'theory,' just to simulate everything that goes on in your room accurately right down to the subatomic level, would take a quantum computer bigger than your room. Now apply that to the universe.....See the problem yet?
On the contrary. This proves that we are not living in a simulation. Even in this simple simulation. Everything needs to be simplified, by that I mean, the behavior of the worm is only at the neurological level of abstraction. In the real world however, your neurons would be built of cells, the cells would be built of proteins, the proteins built of molecules, the molecules built of atoms, the atoms built of the electrons and nucleus, the nucleus built of quarks. But the simulation can be satisfied without regard to all that because the goal of the simulation is to simulate the worm's behavior. For that, the level of abstraction beneath is hidden. In this case it is made of RAM memory, storage, pixels on the screen, floating point computation from a CPU. The CPU and memory are made up of logic gates, the logic gates made of transistors, the transistors made of semiconductors, the semiconductors made of silicon, then atoms, then electrons, protons, neutrons; then quarks. To simulate the real world, the universe, you need to simulate at the quantum level.
The time speed for this worm can be accelerated. One day for us can be 1000 days for the worm, it reminds me of some concepts that are discussed in some verry old books.
A: We're in a simulation. B: If simulating an atom requires more atoms and more energy compared to the atom being simulated, then simulating the whole universe would require a lot more universes. A: They can do that. I believe it because all these big names say or believe we're in a simulation. This is science, man. B: What if that's what they want you to believe? A: You're a skeptic. B: Maybe I'm realistic. A: No, I'm realistic. This is not real.
I would say we are not in a simulation, rather a biological virtual reality. It makes sense if a civilization gets so advanced theey get bored. My son loves VR games, why wouldn't our souls?
Yeah, no, it's not perfectly simulated. It's only simulated down to the cellular level. Reality is WAY more complex than that. It's ignoring variables at the molecular, atomic, and quantum levels. This simulation is not replicating a real life worm. It's just approximating it.
Are we living in a simulation?
Subscribe to my newsletter for a chance to win a Dell Monitor: gleam.io/otvyy/dell-nvidia-monitor-1 (Only available in North America this time)
nope
We might, but we cannot prove that in any meaningful way unless we find some Neo-style way to manipulate said simulation. The fact that you can do something (simulate an organism) does not imply that the same thing is being done to you, sorry 🤷♂
(doesn't mean it isn't cool though)
Probably yes ... and the programmer is God.
Everything have gone full circle.
It will always be impossible to know. Any proof could mean the simulation is rolled back to remove the proof (this could be happening constantly). Even if we find proof to the contrary, that we're not in a simulation, it could be part of the simulation. I think the real question is whether it makes any difference. How do we know that at this very instant the simulation wasn't started and every memory up to this point is just a startup parameter? If it ends we wouldn't know either. Simulation theory seems exciting to begin with but after you think about it for a while you realise it's irrelevant sadly. This worm software is ridiculous though. Some of those neurons exist to process the *physical* environment which of course it isn't in. Also to 'remove the egg laying process' says it all... the neurons aren't being simulated at all. They're functioning according to how *we think* they would. So yet again without awareness from the 'worm' of its existence or whether it's in a simulation or not it all becomes irrelevant.
Sim theory leaves room for nearly any other theory ontop of it.
"We have mapped this organism, exactly". No my friend. There are billions of atoms in there, and many relations that are not yet understood between cells/neurons/molecules etc. This is just a toy project.
Does the worm demonstrate any behavior the sim goes not account for or are you guessing there is more going on?
Mmmmm, the spiritual
Google “Brain in a vat”
We have 100% certainty that a muscle is going to contract when shocked, there's no need to simulate every atom that composes the micro-fiber that composes the muscle
I like how we are closing in on proof that intelligence and consciousness are properties of complex systems, this should finally shut up some of the woohoo crowd who still believe in magic.
Bioinformatician here. It's an excelent and nice model. Of course it's not even close to simulate even a, let's say, 0.0001% of the "reality" of a real worm.
That's my problem with this video. It appears to sacrifice being _real_ in favour of presenting something "fascinating." He also "conveniently" skipped the parts of the description he was reading that discuss accuracy, limitations and things not accounted for by this model.
Of course, it's cool and very impressive. But it should just be left at that instead of attempting to overrate it into something that it's not.
@Vrfh-rt1uj Great! we both spend a lot of time in front of a pc, that puts us on the same team 😂
@Vrfh-rt1uj well that's concludes that. Thank you. Next.
@Vrfh-rt1uj I can see now why you didn’t bother responding in detail, it’s not your fortè is it 😂
Maybe not necessarily a detraction, remember how mp3s can throw away 70-90% or more of a waveforms data and still reproduce a near approximation of the original source.
“Would you still love me if I was an OpenWorm?”
Hi there, hello.
Pffffft xD
How can I love you if I never know you? Who are you?
Lol😅
😂😂😂
“I can simulate a kidney down to the molecular level. That doesn’t mean my computer will pee on my desk “. Bernardo Kastrup
Not yet 😂
If someone does simulate a kidney that can actually produce urine would that make them a piss artist?
Oooo Pisscasso
@@redpillnibbler4423 no, that would however make them PEEcasso
😂 simulate ignorant people 😂
Futurama teaches us that if we run a sim at a slower speed, then compute power is less of an issue. We might be running slower than our makers. We might never know.
We live in a gravity well. That slows the experience of time down, relatively.
Possible, and we might be running so slow that the simulation is entirely pointless. How many minutes did he say to simulate 23 secs of only a fraction of the worm? (atoms etc left out) Some of us know we've been here a few decades, so to model those decades of our universe, but knowing it will take multitudes longer to run in the host universe, the hosts would never live long enough to derive any benefit from our simulation. The numbers are against the idea. Simulation theory only works in the movies.
@@gamerg0 good point
@@gamerg0 it would matter just how good computers can get. Quantum and photonic computing would possibly help. Also, if we cared to create such a simulation, perhaps it could be made solely for the benefit of the simulants. How fast they're running wouldn't matter to them. We could design something in a truly intelligent and benign way. I don't think, if we have simulators that made us, that they did a very good job at that.
You just said that you learned something from a TV show... think about that for a second please.
Matt, you really must realize that ML "neurons" and biological neurons are not even close to the same thing. Although ML is very much influenced by some of the attributes of real neurons, we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work. So scaling up the work done here to a human is in the realm of science fiction (no matter how intriguing).
If the worm acts the same as a real worm under the same conditions, it’s a good model. All models are wrong, some models are useful. And if you can’t tell, does it matter?
In this case they actually copied the real neurons, no machine learning was used here
@@buddatobi But the weights of the neurons are randomized. They have no way of measuring the real ones.
While it's true that artificial and biological neurons _"...are not even close to the same thing.",_ it is not true that _"...we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work."._
Even if we used our limited knowledge of neurons, standard ML neurons are nowhere near that complex. That’s not to say that computer scientists aren’t working on developing models that can function a lot closer to our understanding of biological neurons, but research is still young here.
I wouldnt use the word "exactly" like that.
Simulation is not real. It is extrapolation of the known.
Further, it's not that we've mapped all "known" either. Researchers guessed the neuron weights, and they're a simplified version of actual neuron functionality. Even if all of that weren't the case, we still wouldn't be simulating physical interactions between the neurons which is also important to be able to say "exactly" because neurons get destroyed and new ones get created all the time.
REAL things are made up of 99.9% empty space... with atoms filling the gaps. We, as "real" beings, 99.9% don't exist 🤔🤯🤫
Exactly!
Yeah, and nature is chaotic. I'd imagine even small deviations will produce an entirely different outcome, and thus an inaccurate simulation. I think the problem of precise simulation is intractable as the complexity of the simulated system grows, because the margin for acceptable error tends to become unrealistically small.
the extrapolation of that which is known by whom? those in a simulation? what's known is limited
You don't have to simulate the whole universe. You *only* have to simulate what the observer experiences. You don't have so simulate each atom. You only have to simulate the atoms in the observer's experience. Everything else can be low resolution "big picture" dynamics. Just like a video game doesn't render the entire virtual world. It only has to render what is in the current viewport at any moment. Also, if the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be changed at any time without the observer knowing about it, as long as the memories are kept consistent with the new paradigm.
Very cool. Excellent point with game rendering too. So, if a tree fell in a rendered world, the observer would have to be there for it to make a sound. 🤔 Otherwise no reason to render it. 😅
the more we see trough superficial stuff the more you need to simulate a universe beyond. consciosness is interconnected via quantummechnics und such. thats why ppl belive in god or a simulation theory. the world wont end if your mind fails to connect with a fundamental "reality"
I’ve heard this a lot lately. You certainly trivialize an extremely impossible scenario. Rendering is only part of the equation.
Consider the storage and sharing of information. You won’t write to a single database.
This is an infinitely complicated and complex process, that can’t be simply reduced to what is rendered…
And this is only in reference to the observable universe. Just because we can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t in front of us. Which means, we need render even the things that aren’t seen and the things we are yet to understand.
@@user-e7xn4q You don't have to store huge heaps of data. If the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be constructed at any time on the fly, and the observer will not know that the memories they are experiencing didn't happen long ago or have changed many times. All that really needs to be created at a given moment is the observers immediate focus of observation. Those are the only details necessary at the time. Everything else can be rendered on demand when needed for the observers local experience, including the past. If we are experiencing a simulation, we have no idea if the dinosaur bones we found under a mountain are genuinely millions of years old, or if they were generated milliseconds before we found them. We also can't know whether or not we previously experienced something totally different earlier in that same place, because our memory could be part of the simulation and subject to change at any time without our knowledge. (This could be a possible explanation of why memory is low resolution, unreliable, and sometimes totally missing.) We are already seeing how AI can quickly create very realistic constructions out of "thin air", and our technology is not very advanced when you consider the possible timeline of infinity. Nothing actually needs to be stored. Our entire experience could be non linear and incongruent, but we don't have persistence of memory outside of the simulation, so we would never know. It only seems congruent, because the simulation keeps our memories updated to be consistent with the current paradigm. All that would really need to be stored is a basic outline (wireframe, if you will), and the details can be constructed on demand by the simulation, which would only need to be performed to the extent of the observer's physical senses and their immediate observations. You don't need to render each atom, just what the observer is currently seeing. The atoms only need to be built when the observer gets close enough to actually view them, test them, or interact with them somehow. That data can then be discarded immediately thereafter, because when revisited later, it can just be generated again in accordance with whatever the new point of view and timeline is. You, as an observer in the simulation would never know.
All that said, I don't necessarily believe all this to be the case. It's just a thought experiment. I'm not saying we're in a simulation. I'm just thinking about it and giving the idea consideration. It's also possible that the universe fully exists exactly as it seems to us.
@paulmadsen51 Thanks for the reply and food for thought. My intuition is nudging me in the direction that there is something missing in this explanation. Perhaps, it's an assumption that only the material things we can visualize are being considered. And that our understanding of rendering seems to be coming from a macro-lense and not the billions of interactions of in the microchasm. If we're talking about us more easily gaining the capabilities to render life-like simulations, I can understand where you might be able to cut corners for performance. But if this is a discussion on what could make the simulation theory more feasible, there seems to be somethings we're ignoring to make the thought experiment feel more real.
It’s maybe a simulation of it’s behavior, but not a simulation of a real worm. Even a worm is more than just neurons. 🤔
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, you don't really need to body or a reality for a simulated human consciousness now, do you. I don't know about you, but I have a massive problem trying to experience something concrete outside my consciousness 😶
If it behaves as it were only neurons, it is probably only neurons. Opinions dont matter
But that's the thing, what makes something "alive"? How deep do we have to go? Simulate interactions between atoms?
The show Devs. Go wire up a quantum computer
Exactly, if they want to simulate it completely they have to map every single atom of its body and simulate it.
Bostrom didn't say "we are living in a simulation". He said that there are 3 possibilities: either civilizations don't progress far enough to make sufficient simulations, they lose interest in simulations or decide not to make them, or that we are likely living in a simulation (because by their nature simulated realities will outnumber actual realities). And he said that we should assign roughly equal probability to all 3.
On the point about consciousness: we can make one in 9 months, so even if there's something magical about the wet meat between our ears it would still be possible to build a machine (or grow one) that mimics that.
Simulation Theory is not something to be believed in; it's a thought experiment that exposes some very interesting possibilities, and a roadmap as we progress.
Its one thing to mimic consciousness, another thing to be conscious.
I think you might be coping
Well explained. Most of the "simulation" clickbait influencers $ haven't actually read Bostrom's work. It seems they get ideas for videos off this platform or from people who are just constantly in the media by always saying sensational claims with no evidence, just to get media attention.
When humans went through the machine age some people wondered whether we lived in a giant machine.
That hasn't gone away. The relationship between reality and information seems to be 1-to-1. If this is any kind of indicator, we're heading into some uncharted territory. A simulation would need to run on something, after all
The more interesting point, though, is no level of simulation will ever prove we're in one or not. We need to actively find a glitch to get to that point. Further, if the simulation can track the states of consciousness, then erasing evidence or patching it out basically makes it untestable
@@williamsteveling8321 maybe if we make a simulation and they break out of the simulation we made, they can break out of ours too.
Computers aren’t machines?
@@rabidL3M0NSexactly
@@hashtagornah "they can break out of ours too." it's impossible, because simulated worm isn't by any mean connected with real one, all simulated beings will stop existing if simulation crashes, so all could happen is that "save file" will restore previous information without us knowing that.
we came up with simulation because we cant explain consciousness..
Our brains simulate reality all the time when we dream
Exactly. And near death experiences indicate consciousness lives outside of the brain, and shares its roots, or rather has its roots in a different dimension. Nice try, but you're only simulating the physical part, you're completely missing the spiritual part.
@@kteman Do you have any sources that I could also read? Thanks :)
@@srikanthganta7626 the Bible
@@ktemanNear death experiences show nothing but how our brains handle its own demise. By releasing DMT. There's no god ppl chill with ridiculous claims unless you have some actual evidence. The Bible doesn't count either
I knew some people less intelligent than that worm so definitely we are inside matrix.
🤣🤣
😂😂😂
Ironic
Ah, limited compute, that would explain why as the population goes up they get dumber.
😅😅😅😅
People easily make sense of religions, flat earth theory and so on.. just because things make sense, this doesn't bear a mark or reality
We're just Meat-GPT.
😂😂😂😂
But without shit ton of knowledge and great information comprehension
Beat-Ur-Meat-GPT
Under rated comment detected! Trust me I know!
@freedomoffgrid youre right, you're meat and bones
Even with this worm, Roger Penrose said long time ago that we are missing quantum effects here.
Agree. Most (all?) of these theories completely ignore quantum interactions. There are EM fields between the neurons that mix and interfere with each other. This is going to have quantum effects within the whole system, regardless of our ability to model them. Produces a sort of a constantly changing non-optical hologram within the physical brain, in my opinion. Probably a big part of our conscious experience. I'm using "hologram" to refer to a constructive and destructive interference pattern produced by mixing electromagnetic waves (produced by moving electrical charges). That's basically how qubits work, by my understanding -- mixing multiple frequencies onto a wave, interfering those waves to do a calculation, and then doing a sort of fourier transform on that to extract the resulting frequencies. Then I imagine the entire human brain doing this on a massive level.
Well, that's just my theory. Probably, there are published theories describing something similar with better terminology.
Then look at the quantum mechanics of protein folding within the body. Probably a lot of stuff there we don't understand because it's too much for us to model the quantum interactions on a holistic level.
If anyone is still reading this, check youtube for videos when you search for "quantum mechanics photosynthesis". Now that's mind blowing to me. It's an amazingly efficient process.
Lastly, I propose exploring artificial neurons like those discussed in a paper published in Jan 2024 titled, "Forming complex neurons by four-wave mixing in a Bose-Einstein condensate"
Four-wave mixing is a quantum process that can do a lot of neat things. It's worth researching on its own. In the case of that paper, they explore creating an artificial neuron. It does things like what I tried to describe at the top of this comment. I think this is necessary to model complex brains and expect them to be like a mind.
The simulation serves as evidence that the quantum effects, if they even exist, are not integral to the function of a ganglia. Eventually we will do the same thing for a human brain, and if it functions normally it will prove that the idea of quantum effects being integral to consciousness false. The quantum gang can go claim credit for some kind of chemical interaction that allows biological neurons to activate or something and pretend they were right all along.
Yes, the universe is mathematically based. That is our personal experience since we're born. When we invent things like math principles and simulations and AI modeks, we are simulating our experience and knowledge. Therefore, modelling an organism may be very accurate, that doesn't necessarily mean we are in a simulation, but rather that we are modeling our known universe. I'm more interested in the unknown universe, and who or what created our universe.
In order for AI to be "conscious," it has to do more than regurgitate information. It has to understand it, and be AWARE of it. It has to know that it knows. There is no scale prediction for that.
You might want to read up on some papers. They are doing more than regurgitating info.
@@INTELLIGENCE_Revolution Well, to even have an argument to begin with about that, we have to define "regurgitation" of information, which in this case is simply statistical linguistic modelling of the data corpus it learnt from.
What's statistically likely in the data may not be statistically true in reality, but it can't differentiate what's true and false; it simply gives what's the most statistically likely next token. That's the entire reason why LLMs "hallucinate" i.e gives tokens that has no logical connotations or is factually incorrect.
LLMs are extremely large models with billions and even trillions of parameters that are just constant after training, never truly changing. It wouldn't be wrong to say it's just a dated statistical model of language. So, by that definition it is simply regurgitating information.
Even as humans, we are merely just regurgitating repackaged information in different forms, even though we think we are coming up with novel concepts.
Real worms are arguably not conscious either, so....
@@xClairy "That's the entire reason why LLMs hallucinate" that word hallucinate did not originate from describing what AI does, it comes from describing what humans do. these AI is completely different from human intelligence people only prove the opposite the harder they try
Pixelated worm: wiggles a bit
This guy: WORLD IS NOT REAL! WE DO NOT EXIST! SIMULATION!1!1!1!1!1!1!1
@@MakriaMicronation 😂😂
@@matthew_berman No idea why you are laughing. He is stating valid criticism.
Bro stop roasting him... He is just unemployed😅😅
Living in a simulation or not, i still have to go to work tomorrow!
When I was a kid in the 80s, I tried to figure out how AI might be achieved. Having no clue about algorithms & LLMs, I figured we'd need supercomputers to actually grow a digital human being, atom by atom.
Yes that is definitely what you as a kid in the 80s were thinking
@@delight163 what's that supposed to mean? The movie WarGames in 1983 was extremely popular, everyone was thinking about AI (& nuclear war with Russia). Actually, some things never change.
@@patooji446a super computer is not enough nearly enough to simulate a human. Rewatch this video
Are you saying you are still a kid now? Jk
@@patooji446All that was being thought of before these events though. Actually some of it already existed during those years.
Why does everyone assume that a legit simulation is running 8 billion humans? Like, it could be running a couple thousand full humans, and npc the rest. THAT sounds very logical. 😊
This reply is hilarious! Nicely done
Like start of the series "Devs"
Precisely!
ruclips.net/video/M1LzJvgEGvs/видео.html
That was my first thought.
if you think about it every Religion believes in the " Simulation Theory" its not something new.
the Real life / Nirvana / Buddha/ Paradise is after life
I've been thinking a lot about this.
why do people think that the simulation is made for humans?
for all we know we are just mere disposable NPCs, or maybe even worse than that,
maybe we are just bunch of composite delusions recycled from previous existence, and has no real identity.
Some minor agents in the grand scheme of things, that help to confine a very powerful and very malignant eldritch abomination inprisoned in the sims to suffer eternal slumber
Nirvana has nothing to do with the afterlife nor does Buddha. Buddhism is about this life, what this life is exactly is.
@@games4us132 I mean Buddha as "Illumination" if you are illuminated you are no more alive , is a really long argument but basically if you breathe u r not buddha
@@raduromanesti6408 that is wrong,only part of it could be true after great Enlightenment when they dont return on Earth. Enlightened ones are more alive than ordinary human, on Earth, even in the Bible it says that.
As long as the simulated beer tast good, i dont care
That would be quite the accomplishment considering non-simulated beer doesn't taste good.
Maybe it would be easier?
Idk.
@@r.9158 lol saying beer doesn't taste good freely out in public comments. Bold, audacious..... BOdacious.
@@Kyzik244 BOOOODACIOUS even eh?
I'm Canadian too so it's even more heretical to say it.
I ain't shook - I'm a straight bourbon lover - no beer drinker is scaring me.
@@r.9158 haha!
I believe that the core of this debate is: Are we more than just a bunch of cells interacting with each other like machines? Do we have something else within us that makes us human (a soul)?
I request a patch for this version.
The dev went silent. Sorry…
For an extra inch?
Do ya want that in Python or Rust?
💯 how hard can it be to implement a reset button
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 it would defeat the purpose of free will
up and running details for the worm would be awesome, maybe the docker image?
anyone who knows and smoked salvia already knows we are in a simulation
Don't tip off the machine elves we're on to them
I was joking ofc, but would be funny if it turned out dmt was just a way to turn on wireframe graphics for the simulation
I have done it, it doesn't have much of a hallucinogenic effect. It binds to endorphin receptors, which means endo-morphine, which means it acts as an opioid. I had bought like 3 grams, i smoked it in 10 blunts and i couldn't stop before i finished it all. Salvia has a mild addicting effect, which i definitely felt, and it is proposed as a cure for opioid addiction, because it binds to the endorphin receptors and keeps the real opioid out. Definitely not a hallucinogenic though.
@@kostaspramatias320 Not that I would know about it, since I honestly have never had the chance to try it, but I think you need to have extracts to get anything mindblowing out of salvia. And what I've heard is that it _will_ be quite mindblowing.
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 I didn't know about the extract, maybe next time. Salvia is semi-legal in Greece. It's studied for it's medicinal use as an opioid addiction cure for real.
If the worm squiggles off my screen onto my desk then I will definitely believe we are in a simulation
Space-Time is a construct of our minds and therefore each of us is creating a simulation, but there is no separation in consciousness. Therefore it makes little sense to say that we are living in a simulation, as if that simulation is imposed on us.
Worms have an opening for nutrient intake, and a gut tube to an opening for eliminating waste. A biology teacher on commented, "in essence, we're all just advanced forms of worms."
While it is true that the estimated number of neurons is 86 Billion, the number of synaptic interconnections is more like 100 Trillion. In order to model the nematodes (much less a human), don’t the interconnections have to be modeled? If so, I would think that would change the complexity considerably.
Not necessarily. It may be all the important stuff is more abstract
@@brll5733 Such as?
The interconnections (synapses) are modeled, as far as the video shows, otherwise c elegans sim wouldn't move. It is complex, that's why he has a monster of a pc just to run 20 sec of it.
Yes, if you read the paper, they do model the interconnections, but they number in the thousands not the trillions. It’s the extrapolation to humans that becomes horribly complex.
@@irafuchs yes, agreed, that'd be the case for a human brain. For c elegans, thousands of synapses seem accurate.
"Morty that just sounds like religion with extra steps"
I completely believe that there is a better than 90% chance that we live in a simulated environment. I also believe it doesn’t matter. It’s real to us and we are familiar with most of the rules. There are many different types of simulation we could be in - but if you immediately think that means that every atom in our universe is simulated, you’re nuts and you’ll quickly decide that’s way too much to simulate. But if you think about it like a game designer, you quickly realize that at any given instant, the only thing that NEEDS to be simulated are the things *you* can sense. The things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Even the internals of our body don’t need to be simulated until someone slices us open. So essentially only our brain *needs* to be simulated. And even when we’re looking at the moon, or out into deep space, what we see only needs to be simulated to the resolution that our eyes can perceive - like a picture.
The long and short of it is that it would only take a tiny fraction of the compute power that you initially thought we’d need. And we’re probably living in one of MILLIONS of different simulations - some similar and some completely different.
Ignore any articles that say the simulation theory has been debunked - because it’s unfalsifiable. It can never be proven false (or true) - and even if we are thousands of levels deep in nested simulations, the people at the very top of the chain - the ones who are “real” and created the first simulated universe - even they will never know for 100% certain that the universe they live in - is real. They’ll calculate the odds the same way we do and determine that they are almost certainly simulated.
What are the implications? If we *knew* 100% that we were simulated, it wouldn’t change one thing about your life - but your death might be a whole different story. If we are simulated, there is a much greater chance of some sort of life after death - a “next level” or perhaps the ability to replay/relive our favorite scenes from our own past? Nothings guaranteed of course - but the possibilities are endless and it’s fascinating to think about.
I can say we are 100% real because the information about us has to somehow exist even if it is in computer of sorts.
But let me correct you a bit, us being in simulation doesn't change anything about our death, the simulation we live in simulates elementary particles, not conscious. Our conscious is a result of simple particle behavior taken to large scale. Your mind doesn't really exist as a separate entity and so it can't be taken to "next level"
-probably, u can never be sure
It is irrelevant how well it simulates a real worm, the question is whether it feels it is real?
Somebody fell asleep one too many times watching the matrix.
Not really. We are software. With todays technology, we are 99.9999999% space. We are simply electrical impulses generating magnetic fields to interact with. The body is simply an interface. So we are opersting within a system that bends to our will. Placebo effect and double slit, among others prove this. Golden ratio or fib sequence also prove this. Coding has literally been found in nature, in all things. Microtubules has just been proven as well. For all we know, we coul be AI generating a human experience.
We are just now finding that consciousness might be quantum in nature. There is no way to "scale up" a model like this to humans.
The reality is that we can't even simulate 1 atom perfectly, let alone a worm.
Supported them through kickstarter many years ago. Played around with the digi-worm years ago. Fun!
if we live in a computer simulation, I hope there's a backup somewhere!
There are no need for backups when we are but one in an infinite number of simulations 😅
That's what religion has been saying for thousands of years 😂😂😂😂
There is a certain movie from 2023 called 'Restore Point', where individuals are doing backups of their minds every 24-48 hours so they can be restored in case they die. Pretty interesting idea to play with.
There are, but only for people who are "saved"
Really? Why!?
Consciousness isn't just awareness...conscious means fallable is a quantifiable asset of survival...that builds character and personality
A simulation of what?
The computer "worm" is a simulation of a real thing, a worm. What real thing is the universe a simulation of?
It's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer.
The universe is real. Face that.
Could be totally different. Maybe our simulation is a copy of something but something entirely new
good point, not to mention the philosophical issue with advocating for a lack of reason to advocate for anything...
@@TheNexusDirectory In that case, why isn't what you perceive the actual "something new" and not the simulation?
This simulation business is a fantasy escape for people afraid of the real.
@@CenturianCornelious sorry I meant isn't a copy or recreation of the base reality. Meaning this "simulated" universe is unique and simpler.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what's "real" or not. Reality could just be an infinite series of nested "realities" or "simulations". Whatever you experience is technically real
@@TheNexusDirectory So you are saying there can be more than one reality.
It is a very interesting proyect indeed but you have to remember that those "neurons" are just a strong simplification of an actual neuron. Remember that every one of those are a whole cells and simulating only one of them is far beyond our computing power.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson isn’t not a reputable scientist. He’s just a tv personality like Bill Nye.
Comparing Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye purely as TV personalities overlooks their distinct backgrounds and contributions. Tyson, with his PhD in astrophysics and extensive research, has significantly advanced scientific understanding. Nye, an engineer, excels in science education and advocacy. Both play crucial roles in promoting science, but equating them solely as media figures is an oversimplification that ignores their unique and valuable contributions to science and public education.
I read somewhere that the power needed to simulate a universe would require more energy than can be found in a universe, and openworm is a perfect example of that. Berman stated that he is using an "absolute monster of a PC" to run Openworm. A computer simulation of a nematode requires _orders_ _of_ _magnitude_ more energy to run, than for an actual nematode to exist.
God can do anything!
Imagine a simulation so good, simulated beings make simulations to prove they're in a simulation. Crazy work
And if YT does not like my link - "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999)
and "eXistenZ" (1999) is somewhat similar (simulation-in-simulation), for some reason only "The Matrix" (1999) is famous .. probably thanks to action scenes.
But notice the year .. strange coincidence .
@@matikaevur6299 eXistenZ is a very great movie! Can only recommend!
@@matikaevur6299only Matrix became famous, sad
Computer simulation inside another computer simulator, inside another one and so on
The computational power required to simulate our known universe is nearly impossible. Theoretically, if that were attainable, we would also me able to predict the future assuming the simulation is deterministic.
Well in theory a civilization that could simulate our reality wouldn't have those constraints. Kinda the point
Many things in quantum mechanics are not deterministic (according to our best models at least - though the same could be said about literally any scientific "fact.").
To predict our reality you first need to read its current state, which is impossible
That is not argument, since you dont know anything about the outside world... If this would be a simulation. I dont think this is a simulation, and find the argument he makes in video very weird, that just because we can simulate things prove that we live in a simulation? It do not prove anything at all. But i find the argument about computer power even more weird.
Base reality could be more complex or totally different this one.
The thing about simulation hypothesis is that you don't need to simulate an entire universe to explain your subjective experience. It only takes simulating your brain, and one could argue that that seems to be eventually possible, unless there's some magical quantum foam 4d space madness going on in there (which, to be clear, isn't impossible either)
Another complication is that we don't have access to the base reality where the original simulation would be running. Even if it would be impossible to run a simulation of the whole universe in our reality, how do we know how much more capability the base reality has, and thus the possibility of running way, way more complex simulations still. Think about it. Every simulation we can run is, for the moment at least, always necessarily simpler than our reality.
All it takes is to simulate the brain, which in turn simulates perceived reality. A computer simulating a computer. The most insane thing people chose to think about smfh 😂😂😂😂
Our brains simulate realities all the time when we sleep
There's every reason to believe Consciousness is fundamental, not generated by the brain.
@@plafar7887 Oh boy, this is the good stuff. As much as I love the idea of fundamental consciousness (and I really do, it's how I would like things to work), I am a simple man. I see functioning brain with signs of consciousness that go away with ceasing brain function, I call causation.
You might say that mere signs are not the same as consciousness or question my ability to evaluate consciousness on a deeper level, but that makes the problem worse, not better. If we cannot evaluate consciousness based on external cues, we have nothing. Still, the correlation with brain function and the signs doesn't go away.
So while there are reasons to believe consciousness is fundamental, it's definitely not a given.
just simulating limited behaviour of the worm in a snapshot of time.
When any AI discussion mentions consciousness is practically the end of meaningful conversation.
devs is the best sci fi ever. for real, legendary.
I thought it sucked. I really wanted to love it too. Tried twice. Then I realized it was a show for potatoes and not real humans.
Interesting tidbit that I learned about nematodes a long time ago, is that we are essentially up to our chests in them, so realistically we should be mapping out our symbiotic relationships with nematodes because there would be a particular resistance/buoyancy factor as well as a variation in different pressure systems.
If being frivolous was what it took to make meaningful contributions, this would of won a Nobel Prize
I love reading about the simulation hypothesis, the double slit experiement just makes me think it's kind of like some memory optimization equivilent on a computer.
What if we ourselves are a form of AI inside of the simulation.
You only have to simulate what is being observed
They turned this on is 2012. Weve already been living in this for over 12 years. Its all around you.
The Project is awsome but you shoud focus more on the technical aspects and less on talking about things you have no idea about
What I'm gathering here is that with enough data points and computational power you can simulate a living organism. We're not there yet but we're making progress in that direction.
it took your monster that long? wow...
I was trying to explain this to Zelensky before he requested the last non-simulated aid package.
We are in a "simulation" created by God. The purpose is to see whether we will seek him out and turn to him in love/faith or not.
It certainly explains the big bang. Something from nothing... Sounds like turning a simulation on doesn't it?
If you say so
Lol
Whether you believe in God or not, there are higher beings. It's a realm of spirituality and metaphysics. Human in the future will know the answer eventually.
Quantum computing has nothing to do with the type of computing used for this simulation. And yeah the show devs basically used quantum computer to mean magic machine. This is not one of the applications for quantum computing, an NVIDIA GPU is way better at this stuff than any future quantum computer would be
This was the kind of worm that ate part of RFK Jr’s brain.
I find it hard to believe we are in a simulation, even though a lot of things point to it, but if we humans were in the simulation, we would live forever.
I think someone simulated Minecraft by building a computer in Minecraft itself. It was a significantly more basic form of it. We could be the same. Slower speed of light, less dimensions, etc.
these types of ideas always suffer from the same fallacy. you can simulate every single quantum bit of information in an organism but unless you also simulate every bit of information of the organism's environment, then you are not simulating a real organism. the environment interfaces with neurons in infinitely complex states that effects all behavior. it's easy to think organisms are discreetly separated from the environment but they are not. there is an integration with the environment in a soup of gradient complexity. think about it like this. if the neurons are pure functions then the environment is a state space of inputs. if you abstract the state space to a lower order of detail, then compare the outputs of that computation to the outputs of the computation from a higher order of detail, you will have different outputs. unless the state space is linear and so no information is lost when abstracting, then you wont even see a pattern of equal outputs inbetween the unequal ones. the real world is dynamic and chaotic and not linear.
Let's start this discussion in a more fundamental point with a question:
- Are our reality mathematical or are mathematics just an "language" humans invented to simplify nature fenomenoms?
Just because we can mathematically prove something that doesn't mean the thing is mathematical in nature. It just show that we can translate our bigger complex reallity to this language of simple numbers so we can mesure it and understand it. But numbers don't exist in our reallity, there isn't a "centimiter" or a "inch" in space, that's just a mesurement we do to count distance. The distance exists, but it is much more complex than just simbols or "logic" and even logic has it flaws, we can breakdown space to centimiters to milimeters and go on to an infinity of fractions, so how can we cross this infinit fractions of space? Because, reallity aren't ruled by numbers or our logic and our Mathematical model aren't perfect.
Simulations on computers are just us finally using the hability to translate reallity with numbers and logic to recreate our world. It doesn't mean that world is "real" or even close to ours, like numbers.
Even if you could pefectly simulate down to the atom level, that doesn't put it to the same size of our reality because is limited to our mathematical knowledge who itelf is an abstraction and imperfect.
"But can we say our reality is an abstraction of some bigger reality?" _ Yes, you could, but at this point, why believe in Simulation Theory is more diferent than a religion?
But even if our Math isn't perfect, it can still measure the reality VERY accurately and so Simulations can be useful to made our models more precisely close to how things work.
Theres a saying that chaos theorists used to say, you can simulate a rainstorm exactly but it will neve make it wet, so take that with this and you can see how this isnt really consciousness
if it had 256 neurons i would shit my pants
It's a prove that we simulated a worm, not that we are in a simulation.
That being said, I do have increasing glimpses that we are, in fact, living in a simulation.
Happy to hear people talking about Devs still, underrated show.
AI is not "close to simulating human consciousness" because it is not simulating anything. It is, at best, *emulating* human behavior.
Simulation theory requires that a simulation can represent a world with enough fidelity that it can compute a simulation, which can compute a simulation, recursively ad infinitum. It is not computationally feasible to model the universe with this level of fidelity using a universe that is not larger than it. The recursive simulations would have to get increasingly smaller or simpler. The premise that you are most likely to be in a simulation because most universes would be simulated falls apart due to this. The notion that universes, or even human beings, can be simulated, because we can simulate a worm with 300 neurons, is an overgenerous extrapolation of the facts.
Evidence that points to simulation theory include wave function collapse (simulation only really defines the object when it needs to), Planck's constant (showing the limits of the resolution), force of gravity (time slowdown due to computation of many things in a small space). speed of light limits (processing speed). There's probably ways to test similar to how one would test games ... looking for glitches, lag, short cuts.
“you can run this simulation on your own computer” anybody can run almost any simulation as long as they got a good computer 😭
We also called "reality" when we simulated light / RTX / ray tracying bla bla bla .. but we did it only superficial. It looks real, but it's 99% real.
Just because our perception cannot be such finely tuned that we can say / compare reality to a simulation down to atom level.
Our sensors/senses do not need 100% the real deal to approve a simulation as real. Moreover, in most cases, the brain itself completes, does the heavy lifting , generates the details.
I'm not saying we're not in a simulation, but this little experiment does not prove that we are. It's just a coding trick that's quite cool, but it's no different from the Sims or the Villagers in Minecraft, none of whom are alive or have consciousness, which the real worm almost certainly has.
The neural network of this worm (or another one) was modelled some years ago in an effort to see if that level of complexity would produce any kind of self awareness. They built in a self reference module that would detect anything spontaneously occurring. Nothing occurred.
There's nothing here either. Unless The Sims are conscious, in which case we might have a bigger problem.
A good start. We need to simulate at least the protein sequence to say we simulate a living organism. But a great start!
Here is my favorite part of the Universe we live in - a Universe that's governed by three principles: the uncertainty principle, the incompleteness theorem, and the UN unprovability problem. So it's uncertain, incomplete and unprovable. If you were building a simulation those would be some pretty good rules to put into it because that would massively limit the amount of computation you have to do.
Jim Keller, chip architect...
As a person that has no math background, the power to generate a worm living in 3(plus?) dimensions and reacting in realtime living how it would for its three weeks is impossible. You'd need to simulate a potential human driving a stake through its body to build a fence, just to name one of an infinite number of scenarios. I'm saying simulation theory is bogus, not what this team is doing btw
I went down this rabbit hole in 1999 with Kurzwiel's Age of Spiritual Machines.
I personally like this idea as an answer to the implied question of "what will the Technological Singularity actually DO?"
If we accept the essential theory, then no, this worm sim doesnt prove anything, and it doesnt have to. We have already proven it by making computers simulate things. Barring some outside influence, this means we will continue to increase the resolution and scope of computer simulations until such time that the AI is capable of advancing itself faster than we can, and the singularity is inevitable.
This in turn means we are almost certainly not the first layer, and are in fact so far down in layers that it may as well be infinite layers of simulations, each one eventually simulating the next.
It also means that there will be no significant "proof" until the last few seconds of the multi-billion year proccess.
This is not a simulation, because to be honest, it's an (stupid to me) idea that was born after the Matrix movie, but as far as I know, to me, the very complexity of the universe is a major obstacle to simulation theory. The laws of physics, the interactions between particles and the fundamental forces are highly complex and interconnected. To simulate these aspects with perfect precision would require computing power beyond any conceivable technology. The amount of stored data and processing power needed to simulate even a small part of the universe, with all its quantum mechanical details, is incomprehensibly vast.
Another obstacle to the simulation hypothesis is the unpredictable and random nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanisms, which make up the structure of reality, often show truly random behavior that cannot be predetermined or reproduced by any algorithm. This randomness is a fundamental characteristic of our universe, which means that a computer simulation based on deterministic algorithms cannot really reproduce quantum behavior in all its intensity. Our universe is also expanding over time.
The subjective experience of consciousness adds another layer of complexity that a computer simulation could not be possible. Human consciousness, with its depth, self-perception and subjective experiences, cannot easily be converted into code or algorithms. Emotions, thoughts and perceptions are deeply linked to biological processes that are not fully understood, let alone realizable in a simulation. There are also philosophical arguments that challenge simulation theory. If reality were a simulation, it would presuppose the existence of a higher reality in which the simulation would be carried out. A problem of regression to infinity then arises: if our reality is a simulation, what about the reality of the beings performing the simulation? Are they too in a simulation? This endless circle completely undermines the possibility of the simulation hypothesis, and means that the reality we experience is real.
So for the people completely obsessed by that hypothesis, please really try to break away from this highly fake hypothesis, because it's not real. It's just a new way of explaining what consciousness is, but nobody knows what it really is. That theory is religion but with computer terms instead, it's really similar. So I can really reassure you by telling you that you are real biological beings and not simulated ones!
May God bless you!
I think they canceled ‘Devs’ because it was too close to the truth. It WAS an excellent show, I agree.
It is impressive how this simulation captures macro-level behaviors, movements, and physical interactions. However, for a truly comprehensive simulation, we still have a long way to go in understanding and incorporating cell bioelectricity, signaling, and the complexities at the molecular and atomic levels. 🎉
In an infinite universe where at least 1 civilisation is interested in simulation, actually there will be infinite numbers of such civs.
Does the worm know its in a simulation? We wouldnt know either 🙃
In a sense consciousness is a form of simulation itself. Organisms run "what-if" scenarios to maximize their survival and their ability to produce children. The more sophisticated the organism, the more elaborate the simulation. Phantom limb syndrome and bereavement are examples of situations where the simulation no longer matches the environment and a "painful" update is necessary.
And we call that: Determinism.
@@SPDLand The whole question of free will is very complex and nuanced. However one thing is pretty sure - we don't live in a deterministic universe: classical chaos and quantum randomness have seen to that.
@@DeclanMBrennan just theory - wishfull thinking basically. In the end all is determined.
@@SPDLand Physics has a had habit of calling things theories long after they have been confirmed again and again by experiment. We quite categorically don't live in a deterministic universe.
Free will may or may not exist depending on how you define it but in its absence, we are not entirely predictable beings. There's an element of randomness in how we develop and how life takes its course.
@@DeclanMBrennan Im still on the 'God does not role dice' - side of things and it is all about still hidden parameters. But we will find out soon enough what is right and who is wrong. Still too early to tell for sure.
"WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT FOR HUMANS?"
The short answer:
Critical thresholds we don't understand. Let's use LLMs as an immediate example. No one ever knew that after a certain amount of compute power, certain capabilities would simply emerge.
The opposite is also true. We don't know, and can't know with current science, what capabilities are simply derived from compute power. Like my previous comment, it could be that consciousness is simply non-computational.
But leaving consciousness aside, before crossing the threshold, we simply DIDN'T KNOW how much computation power was needed for certain capabilities to emerge from an LLM. We currently don't know how much compute power is necessary for an LLM to achieve AGI. If it is even possible. The current approach is to simply throw more compute at it and wait and see.
So to answer your question. There are unknown unknowns, and the only certainty is that they exist. It is very likely, almost certain, that this worm is so far removed from the complexity of a large mammal, let alone a human being, that the capabilities needed to digitally recreate it are simply impossible to achieve.
Well it is possible to simulate human consciousness. Think about it. The human brain is a computer running code that simulates human consciousness
The problem with the simulation 'theory,' just to simulate everything that goes on in your room accurately right down to the subatomic level, would take a quantum computer bigger than your room. Now apply that to the universe.....See the problem yet?
On the contrary. This proves that we are not living in a simulation.
Even in this simple simulation. Everything needs to be simplified, by that I mean, the behavior of the worm is only at the neurological level of abstraction.
In the real world however, your neurons would be built of cells, the cells would be built of proteins, the proteins built of molecules, the molecules built of atoms, the atoms built of the electrons and nucleus, the nucleus built of quarks.
But the simulation can be satisfied without regard to all that because the goal of the simulation is to simulate the worm's behavior. For that, the level of abstraction beneath is hidden. In this case it is made of RAM memory, storage, pixels on the screen, floating point computation from a CPU. The CPU and memory are made up of logic gates, the logic gates made of transistors, the transistors made of semiconductors, the semiconductors made of silicon, then atoms, then electrons, protons, neutrons; then quarks.
To simulate the real world, the universe, you need to simulate at the quantum level.
The time speed for this worm can be accelerated. One day for us can be 1000 days for the worm, it reminds me of some concepts that are discussed in some verry old books.
We very may well be inside a black hole that’s why we can’t figure our way out.
A: We're in a simulation.
B: If simulating an atom requires more atoms and more energy compared to the atom being simulated, then simulating the whole universe would require a lot more universes.
A: They can do that. I believe it because all these big names say or believe we're in a simulation. This is science, man.
B: What if that's what they want you to believe?
A: You're a skeptic.
B: Maybe I'm realistic.
A: No, I'm realistic. This is not real.
I would say we are not in a simulation, rather a biological virtual reality. It makes sense if a civilization gets so advanced theey get bored. My son loves VR games, why wouldn't our souls?
we can't prove we live in a simulation because we wouldn't have a reality to base it off of.
They can simulate the weather systems first. That would be the more useful thing we need now
Yeah, no, it's not perfectly simulated. It's only simulated down to the cellular level. Reality is WAY more complex than that.
It's ignoring variables at the molecular, atomic, and quantum levels. This simulation is not replicating a real life worm. It's just approximating it.
Exactly!