Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Green Entrepreneur Elon Musk has claimed that it is almost certain that we all live in a Matrix style computer simulation. But there is a vital piece missing from his conjecture.
Now, 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it’s getting better every year. Soon we’ll have virtual reality, augmented reality.
If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let’s imagine it’s 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.
So given that we’re clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds we’re in base reality is one in billions.
So what is the flaw with Elon Musk’s theory?
Lets call Musks’s conjecture theory one, and consider some other theories (from a previous post). See if you can pick the odd one out.
2. The buildup of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change, not because CO2 is a particularly powerful greenhouse gas, but because the slight warming caused by excess CO2 will cause sea water to evaporate, filling the atmosphere with water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The evaporation of water vapour will trigger a chain reaction, a runaway greenhouse effect, in which global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansen’s words, “The oceans will begin to boil”.
3. We have already been visited by aliens, who most likely continue to monitor us. The alternative is to believe the preposterous proposition that we are the only intelligent life inhabiting any of the planets circling our galaxy’s 100 billion stars. The reason this must be true – all we have to do is look in the mirror. In a few decades, or at most a few centuries, humans will have the technology to mass produce and launch tiny space probes. Probes which can visit other stars, and transmit information back to us.
Such probes are already on the drawing board.
Since the probes we shall build will be incredibly small, it will be possible to launch them at relativistic velocities, for trivial economic cost. Scientists have even discovered ways such probes could be steered and decelerated as they approach their destination, using the Galactic magnetic field.
If just one group of intelligent aliens in our galaxy of 100 billion stars reached our level of technology, at least half a million years ago, and made the decision to send out such space probes, then there has already been enough time for their high speed probes to reach our star system, and report back what they found.
4. Human lives are in danger right now, from asteroids and comets flying through space. As the shock advent of the Chelyabinsk meteor demonstrated, Earth can be struck unexpectedly at any time by meteors and other space bodies, many of which have the potential to cause widespread devastation. The Chelyabinsk meteor detonated with a force of 500 kilotons of TNT – it is only due to good fortune that the explosion, which caused some buildings to collapse and widespread damage and injuries from breaking glass, did not cause serious loss of life.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
Which theory stands out from the other theories? The answer of course is the fourth theory. Unlike the other theories, the theory that the Earth is at risk of being struck by a dangerous meteor is based on observational evidence. The other theories, however compelling they seem, are just conjecture.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If we WERE living in a computer simpulation “MATRIx”, that could be detectable. From
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix
“John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University, suggested that an imperfect simulation of reality would contain detectable glitches. Just like your computer, the universe’s operating system would need updates to keep working.
As the simulation degrades, Barrow suggested, we might see aspects of nature that are supposed to be static — such as the speed of light or the fine-structure constant that describes the strength of the electromagnetic force — inexplicably drift from their “constant” values.
Last year, Beane and colleagues suggested a more concrete test of the simulation hypothesis. Most physicists assume that space is smooth and extends out infinitely. But physicists modeling the early universe cannot easily re-create a perfectly smooth background to house their atoms, stars and galaxies. Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice, or grid, just as television images are made up from multiple pixels. “
Just like your computer, the universe’s operating system would need updates to keep working.
Thatswhy we sleep isn’t it?
Leo;
Lets hope its not Microsoft who is running the show, because each update would make the universe worse. Oh wait!
I think Obama is a detectable glitch.
To simulate the universe you would need a computer at least as large as the universe.
You could not tell them (the universe and the computer) apart. The Turing Test applies.
There is no universe! There is just a giant curved screen just outside of Earth’s atmosphere. The system designer is showing us what he wants us to see! Also, the Earth’s core is actually warmed by the processors. At any rate, I just found a keyboard that belongs to the system administrator and I am going to start deleting people I don’t like!!
Stu
Your my favorite person in the whole world! Do I live?
The “we’re all living in a simulation” conjecture is just a modern form of mysticism. As with any type of mysticism, it is intellectually laziness and only serves to defer existential questions to a higher power.
Thank you. I’m so tired of people using scientific sounding language to promote their religion, while pretending they don’t have to argue the merits of said religion against other religions.
No, its not just a modern form of mysticism. It is a conjecture that has certain interesting corollaries.
And its not intellectual laziness either, even though it can defer some existential questions to some sort of higher power, but that of course is the whole point of it.
There is as little evidence to support it as there is to support a physical reality. Both work to explain stuff.
Physical reality is more useful of course, but that dont make it true, boy..
Leo
If we are a simulation than something created the simulation, i.e. a god/super engineer programmer with enough power to generate a universe.
I think that is a religion, no?
Examples of intellectual laziness from Leo:
You say that there are other interesting corollaries but offer none.
The comment above isn’t even circular logic, it’s circular illogic. By the end of this sentence you are facing backwards.
Start with “existence exists” and go from there, or do you have a better, more mystical axiom?
And if we live in a simulated universe, is it ‘digital’?
And, if it is digital then there must be some limit to the resolution of the device? Are we in a 64 bit universe? 128 bits? or what?
The phenomena of Quantized Red Shift* as observed in the universe might be of some support to Bostroms theory. Red Shift seems to occur in discrete 72km/sec steps. And if you have fresh batteries in your calculator that might yield the resolving limit of this machine we live in.
/smile
*http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
Could that be just an illusionary effect of digitally measuring an analog universe?
Meaux
June 3, 2016 at 8:37 am
And if we live in a simulated universe, is it ‘digital’?
———————
Your DNA and the DNA of any other living creature or life specimen in this planet at least is a digital code base 4.
That does not actually mean that we live in a simulated universe…..
cheers
The idea that we are merely a simulation goes back to at least 1964, in the book Simulacron-3.
“Tell me what’s wrong with that argument…” asked Musk.
Virtual reality can be distinguished by the computer programmer because he sees two levels of reality – his own and his simulated reality. The simulated people can only see one level of reality – his own. Unless he becomes smart enough to create his virtual reality. So there would be multiple levels of reality. However, each simulated person asserts his own reality as real and not merely virtual. And each one is correct on his assertion because you need a software to create virtual reality. The software is real so all levels of reality must be real. One software cannot be more real than another software. Even if there is only one hardware, all the software rest on the same level of reality of the hardware. No hardware, no software.
If multiple levels of reality do not exist, then they are all imaginary. If they exist, then they are all real. It is meaningless to debate if our world is only “virtual.” The existence of a programmer does not make the program more or less real.
Dr. Strangelove,
“If multiple levels of reality do not exist, then they are all imaginary.”
Very young children do an interesting thing occasionally (called by some psychologists a “reality check”). They turn their heads directly away from something they have been observing, pause in that position momentarily, then turn back to look again at what they had perceived.
The child apparently “realizes” in a functional sense, that some things are persistent/consistent, in a spacial reality (world) that is not the only “reality” things can exist in. Apparently, they have “realized” in a functional sense, that some things are “imaginary” and are not persistent/consistent in the “world”.
They are, it seems to me, falsifying your statement/idea in a functional sense, in that they have “realized” that multiple levels of reality exist, but they are not all imaginary, which is to say transient and in some important sense(s) self-dependent.
“If they exist, then they are all real.”
See above response, and adjust lingo accordingly, please.
“It is meaningless to debate if our world is only “virtual.” ”
It seems to me you are there speaking of an “imaginary” world, wherein that statement is true, while in a persistent/consistent one (in which I can still read your comment after “refreshing” ; ) you are declaring (in effect) your own points/words on the subject; meaningless . .
I suggest the “problem” may lie in the introduction of an imaginary ‘imaginary’ ; )
He’s an egotist and all he is arguing here is that he is the only one that really exists and that all others are a simulation created for him. He doesn’t believe for one instance that we are all independent beings living in a simulation playing out our own parts independent of each other in a giant game designed to create a universe to explore ourselves. If the simulations was as elaborate as reality it would be reality for it to be a simulation the past would have to be a construct in our minds and why would a simulated universe be the same construct in each persons mind?
So if Elon Musk is right, we already know the resolution and rate at which the simulation runs – Planck Length and Planck Time ( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm )
For the observable universe, that would require a lot of data and extraordinary processing speed. I would love to have the memory and CPU that could handle that.
His matrix runs on tax credits.
Of course we are in a “matrix”. I am a large collection of tiny bits of electromagnetic energy organized a certain way and so are you although organized slightly differently.
In the movie, it was necessary to introduce the device of a “glitch” in the Matrix as a way to detect its presence. A glitch-free simulation is not going to be detected.
A virtual computer, quite popular nowadays (you can have them on your own PC via Oracle Virtualbox, or on a Mac, Parallels) thinks it is the only computer running. It cannot tell that it is not “real” except by comparison to the outside world.
So what is outside this universe and how could you compare to it? There is no way; and in older computers like Windows 98, it runs virtual just fine but is difficult to get anything into it or out of it; its protocols are so old that virtualization platforms cannot provide network access and Windows 98 barely has any concept of network anyway, nor can you get drivers and so on.
So it is that we might be in a simulation, but that’s okay, I’ll eat my simulated supper and attend simulated entertainments and work at my simulated employments and hope for a long and healthy simulated life.
Cogito Ergo Sum.
Musk believes in intelligent design: some super smart dude, or dudes, built our world and everything in it. He spins it differently than world’s religions do, but it’s essentially the same deal.
I agree, Groty. One sees various terms used to describe this potential, like ‘simulated’, but if we can only perceive the one, what exactly is it supposed to be a simulation of? What the majestic “we” of a scientific establishment once thought it was like? . . Essentially a simplistic ricocheting pool-ball sort of deal, wherein objects of mass were solid things, and not the now believed ethereal, virtually empty apparent “particles”, that dance to a music we can detect, but cannot make any sense of at all?
There is I suggest, a term being studiously avoided by the geeks dabbling in this potential, and that is ‘created’. What is being discussed is the possibility that we live in a created time-space continuum, rather than a truly spontaneous one.
“global warming caused by the evaporation of ever increasing amounts of sea water forces yet more sea water to evaporate. In Dr. James Hansen’s words, “The oceans will begin to boil”.”
Bollocks. If there were a net positive feedback in the climate system, it would have run away long ago. Systems with out negative feedbacks are only stable at their maximum. Ergo, there must be plenty of negative feedback in the climate system.
See also the book “Simulacron 3” and the movie based on it: “The Thirteenth Floor”.
Recycling old sci-fi themes (without proper credit) seems a bit tacky somehow.
Elon Musk is just promoting mind numbing nonsense, a digital new age religion complete with beliefs such as the odds are a billion to one we live in a simulation. The work of Stephen Wolfram in A New Kind proves that we’re not living in a simulation and that we’re living in, to use Musk’s term, “base reality”.
The simple systems that make up the objective reality of nature can’t be simulated as they are inherently unpredictable with the only way to know what their next state is is to observe them. This is why weather can’t be predicted past a certain point of macro phsyics; this is why climate can’t be predicted either. What Wolfram discovered is that some simple systems generate results as complex as the most complex systems and can’t be predicted, only observed in real time as it is happening. The implications are a very hard limit to what can actully be predicted with science, and what can actually be simulated.
In addition Wolfram proves beyond any doubt that “simulations” of reality are not reality themselves as reality itself consists of such simple systems that generate unpredictable results even if you know the rules of how the systems work!!! That is a stunning result that has broad and far reaching implications.
The scale of a simulation of a reality would require a depth of “reality resolution” (a term I invented for describing video games depth of details aka how refined the reality is) of even a tiny volume of our universe, say the tiny volume at the CERN particle accellerator collision chamber, would require an entire universe to be dedicated to such a simulation…
Clearly Wolfram’s work makes it very clear that it’s not possible to simulate our reality in any form of computing system, not even the systems that make up our universe could do it.
Could one simulate some other kind of “universe”? Sure, we do that already with video games as Musk pointed out… however he’s confusing the limited, and it will always be limited, “reality resolution” of game simulations with objective reality.
What if Artificial Intelligences became self aware within a super high reality resolution video game as Musk is hinting at with us being the self aware AIs? Eventually you’d notice defects in the simulation, the set of movies titled “The Matrix” dealt with this as Neo started seeing “simulation artifacts”…
It is amazing to me that a man can build up and have control of billions of dollars of resources as Musk has and yet fall into the trap of proclaming that the odds are a billion to one that we’re living in a simulation. Sigh, so mind numbing. He and I need to talk evidently.
Stephen Wolfram does show that the objective reality of Nature is much like a computer system in the ways it works, and that it has many different simple systems some of which generate results that can never be predicted let alone simulated even if you know the rules of how such simple systems are obeying! In that sense we are real life systems running on the computing platform of the universe… however to claim that we’re a simulation in someone’s computer is absurd and mind numbing nonsese… especially when he adds that the odds are a billion to one that we’re in a simulation. If he didn’t make that last claim it would be an interesting converstion up to the point one reads Wolfram’s A New Kind Of Science and thinks about it, yes we’re made up of many simple systems, cells, parts of cells, molecules, atoms, parts of atoms, sub atomic components, each of these are many simple systems. That doesn’t mean we can build a computer that can simulate our universe.
Musk fails the basics of logical thought process that so many do, they fail to test their “thought logic” against the harsh facts of objective reality. They fail to consider how objective reality messes with such beautiful “thought logic” constructs… the we’re in a simulation house of cards comes tumbling down at the slightest contact with objective reality.
Oh well, we’ll see how people use this to extract massive amounts of money out of Musk’s wallet.
This idea that we are all living in a cleverly designed and detailed simulation is sophomoric, and is hardly worth consideration. To be precise, it doesn’t matter. It is the given reality in which all of us must live our lives.
Jbird
I agree. I gave up magical thinking when I was 4 yrs old and tested the idea that I
was the only real person in my household. My test was met with the reality of
a spanking.
Musk’s magical thinking that Tesla and Solar City are viable companies is supported
only O’bama’s magical thinking that he can pick winners.
Musk’s proposition no 4 does have merrit however.. My mother-in-law was from
Sylacoga, Ala.and knew the woman struck by the meteriote.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/02/130220-russia-meteorite-ann-hodges-science-space-hit/
Thank you, Eric, for this piece. I mean that in all sincerity because it confirms the basic premise of a piece I’ve just completed here: What Will Become of Us (https://astronomytopicoftheday.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/what-will-become-of-us )? As well, I’m not sure what the root cause for all of it is but I suspect that much of it stems from access to the internet, where every loon with an internet connection and a personal computer can post their nonsense for all the world to read.
I read the full piece on Breitbart and watched the full interview with Elon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsixsRI-Sz4 ). If by way of suggesting that his idea is more or less an aberration or a quirky aspect of Elon’s personality, an attempt is made to impugn the character of a forward thinking visionary and entrepreneur, then the full context of his remarks is required. Before I present my remarks let me just say, I believe Elon Musk to have a genius-level IQ and am a big fan but on this particular point, his brain has taken a walk off the map. One has to wonder, in listening to him as he discusses near-term missions to Mars, orbital dynamics, commercial space flight and “multi-planet” habitation within our solar system for the human race, how does this VR world fit in to all of that and when (or where) does his brain take him down this path of fantasy? As well, many techies tend to look at the world in terms of a computer interface and tend to lose perspective and I would suggest that many in attendance at that conference were such people, hence the inane question by that attendee. A couple of points and comments, if I may:
1) Trying to debate anyone on this point when they obviously are not going to be persuaded would be the same as debating a FlatEarth-er, trying to convince them that they are completely out of touch with reality and that the Earth really is a big spinning ball in space; it would be impossible. Just a one-off question to Elon or anyone else contemplating this, how long has this VR game been running? Maybe 4.5 billion years, since the sun and our solar system’s formation, or maybe back to the beginning of the universe, 13.8 billion years ago? When did “they” transition “us” to a VR universe? Here’s one that ties two of the four propositions in your article together, is the Chicxulub asteroid, you know, the one that played a major role in the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago (your proposition #4), part of the simulation? Someone, or maybe the entire crowd at that tech conference, has played one too many computer games. Full stop! There is a 100% probability that we are living in base reality! We are NOT part of some advanced VR world setup by aliens. The notion that the universe we live in is too terrible and thus, we must be part of a VR universe is a complete non sequitur, no offense intended to Elon Musk; Elon, on this one, you really missed the mark. Since when does our wellbeing and safety have anything to do with the reality of “where” we live, in this case on a small planet in orbit around a not-so-common star – nature has no conscience and is quite cruel. As Neil deGrasse Tyson has said on occasion “The Universe is trying to kill us”. We do live in a hostile universe and are, as a race and a species, quickly approaching the point when the confluence of certain events will determine whether we make it to the turn of the next millennium, if we’re not eradicated by one or more existential threats or by our own stupidity. Regarding the lack of any evidence supporting the notion that we are not alone in the universe, I discuss that in my most recent article: (https://astronomytopicoftheday.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/what-will-become-of-us ) and quote a section of it here:
“As a race and as a species we will not survive the next 100 years if we continue on the path we’re on, let alone until the turn of the next millennium. We will not make it to Mars and will go the way many suspect any civilization goes whose technical progress outpaces their moral growth. The famous physicist Enrico Fermi, famous for his “Fermi’s Paradox”, openly wondered why, given the age of the Milky Way, since the galaxy may be teeming with habitable planets, why we see no real evidence of an advanced galactic society. Where are they? If we continue on the path we’re on, we may have our answer sooner, rather than later.”
2) You characterize proposition 2 as “conjecture”; again, the assertion that this is conjecture is not the reality according to many scientists who consider AGW to be settled science, myself included.
3) The first part of Proposition 3 (“We have already been visited by aliens, who most likely continue to monitor us”) is complete nonsense and isn’t even in the realm of conjecture. Regarding this statement: “The alternative is to believe the preposterous proposition that we are the only intelligent life inhabiting any of the planets circling our galaxy’s 100 billion stars”, actually, its not; see my comments above regarding Fermi’s Paradox. The second part of Proposition 3 has already begun with $100 M in seed funding (from Yuri Milner) and will soon begin development. See “Breakthrough Starshot”: https://astronomytopicoftheday.wordpress.com/2016/04/30/going-to-the-stars-riding-on-a-beam-of-light .
4) Proposition 4 remains an existential threat
Reblogged this on Astronomy Topic Of The Day and commented:
This article is a “reblog” of a piece that recently appeared on Anthony Watts’ Climate Skeptic’s Blog, “Watts Up With That”. The article compares 4 propositions, initially asking the reader to determine which are based on conjecture and which one is supported by science and observational evidence. At the end of the piece, the guest blogger, Eric Worrall, declares that proposition number four is the only one supported by the preponderance of observational evidence. By way of suggesting that the second proposition, “The buildup of anthropogenic carbon dioxide may lead to dangerous climate change”, is conjecture, they deny the science and the clear and unequivocal observational evidence, cited in my most recent piece: What Will Become of Us (https://astronomytopicoftheday.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/what-will-become-of-us ). The comments made by Elon Musk at the 2016 ReCode Conference, held this year in Southern California, affirms and confirms the basic premise of my most recent piece. As well, I’m not sure what the root cause for all of it is but I suspect that much of it stems from access to the internet, where every loon with an internet connection and a personal computer can post their nonsense for all the world to read. My commentary regarding the salient points in the piece follows at the foot of the reblog.
Elon Musk claims to be an artificially intelligent person. I concur with his assessment, his intelligence is artificial due to not being based in reality.
[;-)]
pwl,
…the problem of simulating the universe could be reduced significantly by only calculating stuff that is actually observed. The problem of keeping observations to a minimum – could be handled by reducing the number of actual observers.
The problem of keeping the expected observations in a controllable range in time x – could be managed by reducing the information that the observer has received until x-1 to a minimum.
Then add a randomized algorithm to make your wonder about the greatness and complexity of it all – It’s not that big a problem …
…hence, of course, Schrødingers damn cat – it just ain’t there before someone look for it. Dead og alive depending on the randomization algorithm. Leaving the problem of identifying the number of observers beside yourself. Who isn’t a Turing? Could a (or the only?) real observer please stand up?