We are immersed in a simulation.
There has been intense public discussion and controversy about the existence of life after philosopher Nick Bostrom suggested in the Philosophical Quarterly that the world and everything in it could be a simulation. Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and a frequent Twitter troll, has opined that our world’s mathematical certainty is nothing more than cascading green code. Recent articles have expanded on the original idea to refine the mathematical bounds of the principle further, stating that the probability of living in a simulation is 50/50.
Repetition by luminaries such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, curator of the Hayden Planetarium and America’s favorite science popularizer, has given the allegations some credence. There have, still, been sceptics. Physicist Frank Wilczek has proposed that our universe has much too much-wasted complexity to be simulated. Building difficulty takes time and effort. Why would a conscious, insightful creator of realities waste too much time and effort, making our universe more complicated than it needs to be? While this is a hypothetical query, it could be necessary. Others, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, a physicist and science communicator, have argued that the topic isn’t empirical in the first place. We can’t verify or disprove the simulation theory since it doesn’t provide a falsifiable prediction, so it’s not worth exploring further.
Many of these discussions and studies of the simulation theory, however, have, in my opinion, overlooked an important aspect of scientific inquiry: plain old observational evaluation and data collection. To determine if we exist in a simulation, we must first consider that machines are already running various simulations for lower-level “intelligences” or algorithms. We can imagine this intelligence as any nonperson characters in any video game that we play for easy visualization. In essence, any algorithm that runs on a computer will be eligible for our thought experiment. To be awake, we don’t need wisdom. We don’t need it to be very complex because the evidence we are looking for is “experienced” by all computer programs, complex or straightforward, running on all machines, slow or fast.
All computing hardware leaves an artefact of its existence within the world of the simulation it is running. The CPU speed is this artefact. Let’s imagine for a moment that we’re in control. Are a computer programme is the only and unavoidable artefact of science that holds humanity alive in this universe is processing pace. Computer laws or system laws would be the other regulations we’d come across. It’s just the two of us. It would be the game rules whether we were a Sim or a Grand Theft Auto character. However, everything we did will be limited by the processor level, regardless of the game rules. The CPU speed will interfere with the simulation’s processes, irrespective of how complete the simulation is.
Of necessity, this intrusion of processing speed into the environment of the algorithm being performed also occurs at an essential stage in computer systems. And at the most fundamental level of standard operations like addition and subtraction, processing speed imposes a physical reality on the process that is distinct from the virtual reality of the procedure.
Here’s an easy illustration. In the same period as it takes to complete a removal between two and one, a 64-bit processor could perform a subtraction between 7,862,345 and 6,347,111. (Assuming that all numbers have the same variable type). Seven million is a large number in a simulated reality, while one is a minimal number. The disparity in the size of these two numbers is negligible in the real universe of the processor. In our case, all subtractions are one operation that takes the same amount of time. Here we can now see the difference between a “simulated” or abstract world of programmed mathematics and a “real” or physical world of microprocessor operations.
Within the abstract world of programmed mathematics, we will observe the processing speed of operations per second, felt, experienced, noted as an artefact of underlying physical computing machinery. This artefact will appear as an additional component of any natural process by the operation in the simulated reality. The time it takes to execute one function on variables up to a maximum limit: the memory container size for the variable will be the value of this other part of the process. To oversimplify, this will be 256 in an eight-bit chip, for example. For all numbers up to the top limit, the value of this extra component would be the same. As a result, even when discovered as the maximum container size, the other hardware variable will be meaningless for any operations within the virtual reality. Except where it poses itself as an upper limit, the observer inside the simulation has no frame for quantifying the processing speed.
If we live in a simulation, such an artefact could exist in our universe as well. We will begin to express some of the characteristics of this artefact that will aid us in our quest for one in our world.
- The artefact is an additional component of every operation unaffected by the magnitude of the variables being operated upon and irrelevant within the simulated reality until a maximum variable size is observed.
- The artefact presents itself in the simulated world as an upper limit.
- The fundamental mechanical laws of the virtual universe do not justify the artefact. Under the operating rules of the virtual universe, it must be acknowledged as an expectation or “provided.”
- The artefact’s or anomaly’s influence is absolute. There are no exceptions.
Now that we know some of the artefact’s distinguishing characteristics, it’s obvious how the artefact shows itself in our world. The speed of light is used to represent the artefact.
Space is to our universe what numbers are to a computer’s simulated reality. It can see operations on the variable length as matter moving through space. If a subject runs at 1,000 miles per second, a function or process transforms or operates on 1,000 miles of distance per second. Suppose some hardware was running the “space” simulation, including matter, electricity, you, me, and everyone else. So a maximum container capacity for a room will be a telltale sign of the artefact of the hardware inside the virtual reality “box.” which is capable of only one action. In our world, A full speed would occur as a result of such a limit.
The fastest speed is that of light. We have no idea what sort of technology or properties are used to simulate our universe. Still, we can say now that the memory container size for the variable space would be about 300,000 kilometres if the processor performed one operation per second.
It assists us in reaching an intriguing conclusion about the existence of space in our world. If we are, as it happens, space is an abstract property written in code in a simulation. It isn’t right. Our example is the same as the numbers seven million and one; they’re both different abstract representations of the same size memory block. These are just symbols: up, down, forward, backward, ten miles, a million miles. The rate at which something moves through space, modifying it or executing an action on it. represents the magnitude of some function’s causal effect on the vector “space.” Provided that the universe machine runs one operation per second, this causal effect can only reach around 300,000 km.
We can now see that the speed of light satisfies all of the requirements for a hardware artefact found in our device builds. Regardless of observer (simulated) tempo, it remains the same. It is observed as a maximum limit, and it is absolute. It is unexplainable by universe physics. We exist in a virtual world instead of the velocity of light, which is a hardware artefact.
However, this isn’t the only sign that we’re living in a simulation. Perhaps the most crucial hint has been right in front of our eyes all along. Or at least a little behind them. We need to go back to our scientific analysis of models to figure out this crucial indication. Consider a role-playing game (RPG) character, such as a Sim or the player character in Grand Theft Auto. The character-representation algorithm and the game-environment-representation algorithm. At many layers, nature’s operations are interconnected. If the surface and atmosphere are assumed to be distinct, the character does not need a visual projection of its point of view to communicate with the environment.
To project the algorithms take into account some of the environmental variables and some of the character’s state variables. Determine the environment’s and character’s conduct. The tv or visual projection that we see is for our good. It’s a subjective projection of some of the software factors that allow us to feel like we’re in the game. The game’s audiovisual prediction is a built-in personal interface for our advantage, effectively someone in charge of the simulation. In a parallel thought experiment for film, the embedded emotional interface has no other reason to exist but serves us. Movies always take viewers into the heads of people to show us stuff from their point of view. Suppose a particular movie scene accomplishes this or not. In that case, the interconnected perception of the film. What is projected on a screen and heard by an audience serves no function for actors in a movie. It’s entirely in our best interests.
We’ve been posing the question, “Why do we need consciousness?” since the dawn of philosophy. What is the point of it? Once we accept the simulation theorem, we can get easily extrapolate the target. Consciousness is a subjective interface between the self and the rest of the combined world (combining five senses). The only logical justification for its presence is that it exists to have an “experience.” That is the primary reason for its existence. Parts of it may or may not have an evolutionary benefit or have some purpose. However, it all remains as an event and must serve that purpose as its primary role. A single experience is too energy-intensive and information-restrictive to have emerged as a competitive advantage. The most basic reason for an incident’s or qualia’s presence is that it happens to be an experience.
There are no postulates, hypotheses, or rules of philosophy or science that can anticipate the emergence of this phenomenon we call consciousness. Natural laws do not require life, and it does not seem to provide us with any evolutionary benefits. It can only explain its life in one of two ways. The first is that there are evolutionary powers at work that we aren’t aware of or haven’t theorized that select for the development of consciousness yet. The second is that experience is a purpose we fulfil, a substance we make, and an experience we create as humans. Who do we work with to create this product? How do they get the results of the qualia-developing algorithms we’re working on? We have no idea. But one thing is sure. We don’t have a dominant hypothesis to justify why we need it is the only thing we can be sure of it.
So here we are, creating a substance called consciousness that we can not use. That is an experience, and therefore must be used as such. The only rational conclusion is that this commodity benefits someone else.
One critique of this line of thought is that, unlike the RPG characters in, for example, We get to witness the qualia ourselves in Grand Theft Auto. Why are we experiencing this if it is a commodity for someone else? The protagonists in Grand Theft Auto do, after all, feel any of the qualia of their life. The characters’ experiences are vastly different from those of the game’s player. There is also a grey field between void surface and player, where portions of the character and details of the character merge to create consciousness.
The players see some of the disappointments and joys that the character is supposed to experience. The texture feels the repercussions of the player’s actions. While there is just a rudimentary link between the player and the surface, we can already see the lines blurring for virtual reality headsets. We experience gravity when we ride a roller coaster as a character in the Oculus VR device.
What’s the source of the gravitational pull? It remains somewhere between the character riding the roller coaster and our brains inhabiting the essence’s “spirit.” It’s easy to picture this in-between room being more vast in the future. We’re likely feeling a teeny tiny portion of the qualia ourselves as we encounter the universe and create qualia. However, another mind may be projecting a more information-rich version of the qualia for which It built consciousness in the first place.
That’s what there is to it. The most basic reason for consciousness is that it is an illusion that our bodies build for us, but not for us. We are devices that generate qualia. We live to create seamless audiovisual outputs, much like the characters in Grand Theft Auto. Even like Grand Theft Auto characters, our offering is most definitely for the advantage of someone who is living our lives through us.
We could never doubt Elon Musk again.
What are the ramifications of this historical discovery? First and foremost, we will not be able to rechallenge Elon Musk. For every time. Second, we must keep in mind the simulation theorem. It’s the granddaddy of all conspiracy theories. The granddaddy of all conspiracies. The one who claims that anything, but nothing, is a hoax and a plot to deceive our senses. Many of the darkest thoughts might powers at work in our life manipulating our lives without our knowledge have now come true. In its revelation, though, this sheer powerlessness, this exquisite deception, gives us no way out. What we can do is accept the simulation’s truth and do the best we can for it.
Now, on this planet, this is life.
