Entry 2315, on 2024-01-15 at 12:33:14 (Rating 1, Philosophy)
So it's time to reveal the "outrageous" theory I first mentioned last year.
In recent years the "Simulation Hypothesis" has received a lot of attention. Briefly, this is an argument by philosopher, Nick Bostrom, that any advanced civilisation will eventually reach a point where its computer technology can simulate a whole universe, and that it is natural for a civilisation of that type to want to do that. It seems likely that intelligent life, far older than humans and therefore more technologically advanced, exists somewhere, so we would expect that many simulations do exist, and maybe only one real universe. So why would we not accept that our universe is one of the simulations?
But how would we know? Well, if we do live in a simulation then we don't really know what a real universe would look like, but why would we not expect to see some elements typical of the much simpler simulations we are capable of now not to be reflected in the underlying details of the universe we do live in? Surely we should expect to see underlying principles and characteristics of our current simulations yet many orders of magnitude more advanced?
Well, that idea makes sense, and worryingly, that's exactly what we do see, at least in my humble opinion! Note that there are alternative explanations for this: maybe "real" universes also look like simulations to some extent, just because that's how the laws of the universe work, or maybe we are misinterpreting reality because of a predisposition to see things in a computational way which causes us to see these signs when they don't really exist. As an IT person, this last explanation makes sense in my case, but I still think believing the universe might be a simulation isn't totally crazy!
So here's my evidence: computer simulations work at fixed spatial and temporal resolutions, and they also tend to hide unnecessary details until they are needed, to simplify and speed up processing. If you know some physics you might see where this is going now. Note that Bostrom's original idea was based purely on philosophical reasoning, where mine is based on actual observation. When theory and observation support each other, we usually think we are onto something.
In physics, there are some fundamental constants which represent the ultimate limit on how finely time and space can be divided. The two I will concentrate on here are called the Planck Time, and the Planck Length, named after Max Planck, the legendary figure in the early development of Quantum Theory.
So the Planck Time is about 5x10^-44 seconds, and the Planck Length is about 2x10^-35 meters. Think of the length as being a "pixel" in the universe, and the time as being a clock cycle of the processor. Now, I have to admit, these numbers really are incredibly small; there are about 50 billion trillion trillion Planck lengths in a meter, for example. This might be beyond even the theoretical possibility af any computational machine, no matter how advanced, but those limitations apply here in our "simulated" universe and there might be none in the "real" universe. Maybe the real universe is truly analog, with none of the "quantum" (AKA computational or digital) limitations we have.
Another odd thing about the universe is how it changes based on if, and how, it is being "observed" (note the quotes there, because this isn't strictly observation in the common sense). This is incredibly obscure and specialised, but my understanding is that the wave function of a system only "collapses" and takes a fixed state, when it is observed.
Now, maybe I'm taking this too far, just to support my theory, but this sounds awfully like techniques used in simulation and game programming where details of an object are only calculated when they become visible to the experimenter or player (or observer in the case of the universe).
At this point you might be wondering am I serious, or is this some kind of joke; or am I someone with a naive understanding of quantum physics pushing my knowledge too far; or am I just totally crazy? Well, all of those are possible, but I am offering this as an idea worth of consideration. I don't take this stuff totally seriously, but if it is later shown that it is all true, then I claim to be a pioneer in the new science of "simulation cosmology". There, I have even gaven it a name. Alternatively, let's just call it the "OJB Hypothesis"!
Comment 1 by EK on 2024-01-15 at 16:55:05:
Not a problem for a solipsist like me.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2024-01-15 at 19:56:58:
Nothing is a problem for a solipsist. Too easy! BTW, who were you replying to with that comment? Yourself? :)
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE