Are we all NPCS in someone's else highly advanced simulation?

[LughSpear]

Think about, if life was a game it would need the boring npcs. While some people are born rich and have wild adventures other have to work to live.

While some people receive in a week what others won't make their entire lives, while some people get famous for doing mediocre things while others are brilliant and die unknown and unloved.

All that make me think... are we all NPCS in someone's else highly advanced simulation?

[Razade]

If we are it doesn't matter because the simulation is real enough not to be knowable as a simulation and thus not something to be concerned about.

[No brains]

Wouldn't simulating reality (or even just Earth) require a really big computer? Assuming the reality that simulates our own follows the same laws of physics as ours, is it even possible to make a computer that big?

[Razade]

Typically that doesn't matter. The civilization that made us is sufficiently advanced to do it. Yet another reason to think the concept is an amusing but otherwise fatuous philosophical discussion. Same with the "Brain in a Vat" argument.

[Amaril]

Even if it's true, why would you assume the people who seem to have perfect lives are the players? How many of the games we play are about people who get everything they want without having to work for it? An easy life is boring. One of the most beautiful things about the human mind, I think, is that no matter how good things get, it'll still find something to be unsatisfied with. We're never without challenge or struggle. Simulation or not, life is the greatest game ever designed. Treat it like you're the player, because you are. You might not win, but what fun is there in a game you can't lose?

[Fri]

Yes, we are. Next question?

[Cespenar]

Let me approach it from another perspective.

Since NPCs are coded by people too, they are actually just Indirectly Played Characters, or IPCs. Probably many design months went to their (our?) creation. It's not that much different from conventional conception methods.

[Coidzor]

It would explain why there's relatively few murder hobos and gentlemen adventurers running around.

[Misery Esquire]

Yes, we are. Next question?

If solipsism is true and the imaginary people acknowledge that it is true to the real person, where does that leave the imaginary philosophers who debate it?

[Grand Arbiter]

If solipsism is true and the imaginary people acknowledge that it is true to the real person, where does that leave the imaginary philosophers who debate it?

Hiding in the pantry eating cookies, allowing the rest of us to go along with less need to ask ourselves existential questions.

[Scarlet Knight]

Well, that explains alot. They must have just handed over the DM'ing to someones little brother. :smallfrown:

[BWR]

What Razade said. Unless we can find some way to determine whether this is the case or not, does it actually matter? And if we could determine whether we are simulations, would it matter?

[LughSpear]

If we are it doesn't matter because the simulation is real enough not to be knowable as a simulation and thus not something to be concerned about.

Well, if it was a simulation you wouldn't get out with THAT attitude. :p

Maybe they programed that type of answer to prevent us from escaping.


Yes, we are. Next question?

Does that make our existence less real than a non-simulation existence?

[Red Fel]

All that make me think... are we all NPCS in someone's else highly advanced simulation?

You're all NPCs.

I'm the villain. Who is technically an NPC, but with a boatload of perks.

[Mister Loorg]

What did you think spontaneous combustion was if not glitches in the simulation?

[SirKazum]

Even if it's true, why would you assume the people who seem to have perfect lives are the players? How many of the games we play are about people who get everything they want without having to work for it? An easy life is boring. One of the most beautiful things about the human mind, I think, is that no matter how good things get, it'll still find something to be unsatisfied with. We're never without challenge or struggle. Simulation or not, life is the greatest game ever designed. Treat it like you're the player, because you are. You might not win, but what fun is there in a game you can't lose?

THIS. The OP seems to equate "lots of money = PC", but honestly, if you look at most games (tabletop and CRPG), really rich and powerful people tend to be either background NPCs, sponsors/quest-givers to PCs, or villains. No, the PCs would be the people who have really exciting and adventurous lives. Like, say, Seal Team Six might be one high-level PC party. (I'd assume it's some kind of MMO and there are a large number of PCs/parties, otherwise it's a lot of campaign world going to waste.)

Really wealthy PCs would be more the exception than the rule, but I suspect Elon Musk might be one of those - the dude's trajectory is way too crazy, the stuff he works with sounds a lot like what would interest PCs (maybe he's trying to unlock the Mars campaign), and what's more, he's been breaking the fourth wall by openly saying we're probably living in a simulation :smalltongue:

edit: and why is he just talking about it like it's a philosophical argument that makes sense, rather than saying "this is definitely a game called EarthSim, I'm a Zorblaxian named Zyqxuwy playing this character" or something to that effect? Well, that would seriously disrupt the game so it's probably grounds for banning, so he wouldn't want to risk losing a char with so much phat lewt just to say that... he's probably toeing the line with the mods as is :smallbiggrin:

[pendell]

Well, what if the universe as we know it is composed of electrons and bits of data rather than physical molecules? Does the foundational structure of the universe really matter?

The only real difference between the world being material and being a computer simulation is: We would be forced to assume that the world , as a simulation, really is the product of intelligent design, and there is a race of Creators. It would mean that science as we know it would require a thorough re-thinking, because now we know "why" everything is the way it is -- because the original programmer(s) wanted it that way.

The search for truth then becomes less looking at natural phenomena and deriving laws therefrom, as it is understanding the original designers and their intent for the simulation. If we understand that, we know why the laws are the way they are, and if so what the exceptions would be.

Or at least, there was one. Maybe their world had a nuclear war, and there's a computer in a basement somewhere still running the sim, even though everyone else in that world is dead.

The playstation game Star Ocean 3 explored this at some length.

...

On the plus side, this would completely explain the continent of Australia. Obviously designed by committee :smallamused:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Amazon]

I think if this was a simulation, the rules would be more along the lines of the GTA online game.

The simulation as the OP described, it would be more like this:


https://youtu.be/Hj9N5lZodH4

Than this:

https://www.maistecnologia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/world-of-warcraft-logo.jpg

[No brains]

I still think it is worth considering what the computer needed to simulate the world would be like. Could a computer effectively simulate the world down to the finest observable detail?

Even if Moore's Law were pushed to its maximum physical limits, could a computer still be strong enough to process everything? At a certain point, gravity would work against such a computer and make it collapse on itself. Even before then, the computer still has to communicate with itself all across its massive body. If any section of this computer fails, bits of reality just vanish abruptly before potentially coming back online. Reality is really complex [citation needed] and simulating it on an observable level for every animal wouldn't be easy.

[Dr.Samurai]

Look at all this sondering (http://www.dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/post/23536922667/sonder) going on in this thread! :smallbiggrin:

[Bohandas]

there is no spoon :p

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, I'm an NPC in your life.

Probably not even a named one in your narrative. Just lumped under "members of Giant in the Playground." :smalltongue:

[SirKazum]

Well, I'm an NPC in your life.

Probably not even a named one in your narrative. Just lumped under "members of Giant in the Playground." :smalltongue:

That's not what your screenname seems to suggest :smalltongue:

[Appleciders]

How on earth would you test that? And more importantly, what would you do differently if true?

[Strigon]

I still think it is worth considering what the computer needed to simulate the world would be like. Could a computer effectively simulate the world down to the finest observable detail?

Even if Moore's Law were pushed to its maximum physical limits, could a computer still be strong enough to process everything? At a certain point, gravity would work against such a computer and make it collapse on itself. Even before then, the computer still has to communicate with itself all across its massive body. If any section of this computer fails, bits of reality just vanish abruptly before potentially coming back online. Reality is really complex [citation needed] and simulating it on an observable level for every animal wouldn't be easy.

You're assuming the "real" world would have the same physical rules as our "simulated" world. It wouldn't, necessarily.

[Zarohk]

What Razade said. Unless we can find some way to determine whether this is the case or not, does it actually matter? And if we could determine whether we are simulations, would it matter?

What is matters is how you live it. If you live as the hero, what does it mean if you realize that, no, somebody else is the PC.

We just have to hope that we're the present time or future of the simulation, not currently in the dark and troubled backstory, or simply the loading screen for the real event.

[No brains]

You're assuming the "real" world would have the same physical rules as our "simulated" world. It wouldn't, necessarily.

I'm aware of my assumption. I made that assumption because our world's physics is the only model of physics that I know that can create simulations.

Further, if our parent reality follows drastically different physical rules, then the fact that we are a 'simulation' may be moot. What is a simulation in an alien reality above ours may be a totally cromulent child reality that can sustain itself without and possibly even resist input from the higher reality. We might even be the equivalent of Skynet, having grown to subsume the reality that created us, having survived the plug being pulled on us ages ago...

So my assumption was made to limit how silly I can let myself get with further assumptions.

[veti]

Who are the PCs?

And whoever they are, why do they need so many NPCs? Wouldn't you create enough NPCs for the PCs to interact with directly, then just approximate "the rest" with a few algorithms? That's what most games do.

[Shamash]

Who are the PCs?

And whoever they are, why do they need so many NPCs? Wouldn't you create enough NPCs for the PCs to interact with directly, then just approximate "the rest" with a few algorithms? That's what most games do.

Wouldn’t you like to play an open world game full of complex A.I with complex personalities and complete backstories?

I know I would.

You could interact with anyone and their artificial intelligence would be much better than any of bioware’s dialogue trees.

They all have dreams and aspirations, can send you to key quests and romantic side quests. It would be awesome.

[Razade]

What Razade said. Unless we can find some way to determine whether this is the case or not, does it actually matter? And if we could determine whether we are simulations, would it matter?

Both answers are an emphatic no.


Well, if it was a simulation you wouldn't get out with THAT attitude. :p

Maybe they programed that type of answer to prevent us from escaping.

Why would I want to get out? Could I get out? If I'm just a program there's no "out" for me. I exist on the computer I was built to work in. The outside world is the same as the digital world for the people running the experience. And maybe they did, but if your go to answer is "yeah well, maybe you're deisgned to say that" then it further proves that

1. If we are a simulation it doesn't matter because the rules are such that it's indistiguishable from reality and thus the same as reality and the whole exercise becomes pointless
2. Nothing I do, could do and do do are in my control and this the idea of me "wanting" anything is a total waste of discussion time because I don't actually exist. I am merely a cog actualizing what ever I was programmed to do.
3. Number 2 means the same for you. You aren't free in any way shape or form and this entire discussion is merely a product of what you are. You're not engaging in it because you're interested in the topic. You're engaging in it because it's part of your function in what ever capacity this reality is being used to simulate. Which makes the discussion further moot. You're programmed to accept an answer or not and unless I'm programmed to supply you with it then we're just engaging in what ever functions etc etc etc.

Basically if your argument comes down to "we're all puppets of some other entity out there" then you've stripped away even the illusion of free will we have as biological beings.


Does that make our existence less real than a non-simulation existence?

No. Your existence is real because it's quantifiable.

[Shamash]

Well, if you could hijack a PC's body and escape to this alien real world, would you do it?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/3b/9d/9b3b9deaf02514cbdb9d61d3379a4d46.jpg

[pendell]

Wouldn't simulating reality (or even just Earth) require a really big computer? Assuming the reality that simulates our own follows the same laws of physics as ours, is it even possible to make a computer that big?

Why only one computer? Why not a network of computers, such that the simulation is a cloud-based feat of distributed computing?

ETA: I should think that a network would be a better choice if the system is intended to stay up 24/7. That way if one system suffers a hard drive crash we only lose at most a segment of the system rather than having the entire simulation just die until the techies can bring it back.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[No brains]

Even in the case of a network of computers, effectively simulating reality to a microscopic level of detail could require enough mass make all of the computers implode under their own weight. In the case of a network, the mass-to-computing ratio is less efficient than one really large computer.

Also, a network would communicate with itself slightly less efficiently, and could introduce load times into reality. Any one piece of the universe could go to another and then stay there forever. Every node in the network has to be able to have every article of reality ready to process at any time, otherwise astronauts might see moon rocks 'lagging' as they get brought to Earth. The Andromeda galaxy could just blink out before it reaches our own.

Though this topic got me thinking: how big can any one computer get before it is effectively a tiny network? At a certain level, is there a blur between one huge computer and many small ones?

[LughSpear]

Even in the case of a network of computers, effectively simulating reality to a microscopic level of detail could require enough mass make all of the computers implode under their own weight. In the case of a network, the mass-to-computing ratio is less efficient than one really large computer.

Also, a network would communicate with itself slightly less efficiently, and could introduce load times into reality. Any one piece of the universe could go to another and then stay there forever. Every node in the network has to be able to have every article of reality ready to process at any time, otherwise astronauts might see moon rocks 'lagging' as they get brought to Earth. The Andromeda galaxy could just blink out before it reaches our own.

Though this topic got me thinking: how big can any one computer get before it is effectively a tiny network? At a certain level, is there a blur between one huge computer and many small ones?

You are still thinking with human terms. Why can't the real world has an alien material that does all we do better and faster while occupying less space? I mean we are talking about a Dyson Sphere level civilization here.

[SirKazum]

Besides, why the hell would everything need to be simulated down to a microscopic level? That sounds completely unnecessary to me. No, if it were me I'd simulate only what's being perceived by anyone (and simulate the rest in a very coarse way just so that any consequences the unobserved universe has on the observed parts is internally consistent). Any detail gets simulated only when some entity within the program examines it closely enough to notice it.

[Tiri]

You're all NPCs.

I'm the villain. Who is technically an NPC, but with a boatload of perks.

Perks which come with an inevitable defeat by the PCs.

[Bohandas]

Well, if you could hijack a PC's body and escape to this alien real world, would you do it?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/3b/9d/9b3b9deaf02514cbdb9d61d3379a4d46.jpg

Like in Matrix 3?

[DataNinja]

Perks which come with an inevitable defeat by the PCs.

Yes, but an inevitable return for the sequel. Or the expansion. Or just for the next group to try and defeat. :smalltongue:

[Red Fel]

Perks which come with an inevitable defeat by the PCs.

Inevitable, perhaps. But more importantly, eventual. As Tarquin points out, in order for the heroes to assemble to defeat the villain, the villain has to have won in the first place. Nobody shows up to overthrow a nobody.

I fully intend to enjoy it while it lasts.


Yes, but an inevitable return for the sequel. Or the expansion. Or just for the next group to try and defeat. :smalltongue:

I also wouldn't say no to a role in the expansion pack. Reserve your copy of Redder Than Fel now!

[No brains]

You are still thinking with human terms. Why can't the real world has an alien material that does all we do better and faster while occupying less space? I mean we are talking about a Dyson Sphere level civilization here.

Listen buddy, I've got no brains, so you're lucky I'm thinking at all. :smalltongue: Also, as I've outlined in earlier posts, I'm sticking to 'realistic' assumptions just to make my responses somewhat relevant. If we throw physical assumptions out when thinking about this, then there's no reason for us to have any assumptions whatsoever. What a higher reality with duranium computers calls a simulation might be something that's totally real and not just a fancy flowchart. We might have gone Skynet and become a de-facto real reality to ourselves. The higher reality might be a room with a moose eating walnuts. I have to think in human terms in order to draw conclusions that are useful in human terms. I also had ulterior motives that the next quote brings up.


Besides, why the hell would everything need to be simulated down to a microscopic level? That sounds completely unnecessary to me. No, if it were me I'd simulate only what's being perceived by anyone (and simulate the rest in a very coarse way just so that any consequences the unobserved universe has on the observed parts is internally consistent). Any detail gets simulated only when some entity within the program examines it closely enough to notice it.

How would you do that though? I joined this topic hoping to learn about how a very real simulated reality could feasibly be made. I stick to human assumptions because I want to prove/ disprove this using human methods. Being able to actually make a reality like this would be a good step towards proving the discussed theory's plausibility. I'd like of like to learn how to Universe in C++.:smallbiggrin:

I'd also argue that 'perception' can be very loosely defined. I don't directly perceive it when one atom is split, but I wouldn't bet I could just cover my eyes and wish that reaction out of happening. The sun fusing, my genes not having defects, local sources of radiation, viruses on my food, and the molecular composition of the air are all sort of being 'observed' by me and that's still tracking a lot of little things.

Finally, this is just how I'm having fun with this thought. :smallsmile: For all I know I may just lack human brains and could be a simulated being created under your universe. If I can learn the ramifications of my simulation, maybe I can achieve more than funposting on an RPG board. Though seriously, if I've gone too far and I'm disrupting a serious conversation, I'll apologize and goof off elsewhere.

[DataNinja]

I'd like of like to learn how to Universe in C++.:smallbiggrin:

Unfortunately, you'll need to wait about three billion years for all the libraries you need to finish downloading. Hopefully you have a powerful enough computer. :smalltongue:

[pendell]

How would you do that though? I joined this topic hoping to learn about how a very real simulated reality could feasibly be made. I stick to human assumptions because I want to prove/ disprove this using human methods. Being able to actually make a reality like this would be a good step towards proving the discussed theory's plausibility. I'd like of like to learn how to Universe in C++.:smallbiggrin:

I'd also argue that 'perception' can be very loosely defined. I don't directly perceive it when one atom is split, but I wouldn't bet I could just cover my eyes and wish that reaction out of happening.


No, but there's different levels of resolution. I will need some mathematical equations to draw and redraw the sun you perceive -- through all your senses -- moment by moment. But that can be done abstractly. I don't have to go through the actual process of implementing radiation, having it strike you, with all the trillions of interactions it would take to model the flow of photons. I only have to do that if you're actually examining it in detail; with a very powerful telescope , say.

So I don't have to model the flow of energy, I just have to simulate it. To give an approximation of the effect based on an abstract mathematical equation which I can resolve much more quickly than actually implementing simulated rays.

Let me take an example from Final Fantasy X: Blitzball. Whenever you play in league or tournament mode, several teams will play against each other. When you sit down for your game, the individual actions of the individual players, down to the arm-motions, are modeled.

You see this, and you assume something similar is happening in the games you don't see on-screen. But nothing of the sort is happening, Actually, the cpu-vs-cpu game is resolved in less than a second, by comparing the stats of the two teams, throwing some random numbers in the mix, and producing an answer.

You don't want to wait thirty real-time minutes for the CPU to actually play the game out with the same resolution it gave to your game ; it's boring.

Simulation, then, is the art of slight-of-hand, of trick photography. It's the art of producing the effect of much more sophisticated, detailed processes with simple abstractions that produce the same answer with just enough precision to fool the observer.

Well, okay, there are scientific uses of simulation as well; in those cases the point is not to "fool" the observer, but simply to abstract out some parts of the experiment so that you can get an answer far more quickly than with a detailed model. It won't be the same answer you would get with details, but hopefully you can get it in a reasonable runtime.

Back in the day, my specialty was mixed-resolution modeling (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ct300263z). It ran up against just the form of problem you describe; running a simulation of a military campaign, or of a molecular system, was impossible to achieve in any realistic runtime if you did it the same way reality worked.

You could either have a "broad" view of the system (you see the whole campaign , but the individual engagements are resolved by the equivalent of a die roll) or you could have a "deep" view (one engagement is modeled down to view individual aircraft, but you don't see any other engagements).

Actually, the group I was in used four levels of resolution, as described in Space Modeling and Simulation (https://books.google.com/books?id=JmHIKmU9vt0C&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=engineering+engagement+campaign+model&source=bl&ots=EBsIN5_604&sig=V3eauOGdZRflr-AcO5hHScCmr8U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq2faxt97SAhVq3IMKHUDiDFgQ6AEILDAD#v=on epage&q=engineering%20engagement%20campaign%20model&f=false):



1) Engineering. We simulate the operation of an engine or a sensor (say) down to exhausting detail, but there is no reference to the rest of the vehicle , let alone what's happening outside of it.

2) Engagement. This might be a 1v1 Snoopy and the Red Baron battle. The aircraft would be modeled in detail, but the underlying subsystems would be abstracted to rapid die rolls , while there would be no reference to any kind of larger battle.

3) Mission. This would be something like the battle of Schweinfurt. You would model not a few aircraft, but the entire action of all the aircraft in the action; the multiple bomber squadrons, the escorting fighters, the search radars and optical detectors designed to catch them, the chaff jamming used against such things, all revolving around this single bombing run. A military operation is much like a symphony, with all the interlocking parts merging together to form a greater whole.

In this case, there is less attention paid to the individual aircraft, but we see much more of the surrounding context.

4) Campaign. This would be something like the battle of Normandy or the 1944 Operation Bagration; this would be a series of missions modeling an entire war, much like the commercial game Harpoon (http://www.matrixgames.com/products/323/details/Harpoon.3.-.Advanced.Naval.Warfare) . Whole flights, the missions modeled in detail at the previous level, are now resolved in mere seconds by simple random numbers plugged into abstract equations -- but, again, we see a much broader picture.

Now, as I said, my job was mixed-resolution modeling; in my case this involved taking the parameters of an engagement from a high-level model and plugging them as inputs into an engagement level model, running the engagement sim, then returning the results to the campaign level model, which would have been paused in the meantime, and run with the updated results. This was all done via the HLA/RTI (https://hla-rti.wikispaces.com/file/view/RTI_NG13_Programer+Guide.pdf) design architecture for interoperating simulations.

To bring this back to the original example: You standing in a field, admiring the sun rise, feeling the wind on your face.

If you're in a simulation I wrote, why do I need to simulate the individual molecules of air hitting your face? You're not going to feel them; you can't perceive them. So I would abstract that out and arrange for the sim to generate a slow, steady pressure on your synapses. That's far cheaper in terms of computing time than actually doing all the deep-level computations.

That's the same for any simulation, be it a game or a serious research endeavor; never waste any computing cycles on anything that isn't strictly necessary to meet the objective.

Because of this, it is frequently more useful to have a federation of sims of different resolutions, each checking a different aspect of the system, then it is to build One Model To Rule Them All. I participated in one such endeavor. It didn't end well (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2003/April/Pages/Pentagon_Cancels3904.aspx), even though it was following the architecture I describe; the system simply took too much runtime for too little results.

At any rate, if I were simulating a universe I would use a federation of models at differing levels of resolution. The highest level overview would be running at all times, but I wouldn't run the lower-level models unless I actually needed those results; if someone was running the LHC and looking at the results, say. At all other times I would run much faster abstractions in the high level model. I would not get the answer with the same degree of fidelity, but hopefully enough to fool the casual observer. For the non-casual observer we have the higher-level models :smallamused:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[SirKazum]

How would you do that though? (...) I don't directly perceive it when one atom is split, but I wouldn't bet I could just cover my eyes and wish that reaction out of happening. The sun fusing, my genes not having defects, local sources of radiation, viruses on my food, and the molecular composition of the air are all sort of being 'observed' by me and that's still tracking a lot of little things.

I was going to reply to this (saying how, as far as you're concerned if you're not using specialized instruments, the sun is just a uniform ball of light and heat and can be safely simulated this way as long as nobody's checking up on it with advanced tech), but pendell went into it in a lot of depth, much better than I could ever muster. So let me just extend his exposition of a multi-level simulation with an idea I had many years ago.

A while ago, when the first The Sims game came out, I thought it would be cool to have a game that joined the various Maxis simulation games (SimCity, SimAnt, SimCopter etc.) in one big game. (As long as I'm pipe-dreaming, I'd add Civilization to the mix as well, as a higher level than SimCity.) The idea would be that you choose one "sub-game" that you like to start with - say, The Sims. It begins like a normal playthrough of The Sims, except that you could, say, click to zoom in on a small patch of the house's garden to see what the ants there are up to (switching the game to SimAnt). You could them zoom out to the city that the Sims' house is in, and manage it per SimCity. You could then zoom out even more, and that city is just one out of several in your civilization from Civ, subjected to your decisions regarding resource exploration, trade and whatnot.

What would be cool about this idea (and what connects it to the topic at hand) is that it wouldn't be just like loading up these games one at a time and playing separate games - because what happens at one level would affect the others. The ants from the SimAnt part, if they grow a large enough colony, could become a significant nuisance to the Sims and wreak havoc on their comfort level. Similarly, the layout of the SimAnt level would be based on the Sims house layout, and actions undertaken by the Sims would affect the ants accordingly. The Sims would interact with their city at large in a similar way, producing wealth and whatnot, and being affected by what's going on in the SimCity level (e.g. if the crime rate rises, they're more likely to be robbed). And the SimCity level would likewise connect to the Civ level - whether the civ thrives or fails affects what resources are available to your city, enemy invasions affect the city much like a catastrophe would in a regular SimCity game, and so on, and managing the city particularly well could likewise help the Civ level by giving you a better font of resources, technology and so on.

And here's the catch - you wouldn't have to simulate everything that's going on at any given moment. Sure, it would be insane to have the game simulate not only all cities in the Civ world at the SimCity level, but also all houses on all those cities at the Sims level, and all ants in the world at the SimAnt level. But that's hardly necessary. No, when you're playing one sub-game, everything else becomes an abstraction. Say you're playing SimCity - all the houses in that city are no more detailed than they would be in a regular game of SimCity. If there's any particular house in there that you've played in as The Sims, the game simply keeps track of the passage of time as well as a few key statistics (crime rate, unemployment rate, tax rate etc.), and next time you load that house in The Sims, it simply updates your previously saved game according to those changes. Similarly, the Civ level does not exist when you're playing SimCity, other than in a random chance of external factors (economic crises, invasions etc.) happening to your city. If you move to the Civ level, it saves your SimCity city, keeps track of a few key statistics that affect it, and then updates the SimCity game next time you go into that city again. If you go somewhere you've never been before (another house in the city, another city in the civ, you go "up" a level for the very first time)? It gets procedurally generated.

The whole point is - the game only simulates what's relevant to you at that particular moment. Everything else gets abstracted away. So I could easily picture a simulation of our world that works the same way. Any details that aren't directly relevant to what can be perceived by the entities within the simulation don't get simulated. If anyone looks closer (or uses advanced instruments)? You simulate that.

[Tiri]

Inevitable, perhaps. But more importantly, eventual. As Tarquin points out, in order for the heroes to assemble to defeat the villain, the villain has to have won in the first place. Nobody shows up to overthrow a nobody.

I fully intend to enjoy it while it lasts.

That's not entirely true. The villain could be on their way to winning, still caught up in the hard slog of getting there in the first place, then get defeated anyway.

[pendell]

Still, the discussion above makes me think we're probably not an advanced simulation. Reason: The discussion above is all about simulation in the eye of the observer, of the user. Well, if we were actually in the system, nobody needs to worry about hiding the underworkings of the system from the NPCs. The only people who would need those kinds of details would be the actual PCs, and only when they were actually around.

From my POV, the only reasonable alternative was if *I* was a PC and the rest of you are highly sophisticated chatbots :smallamused:. But somehow I doubt it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my job standing on a corner and saying "Welcome to Raleigh!" whenever somebody walks up and interacts with me. :smallbiggrin:

Tongue-in-cheek but still a little serious,

Brian P.

[S@tanicoaldo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB3v3bDba5g

[No brains]

Still, the discussion above makes me think we're probably not an advanced simulation. Reason: The discussion above is all about simulation in the eye of the observer, of the user. Well, if we were actually in the system, nobody needs to worry about hiding the underworkings of the system from the NPCs. The only people who would need those kinds of details would be the actual PCs, and only when they were actually around.

From my POV, the only reasonable alternative was if *I* was a PC and the rest of you are highly sophisticated chatbots :smallamused:. But somehow I doubt it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my job standing on a corner and saying "Welcome to Raleigh!" whenever somebody walks up and interacts with me. :smallbiggrin:

Tongue-in-cheek but still a little serious,

Brian P.

Either that, or the programmer has a SEVERELY overwrought sense of meta humor. :smalltongue:

So all the fine detail of internet arguments can't be coarsely programmed until looked up? There's no philosophical funposting algorithm in the programmer's world? How do we know that our posts really exist? Quick, say something that's really unlikely to be in a philosophical argument algorithm, but not something SO unlikely it will be tagged as a specific exemption! :smallbiggrin:

Come to think of it, if I were an NPC, I could just access seemingly random information at any time if it helped my role. Like some NPCs can instantly check to see if some story event has been fulfilled, even if there isn't a perfect reason for them to get that knowledge. Like, how many battles HAS the PC run away from? I unno.:smallsmile:

Also, I enjoyed your previous response. Thank you for your post.:smallsmile:

[veti]

Still, the discussion above makes me think we're probably not an advanced simulation. Reason: The discussion above is all about simulation in the eye of the observer, of the user. Well, if we were actually in the system, nobody needs to worry about hiding the underworkings of the system from the NPCs. The only people who would need those kinds of details would be the actual PCs, and only when they were actually around.

I don't think that holds water.

Assuming that (part of) the purpose of the simulation is to provide an effectively-infinite population of NPCs, all with, as someone put it, their own internally consistent backstory, psychology and motivations... it makes sense that the NPCs themselves should be kept in ignorance of "the underworkings". If they could see "the underworkings", you'd need to insert more (explicit) rules in their behaviour/algorithms to keep them from betraying the knowledge, and the simulation would lose some of its authenticity.

Analogy: the Total War games, I'm told - since at least Medieval II - model the reactions of each member of a unit based on what the individual can see from their present vantage point. (The same rules were used to model the behaviour of CGI orcs in LotR.) So some members of a unit may be panicking and breaking, even while their comrades on the opposite flank are still boldly advancing. (Not, in general, for long. But in principle, anyway.)

What boggles my mind is the thought of maintaining all us NPCS, even when we're not interacting with PCs. But maybe there are more PCs than we're assuming. Maybe there's at least one in every family.

[Misereor]

Even in the case of a network of computers, effectively simulating reality to a microscopic level of detail could require enough mass make all of the computers implode under their own weight. In the case of a network, the mass-to-computing ratio is less efficient than one really large computer.

Doesn't matter if we're NPCs.
We would not be processing information with a brain that was separate from the system and had it's own appreciation of time. As AI's we would never be able to process information better than what resources were assigned to us. You could run it on a ZX Spectrum if you wanted, as long as you balanced recources for detail level and the individual process for the NPC wieving it.

[FabulousFizban]

What did you think spontaneous combustion was if not glitches in the simulation?

The wick effect?

I think we're all missing the bigger point here: if life is a simulation, is it possible to manipulate the code?

Also: Hey! This guy is taking Roy off the grid. He doesnt have a social security number for Roy!

[Maryring]

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
— Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467. (TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)

But anyway. No. Not all are NPCs in a simulation.

Some of us are PCs.

[S@tanicoaldo]

But anyway. No. Not all are NPCs in a simulation.

Some of us are PCs.

How can you tell?

[Red Fel]

How can you tell?

If you're a PC, about once a year there's this sudden glowing light around you, and a loud trumpeting noise. Then your various attributes inexplicably and spontaneously increase.

If you're an NPC, you probably know someone who claims to have experienced this. That person is crazy and you might want to avoid getting their crazy on you.

[Simetra Irertne]

It all depends on the definition of NPC. Possibilities:

1. An NPC is someone who isn't the "main character". In that case, everyone is a PC to themselves, and everyone is an NPC relative to a given individual.
2. An NPC is less-than-human, a manifestation of an idea that acts like a human, but isn't. In that case, there is no way to prove the NPC status of anyone, and no way to prove yourself a PC to someone else.

[Ursus the Grim]

If you're a PC, about once a year there's this sudden glowing light around you, and a loud trumpeting noise. Then your various attributes inexplicably and spontaneously increase.

If you're an NPC, you probably know someone who claims to have experienced this. That person is crazy and you might want to avoid getting their crazy on you.

Clearly there's an easy way to figure out who the PCs are.

Fel, what was the name of the village you burned down about 17 years ago, and do you remember which families had kids?

[LughSpear]

Clearly there's an easy way to figure out who the PCs are.

Fel, what was the name of the village you burned down about 17 years ago, and do you remember which families had kids?

That's nonsense! Everyone knows that PCs areorphans who never meet their parents. Only so that they can be leader revealed in a dramatic way.

[Frozen_Feet]

We are all cell automatons in a zero-player game of Life. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life)

The game, itself, is self-causing, recursive and eternal.

[Red Fel]

Clearly there's an easy way to figure out who the PCs are.

Fel, what was the name of the village you burned down about 17 years ago, and do you remember which families had kids?

... You mean I was supposed to stop at one?

[DataNinja]

... You mean I was supposed to stop at one?

No, just keep scrupulous records.

[Tiri]

Especially if you know you're the villain.

[Celestia]

It could be. There are certain arbitrary aspects of the universe that would be explained quite well by it all being a simulation. The speed of light is as fast as it is because that's the CPU speed. A Planck length is a pixel. A Planck instant is the refresh rate. Etc. It actually answers more questions than it raises, making it a good hypothesis. However, there is absolutely no way we can possibly test it, meaning it can never be more than a neat idea. As for whether or not I'd be an NPC, I can confidently say that I am. I'm that background character that occasionally says a pointless line but is otherwise ignored and forgotten. I probably don't even have a Wikipedia page.

[Frozen_Feet]

Falsifying the abstract idea "we are in a simulation" is impossible, but we can hypothesize and make predictions of specific kinds of simulations and then see how they pan out in reality.

For example, we can hypothesize we are in a turing-computable simulation. If we then find reality has non-turing-computable phenomena which nevertheless have solutions in real time, we can then conclude reality cannot be a simulation on a turing machine.

[veti]

I probably don't even have a Wikipedia page.

I doubt if the PCs would have Wikipedia pages. I'd expect them to be invisible to most media, because otherwise we might figure out who they are...

[SirKazum]

I doubt if the PCs would have Wikipedia pages. I'd expect them to be invisible to most media, because otherwise we might figure out who they are...

I guess she means in the world of the people who created the simulation, not in our world. And I guess it depends a lot on how comprehensive their Wikipedia is and how important our simulation is; maybe our whole world is just a line in a big table of "other sims" in the "List of minor simulated worlds" article... :smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

I keep telling you, it's a zero-player game, there are no PCs. :smalltongue:

[veti]

I keep telling you, it's a zero-player game, there are no PCs. :smalltongue:

That... actually makes a lot more sense than the version with PCs.

Which is to say, it's about 0.03% plausible, as opposed to 0.01%.

[pendell]

That would explain why the darn ladder keeps disappearing whenever I get into a swimming pool :smalltongue:. Maybe the player's trying to tell me something?

More seriously, that's an interesting hypothesis, Frozen feet. Do you know of any easy things we could do to make the experiment? I'm pretty sure there are some phenomena such as weather patterns which are NP-complete or NP-hard, yet nonetheless exist, which would imply that if we are in a simulation it's not running on a Turing machine.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[veti]

More seriously, that's an interesting hypothesis, Frozen feet. Do you know of any easy things we could do to make the experiment? I'm pretty sure there are some phenomena such as weather patterns which are NP-complete or NP-hard, yet nonetheless exist, which would imply that if we are in a simulation it's not running on a Turing machine.

I suspect the difficulty there would be in distinguishing (reliably) between "an incredibly advanced simulation" and "a basic random number generator".

[Frozen_Feet]

@pendell: there's no easy way. But, observing a really existing NP or NP-complete problem and then mathematically proving that P =/= NP would effectively disprove the idea that we're in a Turing simulation.

If the universe was simulated by a cellular automaton capable of infinite growth, such as Game of Life, then I suspect we would see stretching of space-time, leading to discontinuities in passage of information as the simulation expands and becomes computably infeasible. So something like expansion of space reversing and/or finding real boundaries to the universe would at least disprove the "infinite growth" idea. Finding a boundary to space would also help prove or disprove idea of a holographic universe, since if the universe is holographic, the edge should have 2D representation of all 3D objects.

[Celestia]

@pendell: there's no easy way. But, observing a really existing NP or NP-complete problem and then mathematically proving that P =/= NP would effectively disprove the idea that we're in a Turing simulation.

If the universe was simulated by a cellular automaton capable of infinite growth, such as Game of Life, then I suspect we would see stretching of space-time, leading to discontinuities in passage of information as the simulation expands and becomes computably infeasible. So something like expansion of space reversing and/or finding real boundaries to the universe would at least disprove the "infinite growth" idea. Finding a boundary to space would also help prove or disprove idea of a holographic universe, since if the universe is holographic, the edge should have 2D representation of all 3D objects.
Maybe that's what deja vus are. :smalleek:

[S@tanicoaldo]

I suggest you all to watch Westworld. it's awesome and deals with all the themes discussed in here.

[druid91]

Does that make our existence less real than a non-simulation existence?

Such a thing doesn't exist. All existence is simulation.

[Tvtyrant]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berenstain_Bears

Look under name confusion and tremble.

[Razade]

Ah yes, the Mandela Effect or the "I refuse to admit I was wrong so the Universe has to simply be resetting" syndrome. One of the most absurd nonsense things to come out of a fantasy convention.

[SirKazum]

Ah yes, the Mandela Effect or the "I refuse to admit I was wrong so the Universe has to simply be resetting" syndrome. One of the most absurd nonsense things to come out of a fantasy convention.

Seriously. People make mistakes all the time. I was totally sure Anthony Hopkins died several years ago, but who knows, maybe it was somebody else who looked like him and I wasn't paying that much attention to the TV at the time. "Berenstain" is a weird spelling that goes against what one would expect for names whose ending sounds like "stine", so it makes sense people would remember it being spelled "Berenstein" even when it's not. Perhaps some less-well-known Black activist died in prison in the 1980's, at the time when Mandela was in the news, so people who weren't paying that much attention to it conflated the two because we don't like too many people in our narratives. Memory is a fallible thing, we change our own memories all the time, and we need the world to make sense so we're always adjusting what we remember to fit what we expect to be true. But nooo, we can't make mistakes, so we're traveling between parallel universes but don't remember any of it except for nonsensically trivial details. Anyway... /end rant

[Frozen_Feet]

Maybe that's what deja vus are. :smalleek:

Based on current research, they are, just on a smaller level: your perception of the world is put together and filtered through many different parts of the brain before it reaches the conscious level. So what you (think you) see is not the actual reality, it is more akin to a simulation or graphical user interface. The seamlessness of this simulation/GUI requires all parts of the brain to work in synchron. When, for whatever reason, signal from one part of the brain is delayed, it will cause the same information to reach the conscious mind twice.

If you've ever lucidly dreamed, you may have actually seen a dream where you can reverse time and live the same moment again and again. I believe such functions are related, though cannot prove it. Nevertheless, the human brain has a wide array of glitches and can offer you first-hand experience of what it feels like to live in a flawed simulation.

[Ursus the Grim]

Ah yes, the Mandela Effect or the "I refuse to admit I was wrong so the Universe has to simply be resetting" syndrome. One of the most absurd nonsense things to come out of a fantasy convention.

Almost as absurd as considering a universe in which Shazaam! was never made.

[Liquor Box]

@pendell: there's no easy way. But, observing a really existing NP or NP-complete problem and then mathematically proving that P =/= NP would effectively disprove the idea that we're in a Turing simulation.

If the universe was simulated by a cellular automaton capable of infinite growth, such as Game of Life, then I suspect we would see stretching of space-time, leading to discontinuities in passage of information as the simulation expands and becomes computably infeasible. So something like expansion of space reversing and/or finding real boundaries to the universe would at least disprove the "infinite growth" idea. Finding a boundary to space would also help prove or disprove idea of a holographic universe, since if the universe is holographic, the edge should have 2D representation of all 3D objects.

If this did occur theoretical physicists would come up with a raft of theories to (probably imperfectly) explain it, just like they do with several other observable phenomena. Several such theories would be widely accepted as more plausible than the idea that the universe is a simulation. So even if we could see signs like that, it is unlikely many would correctly interpret them, and those that did would likely be seen as fools.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm not sure you realized it when you wrote that, but both reality-as-simulation and holographic universe are existing theories in theoretical physics & cosmology. They're not mainstream because we don't have means to falsify them or because we do not have enough supporting evidence, but they do exist and are taken semi-seriously by at least a few cutting-edge researches. (Much the same can be said for various Super String theories.)

[Liquor Box]

I'm not sure you realized it when you wrote that, but both reality-as-simulation and holographic universe are existing theories in theoretical physics & cosmology. They're not mainstream because we don't have means to falsify them or because we do not have enough supporting evidence, but they do exist and are taken semi-seriously by at least a few cutting-edge researches. (Much the same can be said for various Super String theories.)

I do realise that they are theories, but as I said, they are seen by most as less plausible than other theories, both amongst the general populace, and amonst theoretical physicists.

The types of things you mentioned wouldn't change that - they would still not falsify all alternate (to simulation) theories, nor would they be enough supporting evidence. They would just be a few more strange phenomena that we would try to build theories around.

A simulation theory owuld only be taken seriously if it were testable in some way - it may be testable, but that would depend on the simulation and whether there are any flaws in it.

[Frozen_Feet]

You're not saying anything I myself didn't already say:


Falsifying the abstract idea "we are in a simulation" is impossible, but we can hypothesize and make predictions of specific kinds of simulations and then see how they pan out in reality.

I was just giving examples of which sorts of simulation theories would be testable.

[Jay R]

According to pretty much any creation myth, we are all PCs in someone's else highly advanced simulation.