Probability of living inside a simulation

Then if you’re running in sequence then it’s a long time to work it out, how many parameters are you changing? What are your variables?

Could just be a once through simulation, it doesn’t have to be an experiment with variables. You could simulate the fluid dynamics of a bike frame in a velodrome, one speed, one air density, one frame, one answer. So if the question has a single answer (how long would it take life on earth to figure out it was in a simulation) then there’s no variable, just a question. Or you could ask the question what is the time dependency of life on earth figuring out it’s a simulation correlated against the atomic weight of hydrogen in each world.

And ‘time’ is relative, the process simulation on my PC reaches a steady state in minutes, in reality if I started up the plant and left it at that it would take weeks to settle down if it didn’t blow up first. Given sufficient processing power you could do the entire universes existence in a blink of an eye.

Here’s another question, if the brain and everything else is just a load of chemical and physical reactions, then you could simulate it down to brownian motion (and beyond), and life would cease to be free will, you could figure out exactly what was going to happen.

But if it’s a simulation, that isn’t that detailed, with your brain represented by questions and answers, do you actually have more free will in the simulation?

OK (this may be a bit of my specialist subject)
Single computational stuff like that is something you can do with multi core as it’s not dependant on sequential events.
Time is relative – as I said above the overhead of spreading processing load and event management is doing the maths the resynchronize the events to continue a decent sim is massive, the breakthrough to speed this up is as posted above it’s now down to the atomic sizes etc. we currently can’t make electrons smaller.

Here’s another question, if the brain and everything else is just a load of chemical and physical reactions, then you could simulate it down to brownian motion (and beyond), and life would cease to be free will, you could figure out exactly what was going to happen.

Quantum physics says no.

Once you get down to the atoms that make up the brain and the interaction and exchange of their particles the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics takes over.

Most research that I’ve seen seems to suggest that quantum physics doesn’t have any significant impact, if any, on neurons.

Read a short story once about how we worked out we were in an Alien’s simulation but managed to hack onto their system. Then they used a biological 3d printer to create an army and took over the real world.

Don’t underestimate the humans.

Could be that YOU are the only subject in this simulation, and the rest of us are just part of the system…

So, I assume the illuminati are in on this and doing the will of our lizard overlords who are running “the simulation”?

Could the simulation itself be powering the simulation? Like if you built a machine to adapt to its environment and be self sufficient. Like a chain reaction from a few base materials? Isn’t the whole periodic table essentially made from the most basic of element hydrogen?

I think it’s a little naive to think that we could build a single computer (no matter how vast) that could generate a simulation as complex as what we experience especially when we don’t know what the universes small componant parts are nor what the majority of the universe is actually made of (dark matter & dark energy).

I love quantum mechanics, it’s like when Einstein worked out how the universe works, the human race unlocked level 2. Where the rules are totally different and not logical, if there is a god he/she/it has a sense of humour.

if there is a god he/she/it has a sense of humour.

He’ll need it when I get my hands round the fecker’s throat.

I don’t think you can necessarily assume physics outside the simulation is the same as physics within the simulation.

I don’t think you can necessarily assume physics outside the simulation is the same as physics within the simulation.

Pretty much what I was saying earlier… 🙂

Yes, if you tried to mimic other ‘laws’. If those ‘laws’ are unique to this ‘science experiment’, then there is no convincing to be done.