The simulation hypothesis is the idea that everything we experience, including our memories and consciousness could be an advanced digital simulation created by a technologically advanced civilization.
It's so advanced that it’s indistinguishable from reality. Supporters believe that even the complexity of a character’s simulated brain would be enough to make it sentient. But since we as characters would be oblivious to this, we would not know if we are in one.
How much computing power this would require? Hans Morovec and expert in AI, calculates that this would require about 10^14 operations per second, based on computer modelling of neurons.
Other experts calculate the number to be up to 10^21 operations per second. This could make the simulated beings conscious because they would have the same brain capability as real humans.
We don't have this computing power now, but many people like futurist Ray Kurzweil believe the technology is 20 years away. K. Eric Drexler, from
MIT outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube that could perform 10^21 operations per second. Robert Bradbury, has conceptualized a computing megastructure, a Matryoshka brain, based on a planet sized Dyson sphere with computing power of 10^42 operations per second. Based on the highest number needed to simulate a brain, 10^21, a total computing power of 10^31 would simulate the brains of every person on earth.
We would only need to simulate the brain and nothing else because all human perception resides in the brain. A structure the size of the Empire state building could easily simulate millions of universes.
Philosopher Nick Bostrom, who popularized the idea of simulation theory, has argued that if civilizations similar to ours continue to be on a rising technological trajectory, unless they all go extinct, or have no interest, will inevitably create simulations that mimic their ancestors. And they could create millions of them. If so, then the odds favor that we are more likely to be in one of those million of simulations, than the one true reality.
But there are flaws to this argument. First, Bostrum’s hypothesis is unfalsifiable. We can’t ever prove that we’re not in a simulation, because any evidence we collect could itself be simulated. Second we can't simulate consciousness because we don’t yet know how it works, or which part of the brain it's in. Third, why would advanced civilizations want to dedicate such a significant portion of their total computational and energy to ancestor simulations?
Some scientists have argued that quantum mechanics supports the idea of a simulation, because the quantized nature of matter and energy might be a consequence of the storage limits of the underlying computer. The observer effect might be a sign of this limitation. Quantum entanglement might be due to a code setting global values.
But the problem is that if the phenomena of quantum physics is due to simulation, then the physics of the base reality can’t be quantum, since it’s not simulated. But quantum physics is the basis of all reality including chemistry and biology. So what exactly are the advanced beings trying to simulate if base reality is not quantum, because this universe would be nothing like a universe without quantum physics.
Here are some things we could use to prove or disprove simulation theory: First, there might be an energy limit due to the finite resources of the simulation. If there’s a sudden drop-off in the energy of cosmic rays that defies physics, it could suggest that the simulation.
Second, in quantum computing, error corrections are made in order to maintain the stability of quantum information, sometimes by making multiple copies of the same code. if spacetime is found to have duplicate information encoded throughout the universe, it could be an error correction code.
We could also test the physical constants of the universe. If we are living in a simulation, these constants could be subtly altered in different parts of the universe, possibly due to the limitations of the simulation’s resources.
00:00 - Intro to simulation argument
01:13 - What is simulation?
02:06 - What computing capacity is needed for simulation?
05:07 - Nick Bostrom's argument favoring simulation
06:23 - Arguments against Bostrom's ideas
07:53 - Does quantum mechanics support simulation?
10:03 - Biggest DANGER of believing simulation hypothesis
10:40 - Signs that we could be living in a simulation
14:03 - InVideo AI