The first comment on the site illustrates (depressingly) well how this type of speculation is being perceived by the average uneducated person:<p><pre><code> Wow this was a really good article. I didn't realize that we are
so close to simulating consciousness. and this part: "In quantum
mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re
being observed." is that true? That blew my mind.
</code></pre>
I'm not sure if its superfluous to even state this here on HN, but I feel compelled to: We are <i>not</i> "close" to simulating consciousness, and the whole quantum thing doesn't actually work like you've been led to believe.<p>First of all, there is a whole spectrum of simulation software to consider. The most Matrix-like method is a direct 3D game-like environment with really good graphics where many parameters of our current environment are hard-coded and everything is executed with the human inhabitant in mind. This is probably close to what the article is trying to invoke if for no other reason than "it's easy to understand". It's also the one which least conforms to our observations. If the universe is being simulated, it's more likely a bottom-up simulation where things like planets, plants, and eventually people simply emerge instead of being designed outright. For all intents and purposes, such a universe would be indistinguishable from a "natural" one, so much so it's bordering on pointlessness even arguing about it.<p>Second, simulating consciousness (or rather more precisely: designing and running human-like minds on a digital substrate) directly is not something we're particularly close to. We are still missing important engineering details about human brains to recreate them, and likewise generalised AGI research also has some gaps in understanding how to build advanced problem solving machines. Depending on the chosen method of "simulation", from full no-shortcuts whole brain emulation probably being the most expensive to fast and memory-optimised non-human AGI being the more efficient, we might already have enough raw computing power to drive a mind using just a couple of desktop computers. What we're missing though is the right software.<p>I'm also getting really tired about this whole "observer" misunderstanding whenever quantum physics is invoked. I can't help but feel this was an intentional consequence when they chose their terminology. To this day it remains a poor choice of wording. The agenda behind this might not only be designed to sell books to New Age lunatics, but also to enable pseudo-religious excursions undertaken by otherwise respectable scientists such as Penrose.
> "Unless you believe there’s something magical about consciousness"<p>Well, yes, I do actually. See philosophical zombie (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie</a>). Although I don't doubt that the physics of our universe could be simulated.<p>By the way, there's actually something called the Bekenstein bound (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound</a>) which puts a finite information limit on a volume of spacetime. Incredibly enough, the information content is <i>not proportional</i> to the volume of the region, but to the volume's surface area. This is known as the holographic principle (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle</a>).<p>I did a calculation the other day for fun with the Bekenstein bound. All of the information in 1 kg of water can be entirely described with roughly ~20,000 earth masses of 1 TB hard drives (assuming each hard drive weighs one pound).<p>And if someone wants to see something extra freaky, calculate the maximal information content of a Planck volume ;)
The idea put forth is that if we're able to simulate life that we must almost certainly be living in a simulation. But this assumes that our post-humans have nearly infinite computing resources and that each simulation (within a simulation) somehow has the uncanny ability to evolve to the point of creating exceptionally good simulations. I don't think either is true so I think we're probably real.
Assuming we are a simulation, I don't see any reason to assume that the "base universe" has remotely similar beings or even physics as ours. It's obviously (if anything is obvious) possible to simulate different physics from our layer. Why not the outer layer? We might not be "bits" in a recognizable sense, or even qubits. We can't really keep any of our most basic assumptions when speculating here.<p>Luckily, in Real Life I'm a dualist.
Ugh...same old shit, no new data to suggest that this might be possible within the time span mentioned. Moore's Law, Exponential Growth, blah blah blah.
This sounds like Solipsism Syndrome [1]. I used to experience it in my Fluid Dynamics class, convincing myself that no one in the world could possibility give a shit about this stuff, so it must be all taking place in my mind.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome</a>
The pixel analogy doesn't quite hold here. The only reason pixels have a certain size if because the maker of the screen didn't make them any smaller. With quantum mechanics (at least by my undergrad understanding of it), those "pixels" are due to angular momentum, and properties of standing waves.
The article suggests this is a new idea. This isn't a new idea at all, it's been kicking around for years.<p>Interesting but untestable, and has no effect on our scientific understanding of the world. Fun thought to have but ultimately useless.
I think there is a principle of conservation of computation in the universe that would not allow this.<p>Just like a system that takes some energy in cannot output more energy than what it took in, I think a simulation that takes some computational power in cannot output more computation than the original system is capable of.<p>If we had a simulation of the relevant aspects of the universe, of the mind, of computers, etc. that was capable of running another simulation inside it, in order to run the other simulation while still running itself it would have to double its computer power (or half its simulation speed), it would have to share computational power with any simulation running inside it, whether directly or nested inside another one. Without creating more computer power out of nothing it would soon come to the physical limits (or the computational limits) and would not be able to go further.
Since these simulations are getting so complex, it shouldn't be long until we can scan our brains structure exactly and simulate it in mobile computer attached to an android.<p>Then androids could simulate the combination of DNA from parents and have baby androids. :o
Here's a nice short story about probabilities and a universe "simulating the course of what the programmer considers to be ancient history" I stumbled upon some years ago:<p><a href="http://qntm.org/responsibility" rel="nofollow">http://qntm.org/responsibility</a>
Ah, so when they said 42 is the answer, they meant it was the seed number.<p>(If you've played Minecraft, a world simulator, you know you need a seed number to get the world started. It's the "let there be light" and ensures your Minecraft world is unique.)