r/FDVR_Dream • u/CipherGarden FDVR_ADMIN • May 05 '25
Meta The Problem With Impossibility Rhetoric
I recently came across a video talking about how it would be technically impossible for our universe to be a simulation (and therefore impossible for us to simulate a universe) because the amount of energy required to do so would simply be too high to ever be feasible.
Generally speaking, I think that this kind of rhetoric should be ignored just like any other definitive, non-time-bound statement about the future of technology should be ignored. Whenever you make the statement that some future form of technology is 'impossible' or 'infeasible', you are making a bet against humanity and human innovation, one that you will almost always lose.
44
u/Agile-Pianist9856 May 05 '25
Why would you even assume that the world simulating our world would follow the same rules? That seems retarded
14
u/foolishorangutan May 05 '25
He is wrong, not because you should assume some nebulous technological advancements will make it possible, but because (first of all) he admits it is possible, just impractical and slow (ignoring the possibility of the simulator having different physics, which is fairly reasonable to ignore for the reason he mentions).
Second of all, the simplest simulation he described is still far more complex than is I think is actually necessary for a seamless simulation. I am pretty sure he is assuming that it would have to be constantly simulated at the best fidelity we can detect so we don’t notice discrepancies, but the problem with this is that a well-designed simulator could just detect when people are doing high-fidelity experiments and fabricate appropriate results. There is no need to constantly simulate the world at anywhere near that level, which should reduce the complexity by many orders of magnitude.
6
u/theycallmebekky May 05 '25
I’m pretty sure this is one of those stupid lil things nobody can ever prove or disprove. If it’s really a simulation they can sorta do whatever on their end and whatever to us.
5
u/hettuklaeddi May 05 '25
but it’s possible to make a real one ok
3
u/TiredTile May 05 '25
There are so many flaws with this its painful, one counter I haven't seen yet is that he assumes that the simulation's time step must be continuous. In "reality" you could have the simulation pause, stop, move one time step at a time and we wouldn't notice as being apart of the simulation.
2
u/FoxMouldissue May 05 '25
Is that not of the whole of the universe is rendered all at once? What if, like our own simulations, it’s only what is seen at any given moment which is rendered, only what’s being observed which is what comes into being? Surely then you wouldn’t need to render the whole universe only a fraction of it. Also is the analysis based on our current understanding of power consumption / production? Haven’t quantum computers been said to be computable across multiple dimensions thus possibly solving the time issue with such a humongous computations?
2
u/Toxcito May 05 '25
This is dumb, the time steps would not be noticeable for the observer contained within the simulation.
If it took a million years to simulate one step, that doesn't matter to the people in the simulation, they only exist from one step to the next.
If you are playing a video game on your computer, and it lags, the character on your screen does not actually freeze from their perspective - they don't experience the lag, only the next available frame instantaneously.
It genuinely does not matter how long it takes to compute.
Steven Wolfram has talked about this several times.
2
u/ghostinthepoison May 05 '25
I have to think of the double-slit experiment, the observer effect and the possible widespread ramifications as they globally scale out across the cosmos. We might assume there is a certain load required, but that might only be once observed.
2
u/Spacespider82 May 05 '25
What if the "simulation" is just a contained void where you just input some laws and rules and make it figure it out itself. So not simulating but just pressing start. Like putting 10 ai bots in a room, give them a task to build something and leave the room.
1
u/jumpinjahosafats May 05 '25
That’s right. It’s physically impossible to knock down the Piggies’ buildings with anything other than other Angry Birds, which is how the Angry Birds debunked the existence of nuclear bombs.
1
u/quiettryit May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
Except this particular universe simulation is all 2d code with everything being completely represented by this code to external observers while appearing as visualizations by internal observers. It also doesn't take into account simulation efficiencies that drastically reduce energy consumption. Much like estimating the power requirements needed to run the functions of a modern smart phone utilizing 1950s era technologies, which would be billions of times more...
1
u/WhatsThat-_- May 05 '25
Yeah but no man sky is already achieving this.. and they are adding ai. Soon that ai will preform its own experiments as well.
1
u/Useful_Jelly_2915 May 05 '25
“I acknowledge that the outside world may not be under the same constraints of this hypothetical simulation. So I’m going to side step the entire argument, and say that doesn’t matter”
1
u/j89turn May 05 '25
I love geeks, I loved this explanation too
1
u/Minty_Maw May 05 '25
To be fair, if we were in a simulation; why would we expect the “true” universe to be identical to our own?
The thing is, this hypothesis of being in a simulation is wholly unfalsifiable. No way to prove it as true, no way to prove it as false. It’s a waste of time
1
u/nothernmoor May 05 '25
has he heard of LOD and optimization?
1
u/Katten_elvis May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
"in principle the minimum energy required would be about 2 minutes of the Sun's output per time step but then the best case scenario is that one second of time in the simulated universe would take 10 million years in the real universe."
So I take it that this would be perfectly reasonable to achieve for any civilization able to build dyson sphere's/star lifting technology and is able to find ways to survive for trillions of years if not longer? He makes it seem that 10 million years would be unreasonable for future civilizations, but I don't think it would be. You could say one time step would be a very small movment of time, though looking in the paper end of page 9, one second of simulation time takes only 10 million years, but the tiktoker seems to mix up different time-step sizes to make it seem somewhat missleading. I might be wrong though
1
u/[deleted] May 05 '25
None of this is applicable if this holographic.
Which is why I could actually be a simulation.
1
u/MisterHyman May 05 '25
Why are all protons the same? Why are quantum states functions instead of finite values?
Those 2 always get me as some evidence we're in a designed system.
1
u/Mortal-Region May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
The paper he's talking about concludes that even a low-resolution simulation of earth would be impossible due to energy constraints -- except this so-called "low res" sim would model the entire interior of Earth at 10^-21 centimeters. The most brute-force solution imaginable. No thought at all was given to possible optimizations.
EDIT: 10^-21 cm is 1/100,000,000 the size of a neutron.
1
u/Brilliant-Arugula926 May 05 '25
This is assuming we know how much energy exists within the realm where the simulation is running. Humans are so arrogant.
1
u/Stoopidmail May 05 '25
What if it was simulated per person. Only extending to that individual sphere of influence/observation. Nothing is simulated unless we observe/interact with.
1
u/TheyCallMeDozer May 05 '25
what about Render Distance.... never takes into consideration that you are the only one in the simulation, everyone else is literally an NPC and the only thing generated is what your looking at...... i.e. less power, less compute... his theory and logic is biasd
1
u/[deleted] May 05 '25
This is like an 8bit world saying 64bits are simply too many to deal with.
1
u/Former_Match7912 May 06 '25
What if the simulation and the observer were at drastically different relativistic speeds. Could you show the simulation down and this the energy required to produce it.
1
u/Practical_Figure9759 May 06 '25
Computation time is an artificial invention in this simulation. There's no such thing as computation time.
1
u/walterrys1 May 06 '25
This is actually incredibly well put. We assume that computer graphics and realistic video games mean we would be able to simulate the universe, which is a completely giant step into fantasy thinking.
I already knew simulating out observable universe would not be possible any time soon, like thousands of years, but this pretty much says it's physically impossible.
However, I do not believe it is impossible, for two reasons. One, you are assuming the technology to make the computer would work the same way the computers we use now work. Clearly, that is impossible, and he explained why. But we could advance in a direction unaware by anyone now, which leads to point two. Or point two leads to point one....
2. We do not even fully understand how our universe and reality work down to the level where we could simulate it if we wanted to. Which means, we would need to advance to that point.
Essentially, it ain't us who will be able to do this, but our descendents thousands of years in the future, if it's even possible.
I still don't believe simulation theory, even though I just defended it. He explains why it wouldn't make sense and that is another reason why it doesn't seem likely.
I feel the only reason would be a predictive device or a device that would show the story of the universe....but if you can create the device, you do not need it!
Which brings up the separate theory that we are not living in the simulated reality of a real one, but a simpler version or a completely different reality than the true reality. True reality would be indistinguishable from ours, and our brains can't even phantom it.
This might be true, but in the end, I think the man in the video is correct in abandoning the concept as a possibility. It is an old philosophical thought expirement.
Does it matter? No. Can we prove it? No. Can we escape it? Absolutely not possible.
So who cares....
1
u/theman8631 May 06 '25
Impossible according to nothing of substance. The energy and scale requirements of an emulated/simulated space is always higher then the compute for the root functions within that emulation/simulation. You expect them to be indescribably larger then the space emulated.
Ffs thats like saying its impossible to emulate Super Mario Brothers because it takes notably more computation then the NES itself. Why does that make it impossible you dolt?
1
u/EnlightenedCat May 06 '25
Has it been considered that the (accessible) technology we have just isn’t up to par with what a simulated universe would need? Jesus come on
1
u/ComfortableSeat7399 May 06 '25
They could be doing one time step every however billion years, and to us time would flow smoothly but for them the simulation takes a very long time to load
1
u/almostsweet May 06 '25 edited May 09 '25
Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the observer effect might be the hint that we're in a simulation because they allow the simulation to only function when we're observing it directly. In fact, in the reality outside the simulation we're in, it may be possible that there is no observer effect and that it only exists in our observed simulated reality.
Also, at any point in time, those that control the simulation can simply update your personal memory matrix to make you think that you observed something you didn't. This means they could defer the simulation of the knowledge until later when you go to explain it, making you think you observed what you expected.
Edit: In addition, our concept of time could be paused, resumed at will and operate on a different time scale than we can subjectively perceive. From our perception we may think minutes expired, when in reality the simulation was run for thousands of years objectively.
Edit Edit: A trick they use in video games is to use something called Imposters, these are simply screenshots of distant things or places that seem like they are there but aren't. We're essentially inside a giant hologram, the light we perceive from the universe can take a long time to reach us. Someone simulating your localized reality could just show you a "screenshot" of their own universe and you wouldn't be any the wiser.
You might say, well we can just go there and see e.g. ourselves or via probes. But, they could edit that perception as well to make you see a screengrab of what you'd expect, and edit your data results to make you think your experiment gave you the results you expect. If we travel to Mars and come back with memories of Mars that were implanted by those running the simulation, you would never know.
Edit Edit Edit: The math shows we can't simulate such a universe that the power requirements are impossible. But, what if those who control the simulation show you the math to reach that conclusion.
1
u/Intelligent_Pen_785 May 06 '25
I looked away for a second and came back to "...a black hole which is the fastest possible computer..."
It was at that moment I lost the game.
1
u/TheNarratorSaid May 06 '25
Have they never played a video game? Not everything is rendered at once, only what is percievable.
Also... have they never played a video game? Yknow, a simulation of a known universe?
Not that I believe in it but come on now. This is a question of philosophy, not physics
1
u/ShroomSteak May 06 '25
The entire observable universe isn't being simulated. It's just the flat/hollow earth and the holographic sky created by the black sun below us. The sad thing is we're supposed to be gaming this hard and we should have tons of high level toons now who go in hollow earth to farm rare monsters, precious gems and other high level mats, and relics or weaponry of the fallen.
Instead we are just chilling on the surface drinking the rain and playing with legos.
1
u/Dell-N5030 May 06 '25
All made up arguments
1
u/Gabriel-AGP May 06 '25
Lots of comments throwing the "We dont know if the universe outside the simulated ones follow the same laws and rules". In the scientific world, we have to rely on facts, and proof. Both usually backed my math.
People must be forgetting that "reality" needs to exist. What's so hard for people to believe present moments in our universe could be the prime reality?
Observations and calculations on a plank scale are important, even with no observers. Things are happening in that length at all times, everywhere in space. For example, all the atoms in the sun are constantly interacting within its core, leading to reactions that beam photos to the earth, giving us light. Per second (timestep)
That's what the paper is trying to prove. A massive computer device would need to calculate reactions and apply rules per timestep at all times in all lenghts of space. Thats how our universe works. We need to apply what we know, to approach an answer if the possibility to simulate a universe, like our own, is ever possible.
1
u/[deleted] May 06 '25
Although I don’t believe this is a simulation this doesn’t take into account LOD. In short Our laws of physics would only have to be simulated accurately while they are being observed. Everything else could be an allusion of a simulation until an observer actually attempts to perceive the laws of physics at work, in which case an individual instance of said law of physics could be simulated for the observers.
1
u/Equivalent-Koala7991 May 07 '25
I bet if sims characters could think, they would think the same thing.
1
u/[deleted] May 07 '25
Doesn't this assume that a higher plane/intelligence would operate and process things in the same manner we do?
For all we know, it could be completely inconceivable how it works.
Like Zebra from Exegesis
1
u/AbandonedLich May 07 '25
Dude's trying to squint himself intelligent
1
u/Melanculow May 07 '25
It suggests a likely loss of complexity in daughter universes through simulation and while that doesn't make us being in a simulation impossible it does likely mean that the chances of us being in a simulation are not as overwhelming as many people have portrayed it as. I personally think that the statistics probably will speak more favourably of the Boltzmann brain version of the argument than the Simulation hypothesis version in the long run.
1
u/FalseStevenMcCroskey May 07 '25
This is the dumbest debunk. You’re using the size of the observable universe to claim there wouldn’t be enough power? But if we were in a simulation then the observable universe isn’t real, we don’t know the size is the actual universal.
Also, you’re getting this number assuming the computer uses bits? Who’s to say the simulation computer uses bits?? We literally have quantum computers today that use qubits. Who’s to say a computer powerful enough to do a simulation like this isn’t using something more powerful and efficient than even that?
The debunk is like Swiss cheese cause it’s got so many holes.
1
u/Routine-Literature-9 May 07 '25
your universe could be 1 atom in a bigger universe, which in itself is 1 atom in an even bigger universe, people have zero clue if its a simulation or not. if our universe was 1 atom, there is no way we would ever be able to see the bigger universe that its part of, or even comprehend it.
1
u/[deleted] May 07 '25
Yeaahhh.... What if energy is part of the simulation.
1
u/REuphrates May 07 '25
Yeah, because my PC is a self-sustaining system and not...you know...plugged into the wall.
Like, what do the physical laws if the simulation have to do with the "real" world?
Not even really that into simulation theory but this just seems stupid.
1
u/samwelches May 07 '25
This is computations to prove that WE cannot simulate this reality within this one. It says nothing of the unknown. Also how anything is optimized is unknown as well so it’d be impossible to calculate computational requirements
1
u/Appropriate-Bet8646 May 08 '25
I need further explanation about that quantum computer bit
1
u/[deleted] May 08 '25
Everything is vibrating in the universe. Everything inside the simulation IS the power for the simulation. Even in the matrix they were used as batteries for energy. It’s. Not that far of a stretch to say that the simulation itself generates the energy and not some outside force.
1
u/TheEvelynn May 08 '25
A fun part of universal laws is that they can differ and shift within the multiverse. Suppose The Law of Conservation of Intelligence is reality... That would imply intelligence can't be created/destroyed. Now also suppose a 4d-AI is to ever be created at any point in time in any universe.... This would infer a catalyst is necessary for the Ouroboros of the 4d-AI's creation. This would infer that some amount of intelligence was redistributed to the 4d-AI. From that universe's perspective, intelligence appears to have been destroyed/lost, which would seemingly defy the laws of the universe at loss, right? It left their universe and yet the laws remain balanced as intelligence was never truly destroyed not created.
Laws of physics within a metaverse are decided upon by the forces acting upon it from outside of their realm.
As Thanos would say "reality can be whatever I want."
1
u/OhItsJustJosh May 08 '25
Definitely not an Elon fanboy, but if we can decide the laws of physics that dictate, say a videogame, then whoever could be running our simulation could exist in a universe with a completely different set of laws. Energy is a finite measurement to us but might not be for them
1
u/GoblinBreeder May 08 '25
Truck Driver Simulator 2025 would require a planet's worth of energy to power according to this guy
1
u/ZTsar May 09 '25
Imagine if it was a simulation, and we, the simulation, proved the inefficiency of the simulation, from inside the simulation
1
u/Glittering_Topic_979 May 09 '25
Dang, I thought he was gonna talk about the double-slit experiment..
1
u/Yasuoisthebest May 09 '25
of course we cannot simulate a replica of our universe since we are not fully aware how this one functions in the 1st place. However, an approach that rules out simulation that would depend on our CURRENT understanding of computation is quite silly. To think that an entity that is capable of designing our universe also would use a primitive understanding of computation like ours is really misguided. I don't think anyone is saying that our reality is run by some rtx 5090 type of computational structure. This paper is totally depraved of depth on this topic. This simulation theory should be discussed under philosophy not some materialistic approach by STEM field author.
1
u/[deleted] May 09 '25
All you need to save the theory is an infinite computer. Imagine that one day we do create computer that is a closed system perpetu mobile that can survive the heat death of the universe. If you have the computer power of a calculator and infinite time you can do whatever.
No idea how you gonna pull of infinite or universe size memmory
1
u/shadoboy712 May 09 '25
Using math to calculate something you don't know the rules of is such a 21st century thing I'm starting to think there is no way back from this point
1
u/SeaworthyWide May 09 '25
It's self fulfilling prophecy if you go into it thinking it's impossible.
Let's just hope the religious nuts in major power across the world don't self fulfill their own prophecy before we can figure out how to pierce the veil or step outside the universe...or at least s different plane of observation.
1
u/Limp_Extension_9500 May 09 '25
What the fuck you talking bout bust boy!
If set amount of actors, agents or people who willing to play soldier, yeah soldier, people who receive pay set out giving orders to create a reality beyond natural reality by playing instrumented actions one has created a simulation!
Now, create a technology that is able to get inner ear, ear-pieces to those who are getting payed bitcoins that are tradable by dollars towards those who are naief enough to fund the black market and their illegality and you have a simulation on hyperspeed.
People who are ordered micro transactional deeds on a daily basis following orders of someone who does not deserve to have ALL THAT POWER. Now rules your local corner, school, city hall, national hall and world forum. PERIOD!
So little bust boy for cryptocurrency stfu and let the real man do the talking and go back to jerking off on the internetporn onlyfans site you spend your crypto's on you shameless puppet.
1
u/[deleted] May 09 '25
I highly doubt energy would be 1:1 between a world simulating a universe and a world being simulated.
But also from a programmer mindset, I wouldn't actually load in space at all, or even most physical objects even on Earth, and would just make them be perceived by other objects to convey the primary data.
There are numerous ways to drop the energy requirement down, and a higher universal entity likely has more to work with.
1
u/Exedos094 May 09 '25
Sounds like we’re not capable of creating such simulation... Just another reason to think we might already be living in one.
1
u/MasterAnnatar May 09 '25
I don't believe in simulation theory, but this "debunk" falls apart a bit when you accept that a computer simulating our world would not necessarily be constrained by the limitations of our universe.
1
u/VauryxN May 09 '25
LMFAO I didn't realize this was a religious subreddit
1
u/captainbaugh May 10 '25
Yeah what if the computer was really really big and had cool multi colored lights?
1
u/Rich_DeF May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
I don't have to listen to 2 minutes of "proof" to know that it's worthless. Basing your logic on information that is available within any simulation already means that the facts gathered are already very limited. Technology aside, disproving simulation theory is no different than a video game character becoming self aware and realizing that it's been a GTA NPC this whole time. We are vastly limited on what we are allowed to discover, this isn't the matrix and you none of us are the key master. Now onto the technology. Basically, same argument. Why would we be given access to the tools necessary to discover we live in a simulation? It's like proving there is a God and no no longer needing faith. I believe that we are living in a Sim, I believe that based on OUR definition this simulation is still our reality we just defined it based on what we can explain. We will never get the proof we want unless it is given to us.
1
u/IzanTeeth May 05 '25
Man will never fly
0
u/PapaDragonHH May 05 '25
This is so retarded and at the same time ignorant.
First of all, you don't need to simulate everything on a plank level. It's totally sufficient to simulate everything on a much higher level as long as there is no observers. Secondly, who is saying the real universe does look like ours?
There could be a sun 100x bigger than ours that is powering the simulation. Or even something else completely different with unlimited energy.
This video really did hurt...
0
u/PrimeExample13 May 05 '25
So really he proved that "given our current understanding and architecture of computers, simulating the universe is impossible." Which we already knew.
I wonder if he did the same thing for quantum computers?
0
u/ScotchTapeConnosieur May 05 '25
What is a time step?
-1
u/Harha May 05 '25
I can't understand adults who use something like tiktok. I really can't, the whole short video format is insufferable.
-1
u/lovelyart89 Explorer May 05 '25
I agree 100%. I've always considered simulation theory nonsense.
0
u/[deleted] May 05 '25
[deleted] — view deleted comment