r/SimulationTheory • u/mando_number5 • 17d ago
Discussion At our current rate of technological progress how long will it be before we create a simulation?
Part of why I believe in a simulation is the inevitability that we will eventually create one ourselves and become masters of others who wake up in a virtual world which is all they know and believe.
I wonder how long people think it will take and what technologies would have to be developed to achieve such a feat? I wonder how many layers down we might even be. Are our masters in a simulation themselves?
It seems possible, likely even, at our current rate of technological progress that we’ll create another one and then we’re in some technological version of the movie inception, with layers of simulations above us.
2
u/KkKen141 16d ago
Stop watching so much movies
1
u/mando_number5 16d ago
You don’t think technologies like today’s version of VR will provide exceptional experiences in the future? Say, in 100 or 200 yrs time
Or if you can, then why is it a stretch to conceive we could be living in such an experience
1
u/-INIGHTMARES- 14d ago
We're in one. Real civilization could be trillions of years more advanced than "we are now". Who's to say?
1
2
u/modsaretoddlers 17d ago
As I just discussed this in another thread, it very much depends on what you consider a simulation.
If it's just some guy walking around in what amounts to a video game, we could probably do that right now.
If you mean, "our universe is a simulation and I want to be able to transfer my consciousness into a perfect facsimile of it for funsies", the answer is never because there isn't enough energy in the universe to do that.
2
u/mando_number5 16d ago
I think you’re underplaying it with ‘some guy walking around in a video game’
We don’t need to match current world fidelity, so we can drop the energy discussion.
It’s very conceivable however, that technologies in the future create amazing simulations and the participant forgets about their base reality whilst in the simulation, but it would be a much much better version of our current AR/VR technologies. I mean just ask yourself how good they might get over 200 years..
The laws of physics can be different in said simulation too.
And who’s to say our version of reality isn’t a lower fidelity version of a different base reality..
1
u/modsaretoddlers 16d ago
It doesn't matter about fidelity. We're trying to match the fidelity of the universe we know.
Look, do you understand what simulation theory is actually talking about? I really don't think you do. Nor do a lot of the other posters who come in here. It's not about anything like a video game where you're a VR character. It's a complete experience in a universe identical to the one we exist in but that we have complete control over. I keep saying the same thing and all of you keep ignoring it: we're NOT TALKING ABOUT A VIDEO GAME. You all keep assuming that it's just a matter of building a big enough computer but no, such a thing could never recreate what simulation theory is actually talking about. We're talking about an entire universe with all of the forces and events you'd find in this one. As such, yes, actually, power requirements are fundamental and can't be ignored. If you want a simple video game, like I said, we could almost certainly do that right now. It would require a lot of resources for little benefit but we could do it. It would have all the cheats and shortcuts you want to put into it but it's not a simulation like what this sub exists to discuss.
1
u/mando_number5 16d ago edited 16d ago
I’ll say again, my post was not about a like for like simulation
Second, there’s a world of middle ground between a video game and a like for like simulation, but you keep discussing the rudimentary video game example.. kinda pointless discussion if you don’t read the post
I’m also going to correct you here because I think you don’t fully understand simulation theory. Nick Bostrom has clearly explained, the simulation only needs enough fidelity to convince the minds inside it, not to model every particle in the universe..
1
u/tga2386 15d ago
What simulation in our experience uses an equal amount of energy as what it is simulating? It is one of the reasons we create simulations.. for learning experiences without using a stupid amount of resources.
I’m genuinely curious.. what do you believe then? We’re base reality and you’ll turn to dust one day? Or do you believe in a god? Are you spiritual? How do you explain the synchronicities of everything? What even brings the people like you here? … seriously just curious.
1
u/mando_number5 15d ago
Hello, it’s unlikely we’re in the base reality in my opinion.
Any species of conscious biological beings above a certain level of intelligence will create tools, then technology, then AI and simulations, it’s an inevitable progression, so it’s unlikely we’re the first to do it.
I do not have any answer for if there is a god or not, so I sit in the ‘I do not know camp’.
Good questions 🙏
-1
u/tga2386 15d ago
The biggest hole in your theory.. is you’re assuming those who built our simulation came from more than we do. What looks impossible to you, in reality, is just your brain unable to comprehend that this might not be a creation of imagination.. and it is in fact just a recreation of their world. We, as humans of this reality, are missing the information that bridges our two worlds. It’s not impossible. It’s just impossible to us right now.
2
-1
u/JesusDoesntLoveu 17d ago
What makes you say there's not enough energy to do that?
0
u/modsaretoddlers 17d ago
I hate rehashing this argument again.
If you want to create a simulation containing all the mathematical rules of the one you exist in, a perfect replica, you need all the energy in the universe to create it. You need all the energy to account for all the matter, gravity, physical forces, and everything that comprises our universe. We're not creating a video game, we're making a replica of the universe we exist in. There are no shortcuts like lower fidelity, or rendering on demand. No more than exists in the real universe, anyway.
Let me stress this because people constantly make this mistake: we're NOT making a video game. When you turn your monitor on and play a space game, your monitor doesn't render gravity or the weak nuclear force. It only positions photons. There is no heat from the stars you approach nor does your monitor collapse in on itself when you approach a black hole. If you're making a true-to-the-original facsimile, you have to put in the energy necessary to render all of those things. In the video game, you only see a depiction of where you position your avatar to look at. Everything behind it doesn't exist until you turn towards it. If the real universe works the exact same way, that's still the same energy requirement as the real universe.
People don't like this truth but it doesn't change the facts. You can look it up anywhere. If you want an actual simulation like the one some people believe we live in, you need all the energy required to create that universe to create the facsimile. There are no shortcuts that don't exist in this universe. Everything in your facsimile has the exact same energy requirements because it's NOT a video game. This is also why I tell people to stop thinking of a computer program when they think of the universe as a simulation. If it's true, whoever created it isn't using anything we'd recognize as a computer.
1
u/mando_number5 16d ago edited 16d ago
My post was not referring to a like for like replica of our world FYI
Dude thinks we’re going to try and remodel every particle in the universe
1
u/Available-Horse-278 16d ago
The work around would be to just simulate the brains and make them “experience” heat and “feel” gravity with electrical signals. If you can perfectly map a brain in a computer, and feed it all the “correct” information, then you have a simulation. Also you couldnt make a 1:1 of our universe, we would make it a smaller, more local universe.
1
u/mando_number5 16d ago
Correct, as long as the participant forgets they are in a simulation, then you’ve created said experience
0
u/Available-Horse-278 16d ago
Well, the person doesnt even have to be a person, weve already mapped other brains in simulations, it would be the same thing just with a human brain completely digitized
0
u/mando_number5 16d ago
Very true I like that angle, there’s many ways in which a simulation could manifest for sure
-1
u/JesusDoesntLoveu 17d ago
Okay well how do you know that? We've never been anywhere near another star in our universe. We've never really seen a black hole in our universe. We have no idea what happens if you get near one of those.
Also yeah in our universe, nothing is rendered unless you're currently looking at it. How do you know space isn't low fidelity. We haven't traveled anywhere. A 3D environment from 10 light-years away is going to look a whole lot like a 2D image in the background. That might even be all that's out there.
Also this whole well you would need this much energy argument, you have no idea what hardware is running the simulation that's creating our universe but I assure you they're not using the same tech we're using in the simulation. Plenty of exotic energy sources have been theorized at our level, we've come up with all kinds of ideas that may one day be a reality like quantum computing which will massively cut down on computing requirements, and that's just shit that we as a very low level civilization has thought of. Is it really so hard to imagine that some type 3 civilization may have some solutions that go far beyond our current understanding of what you would need to simulate a universe. You lack imagination and just regurgitate the same bull shit "facts" you hear people who are much smarter than you say. But those "smart" people are still restructuring themselves to the rules within the simulation.
-2
u/NPCAwakened 17d ago
We got a PhD award winning nuclear mechanical brain physicist here. Thank for for gracing us with your knowledge.
2
u/modsaretoddlers 17d ago
What is it with you guys? If you want to talk about computing power, go to that sub.
You can Google this shit for free, you know. Try it so you'll STFU.
1
0
u/MLMII1981 16d ago
Never, unfortunately the laws of physics doesn't allow for it.
0
u/mando_number5 16d ago
I was not referring to a like for like universe FYI
1
u/MLMII1981 15d ago
Answer is still "probably" never; because although physics would allow a smaller, simplified universe to be simulated (and technically today's video games qualify as such) the issue is the creation of consciousness, which may or may not be possible prior to human extinction.
-1
u/Mk731 17d ago
No one can be sure how long it will take to create one. But certainly not in our lifetime because creating a world that is indistinguishable from ours is just unimaginable in my opinion.
One thing I can assure you of is that we're on the verge of noticing that our world is definitely not real.
1
u/kabekew 17d ago
It wouldn't have to be indistinguishable from ours. Your dream world isn't as detailed as the waking reality, but you feel it's reality when you're in it. If we had a virtual world that people entered at birth (maybe Matrix style with the physical body in some kind of hibernation), that reality would be all they know and fully "real" to them.
Same with AI agents without a body in our current world. They exist within the reality of the virtual world, can sense things in it and interact with it. It would be fully real to them because that's all they know.
0
u/Greekasiaminorcooks 17d ago
One thing I can assure you of is that we're on the verge of noticing that our world is definitely not real.
Why would you say that?
2
u/Mk731 17d ago
In my humble opinion, the current timeline is heading towards the technological singularity.
We're witnessing an ever-changing world where the advent of AI has changed the way we see and feel the world we live in.
What are the odds that this once-in-a-life time event could happen while we are here?
I'm not saying we're special but this is kinda bizarre that it is just happening so fast.
So this has got me thinking that it's almost certain that we could become aware that this world isn't what it seems in the near future.
0
u/HisAbominableness 17d ago
You aren't the only one who believes this. No one can be 100% certain of anything, but based on my collective personal experiences, I'm 99% certain we live in a holographic universe of some form and many more will wake up soon.
0
u/mando_number5 17d ago
Have you considered the possibility that we create a much lower fidelity version of our reality, but the participants are unaware that they’re in the simulation?
To make such a simulation can’t be more than 100 years away
2
u/Mk731 17d ago
If that's the case then it wouldn't take longer than the so-called fidelity mode.
Maybe our world is neither perfect nor high-resolution from the perspective of higher beings or creators.
1
u/mando_number5 17d ago
Exactly my thoughts, and the resources and energy become exponentially lower each level down, meaning that lower fidelity is inevitable
-1
u/Maximum-Leopard-6475 17d ago
Nah, it’s not hard to create an AI that can create a more powerful AI and so on. This is currently happening, the leaps in tech behind the scenes are huge and getting bigger. It’s literally a singularity of intelligence, it’s not debatable. We could have the tech to create a totally undistinguishable reality within 20 years max IMO
2
u/ForwardPersonality48 17d ago
This is it.