PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

  • Home
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
  • Categories
    • Google+ Posts
    • Site news
    • Tech
      • Android
      • Apple
      • Chrome
      • Gadgets
      • Hacking
      • Linux
      • OSX
      • Privacy
      • Web Life
        • Bittorrent
        • Facebook
        • FireFox
        • GMail
        • Google
        • Google+
        • Twitter
        • WordPress
        • Windows
          • Windows 7
    • Google+: Getting Started Guides
    • Games
    • Meditation
    • Politics
    • Science
    • That’s freakin hilarious
  • Code
    • FreeImageZoom
    • Post Editor for Google+™
    • The Plus Editor
  • Contact
You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / Elon Musk – there’s a “one in billions” chance we’re actually living in reality

Elon Musk – there’s a “one in billions” chance we’re actually living in reality

June 2, 2016 by Paul Spoerry 4 Comments

So yeah… we’re probably in a video game? If so I think I’m running an older console.

“The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.

Now, forty years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. Soon we’ll have virtual reality, augmented reality.

If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let’s imagine it’s 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.

So given that we’re clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in base reality is one in billions.

Tell me what’s wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?”

Check this out on Google+

Filed Under: Google+ Posts

About Paul Spoerry

I’m a groovy cat who’s into technology, Eastern Thought, and house music. I’m a proud and dedicated father to the coolest little guy on the planet (seriously, I'm NOT biased). I’m fascinated by ninjas, the Internet, and anybody who can balance objects on their nose for long periods of time.

I have a utility belt full of programming languages and a database of all my knowledge on databases... I practice code fu. Oh, I've also done actual Kung Fu, and have a black belt in Tae Kwon Do.

I run. I meditate. I dance. I blog at PaulSpoerry.com, tweet @PaulSpoerry, and I'm here on Google+.

I'm currently work for IBM developing web enabled insurance applications for IBM and support and develop a non-profit called The LittleBigFund.

Comments

  1. Emily “Syreene” Vitori says

    June 2, 2016 at 8:39 am

    I tried playing the Outside MMORPG, but it uses Windows and the graphics were horrible.

    http://www.dudelol.com/img/outside-the-new-mmorpg-from-the-creators-of-the-smashhit-irl.jpg

  2. Thomas Wrobel says

    June 3, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    This argument is basically correct, but in a few other ways too;
    1) we have no clue about the physics of the higher reality
    We have a sample range of 1. And 1/1 universes we know of have the capacity to simulate universes within them.
    For all we know its vastly easier to simulate other universes in higher realities.
    2) Doesn't matter how real a sub-universe seems. If your brought up in it, you wouldn't even know what "realistic" is to higher reality standards.
    [insert something about a cave and shadows here]

    My conclusion:
    Lower realities have less information then higher ones. Thats pretty much all we can say.
    Other then that, I would suggest we are in a stack of them, with realer worlds and faker worlds. Maybe…..infinite.

  3. Paul Spoerry says

    June 3, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    Yeah… someone tried to take this in a god-y direction with me over on the other social network… to which I had to reply, they're functionally the same. In that we cannot ever "know". Fun thought experiment but practically speaking it makes no difference if it's real or not… as long as we experience it then it's real to us.

  4. Thomas Wrobel says

    June 3, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    mostly, yeah.
    Some argue it means we have to be interesting or we will get turned off – but id argue the maths is hugely against that scenario. (as it takes a very specific intention simulation with beings like us observing us and having the concept of "bordem")

    I wouldn't say its completely worthless though, on some level it might help make us accept seemingly un intuitive parts of physics."That cant be right its too weird" doesnt apply quite so much when you can just think of it as information and code.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright © 2023 · Epik on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in