It has been postulated that our reality might in fact be a virtual
reality. That is, some unknown agency, "The Others", have created a
computer simulation and we 'exist' as part of that overall simulation. One
objection to that scenario is that in order to exactly simulate our Cosmos
(including ourselves) we would require a computer the size of our Cosmos with
the sort of crunch power that could duplicate our Cosmos on a one-to-one basis,
which is absurd. The flaw is that realistic simulations can be made without
resorting to a one-on-one correlation.
WHY ARE WE A SIMULATION?
Here's another thought on the Simulation Hypothesis which
postulates that we 'exist' as a configuration of bits and bytes, not as quarks
and electrons. We are virtual reality - simulated beings. Here is the
"why" of things.
Really real worlds (which we presume ours to be) are simulating
virtual reality worlds - lots and lots and lots of them - so the ratio of
virtual reality worlds to really real worlds is lots, and lots and lots to one.
That's the main reason why we shouldn't presume that ours is a really real
world! If one postulates "The Other", where "The Other"
might be technologically advanced extraterrestrials creating their version of
video games, or even the human species, the real human species from what we'd
call the far future doing ancestor simulations, the odds are our really real
world is actually a really real virtual reality world inhabited by simulated
earthlings (like us).
Now an interesting aside is that we tend to assume that "The
Other" are biological entities (human or extraterrestrial) who like to
play "what if" games using computer hardware and software. Of course
"The Other" could actually be highly advanced A.I. (artificial
intelligence) with consciousness playing "what if" scenarios.
SIMULATIONS AND THE NEED FOR COMPUTER CRUNCH POWER
Anyway, each individual simulated world requires just so many
units of crunch power. We humans have thousands of video games each ONE
requiring a certain amount of computing crunch power. There may be in total is
an awful lot of computing crunch power going on when it comes to these video
games collectively, but what counts is the number of video games divided by the
number of computers playing them. Not all video games are being played on just
one computer at the same time. If you have a ten-fold increase in video games,
and a ten-fold increase in the number of computers they are played on, there's
no need for ever increasing crunch power unless the nature of the game itself
demands it. Video games today probably demand more crunch power than video
games from twenty years ago, but we've to date met that requirement.
Now if a really real world created thousands of video games, and
the characters in each and every one of those video games created thousands of
video games and the characters in those video games created thousands of their
video games, okay, then ever increasing crunch power within that original
really real world is in demand. That's not to say that that ever increasing
need for crunch can't be met however. But that's NOT the general scenario
that's being advocated. For the immediate here and now, let's just stick with
one really real world creating thousands of uniquely individual simulated
virtual reality worlds (i.e. - video games). Ockham's Razor suggests that one
not overly complicate things unnecessarily.
That said, a variation on Murphy's Law might be: The ways and
means to use computing crunch power expands to meet the crunch power available
and is readily on tap.
Sceptics seem to be assuming here that if you can simulate
something, then ultimately you will pour more and more and more and more crunch
power (as it becomes available) into that which you are simulating. I fail to
see how that follows of necessity. If you want to create and sell a video game,
if you put X crunch power into it you will get Y returns in sales, etc. If you
put 10X crunch power into it, you might only get 2Y returns in sales. There is
a counterbalance - the law of diminishing returns.
Video gamers may always want more, but when the crunch power of
the computer and the software it can carry and process exceeds the crunch power
of the human gamer (chess programs / software anyone), then there's no point in
wanting even more. A human gamer might be able to photon-torpedo a Klingon
Battlecruiser going at One-Quarter Impulse Power, but a massive fleet of them
at Warp Ten might be a different starship scenario entirely. Gamers play to
win, not to be universally frustrated and always out performed by their game.
It makes no economic sense at all to buy and get a monthly bill
for 1000 computer crunch units and only need and use 10.
But the bottom line is that computer crunch power is available for
simulation exercises as we have done. Anything else is just a matter of degree.
If us; them; them of course being "The Other" or The Simulators.