Some of you are familiar with the theory that claims we live in a computer simulation. At first the idea sounds stupid, but once you look at the math... not so much. Let's examine this.
Computer games are virtual mini worlds. Computer games transitioned from pacman to Skyrim in about 30 years, and they continuously improve. At this rate of improvement, it will not take long before video games are so good that they are indistinguishable from reality. This will make these mini virtual worlds to appear as "not so mini" to the players and npcs inside them.
Many of those universes will look the same as the the current one, the one in which I type this message. Then how can we know if we are living in the real, base 1 universe, or in a copy of it as a character of someone's video game? Just as you could be rereading this message in the real world, you could be reading it in billions of virtual universes, as a bot in someone's game.
And there will be millions upon millions of those virtual worlds/games, but only 1 real world. So the chances are infinitely small that we live in the real, the root one, the base one universe.
I see your hypothesis and raise you another one; what if we are living in a synthetic/computer simulation, but it isnt a game or experiment. What if we are a dreaming A.I? Think about it this way, we occasionally gain information not reliant on our physical senses, like feeling something is wrong and magic(k) as a whole. We may be a self entertaining A.I, meaning all life on the planet is simply the manifestation of a single synthetic being.
It’s an awe fully complex algorithm esp since it allows dreams, fantasy to break into an alt reality of sorts, billions upon billions of human interactions that at times seems random. What of other organisms and their complexities? Is the idea this being a program or copy any different than a God (programmer) designing this.
Pain, death, and emotion along with interpersonal and other relationships is still more complex than what I’ve seen programmed by humans.
Unless that’s all an illusion. I’m more on the fence here...
The players of the grand game don't have to be humans. They could be some advanced beings for which we are mere bots. And they don't have to have each being programmed separately... They could have programmed the laws of physics that allowed beings to become. Billions of years could be nothing for them.
Funny, I actually tell others that in a billion or trillion years all that has been done Herron Earth will either be forgotten or looked at as trivial. Some life forms here only live a day or less. I sure dont remember them or even contemplate them much.
Lots of good fantasy books I’ve read from the 70s and 80s and one was about a created world by these godlike machine aliens. The table looked sort of like that dragon radar in DBZ. The main protagonist was kidnapped and placed there. And man did they manipulate reality constantly. It was a huge GAME.
The biblical idea we all have our story or book or play could simply be akin to diskettes or the like in a machine running their individual program causing a mass effect from the base code in the main program. Breaking down the body tocells and atoms has interesting computer representations. Shit, we are living machines that adapt, grow, decade, and change constantly. Pretty sure everything else does (so it’s a fantastic program we are in).
And maybe the current events will be meaningless in a billion of years, but a few hundreds of years from now they won't be. Just as we like to play games situated in medieval times, someone 500 years from now might want to experience the barbaric times of the 21st century :)
Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is pretty much why you can’t reduce the universe down to an algorithm(or a complex set of algorithms) and it is a problem with the Theory of Everything and “laws”. To say it very simply, an algorithm is a finite set of unambiguous statements that yields a solution. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem states that no consistent system that can be enumerated by such a procedure can prove all of those statements; you end up with unprovable things.
Small and big don’t really apply; rather, it is more or less about complex, simple, and abstract. The way recursion works is that it allows you to solve a complex problem or model something complex by making it simpler and simpler so that when you solve the simple version of it, you can recursively solve its more complex forms. Each recursive call that calls the one below it thus would be more abstract where the “root” would technically be the least abstract.
An abstract model that is indistinguishable from reality would simply be a highly accurate one that is precise. I am not quite understanding how we are getting from recursion to simulations, or how can usage of recursion help accurately and precisely describe things prima facie... A better way to think about it is that when you are creating a simulation, the simulation is an abstraction of circuitry that is neither recursive or holistic. In arguing that the universe could be a simulation, you would be arguing that the universe is an abstraction; however, that does not necessarily imply it is an abstraction via recursion.
Technologically, Skyrim with its NPC’s are abstractions of the underlying circuitry of the machine where the circuitry is not recursive. You could argue they are virtual mini-worlds; however, the virtual lays which are abstractions of the basic one are not facilitated recursively.
Intuitively, it makes sense to think of a world within a world within a world; however, that isn’t how it currently works, because the “code” are really abstractions of non-recursive structures.
I am speaking of recursion because you used the phrase base 1 and spoke of virtualization and roots relative to base 1. Whenever you speak of roots and bases in that context, pragmatically, you are likely speaking of recursion. Virtualization can be handled via abstraction that is not necessarily recursive. Technically, physical objects are abstractions. A glass of water is really just a collection of particles that are collections of atoms. The holistic structure is thus an abstraction.
The counter-argument is in your posts. The odds of this are infinitesimal, so while one could argue it is philosophically possible, how probable this is cannot be calculated, so it is not empirically meaningful. The counter-argument pretty much is that it is untestable and not empirically meaningful.
I've always felt when we pass away we learn everything and then proceed into another pod/simulation where you volunteerly forget about everything pressing reset to escape realities maybe? Kinda like what alot of us are doing now. Finding ways to keep us distracted from reality. Except not as advanced as our true self. It could explain aliens, unheard technologies all that jazz. Anyway i dont truly believe anything i just wanted to say something lmao. What if somehow we managed to make a second in a different reality feel like a eternity in another?........Making it so we dont have to work, survive without any long term issue's.