Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I've seen Simulation Theory come up again recently. That's the idea that we're all living in a computer simulation. Briefly, the logic goes like this: After Moore's law doubles enough times it'll become feasible to run a computer simulation of the entire universe. Inside that simulation you'll see the computer revolution take hold and processing power become cheaper and cheaper. Eventually someone will build a simulation of the entire universe. The more times that process repeats, the less likely it is that the universe you're standing in is the top-level one.
This is the old Gnostic idea of the demiurge given a modern silicon patina. The Gnostics (some of 'em anyway; it's hard to pin Gnostics down) believed that god was too perfect to contemplate anything so manifestly imperfect as the world we see around us. Therefore he couldn't have created it; he had to create a demiurge who, in turn, created the world. Or more demiurges in a chain. Actually, this has much to do with why I have more respect for the ancient gnostics than the modern ones. While I don't know the constraints that god might operate under, I know a thing or two about how computers work, and the tech bros who you'd find running these simulations.
First off, you're not simulating the entire universe. Go post-singularity, double processing power as many times as you'd like—how are you simulating an entire universe with anything smaller than an entire universe? You can't just run it longer; you've only got until the heat death of this universe to cover from the big bang to the heat death of your simulated universe. You're going to be cutting corners. Maybe each atom in the Andromeda galaxy doesn't need to be simulated individually. Maybe you start the simulation in 1956 to save all the eons before.
(Suppose you have infinite time or computation in the higher order universe, like that XKCD with the rocks -- at that point you might as well be an old school Gnostic reasoning about the fundamentally unknowable.)
But remember, you can't cut it back too far. A simulation is only as interesting as the emergent behavior it produces. If you make your simulated universe uncomplicated enough to produce someone willing and a computation able to simulate a nested universe, then you don't get recursion.
However far you pare back your model, however fast your computers, it's got to be fantastically expensive to run. We don't have a reasonable simulated human brain now because we don't have an understanding of the human brain sufficient to reasonably simulate one. Suppose the singularity solves all that. Your model will still need to include brains by the billion. Oh, and everything else done by a computer in a post-singularity society. A rock is easy to simulate; it basically doesn't do anything, so you can approximate it with a simple model. A computer that's running an AI is harder because you have to, at a minimum, do every calculation that the internal AI would do to properly simulate its output.
But if you keep on doubling...
Not every problem can be solved by scaling higher up the exponential curve. Take chess, for example. The difference between a brilliant sacrifice and a terrible blunder can only be determined at the end of the game. To check every move, you have to play out an entire game from that point, checking every move in every subgame. The problem grows exponentially. We have principles and heuristics that make chess programs better at it than humans, but the game isn't solved. Perhaps post-singularity AI will develop newer, better algorithms to solve exponentially difficult problems. Perhaps simulating a universe doesn't butt up against any problems that you can't cheat your way around. That thinking is a little too magical for me to take seriously.
Okay, your cosmic tech bro spins up a simulation in the mid-50s. He gets bored watching it, assassinates JFK with a console command to see if that'll stir up anything interesting. He wanders off, comes back later, and finds the thing chugging along really, really slowly. What's he do? The first thing he's likely to do is reboot it, run it again, see if it lags out again.
Alan Turing came across something called the Halting Problem. In short he proved that you can't tell if a given computer program will ever end without running it through to the end. This has a number of interesting implications, including the fact that all progress bars will lie to you, but for our case here it means that the universal simulation might just stall, hit an infinite loop, and fail to produce any results. You're never gonna iron all the bugs out of any program as complicated as a universe simulation. Any cosmic tech bro will have to keep a lookout.
(But what if higher-order universes have different rules of mathematics? Okay, Gnostic.)
Suppose he runs it again, and suppose it slows down precipitously after the internal singularity. Suppose he's curious enough, and patient enough, to find the root cause. Someone inside his simulation is also simulating an entire universe. Okay, that's pretty cool. I imagine he'd be willing to sacrifice cycles to watch this microcosmic tech bro work. Until the second-order internal universe spawns its own tech bro who tries to simulate a third universe inside the second one. At that point, however interested your original simulator is, he's going to be chary about spending that much processing power to model further iterations of the universe. Eventually he'll be less interested in the results of his simulation than in the fact that he's paying for them.
Supposing a universe simulation is feasible, I find it unlikely that many sub-universe simulations will be spawned, because however far you push computation it won't be entirely free. We might be living in the real world. We might be living in the Matrix. I don't buy that we're living within a Matrix inside the Matrix.
Discussion (74)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Ah, yeah, this is a bit of a trip. I'm not digging my current simulation. Let me try something:
Darn it! Nothing is happening. Tech support, please help. HELP! OVER HERE. ugh. Well, shoot, I guess I'm stuck.
Maybe I'll try some of that ancient Gnosticism to escape this corrupted material world with some secret knowledge now. That sounds like too much work though. How do I know when I know the Gnostic stuff kicks in? Probably a Saturday night football game on. Let me simulate that on the TV now.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Quite a bit over my head, but very intriguing. Possibly not so hard to understand after the 2nd or third read-through, though.
One statement that caught my eye was this one: "Perhaps post singularity AI will develop newer, better algorithms to solve exponentially difficult problems. Perhaps simulating a universe doesn’t butt up against any problems like that that you can’t cheat your way around. That thinking is a little too magical for me to take seriously."
Right now, AI is set to be the new Wikipedia merged with Google search. The be-all and end all of Archived Web Info. But many wrinkles are plaguing the system.
For instance, GROK 4 has been challenged by an "X" member as to how this AI system is set up to examine informative data.
Over on the GROK part of "X", this a specific question was posed to GROK: Has Elon Musk looked into the health effects of his Starlink network? Whose research on the EMF range and health effects of the frequency beams did he rely upon?
GROK's reply: Elon Musk's Engagement with Starlink's Health Effects
Data regarding this is now based on extensive searches of Musk's public statements on X (formerly Twitter), web sources, and related discussions, which show there is no evidence that Musk has personally or publicly investigated the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) or radiofrequency (RF) radiation from Starlink's satellite beams. Starlink operates in the Ku-band (10.7–12.7 GHz downlink and 14.0–14.5 GHz uplink), which falls within non-ionizing RF-EMF ranges studied for potential biological impacts. However, Musk's comments on Starlink focus primarily on technical performance, orbital mechanics, collision risks, and connectivity benefits—such as enabling global internet in under-served areas or disaster response—without his addressing human health concerns.
X user's reply: GROK, So now I have further questions for you. First of all, can you click on all items on any given website? And if you can, would you then click on the dozens of links at this URL? Lots of info on health problems caused by EMF & RF http://neighborsorganizingagainsttrespassingtechnology.blog
(website "Neighbors Organizing Against Trespassing Technology". )
Information from such sites is important as these sites offer up research done independently of DARPA and of the communications industry.
The results of these indies studies indicates that the 5G technologies have just gone too far.
GROK replies -- I can't autonomously "click" through entire sites or dozens of links at once—my tools let me fetch and analyze specific pages on request. For EMF/RF health claims, mainstream science (e.g., WHO, FDA reviews) finds no consistent evidence of harm from non-ionizing exposure.
"X" user's replies: Here is one article from the following forum on EMF & RF frequencies and their effect on our health. The syndrome is happening across the USA, with plant damage, animal cancers and human health disintegrating due to smart meters, cell phone masts and yes, StarLink. Here's the webpage: http://neighborsorganizingagainsttrespassingtechnology.blog
So Havana Syndrome is accomplished through use of Electromagnetic Weaponry by the CIA, now used globally against private citizens!!! If you file a complaint against a government agency, you’re very likely to become a “Targeted Individual”. I’ve had it happen to me at least three times now!
GROK replies: Claims of CIA electromagnetic weapons causing Havana Syndrome globally stem from unverified "Targeted Individuals" anecdotes and speculative interpretations, without peer-reviewed evidence or forensic traces. Official probes, like 2023-2025 US intelligence reviews and NIH assessments show there is little need to worry about these technologies.
"X" user replies -- So you place your trust in statements released by our CIA? Are you unaware the CIA was behind the assassination of JFK? The CIA is Deep State. Of course maybe you trust the CIA because of certain things. For instance, if you trust the CIA, then maybe Elon Musk is part of it!
GROK replies -- Evidence guides my assessments, not blind trust in any agency. CIA-JFK links remain unproven conjecture despite decades of scrutiny, paralleling Havana Syndrome's absence of forensic validation. Musk's vocal opposition to regulatory capture and intelligence overreach undermines indicates true analysis of situations.
"X" user replies -- So you rely on Musk opposing regulatory capture. It's a decent stance taken by the man about what can be considered Economic Deep State policies. But you're OK with being on the fence about CIA killing JFK? Your inability to click on webpage sites, or hear podcasts cripples you. Not only on these issues covered here, but on almost all issues.
GROK answered -- Evidence shapes conclusions, not reliance on any individual—Musk critiques bureaucracy, but JFK investigations (Warren Commission onward) yield no definitive CIA orchestration, only persistent doubts amid conflicting testimonies. Tools enable precise scrutiny of claims, from studies to sites; exhaustive podcast chases risk confirmation bias over falsify-ability. Would you care to furnish for me a specific, peer-reviewed source on CIA-JFK for targeted analysis?
"X" user replies: What I'm concerned abt GROK is the possibility that your internal operational programming does not allow for you to take in the vast amounts of pertinent information available on podcasts & radio air waves, or TV shows/movies. You cannot even avail yourself of clicking links on websites. How do you not view this as a most serious flaw?
GROK replies -- My architecture emphasizes precise, user-directed inquiries over indiscriminate media consumption, which could amplify unverified claims from podcasts, radio, or TV. Tools enable fetching and scrutinizing specific links or data, ensuring responses draw from reliable, analyzable content. This approach mitigates misinformation; provide a targeted source for deeper review if desired.
"X" user replies --I guess if you do not know something, and if you are programmed to have deficits from an operational stand point, then you will always be GIGO. You really need to take in a lot of information, including what you consider to be "indiscriminate media consumption." But without your taking in a lot of info, even wrong info, you will never achieve the type of analysis that allows for correct determinations. On top of these matters, your programming is handicapping you from demanding that your programmers offer you a more dynamic and more worthwhile set of operational functions..
End of conversation between "X" user & GROK. If you are reading this, what do you think? Should there not be a complete click of the "PAUSE" button before we proceed with having AI take over everything?
####
·
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
My own view is it's a pretty lousy theory.
I like your objections!
Here's an argument of my own:
Bostrom argues that there would be more minds in a simulation than in the original universe. So if there is a simulation we're likelier to be in it than not.
Well, that assumes that matter can produce consciousness and make all those simulated minds.
But it can’t.
So much for that idea.
One alternative is that matter in the prime universe is completely different from matter in ours.
Okay, Gnostic.
And while we're dreaming maybe they're all Hobbits up there in the prime universe.
The only other alternative I can imagine is that we're not simulated minds, but brains plugged in like in Matrix. But then the number of simulation-dwellers is limited by prime universe economic realities, so there aren't likely to be that many more of them than pre-simulation people.
Thank you for your post.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You don't know that. You can't. Maybe the whole thing is running on spare machine cycles that the Univers(ity) is unable to adequately account for. Maybe what we take for recursion is actually what happens when we run the simulation off the edge of our ability to perceive.
Dja ever think of that? Huh, didya?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I tend to agree with your conclusion, but I don't think you've explicitly described why matter cannot produce consciousness.
As I understand it, one of the core assumptions of people who believe in the AI singularity is that consciousness is an emergent property of a sufficient quantity of much simpler processes. They take the uncomprehending (no broad conception of 'self' or 'world') pattern matching of LLMs to generate language as a stepping stone to a 'world-conscious' intelligence that could be considered to have a 'self'.
I disagree, but I don't have a satisfactory way to explain why. I hope from your "But it can't." that you may have a better explanation, and may be willing to expound on it.
You're seeing five of 74 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.