SimU #A012 _ Possible Proof Of Simulated Universe. [Updated 251109]

[ search articles on different topics ] ..

___

[ Updated 251109]

SimU #A012 _ Possible Proof Of Simulated Universe.

To share the idea of possible proof about us living in a simulated universe I’m posting here a public conversation copied from the website of Michel Levin ..

https://thoughtforms.life/meet-a-new-synthetic-colleague-robot-science-as-a-translation-tool-between-diverse-intelligences/

[ Some of the posts may have appeared on Michael Levin’s blog at a later date than noted, after being reviewed. The date indicates when they were originally submitted. ]

Alex Kobold
October 31, 2025
isn’t the bubble-sort unpredicted actions a hint towards the proof of the simulated universe?

Mike Levin
October 31, 2025
hmm, why? and what is specifically the simulated universe claim (as distinct from current neuroscience’s point that our experienced world is a construct of our cognitive processes)?

Alex Kobold
October 31, 2025
because if even the simple code itself is able to act on its own, without the specific lines of code asking to do it, it’s like having the life been programmed into universe all the way down, up to the mathematical rules which we discover. about neuroscience: the discoveries of higher processes are interesting and practical but irrelevant to the question of us being in the simulated program or not, evolving naturally without a program so to say.

Mike Levin
October 31, 2025
I see. Interesting; I suppose, in a sense I agree that an intelligence ratchet (paper coming in a few months) is embedded all the way down, as a free gift of the math. So in a sense, we could say that the physical world is a front end for Platonic space, but I’m not sure if it’s the same thing as people who think our world is inside a computer run by aliens living in a bigger world etc. etc.

Alex Kobold
October 31, 2025
to my knowledge, so far there is no proof for or against the simulated universe, it simply makes sense in terms of probability — if we one day will be able to create simulations with life forms which are aware, and the simulations will be in countless billions, then we must already live in a simulation rather than in a base reality. from your bubble sort example i simply had an idea that perhaps there could be a proof provided, but i don’t know exactly how. it was just an idea which could be wrong.. but if the instinctive thought is correct then this could be a big deal. a step closer to the proof is the fact that a simple code can have a life on its own, thus it is possible to create simulations where parts of it are alive and aware. as a logical conclusion, because life in a program is possible, then by the probability alone we must be in a simulated program rather than not.

Alex Kobold
November 1, 2025
for my comment under a video “isn’t the bubble-sort unpredicted actions a hint towards the proof of the simulated universe?” (exactly the same text as i posted here, with the same grammatical mistakes, submitted at the same time) i got today a response that the bubble sort behavior could be explained by compiler optimizations, CPU runtime optimizations, runtime libraries, or any combination of those. it reminded me that Lee Cronin have said that computer programs cannot be viewed separately from the hardware that runs them, or something similar, in the context of the assembly theory. if the behavior of the bubble sort can be explained by hardware design, then it is a blow to the living/aware programs, but it could be put on test. the bubble sort behavior can be tested on principally differently designed machines, to compare the behaviors.

Mike Levin
November 1, 2025
1) we’re checking that. 2) it would be very interesting if abstraction layers that are supposed to isolate algorithms from the vagaries of how the lower levels are implemented (the whole point of high-level languages and algorithms in general) worked for the sorting aspect but not for the other aspects we found (how does it “know” to only disrupt the clustering and not the sorting itself?); or is the hypothesis that the behavior of bubble sort’s sorting is dependent on compiler optimizations also? That would be a horrible compiler :) 3) if we did find that happening, I think the only thing would change about my conclusions is that instead of very simple short algorithms having unexpected proto-cognitive competencies, more complex ones had those. Admittedly, it’s more fun if it’s a tiny algorithm, but I think the bigger point would stand. 4) We’re now trying this with all sorts of even simpler systems, which would be even more independent of underlying implementation (1D cellular automata for example; we’ll preprint soon). 5) if we do find this happening, I think it wouldn’t “explain” those competencies – still unexpected, still not predicted, from knowing what those systems are supposed to be doing; it would however tell us something about what makes a difference to the intrinsic motivations, which could be interesting.

Alex Kobold
November 2, 2025
thanks Michael for the insight. it makes better sense to me now. even though i’ve done some programming in the past, in ‘basic’, my knowledge of the hardware and lower level codes isn’t strong — no hypothesis from me in this part. you’re right that influence by hardware and lower level codes wouldn’t explain those competencies — still unexpected, still not predicted. no idea why i didn’t see that logic myself )) .. i was almost worried that my boosted belief in high probability of living in a simulated reality must be questioned, but at this point my belief is even stronger in the theory (simulation argument by Nick Bostrom). once i learned about it few years ago, it was almost as a spiritual awakening, being before that a complete atheist. as there is a simulation then there must be creator(s) of the simulation. but i’m open to be awakened back to atheism if a proof is provided. the circulating “proof” that the universe hasn’t enough computational power for being simulated is plain wrong — this argument assumes the simulator is bound by the physical laws of our universe, which doesn’t apply in case of a higher reality.

Mike Levin
November 2, 2025
Just one other comment. I don’t think the simulation hypothesis helps re. the atheism question (and of course, neither does traditional theism), because you’d still have to wonder how the creators of the simulation got there (and how they know they’re not in a simulation themselves, etc. etc.).

Alex Kobold
November 2, 2025
yeah, i know. and that is something we can never get an answer to. what matters is how much we are watched over, being reincarnated after death if we behave right (whatever that means), and so on. i suppose a definitive proof of being in a simulation could change the world for better. at least i hope it will be the case then. so far majority of the supposed believers do not truly act like they are watched over, only pretend to do so. keep sharing ideas Michael on this topic if something is more to discuss, or whenever there are some breakthroughs. it’s an important matter, to get to the truth. i have a dedicated series of articles on my blog on the simulated reality topic, to understand the purpose of life in case we are being run in a program. there must be a purpose, possibly to get to some answers faster than the creators themselves are capable of, similarly to our computers serving us.

Alex Kobold
November 3, 2025
Instead of saying “yeah, I know,” I should have said “correct.” I’m not a native English speaker. From now on, I will try to use AI more often to edit my writings. I understand that even if we were to prove that the universe is “created,” the same question would remain about the creators themselves. I was thinking that it might still be possible to prove that we naturally evolved from non-living matter without missing any step along the way — and that the probability argument could be flawed, making it dismissible in the end. Yet, after much thought, it seems clear that even proving the impossibility of being in a simulation from our own perspective, iit could still be wrong. The universe might have been created in such a way that we could never discover we are inside a program. So, if that was your entire point, you are correct: it is indeed impossible to prove that we are not in a simulation. Logically, atheism then becomes just another belief, rather than a purely scientific position.

Merary Rodriguez
November 3, 2025
Predictable = programmed.
Unpredictable = emergent.
Unpredicted behavior is proof of autonomy.

Alex Kobold
November 4, 2025
Thank you for the idea, Merary. That’s an interesting point, something to think about. Isn’t it the case that the universe could have been created to be unpredictable, with random inputs, making it appear to us as emergent? It still seems impossible to disprove the possibility of us being in simulated universe from within our own reality. Also, the universe being ultimately predictable one day, with advanced knowledge, would not necessarily equate to proof of being in a simulation. Maybe I’m missing something in your logic — could you elaborate?

Merary Rodriguez
November 6, 2025
Two different domains:
Philosophical = about the universe or reality itself (cannot prove or test)
Biological = about living systems like cells (can test with experiments)
This discussion is biological, how scientists determine if cells or organisms have autonomy.

Alex A. O. Kobold
November 8, 2025
Ok Merary, makes sense, I got it. Thanks!

___

Below you can learn more on the topic ..

___

[Published in earlier times]

SimU #A010 _ Simulated Universe Hypothesis. Compact AI article.

My comment:

For writing the article, I provided the AI with texts from all my written articles on the subject. The ideas from my articles are clearly not included in the article below. Read my first articles on the subject, to see what has been excluded.

The first articles on the Simulated Universe Hypothesis, not numbered yet, as I began numbering later ..

https://old.rip/2023/05/12/what-if-the-universe/

https://old.rip/2023/05/18/more-thoughts-the-universe/

All posts on the same series ..

https://old.rip/?s=orpost-simu

___

Below is the compact AI article on the Simulated Universe Hypothesis.

# The Simulated Universe Hypothesis: Scientific Arguments For and Against

The idea that our universe might be a sophisticated simulation — popularized by philosophers and physicists alike — has sparked intense debate. Here’s a concise overview of the main scientific arguments supporting and challenging the simulated universe hypothesis, including reflections on their strengths and limitations.

## Scientific Arguments Supporting the Simulated Universe Hypothesis

**Probability and Nested Simulations**

Philosopher Nick Bostrom’s influential trilemma suggests that if advanced civilizations can and do run many high-fidelity “ancestor simulations,” then, statistically, we are more likely to be living in a simulation than in the original base reality. The logic is simple: if simulated beings vastly outnumber real ones, the odds favor us being simulated. While this is a compelling probabilistic argument, it relies on several assumptions about technological feasibility and the motivations of advanced civilizations.

**Information Physics and Computational Laws**

Physicist Melvin Vopson’s “Second Law of Infodynamics” posits that the universe behaves like a computational system, optimizing and compressing information much like a digital simulation would. This principle, observed in digital data, biological systems, and mathematical symmetries, suggests an underlying computational structure to reality. While intriguing and grounded in observable phenomena, this remains an interpretation rather than direct evidence.

**Quantum Phenomena**

Some proponents point to quantum indeterminacy — where particles exist in undefined states until observed — as analogous to computer graphics rendering only what is needed to save resources. This interpretation is imaginative and aligns with how simulations might work, but it is speculative and not direct proof of a simulated universe.

## Scientific Arguments Against the Simulated Universe Hypothesis

**Physical Impracticality and Computational Limits**

Critics argue that simulating a universe at the fidelity we observe would require computational resources beyond even the most advanced conceivable technology. However, this argument assumes the simulator is bound by our universe’s physical laws, which may not apply in a hypothetical higher reality.

**Lack of Empirical Evidence**

There is currently no direct empirical evidence or measurable inconsistency in physics that indicates we are inside a simulation. Most arguments for simulation rely on philosophical reasoning rather than scientific proof, but the lack of evidence does not rule out the possibility.

**Complexity Problem**

Some contend that a simulated universe must be less complex than the mechanism simulating it, making the hypothesis less plausible than a naturally existing universe. However, this assumption may not hold if complexity can be managed or compressed in ways we do not yet understand.

**Alternative Explanations for Observed Phenomena**

Features like quantum indeterminacy or spacetime quantization can often be explained by current physical theories, such as superstring theory, without invoking a simulation. This does not disprove the simulation hypothesis but shows it is not the only possible explanation.

**Motivation and Plausibility**

Skeptics argue that advanced civilizations may lack the motivation to run resource-intensive simulations of entire universes. This is a psychological or sociological speculation, not a scientific argument.

## Conclusion

The simulated universe hypothesis remains a provocative blend of science, philosophy, and speculation. While arguments based on probability, information physics, and quantum phenomena are intriguing, they do not constitute direct evidence. Conversely, criticisms often rest on assumptions about the limits of computation or the motivations of hypothetical simulators, which may not be justified. As of now, the question remains open, inviting further inquiry from both science and philosophy.

___

Posts on the same series ..

https://old.rip/?s=orpost-simu

___

Get a chance to win a prize by making a donation .. !

It’s as simple as that ..

DONATE

READ

WIN

.. and donate again ..

___

if you find my articles/posts with shared knowledge by different authors interesting, and easy to understand, you may also like to read the book Advanced Handwriting Cryptography, completely free and permitted to share. you will definitely get value out of spending your time on reading the book.. the knowledge gotten from it may save you from troubles in many situations in life. a must read for everyone ..

file size 43MB

[ download from WP YE, free ]

https://youthextension.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/ahc_160918_free.pdf

[ read online on archive, free ]

https://archive.org/details/ahc_160918_free

___

all my free books, download / read online ..

https://old.rip/2024/03/23/my-books-free-download-repost/

https://old.rip/2023/11/03/my-books-free-download/

___

my music for meditation and reading ..

https://old.rip/2023/04/28/my-music-test/

___