Nebula,

I think there's an error in your thought process here. (I may be wrong - I've been keeping an eye on this thread, but not looked too deeply into it)

If I understand correctly, your supposition is:

We live in a simulated universe

We know this because of the way QE works

This is - the universe doesn't decide what it's going to 'render' until it needs to - hence the quantum eraser results.

If I'm wrong on this, please ignore the rest of this post.

Ok, now my question: Why is the simulated universe only rendering that which needs to be rendered in order to fulfil the senses of observers within the simulated universe? As a programmer, who has the tools and skills to design and run an entire universe simulation model, When I click 'Go' the big bank starts (or however else you want to start your simulation) This would really be the only way to kick things off. It would make no sense to start things off by writing a bunch of code with pre-existing matter etc -i.e. a universe that started with sentient life parameters already in it; it would be better to tweak the starting parameters to allow this potential (Hmm, what shall I make the Planck constant in this simulation...), then run the simulation a bunch of times. To do otherwise would be.. inelegant to my mind. 

Given this, the simulation would be far grander than needing to create itself according to the visibility of those within it.. the simulation would start at the beginning, fully generate the seconds after the big bang, coalescence of stars and galaxies, Hawking radiation around black holes, etc etc. This would indeed be necessary of the simulation, because we, as residents within this simulation, have mathematically postulated on physics before finding our predictions true (e.g. the Higgs discovery). So these things must exist and be working before we 'discover them'.

In this universe, therefore, the programmers will have set up the simulation so my back exists, even if I as an observer, cannot see it at the moment.

So the reason for the results of the double slit experiment, while interesting and strange, do not describe evidence for our reality to be simulated. (It may be - but this experiment does not indicate it)

I'd argue the plants are alive the way we are, and if we're in a simulation and there's a point to rendering anything, there's no point in not rendering for the plants, if only to help ensure the simulation is running properly.
But most people think of plants as edible rocks instead of living beings, so it's probably semantics.

Of course. My perception of my own existence is faith based. On this level of discussion there's no way to prove anything, because the very minds we use to translate reality are called into question.
Your experience of a glitch could be an actual glitch in a simulation, or it could be a hallucination. Your belief it was actually a glitch is as faith based as the perception

This is hard for me to follow but I will do my best and if I am not answering your question please follow up.   First of all, I believe that yeah, a universe simulation begins with a simulated big bang and then stars/planets/life evolve from there.   In fact, if you check out Conway's Game of Life you can see how putting some very simple rules into place allows these little "lifeforms" called Cellular Automata to evolve.  

The next question is why is it only rendered as needed right?   The simulation is always running regardless of whether or not it's being rendered for anyone, but rendering in a reality simulation only makes sense when it is done as needed.   The rendering refers to a stream of data that you can interpret in your consciousness.  If you are playing an MMORPG, or Second Life, something like that, you know, you control where you look, or where you point your character's head.   So, you look up at the moon and the moon (which is in reality only data, ones and zeros) is rendered for you as an image of the moon.   Then you look down at your character's hand (more ones and zeros, different data) and an image of a hand is rendered for you.   Well, you don't need anything rendered for you other than what is in your character's field of vision.   For the video game company, it doesn't make sense to use their hard drive space, processing power, bandwidth etc. to render stuff that no is looking at.   So that is why it's only done as needed.   There is no reason to render something for no reason.        

I dunno.   If it's true it may come in handy someday.   The concept of a spherical earth served Columbus.  I mean at least he knew there was no danger of falling off the edge of the earth.  

 It's not that elegant and simple, you still have the simulations within simulations problem, which necessitates a first, real universe - which leaves you right back where you were.

The cosmological constant doesn't necessitate tuning.. The weak Anthropic principle accounts for this.. You're free to pick your preference of course...

My main beef with your premise is that you seem to think that sentient life is the goal of universe creating. I can't see why that would be. Just because we happen to be here, does not suppose that something twiddled knobs and pulled levers to make it so.

And here's another thought - starting our universe again, with exactly the same starting parameters, would not necessarily lead to life forming. It may do.. but there's no guarantee.. It depends on the Drake equation, which we don't know enough bits of yet.. so to assume life will spontaneously pop into existence in every simulation starting with the big bang is another assumption you're going to have to make.

So it's getting less simple or elegant, wouldn't you agree?

 interesting as the theory is, I believe this is just god of the gaps in a different guise. 

There are variations of Idealism that don't include a "creator" like the Simulation Hypothesis does.   Biocentrism is one, which basically says life and biology create the universe and that (from Wiki): "space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects" but I haven't really looked into that one.  

I just thought of something.   Information can travel over radio waves, like pictures from the Mars rovers for example, and radio waves aren't matter, so doesn't that mean information can exist without matter?   That you don't really need a storage medium made of matter to hold the information, if it's traveling over radio waves?

My thinking is, some version of Idealism must be correct.   Information seems more important than matter.   What is a book?  A bunch of pieces of paper with black markings all over them, but that is not what is important about the book.   It's the information in the book and how it relates to consciousness that is important.        

I do believe there is some kind of Absolute or Ground of All Being, but even if I didn't, I would still be a monistic idealist.   Even if our universe wasn't intentionally created by anyone or anything but came about through some natural process (which may be the case even if a deity does exist), it's possible that it still is only made of information and that the physicality of matter is an illusion.  I know that anything is possible and there is no reason to believe anything without evidence, but there is evidence for idealism.   The thing that people get hung up on is how can information be stored without matter, but if the objective physicality of matter turns out to be only an illusion, then logically the storage thing shouldn't be an issue.    

I see what you mean about the wild off the wall theories like Multiverse, String theory, Ekpyrotic universe (one of my favourites), what you call idealism would seem at first glance to be just one of the many.  

The problem that I have with it is that it doesn't answer any questions.  If a new hypothesis complicates your picture of the universe it is useless.  Your proposal just pushes everything back, what you're saying is, we're all in a simulation and there is no way to prove otherwise or see through it.  To me, that reeks of intellectual laziness and it really is no different then religion.  

For example, a multiverse model, by comparison, is much more plausible because it assumes the least amount of unknowns, and explains a lot about our universe in a natural way.  I just want to set a disclaimer that I'm not saying this is the current model and putting on a "multiverse" priest hat.  I'm simply saying that it seems like the most plausible idea.

I'll explain why:

1. Dark Energy.  I won't go into details, they're easily available, but the current cosmological model shows the universe's expansion as accelerating.  If the current conditions continue the universe will eventually dissipate into "nothing" (not for more then 1 to the google power of years). 

2. Least assumptions.  From our observations, Vacuum has energy, and temperature.  Meaning that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the philosophical sense.  If you take everything out of a vacuum, you would expect it to have no energy, but it does.  This energy is extremely small 10 to the power -9 J, it likely comes from pairs of virtual particles appearing and dissipating continually.  That means that all you need to get "SOMETHING" is the fabric of space/time, which we already know exists.  

3. Inflation.  Again, I won't go into details, and this is a bit of an assumption, but it does jive with observable universal homogeneity and the majority of cosmological observations. 

4.  Arrow of time.  There is no physical reason why we remember the past and not the future.  Relativity implies that "now" is relative to energy spent in momentum.  The only thing that dictates the arrow of time is entropy.  Basically, entropy is the only thing that dictates the arrow of time, coupled with the "least action" principle (basically nature is lazy, path of least resistance and all that).

If you consider the necessary conditions for the current conditions of reality to appear.  It would seem more energy cost effective for the universe to create a "brain in a vat" or a consciousness with all the current sensory input as an illusion, rather then the whole universe (or your idealism).  Unless you consider inflation, then the "least action" would be an entire universe, along with entropy/arrow of time and everything.  

Basically you need to wait around for a particle/antiparticle pair to appear with a temporary net energy (the overall energy will always be 0) past a certain thresh hold, enough for inflation to take hold.  And you have yourself an honest to god universe.

I'm sorry for skipping over most details, and I'll happily oblige any elaboration when I have more time. 

and most of the atmosphere, only the hardiest life known to exist can survive. Survive, in hibernation, but not live and thrive.

So the fine-tuned hypothesis simply fails. If less than 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is habitable for life as we know it, then the universe is certainly not fine tuned for life as we know it.

Vastet and ThunderJones.  OK, you have convinced me.  Non-Finely Tuned Universe fits Simulation Hypothesis better anyway.   Don't forget what Agent Smith said:

"Have you ever stood and stared at it, marveled at it's beauty, it's genius? Billions of people just living out their lives, oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world. Where none suffered. Where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program."

In other words, if it looks too hospitable around here, we're going to know something is up.   It's suppose to be convincing as a naturalistic, physical matter reality, on the surface at least.   That is why the Double Slit is such a good experiment.   It shows you what is really going on.  

Now, I would like to tell my little "Glitch in the Matrix" story along with my current Idealistic interpretation of this event.

I was in a park playing fetch with a dog.   There was a light drizzle coming down.   I had a tennis ball launcher which is just this thing you hold that is like an extension of your arm to allow you to throw the ball further and easier.   I was throwing the ball and every time the ball would land in the same patch of grass, maybe about 10 to 20 square feet.   We were only playing for about 10 minutes.  

Then, I threw the ball and saw it bounce and land in that area like it had done on every other throw.   The only difference was that this time, the dog ran down there and was running around in circles with his nose to the ground looking for it.   I was like, "what the hell?  How come he can't find it?" so I went down there to investigate and it wasn't there.  Both he and I were very confused.   Then I spent 20 minutes combing over this entire area looking for any holes in the ground or anything that could have explained the disappearance of this ball.   The dog did not swallow it.   So then I just had to give up and leave.  It had disappeared.    

At the time I had heard of Many Worlds and I thought maybe that had something to do with it.   Like maybe in some other world, a "me" was in that park and inexplicably ended up with an extra tennis ball.   But I don't understand that explanation very well.   Another explanation I thought of at the time was "Fairies."   "Fairies stole it."

Now, with my current understanding of reality this event makes perfect sense.   Everything in our reality is a probability distribution until we collect information about it but some things are more probable than others.   There was an extremely high probability that the dog and I should have been able to find the ball where I threw it but that probability still wasn't as high as the probability of where you will find a building or your foot.   So, there was just enough uncertainty about the location of the ball to allow the probability to be low enough that it actually did disappear out of our reality.  I mean the chances that the ball wouldn't be there was probably like 1 to several million, whereas the chances a building would disappear would be 1 to several trillion or whatever. 

But, since the ball wasn't important, like it wasn't evidence in a murder case or anything, and since my eyes weren't glued to it from the time I saw it bounce and land to the time the dog retrieved it, there was just enough uncertainty to allow the unlikely possibility of its disappearance.  
 

Not really because I saw Leonard Susskind (who is a proponent of Holographic Principle) in the BBC documentary "What We Still Don't Know Episode 3: Are We Real" which is about Simulation Hypothesis so I think they are very similar.  I had actually discovered HP before SH but didn't understand the former.   But it is probably an easier sell so if I did understand it I probably would been talking about that this whole time instead.  

Irrelevant.   Idealism in general (as opposed to Simulation Hypothesis specifically) is about the nature of reality (subjective -vs- objective).   It doesn't concern First Cause.    That is a separate issue.   

It would not have done people in the 6th century BCE any good to worry about the origin of the earth when they didn't even understand the nature of the earth (spherical -vs- flat) or astronomy (heliocentrism -vs- a geocentric, dome firmament model).    

 Also, if "Simulated Reality" isn't true in a literal sense of a computer program, it is at least a useful metaphor that describes how reality works (subjectively, in our perceptions), whatever the origin is.

.. in a split second if the system running the simulation experiences technical difficulties.

Certainly my mind exists, however abstractly, but is it mine?

I have faith that I exist despite this, as I don't believe our existence is a simulation. While there is value in simulating a universe, that value drops the longer the simulation is run. By the time the simulated universe is old enough to support life, it is no longer particularly useful to simulate it, as far as I can tell. Valuable perhaps to a species that evolved a few billion years later in the life of their universe compared to we in ours, as observations of their surroundings simply wouldn't let them see what their universe looked like at our point. But it is unlikely that sufficient information about the universe to create a simulation of it would exist at such a time, when all skies are dark and the cosmic background radiation has faded into undetectability.

I can say that I have yet to meet someone who demonstrates better eyesight than myself. Last I was tested I was told I had better than 20/20, whatever that means.

There have been times that the exact same thing as you described happened to me. The only difference is that I usually recovered the ball.

After studying the area I knew it must have landed in, I would see something, or multiple things, that could have set the ball on a wild bounce(s).

I'll mention here that my practical experiences with physics have given me a good intuition on understanding impacts and trajectories. Pong, Pool, Blockbreaker, and other games as well as things as simple as bouncing a ball off the wall with different spins and curves have given me these experiences.

I've sometimes had to go dozens of metres, uphill, to recover a ball that hit 'just so'. But it was always there to be found.

Unless a likely trajectory was off a cliff, in which case I gave up. > >

"In either case you are a self-aware, conscious entity using the word "I" proving your mind exists regardless of where the data is stored."

No. If I'm a simulation then my mind doesn't exist, it's a simulation of a mind. A simulation is designed to mimic that which it represents, but it is not what it represents.

"The people running the simulation wouldn't necessarily have the same physical laws in their universe that we have in ours so your argument fails."

The people would have to have some variation of the physical laws in order to exist, let alone run a simulation. So your rebuttal fails.

"As side note, the entire history of a universe from beginning to end can be simulated in a short period of time from the perspective of the simulators."

Another problem with your argument is in assuming life must be simulated in order to simulate its effects. If a species is sufficiently knowledgeable enough to simulate the entirety of a universe, they don't have to bother with easily calculated minor details.

Here's the paper.  Very good find.  Mind = Blown!

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034.pdf

For the sake of argument lets start with the assumption that in our objective, physical matter reality our minds do exist as an emergent property of our brains, and that awareness of one's existence and surroundings is not just an illusion.  If that is the case, how does it follow that if Idealism were true it would mean our minds are less real?  Just because of where the data is processed and stored?  Isn't the brain basically a highly advanced, biological computer anyway?   You are merely giving different labels to them calling one a "simulated mind" and the other real but you seem to admit there are no experiential differences.  A "simulation of a mind" is a non self-aware AI program, not what our minds would be if reality were subjective.        
 

What if in the future, nanobots go into a person's bloodstream, then into her brain, scan every neuron and synapse and upload all the data to a "virtual brain" program on a computer.   Would that be a simulation of a mind?  Nope, that would be a copy of a mind.  The copy would be a "real mind" just as much as the original.   Why wouldn't it be?         
 

Not true.  People who are into Multiverse talk about how other universes should have different physical laws than ours and that these universes can possibly contain life as we DON'T know it.  

Wrong!   No one would have any idea what would evolve, if anything, as pointed out in post 59:
 

"For the sake of argument l~if reality were subjective."

Have you never wondered why a simulation never instantly results in new technology? For example, years ago, simulations regarding this article were concluded:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32903

Those simulations were never acted upon, because simulations are known to fail to simulate that which they were intended to represent. So now scientists are testing the simulation with real materials.

If I'm a simulation, then I only exist as a simulation. Everything, myself included, is an illusion. All my perspectives, beliefs, and thoughts are provided for me by a computer. My brain doesn't do anything, its just a simulation. I am not an emergent property of my brain. I'm not even an emergent property of the computer, I'm just made to act as if I am.

"Wrong!   No one would have any idea what would evolve, if anything, as pointed out in post 59:"

Wrong. As the designers of the simulation are sufficiently knowledgeable to create the simulation, they are also knowledgeable enough to make predictions on the end and mid results. Some may be in error, but many won't be.

I want to retract this before I get in trouble if it isn't too late.   I DON'T subscribe to "consciousness causes the collapse."   That is a gross oversimplification.    The which-slit info being available to the researcher - as it relates to historical consistency - is what causes it, as I said in 25, 33 & 41.   I'm sticking with that.       

I'm also skeptical, I'm just as skeptical of your hypothesis as of the idea reality is real. Slightly more so only because I've yet to see a reason to alter my approach. Approaching the universe as a simulation, even if it is one, does not in any way increase my survival odds or enjoyment of living, and could have a negative impact on me even if the hypothesis is true.
Approaching the universe as if it were real has a definite positive benefit to my existence.
So that's what I'll continue to do, unless some new evidence changes my mind.

I'm not an expert on the subject, and am not stating my support for the hypothesis, but dopplegangers is simply not an accurate term to use. It would be more accurate to say that if true, then every possible outcome of the big bang has happened, with each potential universe doing its own thing.
Not all of those universes would have an Earth. Many that did would be barren.
Sure, there'd be a few trillion different Earths with a few billion different me's, but they'd all be just a little different. Not clones.

lol

Why is your number 2 paragraph called "Least assumptions"? Shouldn't it be "No creator"?   That is what you mean right?  A naturalistic, random, phenomenal, "unintended by anyone" origin of our universe is preferable to it having been intentionally created, right?   OK, I can see why that would be the case if we were talking about a deity creating the universe, because we don't have evidence for deities.   But we do have evidence that intelligent beings exist, us.   So assuming we're not the only intelligent life in existence how does point 2 make Multiverse the better choice?

 

Ok, well I didn't read the article all the way through.  I stopped at the "new science of digitalism", my head hurt after that line... We can trash that article some other time, but let me elaborate on number 2.  I said "least assumptions" because if you consider the origin of the universe, you cannot conceive of anything less then "nothing".  Try to think of ANYTHING less then absolute vacuum.  So, what I'm trying to say is, if you consider the one thing in our universe that requires the least assumptions, we are understanding that it has such properties as to randomly generate a pair of virtual particles that cancel out almost immediately.  and from there follows my drivel... By contrast, ANY ONE OTHER THING that you assume, implies more assumptions as an existence outside our universe.  

So let's try one other thing, let's say that a chicken egg existed outside the universe, now you have to assume, at the very least an outside shell, a typical chicken egg composition... so on and so forth.  That's more assumptions then "nothing" (again, there is no such thing as "nothing", so really, this is not even an assumption, it is a given).

Now, you're proposing, not only that a whole other universe exists, but that it has purpose (in the theological sense), that it is organized in such a way as to allow for a superior race to exist, that they had built a super computer.... every one of those assumptions comes loaded with a million other assumptions.  

Furthermore, your "theory" is unfalsifiable, making it no more a scientific theory then god did it, your god just happens to own a PC and be a decent coder.  It also doesn't actually answer anything, because you can always ask, well, who created coder god?  was it some other "coder god"?  

You are correct, as we understand it, the space-time that we currently experience originated from the big bang event that gave birth to our universe.  

I don't think that something like the fabric of space-time that we're experiencing existing outside our universe is an assumption.  A few things on that.

Firstly, the question "why is there something, rather then nothing?" basically implies that you cannot get something out of nothing.  There is no such thing as "nothing" in a philosophical sense in our universe.  We cannot find a single example of anything that is completely void of all energy.  Since our universe is something, and our universe exists, it implies that something is eternal.  So far, this argument has a religious stench to it, but the more you think about it, the more you realize that something has always existed, but no more, or less then that.  This is the only given that you can take.  The fact that there is something now, rather then nothing, implies that there has always been something.

Secondly, in order to assume ANYTHING outside our universe, you must first assume a frame of reference for that something to exist in.  You can assume the "universe coder from eternal creation", but in order to do so, you must first assume a frame of reference that this "UCfEC" exists in.  So the only common denominator, well the only condition for ANYTHING to be outside our universe, is a frame of reference.  Therefore, something like what we experience as "space-time" must exist outside our universe. 

Since we know that our space-time has such fundamental property as to generate energy, then the only assumption is that the "exo-universe" frame of reference also has this same property.  This is like saying that the "nothing" in our universe is the same as the "nothing" outside our universe.  

You seem to think that assuming we are a simulation is ONE assumption, when in reality is a very large number of assumptions, the first of which is the "assumption" that I have made, namely that there is a frame of reference for your simulation to be in.

Do the math now and you will see why I believe the MW to be a better theory.

Edit: "something rather then nothing"