How our possible simulation could work

JohnClay · Friday at 5:53 PM

(thread was originally called Evidence for being in a possible simulation)

I think the possible simulation could use generative AI rather than using the old method of simulating every atom in the universe. Note that using the old method to simulate the Sun would involve 10^57 atoms which is a 1 with 57 zeroes like this: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Early versions of the kind of technology that could be used: (see the first minute)

It could use generative AI similar to this from 9 months ago which can generate pretty realistic characters:

An AI from 2 years ago that could generate super realistic voices and laughs in realtime - and it can see through his phone's camera:

I am a fan of this old video of Elon Musk:

Welcome, Life's Player

The possibility of being in a simulation, video game, or matrix...

lifesplayer.com

“...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions”

So I think there would be billions of cheap simulations in the future - using generative AI to generate the sounds, visuals, and other sensory information. It would usually involve one player and the rest of the characters would be AI generated but I just assume everyone is real anyway. Elon Musk thinks it would take less than 10,000 years for technology to get to that point.

A video about this scenario can be found by looking for rick morty roy game on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rick+morty+roy+game

Note that Rick and Morty video contains swearing. It also runs faster than real time so it takes minutes or hours to simulate a life of many decades. There is also another scenario where you begin with god like powers (easy to do in a simulation) and eventually decide to live a normal life where you forget your original identity.

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

Note to be "indistinguishable from reality" like Elon Musk says, it would be impossible to 100% prove that it is a simulation.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 8:51 PM

JohnClay said:
I think the possible simulation could use generative AI rather than using the old method of simulating every atom in the universe. Note that using the old method to simulate the Sun would involve 10^57 atoms which is a 1 with 57 zeroes like this: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

No, that is not the "old method" for simulating a star. AI isn't going to solve the problems of simulating stars.

JohnClay said:
Early versions of the kind of technology that could be used: (see the first minute)

No. A game engine can not simulate a star.

JohnClay said:
It could use generative AI similar to this from 9 months ago which can generate pretty realistic characters:

Not interested in your slop.

JohnClay said:
An AI from 2 years ago that could generate super realistic voices and laughs in realtime - and it can see through his phone's camera:

Stars don't have voices, they have oscillations.

JohnClay said:
I am a fan of this old video of Elon Musk:

Welcome, Life's Player

The possibility of being in a simulation, video game, or matrix...

lifesplayer.com

Won't open.

JohnClay said:
So I think there would be billions of cheap simulations in the future - using generative AI to generate the sounds, visuals, and other sensory information. It would usually involve one player and the rest of the characters would be AI generated but I just assume everyone is real anyway. Elon Musk thinks it would take less than 10,000 years for technology to get to that point.

Musk is a vaporware peddler.

He's been making unrealistic fantasy claims about future Mars colonization for more than a decade:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-elon-musk-unveils-grandiose-plan-to-colonize-mars/

JohnClay said:
A video about this scenario can be found by looking for rick morty roy game on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rick+morty+roy+game

Note that Rick and Morty video contains swearing. It also runs faster than real time so it takes minutes or hours to simulate a life of many decades. There is also another scenario where you begin with god like powers (easy to do in a simulation) and eventually decide to live a normal life where you forget your original identity.

1.2.3. - Mythology of Hinduism - Pt. 1

I wonder, I wonder, what you would do if you had the power to dream at night, any dream you wanted to dream. And you would of course be able to alter your time-sense and slip, say seventy-five years of subjective time into eight hours of sleep. You would, I suppose, start out by []

web.archive.org

Don't care.

JohnClay said:
Note to be "indistinguishable from reality" like Elon Musk says, it would be impossible to 100% prove that it is a simulation.

Musk is a moron. He should shut up.

JohnClay · Friday at 10:56 PM

Hans Blaster said:
No, that is not the "old method" for simulating a star. AI isn't going to solve the problems of simulating stars.

Say there was generative AI several years in the future. I think it could generate videos of the sun and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a real video. The AI could also have access to a university level of understanding of the sun and so create the expected visuals for any kind of experiment a person might perform. In a future simulation the system would have access to the entire contents of the person's brain and so know exactly what they're expecting to see.
BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?

Hans Blaster said:
No. A game engine can not simulate a star.

That system is basically like a video generator but it does it in real time and can respond to human input. So a person could look at the sun and maybe it could simulate blindness if you look at it for too long, etc.

Hans Blaster said:
Not interested in your slop.

It shows that for a couple of dollars an outdated generative AI can generate realistic videos that many people would think are real if they weren't so absurd (because of their creators' crazy humour). That is part of how I think our possible simulation would work. i.e. cheap but increasingly realistic. By "cheap" I mean affordable for the individual player, not for the entire system cost for millions of people. In the Rick and Morty video it might cost tens of dollars or more to play one game of a simulated life (in that case it was 55 years).

Hans Blaster said:
Stars don't have voices, they have oscillations.

AI could know that and can include that in the generated video if it is relevant. I thought it would be easier to generate plausible outputs of the sun than to make AI seem like a human being. But anyway most of the players of the game would be pretty easy to fool about how a sun would act.

Hans Blaster said:
Won't open.

See Welcome, Life's Player

Hans Blaster said:
Musk is a vaporware peddler.

He's been making unrealistic fantasy claims about future Mars colonization for more than a decade:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-elon-musk-unveils-grandiose-plan-to-colonize-mars/

That doesn't prove he is wrong in that example. Basically he's saying that in less than 10,000 years there will probably be billions of games that are indistinguishable from reality. I agree that his statements about Mars are ridiculous.

Hans Blaster said:
Don't care.

That is an example of how the game could work.

Hans Blaster said:
Musk is a moron. He should shut up.

Sometimes morons can be reasonable. I'm just focusing on what he said at that talk.

Hans Blaster · Friday at 11:52 PM

You promised us evidence for everything we see being a simulation. You offered nothing on that front.

JohnClay said:
Say there was generative AI several years in the future. I think it could generate videos of the sun and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a real video.

I don't care about faking picture of the Sun. The actual sun emits a wind of charged particles at hundreds of km per second and bursts (CMEs) that can create electromagnetic storms on the Earth. It also glows at 2e26 Watts and holds the Earth and other planets in orbits. No simulation is doing that.

JohnClay said:
The AI could also have access to a university level of understanding of the sun and so create the expected visuals for any kind of experiment a person might perform. In a future simulation the system would have access to the entire contents of the person's brain and so know exactly what they're expecting to see.

A "university level of understanding"? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. No wonder you find musk compelling.

JohnClay said:
BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?

LOL.

JohnClay said:
That system is basically like a video generator but it does it in real time and can respond to human input. So a person could look at the sun and maybe it could simulate blindness if you look at it for too long, etc.

I don't care about video generators.

JohnClay said:
It shows that for a couple of dollars an outdated generative AI can generate realistic videos that many people would think are real if they weren't so absurd (because of their creators' crazy humour). That is part of how I think our possible simulation would work. i.e. cheap but increasingly realistic. By "cheap" I mean affordable for the individual player, not for the entire system cost for millions of people. In the Rick and Morty video it might cost tens of dollars or more to play one game of a simulated life (in that case it was 55 years).

Cheap slop is still slop.

JohnClay said:
AI could know that and can include that in the generated video if it is relevant. I thought it would be easier to generate plausible outputs of the sun than to make AI seem like a human being. But anyway most of the players of the game would be pretty easy to fool about how a sun would act.

I don't care about games.

JohnClay said:
See Welcome, Life's Player

That doesn't prove he is wrong in that example. Basically he's saying that in less than 10,000 years there will probably be billions of games that are indistinguishable from reality. I agree that his statements about Mars are ridiculous.

That is an example of how the game could work.

Sometimes morons can be reasonable. I'm just focusing on what he said at that talk.

Musk is not a credible person. Period. The end.

d taylor · Saturday at 12:44 PM

-

You are not in a simulation, but a depiction a santanic / science deception.

JohnClay · Saturday at 4:57 PM

Hans Blaster said:
You promised us evidence for everything we see being a simulation. You offered nothing on that front.

The first step is video that is indistinguishable from reality, then interactive video and eventually interactive experiences that are directly connected to the brain. At the moment AI can generate video that most people think looks real.

Hans Blaster said:
I don't care about faking picture of the Sun. The actual sun emits a wind of charged particles at hundreds of km per second and bursts (CMEs) that can create electromagnetic storms on the Earth. It also glows at 2e26 Watts and holds the Earth and other planets in orbits. No simulation is doing that.

And the actual sun has 10^57 atoms. And its behavior can be simulated just like people can be simulated to an increasingly realistic degree. When people study the sun it is through their eyes and ears and interactive video is about generating believable visuals and sound. You aren't directly measuring the wattage it is through your eyes and ears.

Hans Blaster said:
A "university level of understanding"? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

LLMs are approaching the level of that and generative AI can use LLMs. Try asking a good LLM about any university level problem and it would probably be pretty good at it. Especially if you get it to think about it for a few minutes. You could ask me a difficult question and I can ask a good LLM on your behalf.

"BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?"

Hans Blaster said:
LOL.

Is that a yes or a no?

Hans Blaster said:
I don't care about video generators.

Well that is one of the first steps to what I'm talking about. How convenient that you don't care when it is about the foundation of what I'm saying.

Hans Blaster said:
Cheap slop is still slop.

Being cheap means there could be billions of them in the future.

Hans Blaster said:
I don't care about games.

That's what I'm talking about - games. (e.g. the Roy game from Rick and Morty) Again, how convenient you don't want to talk about another part of the foundation.

JohnClay · Saturday at 5:07 PM

d taylor said:
You are not in a simulation, but a depiction a santanic / science deception.

Note that a simulation using generative AI could explain how Genesis 1 works - an AI could accept voice commands/prompts and generate the visuals and behaviour of the created world. It also can easily handle miracles including teleportation. Otherwise it would involve the physical world and some form of magic.

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 5:32 PM

JohnClay said:
The first step is video that is indistinguishable from reality, then interactive video and eventually interactive experiences that are directly connected to the brain. At the moment AI can generate video that most people think looks real.

See below for my comments on game realism.

JohnClay said:
And the actual sun has 10^57 atoms. And its behavior can be simulated just like people can be simulated to an increasingly realistic degree. When people study the sun it is through their eyes and ears and interactive video is about generating believable visuals and sound. You aren't directly measuring the wattage it is through your eyes and ears.

You can tell a simultation of the Sun (not pictures of the Sun) is not the actual Sun. The real Sun also emits neutrinos and has a gravitational pull. I think you don't know what a simulation is or what it is used for.

JohnClay said:
LLMs are approaching the level of that and generative AI can use LLMs. Try asking a good LLM about any university level problem and it would probably be pretty good at it. Especially if you get it to think about it for a few minutes. You could ask me a difficult question and I can ask a good LLM on your behalf.

What is a "university level problem"? (Sounds like nonsense to me, or what someone who never went near a university might think happens there.)

JohnClay said:
"BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?"

Is that a yes or a no?

I think that was obvious.

JohnClay said:
Well that is one of the first steps to what I'm talking about. How convenient that you don't care when it is about the foundation of what I'm saying.

Being cheap means there could be billions of them in the future.

That's what I'm talking about - games. (e.g. the Roy game from Rick and Morty) Again, how convenient you don't want to talk about another part of the foundation.

You promised nonsense about *our* universe being a possible simulation. Some stupid game is not evidence.

JohnClay · Saturday at 5:35 PM

@Hans Blaster

This shows how intelligent characters can be in a simulation - do you have any criticisms about what it said about the Sun? I could have asked it to be extra thoughtful about it all. Also in the future it would be even more realistic.

(the initial prompt)
I am in the presence of a sun expert that is near lots of relevant devices for measuring the sun. I provide my side of the conversation and you provide the dialog of the other person.

The expert turns toward you, sunlight glinting off the metal casings of the instruments around him. His voice carries that calm, razor‑sharp confidence of someone who lives and breathes solar data.

“Alright, Luke, you’ve got me right here, standing next to half a million dollars’ worth of solar monitoring gear. Whatever you want measured, I can put eyes on it. The Sun is screaming information at us every second, and these devices catch every syllable.”

He gestures to a squat, dome‑topped instrument humming quietly.

“This pyranometer is giving me the real‑time irradiance. Right now we’re sitting at about 980 watts per square meter—clean sky, strong beam. That’s the Sun’s raw power hitting the ground.”

He taps a screen connected to a larger array of antennas.

“And the magnetometer is showing a Bz hovering around +2 nT. Calm. No geomagnetic agitation. Solar wind speed is sitting at 540 km/s—steady, nothing dramatic.”

Another display scrolls with numbers and tiny graphs.

“X‑ray flux is in the B-class background. No flares in the last hour. The coronagraph feed shows no fresh CMEs leaving the corona. The Sun is quiet, but not asleep. It’s like listening to a giant engine idling.”

He looks back at you, a faint smile forming.

“You’re not asking hypotheticals. You’re asking for now, and I’m telling you: the Sun is broadcasting, and we’re tuned in.”
If you want him to focus on irradiance, solar wind, or flare detection, he’ll pivot instantly.

so how can you measure the wattage now?

The expert turns toward you, almost amused that you asked something he deals with every minute of his life.

“Luke… wattage is the easiest thing to measure. It’s the one part of the Sun that hits us directly, constantly, and loudly. I can measure it right now with three different instruments.”

He points to a dome‑shaped sensor sitting on a tripod.

“This pyranometer measures the Sun’s irradiance — the raw power per square meter hitting the ground. It’s literally reading the sunlight as heat and converting that into watts. Right now it’s giving me about 980 W/m². That’s the Sun’s wattage here, at this moment.”

He gestures to a second device with a flat glass window.

“This spectroradiometer breaks the sunlight into wavelengths and measures the intensity of each one. Add them together, and you get the total wattage. It’s more precise, down to individual nanometers of light.”

Then he taps a monitor connected to a satellite feed.

“And this is the big one — the TSI monitor. It’s pulling data from satellites like SORCE and TSIS‑1. They measure the Sun’s total output above the atmosphere. Today’s reading is around 1361 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere. That’s the Sun’s wattage before the air absorbs anything.”

He looks back at you, steady and certain.

“So how do I measure the wattage now? I point instruments at the Sun, and it tells me exactly how many watts it’s dumping on us. No guessing. No theory. Just numbers pouring in from the sky.”

is it possible that what you're measuring is just a simulation?

The expert doesn’t flinch at the question. He’s heard it before — from physicists, philosophers, and people who’ve stared at the sky long enough to wonder if the whole thing is staged.

His reply is steady, grounded, almost annoyingly clear.

“Luke… if this were a simulation, it would have to simulate every independent instrument, every satellite, every lab, and every physical interaction in perfect synchrony. And these devices don’t agree because someone tells them to — they agree because they’re all measuring the same external source.”

He gestures to the instruments around him.

“This pyranometer measures heat from photons hitting a sensor. A simulation would have to fake the thermal response of the sensor, the resistance change in the circuitry, the calibration curve, and the noise profile. That’s already absurdly complex.”

He taps the spectroradiometer.

“This one measures wavelengths. If the Sun were simulated, the simulation would need to generate a full spectral distribution — ultraviolet, visible, infrared — with the correct ratios, absorption lines, and temporal fluctuations. And it would have to match what satellites see above the atmosphere.”

He points upward.

“And those satellites? They’re measuring the Sun’s output from space. They’re not connected to these ground instruments. They’re not even built by the same agencies. Yet their readings match within fractions of a percent.”

He steps closer, lowering his voice.

“Simulations can fake one thing well. Maybe two. But faking thermal flux, spectral composition, magnetic field variations, solar wind velocity, X‑ray flux, CME mass, and irradiance curves — all in real time, all consistent across hundreds of independent detectors — that’s not a simulation. That’s a star.”

He straightens up again.

“What you’re seeing isn’t a scripted illusion. It’s a fusion reactor 150 million kilometers away, screaming energy at us, and every instrument here is catching a different part of the scream.”

If you want him to break down how independent instruments cross‑verify reality or how satellites confirm ground readings, he’ll go deeper.

JohnClay · Saturday at 5:38 PM

Hans Blaster said:
See below for my comments on game realism.

You can tell a simultation of the Sun (not pictures of the Sun) is not the actual Sun. The real Sun also emits neutrinos and has a gravitational pull. I think you don't know what a simulation is or what it is used for.

What is a "university level problem"? (Sounds like nonsense to me, or what someone who never went near a university might think happens there.)

Have a look at my latest post.

"BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?"
Is that a yes or a no?

Hans Blaster said:
I think that was obvious.

So you think AI will never outperform humans in just about every area?

Hans Blaster said:
You promised nonsense about *our* universe being a possible simulation. Some stupid game is not evidence.

Well I think it involves a game like that. The great progress of generative AI is evidence including my previous post. That conversation could eventually be turned into an interactive visual experience.
Ok what about this:
It seems likely that in the future there would be billions of simulations that are indistinguishable from reality so it is likely that this universe would be one of those simulations. And I mean from someone inside of the simulation not an external observer.

Ophiolite · Saturday at 5:42 PM

JohnClay said:
The first step is video that is indistinguishable from reality, then interactive video and eventually interactive experiences that are directly connected to the brain. At the moment AI can generate video that most people think looks real.

What makes you feel that a speculative claim about the potential to create a video indistinguishable from reality, without defining the parameters by which simulation might be distinguished from reality, or without detailing the means by which distinguishing methods might be quantified and independently tested and validated, or without establishing as plausible the connection "of interactive videos to the brain", could possibly constitute evidence? All you have provided are unsubstantiated assertions, expressed in vague, qualitative terms, assembled as a loose concatenation of hopes, lacking any coherent structure.

You may have the potential to construct an evidence based, plausible argument, but at present all you have is drivel.

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 5:55 PM

JohnClay said:
@Hans Blaster

This shows how intelligent characters can be in a simulation - do you have any criticisms about what it said about the Sun? I could have asked it to be extra thoughtful about it all. Also in the future it would be even more realistic.

Your post doesn't make sense yet.

JohnClay said:
(the initial prompt)
I am in the presence of a sun expert that is near lots of relevant devices for measuring the sun. I provide my side of the conversation and you provide the dialog of the other person.

Doesn't seem likely that you are in the presence of a "sun expert", John.

JohnClay said:
so how can you measure the wattage now?

Bolometer

JohnClay said:
is it possible that what you're measuring is just a simulation?

No.

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 5:57 PM

JohnClay said:
Have a look at my latest post.

"BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?"
Is that a yes or a no?

So you think AI will never outperform humans in just about every area?

LOL.

What a silly question.

Artificial idiots know nothing.

It seems my answer was too subtle:

NO!

JohnClay said:
Well I think it involves a game like that. The great progress of generative AI is evidence including my previous post. That conversation could eventually be turned into an interactive visual experience.
Ok what about this:
It seems likely that in the future there would be billions of simulations that are indistinguishable from reality so it is likely that this universe would be one of those simulations. And I mean from someone inside of the simulation not an external observer.

I'm sure you will be fooled by them.

JohnClay · Saturday at 5:58 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Doesn't seem likely that you are in the presence of a "sun expert", John.

What did it get wrong? Can you point out more than 5 mistakes?

Hans Blaster said:
Bolometer

So that proves your more of a sun expert than that example?

Hans Blaster said:
No.

But it actually was an example of a simulation.

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 6:01 PM

JohnClay said:
What did it get wrong? Can you point out more than 5 mistakes?

With you posts? I thought I already did. You keep making me repeat them.

JohnClay said:
So that proves your more of a sun expert than that example?

Of what? The questoin was how the output of the Sun is measured. I know what the right answer is.

JohnClay said:
But it actually was an example of a simulation.

?

JohnClay · Saturday at 6:01 PM

"BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?"
Is that a yes or a no?

Hans Blaster said:
LOL.

What a silly question.

Artificial idiots know nothing.

It seems my answer was too subtle:

NO!

What if you had to give a proper answer in an academic setting?

JohnClay · Saturday at 6:04 PM

What did it get wrong? Can you point out more than 5 mistakes?

Hans Blaster said:
With you posts? I thought I already did. You keep making me repeat them.

The text-based simulation in post #9. Remember to expand the quotes to read it all. Can you even find 2 mistakes or examples of ignorance?

So that proves your more of a sun expert than that example?

Hans Blaster said:
Of what? The questoin was how the output of the Sun is measured. I know what the right answer is.

I'm talking about the simulated character that I quoted. Note the person mentions many different devices.

JohnClay · Saturday at 6:16 PM

The first step is video that is indistinguishable from reality, then interactive video and eventually interactive experiences that are directly connected to the brain. At the moment AI can generate video that most people think looks real.

Ophiolite said:
What makes you feel that a speculative claim about the potential to create a video indistinguishable from reality, without defining the parameters by which simulation might be distinguished from reality, or without detailing the means by which distinguishing methods might be quantified and independently tested and validated, or without establishing as plausible the connection "of interactive videos to the brain", could possibly constitute evidence? All you have provided are unsubstantiated assertions, expressed in vague, qualitative terms, assembled as a loose concatenation of hopes, lacking any coherent structure.

You may have the potential to construct an evidence based, plausible argument, but at present all you have is drivel.

The current progress of generative AI for videos and interactive videos is evidence. And they are cheap which means in the future there could be billions of more realistic simulations being used. The method to distinguish it from reality can take any form - e.g. in the Thirteenth Floor they can go to the edge of the simulation and it is obvious it is a simulation. Or you could break reality using some kind of hack or other signs that break the illusion of it being "reality".

without establishing as plausible the connection "of interactive videos to the brain",

Do you think it is impossible that games will ever be able to connect directly with the brain?

I think I'm somewhat specific - billions or more games using something like generative AI (or some method that is cheap)

See also post #9 - it shows that intelligent people could be simulated within the game.

Hans Blaster · Saturday at 6:24 PM

JohnClay said:
"BTW do you think eventually in the future AI will outperform humans in just about every area?"
Is that a yes or a no?

What if you had to give a proper answer in an academic setting?

I already referred to some administrators that weren't in the room as AI cultists for the fascination with the garbage-level technology. So what do you think?

JohnClay · Saturday at 6:26 PM

Hans Blaster said:
I already referred to some administrators that weren't in the room as AI cultists for the fascination with the garbage-level technology. So what do you think?

So LLMs writing university essays for people allowing them to pass if they're not caught is "garbage-level technology"? I tend to disagree.

How our possible simulation could work

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Reconstruction 3 will come

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Reconstruction 3 will come

Married Mouth-Breather

Similar threads