How the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis Explains Just About Everything

It seems to me that the P2P Simulation Hypothesis is in the same category, though much less thoroughly and mathematically worked out. P2P is attractive because it seems to be an elegant way of explaining a lot of otherwise mysterious properties of our reality. But since in the hypothesis absolutely everything observable is an artifact of the simulation it seems impossible for there to be an experiment that could rule it out. Is it "scientific"? Probably not.

If there is no "quantum exception" within the brains of humans the theory fails - that seems like a pretty good way for P2P to be ruled out?

If there is no "quantum exception" within the brains of humans the theory fails - that seems like a pretty good way for P2P to be ruled out?

What do you mean by "quantum exception" within the brain?

[quote pid='26497' dateline='1551998902']
nbtruthmanWhat do you mean by "quantum exception" within the brain?
[/quote]

From his paper New Theory of Free Will:

Interestingly, unlike the ordinary wave-function of quantum mechanics, the Master Chief Wave Function would not appear to “collapse” at random(according to the quantum wave-function). My individual propensities as Master Chief’s user (outside of the simulation) would manifest themselves non-randomly in his behavior. This means that, according to Halo Scientists, the physics governing Master Chief’s brain (supposing he has one in the simulation) would be slightly different than the physics of ordinary objects (like bullets). Whereas the quantum wave function would collapse randomly for all other physical objects, the physical mechanics of Master Chief’s brain (which result from my genuine free choices outside of the simulation) would be fundamentally non-random...Libertarian Compatibilism entails that if, and when, we are capable of studying quantum-mechanics in functioning human brains, the “usual” random collapse of the wave-function (which occurs for all other objects) should be subtly violated in non-random ways.

Edit:
[quote pid='26363' dateline='1551819458']
nbtruthmanCould you explicate this a little more ?
[/quote]

Apologies I thought I answered this. In addition to the brain having a particular quantum behavior mentioned above here's a list of necessary hypotheses for P2P to be viable:

Libertarian Compatibilism makes the following empirical claims: (1)the world we perceive is a hologram(viz. the Holographic Principle), (2) the world we perceive is a simulation(viz. the conjunction of all the hypotheses discussed), and (3) we have libertarianfree will in a higher reference-frame that is nevertheless “masked” by apparent causal-closure in our lower-level reference frame (within the simulation).

As a matter of fact, all three predictions can, in principle, be tested. We have already seen that the Holographic Principle makes determinate predictions, and that these predictions are already in the process of being tested.

Second, the idea that our universe is a simulation also entails determinate predictions: insofar as computerized simulations appear to require a lattice-like framework to account for distances between virtual objects and the progression of time, if our universe is a simulation, it too should be constructed on such a lattice framework. Finally, and most importantly, it has been shown that these lattices can emerge from quantum chromodynamics, and that the “edges” of these lattices should be observable to us in terms of an energy limit that can be represented by energy particles.

(from Arvan's paper):

Second, the idea that our universe is a simulation also entails determinate predictions: insofar as computerized simulations appear to require a lattice-like framework to account for distances between virtual objects and the progression of time, if our universe is a simulation, it too should be constructed on such a lattice framework. Finally, and most importantly, it has been shown that these lattices can emerge from quantum chromodynamics, and that the “edges” of these lattices should be observable to us in terms of an energy limit that can be represented by energy particles.

Thanks for the information.

For a falsification to be valid, there has to be an experiment that could "disprove" the hypothesis by possibly coming up with a result contrary to the prediction of the hypothesis. 

Unfortunately, in this case even if a physics experiment failed to show a discrete absolute minimum length (perhaps by not detecting and measuring the lattice spacing "energy particles" alluded to), this could really just be an artifact of the P2P simulation. The P2P simulation could still be true but the P2P simulation computer(s) have an actual minimum length least significant bit value ("lattice spacing") vastly smaller than the predicted one the experimental apparatus is designed to detect (that is, for instance the Planck length the apparatus is designed to detect could actually be "programmed" in, with the real length LSB value being vastly smaller) and of vastly lower energy signature. Or perhaps the simulation computation could be analogue (continuous) in basic nature. 

Anyway, it appears that the "lattice spacing" experiment can't really falsify the P2P simulation hypothesis.

Thanks for the information.

For a falsification to be valid, there has to be an experiment that could "disprove" the hypothesis by possibly coming up with a result contrary to the prediction of the hypothesis. 

Unfortunately, in this case even if a physics experiment failed to show a discrete absolute minimum length (perhaps by not detecting and measuring the lattice spacing "energy particles" alluded to), this could really just be an artifact of the P2P simulation. The P2P simulation could still be true but the P2P simulation computer(s) have an actual minimum length least significant bit value ("lattice spacing") vastly smaller than the predicted one the experimental apparatus is designed to detect (that is, for instance the Planck length the apparatus is designed to detect could actually be "programmed" in, with the real length LSB value being vastly smaller) and of vastly lower energy signature. Or perhaps the simulation computation could be analogue (continuous) in basic nature. 

Anyway, it appears that the "lattice spacing" experiment can't really falsify the P2P simulation hypothesis.

But you could say this about any broad notion of a theory. What could falsify Idealism in a general sense, given one can always note everything is within consciousness?

Or the Multiverse, given even evidence against it could just be an artifact of this universe?

I actually think the P2P Hype is far too extravagant to be true on its face, given everything that has to be true for it to true. This seems different to me than a general Simulation Theory, where an adherent can always say the contrary evidence is an artifact of the Simulation - like saying Satan put fossils in the ground.

But you could say this about any broad notion of a theory. What could falsify Idealism in a general sense, given one can always note everything is within consciousness?

Or the Multiverse, given even evidence against it could just be an artifact of this universe?

I actually think the P2P Hype is far too extravagant to be true on its face, given everything that has to be true for it to true. This seems different to me than a general Simulation Theory, where an adherent can always say the contrary evidence is an artifact of the Simulation - like saying Satan put fossils in the ground.

Einstein's Relativity theory had a specific experimental falsifier - if during an eclipse Mercury was seen to be unshifted relative to optically nearby stars, then the theory failed. It also failed if there was an image shift, but it was the wrong shift. The theory had specific predictions built in to the equations. There would be no excuse, no "artifact of the theory" argument. The experiment was carried out, and Einstein's theory was confirmed not falsified. But it could possibly have been falsified, so it was "science" at least according to Popper. 

I don't think anything like this is possible with the P2P Simulation Hypothesis - it really seems unfalsifiable due to the always potential availability in any specific case of the general "artifact of the simulation" argument. Like the case of the ultimate "lattice spacing" I used in my example.

With the Multiverse, there is no empirical observational evidence either for or against it, and probably never will be. But I guess you're right that if there actually was evidence against it that was claimed to falsify the Multiverse, this evidence whatever it was could be claimed by Multiverse proponents to be just an artifact of this universe. That would just confirm that the Multiverse hypothesis is unfalsifiable and not science.  

When you say, "given everything (else) that has to be true for it (the P2P Simulation Hypothesis) to be true", what do you mean? That is, what are these things?

When you say, "given everything (else) that has to be true for it (the P2P Simulation Hypothesis) to be true", what do you mean? That is, what are these things?

We'd have to know, definitively, that our perceived the 3-D world is actually a 2-D information plane.

Also, that quantum mechanics has a variation of particle movement only located in brains.

We would also need some resolution to the Multiverse Question.

I think you'd also need more evidence Informational Realism, and every aspect of quantum mechanics has to follow from the P2P Hype's arguments for why we observe the weirdness of QM. But even the first three are bold propositions.

We would also need some resolution to the Multiverse Question.

That seems to leave the P2P Simulation Hypothesis in limbo, since it is extremely unlikely that evidence for the Multiverse will ever be forthcoming, and there is certainly none as yet. So far it exists only in men's minds, and that at a vast stretch because of the numerous absurdities that follow from the hypothesis.   

I think you'd also need more evidence Informational Realism, and every aspect of quantum mechanics has to follow from the P2P Hype's arguments for why we observe the weirdness of QM. But even the first three are bold propositions.

I think the "P2P Hype"s arguments from quantum mechanics are rather persuasive, especially when viewed cumulatively. However, it might be like it was before Copernicus - only having Ptolemy's epicycle theory to explain the motions of the planets at least quasi-scientifically. The epicycle theory predicts the observed planetary motions fairly well (albeit with some difficulty with the periodic retrograde excursions), but it would have been a mistake to assume it must be the truth because it was the only available theory that logically and mathematically accounted for the observed motions, and that was also in accordance with preconceived notions of the Earth being the center of the universe. Unfortunately they made that mistake for 1800 years.

I think the "P2P Hype"s arguments from quantum mechanics are rather persuasive, especially when viewed cumulatively. However, it might be like it was before Copernicus - only having Ptolemy's epicycle theory to explain the motions of the planets at least quasi-scientifically. The epicycle theory predicts the observed planetary motions fairly well (albeit with some difficulty with the periodic retrograde excursions), but it would have been a mistake to assume it must be the truth because it was the only available theory that logically and mathematically accounted for the observed motions, and that was also in accordance with preconceived notions of the Earth being the center of the universe. Unfortunately they made that mistake for 1800 years.

The superposition argument seems good to me, the entanglement one...I don't know if we can really say entanglement is just an error of P2P simulation processing.

It takes the theory from an excellent metaphorical account, a way of looking at a reality where each of us exists in our own physical world (akin to subjective idealism)...and then commits in a hard way to the idea that we are in a simulation. Not only a simulation, but one as incredible real as the one we inhabit and yet there is a pervasive error that occurs at the very least when we are conducting particular experiments re: quantum phenomena. 

Don't get me wrong, I think what Arvan has come with is an incredible intellectual accomplishment and I do think this way of looking at reality through different frames helps resolve certain issues...but the mountain of evidence needed to confirm an actual simulation is just too high...