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

Don't think I ever posted this in the thread, though it's kinda old now ->

A Unified Explanation of Quantum Phenomena?TheCase for thePeer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesisas an Interdisciplinary Research Program

Abstract:In my2013 article, “A New Theory of Free Will”, Iargued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physicsjointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to apeer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper outlines howquantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains theP2P Hypothesis. §2 then sketches how the structure of any P2P simulation realizesquantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.). Finally, §3 argues that although thisisby no means a philosophical proof thatour reality is a P2P simulation, it provides ample reasons to investigate the hypothesisfurther using the methods of computer science, physics, philosophy, and mathematics.

Don't think I ever posted this in the thread, though it's kinda old now ->

A Unified Explanation of Quantum Phenomena?TheCase for thePeer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesisas an Interdisciplinary Research Program

I have had a few thoughts about the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis:

The Marcus Arvan-proposed P2P participatory physical reality simulation concept seems to well explain such mysteries as the ultimate nature of quantum mechanics and its well-verified but mysterious undergirding of our physical reality.

All of the physics of our world, including Einstein's relativity equations, E = MC^^2, etc. etc. would merely be what was programmed into the P2P simulation.

According to the P2P virtual reality simulation hypothesis absolutely all of our world, the physical reality we experience and observe, is illusory and is basically information computed in some other (higher) reality. We as participators in the cosmic simulation would not be artifacts of the simulation - we would be the users, true conscious sentient thinking entities inhabiting that higher reality.

A spiritual/metaphysical interpretation of this could be that this P2P simulation reality is merely the underlying mechanism by which Spirit creates the playground of experience and limitation and learning for eternal souls.

Of course, logically, another possibility could be that the higher level P2P simulation world could in turn just be another even higher-level P2P simulation, and so on without end, ad infinitum. The intellect, along with abstract thought, creativity and imagination can get lost in its own ponderings of the possibilities.

I have had a few thoughts about the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis:

The Marcus Arvan-proposed P2P participatory physical reality simulation concept seems to well explain such mysteries as the ultimate nature of quantum mechanics and its well-verified but mysterious undergirding of our physical reality.

All of the physics of our world, including Einstein's relativity equations, E = MC^^2, etc. etc. would merely be what was programmed into the P2P simulation.

According to the P2P virtual reality simulation hypothesis absolutely all of our world, the physical reality we experience and observe, is illusory and is basically information computed in some other (higher) reality. We as participators in the cosmic simulation would not be artifacts of the simulation - we would be the users, true conscious sentient thinking entities inhabiting that higher reality.

A spiritual/metaphysical interpretation of this could be that this P2P simulation reality is merely the underlying mechanism by which Spirit creates the playground of experience and limitation and learning for eternal souls.

Of course, logically, another possibility could be that the higher level P2P simulation world could in turn just be another even higher-level P2P simulation, and so on without end, ad infinitum. The intellect, along with abstract thought, creativity and imagination can get lost in its own ponderings of the possibilities.

Well I don't think you can have an infinite series of simulations, largely because change in the "lower level" simulation has to be driven by some kind of processor in the "higher level". With an infinite series, there would be no change observed in any simulation, because an infinite number of processor dependencies means nothing ever happens.

It might be possible to get around this if the simulations in question are actually "running" in an Idealist mind?

There is a more interesting, IMO, possibility regarding the "peers" in the simulation. That each of us is the center of our own private universe, and these universes resolve into a consensus reality. I believe some call this "Subjective Idealism" though I don't necessarily think all is mind....

Quantum chemistry paper & the P2P Hypothesis

Marcus Arvan

I came across your work on the peer-to-peer simulation hypothesis having recently published an article in the journal Chemical Science detailing the first instance of a computational physics simulation being performed using a blockchain virtual computer.

I thought you might find this work interesting given that the simulations were performed on the Ethereum blockchain and therefore (to my knowledge) represent the first example showing that, depending on your definitions, the physical world can be simulated within a computational environment that operates using a decentralized peer-to-peer proof-of-work consensus protocol in order to determine the agreed history of that simulation between the peers that make up the computational network.

Article: Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer. Chemical Science, 2020 (co-authored with Alexander P. Ashmore, School of Computing and Communications, The Open University).

Mesh World P2P Simulation Hypothesis        
By Eric Grange

An interesting different "take" on the virtual reality P2P world/universe simulation concept. Grange appears to accept Arvan's assumption of the outside-of-the-simulation existence of humans as the users or participators in the simulation, rather than the untenable notion that we are actually part of the simulation.

Some apparently confirmed by observation predictions of the hypothesis:

Time must be localized and relative. Globally shared states become impossible (outside degenerate cases), including time. This is an intrinsic limitation of efficient decentralization, and would be a constraint on any set of simulation rules.
.......................
Space Distortions
If mass and energy are good indicators of simulation complexity, then all volumes of space are not of similar simulation complexity. Dense volumes in the heart of stars have much more matter than the void of space for instance.

Consequences of this include:
High data complexity (such as high energy and/or high mass) should distort space.
Singularities where the technology limits show through are likely to exist.
........................
Complexity increases as the simulation progresses
As simulation of a world like ours progresses, the global entropy keeps growing, and so does the simulation complexity. This is also a consequence of data conservation.
(This can be taken to be a consequence of some form of evolution taking place as the simulation progresses)."

Some other examples of Grange's predictions of this hypothesis, ones that also seem to be borne out by observation:

Speed limit

"A decentralized simulation is a set of local data states, each evolving locally, and which can only be propagated with technological delays.

To ensure a good looking simulation where the technological limits do not show, the simplest solution would be to introduce a rule in the simulation to arbitrarily limit the propagation speed of simulated states to something the decentralized network of nodes can handle. Make the best of the constraint so to speak.

...................................
....this comes down to a requirement of a speed limit for simulated entities, and an invariance of that speed limit for simulated entities."

Hubble shift with distance

"Energy or matter crossing vast distances of void would appear slowed down, and more slowed down the more void they crossed.
The slowdown effect would increase as simulation progresses, as limited computing power needs to process data of increasing complexity spanning increasing simulation space.
The slowdown would have minimal to no effect on complex regions, probably limited to just continuity of the rule."

Big Bang, apparent expansion rate, large-scale spatial "flatness", and entropy increase

"Under the Big Bang Theory, our world at its beginning was extremely dense, occupying an extremely small volume of space.

Initial simulation conditions would have dominated the data complexity. If data complexity keeps growing, the data then was not as complex as the one we see today. It could even be hypothesized that the complexity was not only minimal, but minimalist, related purely to mass and energy in the world.

A further hypothesis could be made that the initial world was flat in terms of mass/energy density, as that is what a minimal complexity would imply. Heterogeneity (unevenness) in the first instants of our world would then only come from Device imperfections (numerical and propagation issues).

This would lead to a rather uniform appearance of the early universe without invoking inflation, but at the cost of involving "magic" world initialization. Note: it has been calculated the the early universe was spatially extremely "flat". 

If the previous hypotheses are correct then cosmological expansion rate thereafter would follow data complexity (which is increasing). If defined by emerging complexity, it would follow emergence of large void regions of simulated space and their expansion."  Note: expansion rate is currently figured to be increasing with time. 

The speed of light as (largely?) fixed limit is one of those things that does make me wonder about reality being a simulation.

But so much of physics remains a mystery, and we've likely much further to go in our own ability to simulate realities. It will be interesting to see the way the Simulation Hypothesis chews away at the position of the pseudo-skeptics...

The speed of light as (largely?) fixed limit is one of those things that does make me wonder about reality being a simulation.

But so much of physics remains a mystery, and we've likely much further to go in our own ability to simulate realities. It will be interesting to see the way the Simulation Hypothesis chews away at the position of the pseudo-skeptics...

The speed of light to scale in graphical animation: https://twitter.com/i/status/1320541063875088385 .

This is one of the best physics animations yet that I have seen to enable really understanding the ultimate slowness of the speed of light beyond the local Earthly scale of distances.

The impression is that either the Universe is inconceivably large or the speed of light is extremely slow, or both. To the same scale a depiction of a light packet traversing the distance to the nearest star would be virtually stationary, taking months to move a visible amount.

To me this makes the simulation hypothesis seem even more persuasive, because of explaining the absolute light speed limit as an expected artifact of inherent processing limits on the part of the multiprocessor virtual world/universe simulation, rather than a de facto limit arbitrarily imposed by the design of the cosmos being at least in part in accordance with Einsteinian relativity.

Arvans articles from when he was the featured author on Flickers of Freedom

Some highlights:

Let us now consider the Luck Argument. As Christopher Evan Franklin (p. 201) puts it, we can summarize the Luck Argument as follows:

It is a general assumption of libertarianism that at least some free actions must be undetermined...[and] the core of this problem can be characterized by the following two claims:
(i) If an action is undetermined, then it is a matter of luck.
(ii) If an action is a matter of luck, then it is not free.

Here is a sketch of how I want to respond to this argument. I wish to contest its first assumption: that libertarianism identifies free actions with undermined ones. On my Libertarian Compatibilist theory, are undetermined by physical law -- but they are not undetermined. Our actions, rather, are determined by us, where we are understood as brute, noumenal Kantian pure practical wills. On my account (much as on Kant's own account), we possess the brute capacity to hold principles of action (i.e. maxims) before our conscious minds, and will ourselves to act upon them. There is determination here, and there's even a sense in which it is determination by laws. But, as Kant himself put it, the laws here are -- in a brute, noumenal way -- laws of our own willing.

If it seems crazy to say we can be authors of the laws that govern us see Talbott's Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen?

=-=-=

There's a simpler way to put this:

1. From any reference-frame within Pac-Man, everything would appear to be determined by laws of nature (including the probabilistic "Pac-Man wave-function").
   
2. From our reference frame as users outside of the Pac-Man Game, not everything is determined by laws of nature in Pac Man (its "laws of nature" are partly comprised by our choices outside the game).
   
   

Which description is true? I say: they are both true. From the reference frame within any world, there will always be some description of "physical laws" (if only probabilistic ones) according to which everything in that world is determined by those laws. However, the same may not be true relative to a higher reference-frame -- one which that "deterministic physical world" is embedded.
According to my theory of free will, Libertarian Compatibilism, this is exactly what's going on in our world. The Consequence Argument is sound relative to our reference-frame in the physical world, but premise (6) -- the premise that we "have no choice what the laws of nature are" -- is false relative to the higher reference-frame that comprises the Peer-to-Peer Simulation we live in.

=-=-=

Historically, philosophical debate about the mental lives of non-human animals has bounced back and forth between the following two diametrically opposed views:

1. Humans and animals both have phenomenally conscious mental lives: Humans and animals both have phenomenal conscious experience -- they experience colors (what red, green,  yellow, etc. look like), sounds, shapes, tastes, emotions, etc.
   
   
2. Humans have phenomenal consciousness, but animals are non-conscious automata ("robots"): Although non-human animals have eyeballs, sense-receptors, nervous systems, and brains just like us, we have phenomenal experiences but they don't (all is "dark" inside).
   

Many (most?) people today -- including most philosophers of mind -- seem to side firmly with view #1. Indeed, the idea that animals might not "feel a thing" might even seem crazy to many (most?) people. Animals are clearly a lot like us. They have eyes, just like us. Their eyes enable them to see things in their environment. They have brains, just like us. They wince in pain, just like us. Etc. Given all this, how could view #2 possibly be true?

I am not going to suggest in this post that view #2 is true. I am merely going to tell a story about how it might be true, and how the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Theory of Reality and Libertarian Compatibilist Theory of Free Will I defend together entail empirical predictions the verification of which might settle pretty settle the matter pretty definitively.