Name – vishav sharma

Class -+1medical
Roll no.-
Subject - physics

Submitted to-
ms.menka saini
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my
teacher Mr.Rajat anand as well as our principal Rev. sister
Crispin Maria who gave me the golden opportunity to do this
wonderful project on the topic (Write the topic name), which
also helped me in doing a lot of Research and i came to know
about so many new things I am really thankful to them.

Secondly i would also like to thank my parents and friends who

helped me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time
frame.
Introduction.........................................4
History..................................................5
About simulation theory.........................6
Theory Nick bostrom and Rizwan virk.......6, 7
Simulation argument..............................8
Physics view of theory...............................9
Testing the theory physically.....................10
Consequences..........................................11
Advocates................................................12
Conclusion...............................................13
Bibliography.............................................14
In this project, I have described about the
simulation theory. I have researched through a
couple of websites, and I have explained the topic
in depths till where i was able to reach. I have
discussed the consequences, testing, about and a
lot more in this project. I have also put pictures
alongside each individual topic.
1
 History
A version of the simulation hypothesis was first theorized as a part of a philosophical argument
on the part of Rene Descrates and later by Hans morvac. The philosopher Nick
bostrom developed an expanded argument examining the probability of our reality being a
simulation. His argument states that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be
true:

1. Human civilization or a comparable civilization is unlikely to reach a level of

technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities or such simulations are
physically impossible to construct.

2 . A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not

produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable
existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for
any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other
tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.

3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.

4. We are living in a reality in which post-humans have not developed yet and we are actually
living in reality.

5. We will have no way of knowing that we live in a simulation because we will never reach
the technological capacity to realize the marks of a simulated reality

Bostrom's argument rests on the premises that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is
possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics, that
the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness  are comparable or equivalent to those of a
naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within
simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the
real world.
First, if one assumes that humans will not be destroyed nor destroy themselves before
developing such a technology, and that human descendants will have no overriding legal
restrictions or moral compunctions against simulating biospheres or their own historical
biosphere, then, Bostrom argues it would be unreasonable to count ourselves among the small
minority of genuine organisms who, sooner or later, will be vastly outnumbered by artificial
simulations.
Epistemological, it is not impossible to tell whether we are living in a simulation. For example,
Bostrom suggests that a window could pop up saying: "You are living in a simulation. Click here
for more information." However, imperfections in a simulated environment might be difficult for
the native inhabitants to identify and for purposes of authenticity, even the simulated memory of
a blatant revelation might be purged programmatically. Nonetheless, should any evidence come
to light, either for or against the skeptical hypothesis, it would radically alter the aforementioned
probability.
 2

About simulation theory

He simulation theory proposes that all of our existence is a simulated reality, such as
a computer simulation which convinces its inhabitants that the simulation is "real".
The simulation hypothesis bears a close resemblance to various other skeptical scenarios from
throughout the history of philosophy.
The hypothesis was popularized in its current form by Nick Bostrom. The suggestion that such a
hypothesis is compatible with all human perceptual experiences is thought to have
significant epistemological consequences in the form of philosophical skepticism.
Versions of the hypothesis have also been featured in science fiction, appearing as a central plot
device in many stories and films
 The hypothesis popularized by Bostrom is very disputed, with, for example, theoretical
physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who called it pseudoscience and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis,
who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint" and that
"protagonists seem to have confused science fiction with science.
Late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory."[ A bigger proposal that builds on this idea is that
Earth could be the end of a long stack of simulations.

Simulated theory is the fact that reality could be simulated—for example by quantum

computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality.

It could contain conscious minds  that may or may not know that they live inside a simulation.
This is similar to the technologically achievable concept of virtual reality, which is for now
distinguished from the experience of actuality but is rapidly advancing towards this end goal.
[7]
 Simulated reality is difficult to distinguish from "true" reality. This topic ranges
from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing

Theory of Nick bostrom

 Nick Bostrom showed that at least one of three possibilities is true:

1) All human-like civilizations in the universe go extinct before they develop the
technological capacity to create simulated realities;

2) if any civilizations do reach this phase of technological maturity, none of them will bother
to run simulations; or

3) advanced civilizations would have the ability to create many, many simulations, and that
means there are far more simulated worlds than non-simulated ones.
We can’t know for sure which of these is the case, Bostrom concludes, but they’re all possible — and
the third option might even be the most probable outcome. It’s a difficult argument to wrap your
head around, but it makes a certain amount of sense

Rizwan Virk, a computer scientist and video game designer, published a 2019 book,
 The Simulation Hypothesis, that explores Bostrom’s argument in much greater detail and traces the
path from today’s technology to what he calls the “Simulation Point,” the moment at which we
could realistically build a Matrix-like simulation.

I know nothing about computer science, but this idea that we’re all characters in an advanced
civilization’s video game is, well, kind of awesome. So I reached out to Virk and asked him to break it
down for me.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Nick bostrom

Rizwan virk
 3

Simulation argument
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument".
Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that humans live in a
simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is
almost certainly true:

1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one
capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their
evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is
very close to one."
The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have
enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations"
(that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to
the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe
(or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors.
Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the
one of those three that is true, and almost all people live in simulations, then humans are almost
certainly living in a simulation.
Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming
that "...we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the
world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that we are almost certainly
living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David
Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that
therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical
hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument as to which of the three
trilemma propositions is the true one: "If
(1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If
(2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced
civilizations so that virtually none contains any individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations
and are free to do so. If
(3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current
ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between
(1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by
saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But
different people pick a different n.
Some think it obvious that
(1) is true, others that
(2) is true, yet others that
(3) is true."
As a corollary to the trilemma, Bostrom states that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our
descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation
 4

Physics view of theory

In physics, the view of the universe and its workings as the ebb
and flow of information was first observed by
Wheeler Consequently, two views of the world emerged: the
first one proposes that the universe is a quantum computer,
while the other one proposes that the system performing the
simulation is distinct from its simulation (the universe) Of the
former view, quantum-computing specialist Dave Bacon wrote,

In many respects this point of view may be nothing more than a

result of the fact that the notion of computation is the disease of
our age—

everywhere we look today we see examples of computers,

computation, and information theory and thus we extrapolate
this to our laws of physics. Indeed, thinking about computing as
arising from faulty components,

it seems as if the abstraction that uses perfectly operating

computers is unlikely to exist as anything but a platonic ideal.

Another critique of such a point of view is that there is no

evidence for the kind of digitization that characterizes
computers nor are there any predictions made by those who
advocate such a view that have been experimentally confirmed.
 5

Testing the theory physically

A method to test one type of simulation hypothesis was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by
physicists Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn (now at the University of Washington,
Seattle), and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from the University of Washington,
Seattle. Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe
would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points.

In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from

the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as quantum chromodynamics), several
observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among
proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, that, if
observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists.

 In 2017, Campbell et al. proposed several experiments aimed at testing the simulation
hypothesis in their paper "On Testing the Simulation Theory".

In 2019, philosopher Preston Greene suggested that it may be best not to find out if we're living
in a simulation since, if it were found to be true, such knowing may end the simulation.

Besides attempting to assess whether the simulation hypothesis is true or false, philosophers
have also used it to illustrate other philosophical problems, especially
in metaphysics and epistemology.

 David Chalmers has argued that simulated beings might wonder whether their mental lives are
governed by the physics of their environment, when in fact these mental lives are simulated
separately (and are thus, in fact, not governed by the simulated physics)

 Chalmers claims that they might eventually find that their thoughts fail to be physically caused,
and argues that this means that Cartesian dualism is not necessarily as problematic of a
philosophical view as is commonly supposed, though he does not endorse it. 

Similar arguments have been made for philosophical views about personal identity that say that
an individual could have been another human being in the past, as well as views about qualia
that say that colours could have appeared differently than they do (the inverted
spectrum scenario). In both cases, the claim is that all this would require is hooking up the
mental lives to the simulated physics in a different way.
 6

Consequences
Economist Robin Hanson argues a self-interested
occupant of a high-fidelity simulation should strive to
be entertaining and praiseworthy in order to avoid being
turned off or being shunted into a non-conscious low-
fidelity part of the simulation.
Hanson additionally speculates that someone who is
aware that he might be in a simulation might care less
about others and live more for today:
"your motivation to save for retirement, or to help the
poor in Ethiopia, might be muted by realizing that in
your simulation, you will never retire and there is no

Ethiopia."
 7

Advocates
Elon Musk firmly believes in the simulation hypothesis. In a
podcast with Joe Rogan, Musk said "If you assume any rate of
improvement at all, games will eventually be indistinguishable
from reality" before concluding "that it's most likely we're in a
simulation." He also stated in a 2016 interview that "there's a
one in billions chance we're in base reality".
Another high-profile proponent of the hypothesis is
astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, who said in an NBC
News interview that the hypothesis is correct, giving "better
than 50-50 odds" and adding:
I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can
find none.
However, in a subsequent interview with Chuck Nice on a
YouTube episode of starTalk, Tyson shares that his friend J.
Richard Gott, a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton
University made him aware of a strong objection to the
simulation hypothesis. The objection points out that the
common trait that all hypothetical high fidelity simulated
universes possess is the ability to produce high
fidelity simulated universes. And being that our current world
does not possess this ability it would mean that we are either
the real universe, and therefore simulated universes have not
yet been created, or we are the last in a very long chain of
simulated universes, an observation that makes the simulation
hypothesis seem less probable. Regarding this objection Tyson
remarks "that changes my life."
 Conclusion

It was a wonderful project and learning experience for me

while working on this project. This project took me through
the various phases of project development and gave me real
insight of simulation theory .the joy of work and the thrill
involved while tackling the various problems and challenges
gave me a feel of developers industry.
I enjoyed each and every bit of work i had put into this
project. Simulation theory.

Bibliography
. WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
.WWW.VOX.COM

.WWW.GOOGLE.COM

.WWW.SCIENCEDIRECT.COM