There is a one in a billion chance we are not in a simulation.

by | Aug 13, 2024 | CESIGNER, DESTROY GLOBALISM, EXISTENCE EXPLAINED, QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT, quantum information, QUANTUM PERCEPTIONS, quantum superposition, SOCIALISM, STEPHEN MEYER, Uncategorized, Vern's Blog, www.vernbender.com | 0 comments

  • Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Then how does it exist? How did energy turn into matter? The universe involved in the change, and it turns out that the total of this “energy number” added up across all the  .7 billion years ago, when the known universe began to rapidly transition from a hot and dense state to a cooler and less dense state — a process that is still continuing to this day, by the way. It says precisely nothing about where that initial hot and dense state came from, nor how long it existed before beginning to transition, and it most certainly does not say that anything whatsoever “came from nothing.” Perhaps the universe just popped into existence from sheer nothingness, but perhaps it has always existed in some form or another and merely transitioned to a different state. Or perhaps it budded off a previous universe as part of a larger “multi-verse.” Or perhaps something else happened that we can’t even begin to comprehend right now. We simply don’t know and therefore cannot make definitive statements about what must have happened or what couldn’t possibly have happened.
  •  If light leaves the Alpha Centauri system, wouldn’t it be 4.5 years old when it reaches Earth?
  • A clock traveling so fast that it arrives just 1 second after a ray of light from Alpha Centauri would have measured a little under 5 hours for the entire 4.5-light-year trip.
  • And a clock that arrives just a microsecond after the ray of light would have me assured less than a minute for the same trip.
  • Elon Musk’s argument: “the probability that this universe is base reality and not a computer simulation is one in a billion” is a sound and logical argument. (If you’re not aware of his full argument, google the video.)

However, the argument seems to lack an understanding of meta-probability. Understanding meta-probabilities allows us to better contextualize and interpret the argument.

  • If you are told a red team is playing a blue team at soccer this afternoon and you are asked to predict the result, what is the probability that the blue team will win? 50%
  • schoolchildren3. If you are now told that the “blue team” is the French national soccer team and the “red team” is local schoolchildren, what is the probability that the blue team will . Now that we have more information, it’s no longer 50%… it’s now more like 99.999%
  • What’s going on here? Whilst in examples 1. and 2. both probabilities are 50% at face-value, they are actually quite different. The problem stems from the fact that, when stating a probability, the uncertainty of the probability is rarely stated. The reality, when comparing the probabilities of a fair coin toss with a random soccer game (1. and 2.), looks like this:
  • As you can see above, whilst both probabilities are stated as 50%, the meta-probabilities are shown by the curves. The curves reveal that the coin toss result is known to be a 50% chance fairly accurately, but the soccer game result is known to be 50% with a large amount of uncertainty.
  • There is a one in a billion chance we are not in a simulation”, the information we have about the universe is but a speck of the total information available about the universe (the entire system/process). We mainly know a lot about ourselves and Earth in this time-period. This is highly likely to skew predictions and give them bias.
  • I’m not pretending to know whether we live in base reality or in a simulation. But I can say that the uncertainty in Elon’s probability is so great that it is no longer a meaningful/reasonable prediction.