Earlier this month (September 2018), a certain Billionaire entrepreneur appeared on a popular YouTube talk-show and was asked about his thoughts on AWLIAS. What he said made headlines. But this wasn't his first time at this rodeo.
For it was on one cool sunny afternoon two years earlier that a man named Elon Musk – founder of Tesla and SpaceX – had originally sent the media world in to a frenzy.
Back in April 2016, Musk was taking press questions during an annual Code Conference event, when he was asked by a member of the press (@joshuatopolsky) about his thoughts that we could all be living in a simulation.
While the crowd and show hosts burst in to a round of laughter, Musk didn’t smile at all.
He explained that he had discussed AWLIAS many times with his brother – to the point where they will no longer discuss this subject. The chuckles soon died down when Musk explained that not only is AWLIAS a possibility, but that the chances that we are NOT living in a simulation - or as he put it “base reality” - are actually one in billions.
After a few moments of silence from the now stunned crowd, Musk continued with some optimism – that actually we should hope we are living in a simulation for the sake of civilisation. I will explore this point in a future episode.
To help the perplexed audience to understand his beliefs, Musk used a reference point that many of us have heard of before: Moore’s Law. Named after the Intel co-founder, Moore’s Law is one of the most popular evidence-based arguments in favour of Simulation Theory.
But it didn't start out that way.
Quite simply, Gordon Moore recognised a trend many decades ago that the progress of his work (the number of transistors on integrated circuits) had doubled every two years.
Elon Musk used a video game example to illustrate Moore’s Law – explaining how we began playing a basic game like Pong in 1972, and now today we can enjoy immersive Virtual Reality games, with 4K graphics and Multiple Players simultaneously.
The inventor suggested that if we have made this much progress in our short timelines, would a video game in a thousand years time be any different than our real life experiences?
And if so, what if humanity has already been here before?
What if this life is actually just a simulation?
But let's look at Moore’s Law theory from a slightly different angle:
Why has the rate of technological progression been restrained?
For example, back in 2005, why couldn’t Sony make a 4K TV instead of a HD one?
Critics may claim it’s simply because of our limitations as human beings. But is this true? Let’s take another look at Moore’s Law; this is what Wikipedia claims:
From Wikipedia.org: “The Moore’s Law paper stated that the number of components in integrated circuits had doubled every year from the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958 until 1965 and predicted that the trend would continue "for at least ten years". His prediction has proved very accurate. The law is used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development. The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras. All of these are improving at (roughly) exponential rates as well.”
It is important to note that this "steady progress" conjecture is not just related to one piece of hardware, but the technology industry in general. It is viewed by many to be a blueprint for technological progress throughout the world.
Interestingly, the rate of technological progress appears to be slowing down.
From Wikipedia.org: “This exponential improvement has greatly increased the effect of digital electronics in the world economy. Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. This trend has continued for more than half a century. Intel stated in 2015 that the pace of advancement has slowed. Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel, announced that "our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two".“
There are two important questions to consider:
1) Why has this progression been restrained to x2 every 18-24 months?
2) If progression is indeed getting slower, why is Moore’s Law now failing?
So are we - as human beings - simply not as smart as we once were? Unlikely - not when we now have more access to information and education than ever before. We have instant internet access, cheaper tools, open source resources and, well, YouTube. However, while many consider Elon Musk himself as a modern day Nikola Tesla, where are the rest? Where are the modern day Einsteins?
So perhaps we should return to our human limitations argument again. Could creativity and design be a modern day problem instead - have we hit a design block?
A number of years ago, my Dad received a new smartphone for Christmas. But his standard-sized sim card was too big for his new device. What he needed was a nano sim. Unable to see the difference between his sim Card and a nano sim card other than size – I simply grabbed a pair of scissors and carefully cut away the excess plastic casing around the gold chip. Bingo – the newly trimmed sim card fitted and worked perfectly.
So the question is why didn’t we go straight to the nano sim card in the first place? Why did this progress take almost two decades to achieve, with little change to the gold chip that actually makes them work?
So for what reason would a Simulation want to restrict our technological progression?
We have already created examples of restriction to our technological progression before. Let's return our thoughts to video games. The popular mobile game Clash of Clans offers a great example of how a Simulation could purposely restrict our progression:
For those that don’t know, Clash of Clans is a strategy game where you build up your very own Army and Kingdom.
When you first begin playing Clash your progression is fast: you soon go from 5 buildings to 30, from 3 Troop Characters to 12. But over time (a few weeks) you find that your progression in the game begins to grind to a halt. Progression is now slow and incremental. At this point, it becomes about the META game – or else the player could get bored with the lack of new experiences and quits.
An AWLIAS critic may claim that this restriction is designed to generate profits for developers Supercell, who are simply less interested in non-paying players. An alternative argument for the games slowed down progression mechanics could be limited energy resources. It would be almost impossible for Supercell to create enough new content to provide the same progression experience the player enjoys when they begon the game? What if The Simulation has the same issue?
If The Simulation is not about money, then what else?
Summary on Technology Progression Resistance:
We can clearly see and experience a restriction in the speed of our technological progress. We can track, thanks to Moore’s Law, a general curve of progress that is slow and steady - and getting slower - but we can’t explain why this pattern exists?
We can’t explain why our technological progress never jumps significantly (e.g. x1000000) faster?
Our technological progression is arguably too predictable and there are not enough leaps or breakthroughs. Why? This is part of the reason AWLIAS.COM was created. What are your thoughts? As always, please comment on The AWLIAS Alliance forum.
If you enjoy my series on Simulation Theory, then please let me know by Subscribing to my YouTube Channel and I shall make more.