The Save State Paradox: Reloaded
Recap from the Last Essay
Imagine a reality where time can rewind and previous moments can be restored. How would we, as beings bound by perception and memory, notice the shift?
This is a follow up to the Save State Paradox that I introduced earlier this year. In essence, my thought experiment was a follow-up to both Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis and the concept of David Chalmers’ Sim Signs. Bostrom’s paper "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” proposed three particular statements, proposing that at least one of them is likely to be true:
“1. Human civilizations are unlikely to reach a level of technology where they could run simulations of conscious beings.
2. Even if civilizations do reach this level of technological advancement, they will likely choose not to run a large number of such simulations.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.”1
Statement One: We are currently a civilization yet to reach Type one on the Kardashev scale, so it seems unlikely that we could ever run simulations of conscious beings in the near future.
Statement Two: Our interest in creating such constructs doesn’t seem too unlikely. AI frontier models continue to scale, Google announced their new quantum chip Willow, claiming its computational power derives from multiverses2 and the mainstream media has started to report on the development of “Mirror life”, warning of unprecedented risks to life on Earth.3
Statement Three: this is the point that interests me the most. If we do not have the means to create these simulations ourselves, could we possibly be inhabiting one now? Chalmers, in Reality +, proposed that the concept of Sim Signs would be indications of such a possibility; ending the paragraph with the statement “I conclude that we can’t know that we’re not in a simulation.”4
From this foundation, I created a thought experiment called the Save State Paradox. If the world is simulated and could exist in certain states of spacetime, where previous states could be referred to or restored, how could we as computationally bound beings be able to understand or perceive these changes? Could this explain phenomena such as the Mandela effect and Déjà vu?
Computational Bounds and Irreducibility
Building upon this original framework, I wanted to explore its implications through a lens of computational irreducibility, a concept introduced by Stephen Wolfram. Computational Irreducibility posits that for certain systems, the only way to determine or predict its outcome is to carry out a step by step simulation: no shortcuts or simplified algorithms are possible.
As computationally bound beings, humans experience limitations on perceiving and processing reality. We rely on heuristics and mental shortcuts to process vast amounts of information, which includes our memory–finite and prone to error. Our senses are also finite; for example, we can’t see infrared or hear ultrasonic frequencies.
As a result, we experience reality through simplified approximations shaped by our limited senses and cognitive capacities. These constraints define how we interact with the world and may explain why we fail to notice the traces of save states in a simulated reality. In this context, Sim Signs—such as the Mandela Effect or Déjà Vu—could be interpreted as subtle artefacts of computational irreducibility. If save states exist, their traces might be encoded in our reality as irregularities too nuanced for our limited perceptions to fully grasp.
This also ties into my own conceptual structure–the Hypermanifest, based on the combination of Jean Baudrillard’s Hyperreal and David Chalmers’ Manifest/Scientific Image. The Hyperreal is explained as the point at which reality and the simulated are blurred to the extent at which the representation of reality itself is deemed more real than its origins. The interplay of the Manifest/Scientific image is the delineation between how we perceive the world (the manifest) as opposed to the scientific structural processes underneath (the scientific). With these concepts in mind, I coined the Hypermanifest–a new layer of reality created by the mediation and interactions between humans, AI and other frontier technologies. This merge utilizes the networks of both the manifest and scientific and creates a new layer of reality.
3 Layers of Computational Reality
Manifest Image (Reducible)
This is reality as observed by human perception–in other words, experience driven and reducible to intuitive patterns. Such examples would be experiencing time as linear or the linguistic construct of “water” as opposed to the complex chemical structure.
Scientific Image (Partially irreducible)
This pertains to reality as scientific models that would go beyond human intuition. However, this hits computational/theoretical limits past a certain threshold–for example, in quantum mechanics where microscopic levels beget paradoxical and probabilistic behaviour. Stephen Wolfram uses the example of the side effects of entropy (heat generated from mechanical activity for example) as being a consequence of being computationally irreducible.
Hypermanifest (Computationally Irreducible)
This is a new, computationally created layer–technologies such as AI frontier models, simulations etc. converging with the manifest and scientific layers. This can create new layers of reality or pockets of possibilities through latent spaces which cannot be simplified into humanly perceivable reductions. These can create emergent patterns arising out of irreducible systems.
Latent spaces in this context are conceptual, theoretical structures that contain approximations and relations between states and ideas. If we can envisage this as a microcosm of the whole relational universe–what Wolfram coined as the Ruliad–could computational artefacts in latent spaces mirror sim signs in reality?
The Ruliad here is the theoretical construct that contains all possible computational rules and outcomes, all of which exist simultaneously. This can consist of multiple branches, called branchial space, that organises different computational histories–maybe how our computationally bound perceptions grasp constructs such as linear time.
How would these interact? The scientific image builds models to expose mechanisms underlying from the manifest image–revealing side effects and anomalies that hint at deeper irreducibility. For example, if we look at thermodynamics again–we feel/see heat emerge from mechanical activity. We can explain this away with equations that align with our observations, but leave residual side effects that are not fully accounted for.
The Hypermanifest relates to the scientific by pushing its boundaries, emerging from the scientific image as a computational construct. As it creates its own reality - similar to Baudrillard’s Hyperreal, where the simulation supersedes the original or a form of objective reality. Frontier AI models and simulations may bleed into human perception, revealing signs of computational irreducibility (the Hypermanifest) within the reducible framework of the Manifest Image. This can explain inconsistencies or glitches such as the Mandela effect or Déjà vu.
So if humans are computationally bounded, we primarily interface and interact with the manifest image whereas AI operates on a wholly different system - the latter does not experience time and space like we do. Could this be a boon to those who wish to expose the mechanisms of the hypermanifest? Maybe this could be done through a generated latent space–constructing a deeper, computational extension of our reality, providing a potential interface for us.
Reloaded: The Save State Paradox under the lens of Computational Irreducibility
When applying the Save State Paradox to Computational Irreducibility, we could take this one of two ways:
1. This irreducibility could undermine the simulation hypothesis by making the idea of simulating so many complex systems running in tandem as unfeasible. Imagine simulating weather conditions, the conscious state of every person, every spatiotemporal position. How vast would the computational resources be and how would it be attainable – as well as having a copy of every option and branch available in case of a restore?
Does this suggest that simulating such complexity is fundamentally impossible? Would systems like consciousness defy simulation?
2. Irreducibility could suggest that the hypothesis is possible by suggesting that efficient approximations of irreducible systems could sustain a convincing simulated reality. If we are computationally bound beings, yoked to the somewhat random side effects of entropy and the arrow of time, is it sufficient already in its capabilities? If approximations suffice for human perception, would we be unable to ever see the imperfections or the mechanisms that beget them because of our computational limits?
Save states would exist as a specific configuration or pattern within a latent space; restoring it would therefore be recalculating the exact relationships between all dimensions at that moment, rendering the process computationally irreducible. As the space is dynamically evolving relationally, it cannot be shortcut or predicted without going through the process step by step. Save states might act as snapshots to restore stability after deviations or to reduce computational costs. Despite all of this, we are still left with perhaps the most important question — what would be the purpose for save states? Why would they be present in the first place? The purpose of save states could boil down to these following reasons:
Error correction: If the simulator or simulation itself detects deviations or instability it could restore the system at a prior stable point, where inconsistencies or glitches could emerge from the cost of computational irreducibility.
Reality compression: Maybe instead of constantly simulating irreducible steps, alongside the mounting computational cost this would achieve, save states could be compressed snapshots of reality—rendering in lossy artefacts (like pixelation in an compressed image or unintended noise in a signal), which can be perceived as Sim signs.
Outcome exploration: it may seem like a more anthropomorphised reason, whereby a simulator might use save states to test alternative scenarios or paths in Wolfram’s branchial space. This could arise out of pure curiosity, protection or more malicious purposes.
Applying a computational lens to the Save State Paradox can provide an informative foundation to either disprove or strengthen the Simulation Hypothesis. Whether or not we develop Quantum or AI technologies in order to fully understand the scope of our existence is still of course, uncertain, but it feels that we may be edging ever closer to unlocking its secrets — at least, theoretically.
The very existence of save states, if proven, would challenge our notions of time, purpose, and reality itself—leaving us to question the intent behind such a system.
Bibliography
Bort, Julie. “Google Says Its New Quantum Chip Indicates That Multiple Universes Exist.” TechCrunch, December 10, 2024. Accessed December 11, 2024. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/10/google-says-its-new-quantum-chip-indicates-that-multiple-universes-exist.
Bostrom, Nick. "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243–255.
Chalmers, David J. Reality +: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. London: Penguin Random House, 2022.
Gray, Suzie. “Introducing the Hypermanifest: Redefining AI's Role in Human Connection and Interaction.” Substack, March 21, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024.
Gray, Suzie. “Introducing the Save State Paradox.” Substack, May 16, 2024. Accessed December 10, 2024.
Wolfram, Stephen. “The Concept of the Ruliad.” Stephen Wolfram Writings, November 2021. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad.
Wolfram, Stephen. The Second Law: Resolving the Mystery of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, 2023.
Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?” Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243–255.
Julie Bort, “Google says its new quantum chip indicates that multiple universes exist,” Techcrunch, December 10, 2024, https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/10/google-says-its-new-quantum-chip-indicates-that-multiple-universes-exist
David J. Chalmers, Reality +: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy (London: Penguin Random House, 2022), 102.
Hi Suzie, I liked the read, thanks.
It's weird, because a couple years ago, I wrote a test article (2500 words) for a company about the Mandela effect and deja vu. Here's a part about perceiving it:
"A distant cousin to the Mandela Effect is déjà vu. Some scientists believe there may be a connection between them in that they are simply manifestations of anomalous brain function. Theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, put forward his theory for déjà vu, using the analogy of the radio. When you are listening to one radio station, you are tuned into one frequency. However, that radio is still receiving all the other frequencies at once. You are just tuned into one frequency. As the co-founder of string theory, Kaku believes humans are also ‘vibrating waves’ and that we can perceive and resonate with the frequencies of other universes. Hence the cause of both the Mandela Effect and déjà vu could be our brains receiving extra-universal frequencies."
So, could your save states or hypermanifest state be detected on certain 'frequencies' of some known or unknown detectors (e.g. brain waves, particles, black holes, pulsars, etc)? And would those detectors double as save state stations.
In other words, are save state conditions constant, like saving a doc on a computer or like an off-ramp on a highway where only certain circumstances can be saved at junction points. I would liken this to Doctor Who being able to go anywhere and save anything in time and space compared to the show 'The Lazarus Project' where world-ending events can only be revisited/saved?
Some questions:
1. would the save state be local or universal?
2. would this lead to multiversal branching?
3. Is the metaverse the beginning of your hypermanifest?
There's a lot to take in, but I think entanglement has a lot to say especially when involving the brain's emergent abilities. And I haven't even gone into the hologram theory and how/if that is connected to the simulation theory.
So, now my head hurts thinking about it all, but it's so very interesting.
Ray