51–60 of 178 posts
For those, who want to read it in lay man's language, they can go through following articles: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/429561/the-measurement-th... http://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/physicists-may-have-evide...
Interesting. So we're a simulation that can simulate 15 (femto)meters of cosmos that is indistinguishable from reality. This isn't much but it's still absolutely mind-bending. Reminds me of the movie The 13th Floor [1] [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
Sigh. Why would you dedicate your life to proving this? You will either find you cannot prove it, in which case you have wasted your entire life on falsehood, or you prove it true in which you undo your dilute your existence and everyone you have ever known and loved. Kinda like religion I guess...
You don't want to show that it's true. You want to find out whether it's true or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would a dodecahedral lattice explain why the universe stays symmetrical while expanding?
Does it?
http://nautil.us/blog/the-universe-expanding-symmetrically-a...
(I know they're just theoretical, but...)
Keep in mind that if you wanted to create a simulated universe you can ensure nobody ever finds out. If someone does find out, you can simply fix the problem and revert to a point in time just before the data leading to the discovery was captured. Speaking academically, you might be playing with fire if you probe the outer limits of the universe and we are in a simulation run by some entity concerned with keeping tha…
> you can simply fix the problem and revert to a point in time just before the data leading to the discovery was captured. Only with classical computers, not quantum computers.
Sigh. Why would you dedicate your life to proving this? You will either find you cannot prove it, in which case you have wasted your entire life on falsehood, or you prove it true in which you undo your dilute your existence and everyone you have ever known and loved. Kinda like religion I guess...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can simply fix the problem and revert to a point in time just before the data leading to the discovery was captured. Only with classical computers, not quantum computers.
Who's to say "real" computing, or "reality" at all, has to adhere to the laws we observe within the simulation? That's like Luigi in Super Mario Brothers saying you can't kick a turtle into a brick in the our world and not expect a gold coin to pop up in front of our faces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can simply fix the problem and revert to a point in time just before the data leading to the discovery was captured. Only with classical computers, not quantum computers.
Who's to say "real" computing, or "reality" at all, has to adhere to the laws we observe within the simulation? That's like Luigi in Super Mario Brothers saying you can't kick a turtle into a brick in the our world and not expect a gold coin to pop up in front of our faces.
But what's outside the simulation could be quite different. And humans could always be mistaken about both what they think they observe, their observations themselves, and the conclusions they make from these.
At best its a matter of estimating probabilities (ie. educated guesses), and even there they're probabilities regarding appearances. It has been argued as far back as Kant (over two hundred years ago) that one can never get to the "thing-in-itself" that is behind those appearances.
Sigh. Why would you dedicate your life to proving this? You will either find you cannot prove it, in which case you have wasted your entire life on falsehood, or you prove it true in which you undo your dilute your existence and everyone you have ever known and loved. Kinda like religion I guess...
They are applying the scientific method to testing a hypothesis... isn't it more like religion to NOT do it?
Here, "Huh, the universe might have some funny symmetry" frequently seems to become "the Gods running the simulation we live in will turn you off if you ask the wrong questions", or some other similar wild leap.
You have to wonder: Are these entity/entities sadistic pranksters of some sort?