Planck constant in uncertainty principle does look like pixel pitch on the screen or mesh of finite element method.
What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
51–60 of 127 posts
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#52Isn’t this basically impossible to prove? see Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ Effectively we can’t prove a higher level of the simulation because we are encoded in it?
Is it impossible for software to prove it's likely in a VM just because it is 'encoded in it'? It depends on the implementation but it's definitely not impossible a priori and especially not because of Godel.
I’m not sure that’s the case, because we don’t know the underlying system (assuming true).
More importantly, If math is designed to reflect reality and his proof effectively states you can’t prove the system is correct within the system — then effectively aren’t we saying we can’t prove we are in a simulation?
Honest question - I have no idea lol
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#53I find questions like this fascinating. As a religious person, I guess I don't really see the question. There's no way for me to (currently) prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Ultimately I make a faith-based decision based on things that resonate with me, helping to reinforce my religious beliefs. Others do the reverse and don't believe.
But it would be hubris on my part to try and prove the existence of deity. It's fundamentally unproveable - at least with what we currently know. I view these simulation exercises as the same.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#54Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#55It's hard to square Lorentz invariance with any kind of discrete approximation in either time or space.
Could you expand on this? The Planck length and time would seem to be such discretizations.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#56My opinion, the enigma of what we call the paranormal, or sightings of people who has passed, could shed some light about the reality we live in.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#57Unknowable. And no, you'll have no way to break out of simulation and access api of the simulator, because if it's in place it works similarly to this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
Not necessarily, there might be bugs in it.
Well, we know there are bugs in this reality. I believe the relevant field of study is called entomology.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#58Simulation is such a lack of imagination. I see it situated right in the tradition of always comparing the universe to the latest technology. The Universe is... a clock! A hologram! Electricity! A computer!
What if the Universe were a blemish on a semi-sentient 8th dimensional creature, itself by-product of an 23rd dimensional industrial process, which is itself a symbolic representation for even more incomprehensible entities?
Could you call that a simulation? The comparison is meaningless.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#59Depends on your definition of "Computer Simulation". If it is "making physics match what maths say", then 100%.
Re: What are the odds we are living in a computer simulation? (2016)
#60Maybe but if there's no way for information to move in and out, what does it matter? It just ends up being one more turtle on the bottom of the stack.
If we're in a simulation there could be a way for information to flow out. In this case, we could do things we're really good at. We could influence a viewer by showing them a myriad of ads for example. Or shift their political views to our advantage.
[deleted]