91–100 of 127 posts
Maybe 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.
Unknowable. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily, there might be bugs in it.
Sure, because gods that made math are known to be crappy developers. ;-)
Obviously though it might be a matter of perspective, we might as well be gods compared to ants, our code might be buggy but I don't think ants are smart enough to figure that out.
I’ve had a reoccurring dream since childhood about our universe being a B+ assignment in an extraterrestrial middle school classroom and that in effect I’m a npc in that effort. Whenever this subject comes up I’m always a bit interested but it seems like an impossible thing to know.
“Extraterrestrial” somehow implies that they would live in the same universe as us, doesn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm actually with you. I was trying to make a clever remark. I find it entertaining that ancient occult symbolism of your definition (1/0, singularity/infinity) to be the resulting mathematical foundation of modern computing, though. Personally, I think the discussion of "is it a simulation" is just getting into the mechanics again and is only held to be defining of reality by hardened materialists. I mean, that is j…
Or if we represent G-d's eternal delight in cheeseburgers (irony intended) to the point he creates the universe just to experience such delight recursively. His quest to taste the infinite cheeseburger (which we experience as a bitflip in some n-dimensional cosmic diner.)
It'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.
Does the resulting simulation (this universe) show any hints that it is nearly impossible for the theoretical hosting universe to exist?
Well yes, since you said hints and not absolute proof. Using QMC (Quantum Monte Carlo) we can show that quantized gravitational responses underpinning certain bosonic systems make the computational demands for simulating them exponentially intractable, to the point it's not clear how they could be simulated not just in practice but in theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phooey. Turtles then. Because that simulator runner would also have a simulator runner, and so on. Let's leave the cultural baggage of self-existent platonic forms for ultimate power at the door, it's an ultimately overtrod path of philosophical inquiry. If you constitutionally can't leave it at the door, read David Brin's crystal spheres (and enjoy!).
Wasn't Crystal Spheres about the Fermi Paradox, not the Prime Mover Paradox?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lorentz invariance is incredible however we square it
‘Incredible’ as in you don’t believe it? (E.g. ‘double-special’ relativity?)
Similarly, the uniformity of background radiation, and many other phenomena. But yes Lorentz invariance is a good one to mention!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, because gods that made math are known to be crappy developers. ;-)
You don't need to be crappy to make something that isn't perfect, maybe it's not even possible to prove that something extremely complicated like the universe is bug-free. Obviously though it might be a matter of perspective, we might as well be gods compared to ants, our code might be buggy but I don't think ants are smart enough to figure that out.
You don't have bugs in math.