Complexity of the universe comes from super simple (relatively for gods) rules of math. You don't have bugs in math.
There's actually a math theorem that says basically that, unless I'm misunderstanding, if your math has no bugs you can't prove it has no bugs with it.
Not quite. It just says that if you assume set of axioms and math grammar you may generate statements that are not false but you can't constructa a proof with what you allowed yourself. I don't think it's a bug.
There's actually a math theorem that says basically that, unless I'm misunderstanding, if your math has no bugs you can't prove it has no bugs with it.
Not quite. It just says that if you assume set of axioms and math grammar you may generate statements that are not false but you can't constructa a proof with what you allowed yourself. I don't think it's a bug.
There’s no natural reason to think that the laws of the universe aren’t what they are simply due to a natural process. While no one has credibly made a testable hypothesis on what this process would be as of yet. However I don’t have reason to believe this would be impossible to test.
Whatever system made the laws of the universe, it is presumably extremely consistent and uniform (otherwise how give rise to such a uniform universe) So yes, eminently testable, no disagreement with you on that And yet at the same time, the simulation hypothesis is not really disprovable, and infact, is quite reasonable Which presents the problem (if simulation is not disprovable) that there may be many valid explana…
There are testable hypothesis, but not about the extremely early universe as of yet. The energy requirements put it outside the realm of terrestrial experiments - and as of yet no one has a good simulacra of the universe prior to the big bang. While there are some theoretical white hole approaches to justify the big bang etc. These are not as of yet testable.
Why do you believe that a higher entity would care at all about your suffering? Why would they step in and intervene? You’re projecting human qualities (empathy, caring) on something you know nothing about, but which certainly isn’t human.
Then why simulate the suffering, and especially why do that in all the sick ways that exist? Out of cruelty? Or sporting? Just choose a disease and go for a 10 minute Wikipedia rabbit hole. If cruelty exists in their world, then empathy and caring must exist too.
If this is a simulation, it could have been “created” as a set of physical rules (which we perceive as physics). Everything that happens within it could have just evolved naturally from those rules. For example, maybe the Big Bang was the initialization of the simulation. Life wasn’t explicitly programmed into it, but it just happened after running the simulation for billions of years. Now that life exists, along with the pleasures and suffering that go along with it, this higher intelligence could step in and change it, but that would certainly corrupt the natural progression of the simulation.
Wasn't Crystal Spheres about the Fermi Paradox, not the Prime Mover Paradox?
Yes, well said, I was simply postulating a prime mover as already given by many others; Aristotle, Aquinas, etc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas) Without a prime mover, we are left with turtles, true, I think
It's an either/or if you presume designed structure and mindful order are the nature of the universe, which is typically what people adopt to avoid dealing with nihilism (if Camus, Kierkegaard, and Sartre are to be believed).
Not quite. It just says that if you assume set of axioms and math grammar you may generate statements that are not false but you can't constructa a proof with what you allowed yourself. I don't think it's a bug.
I think that's another theorem.
Dunno, I thought you were refering to Godel's theorem.
If it is a simulation, what are the odds that it's a game? The great majority of simulations that we know about are games. If it is a game, what are the odds that you are a non player character? In games, the vast majority of characters aren't the player. So if we are living in a computer simulation, odds are that we're non player characters.
cries in solipsism
crisis in solipsism is signalling suboptimal self-control
...some serving of shrooms seems suggestive to spiritual salvation...
Dunno, I thought you were refering to Godel's theorem.
Yes I think you were referring to the first incompleteness theorem while I was referring to the second one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... > The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
This one just says that any non-trivial consistent set of math doesn't contain the proof of its consistency. Where consistency means it doesn't contain proofs of falsehoods.
It doesn't seem like a bug to me. Just a way to ensure that any non-trivial math has no self sufficient bubbles. That no set of math is somehow better than others. That math is free and unlimited with it's choice of axioms and rules and no subset is better than others.