151–160 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the simulation would take far less computational resources.
Why do you assume computational resources are a cost/constraint in the 'real' universe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>impossible to simulate a universe like our own within our own Impossible to perfectly model a universe , but not impossible to simulate something that looks like a tiny part of a universe.
I imagine it would be like a computer game, where you only had to simulate the universe from the point of view of the user. This would fit nicely with the Copenhagen interpretation.
Isn't it obvious for most that for an advanced enough simulation, it is impossible to prove that you are in a simulation from inside the simulation? Even if we find proof that our current model of reality is wrong, it would only mean we need to search for another model of reality, we can't just say "but out theory doesn't actually match the reality because the reality is actually a simulation that computes approximat…
Think about time-lapse photography and simulated photons. As we get better at doing time-lapse photography (more FPS), we might see movement along the predicted course become step-wise (rather than a smooth function). Barring some weird physical phenomena, this could show we were inside a simulation.
But it's also possible that the simulation's FPS is far higher than what we can ever measure. That doesn't make it any less a simulation, but we also can't assume it's reality.
Isn't it obvious for most that for an advanced enough simulation, it is impossible to prove that you are in a simulation from inside the simulation? Even if we find proof that our current model of reality is wrong, it would only mean we need to search for another model of reality, we can't just say "but out theory doesn't actually match the reality because the reality is actually a simulation that computes approximat…
(c) We are unintended by-products of whatever is being simulated.
So, the big bang was just a bootup of the computer ? And the uptime has been like X billion of years ? This sounds too far fetched.
If you were running a simulation you wouldn't want to have to wait billions of years for the first life to form.
These values constrain any simulation of the physics of our universe in any universe which has the same physics. We know that in the case of accurately simulating the entire physical universe, you're going to need a LOT of space and energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have often thought that if 20th century science tried to ram home the logical necessity of atheism, 21st century science rams home the logical necessity of agnosticism being the ground level, so to speak. If we, tiny as we still are, can even conceive of a practical way to simulate a universe (and what is truly the difference between "simulate" and "create" in the end?), how can we in good conscience fully rule out…
Agnosticism has nothing meaningful to say about this situation, because it claims to give equal weight to totally unfounded claims ("it's definitely yahweh"). Atheists would rightly consider the evidence, conclude there was a creator, but give it no due reverence because they would conclude (rightly) that none is morally due.
As for the 'correct' conclusion that none is due, that is itself an awfully confident statement about a deity you know little about, even whether it exists. Some might consider the fact that we are left alone, rather than driven like puppets in some manner, to be a positive factor on its own, after all. You may not like that we are not handed a life of total goodness and light and luxury, or whatever your ideal universe looks like, but it could also be a great great deal worse.
We might not know if the universe is a simulation, but we know enough about the properties of the universe to put some constraints on its properties. For instance: We know about entropy. We know that there is an upper bound on the amount of information that can be contained within a given space, and it is proportional to surface area of that space. (The upper bound is realized when the space becomes a black hole.) Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always felt there's something deeply fallacious -- or hopelessly wrapped up in human psychology -- about taking a representation of a virtual world that we might create and treating it as on par with the actual universe. It's almost like saying "we're probably characters in a novel," since for every universe there are many novels. Or like that old proof that God exists because he has every desirable quality, inc…
There is a similar argument against AI. That a computer can't "feel" or experience any of the sensations we do. If you type 'emotional_state = "happy"', does that mean your computer feels happiness? Even if you have a complex simulation of neurons, if you zoom in, all you will see is little electrons bouncing through various logic gates and ending up in some kind of pattern. But the thing is, the exact same thing is…
That is pure speculation. Just because we can observe similarities between two phenomenons it doesn't mean they are the same thing. You're erroneously assuming that the universe can only work in a way that fits our theories and models.