IMHO as a biologist infused with awe of the natural world from observation and reading, it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced. But most people who are more focused on, and hungry for, the order created by technology and society in general, find it easy - with occasional cognitive dissonance,…
As a BS in bio as well I learned everything in biology arises from chemistry which arises from physics which can be explained (mostly?) with math. If that isn't abundantly clear on graduation your teachers did you a disservice. You don't have to design anything, it should just show up if its an accurate enough simulation.
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
101–110 of 178 posts
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#102I would be surprised if we are not living in simulation. Look at superposition and function collapse in quantum physics, it's equivalent to what we are doing in games today = do not render if player is not watching, save resources. Think about it, look for example at GTA V, what we can achieve today and think about how world looked like 100 years ago. I imagine that in 1000 years from now, simulating world similar to…
This is a common misconception, but superposition has nothing to do with "do not render if the player is not watching." As far as we know, every particle in the universe is interacting with every other (with a light speed delay) and thus "measuring" it (modifying and responding to its wavefunction) at all times. In the two-slit experiment, for example, the wavefunction of a particle moving through a slit interacts wi…
"really big" and "really detailed" is relative.
We have no absolute scale to measure against. Our 10^80 particle universe (or whatever the number is) could live in an 10^8000 particle one.
So our whole universe could literally be contained in something as "big" as a grain of sand in the host universe.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tech review summary seems to be saying this super intelligent universe-simulating computer builder doesn't know about Bresenham's line drawing algorithm [0] and as a result it can only walk high energy particles along a limited number of paths. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bresenham%27s_line_algorithm
Possibly? I can see why one would want to assume that an entity that can simulate a universe would be able to know more than the collective ability of that simulation, but on the other hand, we simulate things and learn unexpected results from our simulations. I think it's entirely feasible that a simulation can generate more knowledge, or different knowledge, than exists outside the simulation.
Certainly, but the idea that some hyper intelligent entity would develop the tech to build a universe-scale finite element simulator without groking anti-aliasing along the way is simply absurd. Bresenham's algorithm is a big deal because it's essentially the first thing everyone needs to invent when they start trying to render continuous processes on a discrete grid.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#104IMHO as a biologist infused with awe of the natural world from observation and reading, it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced. But most people who are more focused on, and hungry for, the order created by technology and society in general, find it easy - with occasional cognitive dissonance,…
> it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced
This sounds like the flip side of the creationist's claim that the universe was created by a deity because it's so complex. Neither is falsifiable.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#105Keep 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.
A blockchain will do nicely in a pinch. From my profile:
> I think we're being virtualized in a blockchain-backed consensus reality running some variation of orchestrated objective reduction.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure he can. He can overload the "=" or "+" operator and make them do whatever he wants in that domain. Taking it further, what if rules and logic, and by extension, math as we know it, is just a construct that is not applicable in the "real" universe. What if, in that "real" space, 7+7=5, or mathematical operations are not possible. What if causality and time dont exist?
You can change symbols all you want, but when life appears in your simulation they won't care. If they put 2 items and then another 2 items, and 4 items are there - for all they care 2+2=4. And if sometimes its 5 - they will do what we did with relativity when it turned out velocities doesn't add up like they "should". We haven't changed addition - we changed the equations used in physics. I guess you could hand-made…
The point I was trying to raise, though, is what if the concept of "adding two things" has no basis in the "real reality". I know its hard to grasp...but imagine a reality where there is no "+" or "-" operation.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#107Even if we live inside a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, ultimately there is a base reality that influences the design of the simulations contained within it, and can impinge upon the simulations at any time. Infinite regression doesn't work here - using the term "simulation" implies some special pleading when moving from the outermost simulation to the base reality. If you want to regress forever, then there is no qualitative difference between layers of reality and the word "simulation" is meaningless.
We live in the base reality. All a simulation could do is obscure complexity.
Interestingly this isn't a new idea. The gnostics of the first two centuries BCE had a theology of this, in which a flawed world, in which humans lived, was created by an imperfect creator called the demiurge. There was a perfect realm beyond this world with an intercessor named Sophia (wisdom) who would rescue us from our flawed world, the simulation created by the demiurge.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#108So we stopped believing that God created the universe, and us as part of it. We believed only in science and natural processes. Following that through, we started believing that we live in a computer simulation with, presumably, some kind of programmer. That's pretty ironic.
The root distinction seems to be whether you prioritize reality or abstractions.
If reality comes first, you might not even believe that there is a set of universal mathematical laws governing nature (Feynman expresses this viewpoint, and raises the possibility that no such laws exist here[0]). Edward Nelson came up with similar ideas on the limits of abstractions in mathematics, based on Christian philosophy [1].
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misconception, but superposition has nothing to do with "do not render if the player is not watching." As far as we know, every particle in the universe is interacting with every other (with a light speed delay) and thus "measuring" it (modifying and responding to its wavefunction) at all times. In the two-slit experiment, for example, the wavefunction of a particle moving through a slit interacts wi…
"really big" and "really detailed" is relative. We have no absolute scale to measure against. Our 10^80 particle universe (or whatever the number is) could live in an 10^8000 particle one. So our whole universe could literally be contained in something as "big" as a grain of sand in the host universe.
Yes, I'm referring to big and detailed relative to what we can simulate with foreseeable technology. Sure, we can see how to maybe simulate a universe the size of a cell, and a much much larger universe could maybe simulate everything in ours. But in either case, the larger universe is going to view the smaller one as a simplification.
Re: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation (2012)
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misconception, but superposition has nothing to do with "do not render if the player is not watching." As far as we know, every particle in the universe is interacting with every other (with a light speed delay) and thus "measuring" it (modifying and responding to its wavefunction) at all times. In the two-slit experiment, for example, the wavefunction of a particle moving through a slit interacts wi…
"really big" and "really detailed" is relative. We have no absolute scale to measure against. Our 10^80 particle universe (or whatever the number is) could live in an 10^8000 particle one. So our whole universe could literally be contained in something as "big" as a grain of sand in the host universe.
[deleted]