What are the odds that we are all in a simulation?
-
This post did not contain any content.
You mean that reality might have been created by intelligent being(s)? wow.. Nobody ever thought about that one before.
-
I think it would matter if these simulations existed if we could interact outside or between them somehow.
If we'd manage to communicate with parallel universes, would it matter if they are all real or simulations along with ourselves?
How could we possibly interact with any machinery sophisticated enough to be our entire universe or the parent universe where these machines can be conceived?
It's like pacman breaking out of assembly language and figuring out how to sneak out of the arcade.
-
I mean, if you take an existing physics simulation and just scale up the hardware...
Then what? We have no reason to believe that would cause parts of the simulation to be conscious and think they exist in reality.
We're physics. It seems like we exist.
-
The believers would argue that of course these gods have desires but you wouldn’t understand them because you cannot much like the fly in front of me cannot grasp astrophysics.
Yeah. Saying "you just don't get it and never will" is a great way of defending anything you want. Even if, like in this case, it's not consistent with the facts. The "it's a sin to question, so don't or else" approach has also seen quite a bit of use.
And for some reason, what god is telling us is always convenient for the powerful, and for the dominant culture...
-
We're physics. It seems like we exist.
But we have no evidence that we're anywhere close to being able to accurately simulate physics, even with planet sizes computers.
-
it depends, can simulations run simulations inside themselves? because if so, i think this would increase the odds. if we were able to model reality, down to the subatomic level, with perfect accuracy, then maybe there's another world simulating us. unless we're in a pretty bad or locked-down simulation that doesn't allow recursion.
I think the smallest computer that can simulate the universe is the universe. Though I guess you may be able to get rid of one of the dimensions due to that one projection theory. Which means you may be able to get ride of more than one dimension. Which means maybe the universe can fit into a single infinitely dense point. So maybe we can make black hole computers. We'd just need to bend space time in a real specific way because what's the point of a computer you can't get any output from?
tl;Dr: I bet we could figure out how to simulate a whole universe within a decently small computer. Seems hard though.
-
But we have no evidence that we're anywhere close to being able to accurately simulate physics, even with planet sizes computers.
wrote last edited by [email protected]We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments. My evidence is that we routinely do, although hardware limitations mean if you want perfect accuracy it's going to involve just a few particles, with more and more approximation as you scale beyond that.
There are no extreme environments on Earth, by that definition, which is a big part of why physics is stuck on them in the first place. All known life is also on Earth, so that shouldn't matter, if life and consciousness is what we're interested in.
-
A simulation could be hacked, and that's really fun to think about
If we are in a simulation, I'm pretty sure it's already been hacked or infected by a bad virus at least.
-
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments. My evidence is that we routinely do, although hardware limitations mean if you want perfect accuracy it's going to involve just a few particles, with more and more approximation as you scale beyond that.
There are no extreme environments on Earth, by that definition, which is a big part of why physics is stuck on them in the first place. All known life is also on Earth, so that shouldn't matter, if life and consciousness is what we're interested in.
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments
This is not true. For example, we don't know why [ice is slippery].(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.03.002).
Furthermore
There are no extreme environments on Earth...
Yes, there is. Ice. And superconductors. And so on... And even if all the other stuff is exotic, it's important to know all the other underlying principles to comprehend what's actually going on.
-
We can accurately simulate physics, outside of certain extreme environments
This is not true. For example, we don't know why [ice is slippery].(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.03.002).
Furthermore
There are no extreme environments on Earth...
Yes, there is. Ice. And superconductors. And so on... And even if all the other stuff is exotic, it's important to know all the other underlying principles to comprehend what's actually going on.
Yeah, that's more than a few particles. If you had a planet-sized computer, you could still simulate a block of ice, although it might still be hard to explain in a bird-eye view kind of way why the simulated ice is slippery. Which is what this paper is actually trying to do.
Ditto for superconductors. It's true that closer to absolute zero something is, the longer quantum features stay relevant, and that imposes a pretty punishing penalty. It's not infinite, though.
-
about 3.50
It was at that moment I realized frankenswine was a 30 story tall monster from the paleolithic era!
