Universe as Simulation

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=387&v=wgSZA3NPpBs

So now Tyson, too, thinks the universe may be a simulation. Also, wasn't it Joe Rogan who introduced Tyson to James Gates Jr's ideas concerning the simulation of reality? What the hell is going on Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality

Well I actually got convinced by Veeky Forums that there are disturbingly strong indications that the laws of physics act like computer simulations. The only thing that isn't quantized is time itself as there is no framerate or smallest indivisible unit that makes up time. But aside from that I'm sold on the idea that it might be easily a simulated reality that we're living in.

>tyson, too

woah a meme TV celebrity """"scientist"""" is convinced. that will surely change my perception of reality.

the only reason black science man ever got semi-famous is because he kinda resembles a black einstein.

What does it even change if we are living in a simulation? I get the curiosity but it won't change much at all.

It's also pretty depressing

>What does it even change if we are living in a simulation?
What does it even change if we understand how physics works?

Ultimately, it's all meaningless. Still, people study it because it interests them, I suppose.

I dont see how that's an endorsement, considering Tyson has never done any QFT, ST, LQG, MGR, PF, or any physics other that celestial stamp collecting at all.

>What does it even change if we understand how physics works?
Not much I suppose.

quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality

I read this earlier today after Scott Adam's made a post on his blog about science proving science is an illusion.

good read/10 would read again

tl;dr Evolution chooses the most efficient shortcuts and only portrays what reality we need to see in order to survive. Just like when you open your browser icon to go to Veeky Forums you don't see all of the code making this possible behind the scenes.

>there are disturbingly strong indications that the laws of physics act like computer simulations

No there aren't, there are somethings in physics that some people insist make sense if you were trying to simplify the universe to run as a simulation. But this isn't evidence of a simulation, just someone's opinion. You could equally say that certain parts of the universe look the way they do, because that's just the way the universe is.

This whole area is stupid since, save the creators making an appearance to us, no way to ever test that the universe is a simulation. Any evidence that you find could equally well be explained as "it looks like that because that's the way the universe is".

>convinced by Veeky Forums that there are disturbingly strong indications that the laws of physics act like computer simulations
That's because Veeky Forums largely refuses to believe the universe is non-deterministic, when it clearly is.

Turns out that the EM drive is literally an easter egg. Nice troll, kami-sama.

Not at all. Veeky Forums is highly pro-determinism. And determinism is not a process that conflicts with the simulated reality theory.

Trying to understand the universe is the same as trying to understand how a game works. Why not just play instead?

autism

How does you argument even go against simulated reality idea ? Simulated reality is based on the similarity of patterns between the way computers work and laws of the universe work. They all operate on quantized values and fundamental particles such as electrons show the exact quantification pattern as they are the exact replica of each other and have the exact same properties everywhere in the universe, which is literally the same thing as 1s and 0s that make up the building blocks of the universe. It's not some vague random entity, it's not an unstable energy source that we can't observe, it's simply a particle with the exact properties with all the other particles.

In this case this is a valid argument

No I meant my autism doesn't allow me to just play the game

Meditate. Learn how to let go so you can live here instead of inside your head.

>How does you argument even go against simulated reality idea ?

My argument is there is no argument in favour of the simulation hypothesis. It's just a personal opinion that some people hold to, it has no basis other than "that might be a simplification to aid computation, therefore it's evidence of a simulated reality", there is no particular reason to choose the simulation hypothesis over the "that just the universe" hypothesis.

>it acts like a simulation therefore it is a simulation
What the fuck?
Aren't simulation supposed to simulate reality? Of course it's going to act like a simulation when simulations are literal virtual copies of reality.

The narrative is a iterative, dynamic picture in your head. The world is indistinguishable from random without the narrative process.
This shit is all just Platonic nonsense. All narratives deconstruct to a paradox: either deductive or inductive. All narratives construct to incompleteness.
What you have here are people who don't know they are "being the bus." In order to drive a bus, you have to be the bus. But people are not buses. And people are not people. What you are driving is the narrative.
The world is. The narrative is not.

Next time you think you are in a simulation, go stand in front of a moving bus.

again, "that just the universe" is not an insert that goes against anything. The universe might be simulated and you can still say "that just the universe". If you're trying to refute the simulated reality argument, you need to counter the similarities between the way a computer works and between the laws of the universe

>If you're trying to refute the simulated reality argument

Am I speaking a different language here? There is nothing to refute, the whole thing is literally psuedoscience, its piss poor metaphysics masquerading as legitimate science.

Then how do you explain the similarities betwen the quantification of matter and the quantized workflow of a computer ?
> inb4 they are just the way they are

How do you explain the similarities between some clouds I see and dogs?
>this is literally your argument.

what are they exacly ? Are they as concrete, fundamental and permanent as the similarities between computer workflow and laws of the universe ?

>x looks like y, therefore x is actually z.

Fucking kek, this is the intellect of your average simulationfag.

Why do the physicists feel like they have any business weighing in on the subject? Philosophers and theologians don't bother physicists when they're working on nuclear reactors.

It's normally the "public faces" of physics (and science in general desu). It's an unfortunate confluence of arrogance, intellect, and the belief that people care what they think. If I'm honest physicists aren't the worst offenders here, that dubious honour falls to Sam Harris.

Agreed but I'm concerned that more physicists might start trying to handle subjects for which they aren't intellectually equipped. I mean, they're useful when properly directed but if they neglect the tasks they're apt to perform.

Wow, the beginning of this video is so shit, Tyson is absolute garbage. "-Stop laughing, you goddamn, idiot!" I would say.

shit tier b8

Found the assblasted creationist/religious fuck

Tyson is a terrible listener. He keeps interrupting before the woman is done speaking.

Women do the same thing, the bitch deserves it.

>there are disturbingly strong indications that the laws of physics act like computer simulations.

Or maybe it's the other way around

I really liked this article but struggle to agree (understand?) some aspects of it or why it's significant. It really didn't seem to assert much that seemed surprising or things I didn't already understand, like the passing on of successful perception -- understanding fire is dangerous, for instance. Of course fire is dangerous, hot things hurt to the touch, jumping in front of a train is deadly, snakes are dangerous, etc. Very few people have teleological views of the Universe and its matter, and yet this guy seems to think most people do? It's almost like he's saying "fire isn't 'red-orange glowy pain thing' but is actually a clump of gas so high in energy that it emits photons which our brain perceives as visible light. bet u didnt no tht?"

Of course our perception is limited to our reality. No one is arguing that the human brain perfectly mirrors reality into a virtual reality. We understand how we receive and interpret stimuli to create internal realities. Maybe I'm really missing something and would love if someone could point me in the right direction because it's a neat concept, but the examples he gave seemed so simple and explanatory of what's already understood of the physical Universe.

WEEEE WOOOOO
WEEE WOOOO


Brainlet ALERT

The last sentence ruined your post.

>invented computers and algorithms

>OH BECAUSE WE CAN DESCRIBE THINGS USING COMPUTERS AND ALGORITHMS IT MUST MEAN THAT ---WE--- ARE COMPUTERS AND ALGORITHMS

It is one of the stupidest philosophical ideas I've ever seen endorsed by any person with some form of scientific or philosophical authority.

So can Veeky Forums explain what happened before the big bang?

Amazing how off you are in every post.

Nobody can explain that because it isn't even physically possible to see beyond the birth of the universe. The light, if there was any, literally could not have even reached us yet.

what if planck length is the size of a single voxel? Then "strings" could be some kind of wiring to the parent universe and that would make some kind of sense.
My english is bad but I hope you understand

>But this isn't evidence of a simulation, just someone's opinion

Well, it is "evidence" simply for the fact that it's a plausible explanation. Evidence is cheap. What it isn't is "proof".

...

I saw Neil deGrasse Tyson at a grocery store in Los Angeles yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.

He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”

I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.

The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

Why are niggers always memes?
There isn't a single serious black on science

...

That's not what evidence is.
In my opinion, this universe probably isn't a simulation, because of QM, the three body problem, and the nature of GR (a simulation should have a single frame of reference that's "correct", not an infinite number of them).
If any plausible explanation counts as evidence, then we have evidence both for and against the universe being a simulation, and that's just not what "evidence" means.