Anybody else think this is kind of premature? I mean...

Anybody else think this is kind of premature? I mean, simulating how complicated our universe would be to simulate /our/ universe's resources and physics? Isn't it possible to think there's no need to be able to render EVERY POSSIBLE quantum state of a particle, that some formula and form of procedural generation and reaction can handle the rest?

Attached: image.png (534x215, 11K)

Other urls found in this thread:

You don't need to run it in real time.

So I've never really looking into this idea at all because it just kinda seemed like an asinine thing to be concerned with. Does it matter if we're in a simulation or not? Wouldn't we want to take our (non)existence seriously regardless, since this is all we have?

Am I missing the point? Like it occurs to me that maybe it means you can predict things about the universe if so, but, I don't see why being able to predict things needs to be talked about in terms of simulations.

It is possible to think whatever you want.

Me, I'd like some data backing an idea before I start taking it too seriously. But your mileage may vary.

what did he mean by this

That's stupid and also nobody can prove we're not in a simulation because any "evidence" you have would be simulated if we're in a simulated world and would therefore be unreliable bullshit. If you entertain the possibility we're in a simulation the you effectively must concede we have no idea what the "real" world is like. We would have no reason to believe any of the apparent rules our world abides by would be relevant to the "real"world we're simulated in.

That a one second simulation could run for 10^N and the ones inside that simulation will only perceive that second Like with animated movies, were one frame can take several hours to render but still we only see it as one frame taking 1/27 th of a second

But what if the creators of the simulation caught on to us becoming aware of the simulation and upgraded it to make it more realistic, thus rendering the previous results false?

Attached: 1506224841239.png (372x340, 225K)

All it proves is that the universe we reside in isn't a simulation of its parent universe. It doesn't prove that our universe isn't an emulation of another universe with simpler laws/one that exists in fewer dimensions than its parent universe.

You can't falsify the claim we're living in a simulation. It's a dumb thing to even spend time on. You can always come up with some bullshit to say that whoever created the simulation planted something.

It's just a retarded and useless argument.

Goes to show how stupid the very idea is.

>implying the rules of our parent universe are the same as ours

You literally can't disprove it, nor can you prove it without some message from outside.

I think everyones getting hung up on their concept of a simulation.

To be fair, you only have to compute 1000 things or so in QED to get results indistinguishable from current experiment. If the computation of Feynman diagrams can be streamlined in some way (perhaps via amplituhedron) then that's not unreasonable for even our own computers.

I think the idea is more than unlikely. But the laws of physics don't explicitly prohibit the possibility. They just suggest it's probably not the case.

>any "evidence" you have would be simulated
That implies a form of Descartes demon for basically every experiment ever done. In a universe as large as ours, with as many potential life forms, that seems like it would be quite an undertaking. What is the purpose of this simulation? Just to trick simulated life forms? What a waste of time.

If this universe is a simulation, it would make more sense to be "black boxed." Thus there should be evidence of it being a simulation.

I think that if this is a simulation it was basically a bunch of algorithms set in motion. There could be evidence. Like the uncertainty principle. This could show the limits of the simulation.

Yes, you're missing the point. Some people just want to know the truth, no matter if we can change things or not.

Of course we're in a simulation. The simulation can't properly render so many complicated humans, hence niggers etc.

>Does it matter if we're possibly just an app on some higher-dimensional being's phone

Well its hardly something to take comfort in.

Attached: Melllvar's_Mom.png (768x576, 207K)

"Universe as large as ours."

Assumes our universe is large. Any universe capable of simulating ours would necessarily be larger and more complex.

They would have turned us off when we started wasting power on crypto currencies.

if it's a simulation, it's not large, it's just simulated to look that way. and you're assuming that the simulation has included the simulation of other life forms.

How large of a computer does it take to simulate a square inch of empty space?

How large of a computer does it take to simulate a square lightyear of empty space?


The physics in our universe are nothing like the "actual" universe. Their "computers" are nothing like ours. Their "space" is nothing like ours.

>Brett Tingley is a writer and musician
...perhaps even a 'writer' and 'musician'...
...interpreting for us the paper by Ringel and Kovrizhin:

Its just as reasonable as saying i know for a fact there are no cosmic entities that created the universe. There is no evidence supporting the claim that we are likely in a simulation other than the assumption that we could eventually simulate a universe maybe, and if we can then it would follow that a universe would be simulated in in the universe we are simulating.

It doesnt really matter in any practical way unless it somehow allows us to build better predictive models.

Same goes for "god"

>What is the purpose of this simulation? Just to trick simulated life forms? What a waste of time.
The purpose would be to model your universe or a part of it well enough to have a better understanding of it, clearly.

If this were a simulation, then things would happen when the simulation needed to be upgraded to support our improved observation capabilities. like how Hubble mysteriously didn't work for the first few years.
The simulation needs to be run on a more powerful computer now than before primitive telescopes.

You base this on what? Why model something thats not at all similiar to your own universe?

the simulation could be in season 50000 of "those crazy earth people"
or a kid in an advanced civilization doing it for yucks

Moreover: HOW could you possibly simulate something that has NO attributes of your own universe?

There are eternal and essential attributes that carry through to the upper level universe commonly referred to as God.

Think about how we make computer games. They are like our world only symbolically, yet in reality they have no similarity. This is how our universe is in relation to the "real" universe.

I would contend that just because we cannot see the symbolic meaning that our universe is presenting to our parent universe doesn't mean we can't know anything about the parent universe.

>In a universe as large as ours, with as many potential life forms, that seems like it would be quite an undertaking.
What exactly are you calling our observable universe "large" relative to? Other universes?
The world we're being simulated in could be a trillion times larger and more complex, we have no frame of reference.
>Just to trick simulated life forms?
Nobody said anyone was trying to "trick" us. If we're in a simulated world all bets are off and the apparent "reality" we observe doesn't necessarily tell us anything useful about the lower level world we're being simulated in. I think people tend to assume the lower level world would be a universe a lot like ours, but if we're being simulated then we have no idea what the lower level world would be like, and there's some good reason to believe it would be different in some significant ways e.g. it might be we're just the simplest universe they can generate and that they're so much more complicated and take up so much more space and time than us that we're as short of matching their depth as a Tetris game would be in matching our depth.

>HOW could you possibly simulate something that has NO attributes of your own universe?
"Nothing like" doesn't necessarily mean literally nothing in common, it's just an expression people use when they mean "radically different" e.g. when people say "I'm nothing like him" they aren't literally claiming they have zero attributes in common, something that would obviously not be true given that they share a species, a location, a time, a language, etc.

We are all real man. Don't be a Jerry.

If we are simulated, that means that our "computer's" owners are God.

Is it right to worship them?

Attached: .jpg (590x350, 49K)

And you have been to all these other planets that might not even exist? Are you sure it's not just you that really exists?

Video games most often model our reality tk at least some extent though.

There's no basis for the idea to begin with. Further, the idea is pretty vague. You needs specifics to even begin formulating the idea. Just 'simulation' is meaningless.

Not at all. They're designed specifically for gamey purposes and are unrelated to reality.

If we're not in a simulation then that means God exists. Atheists BTFO by science yet again

Yes, of fucking course it's premature. And it will ALWAYS be premature. Saying that you've "proven" that we're not in a simulation is the same as saying that you've "proven" that God does not exist.

You can't scientifically prove something that is unscientific. Metaphysical theories like simulations, creationism, dream universes, etc. are all falsifiable, and as such anybody claiming that they've falsified them is mistaken or lying.

The real point to take away is that they're not scientific theories to begin with and do not have any ability to actually explain anything about the universe or predict any phenomena, so they aren't really relevant to science discussions and you're neither right or wrong for entertaining the ideas.

>are all falsifiable,
are all unfalsifiable* as should be obvious from the context there