Speaking of creationism
Speaking of creationism
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
Speaking of creationism
Why would someone bother to run an ancestor simulation even if they had the means to do so, considering how expensive it would almost certainly be?
Speaking of creationism
Why would you think it's going to be expensive? Computers' processing power is growing exponentially and will continue to do so. I don't see why running a simulation like that would be any more expensive than it is to run world of warcraft right now.
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
Speaking of creationism
Simulating the whole universe down to each atom wouldn't be easy by any standards. Sustained exponential growth is physically impossible.
Speaking of creationism
We sure don't know and we can't prove it whether it's true or false, but thinking about it is quite interesting: What would they look like? Who are they? If they can simulate the universe, to what great things are they also capable of? How would you approach a simulation project like this? How would you code it and would you change some things in it when it already started? Like programming some asteroids flying towards earth and eating your popcorn.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
Speaking of creationism
i quickly read the page and thoght abt matrix yeah :p, but basically it says that some entity created all this world and we are part of it and it's all simulation? not sure I understood it right
"Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
- Good ol Ivan
- Howdah
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Mar 31, 2015
- ESO: ivanelterrible
Speaking of creationism
It's interesting to bring it up in a sci-fi shows or something along the lines.
But it's quite laughable if you actually take it seriously, it's just on par with "what if reality is just an alien's dream" tier crap.
But it's quite laughable if you actually take it seriously, it's just on par with "what if reality is just an alien's dream" tier crap.
Speaking of creationism
The idea is that, since computers are going to be unfathomably powerful in the future, it''s possible we could develop ways to simulate a universe. If we end up doing this, obviously the universe we simulate could very well develop life and even intelligent life.benj89 wrote:i quickly read the page and thoght abt matrix yeah :p, but basically it says that some entity created all this world and we are part of it and it''s all simulation? not sure I understood it right
So, given that it''s possible (or even likely?) that computers will develop up to this point, there are 2 possibilities. We are either the first intelligent civilisation to get to this point, or we are living in a simulated universe.
The odds of us being the first to reach this point are quite small. Consider that if any civilisation ever developed the ability to simulate a universe, they wouldn''t stop at 1. And simulations could even end up developing their own simulations, etcetera. Point is if there is such a thing as simulated reality, there are a whole bunch of them (talking billions). Odds are we''re one of them.
The assumption here is that computers will end up powerful enough to make this possible. Debatable, but not too unlikely. A nice touch to this hypothesis is that, if someone was to simulate a universe, it would make a lot of sense to make it start like this one did. That is, by generating a ton of matter and squeezing it all together, then starting time and seeing what happens (big bang).
-
- Jaeger
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: May 16, 2015
- ESO: Hyperactive Jam
Speaking of creationism
I don't see how it is plausible, ignoring the extreme difficulty in solving the ridiculously complex equations that arise from so many inter-relations. Using a small part of the universe (a computer) to simulate an entire universe does not make sense to me. In a way, the universe is a 'computer' in which every particle or 'indivisible point of existence' represents itself and acts freely according to their nature, the nature of other items, and the nature of their interrelations. There is no need for calculation and no latency, everything just happens.
If you want to make a computer that can simulate a universe, then parts of the computer must account for far more than themselves, calculations are necessary and calculations take time to be solved before anything actually can happen, so there is latency. If you make a computer in which every part represents itself then it's no longer a simulation, it's a real universe. An interesting point is that if something happens a thousand light years away it takes a thousand years to affect us, but the argument for starting calculations from the centre of the universe and going outwards at the speed of light as a 'calculation wave' falls apart because in reality there is no single source from which cause and effect emanates. You would have multiple such waves for every item in the universe so you're calculating everything anyways.
Even if you wait calculate everything for the next 'step' first and then implement it, you run into the same issue with storing the results of the calculations. I think we have 128GB RAM sticks now? I don't think a true simulation of a universe is plausible, or that civilization living in a universe much much larger than our own where you could theoretically build a computer the size and complexity of our universe, would ever engage in such as massive vanity project, or even be capable of it.
It's more plausible to simulate many minds and the macroscopic world, after all we can't see past the level of macroscopic objects without instruments, and instruments can be simulated along with their results. I think if this were the case there would probably be tell-tale signs that only the macroscopic is existent upon investigation.
If you want to make a computer that can simulate a universe, then parts of the computer must account for far more than themselves, calculations are necessary and calculations take time to be solved before anything actually can happen, so there is latency. If you make a computer in which every part represents itself then it's no longer a simulation, it's a real universe. An interesting point is that if something happens a thousand light years away it takes a thousand years to affect us, but the argument for starting calculations from the centre of the universe and going outwards at the speed of light as a 'calculation wave' falls apart because in reality there is no single source from which cause and effect emanates. You would have multiple such waves for every item in the universe so you're calculating everything anyways.
Even if you wait calculate everything for the next 'step' first and then implement it, you run into the same issue with storing the results of the calculations. I think we have 128GB RAM sticks now? I don't think a true simulation of a universe is plausible, or that civilization living in a universe much much larger than our own where you could theoretically build a computer the size and complexity of our universe, would ever engage in such as massive vanity project, or even be capable of it.
It's more plausible to simulate many minds and the macroscopic world, after all we can't see past the level of macroscopic objects without instruments, and instruments can be simulated along with their results. I think if this were the case there would probably be tell-tale signs that only the macroscopic is existent upon investigation.
Last edited by Jam on 23 May 2015, 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: derp
Reason: derp
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
Speaking of creationism
+1jam wrote:I don''t see how it is plausible, ignoring the extreme difficulty in solving the ridiculously complex equations that arise from so many inter-relations. Using a small part of the universe (a computer) to simulate an entire universe does not make sense to me. In a way, the universe is a ''computer'' in which every particle or ''indivisible point of existence'' represents itself and acts freely according to their nature, the nature of other items, and the nature of their interrelations. There is no need for calculation and no latency, everything just happens.
If you want to make a computer that can simulate a universe, then parts of the computer must account for far more than themselves, calculations are necessary and calculations take time to be solved before anything actually can happen, so there is latency. If you make a computer in which every part represents itself then it''s no longer a simulation, it''s a real universe. An interesting point is that if something happens a thousand light years away it takes a thousand years to affect us, but the argument for starting calculations from the centre of the universe and going outwards at the speed of light as a ''calculation wave'' falls apart because in reality there is no single source from which cause and effect emanates. You would have multiple such waves for every item in the universe so you''re calculating everything anyways.
Even if you wait calculate everything for the next ''step'' first and then implement it, you run into the same issue with storing the results of the calculations. I think we have 128GB RAM sticks now? I don''t think a true simulation of a universe is plausible, or that civilization living in a universe much much larger than our own where you could theoretically build a computer the size and complexity of our universe, would ever engage in such as massive vanity project, or even be capable of it.
It''s more plausible to simulate many minds and the macroscopic world, after all we can''t see past the level of macroscopic objects without instruments, and instruments can be simulated along with their results. I think if this were the case there would probably be tell-tale signs that only the macroscopic is existent upon investigation.
Speaking of creationism
Ive heard of this before, but I think I heard of something that made the idea very unlikely. I think they said its unlikely that we are a simulation because irrational numbers exist in our universe, but I forgot what their explanation was of how the existence of irratonal numbers made us being a simulation unlikely. I think they said something like that in every computer program, if you look close enough everything is quantized into bytes or something like that, and irrational numbers somehow didnt fit with that.calmyourtits wrote:The idea is that, since computers are going to be unfathomably powerful in the future, its possible we could develop ways to simulate a universe. If we end up doing this, obviously the universe we simulate could very well develop life and even intelligent life.benj89 wrote:i quickly read the page and thoght abt matrix yeah :p, but basically it says that some entity created all this world and we are part of it and its all simulation? not sure I understood it right
So, given that its possible (or even likely?) that computers will develop up to this point, there are 2 possibilities. We are either the first intelligent civilisation to get to this point, or we are living in a simulated universe.
The odds of us being the first to reach this point are quite small. Consider that if any civilisation ever developed the ability to simulate a universe, they wouldnt stop at 1. And simulations could even end up developing their own simulations, etcetera. Point is if there is such a thing as simulated reality, there are a whole bunch of them (talking billions). Odds are were one of them.
The assumption here is that computers will end up powerful enough to make this possible. Debatable, but not too unlikely. A nice touch to this hypothesis is that, if someone was to simulate a universe, it would make a lot of sense to make it start like this one did. That is, by generating a ton of matter and squeezing it all together, then starting time and seeing what happens (big bang).
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Speaking of creationism
What if the simulation we're most likely living in doesn't calculate anything, only when the people behind the simulation want to know a certain thing? Like how will this universe look like in X years? And when they aren't directly looking for it then it doesn't have to be calculated exactly. Like a dark box with ants in it and from time to time you open a small hole and look through. OK I admittedly have no clue about computers...
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
Speaking of creationism
Things being simulated doesn't mean that they aren't true or that they are wrong. Also we can't prove it right or wrong, but we can play with it in a thought experiment and we got to the conclusion that if computers will get really strong then it's very likely that we are a simulation. And nobody said that our simulated universe is a copy of another world...
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
Speaking of creationism
"The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed' this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time."
To me this sounds like a simulation isn't unreal or untrue, it's just the operation of the system. With a 3D computer you can simulate a 2D world, right? So what about a 4D computer simulating our 3D world?
To me this sounds like a simulation isn't unreal or untrue, it's just the operation of the system. With a 3D computer you can simulate a 2D world, right? So what about a 4D computer simulating our 3D world?
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
Speaking of creationism
nocalmyourtits wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
Thoughts?
Speaking of creationism
The thing is since we possibly are INSIDE the simulation there is no way of finding nor proving out that we actually ARE a simulation, like Einstein or somebody once said: A problem can't be solved on the same level that it was created in.
Don't let the things you can't change dictate your life.
- Good ol Ivan
- Howdah
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Mar 31, 2015
- ESO: ivanelterrible
Speaking of creationism
Say, Venox, ever heard of Russell's teapot?
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
Speaking of creationism
You mean Russell Brand?
- Good ol Ivan
- Howdah
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Mar 31, 2015
- ESO: ivanelterrible
Speaking of creationism
Who?frycookofdoom wrote:You mean Russell Brand?
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
Speaking of creationism
Russell Brand, founder of the Russell Group universities.ivan wrote:Who?frycookofdoom wrote:You mean Russell Brand?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests