9 ms·

I'm so disappointed by quanta lately. Clickbaits and worsening quality. > The Universe Is Not a Simulation That's based on what? Author of the article opinion

by comboy 8y ago

I'm so disappointed by quanta lately. Clickbaits and worsening quality. > The Universe Is Not a Simulation That's based on what? Author of the article opinion? That's cool but then it should be "In my opinion.." and "here's my reasoning".

saas_sam 8y ago
Thank you. I observe the same sentiment of unjustifiable certainty with so many deep issues among popular journalists and scientists. Simulation theory, the potential disaster(s) of AI, not to mention political topics. When even smart people are blind to weaknesses in their position, I despair, and go back to funny gifs.
contravariant 8y ago
Arguably it would've been better to say "The universe may not be a simulation" but calling this clickbait and evidence of a decline in quality because of such a minor detail seems an overreaction. Unless there's more you object to than the first 6 words of the article.
- oldcynic 8y ago
  There's no mention at all of the "universe is a simulation" theory in the article, unless I managed to skip a paragraph. So title is entirely clickbait, surely? It's not "We're Getting Better at Universe Simulations" that is the content given. I was hoping to find some discussion of the simulation theory and perhaps reasons found that it may not be possible. That's why I clicked and read.
  - contravariant 8y ago
    The title is just poking fun at the "The Universe is a Simulation" articles that keep popping up, I mean sure it technically makes an irrelevant claim, but in context it's clear that the main part of the article is supposed to be about how we can simulate the universe. I agree it's kind of weird to raise something in the title and not address it at all in the main article, but that's a minor flaw in what's clearly intended as a joke.
    - g_st_lt 8y ago
      "in context" just means "after reading the entire article and discovering that the headline is clickbait"
- yayana 8y ago
  There is a essentially a proof by induction that if several properties hold (such as the 2nd half of this headline) then our odds of being in the unsimulated universe are approaching 0, making the first half of the sentence a remarkable finding given the 2nd half. I.e. that one of the other prerequisites has been proved false.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  "The universe may not sit on top of a giant turtle." I'm so sick of these bullshit theorists coming up with unverifiable imaginations out of thin air. Produces lots of clicks and laymen books but doesn't do jackshit to help move science forward.
nothis 8y ago
Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? I don't know either way, I just assumed the headline was basically saying "no, this isn't some sensational new post about how we're all in a simulation, this is hard data leading to realistic results". Kinda defensive more so than click-bait-y.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sandworm101 8y ago
  It is the internet misinterpreting some perfectly valid scientific investigations. A rational discussion of quanta and quantization, how observable information is coded in our universe, morphs into talk of whether that universe actually exists inside a big computer. To correct such rants one must explain quantum physics, something nobody wants to do anytime soon. It made for a half-decent Doctor Who episode.
- olavk 8y ago
  I don't think any scientist should take it seriously. It is at the level of "maybe this is all just a dream". Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so it is outside the scope of science.
  - strange_quark 8y ago
    It's basically religion but with none of the morality attached to it. No wonder so many SV billionaires like the idea.
    - olavk 8y ago
      So like "the singularity" and "transhumanism" - millennia-old religious ideas, repackaged for a technological age.
- beefield 8y ago
  > Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? There is no practical way to falsify that so yes, it is just a dreamy theory. Unlike some other dreamy theories (creationism and astrology come to my mind) nobody has come up with any practical uses for the dreamy theory either, so that would be a second reason why nobody takes this dreamy theory that seriously. But if this is a simulated game, I would be keen to know how this is scored and how many lifes I have left before game over...
sbuttgereit 8y ago
OK, I'll bite. If the Universe is a simulation (or might be) what is it simulating and who's simulating it? I'd be more interested to know about -that- than the arbitrary details of some measly little simulation itself. You might say something hand-wavy like, "it's simulating itself"... but OK, when I look at our "simulations" they are always highly referential to the external real... er... possibly real... world. Dwarf Fortress could be called a simulation (perhaps one of the better ones!) ... and while I'd be hard pressed to point to the outside world and say it's simulating any one thing with high fidelity, I can point to trees, mountains, water animals, etc. where the creative element is really just tweaking the attributes of these otherwise externally real things. It's hard to simulate what you're you're completely unaware of, unconscious of ... in fact to be conscious at all is to be conscious "of something" and insofar as simulations are conscious efforts at creation, it's difficult to not have some concrete reference that exists outside of a "simulation". Of course, perhaps, it's the great mystery of God which I'm always told is beyond mere human understanding. Or maybe its simulations all the way down. Or maybe any explanation talking about simulations requires greater leaps of faith and greater acceptance of more and more unlikely scenarios of reality than just saying the Universe is perhaps a metaphysically real place that doesn't require an appeal to "simulation" for explanation. I think I'll just stick to the simple minded idea of the Universe is a real place and not a simulation. That part of the title is so likely to be true that the author need not feel bad about the assumption.
- delinka 8y ago
  I can't help but think the two options (we're in a simulation vs. we're not in a simulation) are equally likely without any information from outside our own universe. That said, it doesn't matter either way - we're not going to escape the simulation (certainly not anytime soon, probably not ever); knowing whether we're in a simulation has little bearing on individual lives (as far as we can tell, attempting to interact with the being running our simulation has no effect - or there is none, and this is indeed "reality.") The fidelity of the simulation is not an argument for or against: assume we're simulated and it seems likely to me that perceptions by beings within simply wouldn't have the ability to notice a lack of fidelity; or whomever owns this simulation has the computational power to simulate sufficient fidelity to convince inhabitants that their universe is "real." Because we don't yet have evidence either way, I'd go with 50/50 odds.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by comboy 8y ago

saas_sam 8y ago

Thank you. I observe the same sentiment of unjustifiable certainty with so many deep issues among popular journalists and scientists. Simulation theory, the potential disaster(s) of AI, not to mention political topics. When even smart people are blind to weaknesses in their position, I despair, and go back to funny gifs.

contravariant 8y ago

Arguably it would've been better to say "The universe may not be a simulation" but calling this clickbait and evidence of a decline in quality because of such a minor detail seems an overreaction. Unless there's more you object to than the first 6 words of the article.

oldcynic 8y ago
There's no mention at all of the "universe is a simulation" theory in the article, unless I managed to skip a paragraph. So title is entirely clickbait, surely? It's not "We're Getting Better at Universe Simulations" that is the content given. I was hoping to find some discussion of the simulation theory and perhaps reasons found that it may not be possible. That's why I clicked and read.
- contravariant 8y ago
  The title is just poking fun at the "The Universe is a Simulation" articles that keep popping up, I mean sure it technically makes an irrelevant claim, but in context it's clear that the main part of the article is supposed to be about how we can simulate the universe. I agree it's kind of weird to raise something in the title and not address it at all in the main article, but that's a minor flaw in what's clearly intended as a joke.
  - g_st_lt 8y ago
    "in context" just means "after reading the entire article and discovering that the headline is clickbait"
yayana 8y ago
There is a essentially a proof by induction that if several properties hold (such as the 2nd half of this headline) then our odds of being in the unsimulated universe are approaching 0, making the first half of the sentence a remarkable finding given the 2nd half. I.e. that one of the other prerequisites has been proved false.
eanzenberg 8y ago
"The universe may not sit on top of a giant turtle." I'm so sick of these bullshit theorists coming up with unverifiable imaginations out of thin air. Produces lots of clicks and laymen books but doesn't do jackshit to help move science forward.

nothis 8y ago

Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? I don't know either way, I just assumed the headline was basically saying "no, this isn't some sensational new post about how we're all in a simulation, this is hard data leading to realistic results". Kinda defensive more so than click-bait-y.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sandworm101 8y ago
It is the internet misinterpreting some perfectly valid scientific investigations. A rational discussion of quanta and quantization, how observable information is coded in our universe, morphs into talk of whether that universe actually exists inside a big computer. To correct such rants one must explain quantum physics, something nobody wants to do anytime soon. It made for a half-decent Doctor Who episode.
olavk 8y ago
I don't think any scientist should take it seriously. It is at the level of "maybe this is all just a dream". Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so it is outside the scope of science.
- strange_quark 8y ago
  It's basically religion but with none of the morality attached to it. No wonder so many SV billionaires like the idea.
  - olavk 8y ago
    So like "the singularity" and "transhumanism" - millennia-old religious ideas, repackaged for a technological age.
beefield 8y ago
> Is the "Universe is a Simulation" more than a dreamy internet theory, though? Like, are astronomers and physicists taking it seriously? There is no practical way to falsify that so yes, it is just a dreamy theory. Unlike some other dreamy theories (creationism and astrology come to my mind) nobody has come up with any practical uses for the dreamy theory either, so that would be a second reason why nobody takes this dreamy theory that seriously. But if this is a simulated game, I would be keen to know how this is scored and how many lifes I have left before game over...

sbuttgereit 8y ago

OK, I'll bite. If the Universe is a simulation (or might be) what is it simulating and who's simulating it? I'd be more interested to know about -that- than the arbitrary details of some measly little simulation itself. You might say something hand-wavy like, "it's simulating itself"... but OK, when I look at our "simulations" they are always highly referential to the external real... er... possibly real... world. Dwarf Fortress could be called a simulation (perhaps one of the better ones!) ... and while I'd be hard pressed to point to the outside world and say it's simulating any one thing with high fidelity, I can point to trees, mountains, water animals, etc. where the creative element is really just tweaking the attributes of these otherwise externally real things. It's hard to simulate what you're you're completely unaware of, unconscious of ... in fact to be conscious at all is to be conscious "of something" and insofar as simulations are conscious efforts at creation, it's difficult to not have some concrete reference that exists outside of a "simulation". Of course, perhaps, it's the great mystery of God which I'm always told is beyond mere human understanding. Or maybe its simulations all the way down. Or maybe any explanation talking about simulations requires greater leaps of faith and greater acceptance of more and more unlikely scenarios of reality than just saying the Universe is perhaps a metaphysically real place that doesn't require an appeal to "simulation" for explanation. I think I'll just stick to the simple minded idea of the Universe is a real place and not a simulation. That part of the title is so likely to be true that the author need not feel bad about the assumption.

delinka 8y ago
I can't help but think the two options (we're in a simulation vs. we're not in a simulation) are equally likely without any information from outside our own universe. That said, it doesn't matter either way - we're not going to escape the simulation (certainly not anytime soon, probably not ever); knowing whether we're in a simulation has little bearing on individual lives (as far as we can tell, attempting to interact with the being running our simulation has no effect - or there is none, and this is indeed "reality.") The fidelity of the simulation is not an argument for or against: assume we're simulated and it seems likely to me that perceptions by beings within simply wouldn't have the ability to notice a lack of fidelity; or whomever owns this simulation has the computational power to simulate sufficient fidelity to convince inhabitants that their universe is "real." Because we don't yet have evidence either way, I'd go with 50/50 odds.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]