5 ms·
That is, assuming there are flaws/glitches. There might not be. Regardless, we're looking for glitches plenty, that is in my view, what modern physics is about
by RealityVoid 7y ago
That is, assuming there are flaws/glitches. There might not be.
Regardless, we're looking for glitches plenty, that is in my view, what modern physics is about. The study of glitches in our model and the adjusting of our model accordingly.
If we were in a simulation the "glitches" would probably be something small and subtle, at sub-atomic level, not something that teleports you or gives you superpowers.
- cgriswald 7y ago> Regardless, we're looking for glitches plenty, that is in my view, what modern physics is about. The study of glitches in our model and the adjusting of our model accordingly. At the very least, knowing that violations of the model might not mean the model is wrong, but that there are glitches in the simulation would have a big impact on the search and interpretation of such glitches. No longer could you say, "Well, our model is wrong." Now you would have to say, "Well, our model might be wrong, but also this could be a flaw in implementation." And the latter may be more exploitable than the former; at least for awhile. > If we were in a simulation the "glitches" would probably be something small and subtle, at sub-atomic level, not something that teleports you or gives you superpowers. There's no guarantee of that at all. A bigger problem is that if we find a glitch, the simulators might just shut down the simulation, patch the glitch, roll back time a bit, and then restart it and we'd be none-the-wiser.
- Smithalicious 7y agoI like the idea of us finding bugs in the implementation of reality; it's a program that debugs itself! For the same reason I don't think the creators would roll us back: memory of finding previous bugs would make us better at finding new bugs in the future.