5 ms·
The estimates for the number of stars in the galaxy continues to grow. Just a few years I remember reading 100 billion stars, then it became 200 billion. And in
by vgchh 6y ago
The estimates for the number of stars in the galaxy continues to grow. Just a few years I remember reading 100 billion stars, then it became 200 billion. And in this article it's 400 billion. And supposedly there are hundreds of billions of galaxies. One of the things I don't get is why did the universe have to be so big and unfathomable and spectacular? If it isn't teeming with life, feels like it's essentially one spectacular wasteland. Or alternatively, perhaps we are in a simulation?
- harel 6y agoIf we assume we are in a simulation, surely it is simulating something 'known' (or familiar enough) like a universe with galaxies, stars, planets and life. And it is simulated by 'something'. So either way, it is unfathomable and spectacular. What is great in all of these views, is that everything goes really if you think about it, considering how little we know compared to the scale it.
- mcculley 6y agoWhy do you assume that the simulation resembles the environment in which it executes? One can imagine cellular automata engines of enormous scale in which creatures could evolve. The simulated system need have no resemblance to the enclosing enviroment. Our universe could be a mathematical side-effect of some computation running in the enclosing universe.
- outworlder 6y agoExactly! A common refutation of the simulation hypothesis is that the computer would have to be impossibly large. Not so. As long as the host universe has different physical laws. For instance, simulating Minecraft using Minecraft redstone logic itself would probably take an impossibly large "computer". Yet, we can do that easily, as we have nanoscale transistors. Similarly, add just one more dimension to the host universe and you could build amazing machines (imagine instead of a 3D circuit board, a 4D, with all the extra arrangements it could provide). The host universe could be even crazier than this, with a whole different set of physical laws. Unless we find a sandbox vulnerability, we'll probably never know.
- harel 6y agoIt could also be a complete opposite of the executing environment, which is actually used to demonstrate the viability of 'another way to run a universe'. But because someone THOUGHT of this universe to simulate it, it's a "known" environment. If I try to break it down like a programmer, perhaps all it is, is a few physics rules programmed in, then the big bang on the enter key to execute the binary (I bet it's written in Rust - it's all the hype now). We could be done with a full universal simulation within maybe 1 hour of run time, but for us that 1 hour is like a trillion years.
- mcculley 6y agoWhy do you assume someone thought of the simulated universe? As I said, it could be an accident, a side-effect of something else. Just as people inadvertently invent Turing machines when designing languages, our universe could be the side-effect of something built for an entirely different purpose.
- mcculley 6y agoThe time scale could also be the other way around: An hour in the simulated universe could take a trillion years to execute in the host environment.
- forgotpwd16 6y agoThe universe doesn't just have an incomprehensible size; it has also existed for so long that humanity's existence is a moment.
- asdfman123 6y agoIf the whole universe happened by a cosmic accident, there's no one else around to care that it's mostly devoid of life. It's still entirely possible that life is a huge anomaly, and it only seems normal to us because we're around to witness it. But random side question: is Mars considered "earth-like"? Or are these Earth-like planets even closer in composition and temperature to Earth?
- raiflip 6y agoAnother possibility is that the galaxy (and universe) is full of life, but the speed of light makes it impossible for life across the galaxy to interact.
- nickff 6y agoThere are many potential answers to the Fermi Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
- Reedx 6y agoMaybe it's a simulation using a procedural algorithm that's still figuring out how to generate the conditions for intelligent life. Or maybe the vastness of space and the physics that govern it (e.g., speed of light) ensures that life can never reach the end, or even see it. Kind of like how in Minecraft you can run in any direction and it'll just generate more land. Your run speed is no match for the Minecraft simulation. It's still ultimately an unsatisfying idea though, since the next question is: What's outside the simulation? i.e., Where did God come from?
- g-b-r 6y agoturtles
- outworlder 6y ago> Or alternatively, perhaps we are in a simulation? A relatively cheap one, considering that if this planet is the only one inhabited, the other star systems can be approximated and don't require full simulation. Consider that time slows down when the speed is increased. This would be a good thing to do to restrict the computational requirements. And there's growing evidence that everything is quantized. Given that we probably can't measure anything smaller than a Planck length, that's the simulation resolution. That's probably not what's going on (the simulation hypothesis could be the 'magnetism' of our era) but it is fun to think about.
- ithkuil 6y agoWould if be computationally cheaper to just simulate our brains (our just one brain. Yours!) to give us the illusion the universe is whatever it is (quantized or not) rather than simulating the actual universe?
- falcor84 6y agoWhat do you mean? Wouldn't you still need to simulate the world in pretty much the same way to be able to feed consistent inputs into the simulated brain?
- 6y ago
- g-b-r 6y ago> One of the things I don't get is why did the universe have to be so big and unfathomable and spectacular? If it isn't teeming with life, feels like it's essentially one spectacular wasteland That's probably a decent argument against the existence of a god
- quotha 6y agoMaybe cause something like earth is a 1-in-kagillion chance