7 ms·
Imagine if our real world is juste some github project
by dezmou 5y ago
Imagine if our real world is juste some github project
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoIt's more likely than you think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
- phkahler 5y agoNot really. If we're in a simulation that just begs the question - what is the "real" universe that the simulation is running in. It pushes the question of the nature of our universe up a level where we have zero visibility. No more satisfying that "where was god before he created the universe?" The mathematical universe sidesteps this problem. If there is a concise and complete model of the universe, that is sufficient for it to exist. A simulation might also be considered a mathematical model, and it would exist in the same way even if nothing ever runs the simulation. So I guess maybe it could be a simulation, but we mustn't ask what it runs on, but what is the program?
- sooheon 5y ago> It pushes the question of the nature of our universe up a level where we have zero visibility The universe does not owe you visibility into its origins, the lack of it does not make the hypothesis any less likely. > If there is a concise and complete model of the universe, that is sufficient for it to exist. Sounds like the ontological argument [1], one of the worst contortions of apologia ever imagined. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
- Matumio 5y agoIf the universe will never leak any information about its origins, then those origins cannot affect us in any way, ever. This doesn't make any such hypothesis less likely, but it makes them irrelevant to us.
- thomashop 5y agoIf we are in a simulation and this simulation obeys similar constraints to our computational models, we can test hypotheses on the basis of information theory. Or possibly find error-correction codes encoded in string theory as some quantum physicists have suggested.
- EMM_386 5y ago> The mathematical universe sidesteps this problem. If there is a concise and complete model of the universe, that is sufficient for it to exist. This then leads to how does math exist instead of nothing? Math is a concept, and if concepts exist then that is not "nothing". Many people confuse "nothing" with the vacuum of space and particles appearing out of nowhere. In this case, we have something (space, vacuums, and particles), not nothing.
- TchoBeer 5y agoWhat would it look like for math to not exist?
- lorepieri 5y agoDoes science fiction exists? Or Pokemon? In case your view is that they don't, you may argue similarly that math is a human made construct (which happen to work well to describe our universe, but it may be just survivorship bias as we use in physics only the math that works. For instance we discard imaginary solutions to classical motion equations). I do believe it is the right view, math is a man made "language" inspired by physics which is more fundamental.
- vokep 5y agoBecause nothing is precisely what does exist. But nothing implies something, so my working theory is that nothing's implied opposite something is itself the first thing, then some cellular automata like progression results from similar logical self-reference and down the line our physics (and the entirety of every logical permutation of information n-dimensionally) results from that. A similar conception I've heard is that its like something and nothing, at the beginning of time, made a bet whether there'd be something or nothing, but the act of making the bet was already something, rigging it in something's favor. Nothing thought that was bullshit and tried to call it so, and they've been battling it out ever since.
- tgv 5y agoThere’s no evidence we live in a simulation, and a whole lot to suggest we aren’t.
- zild3d 5y agoIs there any evidence suggesting we're not in a simulation?
- wyager 5y agoA lot of physics seems unnecessarily expensive to compute. Quantum mechanics suggest we either have nonlocality or exponential blowup, both of which cause simulation challenges. With just classical physics you don’t need to deal with that. On the other hand, there are a lot of things that make physics tractable to compute, such as the +++- metric tensor and other factors forbidding causality violations. A universe with closed timelike curves becomes very expensive to compute because you usually have to use implicit solvers that are slow and might not even converge, corresponding to various time travel paradoxes.
- LandR 5y agoIsn't this all assuming the simulation is running on a "computer" in a universe like ours. Couldn't the universe where the simulation runs be so entirely different to ours that computing all that stuff is just easy.
- p_j_w 5y agoEveryone saying it would be computationally expensive to simulate our universe is failing to put their mind outside of the box of our universe. Imagine for a moment that there's a universe which compares to our universe similarly to how our world compares to one inside of Conway's Game of life. Granted, this scenario doesn't provide us with anything we can take action on, but the idea that we're in a simulation at all doesn't, either.
- 5y ago
- cwkoss 5y agoIt is impossible to know the likelihood as we have no other points of comparison.
- lorepieri 5y agoIt is actually possible :) (with some assumption on the distribution of the simulations) Complex sims are less likely, so the likelihood of increasing optional complexity of our sim should be slim, for instance interstellar travel. It's still unsolved how much unlikely, but if you have a large enough increase in complexity (say interstellar travel over billions of light years) you will hit sims which are unlikely enough. (https://osf.io/ca8se https://osf.io/ca8se, I'm the author)