5 ms·
I believe that it is a moot question. Let me explain what I mean. Some people say that Ben Franklin messed up when he named positive and negative charge -- tha
by mcherm 15y ago
I believe that it is a moot question.
Let me explain what I mean. Some people say that Ben Franklin messed up when he named positive and negative charge -- that the charge which is on the electron should have been called "+" instead of "-". Imagine legions of physicists arguing back and forth over this issue, some vigorously defending "=" and others advocating for "-". It would all be wasted breath: they are just NAMES, and it doesn't MATTER which name you use. What matters is building a transistor, which depends on understanding that it's electrons that carry the charge, not on what the charge is called.
Similarly, any time that two MATHEMATICALLY equivalent theories both explain the facts, I personally don't care which one is true... I don't want to spend time debating it, and honestly I don't believe that one is more "true" than the other. Is classical mechanics driven by Newton's laws or by the Lagrangian "action is zero"? Both! Either one implies the other.
And this is how I view the question of whether the universe is a simulation. Finding out the laws of our universe seems interesting. Finding out whether those laws are implemented by a universe or a computer simulation of a universe... there is no meaningful difference so I don't care.
- Suncho 15y agoWho here believes that computer simulations are universes?
- lotharbot 15y agoOne definition of "universe" is everything that exists. Another definition says a "universe" is everything that exists and is connected (so there can be several universes that don't interact with each other.) If I create a fantasy world in my head, the people and places exist in my head; if I create a fantasy world in my computer, the people and places exist on my computer. Thus, at least in some sense, they exist. In a way, everything within the simulation makes up a universe; in another way, it's more like a sub-universe that has internal interactions as well as external interactions with the simulation hardware. From the perspective of a simulated character who doesn't know about the computer or my brain, they live in their own universe. (P.S. are you the Suncho from the Descent world? If so, it's good to see you again.)
- Suncho 15y agoYes. One definition of "everything that exists" is "everything that exists and is connected." We can think of the universe as a directed graph and "everything that exists" as nodes that are reachable from where we're standing. From within a sub-universe, "everything that exists" is a subset of "everything that exists" for someone standing in a containing universe. (P.S. Yes. Hi Lothar. Small world.)
- diminish 15y agoI want to believe in universe is a computer simulation, because that way all because less serious. What disturbs me is that, in history, people usually tried to explain the existence by using the most sophisticated machinery available. and today it is a computer.....are we making a mistake?
- Suncho 15y agoIf your goal is to understand the universe around you, wanting to believe something can be a mistake. Similarly, trying to explain the cause of existence can also be a mistake. Use the simplest explanation that fits your observations. I find it helpful to start from solipsism and build from there.
- alperakgun 15y agoso, the universe is a room.
- Malic 15y agoIs that a Sapphire and Steel reference?
- alperakgun 15y agowas not, but I now learned about Sapphire and Steel, thanks to your comment.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- MarkPNeyer 15y agoif we are in a simulation, we could possibly hack our way out of it. i've thought for a while now that the "speed of light" limit is a result of a distributed consesnus algorithm taking a bit of time to convergd. also, quantum mechanical noiss is leakage current flipping bits in memory.
- tiptap 15y ago"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Juha 15y ago"if we are in a simulation, we could possibly hack our way out of it." Interesting, software engineers know there are no programs without bugs. Some weirdest things in physics like quantum entanglement may just be bugs in the simulation :)
- trentlott 15y agoThey act more like quick fixes used to get it running on schedule
- bpowah 15y agoIt is a moot question. A simulation is just a name of a thing that is a part of the universe. The current definition covers simple things like thoughts or sentences and some simulations (ex: the Bay Model) are not really distinguishable from the real world. The term simulation may be used to help us think differently about hard-to-get information or help conceptualize some impedance to information but the definition of the term would have to be generalized greatly to apply. In other words, any "discovered" universe-as-simulation (or more more to the point the discovery of the simulation's "operator") would look very unlike any conventional definition of the term "simulation" and would probably just look like "more universe".
- dsowers 15y agoI don't think it's a moot question, in the sense that forcing yourself to think about some of these intangible things is a good exercise in philosophical thought. But I see your point. Probably not wise to spend too much time on a question like this.
- rsanchez1 15y agoYou should care. Whichever one provides deeper insight leading to greater understanding should take precedence. The fundamental difference between knowing that electrons do the moving and knowing whether the universe is a simulation or a universe is that there haven't been testable predictions (yet) using the simulation hypothesis. That is why it is a moot question (so far).