4 ms·
Sounds like simulation theory is closer and closer to being proven.
by aurareturn 3y ago
Sounds like simulation theory is closer and closer to being proven.
- littlestymaar 3y agoOur ability to build somewhat convincing simulations of thing has never been a proof of living in a simulation…
- empath-nirvana 3y agoi mean everyone's mind builds a convincing internal simulation of reality and it's so good that most people think they're directly experiencing reality.
- grugagag 3y agoSo what happens to someone suffering a psychotic episode, their reality gets distorted? But what reality though if it’s all an internal simulation? I think there’s partly an internal simulation to some aspect of reality but there’s a lot more to it.
- Vecr 3y agoThe world model is not the world. It's the old map and territory thing.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoBuddhist insight meditation actually proves that’s not true, fwiw.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoExcept there is always an original at the root. There’s no way to prove that’s not us.
- number_man 3y agoThe root world can spawn many simulations and simulations can be spawned within simulations. It becomes far more likely that we exist in a simulated world than in the root world.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoThe only thing about the branching simulations is they are likely simplified approximations. There’s no reason it doesn’t nest and that the approximations can observe their approximations of the prior level is strictly more complex than can be observed in the simulation. That should be fundamentally impossible meaning any branch can’t know if they’re the root or the branch, only that they create a branch.
- data-ottawa 3y agoThis argument always bothers me. The probability of being in any simulation is conditional on the one above, which necessarily decreases exponentially. Any simulation running an equivalent simulation will do so much slower, so you get a geometric series of degrading probabilities. The rate of decay will be massive, imagine how long and how much resources it would take us to simulate our universe, even in a hand waved AI+lazy compute way that also spawns subconsciousnesses. The inverse of that is the sequences ratio. So even in theory, the probability of you being in any of the simulated universes is P(we can simulate a universe) / (1-1/time to simulate) - prob we’re in the top universe. Thinking this probability is overwhelming because of the nesting effect is false.
- namaria 3y agoThat's not a good argument, because we have no way of knowing what is the ration between our time and that of the universe where our simulation runs. Even if it takes hours to generate one second of our universe, we only experience our own time. Besides, time is not absolute, and having it run slower near massive objects or when objects accelerate would be a neat trick to save on compute power needed to simulate a universe.