4 ms·
I've always been interested by this sort of stuff (as I'm sure several people are -- especially the HN audience). It always brings up a bunch of interesting que
by darxius 13y ago
I've always been interested by this sort of stuff (as I'm sure several people are -- especially the HN audience). It always brings up a bunch of interesting questions:
- If we're self aware of the simulation, would we be able (or ever want to) reverse engineer the fabric of which makes up our sim?
- Would there be infinite simulations? How far _up_ does the rabbit hole go?
- Another idea, and this is reaching, would be to consider the motivation behind running simulations like these. Are the "controllers" running simulations to try and find solutions to problems they are facing? Of course, this is the stuff right out of Scifi movies.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y agoThe problem with this theory (the universe is a simulation) is that it's a tautology. You cannot prove or disprove it, and for practical reasons it changes nothing if you assert it's true. What is really being researched is whether the universe is computable, because that's something you can prove.
- darxius 13y agoIf they can prove the universe is computable and that we would (given the resources) create a simulation of our own, wouldn't that lend credence to the idea that we would be in a simulation as well? I see what you mean though, it would be impossible (with our current understanding of ... everything) to actually determine is we're in a sim or not.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y agoThe point is, to determine whether "this" universe is a simulation or not, you would need to look after a special characteristic that differentiates it from a "parent" universe. If you prove the universe is computable, that still doesn't give you any answer whether it's a simulation or not. As it stands, the theory is a tautology, because that's just proving the universe is something that it is.