4 ms·

Brian Greene does a very good job of explaining the logic in this conversation with Robert Krulwich: https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91859 https://www.wny

Brian Greene does a very good job of explaining the logic in this conversation with Robert Krulwich: https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91859 https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91859 . If you have a spare 50 minutes, it's really really worth your time to listen. In sum, the argument goes like this: if there is more than one universe, then there will be some universes that are larger than ours, some that are smaller, some that are younger and some that are much, much older. If we, in our universe, have evolved intelligence sufficient to construct machines to simulate simple mammalian brains, then it is reasonable to assume that beings in a much larger, much older universe would have computational power far in excess of ours. So much so, that not only would they be able to simulate entire smaller, younger universes, but those simulations may themselves have the ability to simulate even smaller, younger universes. Turtles all the way down, so to speak. So even if the very biggest, oldest universes form the long tail of all possible universes, the fact that they could simulate universes that simulate universes that simulate universes means that, all else being equal, the probability that our universe is real is much less than the probability that we are, in fact, in a simulation.

powertower 13y ago
To simulate a universe you'd need to be able to solve, or at least approximate with great accuracy, the n-body problem. And we can't even do that with n >= 3 (without restrictions). To simulate a small universe you're talking about one hell of a large "n". Some physics are fundamentally not workable with logic and processing power due to exponential growth requirements for each additional n (and it makes no difference how large or advanced that other universe is)... Those same physics require something much more fundamental, the fabric of space-time itself with some energy/motion introduced into it. Hence the only way to "simulate" a universe is to create one... But then it's not a simulation at all.
almosnow 13y ago
"... construct machines to simulate simple mammalian brains", you fell for it man, marketing does marvels what we are capable of doing is just building a machine with the same number of components (i.e. transistors if you want) as some simple mammalian brains (i.e. neurons), then the guys at wired or discovery channel do their part and tell that "that's an artificial brain"

powertower 13y ago

To simulate a universe you'd need to be able to solve, or at least approximate with great accuracy, the n-body problem. And we can't even do that with n >= 3 (without restrictions). To simulate a small universe you're talking about one hell of a large "n". Some physics are fundamentally not workable with logic and processing power due to exponential growth requirements for each additional n (and it makes no difference how large or advanced that other universe is)... Those same physics require something much more fundamental, the fabric of space-time itself with some energy/motion introduced into it. Hence the only way to "simulate" a universe is to create one... But then it's not a simulation at all.

almosnow 13y ago

"... construct machines to simulate simple mammalian brains", you fell for it man, marketing does marvels what we are capable of doing is just building a machine with the same number of components (i.e. transistors if you want) as some simple mammalian brains (i.e. neurons), then the guys at wired or discovery channel do their part and tell that "that's an artificial brain"