6 ms·

We could be living in a multi-verse world. That's partly what the LHC experiments are trying to discern. If there are infinitely many universes then I think it

by logn 12y ago

We could be living in a multi-verse world. That's partly what the LHC experiments are trying to discern. If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less likely we're in a simulation even if we are able to create our own simulation.

throwaway420 12y ago
> If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less likely we're in a simulation I'm not sure how this logically follows...why would this make it less likely?
- logn 12y ago
  Say there are 100 universes. Suppose each universe has 1 in 100 chance of making simulations and if they do they make 100. Your chances then of living in a simulation are ~50%. It's much different than assuming a single universe in which case the advent of simulations almost assures that you're living in one (assuming the author's line of reasoning). Edit: in summary the pace at which new universes arise could rival or exceed the pace at which simulations could be created.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - frozenport 12y ago
    Yes, but the cardinality of the multiverse is hard to grasp. There are uncountably infinite universes, just as there are uncountably many points in time. Every breath streams endless bifurcation.
    - drdeca 12y ago
      maybe measures would be more applicable than cardinalities? If there are $\mathfrak{c}$ universes, it can still be meaningful I think to say that one in ten of them contain a simulation (though, $\mathfrak{c}$ might not be the right cardinality? Maybe $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ would be closer? I'm not sure.) I suppose there is also the question as to whether to consider two identical simulations in two different universes to be the same simulation or not, and how to take that into account when considering the chances that one is in a simulation or not.
BuckRogers 12y ago
Would someone care to explain -why- you're downvoting the parent, instead of just downvoting? The idea that there could be more universes than there are universes creating simulations makes sense. I'm genuinely curious and we must have some silent geniuses downvoting that comment. Instead of downvoting him, please, do go on.

by logn 12y ago

throwaway420 12y ago

> If there are infinitely many universes then I think it would make it less likely we're in a simulation I'm not sure how this logically follows...why would this make it less likely?

logn 12y ago
Say there are 100 universes. Suppose each universe has 1 in 100 chance of making simulations and if they do they make 100. Your chances then of living in a simulation are ~50%. It's much different than assuming a single universe in which case the advent of simulations almost assures that you're living in one (assuming the author's line of reasoning). Edit: in summary the pace at which new universes arise could rival or exceed the pace at which simulations could be created.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- frozenport 12y ago
  Yes, but the cardinality of the multiverse is hard to grasp. There are uncountably infinite universes, just as there are uncountably many points in time. Every breath streams endless bifurcation.
  - drdeca 12y ago
    maybe measures would be more applicable than cardinalities? If there are $\mathfrak{c}$ universes, it can still be meaningful I think to say that one in ten of them contain a simulation (though, $\mathfrak{c}$ might not be the right cardinality? Maybe $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ would be closer? I'm not sure.) I suppose there is also the question as to whether to consider two identical simulations in two different universes to be the same simulation or not, and how to take that into account when considering the chances that one is in a simulation or not.

BuckRogers 12y ago

Would someone care to explain -why- you're downvoting the parent, instead of just downvoting? The idea that there could be more universes than there are universes creating simulations makes sense. I'm genuinely curious and we must have some silent geniuses downvoting that comment. Instead of downvoting him, please, do go on.