|
Psuedoscience is good and fun and I will probably never stop thinking about this to waste time, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:28 |
|
|
What if the reason why people think full universe simulation is impossible is because the simulation we live in has a hard coded rule that prevents simulations within simulations and this is just how it manifests?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
kedo posted:What if the reason why people think full universe simulation is impossible is because the simulation we live in has a hard coded rule that prevents simulations within simulations and this is just how it manifests? Even VMWare supports nested virtualization. I refuse to believe VMWare developers are more competent than the universe because all other evidence suggests the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
A big part of my argument with this is the limits of observation. In the early days of astronomy, it was possible to mathematically prove the theory of geocentricity given the appropriate data--and was done multiple times to disprove those drat heretical heliocentrists. I believe the same case is true with full universe simulation, it is impossible given our current understanding and limits of observation .
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
As soon we get full universe simulation technology you can guarantee some will be performed to answer some big what-if questions based on events with historical significance. What if the nazi campaign was successful? What if JFK hadn't been shot? What if Trump had actually been elected? <---our simulation right now
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, we live in a simulation, and the most likely end of the world scenario is that Congress (the real one, not our simulated one) pulls God's research funding? I mean, I guess it's shameful that the taxpayers are getting overburdened so that we can exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:Why simulate a universe exactly like your own? Gym Leader Barack posted:What if the simulation was performed just to farm ideas? Like it runs to completion and spits out a comprehensive list of notable inventions, songs and concepts made by faux-earth, which can then be repackaged and sold to real-earth. Like, what if someone studied pro Go games and played games against itself for a long time to get better at Go? We have more or less simulated that in the development of AlphaGo. Similarly, simulating studying over 100,000 sentences for lip reading was done recently to great success in a limited sphere. What if we could simulate a lot of incremental improvements in antenna design to skip to a really good one? NASA was using evolved antennae a decade ago. You don't need to simulate a whole universe to get new songs when AIs can write them on their own: Here's a song written by an AI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
What if I want all the data, ever? Generated all at once, you know, like a full universe simulation
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:What if I want all the data, ever? dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda bs=4096 Too bad Cyber Monday has passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Data storage. To simulate the behavior of every single particle in the universe, first you'll need a database with initial states for every particle in the universe. This is true for classical computing, but what about quantum? I don't know a lot about quantum computing, but AFAIK qubits combined together can store an exponential increase in data with every qubit added. With our current understanding of quantum computing, does this make a universal simulation more possible in theory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
qhat posted:This is true for classical computing, but what about quantum? I don't know a lot about quantum computing, but AFAIK qubits combined together can store an exponential increase in data with every qubit added. With our current understanding of quantum computing, does this make a universal simulation more possible in theory? I don't know a lot about quantum computing either, but I know that this is wrong. (And it's pretty clear this wouldn't work anyway - you need to simulate all the quantum dynamics of the universe you're simulating!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
It's the pigeonhole principle, basically. You can't have guaranteed storage of every possible state of the entire universe with anything less than the entire universe itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
There is a *lot* of the universe that does gently caress all most of the time, it would be really easy to cull a lot of useless processing for anything not being directly observed (like a fps game not rendering the world behind you until you look that way). Why bother rendering a bathroom/inside the earth/entire galaxies if no-one is in there to see it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Finally an answer for the "If a tree falls in a forest" question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Gym Leader Barack posted:There is a *lot* of the universe that does gently caress all most of the time, it would be really easy to cull a lot of useless processing for anything not being directly observed (like a fps game not rendering the world behind you until you look that way). Why bother rendering a bathroom/inside the earth/entire galaxies if no-one is in there to see it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Gym Leader Barack posted:There is a *lot* of the universe that does gently caress all most of the time, it would be really easy to cull a lot of useless processing for anything not being directly observed (like a fps game not rendering the world behind you until you look that way). Why bother rendering a bathroom/inside the earth/entire galaxies if no-one is in there to see it? if you are trying to do a "full" simulation of the universe then you'd be cutting out unseen processes that have massive effects that are observed later on. Like no one is directly observing the constant process of global plate tectonics but they have had a huge effect on everything and a simulation that left that sort of thing out would be pretty inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:A big part of my argument with this is the limits of observation. In the early days of astronomy, it was possible to mathematically prove the theory of geocentricity given the appropriate data--and was done multiple times to disprove those drat heretical heliocentrists. I believe the same case is true with full universe simulation, it is impossible given our current understanding and limits of observation . It's super illogical to assume "because some things are possible literally anything must be possible". What you're doing is the same thing as arguing magic must exist (because since we made airplanes obviously literally everything must be possible, right?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's super illogical to assume "because some things are possible literally anything must be possible". What you're doing is the same thing as arguing magic must exist (because since we made airplanes obviously literally everything must be possible, right?). I mean, the technically logical position to hold is that anything can happen and is possible. That's purely because all our observation is just that, and all our extrapolation from it is simply inductive. But we tend to ignore that for convenience's sake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
What, like No Man's Sky?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
to accurately simulate a system of complexity N, you must do so within a system of complexity >N. Quantifying complexity is left as an exercise for the reader.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 06:11
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:to accurately simulate a system of complexity N, you must do so within a system of complexity >N. If P = NP I donate $1000 to SA  e: if its proven or whatever
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Uncertainty principle aside, even classical physics cannot be simulated with true accuracy, except in certain systems for certain periods of time. There is no way to record the exact position of a particle: Infinite-precision numbers would be required. Hell, even simulating a completely classical double pendulum is impossible. "Infinitesimally close initial conditions lead to arbitrarily large divergences as the system evolves." In other words, recording the initial position and velocity with a precision of a trillion digits might give a simulation accurate to one part in a billion a few seconds later, then one part in a million a few seconds after that, then to one part in a thousand, then it's really not all that accurate. (And a machine that deals with infinite precision/analog quantities isn't really a "computer" working with "data", is it? It would have to be some other physical system which behaves just like the original system but faster somehow.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:If P = NP I donate $1000 to SA P=NP; return (P==NP); 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Neither P=NP nor a working quantum computer would make this dumb idea viable fyi, they're very specific things not "your computer is magic now"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Jeza posted:I mean, the technically logical position to hold is that anything can happen and is possible. That's purely because all our observation is just that, and all our extrapolation from it is simply inductive. But we tend to ignore that for convenience's sake. Yeah, but I think that's more in the sense of "we can't say anything is impossible", right? Rather than "everything can definitely be done somehow."
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, but I think that's more in the sense of "we can't say anything is impossible", right? Rather than "everything can definitely be done somehow." Just so, it means that we can't say for sure that something is impossible. Our only weapon is subjective observation and we have no means of accessing the objective nature of the universe, so the logician's position is to withhold judgement on what is or isn't possible. They don't claim anything is possible because that would require knowledge that is inaccessible to us. It's like factual agnosticism. So in a way, you could say "anything is possible" in the informal sense, like we do for situations about which we have no understanding or foreknowledge. Basically the logical thing to say about everything is "I don't know and can't know for sure" which is pretty bleak and understandably science neatly steps over that little pebble of doubt on the justification that "hey, it seems to be working out alright so far."
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
The field of information theory was basically created to call this line of questioning stupid
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
The simulation would require an absurd amount of knowledge, and then you would have to program it all perfectly. One little error, one flipped sign, that could lead to vastly different outcomes. Designing said simulator would also be massively difficult, and the question of what we would gain would need to be answered. What is the output of this machine. You also have to assume that hardware faults and blips would create further issues. Even today, a lot of things we use require us to make assumptions. Take weather forecasting. There are numerous assumptions that are made in each system, and so they look at what the output is, and look for convergence. And they weigh different simulations at different times differently, so one model is less accurate with hurricanes. We can't even determine with accuracy the planets orbits really far into the future (uncertainty creeps in pretty far, but it creeps in). Basically, it would be impossible to build and design, and even if we did it, it would be too inaccurate to be valuable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
What if we are the inaccurate simulation of a superior universe? One where the speed of light is a billion times quicker and galaxies talk to each other all the time, aint no thang. Draw distance has been effectively reduced by slowing the speed of light, not enough to cause any interference with the solar system, but enough so that neighboring galaxies become entirely unreachable and don't need to be rendered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Gym Leader Barack posted:There is a *lot* of the universe that does gently caress all most of the time, it would be really easy to cull a lot of useless processing for anything not being directly observed (like a fps game not rendering the world behind you until you look that way). Why bother rendering a bathroom/inside the earth/entire galaxies if no-one is in there to see it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Gym Leader Barack posted:What if we are the inaccurate simulation of a superior universe? One where the speed of light is a billion times quicker and galaxies talk to each other all the time, aint no thang. Draw distance has been effectively reduced by slowing the speed of light, not enough to cause any interference with the solar system, but enough so that neighboring galaxies become entirely unreachable and don't need to be rendered. If you think about it, looking up into the night sky and seeing the stars is nothing else but your light receptors interacting with far away stars and even galaxies. It's the direct, unmediated interaction of your eyes and a loving star thousands of light years away. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Gym Leader Barack posted:What if we are the inaccurate simulation of a superior universe? One where the speed of light is a billion times quicker and galaxies talk to each other all the time, aint no thang. Draw distance has been effectively reduced by slowing the speed of light, not enough to cause any interference with the solar system, but enough so that neighboring galaxies become entirely unreachable and don't need to be rendered. that doesn't sound superior. this place is too crowded as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Gym Leader Barack posted:What if we are the inaccurate simulation of a superior universe? One where the speed of light is a billion times quicker and galaxies talk to each other all the time, aint no thang. Draw distance has been effectively reduced by slowing the speed of light, not enough to cause any interference with the solar system, but enough so that neighboring galaxies become entirely unreachable and don't need to be rendered. I imagine that if you just scaled everything down that a bunch of the way the universe functions would also break in various ways. I'm too lazy to think of exactly how, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't just slow everything down by an order of X and have everything still work, only slower. edit: That being said, there isn't really any reason why you couldn't argue "maybe people in some other universe are simulating our universe in a way completely unlike their own universe", though such an argument would just lead one to conclude there's an endless chain of simulated universes of increasing complexity (isn't this the basis of some logical argument that there's a .9999... chance our universe is simulated?). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
The argument is roughly that given sufficient technological advancement, we (or other species) will create full universe simulations (for some reason), and to reach that level of technology is also unlikely. Therefore to assume we are the original, base universe and we just haven't reached universe simulation levels of technological prowess yet is extremely presumptuous. and the likelihood is extreme that our universe is simply a simulation from another. Some smart people believe this, but some smart people believe very silly things too. The original premises are far too shaky to have any real faith in the supposed categorical outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Jeza posted:The argument is roughly that given sufficient technological advancement, we (or other species) will create full universe simulations (for some reason), and to reach that level of technology is also unlikely. Therefore to assume we are the original, base universe and we just haven't reached universe simulation levels of technological prowess yet is extremely presumptuous. and the likelihood is extreme that our universe is simply a simulation from another. The way I feel about logical arguments like that (that have really outlandish conclusions) is that the proper response to them is "there is probably something wrong with this logic that I haven't figured out yet" rather than "the conclusion of this logic is correct." If I had to guess, I feel like the problem with that logic is that it takes as an assumption the fact that full universe simulation will be possible with sufficient technological advancement in the first place. Though I guess the logic does seem to work if we somehow knew that to, in fact be possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Jeza posted:The argument is roughly that given sufficient technological advancement, we (or other species) will create full universe simulations (for some reason), and to reach that level of technology is also unlikely. Therefore to assume we are the original, base universe and we just haven't reached universe simulation levels of technological prowess yet is extremely presumptuous. and the likelihood is extreme that our universe is simply a simulation from another. What is the source of the "extreme likelihood" that a sufficiently advanced civilization would create a full universe simulation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:What is the source of the "extreme likelihood" that a sufficiently advanced civilization would create a full universe simulation? Just the standard technological singularity catch-all. I don't think it's likely at all, and I'm sceptical as to whether it's even plausible. But the idea is that we'd be so kneedeep in computing power that it would only take one person/AI to want to do it for any reason at all, even for no good reason, thus it is much more likely we live in one of those simulations than in the "real" universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Running a 1:1 simulation of the universe is a tremendous ethically quandary. You would be recreating a breathtakingly impossible-to-comprehend amount of unnecessary harm and suffering. Image today how many people suffer in food insecure poverty, and are ravaged by war and disease. How many throughout history and into the future? On other worlds? Think about how lovely yet real to experience it is for you (assuming you are in a simulation) then recreating that 1:1 would be a hard thing to swallow if you step back and consider those consequences. You would be bringing to life consciousness that will suffer and die in your simulation, and in horrifying ways. You would be absolutely remiss in undertaking such an experiment and an ethics review board should rightfully deny your attempt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
you blind fools.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:28 |
|
Goodpancakes posted:Running a 1:1 simulation of the universe is a tremendous ethically quandary. You would be recreating a breathtakingly impossible-to-comprehend amount of unnecessary harm and suffering. Image today how many people suffer in food insecure poverty, and are ravaged by war and disease. How many throughout history and into the future? On other worlds? Think about how lovely yet real to experience it is for you (assuming you are in a simulation) then recreating that 1:1 would be a hard thing to swallow if you step back and consider those consequences. You would be bringing to life consciousness that will suffer and die in your simulation, and in horrifying ways. You would be absolutely remiss in undertaking such an experiment and an ethics review board should rightfully deny your attempt. New SimCity looking good
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 15:55
|
|