|
Good point! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any simulation of an infinite universe the simulation would run into finite limits since the simulation, being smaller than the real universe, would have limits. Fortunately, our universe has no such number of smallest resolution ... so we know that we are not in a simulation ... oh.
|
|
|
|
|
But since the "real' universe is infinite, a simulation could be so big we couldn't tell the difference between really, really, really big and infinite.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the simulation is smart than you. it would perceive what you are doing and automatically increase the resolution only for you.
|
|
|
|
|
So post-human automatically means universal-scale? Any species that evolves to a universal scale could be able to predict what such a universe could be without having to develop one. Maybe they could create their own pocket universe instead. Since it's all conjecture, I conjecture that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: could be able to predict what such a universe could be without having to develop one
Not so sure about that: emergent properties can be extremely unobvious.
Take the game of Life for example - the rules are extremely simple and fully known.
Every cell interacts with its eight neighbours, which are the cells that are horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent. At each step in time, the following transitions occur:
Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.
Despite the rules being fully known, the existence of Gliders, Destroyers and Glider Guns are not obvious unless they actual game is run - these are emergent properties of a system.
Life is a simple game, with simple rules. Assuming that the universe run of rules at least as complicated as the ones we currently believe it does (or even if there are an order or two of magnitude less complex) the emergent properties of such a system are going to be even less obvious. Dinosaurs for example, or us, or quasars.
Sometimes, you do have to run the code just to see what happens!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. However, the OP was talking about evolving to universal-scale and I was alluding to the fact that there can always be something in between. However, with the game of life and the conditions you've stated, every instance that starts with the same initial conditions will play out the same way. This is because there is no randomness created by time sequences or anything under the aforementioned conditions. Not to mention that all game of life examples are run based on a finite grid. Is the universe finite or not? Same thing with the game of chess. You may have a near-infinite number of combinations, but near-infinite is actually nowhere close to infinite. Real life is infinitely more complicated than that.
However, if some beings evolved to where they are capable of creating a universal-sized matrix, I would like to believe that they have better predictive capabilities than we do and are able to predict things at the quantum level (assuming they have super giant sized brains obviously).
OriginalGriff wrote: Sometimes, you do have to run the code just to see what happens!
I agree! However, multiple universes could be multithreads of the same code being run with different initial or random conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
And that's the thing with the "halting problem". The Universe is a computer simulation. And the only way to know is to run the code.
Mathematics can't model all possible programs, just ask a mathematician to come with an equation to fully model an Operating System, and then you will see why they cant come with the Unified Theory.
But they invented the set theory, and then the Turing machine, but they disregard it. Actually they invented a new field, they just cant understand it. But some like Wolfram has understood what was created. Computing > Mathematics.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: I don't know about y'all but I feel kinda simulated?
In some ways, I wouldn't mind that, because that would rather change the concepts of things like God, death, re-incarnation, and so forth. And maybe those psychics are actually somehow connecting with "the real world." Regardless of which it is, I still am left with the uncomfortable feeling that someone forgot to turn off the experiment before they went home for the night. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Regardless of which it is, I still am left with the uncomfortable feeling that someone forgot to turn off the experiment before they went home for the night.
Lights are on but nobodies home?
Yeah it does kinda feel that way sometimes. 
|
|
|
|
|
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream? It only shows the limit of the imagination of a certain era; computers, running on the same platform?
Using the same probabilities, there's a larger chance that we're a non-interesting (but still required) part of that computer. Or some oversized rodents' nightmare.
It will not be a practical problem for years to come.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Brings this[^] Alan Parson song to mind!
|
|
|
|
|
You never read The Hitchhiker's guide?
We merely exist to calculate the ultimate question dude. 
|
|
|
|
|
We're running from a 1,44MB floppy diskette.
It's an OO world.
public class Sander : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: but I feel kinda simulated
The Borg say you will be assimilated, does that make you stimulated?
I feel so proud, this idea comes out of heads 15 miles from where I live. Of course if this is all a simulation, so everyone reading the article will see the idea came from their neck of the woods.
I just wish the guy tweaking my simulation loop didn't make my computer to at times, seem to run as slow as molasses.
Hmmm, if I'm a simulation, then there is a God who knows me inside and out. Of course I'm frustrated that they didn't code me to know me that well too.
Reminds me of times at WSU, I was building a computer simulation to model chemical reactions. I blew it, I should have dynamically cut down the time segment to preserve the atomic count and not completely throw out the ratio of the chemical compounds' atomic totals. Of course, then the time segment would approach 0 and I'd never get to the end of the test's elapsed time.
|
|
|
|
|
Your article points to Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation[^]
which links to: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation[^]
Which says "...the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored."
Cubic is a good word for mapping space, but not time too. I'd prefer Helix[^] which describes a curved space. Gravity is involved in time and it also curves space so it kind of seems related.
Interesting that the designers would allow their designs prove they aren't real.
It's kind of disturbing to think you might be a model on someone's computer, the billions of people, either all models or a delusion in one model's world. Worse yet, all the people are models and don't exist either. Computers are an illusion in this model too.
At least in the Matrix, the people really existed, just held captive in a coma, to be fed their reality in dreams.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Latin, actually. The Telegraph had a wee quiz about Latin and I was happy to get 75%. The last time I did Latin was at school; many, many lunae ago.
Try it for yourself: Take the test: how well do you know your Latin?[^]
Just a bit of Thursday fun.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Amazingly, I got 70%.
This would have been even more amazing to my Latin Master, who would have been surprised if I got up to 7% at my grammar school...
|
|
|
|
|
95%! I got alias wrong ... that can count as the one thing I learnt today (screw you work).
I wouldn't have got alibi without the multiple choice, either.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, Alias was the only wrong one.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Only 85%, but considering it's been 42 years since I last had a Latin class, that's acceptable. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Never studied Latin. But I got 40%
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians.
Help end the violence EAT BACON
|
|
|
|
|
Well I never studied Latin, and I got 80%! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
