You want to write your weird sci-fi novel, go nuts, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Bullshit like this belongs on the Fox News 'science' column, not Slashdot.
It's not bullshit. The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet. Given unlimited computer power. If so then many intelligent beings may be doing this. So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance. Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation. Why are you conscience or a sentient being? Thru programming or natural selection? We don't know, but it is not bullshit.
If you could harness the power of a star, then it's basically unlimited.
If this world is a simulation, maybe the world outside of a simulation has unlimited energy.
It also depends on the type of simulation. Maybe the simulation is just for you, how you react to things. It would take very little power in comparison to simulate only the things you're currently seeing.
Keep in mind, if we are in a simulation, our idea of what's possible might be tightly constrained by the limits of the simulation rather than the real world it's running in (which could be several layers of simulation deep for all we know.
There is no such thing as unlimited power, so no, it's bs.
What does that even mean? If this is a simulation then there actually could be unlimited power, and that we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The problem with this whole simulation idea is the same as it's ever been. Sure, there's circumstantial evidence that lends it credence, like the way things behave differently at very high or low energy states, and how observation seems to affect outcomes — that looks a lot like different physics models are being used to model different conditions only as needed to preserve CPU time. But that's not the only explanation, and until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is. And even THEN there might be some other explanation. But until we learn to break the simulation, suggesting that it might be one is pure mental masturbation. Without testable predictions there's no science, only thought experiments.
until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is
And why the hell would a super-intelligence capable of creating this simulation be sufficiently incompetant that we glorified monkeys could find such "evidence"?
A sheet of paper is an ink-lined plane. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"
This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not bullshit.
The question is, is it possible to simulate the universe from the point of view of a single planet. Given unlimited computer power. If so then many intelligent beings may be doing this. So the true reality may be a 1 in 1 billion chance.
Therefore, the odds are we really are in a simulation.
Why are you conscience or a sentient being? Thru programming or natural selection?
We don't know, but it is not bullshit.
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Substitute very large amount for unlimited.
Keep in mind, if we are in a simulation, our idea of what's possible might be tightly constrained by the limits of the simulation rather than the real world it's running in (which could be several layers of simulation deep for all we know.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in our universe. How do you know what the 'outer' universe is like, what laws of physics it has?
Re: This doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as unlimited power, so no, it's bs.
What does that even mean? If this is a simulation then there actually could be unlimited power, and that we haven't discovered it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The problem with this whole simulation idea is the same as it's ever been. Sure, there's circumstantial evidence that lends it credence, like the way things behave differently at very high or low energy states, and how observation seems to affect outcomes — that looks a lot like different physics models are being used to model different conditions only as needed to preserve CPU time. But that's not the only explanation, and until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is. And even THEN there might be some other explanation. But until we learn to break the simulation, suggesting that it might be one is pure mental masturbation. Without testable predictions there's no science, only thought experiments.
Re: (Score:2)
until we find some conditions where the simulation breaks down we won't have any real evidence that's what it is
And why the hell would a super-intelligence capable of
creating this simulation be sufficiently incompetant that
we glorified monkeys could find such "evidence"?