Is this bullshit or not? I lack the competence to tell. Is this considered refuted?
http://www.theuniversesolved.com/evidence.htm
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
It's not disprovable in any case, just a modern version of Descartes' demon they're using to sell books to you.
Anyway, I would like to point out that the "simulation argument" doesn't really stack with evidence that physical properties are quantized, etc. in terms of credibility. Not in the way you might think it does at least. I mean, are they saying these artifacts of the simulation are present in the real-real world or not? If they are, then all it indicates is that reality is simulable. If they're not there then our world has already deviated in major ways from one of these ancestor simulations (the existence of the simulation hypothesis itself being a prime example.)
Another thing to ask yourself: Would the knowledge that you are living in a simulation, with no way to know the kind of simulation it was, carry any moral weight? Would you do anything differently? And if so, why?
>>7668282
>Would the knowledge that you are living in a simulation, with no way to know the kind of simulation it was, carry any moral weight? Would you do anything differently?
No, I would not, because the "simulation" would still be all the "reality" we will ever know. It is practically indisguishable from reality.
Subject is still interesting tho
>>7668282
I would look for a way to threaten the stability of the simulation so that I could get in contact with the runners of the simulation and try and force them to give me a robot body in their world.
Nah, just kidding, I'd tug at the stability of the universe if the opportunity arose even if I didn't think I was in a simulation.
if this simulation is a breeding farm and you get uploaded to higher level if you meet particular conditions, does it change anything?
>>7668282
It actually stacks well with quantization of quantities. You always have to use discrete shit when creating a program.
>>7669010
The point was that the idea of us being in one of these "ancestor" type simulations is questionable if you also think that the root world would not also have those same observable quantizations.
>>7668217
The only way to find out is to create a singularity which the simulator cannot process.
> there is a machine that simulates every single atom, everysingle electron, every single quark, every single muon and their constant interaction with each other with a range of the universe at 1/9999999999999999999999999999 second simulation rate.
Yeah, no.
>>7668819
That's actually a neat idea
>>7669170
That's not how physics works. The number of particles in the universe is not well defined. In quantum field theory, this might be because the state is not an eigenstate of the particle number operator. There are situations where an infinite number of particles are emitted, such as bremsstrahlung. In gravity, the number of particles in a black hole is not well defined, because an infalling can lose all mc^2 of its energy as radiation if it falls in slowly enough. In quantum gravity, the number of particles you see can actually depend on your acceleration - in other words, different observers see different number of particles.
My main point, though, is that it is conjectured that in quantum gravity, the physics inside a region is determined by another theory that lives on the boundary of that region i.e one dimension lower. This allows one to compute a whole load of physics that should, on the face of it, take up a lot of information using a much more restricted set of variables. This is called holography. One interesting effect of this is that if you fill a space with objects, then smash those objects into smaller things and put them back, and repeat this over and over, you'll eventually find that you can't fit all of your objects in the region - you can only cover the surface area of it. That is because entropy of space goes like the surface area, not the volume, and breaking the big things up into smaller things increases the entropy (a fine dust has more macroscopically equivalent microstates than big bricks).
Using that sort of idea, it is entirely possible that another universe could be simulating ours - especially if that universe has different laws of physics to our own. Holography shows that one type of physics can encode - or simulate - another, and that a theory that seemingly requires a large amount of information (bulk universe with gravity) can be equivalent to a low information theory (theory on the boundary).
>>7669209
that doesn't help your theory at all. it actually complicates it a hell of a lot more for it to be a simulation.
>>7668217
Is REAL. Wake up!. JHON. WAKE UP!
>>7669170
You don't have to run a sim in realtime. While you've read this eons have passed in the real world. Thanks for wasting our clock cycles.
>>7669209
I don't pretend to understand everything you said but I also believe that holography could make simulations like this work
