Man are you going to hate it when people talk about the evolution of things like music, art, fashion, and sports.
Man are you going to hate it when people talk about the evolution of things like music, art, fashion, and sports.That article uses the word 'evolving' just once - and uses no other form of the word. I think it's just laziness. Or, as someone else pointed out, it has become a colloquial term. Anyway, it bugs me because evolution has a very precise scientific meaning. People wind up saying things like they have evolved into a better person; uh, no, you *learned* how to be a better person. Anyway - get off my lawn
Far, far higher than that. Probabilistically, near 100%.Hey there's only a 50% chance we're a simulation (which i hope we are).
Oh, come on, go all in, say 100%. There's not a shred of evidence for a simulation nor any plausible manner of testing the proposal so if you're going to assert it, own it, proudly.Far, far higher than that. Probabilistically, near 100%.
Irregardless, misuse of language is literally killing me, no cap.That article uses the word 'evolving' just once - and uses no other form of the word. I think it's just laziness. Or, as someone else pointed out, it has become a colloquial term. Anyway, it bugs me because evolution has a very precise scientific meaning. People wind up saying things like they have evolved into a better person; uh, no, you *learned* how to be a better person. Anyway - get off my lawn
I'm no sort of expert on it, but it seems to me dark matter is a little bit like the hypothesized mystery planet that was once thought to explain the anomalous orbit of mercury*.
Ultimately it turned out, of course, that the odd behavior of Mercury was due to the differences between Einsteinian dynamics and the Newtonian model. And the issue existed because the Newtonian view didn't quite match reality, rather than because there was an extra, unseen, planet between the Sun and Mercury.
Interesting that at the other end of the Solar System it worked out differently - the odd behaviour of Uranus was because there _was_ another physical body out there, i.e. Neptune. So seems that sometimes there really is another entity we haven't seen, and sometimes it's that the theory is wrong.
Likewise, perhaps Dark Matter actually exists, or perhaps it's an artifact of incomplete theories about gravity?
I don't see that "God" really fits into this either way.
* I gather it was provisionally called "Vulcan"
Vulcan (hypothetical planet) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Logically speaking, if it's possible to produce a simulation (which by all accounts it is, we make rudimentary ones now), it's possible to create more than one of them. If this is possible, it's possible to create simulations inside of them, and intelligent life being simulated (or at least some percentage of them) would invariably create their own, which leads to something of a crisis: the top simulation needs to supply more and more power to maintain the waterfall of simulations below them. Inevitably, the power requirements become such that the capacity of simulations becomes necessarily limited, which would explain some of the oddities we observe in our universe. At any rate, the odds of us being the 'top level' universe in a reality where simulations can exist is statistically unlikely. Like highlander, there can be only one; ergo, we statistically are likely in a simulation.Oh, come on, go all in, say 100%. There's not a shred of evidence for a simulation nor any plausible manner of testing the proposal so if you're going to assert it, own it, proudly.
Oh, come on, go all in, say 100%. There's not a shred of evidence for a simulation nor any plausible manner of testing the proposal so if you're going to assert it, own it, proudly.
Or there are no simulations at all. Since there is no way to test the proposal, it remains outside the realm of science.Logically speaking, if it's possible to produce a simulation (which by all accounts it is, we make rudimentary ones now), it's possible to create more than one of them. If this is possible, it's possible to create simulations inside of them, and intelligent life being simulated (or at least some percentage of them) would invariably create their own, which leads to something of a crisis: the top simulation needs to supply more and more power to maintain the waterfall of simulations below them. Inevitably, the power requirements become such that the capacity of simulations becomes necessarily limited, which would explain some of the oddities we observe in our universe. At any rate, the odds of us being the 'top level' universe in a reality where simulations can exist is statistically unlikely. Like highlander, there can be only one; ergo, we statistically are likely in a simulation.
I was watching a video from Niel de Grasse Tyson on this, and the odds apparently become closer to 50-50.Logically speaking, if it's possible to produce a simulation (which by all accounts it is, we make rudimentary ones now), it's possible to create more than one of them. If this is possible, it's possible to create simulations inside of them, and intelligent life being simulated (or at least some percentage of them) would invariably create their own, which leads to something of a crisis: the top simulation needs to supply more and more power to maintain the waterfall of simulations below them. Inevitably, the power requirements become such that the capacity of simulations becomes necessarily limited, which would explain some of the oddities we observe in our universe. At any rate, the odds of us being the 'top level' universe in a reality where simulations can exist is statistically unlikely. Like highlander, there can be only one; ergo, we statistically are likely in a simulation.
There's ways to test the bounds of our universe, and reasonably affirm that we are or are not in one.Or there are no simulations at all. Since there is no way to test the proposal, it remains outside the realm of science.
The usual understanding is that each subsequent universe can simulate another, until you start hitting processing or energy boundaries from above. One way to 'prove' we are in one (and at the bottom of the heap) is if we find there's continually something preventing us from simulating a 1:1 copy of our own universe. If we can't, it's probably because we're rate-limited from above us.I was watching a video from Niel de Grasse Tyson on this, and the odds apparently become closer to 50-50.
The reason being, all those other simulated universes have, themselves, achieved the ability to simulate other universes.
We're not there. Yet. So either, we are part of a simulation where we have not achieved the ability to simulate our own universes yet, or we're actually real. But that lone fact eliminates all the other simulations that have gone on to simulate other universes.
I suppose the counterargument to that could be "why limit each universe/simulation to just one simulation "generation" when there could be multiple?". The only answer I can think of is that it takes so much energy to do so, that it's only practical or possible to simulate 1 universe.
Or there’s not enough matter and energy in this real universe to create a computing device that can simulate a copy of the universe. You have to keep track of something like 10^100 particles and all of their interactions. Maybe the RAM chip alone needs more particles than that to store that many bits.There's ways to test the bounds of our universe, and reasonably affirm that we are or are not in one.
The usual understanding is that each subsequent universe can simulate another, until you start hitting processing or energy boundaries from above. One way to 'prove' we are in one (and at the bottom of the heap) is if we find there's continually something preventing us from simulating a 1:1 copy of our own universe. If we can't, it's probably because we're rate-limited from above us.
Maybe, or maybe there's already been shortcuts created to avoid simulating the entirety of that universe (which may be much, much larger), and that's why we can't marry classical physics with quantum or gravity (quantum is only rendered when observing it, otherwise approximations are utilized, same for gravity over large scales).Or there’s not enough matter and energy in this real universe to create a computing device that can simulate a copy of the universe. You have to keep track of something like 10^100 particles and all of their interactions. Maybe the RAM chip alone needs more particles than that to store that many bits.
If we are in a sim their is a deity and it isn't a nice one.Our universe is a simulation and dark matter is the gap resulting from a coded approximation for galactic rotations we weren't ever supposed to be able to calculate.
not necessarily deliberate.But what determines which die and which become successful? The deliberate choices of humans. It's a sort of evolution but it's selective breeding rather than natural selection. And a selective breeding that is driven by political factors.
Or just indifferent, in all likelihood any simulations created are done so by AI, no reason to hand jam any more than the first couple.If we are in a sim their is a deity and it isn't a nice one.
indifferent to the outcome of sapient life is not very nice.Or just indifferent, in all likelihood any simulations created are done so by AI, no reason to hand jam any more than the first couple.
How?There's ways to test the bounds of our universe, and reasonably affirm that we are or are not in one.
Well, consider a near-distant future where capitalism still exists, and we've developed a way to reasonably create simulations that can generate art for us (presumably for someone to make money off of). Think dwarf fortress' spontaneous and emergent art combined with stable diffusion, or something. Would anyone other than activists care about the lives of the 'npcs' generating the art, regardless of how sentient they were? Would they care if they numbered in the quintillions, across millions of simulations, that were spun up and spun down a thousand times a day? Most humans barely care about the child labor actually used today to make their shoes and shit. Simulated life? I'd argue morality never even enters the equation.indifferent to the outcome of sapient life is not very nice.
it at the very least, shows a complete lack of empathy for its creations.
The most overt way would be to simulate our universe 1:1 scale. If we can, we're probably not in a simulation. That's really hard to do though so we can go with easier stuff. Attempt to interact meaningfully with our universe in a way that sits outside the bounds of the simulation, such as forcing interactions with distances smaller than subatomic particles, or subatomic lengths (planck length, etc). Finding a way to force anything to interact at post-FTL speeds, regardless of circumstances (FTL in certain materials, etc). Light speed is likely an upper limit in the speed at which the 'processor' (whatever that is) can process information in our universe, so find a way to stress it. Force rapid rendering of subatomic systems at near-light speed, enough to determine if there's a noticeable effect on the 'simulation'. That would lean into the assumption that the disparity between quantum and classical physics is a shortcut to save on processing power, and counter to that, the speed of light is an upper bound on processing ability. Press the two, see if you can push the simulation at 100% CPU, and see what breaks. Time dilation is probably a hack to permit processing at close to the limits of the CPU's capacity, so find a way to break that or manipulate it in a way the simulation wasn't intended.How?
Not until they're observedI think the average canned ham hosts trillions of subatomic interactions at any given moment.
This is the perfect example.Well, consider a near-distant future where capitalism still exists, and we've developed a way to reasonably create simulations that can generate art for us (presumably for someone to make money off of). Think dwarf fortress' spontaneous and emergent art combined with stable diffusion, or something. Would anyone other than activists care about the lives of the 'npcs' generating the art, regardless of how sentient they were? Would they care if they numbered in the quintillions, across millions of simulations, that were spun up and spun down a thousand times a day? Most humans barely care about the child labor actually used today to make their shoes and shit. Simulated life? I'd argue morality never even enters the equation.
Morality is subjective, most humans don't give a damn about exterminating entire colonies of ants, bees, wasps, etc. Many accept that as a normal part of yard and home maintenance. Why should humans be special animals?This is the perfect example.
Creating millions of sapient workers as you suggest, and then casually exterminating them moments later. The human creating the sim never cares.
But because the human never cares does not mean the action is not without morality. Genocide is genocide. Machine or otherwise. Child labor is child labor, even as I gaze upon my shoes and realize I have no way of asking or knowing.
Okay - enjoy your science fiction fantasy. I'll leave you alone.The most overt way would be to simulate our universe 1:1 scale.