Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

/format self

[Neonivek]

Eeeeh, boring old nerd-solipsism. Nonverifiable, therefore indistinguishable from false.

It would also be... completely unimportant if true or false.

Since it amounts to

"What if our universe was actually something else completely but is still exactly the same?"

[scrdest]

Eeeeh, boring old nerd-solipsism. Nonverifiable, therefore indistinguishable from false.

It would also be... completely unimportant if true or false.

Since it amounts to

"What if our universe was actually something else completely but is still exactly the same?"

...you just paraphrased me.

[Neonivek]

Well no...

I am saying even if it could be verified it has no significance.

[~Neri]

It would mean we need to build a gigantic sign that says "Don't turn us off!"

[Starver]

Planck constant limits energy. Distance is non-quantum, and so is velocity. Them being non-quantum is kind of important because if they had a lower bound then that would seriously fuck up the formation of galaxies due to how small the initial forces are.

Assuming it's not all part of the like fudged up by our simulation as an explanation as to why we're not getting what we'd normally be getting, there's nothing to suggest that the Planck units (in distance, time, etc) might not exist in some (im)measurable way.  It could explain the non-homogeneity of the universe if a 'regular' distribution was forced to comply to a grid system, back when it was small enough to count at the level of quantum-gravity (mayhap itself a side-effect of the approximations and rounding errors inherent in the simulation of the system at the lower limits of available precision).

(Try to plot an equilateral triangle on standard graph-paper, forcing each point onto a grid intersection.   However small the divisions, you will find at least one irrational distance that needs to be nudged slightly to sit on such a crossing.  Something like that could have forced a break in mass-distribution symmetry to start the clumping process, which then of course accelerated.)


Not that I'm insisting that this is True™, but it's a thought.

Also, Neo as explained in the Matrix 2 or 3, was basically programmed to do his Neo shit so he is a really bad example of "man breaking Matrix".

I tend to ignore those.  The fact they didn't go ahead with "It's Matrixes(/Matrices?) all the way out" (as it should have been clearly indicated by the 'blinded' Neo and his "fire Matrix" vision) invalidates most of the trilogy at a purely philosophical level...

That aside, all I know is that I, personally, am probably a figment of someone else's imagination.  Is it you?  I'd love to know who it is who is so warped and deranged...

[Starver]

Or a maximum mass. Or maximum force.
Oh, wait.

What a singular(ity) idea...

[Bauglir]

Eeeeh, boring old nerd-solipsism. Nonverifiable, therefore indistinguishable from false.

Clearly you're a program designed to stop us believing it!

Also, I recall... I think it was LB pointing out that if it WERE a simulation, we'd probably have artificial limits to prevent too much data being used, such as a maximum speed, or a minimum temperature.

That was SMBC.

But, yeah, what difference would it make? It wouldn't change anything about our experiences; "real" or whatever other terms you'd use to describe your experiences would just refer to "the contents of our simulation" instead of whatever else we think it might refer to (which, honestly, would be kind of a nice simplification). It'd change things in exactly the same way that knowing our minds are built from networks of neurons instead of ethereal spirits could make consciousness "an illusion". Or, perhaps more clearly, in the same way that knowing birds are dinosaurs actually changes anything about the birds themselves.

[ChairmanPoo]

...created by humans who perished after the technological singularity. You're programmed not to believe this, of course.

That is all.

What a novel idea. I'm sure nobody here had thought or read about this before.

[wierd]

my sarcasm detector just exploded.

The real rabbit hole with this argument, is that if there are simulated universes, the probability that ours is a simulation greatly exceeds the probability that ours is a real universe.

There would also be tests we could perform to detect such simulation.
arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

[SirQuiamus]

...created by humans who perished after the technological singularity. You're programmed not to believe this, of course.

That is all.

But the singularity was just a software simulation created by aliens, _{who were just a software simulation created by smarter aliens, who were just a software simulation created by God, who was just a software simulation created by the Elder Gods, who were just a software simulation created by...}

[wierd]

...created by humans who perished after the technological singularity. You're programmed not to believe this, of course.

That is all.

But the singularity was just a software simulation created by aliens, _{who were just a software simulation created by smarter aliens, who were just a software simulation created by God, who was just a software simulation created by the Elder Gods, who were just a software simulation created by...}

"You may think you are being clever, son, but
it's TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN!"

[Starver]

There would also be tests we could perform to detect such simulation.
arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

I instinctively don't agree with that (without reading the article, yet... will do so later), on the grounds of limitations very similar to particular aspects of Gödel's Incompleteness theorems...

[forsaken1111]

...created by humans who perished after the technological singularity. You're programmed not to believe this, of course.

That is all.

What a novel idea. I'm sure nobody here had thought or read about this before.

Oh dear. I wasn't informed that we couldn't have discussions or posts regarding ideas that others have discussed before. I do apologize.

[Sergarr]

Planck constant limits energy. Distance is non-quantum, and so is velocity. Them being non-quantum is kind of important because if they had a lower bound then that would seriously fuck up the formation of galaxies due to how small the initial forces are.

Assuming it's not all part of the like fudged up by our simulation as an explanation as to why we're not getting what we'd normally be getting, there's nothing to suggest that the Planck units (in distance, time, etc) might not exist in some (im)measurable way.

They exist, but they only signify a limit on effective distances between the objects. The object's positions still must be a real number and can't really be anything other than a real number because of how many things depend on them being a precise number. Like all things everywhere depend on the distances between things being precisely as they are.

Also, how about fields? Like, electromagnetic fields, that must be defined at every point of time-space and if they're quantized at any point, the math starts to break down rapidly because of "numerical friction" messing things up?

Don't even start on how to model frikking relativity and all the effects which mean that you not only have to keep the memory of all the current things, but also of ALL things in the past! That's one louse simulation, with constantly increasing memory size taken.

That aside, all I know is that I, personally, am probably a figment of someone else's imagination.  Is it you?  I'd love to know who it is who is so warped and deranged...

Stop with that solipsism, the universe is not nearly as inconsistent as any imagination that I know of.

Also, "warped" and "deranged"? Such words cannot possibly apply to our universe.