Print

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

[Cthulhu]

YOu didn't actually bring anything new to discuss.

I could come on and say "evolution is true" and that wouldn't be a conversation starter either.

There is a difference but it's mostly on an existential kind of level.  If the universe is some kind of simulation than the state of our reality is contingent on the state of an external meta-reality that we have no capacity to influence or perceive.  The state of our reality could change at any moment without notice and may have done so many times already.

[Sergarr]

That's logically not true; if something can influence our reality in a meaningful way, then it necessarily is also influenced by our reality.

[wierd]

That kind of argument implies that something can be forced.

here, let's look at it this way.  I have a computer program that tries to force the user to do something. We'll say it is a video game. It uses a cheap, dickmove to force the player into an action.  The player can still choose to just stop playing, or to modify the game so the dickmove is no longer an obstacle, or to find some bug in the game to exploit to avoid my dickmove. (Say for instance, the Pink Scorpion.)

The feature is analogous to something WE would be doing inside our simulation, to FORCE the thing outside the simulation to act-- And thus, for us to test and verify that the outside thing does in fact exist.  This only works if the thing outside the universe is non-intelligent, and operates automatically by fixed principles. Like with the pink scorpion, the player can choose to always run away from the scorpion, rather than attempt some technical realtime intervention (memory poke)-- OR-- may choose to alter the game completely and remove the possibility of the scorpion completely.

In the last case, you are UNABLE to make the test, because the outside operator modifies the simulation so that you never do so.

[Sergarr]

That kind of argument implies that something can be forced.

here, let's look at it this way.  I have a computer program that tries to force the user to do something. We'll say it is a video game. It uses a cheap, dickmove to force the player into an action.  The player can still choose to just stop playing, or to modify the game so the dickmove is no longer an obstacle, or to find some bug in the game to exploit to avoid my dickmove. (Say for instance, the Pink Scorpion.)

The feature is analogous to something WE would be doing inside our simulation, to FORCE the thing outside the simulation to act-- And thus, for us to test and verify that the outside thing does in fact exist.  This only works if the thing outside the universe is non-intelligent, and operates automatically by fixed principles. Like with the pink scorpion, the player can choose to always run away from the scorpion, rather than attempt some technical realtime intervention (memory poke)-- OR-- may choose to alter the game completely and remove the possibility of the scorpion completely.

In the last case, you are UNABLE to make the test, because the outside operator modifies the simulation so that you never do so.

How does that argument disproves the fact that the outside being was INFLUENCED by our reality to do the stuff you described (modifying the simulation)

[mainiac]

It's always amusing when one of the figments of my imagination starts exposing metaphilosophic views on what the universe is.  It diverts me as the aeons pass through the unending state that is existence.

[Reelya]

Here's another formulation. Maybe we are a software simulation in the mind of God. This actually makes more sense (occam's razor) than the idea that God created a physical universe which is separate from God:

Say "God" exists and is an infinitely intelligent being. How detailed is God's imagination? I'd say 100% detailed. Say "God" thought about what universe to create, him/her thinking about it would actually be a completely realistic simulation down to the subatomic level, not a shallow image like a human "imagining" something. So, effectively God merely thinking about creating a universe would by necessity involve God processing through all the possible laws of physics and all possible starting configurations, to think about what would happen if he made each one, up to the end of time. The level of detail of God's thoughts would actually be indistinguishable from those universes themselves - you would never be able to tell if you existed in the God-thought universe or a real one. Perhaps the distinction itself is meaningless.

So, if "God" exists and is all-knowing that implies all possible universes already exist as ideas in God's head - they've already been run as simulations, including our universe. After running through all possible universes to see what would have happened, God would know that actually creating a universe was meaningless - he'd already created them just by thinking of them.

Now, we can see that God didn't actually need to be able to create a single thing nor did God need any magical powers to create an infinity of universes. Occam's razor implies we remove any unnecessary components from God just as much as anything else. A super-intelligent God doesn't need any other attributes to create the universe, since he can create it in his thoughts. But since it's just now a matter of processing power rather than magical properties, we can safely replace God with a sufficiently fast supercomputer now if we want without any contraditions.

[Sergarr]

Wouldn't it be easier to simulate universe by actually creating one without going through proxies like "God's imagination" or "sufficiently fast supercomputer"?

How's that for your Occam's Razor?

[Reelya]

What are you going to make it out of? Where are you going to make it? A simulation answers those questions. Whereas "just make it" is pure fantasy in comparison. A simulation doesn't need us to speculate any new principles of physics. Hence, it's simpler because we can explain how it works with known physics, and without having to postulate any future science. Creating a real physical universe ex nihilo needs you to postulate a whole lot of made-up science to work.

Your version only works if you exist in a universe which actually has identical physics to the thing you're modelling, and it implies a "space" in which to make it. Where would we make another universe that wouldn't overlap with our own universe? That's far more limiting in what you can make vs what you can simulate.

Try creating something from nothing vs digital simulation. You can model particles that don't exist and stuff. But actually making non-existent matter. What do you make it out of? Whereas something can be simulated whether or not the physics works. We can't just create another separate universe with it's own actual matter by snapping fingers you know.Whereas with a simulation, we can make the abstract space.

There are many more assumptions in your "just make it out of matter" idea. Because no matter how you do that, it's embedded in our existing universe, not a separate conceptual universe with it's own separate physics. That's about as separate a universe as claiming we can create another planet by building a city in Antarctica.

[Sergarr]

There are even more assumptions with the "simulation" idea. If something can create a simulation so detailed and through on every level, that "something" should also be capable of changing the laws of physics at will and creating matter out of vacuum, because it's seriously easier to just create the universe than to actually model it with necessary precision. Too many fields, you see. Need a LOT of memory to hold all information about them.

The most accurate model of a complex object is the object itself. And I think that civilization that has the ability to create the precise simulation of the universe would simply create it in matter, because they are not going to care about cost at this point.

[Reelya]

Now you're not even making sense.

Any special physics is simulated. If you have enough processing power you can simulate any deterministic phenomena completely. A simulation can simulate any specific set of laws of physics.

It does not need to "change the laws of physics" in it's own external frame of reference any more than elves in a video game implies real elves exist outside the game.

The most accurate model of a complex object is the object itself. And I think that civilization that has the ability to create the precise simulation of the universe would simply create it in matter, because they are not going to care about cost at this point.

That will only work if the universe you're creating has identical laws of physics to your own actual universe. It's more plausible to imagine a race with a ton of computing power than it is to imagine a race that can literally change the laws of physics at a whim.

[Sergarr]

deterministic phenomena

News flash: universe is not deterministic.

Who's not making sense now?

EDIT:

The most accurate model of a complex object is the object itself. And I think that civilization that has the ability to create the precise simulation of the universe would simply create it in matter, because they are not going to care about cost at this point.

That will only work if the universe you're creating has identical laws of physics to your own actual universe. It's more plausible to imagine a race with a ton of computing power than it is to imagine a race that can literally change the laws of physics at a whim.

I don't think you understand just how much computing power you need to simulate universe. Changing laws of physics is easier than achieving this much computing power. If you account for relativity, then achieving this level of computing power pretty much requires being able to change laws of physics on a whim.

[Reelya]

How do you know that though? We don't have a unified theory in any way, so what we see as quantum fluctuations could be part of some deeper deterministic model.

But if the universe literally rolls dice to decide what happens ... that can be modeled too through random number generation. Imagine characters in a CRPG claiming they're not in a computer because damage rolls are random, and how could any machine model that? LOL. So you can see apparent randomness is not great evidence that we're not in a computer.

Also, if things are literally random, that's new information being created from nothing, constantly. Where is that information coming from? Free information from nothing sounds implausible, since information itself has energy states. Maybe the universe is simulated and that information comes from the external random number generator? XD

[Sergarr]

How do you know that though?

We don't have a unified theory in any way, so what we see as quantum fluctuations could be part of some deeper deterministic model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

No.

But if the universe literally rolls dice to decide what happens ... that can be modeled too through random number generation. Imagine characters in a CRPG claiming they're not in a computer because damage rolls are random, and how could any machine model that? LOL. So you can see apparent randomness is not great evidence that we're not in a computer.

Yes, randomness is not an evidence of that. The existence of electromagnetic field is.

Also, if things are literally random, that's new information being created from nothing, constantly. Where is that information coming from? Free information from nothing sounds implausible, since information itself has energy states. Maybe the universe is simulated and that information comes from the external random number generator? XD

Uh, just for your information, but the information in universe is steadily decreasing in number, because it's, you know, literally entropy with "minus" sign attached to it.

Like, this is basic thermodynamics knowledge.

[Reelya]

Wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28information_theory%29

In information theory, entropy is the average amount of information contained in each message received.

Ordered states can be described in less data than unordered states. e.g. if all the electrons are spinning the same way, that's less entropy, but also takes less data to describe. High-entropy states would have electrons spinning in many different directions, and would take more data to describe.

[Radio Controlled]

I'm getting a big 'rawr let's argue on teh internets gotta prove myself' vibe here. Chill.