Weird Science: Simulations and Parallel Universes

[Fat Cat]

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50: Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/

aaaannnd...

Researchers At Large Hadron Collider Are Confident To Make Contact With Parallel Universe In Days

https://www.sciencenatures.com/2020/10/ ... lider.html

[Bennyonesix1]

This is all just a basic error which Anselm resolved in 1000AD

Ideas have being and they are defined as beings in conceptu or things which have conceptual being only. Things like unicorns and manticores and Conan The Barbarian have this sort of being. They exist but only in concept. Same with parallel universes.

There is a smaller subset of beings inconceptu which have more Being and exist both in conceptu and in re or in reality. Nafod (sadly) and The Hadron Collider are things like this.

The error lies in thinking that being in conceptu necessitated being in re. It doesn't. Except for one exception: Theos or God. And only then when it is conceived in a certain way: as that which nothing greater can be thought.

[nafod]

I'm pretty sure your gobbledygook suggests I am a god

[Bennyonesix1]

No you're the Fool in the Ontological Proof

[nafod]

Anselm reached out to me through the inconceptu and told me you're full of shit

[Bennyonesix1]

I never know what I am talking about I just parrot FB level bien pensant.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Even tiny progression in AR/VR over thousands of years means we will eventually be able to create VR experiences indistinguishable from reality.

If you accept that, and that it's possible to go from cave paintings to creating 100% immersive VR in 100,000 years, the probability that it has already been done millions of times approaches 1, and the probability that we are in "base" reality approaches zero.

This should give religious fundamentalists comfort, since it's a lot easier to create the world in 7 days if it's all software.

[nafod]

This should give religious fundamentalists comfort, since it's a lot easier to create the world in 7 days if it's all software.

I’m afraid we’re version 1.0

Never buy version 1.0

[Fat Cat]

Even tiny progression in AR/VR over thousands of years means we will eventually be able to create VR experiences indistinguishable from reality.

If you accept that, and that it's possible to go from cave paintings to creating 100% immersive VR in 100,000 years, the probability that it has already been done millions of times approaches 1, and the probability that we are in "base" reality approaches zero.

This should give religious fundamentalists comfort, since it's a lot easier to create the world in 7 days if it's all software.

I'm still thinking about what the salient differences are between simulation and creation if they're indistinguishable.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Even tiny progression in AR/VR over thousands of years means we will eventually be able to create VR experiences indistinguishable from reality.

If you accept that, and that it's possible to go from cave paintings to creating 100% immersive VR in 100,000 years, the probability that it has already been done millions of times approaches 1, and the probability that we are in "base" reality approaches zero.

This should give religious fundamentalists comfort, since it's a lot easier to create the world in 7 days if it's all software.

I'm still thinking about what the salient differences are between simulation and creation if they're indistinguishable.

Elon Musk apparently has a rule that he won't discuss this in a hot tub any more.

I believe pretty strongly that the creeping atheism embraced by self-described scientifically-minded people will shift rapidly to agnosticism as some of the wilder tech leaps forward.

"So you believe it's possible to create a Super Intelligence capable of creating things beyond our understanding... and are also certain that it hasn't already happened in billions of years."

[Fat Cat]

Yeah, it seems at some point that the line between the two becomes blurred or even indistinguishable, per Arthur C. Clarke's third law.

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

I just finished Sean Carroll's new book "Something Deeply Hidden" where he goes into detail about the Many Worlds interpretation of QM. The basics are thus:
The Schrodinger Equation has proven remarkably accurate in explaining the probability of the wave function of particles. The basics are that every particle exists in a wave of pure probability until a measurement (some observation of that particle that would pin it down to one place) is made. At that point, the wave function collapses and the particle is observed to be in a single location. The standard view has been that the collapse of the wave function is just that, the particle goes from being a wave of the probability of it being anywhere in the Universe to actually being in one spot. The other possible locations just don't matter once the particle is observed.
The Many Worlds interpretation says that every time a particle is observed the wave doesn't collapse into a single point, but that the Universe splits into multiple universes where each possible observation happens. So we live in a Cosmos where the Universe is constantly splitting into nearly infinite parallel Universes, and each of those splits.........The number might not be infinity, but it's close enough that it's basically immeasurable.
He makes a strong case. And I'd like to see an experiment that could prove or disprove it.

[motherjuggs&speed]

This is the same Sean Carroll who thinks that people stumble on to success if they keep trying. He also misrepresented Edison's attempts to extract iron as a bad idea (this was on the Sam Harris podcast). Edison knew it would be hard, he just wanted to sink his teeth into technology for a while. Did him more good than any vacation. Since SC seems to lack basic reasoning/observation skills, and is dishonest or at best ignorant about some of the things he says, then everything else he says should be viewed with suspicion.

[motherjuggs&speed]

Even tiny progression in AR/VR over thousands of years means we will eventually be able to create VR experiences indistinguishable from reality.

If you accept that, and that it's possible to go from cave paintings to creating 100% immersive VR in 100,000 years, the probability that it has already been done millions of times approaches 1, and the probability that we are in "base" reality approaches zero.

My first crack at this was pointlessly rude so I'll revise. The compute power required to run a simulation might not ever be achieveable. I'll unpack this a little. The lazy example people like to give is Pong compared to, say WoW. Now let's take that thousands of years into the future. If you look at the amount of time, money, and manpower it takes to design and make chips, and assume that humans continue to increase compute power (even if at a much slower pace) you would then have to have, what? A million times that to simulate reality? So the GDP of Earth goes into making these computers?

"In 1965, when Gordon Moore enunciated the first version of this “law,” semiconductor manufacturing accounted for about 0.09 percent of U.S. GDP. (See Table 1.) Thirty-five years later semiconductor manufacturing’s relative size had increased tenfold, and it accounted for almost 1 percent of U.S. GDP."

To which people say, you don't understand, the simulation just makes it seem that way.

Let's look at another technology. batteries. Batteries have been improving. One could posit that at any rate of progress, the energy density of batteries must reach whatever target is desired. But at some point we run into limits imposed by physics.

People assume that progress must continue. There's no reason it has to. The progress in compute power, batteries, or almost anything else depends on the resources available, and whether it makes sense to commit a large amount to doing something. There are also many things which can interfere with progress: another asteroid impact, global warming, a collapse of civilization, the Yellowstone volcano erupting, etc.,the list goes on. For one to assume we are in a simulation, one has to assume that civilization and technological development reached it's current point or something like it, and then continued for at least enough time to make it possible to run a simulation like the one we see. Unless someone is narcissistic enough to believe that the simulation is for his or her personal benefit (most women do assume something like this), then the power needed to run it has to be, can't help it folks, inconceivable. How long will it take to get there? And how much manpower, electricity, etc., will it consume? There's only so much room on Earth.

My view on why this is popular is the same as why ST and many words are popular. At a time when real scientific progress has slowed, and especially science that captures the popular imagination, people are going to spin their wheels. They want to sound smart, so they spew some pseudoscience to get a book deal and get on TV. Way easier than making a real discovery.

[nafod]

Even tiny progression in AR/VR over thousands of years means we will eventually be able to create VR experiences indistinguishable from reality.

If you accept that, and that it's possible to go from cave paintings to creating 100% immersive VR in 100,000 years, the probability that it has already been done millions of times approaches 1, and the probability that we are in "base" reality approaches zero.

The compute power required to run a simulation might not ever be achieveable.

One could argue we are there.

In a computer and monitor and there are circuits and phosphors that glow, nothing more, yet we see windows and curves and things.

In the universe there is a pile of atoms and waves interacting, driven by the flow of always increasing overall entropy, yet we see animals, plants, and ourselves. Literally our selves. Maybe not so different?

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

I think the argument that's most in favor of the simulation hypothesis might be the computer code that popped out of some of Gates' ST calculations. The math is way over my head, but apparently there's a self correcting algorithm or something similar that he discovered in the some of his ST equations.

The woo loving dude in me would like to think that one of the more convincing arguments for simulation is right in in the Schrodinger Equation. The fact that particles/matter exists in a wave of probability until measured can be viewed in the same way a video game engine doesn't generate graphics until needed. That would get around some of the computation horsepower requirements needed to simulate an entire universe down to the Plank scale. It literally doesn't exist until it needs to. Otherwise, you'd need the "real" universe to be enormously more vast and complex than this one in order to run a full simulation. There simply isn't enough storage capacity in this universe to simulate a universe of equal size and complexity.

[Fat Cat]

What if the universe is the data storage device?

*Takes another hit*

[Sangoma]

ST is a nice illustration of the West having too much money and resources, so that you can have people making a living discussing fantasies. Yeah, Bayesian, why the fuck not, bitches!

[Alfred_E._Neuman]

ST: What is it now, 30-40 years without a damned thing to show for it other than some pretty math that's failed to make a prediction that's ever been verified?

Although, I will say that Brian Greene is one of the best science communicators/educators in the world. I'm pulling for him to make some real breakthrough in ST and move our understanding forward. Maybe even get a Nobel. But I honestly think we're getting near the end of what we can verify. Our colliders are at the limit of the energy they can hammer out. We may be generations away from being able to produce the energy needed to get the super symetric particles to pop out of a collision. Unless we have some way of verifying the other dimensions that ST predicts, finding one of those particles is the only other way to verify the theory.