If quantum computing is as certain as we're told it is, is there not 100% certainty we live in a simulation of some sort?

[Koko Ricky]

On 2/28/2022 at 12:25 AM, Kute said:

So do you think a simulation as complex as this universe will always be beyond our means?

It depends. If you want to simulate the known universe, you would need to represent every particle, which would require all available particles and then some, being that fundamental properties such as spin, charge, mass, and angular momentum, cannot be computationally represented 1:1. With current quantum computers you still need a few particles to simulate one fully accounted for particle. And that's not even getting into adding gravity, whose behavior at the atomic level is unknown. 

 

In order to have a universe simulator down to the quark--or possibly further if string theory turns out to be true--you would need the most amazing compression algorithm ever devised. Some suggest only rendering only the parts that need to be seen at any given time, which quickly falls apart when you realize that any occluded information would affect the gravitational field. In games gravity can be simplified and turned off for most geometry, but in a simulation this would probably cause huge problems. 

[Clippy]

15 hours ago, Clippy said:

If we were in the matrix everything would have a green tint

 

I love that most people react to that with invulnerability spheres

 

Oh u guys

[esselfortium]

If we're in a simulation, whoever proves it first is probably going to accidentally fuck up the whole thing and kill us all immediately by turning off gravity or something.

[ReaperAA]

6 minutes ago, Clippy said:

I love that most people react to that with invulnerability spheres

 

If only the radsuit was a part of the DW react icons. Invul will do for now

[KubaloBlackMT]

A lot of answers seem to assume there'd be some sort of logic to a completely bare-naked understanding of absolutely everything, and they're honestly the best assumptions to go by because otherwise we'd be thinking about the question for way too long being how complex it is.

 

@Nine Inch Heels brought up "Possibility and Probability", and (for now at least) it's better off to try to understand things within our understanding of how things work. Postulates basically.

[luke11685]

Mythical,ancient simulation nothing related to Virtual Reality,yet.

[ultrakow]

It's not coherent either materialist terms or purely logical ones.

[HavoX]

On 3/1/2022 at 9:03 AM, esselfortium said:

If we're in a simulation, whoever proves it first is probably going to accidentally fuck up the whole thing and kill us all immediately by turning off gravity or something.

Absolutely. Quantum computing is not something that should be taken lightly.

[DarkIceCyclone]

Found this thread on someones profile, so sorry if necromancing. Quantum Physics wise: It's basically particle waves, and since waves are a certainty, Thus, quantum computing is certain. 

 

What is the problem at the moment, is that we don't have the ability to properly measure or record those waves without causing them to appear in a fixed position in that wave. As a result, we end up with uncertainty principle and all the other probabilities to get as high of a probability as possible, without straight up seeing the whole wave passing through the material.

 

A lot of quantum particles, according to our current instruments, behave as waves and as particles. And quite a bit of physics end up in infinity. Whenever you see infinity, you know it's something that is either out of our technological or our comprehensive reach.

 

TL;DR: It's only uncertain because we can not make it certain due to lack of equipment and technology and knowledge to make a more determined approach, thus probabilities are currently our best bets. 

[Doomkid]

On 3/2/2022 at 12:33 AM, Koko Ricky said:

Who cares if this isn't as "real" as it could be? If actions appear to have consequences, then we are obliged to lean toward good decision making (being kind to ourselves and others while avoiding being exploited by shitty people). I don't think it matters a single iota if our actions are just code in a program. It's like suddenly caring that reality was created as opposed to spawning from quantum fluctuations.

I find the idea of a creator trite, in the same way that I find the “we’re not so different, you and I...” quote to be trite in a movie when the villain says it to the hero.
 

I otherwise agree with your post, there’s no reason for it to have any impact on morality, but the idea of all the beautiful and wonderous potential explanations not being true, and instead the explanation being “some dude coded us”.. That’s just immensely lame, to me. I guess it could be argued that we already know we’re “coded” in a sense through DNA/genes, so really, what difference does it make.. but still!

[Gez]

On mardi 1 mars 2022 at 4:08 PM, ReaperAA said:

If only the radsuit was a part of the DW react icons. Invul will do for now

The Doom 64 radsuit equivalent is a green biohazard symbol, so it's kind of a sphere.

 

2 hours ago, Doomkid said:

I find the idea of a creator trite, in the same way that I find the “we’re not so different, you and I...” quote to be trite in a movie when the villain says it to the hero.
 

I otherwise agree with your post, there’s no reason for it to have any impact on morality, but the idea of all the beautiful and wonderous potential explanations not being true, and instead the explanation being “some dude coded us”.. That’s just immensely lame, to me. I guess it could be argued that we already know we’re “coded” in a sense through DNA/genes, so really, what difference does it make.. but still!

It's not just trite, it's also dumb; because in the end all it does is shuffling things around.

 

Why does life exist? "Because it was created by a creator!" Okay, then why does the creator exist? Another creator? Creators all the way down?

"Maybe life on Earth was seeded by Aliens!" Okay, but who seeded life on the Alien homeworld, then? Other aliens? Aliens all the way down?

"Maybe the universe is a simulation!" Okay, but then, wouldn't the simulation be itself in a simulated universe? Simulators all the way down?

[Astronomical]

I don't really recognize the notion because it's unfalsifiable.  We can't know that we are in a simulation, so why should we give thought to the idea at all?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(But we totally are)

[magicsofa]

On 2/27/2022 at 9:46 PM, Kute said:

Once we have computers capable of running simulations as complex as our universe/what we perceive as our reality, the chance that we'd just happen to be in the "base" reality would be essentially zero, right? Like it would absolutely have to be simulations all up and down?

 

This is a logical fallacy: The possiblity of such a program doesn't have any effect on the probability of being in one, other than to say it isn't 0%. Furthermore, since we only represent a sample size of one, there's little use in a statistics-based approach anyway. What if we were in the only such simulation ever created? The chance of living here could be smaller even than the chance of living on this specific planet, but we hit the jackpot anyway.

 

I think it's more likely that our universe is the "computer" itself. A massive, evolving system, in the same way that a human being can be thought of as a functional and structured system.

 

One thing to consider about the simulation idea: once a simulation becomes as complex as the reality it sits in, isn't it less of a simulation and more of a new reality in it's own right? As others have noted, it sort of "takes a particle to simulate a particle." The point of our computer simulations is actually to approximate our reality, usually with the focus on solving a specific problem more efficiently than can be done with real world experimentation. Once you get to the point of exact representation, would you be saving any energy by using the simulation? Or would it be more costly than just doing the thing IRL? If there was a reality outside of us that was significantly more complex, then perhaps we could be in a simplified version. However if that's the case, would we really consider our reality to be a simulation, or just it's own universe with a unique set of rules? Is a pond just a simulation of the ocean because it's got fewer life forms and no currents?

[gwain]

believe what you want to believe dude there isnt one world perception your perceptual reality is your own : / 

[Koko Ricky]

15 hours ago, Doomkid said:

I find the idea of a creator trite, in the same way that I find the “we’re not so different, you and I...” quote to be trite in a movie when the villain says it to the hero.
 

I otherwise agree with your post, there’s no reason for it to have any impact on morality, but the idea of all the beautiful and wonderous potential explanations not being true, and instead the explanation being “some dude coded us”.. That’s just immensely lame, to me. I guess it could be argued that we already know we’re “coded” in a sense through DNA/genes, so really, what difference does it make.. but still!

I'm interested in why a creator would be lame, but an explanation closer to current scientific consensus is not. For the record, I do not explicitly believe in a creator; I consider it as a possibility in the many configurations of reality that could unfold. 

[magicsofa]

16 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

I'm interested in why a creator would be lame, but an explanation closer to current scientific consensus is not. For the record, I do not explicitly believe in a creator; I consider it as a possibility in the many configurations of reality that could unfold. 

 

Perhaps because the scientific consensus shatters our anthropomorphized dreams of someone powerful but still "like us" presiding over our world. Even though the creator would obviously be "greater" than us, it's still extrapolated from our own lives and egos. People say that god is impossible to understand... but they are still thinking about a bearded man in the sky who can say things unto us in our own language(s). Comfortable, relatable, easy to process.

Now, try to just comprehend our solar system. Can you do it? No, not even close. You can barely understand the size of the Earth, much less its machinations. You can barely comprehend a million of something, but you'd better start if you want to scratch any surface of the cosmos. Now think about superclusters and the big bang and the fact that the observable universe will always be smaller than the rest of it. Instead of a cozy god-figure with a passing interest in humanity, you're faced with an uncountable sea of burning giants in a frozen void, and the realization that you are impossibly meaningless, a dust-mite of consciousness, privileged to float in the ether until the universe decides to end your current form.

Edited March 18, 2022 by magicsofa

[Koko Ricky]

2 hours ago, magicsofa said:

 

Perhaps because the scientific consensus shatters our anthropomorphized dreams of someone powerful but still "like us" presiding over our world. Even though the creator would obviously be "greater" than us, it's still extrapolated from our own lives and egos. People say that god is impossible to understand... but they are still thinking about a bearded man in the sky who can say things unto us in our own language(s). Comfortable, relatable, easy to process.

Now, try to just comprehend our solar system. Can you do it? No, not even close. You can barely understand the size of the Earth, much less its machinations. You can barely comprehend a million of something, but you'd better start if you want to scratch any surface of the cosmos. Now think about superclusters and the big bang and the fact that the observable universe will always be smaller than the rest of it. Instead of a cozy god-figure with a passing interest in humanity, you're faced with an uncountable sea of burning giants in a frozen void, and the realization that you are impossibly meaningless, a dust-mite of consciousness, privileged to float in the ether until the universe decides to end your current form.

I don't think any of that excludes godheads or creator entities from existing. If we want to say it is too unfeasible to entertain, we would first have to establish whether the concept, in part or whole, violates known physical/quantum law. A creator entity would have to be of sufficient physical/mental prowess, in order to release enough energy to spawn a universe. The required parameters for such a configuration of waves/fields (quantum level) or particles and molecules (physics level) doesn't violate any known laws, it's just a very specific configuration. Now, that is not to say there must be a such an agent, or that such an agent will inevitably arise after enough time passes, or even that such an agent could exist at that scale (the limits of size for lifeforms is of course currently unknown). But it is hard to see what is impossible about it, and unless we can say absolutely that it is not a possible configuration, it can potentially exist.

[Doomkid]

I certainly don’t think it’s impossible, but I can clarify that the reason MagicSofa gave regarding the lameness of the creator theory jives very well with my own feelings on the matter. You do have a point in that, if such an entity did exist, it clearly has a lot of power and prowess, but I still just get this inherent “ugh” reaction to the idea of a personified creator.

[The BMFG]

follow the white rabbit

[lukaszdamianpiotrrygal]

17 hours ago, The BMFG said:

follow the white rabbit

Let me guess more like in infamous,controversial Matrix movies saga of Hollywood film industry? Well it more like Virtual Reality to ser someone anyone freeminded I guess.