/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10903772

275KiB, 873x1200, FLATLAND-1_873.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

I'm really ignorant on this

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 18:13:03 2019 No.10903772 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10903774 >>10903790 >>10903924 >>10904021 >>10904033 >>10904095

Is it possible to simulate our universe down to all the electrons and gravitons, etc?
Or would the resulting computer hardware be bigger than the universe itself?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 18:14:17 No.10903774 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903772
No

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 18:18:14 No.10903786 Report

Quoted By: >>10904194

You have to simplify. The guys who are running our simulation are probably in 4D.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 18:18:54 No.10903790 Report

Quoted By: >>10904654

>>10903772
Most of the universe is empty so you can use file compression.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 18:27:46 No.10903809 Report

Quoted By:

we have a stupid questions thread for a reason

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 19:17:27 No.10903924 Report

Quoted By: >>10903937

>>10903772
No.
Such a simulation would need to simulate everything in the universe including itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 19:23:21 No.10903937 Report

Quoted By: >>10904375

>>10903924
>including itself
False. A continuous computational infrastructure can already infer its own composition.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ea575553-3835-48cd-fa00-82956637 (...).jpg, 36KiB, 800x450

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 19:30:30 No.10903953 Report

Quoted By: >>10903955 >>10904043

>Is it possible to simulate our universe
>down to all the electrons and gravitons, etc?

Those finer details only need to be simulated when they're being observed directly. Otherwise the simulation can just use a less detailed/accurate estimation of they should be expected to behave.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 19:31:33 No.10903955 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903953
also, the universe stops rendering every time you close your eyes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:00:14 No.10904014 Report

Quoted By:

Simulation theory is an early 21st century meme that will die out soon

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:04:36 No.10904021 Report

Quoted By: >>10904039

>>10903772
Where do people get the figure of 99% chance of a simulation? Just assuming that everything can be simulated given enough time to advance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:12:10 No.10904033 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903772
>>>/x/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:15:48 No.10904039 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904021
Idiots that believe that a universe that simulates itself would simulate the computer that simulates it, instead of doing the logical thing and self-detecting itself within the simulation and skipping those parts because the entropy functions were already recorded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:17:14 No.10904042 Report

Quoted By: >>10904059

can y'all kys with the simulation theory?

it is IRRELEVANT. And if it true and live is a test then Jesus was right 2000 years ago so stop wasting your time.
By the same logic of we truly were in a simulation you wouldn't be able to escape it.
it is truly summer and this board is cancer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:18:02 No.10904043 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903953
What if multiple universes exist. If we detect the electrons before they can interact in higher dimensions we force our world to decide in which universe we are. If we wait until it hits the wall only then the universe will randomly be choosen. In that sense one could only render things that are needed right now. How big is the world you are currently living in. Is it that hard to just start rendering the earth if you start digging or look at it under a microskope not before?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:24:08 No.10904059 Report

Quoted By: >>10904089

>>10904042
This.
Discussing Simulation Theory is the same as discussing religious creation stories.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:42:14 No.10904089 Report

Quoted By: >>10904090

>>10904059
Not all at.

A simulation only comes into existence because there's already a universe containing life that bothered to create an run an expansive resimulation of the universe. Anything else would just be an ordinary game world, which would have AI in place of simulants. These would follow a different code evolution trajectory and would not be likely to intersect at any point.

Given that a simulation actually runs slower if it tries to simulate the architecture on which it is run, the actual probably of you existing in a simulation isn't 50-50, or (n-1)/n (where n-2 is the number of illogical recursions of simulation) but p<(n+1)/n, where n is the number of futures that managed to survive all great filters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:45:11 No.10904090 Report

Quoted By: >>10904108

>>10904089
It’s all useless speculation that doesn’t change anything seeing as there’s no way (as far as I know) to prove or disprove that we’re in a simulation. It’s just a technological age version of appealing to a higher power

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:47:29 No.10904095 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903772
You can't simulate it due to the uncertainity principle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:47:47 No.10904096 Report

Quoted By:

You can encode all of the information in a volume onto the surface of a black hole smaller than that original volume. That doesn't cover computation, but it's possible to store the universe within itself

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 20:55:00 No.10904108 Report

Quoted By:

>>10904090
The way to prove that we're in a simulation is to make one, turn it on, then when it starts simulating us, make the simulated version turn it off.

You can't disprove the idea that you're running in a simulation because an actual version of you has to exist with probability 1 before you'd end up simulated in the first place, at which point it's always more rational to assume that you're the original than whatever p>1 probability you have of having a second version of yourself running in a simulation somewhere.

Incidentally, if you've turned on a simulation that will certainly end up containing yourself if let to run, then the probability that you're in a simulation approaches 1. The actual hard problem is determining the probability that the original version of you is still alive outside the simulation by the point it simulates you.

In other words: Simulation argument does not affect causality unless you're making a sim.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 21:28:06 No.10904194 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903786
This. Perhaps not 4D, but at least more complex in some way or another. Maybe atoms are way, way smaller in the universe we are simulating. Maybe they simplified it by making it so that every one atom in our universe is the size of 100,000,000 in theirs. There are simulations inside simulations, but there's a limit to how many times you can do this. Each time the simulation gets simpler until you eventually end up with a world so simple it can't have functioning computers or perhaps not intelligent life at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 20 Aug 2019 22:37:15 No.10904375 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903937
Just like humans I suppose.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 21 Aug 2019 00:37:16 No.10904654 Report

Quoted By:

>>10903790
Vacuum energy?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches