Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation

Re:Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation by yoodenvranx on Monday October 02, 2017 @12:03PM (#15384916)

If we live in a computer simulation then there will be most likely bugs and edge cases and buffer overflows and all those things. So if we knew for certain that we live in a simulation then a lot of people would start looking for exploits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation by omginternets on Monday October 02, 2017 @12:06PM (#15384944)

I never quite thought of it that way. The first challenge would be mapping out the computational underpinnings of the simulation. I can't even begin to imagine how that might work, though I bet it would look something like physics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation by badosu on Monday October 02, 2017 @12:18PM (#15385105)

This is a really interesting concept illustrated on this story: http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation by fusiongyro on Monday October 02, 2017 @12:30PM (#15385240)

I'm imagining a glider in Conway's game of life trying to find a bug to exploit. What would that even mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation by mastermindxs on Monday October 02, 2017 @12:52PM (#15385496)

I imagine the glider will try to figure out how to get around one of the 4 rules thereby changing its live neighbor cell count which in effect changes its evolution through board henceforth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation by kreetx on Monday October 02, 2017 @12:07PM (#15384962)

If those bugs manifest as miracles etc, then there are already plenty of people looking :)

Wonder what the language was to create the simulation, so one could have a more educated go at finding the exploits.

[ Parent | on HN ]