News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re: by grupthink on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:12AM (#35420169)
A computer is a computer, and our universe is a computer. So, it's possible we're living in a simulation but not one that was intentionally constructed by a higher life form, but rather, a simulation that emerged from nature (e.g. electrons whizzing along the surface of silica rock on a desolate planet). Our universe could recursively be computers all the way down.
Re: by archerx on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:43AM (#35420394)
If it is a simulation, what is it simulating? There would have to be a "real" reference to compare against?
Re: by zamadatix on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:22AM (#35420652)
If I launch a random cellular automaton there isn't as much a real reference I'm trying to compare it to as just seeing what cool things it does. Maybe I can coax it into something comparable if I want, e.g. pick rule 110 and set it up to run ChatGPT and write this comment, but the only "realness" requirement is it follow what logic allows not it has a real reference it's supposed to emulate and be compared to.
Re: by archerx on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:23AM (#35420666)
I wouldn't call that a simulation though, it's just a looping process with rules. A simulation implies imitation, so if it's not imitating anything is it a simulation?
Re: by grupthink on Monday April 03, 2023 @06:07AM (#35421008)
It would be simulating causality. If you had a water maze that was large enough - with enough gates, switches, and circuits - then it would be turing complete and simulate its own universe. But the more likely scenario is that it doesn't compile into anything. The point is, given enough time, and space (it's going to be one large maze) it's capable of applying the same rules of causality, and calculating the same math across all universes. That said, if your quarks and neutrinos blip in and out of existence, you can blame it on the turbulent water maze(s) higher in our simulation stack. :)
Re: by jasamer on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:15AM (#35420599)
I don't think a simulation needs to simulate anything real. Eg. if I have a program that runs Conway's game of life, that would be also be a simulation, but there's nothing "real" it references against.

In other words, the universe simulating ours might work completely differently, and some beings there are just testing how different laws of physics (i.e. ours) work out.

Re: by archerx on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:26AM (#35420687)
The definition of simulation is:

imitation of a situation or process. "simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"

I love the game of life but I don't really consider it a simulation, it's a toy that with the right parameters could simulate something.

Re: by wruza on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:58AM (#35420949)
some beings there are just testing how different laws of physics (i.e. ours) work out

Or there is a practical use like energy extraction. Or they live (if that even applies) in a universe that generates what our closest concepts of are e.g. time and energy, and they have to spend them massively in simulations to survive. Or their laws of nature tend to overcommunicate (dilute) them into a single being, so they simulate everything we see for islands of “themselves” to remain distinct. They split themselves endlessly with perception because that’s the trick in their situation.

One of my nightmares is to wake up from this and realize you woken up from a mild depression into a horror of a true existence, and this isn’t even a final level. Makes sense, since if god is infinite, why shouldn’t he be infinitely suffering. Why would he (you) create all this if not to escape from null-reality.

Re: by quickthrower2 on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:23AM (#35420663)
Factorio running inside minecraft running inside roblox.
Re: by archerx on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:26AM (#35420689)
Turtles all the way down...
Re: by NayamAmarshe on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:31AM (#35420303)
A computer is always imperfect though, compared to the universe, which is very stable and extremely perfect to the last detail. I don't think we can even compare since the scale and the domain is so vast.
Re: by codetrotter on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:33AM (#35420318)
If a tree is standing in a forest, but no one is there to watch it. Does the tree get rendered every frame?
Re: by archerx on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:42AM (#35420381)
Yes, it does.
Re: by ndsipa_pomu on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:15AM (#35420605)
No, it doesn't.
Re: by NayamAmarshe on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:19AM (#35420635)
Depends on the programmer.
Re: by yazaddaruvala on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:43AM (#35420841)
Depends on the hardware being targeted.
Re: by polishdude20 on Monday April 03, 2023 @10:18AM (#35423978)
Depends on the deadline
Re: by AltruisticGapHN on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:54AM (#35420473)
The simulation theory simply postpones the hard problem of consciousness. It's like a magician trick, pulling wool over the eyes, moving your attention away from the real problem long enough, so that you stop thinking about it.
Re: by munchbunny on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:36AM (#35420778)
How so? By “hard problem” do you mean defining what consciousness is?
Re: by AltruisticGapHN on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @04:54AM (#35436912)
"the hard problem" (of consicousness) is a well known term in philosophy, science, metaphysics, just look it up.
Re: by quickthrower2 on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:22AM (#35420653)
Even without consciousness, the existence of the universe faces the same causality issues.
Re: by docandrew on Monday April 03, 2023 @06:38AM (#35421251)
All the talk of simulations, multiverses, etc is IMO expending a lot of effort to avoid facing the possibility of a Creator - the “uncaused cause” or something existing outside of time and space.
Re: by programmer_dude on Monday April 03, 2023 @08:08AM (#35422115)
The presence of a creator does not change anything. Who created the creator?
Re: by docandrew on Monday April 03, 2023 @08:58AM (#35422743)
That’s the point - something completely beyond our notions of causality or the arrow of time has to be at the foundation of it.
Re: by NayamAmarshe on Monday April 03, 2023 @09:39AM (#35423367)
The creator remains without a creation. The notion that most schools of thought have is, the creator is unborn and born at the same time and has always existed. Creator does not have a point of creation, not even death because those rules only apply to the materialistic universe.
Re: by programmer_dude on Monday April 03, 2023 @11:27AM (#35425363)
That's quite a cop out. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it.
Re: by EventH- on Monday April 03, 2023 @02:00PM (#35428490)
It isn't a cop out because the creator in the conclusion of this type of argument (e.g. Aquinas' third way) is not just another contingent being like other things, but rather a being whose existence is necessary in itself.
Re: by NayamAmarshe on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @02:46AM (#35435966)
> Aquinas' third way

Thank you! This was very interesting to read about. Learned something new today :D

Re: by User23 on Monday April 03, 2023 @06:38AM (#35421246)
The simulation theory is literally a species of creationism, which I find quite amusing.
Re: by bryanrasmussen on Monday April 03, 2023 @05:09AM (#35420551)
>it's possible we're living in a simulation but not one that was intentionally constructed by a higher life form,

what about a simulation constructed by us. the conceit of The Invisibles comics.