Pop Science BTFO

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It's not the physical laws that are the problem. It's more to do with the costs of computation.

I am way out of my wheelhouse here, but is it possible that an advanced simulator might have some ways to cheat on computation that we haven't imagined?

Like those physicists who kept pushing the "we're in a simulation" meme, you are still stuck on the idea that physical laws are the most fundamental layer of reality. Just like biology is emergent from physics, physics is emergent from a more basic layer that currently is studied in parts by theoretical computer science, pure mathematics, and logic.

Theoretical computer science divides up into two branches (a and b). One of them has more to do with languages and the other is about computation itself. It's not necessarily the computation part itself that I am talking about, but the complexity and problem spaces it deals with. That's a deeper layer of reality than physics. Logicians hit on this layer from a different angle. So do pure mathematicians. Nobody studies the layer as something to study by itself. We currently would look at such an endeavor as some kind of interdisciplinary field. It's one of those areas where you can tell there will be this large field of research someday, but nobody really knows how to break out of the related disciplines and get it up and running. It's just too far out there right now.

I get that. I think the simulation folks are suggesting that if this underlying layer you're talking about was fully understood, it could be used to simulate what we would view, from inside the simulation, as too complex and problematic to simulate. "Cheat" was probably a clumsy way to describe it.

I mean, we could have been a lot closer to this field already if all the analytic philosophers hand't become computer scientists to get paid.

[K@th]

If there is a god, we are absolutely in a simulation of god's creation.

I don't find the idea of a simulation all that hard to believe. Not saying it's true, but there's no way to know. You can't use what we know about this universe and say it would apply in another universe. There's no way to know that and there likely never will be.

[Xenophon]

If there is a god, we are absolutely in a simulation of god's creation.

I don't find the idea of a simulation all that hard to believe. Not saying it's true, but there's no way to know. You can't use what we know about this universe and say it would apply in another universe. There's no way to know that and there likely never will be.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Any “calculation” of this would involve mapping the observed behavior of electrons, because we don’t understand them yet,
And using only our current, binary understanding of computing. Pretty hack shit, IMO.

[Penner]

I thought that the idea that we could be living in a computer simulation HAS already been proven? Hell, I don't think that even the original guy who put it down thought like that but wanted it to be more like a thought experiment. I also don't think he originally wanted it to be a scientific theory but just a thought experiment?

[Fife]

Happy Happy Halloween, everybody!

GET YOUR SCIENCE ON






Why millennials are ditching religion for witchcraft and astrology

Meanwhile, more than half of young adults in the U.S. believe astrology is a science. compared to less than 8% of the Chinese public. The psychic services industry — which includes astrology, aura reading, mediumship, tarot-card reading and palmistry, among other metaphysical services — grew 2% between 2011 and 2016. It is now worth $2 billion annually, according to industry analysis firm IBIS World.

[LVH2]

How many of them are confusing astrology and astronomy?

Not very good but much better.

[Fife]

Good question.

BTW, what's your sign, QT?

[Speaker to Animals]

That's how you get in trouble..

[clubgop]

Good question.

BTW, what's your sign, QT?

#metoo