Pop Science BTFO

[Xenophon]

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-living-c ... ong-677251

Theoretical physicists have dispelled the idea we are living in a Matrix-style computer simulation, calculating that not all aspects of our reality can be simulated efficiently using computers.

The simulation theory has been a staple of science fiction for decades and was detailed in a 2003 paper by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. On the basis of this paper, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated there is a 99.99 percent chance that the universe we inhabit is a computer simulation, while physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says that is is “very likely.”

Researchers at the University of Oxford have now calculated that "even just to store the information about a few hundred electrons on a computer one would require a memory built from more atoms than there are in the universe."

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Why would a computer program running the simulation of our universe be constrained by the laws of our universe?

[TheReal_ND]

MATRIX VIRGINS ON SUICIDE WATCH

[Speaker to Animals]

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-living-c ... ong-677251

Theoretical physicists have dispelled the idea we are living in a Matrix-style computer simulation, calculating that not all aspects of our reality can be simulated efficiently using computers.

The simulation theory has been a staple of science fiction for decades and was detailed in a 2003 paper by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. On the basis of this paper, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated there is a 99.99 percent chance that the universe we inhabit is a computer simulation, while physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says that is is “very likely.”

Researchers at the University of Oxford have now calculated that "even just to store the information about a few hundred electrons on a computer one would require a memory built from more atoms than there are in the universe."

I told you guys that years ago. Any computer science grad student could have explained this to you. Asking a physics guy about a theoretical computer science problem, in most cases, is a huge waste of your time. Physics guys suffer under the delusion that they study the most fundamental nature of reality when that really is more of a computer science / logic domain. They are kind of blinded by their field and take for granted the things from which physics is emergent.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I told you guys that years ago. Any computer science grad student could have explained this to you. Asking a physics guy about a theoretical computer science problem, in most cases, is a huge waste of your time. Physics guys suffer under the delusion that they study the most fundamental nature of reality when that really is more of a computer science / logic domain. They are kind of blinded by their field and take for granted the things from which physics is emergent.

I am still confused why physical laws would be relevant.

[Speaker to Animals]

I told you guys that years ago. Any computer science grad student could have explained this to you. Asking a physics guy about a theoretical computer science problem, in most cases, is a huge waste of your time. Physics guys suffer under the delusion that they study the most fundamental nature of reality when that really is more of a computer science / logic domain. They are kind of blinded by their field and take for granted the things from which physics is emergent.

I am still confused why physical laws would be relevant.

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

Also, in any virtual reality simulation, some of the real nature still has to bleed through. You should be able to detect it.

I know I trashed physicists a bit, but my criticisms are mainly directed at Americans. Physics in Europe is still focused mostly on legitimate science, whereas our physicists are still obsessing over what amounts to a non-science better described as applied metaphysics. David Deutsche is an English theoretical physicist who actually does a lot of theoretical computer science, and is one of the leading researches behind quantum computation. He wrote a book titled Fabric of Reality that I highly recommend.

[Fife]

Anyone who addresses the question while including Bostrom in the same paragraph, or zip code, as Musk or Tyson is showing their fundamental misunderstanding of what is being discussed.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I told you guys that years ago. Any computer science grad student could have explained this to you. Asking a physics guy about a theoretical computer science problem, in most cases, is a huge waste of your time. Physics guys suffer under the delusion that they study the most fundamental nature of reality when that really is more of a computer science / logic domain. They are kind of blinded by their field and take for granted the things from which physics is emergent.

I am still confused why physical laws would be relevant.

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?

[The Conservative]

Pop Sci really has gone downhill lately... they are becoming a rag more than a respected entity.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am still confused why physical laws would be relevant.

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.