Aand, for all you simulation junkies -

Jump to Latest
jjasniew

jjasniew

Member
Joined 2002
#1
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50 - Scientific American

"If so, the simulation would most likely create perceptions of reality on demand rather than simulate all of reality all the time—much like a video game optimized to render only the parts of a scene visible to a player."

So if I build tunnels behind my OB assists, I'm putting additional load on the Great simulator, cause now it has to accommodate the perception change I'll inevitably hear. Whooa - maybe I shouldnt do that -

I wonder who pays the bill for it all?
 
#6
I suppose after reading the article it kinda dovetails into the idea that mathematicians have to think about some proof in an entirely different way, in order to solve an otherwise intractable conjecture that's been a thorn for a couple hundred years...

Minecraft (apparently) doesnt break, no matter how much you load it. I know I've never written any kind of program like with that elegant attribute -
 
#7
I hadn't really thought about it. But other people have:

For every 10 LGN neurons that snake back from the retina, there are 4,000 neurons in just the initial “input layer” of the visual cortex — and many more in the rest of it. This discrepancy suggests that the brain heavily processes the little visual data it does receive.
Click to expand...

Quanta Magazine

I think the article is saying our eyes, which perceive the World, are actually pretty useless. Most of it is done in the Visual Cortex. It's all an illusion created by our Brain. 😱
 
#10
Is Scientific america trying to increase its readership to include the "new science" crowd? Ive noticed it slipping into pop science for 30 years, havent read it in 20. This article is not what I remember. At least they end it whit this: "Kipping, despite his own study, worries that further work on the simulation hypothesis is on thin ice. “It’s arguably not testable as to whether we live in a simulation or not,” he says. “If it’s not falsifiable, then how can you claim it’s really science?”"
 
#12
😀

This thread made me laugh.

The question, raised in science fiction, is borne of an analytical mind.
No one with a truly unbiased scientific opinion, can deny that it's possible.

"One toke over the line" would be a good description of most of the development in QT and ST and other du monde astrophysics...go figure.

This question, is merely another wholly unanswerable, unfathomable, answers to which humanity will probably never know.

It skirts very close to religion in that it could be seen as a fundamental, existential question.

One thing I have learned from my learning of the sciences, mathematics etc, is that if QT is remotely accurate, then it's all a matter of probability or improbability.

The "living in a simulation" question is a matter of probability. Its untestable and unprovable, science can't prove or disprove; in the same way science can't prove or disprove the existence of a higher power, a creator, a God even.

So my answer is 42.
 
#17
A slang term for a puff of a joint. I am sure each language has their own slang that may not make any sense out of context.

The simulation theory requires a superior being to run the sim. It requires a space/time inherently outside our reality. By history, that superior being must be a real jerk. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom