96
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Simulation theory is more or less a kind of modern creation myth, and creation myths are based around its societies current level of understanding of the world. In ancient times people explained the worlds actions and existence through gods and imaginative myths. When the scientific revolution happened people explained the universe in terms of immutable laws and cosmic logic. Now we are in the computational revolution, thus some people explain the worlds existence through computers. All untestable and unfalsifiable explanations for the nature of reality are as good as any other, so pick your poison and enjoy!

[-] qnick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Simulation theory comes from solipsism, and it's not that modern. According to Wikipedia it originated in Greece in 483–375 BC.

Every human is solipsist until about 2 years old, when they start to realize that the world is not revolving around them. It is called "crisis of 2 year old", or "terrible twos". Some people don't get to go through this at 2, especially the children of billionaires, who have no reasons to think that they are not the center of the universe.

[-] qnick@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The danger of this approach is that you start treating other people as NPCs, dehumanizing them. When others are not real people, you don't have any problem with robbing, raping or murdering them. See the "Westworld" series for more deep analysis.

[-] Rikudou_Sage@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

You cannot disprove this hypothesis and it's cool. Quite literally nothing can support it - if we live in a simulation, every part of the universe makes sense for us because we have no reference frame for "real" physics.

It's just something fun to think about but ultimately it doesn't matter, you have no way to find out.

[-] Deestan@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It gives comfort for people who don't adhere to any of the major religions but still need to feel like there is a hidden meaning to existence and something bigger than the universe.

[-] BootyCreekCheekFreak@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

At this point does it matter? If it turns out tomorrow we have proof we live in a simulation, it doesn’t make my life any less real. I still gotta go to working tomorrow lol.

[-] Eclipciz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yea it really wouldn’t matter other than having religious dogma change or about what happens after death.

It’s more of an interesting thought experiment about the seemingly minuscule chances of life forming and us being/experiencing life.

[-] Reliant1087@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

For a slightly different take, a simulation and reality are not that fundamentally different given how both are perceived by senses in a similar way. Like how a VR headset uses the same sense that you use to see real objects.

They start to diverge in a way when you start encountering edge phenomenon that are beyond the scope of the simulation, like how a game would glitch. So far, however much we zoom in or zoom out, reality works consistently. So it is less likely that we're in a simulation.

[-] Dfc09@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago

It depends how you define reality working consistently. Dark matter was first theorized by observing how galaxies and star clusters etc don't seem to have enough mass to produce the gravitational footprint that holds them together. So dark matter was theorized to account for it. Invisible, intangible matter that only interacts with "normal" matter through gravity. Kinda strange 🤔

[-] Reliant1087@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean we knew that gravity as we understood in terms of GR is not a full picture. As people figured out that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, which would be impossible if gravity was simply attractive. So I don't think of dark matter as a glitch. It's more like a placeholder we don't understand yet.

Something that seems like a glitch to me is speed of light being a hard limit, but when you really dig into it you realize that certain limits determine the nature of the reality and they need to have some fixed value like the speed of light went Planck's constant.

[-] fidodo@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

What does it mean to "live in a simulation"? If I created a sentient computer program that has no contact with the outside world then you would say it's living in a simulation, but if you took that same exact program and connected it to a robot you'd say it's living in reality. But what's the line? If you add a tiny glimpse of reality but 99.9% of its experiences are stimulated is it living in a simulation or reality? It's not necessarily a black or white thing but more like a spectrum. In that sense you could say that our brains are creating a simulation of the outside world based on real inputs, but our perception of reality is not necessarily accurate. I would say our brains are on the spectrum of being a simulation of reality because not everything we experience is necessarily real.

[-] duckef@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Aliens could land on my lawn and take a 10hour long shit and I'd still have to go to work the next day.

[-] Max_UL@lemmy.pro 8 points 1 year ago

Because Elon Musk believes in it, I know it’s probably wrong.

[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
  • The render distance (observable universe)
  • The pixel size (Planck units)
  • And the update rate ('speed of light' = speed of information being updated)
[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Calling Planck units "pixels" is extremely reductive. This is just naively applying video game concepts to physics with a poor understanding of both.

[-] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I took an entire graduate course in QM and a quantized Universe does, in fact, seem pixelated. That's exactly how I explain it to people. There's simply a finite level to how closely you can zoom in. Space, time, and energy are all quantized, and maybe even gravity though we haven't figured that one out yet.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

A finite level to how close you can zoom in is very different from pixels. Pixels (or voxels in this case) are indivisible elements of a larger whole that exist along an evenly spaced grid. The universe doesn't have a Cartesian coordinate system measured in Planck lengths

[-] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Pixels (or voxels in this case) are indivisible elements of a larger whole that exist along an evenly spaced grid.

That's exactly what a Planck unit of spacetime is. And yes, the Universe--like a screen--is divided into an evenly-spaced grid any time you choose a coordinate system.

Why can’t you cut a Planck unit in half?

[-] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The why is not really known. But we simply cannot. There is not line where one particle ends and another particle begins. The best you can do is give a probability distribution, but some of the particles will be in places where they're not really supposed to be. This is actually what drives the fusion processes in stars. The nuclei don't actually have enough kinetic energy to fuse--but she is the protons in one hydrogen nucleus just magically appear in the nucleus of a neighboring hydrogen atom.

You literally can't have distances that are smaller than these probability distributions.

load more comments (8 replies)

Every time I need to cross a seemingly empty street, suddenly cars appear. I can't help but imagine it's a render distance issue.

[-] OrangeCorvus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Try to cross the street without turning your head. When you turn your head, they render the cars in the opposite directions.

/jk always look both ways before crossing the street.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Once I learned about quantum field theory, the distinction between reality and simulation kind of went away for me. It says that all of reality is essentially number values for different fundamental fields. A particle exists when the value for this field is d and the value for that field is y. But the only fundamentally real things are the fields. Everything else are just a configuration of number values within them that together conform to mathematical logic.

This sounds a lot like software to me. Whether it’s running on quantum fields or a fucking Pentium 3 doesn’t seem super important.

So sweeping aside the technology as irrelevant, we have turn to the issue of whether the universe is contrived by programmers. The question becomes: did people create the universe? And my opinion of us just isn’t that high.

[-] Zippy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I read a series, can't recall the name anymore, but computer simulations were so powerful that the entities within the simulations would think they are alive. In the novel this was done to try and simulated conditions to predict real life outcomes. It was also considered particularly vile and cruel to do this and illegal in some cases. Particularly if the simulated entities realized their situation and knew they would be turned off or understand their past was all made up.

It definately makes you wonder.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] squirrel_bear@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

YOU HAVE REACHED THE END OF FREE PREVIEW OF "THE LIFE". To continue using this entertainment, please deposit 650 kvazons to your blardg.

[-] Sarcasdick28@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Damn I spent my last kvazon at the pizzeria do yall take credit?

[-] squirrel_bear@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, but you'll regret it later, in about 20 years.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Here’s Elon Musk’s argument (not saying I agree with it but here’s what he said about it):

Eventually we will be able to create entirely convincing simulations. Just look at video games. The graphics are getting pretty good.

So given that we will inevitably create such simulations, we have to ask whether it has perhaps already happened and this is one of them.

And since we will no doubt create many different simulations, millions of them, the odds are against this one being the prime reality. It’s just millions-to-one odds by the numbers.

Therefore this is almost certainly a simulation.

(Personally I think there are factual and logical problems at many steps in this)

[-] lando55@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I just want to point out that while Musk likes to parrot this rhetoric, it is Nick Bostrom who should be credited with the hypothesis in its current, modern incarnation. That's not to say it is entirely his idea either, as similar hypotheses have been pontificated over for centuries , notably by René Descartes.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Mm thanks. Worthy footnote.

[-] sabriy01@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

seems consistent..

[-] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago

I'm a weak solipsist - I firmly believe that "I think therefore I am" is the only truth we can know. Everything else, we take on faith.

That said, it doesn't really matter. We live in the reality we perceive. There's no practical difference between living in reality and living in a simulation.

[-] mojo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

If you have the fundamental belief that if we know every single possible detail down to the atom, that we can predict what will happen every time, then you believe that free will does not exist. If you think of it that way, and think everything is calculated, then it could be theoretically be possible for some kind of super computer to generate everything since it knows all the information and can calculate what will happen next.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Chloepoke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Because everything can be expressed mathematically.

[-] tallwookie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Musk's leadership of Twitter. if we're in a simulation it makes perfect sense - some admin forgot to flip a switch somewhere and shit has gone a bit off the rails

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Doesn’t sound any more ridiculous than any of the other ideas.

[-] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Simulation theory is more or less a kind of modern creation myth, and creation myths are based around its societies current level of understanding of the world. In ancient times people explained the worlds actions and existence through gods and imaginative myths. When the scientific revolution happened people explained the universe in terms of immutable laws and cosmic logic. Now we are in the computational revolution, thus some people explain the worlds existence through computers. All untestable and unfalsifiable explanations for the nature of reality are as good as any other, so pick your poison and enjoy!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
96 points (94.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35311 readers
1250 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS