Comment on Mathematics disproves Matrix theory, says reality isn’t simulation

srasmus@slrpnk.net ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Bytemite@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I think the “what if we’re all in a video game” take is a thought terminating cliche based solely on our own culture and experience.

  I’m less certain that we’re not a brane stretched across the cosmological horizon projected backwards in time by the collapse of a universe-sized supermassive black hole, and that the answer of who runs the simulation or who’s making the hologram is no one. But mostly I think that because I cleave hard to the idea that any natural process that we hypothesize about should have a basis in an existing model. Black holes are something that we largely exist outside and can study and have a number of comparable features that make them ideal to test these thought experiments. There’s obvious uncertainties, like whether our universe is spinning, whether it even needs to be spinning, and the inconclusiveness of whether galaxies have inherited spin from that or not, but I also don’t buy for a second that the big bang doesn’t have an origin or natural cause or that it could possibly be “just is.”

  source
• kromem@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m a proponent and I definitely don’t think it’s impossible to make a probable case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  And there are implications around it being the case which do change up how we might approach truth seeking.

  Also, if you exist in a dream but don’t exist outside of it, there’s pretty significant philosophical stakes in the nature and scope of the dream. We’ve been too brainwashed by Plato’s influence and the idea that “original = good” and “copy = bad.”

  There’s a lot of things that can only exist by way of copies that can’t exist for the original (i.e. closure recursion), so it’s a weird remnant philosophical obsession.

  All that said, I do get that it’s a fairly uncomfortable notion for a lot of people.

  source
• queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I think if we’re ever going to find an answer to “Why does the universe exist?” I think one of the steps along the way will be providing a concrete answer to the simulation hypothesis. Obviously if the answer is “yes, it’s a simulation and we can demonstrate as much” then the next question becomes “OK so who or what is running the simulation and why does that exist?” which, great, now we know a little bit more about the multiverse and can keep on learning new stuff about it.

  Alternatively, if the answer is “no, this universe and the rules that govern it are the foundational elements of reality” then… well, why this? why did the big bang happen? why does it keep expanding like that? Maybe we will find explanations for all of that that preclude a higher-level simulation, and if we do, great, now we know a little bit more about the universe and can keep on learning new stuff about it.

  source
• derek@infosec.pub ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yes but, also, no.

  You already seem familiar but, ror the uninitiated playing along at home, Wikipedia’s entry for Simulation Theory is a pretty easy read. Quoting their synopsis of Bostrom’s conjecture:

  1. either such simulations are not created because of technological limitations or self-destruction;
  2. advanced civilizations choose not to create them;
  3. if advanced civilizations do create them, the number of simulations would far exceed base reality and we would therefore almost certainly be living in one.

  it’s certainly an interesting thought. I agree it shouldn’t inform our ethics or disposition toward our lived experiences. That doesn’t mean there’s zero value in trying to find out though. Even if the only positive yield is that we develop better testing methods which still come up empty: that’s still progress worth having. If it nets some additional benefit then so much the better.

  I’d argue that satisfying curiosity is, in itself, and worthy pursuit so long as no harm is done.

  That all still sets aside the more interesting question though. If such simulations are possible then are they something we’re comfortable creating? If not, and we find one has been built, what should we do? Turn it off? Leave it alone? “Save” those created inside of it?

  These aren’t vapid questions. They strike at the heart of many important unresolved quandries. Are the simulated minds somehow less real than unsimulated ones? Does that question’s answer necessarily impact those mind’s right to agency, dignity, or self-determination?

  The closer we get to being able to play god on a whim the more pressing I find such questions. That’s not because I wring my hands and labor anxiously at truth or certainty for lack of better idols. It’s because, whatever this is, we’re all in it together and our choices today have an outsized impact on the choices others will have tomorrow. Developing a clearer view of what this is, and what we’re capable of doing in it, affords future minds better opportunity to arrive at reasonable conclusions and decide how to live well.

  source

  • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It kind of sounds like you’re talking about it purely as a thought experiment or as something to inspire other philosophical thinking. But I think the issue most people have with the simulation theory is when people think that it’s actually the way that the world is or think that it’s worth investigating the way that the world is just because it theoretically could be the way the world is. But theoretically the world could have been created by the god of the Bible or any of the other million explanations proposed by the million other religions that have existed. Almost every religion proposes a hypothesis that could indeed explain reality, but just because it could explain reality doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to investigate it.

    I agree with you that all the questions you raised are interesting and worth thinking about, but none of that really relates to thinking that we actually live in a simulation. You’re just using the idea that we live in a simulation as inspiration to start thinking about these other ideas. But actually thinking that we live in a simulation is much less reasonable.

    source
• prime_number_314159@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The universe can’t be a simulation, the framerate is way too good.

  source

  • survirtual@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In a simulation, you could take a thousand years to render a single frame, and the occupants of the simulation wouldn’t know any better.

    The max tick rate for our simulation seems to be tied to the speed of light, that’s our upper bound.

    Of course, the lower bound is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle or Planck length.

    In other words, it is a confined system. That means it is computationally finite in principle if you exist outside the bounds of it.

    source
  • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I keep seeing supersampling artifacts when I squirt my eyes

    source

    • derek@infosec.pub ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Eyes don’t normally do that. I think you should squirt see a doctor.

      source

      • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think typing charlie squirt so many times fucked up my autocorrect

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Simulation theory is the long way around to creationism for atheists.

  source

  • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yes, kind of, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a point against it. “Why are we here? / Why is the universe here?” is one of the big interesting questions that still doesn’t have a good answer, and I think thinking about possible answers to the big questions is one of the ways we push the envelope of what we do know. This particular paper seems like a not-that-interesting result using our current known-to-be-incomplete understanding of quantum gravity, and the claim that it somehow “disproves” the simulation hypothesis is some rank unscientific nonsense that IMO really shouldn’t have been accepted by a scientific journal, but I think the question it poorly attempts to answer is an interesting one.

    source
  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Creationism usually implies the creator put a lot of thought, care, and love into the creation. Knowing what I do of software development, fucking lol.

    source