We are playing a simulation of a galaxy, and real science claims the universe "could" be a simulation

Boff'in

Boff'in
We are playing a simulation of a galaxy, and real science claims the universe "could" be a simulation

Not that I buy this "universe" being a simulation, I don't really understand the physics behind it all.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation

but it does amuse me that we are playing a game which is a simulation of the galaxy, and our avatars are two levels of inception down.

Or we are a playing future version of Elite 6th, made by a cybernetically enhanced David Braben in the year 2105 letting us play a version of our younger selfs in 2017.
 

Comrade Napoleon

Comrade Napoleon
Immediately donning my aluminium pot, just in case..
Yes it is all an illusion indeed, a very clever one, but an illusion. We are not really here, we are the thoughts of someone or something else, a mind game of sorts, maybe called Earth : Dangerous for all I know.
Dont be fooled !

Cheers Cmdr's
 

Hell Razor5543

H
Well, I don't know about you lot, but when I park my ship up for the evening I play a game called "Life in the 21st Century", the sequel to the game "Life in the 20th Century".
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Boff'in said:
Not that I buy this "universe" being a simulation, I don't really understand the physics behind it all.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation

but it does amuse me that we are playing a game which is a simulation of the galaxy, and our avatars are two levels of inception down.

Or we are a playing future version of Elite 6th, made by a cybernetically enhanced David Braben in the year 2105 letting us play a version of our younger selfs in 2017.
Click to expand...

That would be at least two levels. Could be a million.
 

{SAS}Stalker

{SAS}Stalker
Several hundred years ago a kickstarter got funding for a software developer to begin simulation of a real time galaxy and here we are. I wonder if somewhere there are people still buying jpg's of an alternative simulation which is still being made....
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
playfuldreamer said:
Not necessarily.

I read some time back that our universe is strictly observable--meaning that it only exists when observed. This falls in line with what we understand of simulations, where things are only rendered as needed.
Click to expand...

Thats not even close to what it means. You're confused about the meaning and form of existence. Its tempting though, people have always likened existence to current technology. From brains as steam machines to reality as computer games. :)
 

playfuldreamer

playfuldreamer
sleutelbos said:
Thats not even close to what it means. You're confused about the meaning and form of existence. Its tempting though, people have always likened existence to current technology. From brains as steam machines to reality as computer games. :)
Click to expand...

This was being talked about as early as 2002. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

http://themindunleashed.com/2015/06...oesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...cks-theory-reality-doesn-t-exist-look-it.html
http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms

Good reads. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:

NascentChemist

N
carmey said:
the obvious question: if our universe is a simulation, what's it a simulation OF? no scientist has ever said
Click to expand...

The usual conjecture is that it's some intelligence trying to model their own existence. Same way we model quantum interactions in silico instead of trying to observe them directly.

20101109.gif


20110928.gif
 
Last edited:

Sasquatch_Punter

S
playfuldreamer said:
Not necessarily.

I read some time back that our universe is strictly observable--meaning that it only exists when observed. This falls in line with what we understand of simulations, where things are only rendered as needed.
Click to expand...

It's the exact same conundrum as "Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it?"

Pure existential philosophy. Of course, we KNOW that computer games only render objects when they're observed because we've designed them that way. That doesn't mean the rest of the game doesn't exist in some way.
 

GJ51

GJ51
Last edited:

Darth Ender

D
If they're both simulations, you can tell which simulation had a better game-plan going into the creation of it. As far as I know, the real life simulation doesn't create a framework, rules and action around being in a space craft only to introduce something that makes all of that pointless and look stupid and make no sense and yet not care.
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Sasquatch_Punter said:
It's the exact same conundrum as "Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it?"

Pure existential philosophy. Of course, we KNOW that computer games only render objects when they're observed because we've designed them that way. That doesn't mean the rest of the game doesn't exist in some way.
Click to expand...

It is nothing like that, either. The idea of quantum state very much came from empirical evidence. The problem is that when it is explained in layman terms they use words that are easy to misunderstand. 'observed', for example, doesn't mean 'someone looking at it'. And 'exists' doesn't mean that it 'doesnt exist' in quantum state. So the comparison between the 'it only exists when observed' and 'its like occlusion culling in computer games' is made because people misunderstand both the concept of being observed and the form of existence.

In physics, these mistakes are not made, and it is not doing it justice by calling it mere philosphy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom