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

[IndigoWyrd]

This is our universe:

This is us:

This is "god":

We're "god's" sea monkeys. We're fun to watch for a while, sometimes we need a little shake to keep us interesting, otherwise, the experiment is over, and one of these days it's right down the toilet for all of us.

 

[Azathoth]

I find it ironic that these people come out with a ludicrous idea like this, then say they can be no such thing as a Creator like in the Bible.

I wonder why they reject a creator who created the earth before the sun and stars.

 

[Lily from anim.o.v.e]

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.

see, thats nonsense, what exists exists, no matter if someone watches the tree falling or not. If we are simulated then even the simulation makes us existent as objects and has t calculate evertyhign in the simulation. Your rendering is a bit invalid, as rendering means the object would temporarely not exist anymore as part of the simulation. In the end in such a simulatedion we all woudl be artificial intelligences as we are created by the simulation. Even if the simulation would create us as "natural" evolved life. The ebtter question siw hat reality is. and when something is a simulation. To be a simualtion our existence would ahve to be an abtsraction of something otherwise we may be not an simulation but still an artificial system. So the question of our existence is how realstical to the meta-reality (the reality that is a fact and not a simulation anymore) we are designed. If the meta-reality knows atoms and simulates them in a computer everyone in that simulation wouldn't be possible to realise that the atom he is acting with is unreal, because it is a simualted one. But in such a case we never would be able to know what the meta-reality is unless somoen running the simulation allows us to interact with exact simulated copies of said meta reality atmos. But since a simulation by definition I an abstraction, we would never be able to do that as we only can interct with abstractd objects ourselves. And at the Moment we would intercet with an exact one we are not an simulation anymore.

 

[Azathoth]

I think he's talking about the observer effect in which measurements have an effect on a quantum system. However something not existing until you observe it is contradictory, something needs to exist before you can observe or measure it.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I find it ironic that these people come out with a ludicrous idea like this, then say they can be no such thing as a Creator like in the Bible.

No scientist says there cannot be a creator, its just that the Bible, Quran and the likes are unimaginative nonsensical stories easily disproven. If religion would stop with the silliness it would be a different story. But you don't really need an 'intelligent' religion. Any religion that goes that extra mile would only appeal to people who will eventually just realise the author doesn't really know for sure either, and the people who don't arrive at such a conclusion are probably not gonna realize the plotholes anyway.

So thats why you definitely need an editor if you are to publish quality Sci-Fi, but its okay to skip that if you want to start your own religion.

 

[Sasquatch_Punter]

Hmm sounds like a confusion between philosophy and science.

Would you like to expand?

Science is the observation and prediction of real quantities. A scientist who indulges in metaphysical questions and applies extremely loose scientific reasoning to them doesn't by association make them scientific. Some overlaps occur, but it can't be called real science unless REAL SCIENCE is actually applied.

We could take the concept of hell and try to figure out the likelihood of it existing by making some broad assumptions and predicting its probability based on that. You could do the same thing for heaven, or any theological dimension. It's not real science, and it's not legitimized just because it's been entertained by a few people with a science background.

 

[Spacecat]

Hmm, what is implausable and what is plausable? Those border move forward as our civilization move forward and our understanding of science grows more advanced. A flying machine to the ancient Greeks was implausible, to Leonardo Da Vinci it was plausible, and to us it is a dayli day item, broadly understood by most.

Many people make the assumption that technology will keep advancing in a linear fashion. But it doesn't; it goes up and down like a wiggly sales chart, generally progressing, but not always. Many ancient civilizations became quite advanced, then collapsed. We're already starting to run into limits in some things. Just because cars could only go 60 mph in the past, but can go 200 mph now, doesn't mean they will go 1000 mph in the future. It's possible we may never truly understand the galaxy or be able to travel around from star system with a FSD, but that's ok with me.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

It's Brabens, all the way up.

 

[Comrade Napoleon]

Many people make the assumption that technology will keep advancing in a linear fashion. But it doesn't; it goes up and down like a wiggly sales chart, generally progressing, but not always. Many ancient civilizations became quite advanced, then collapsed. We're already starting to run into limits in some things. Just because cars could only go 60 mph in the past, but can go 200 mph now, doesn't mean they will go 1000 mph in the future. It's possible we may never truly understand the galaxy or be able to travel around from star system with a FSD, but that's ok with me.

I'l be Honest with you, its not ok with me, I will not experience even a landing on Mars, i'll be dead before.
But thats life...
It's very intriguing for me to speculate what is out there, what is far away, how many GALAXIES, and so forth, it is just so many questions and so few answers, and so immense distances, they are surreal, even some planets are surreal (Youtube, Planet size, watch)
its mind boggling, I would want us to go one day, to spread out there.
Is there life out there, of course there is, but we may never see it.
These are some of the things that make my play Elite, experincing our Milky Way , the only way I can

Cheers Cmdr's

 

[Ragamuffin1979]

I love how "real science" is on the thread title. Was good for a laugh.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

Due to the limits of the speed of light the whole shabang's an illusion.
What makes my brain melt is the thought that none of it was even observed until the eye evolved.

 

[Han_Zen]

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.

That is one interpretation of quantum mechanical properties like wave particle duality and entanglement. It may also be a result of our inability to distinguish perceived reality from universal reality.

The simulation theory is deeply founded in human nature. A majority of people believe to some extent in the existence of some sort of soul. A soul is in principal nothing more than an 'out of this world' entity, capable of controlling a single 'in world' character. Not that different from a multiplayer game really.

I wonder if it's a client/server or P2P setup?

 

[bootsam]

There is a misunderstanding of the term 'observable'. Particle A doesnt ogle Particle B and go, ooh nice wave functions. The universe functions perfectly well without us d0gging their interactions.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

I KNOW that the universe I am experiencing is unique. It came into existence when I was born, and it will disappear when I die. It just so happens that everybody I encounter is also experiencing THEIR unique universe!

 

[pewterino]

So if my Sims play Sims on their computer, what does that mean?

 

[Han_Zen]

If we are in a simulation, then I think it's fairly safe to say that it's not running on a version of Windows, or we'd have seen a BSOD by now. Of course, if it did BSOD, presumably the operators could rollback to a previous restore point, where everything would be fine, and we'd have no knowledge of the BSOD anyway. I mean, restore points always work, right? [yesnod]

If you don't reboot your client more or less every night and allow time for updates, you will start to experience severe lag. If you ignore it long enough, the SOD(not sure of colour) is inevitable.

 

[pewterino]

If you don't reboot your client more or less every night and allow time for updates, you will start to experience severe lag. If you ignore it long enough, the SOD(not sure of colour) is inevitable.

Why do you think we are running real time simulation? Why do you think that there isn't save and restore function? We might be running once a week for all you may know. Or we might be running 1 000 000x slower than real time or faster.

If you watch animated movie from disney, can you guess how fast frames were rendered on render farm judging from watching the movie?

 

[bootsam]

There's no restore function because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of all the universal laws the Thermodynamics Laws are absolutists. If you think ISIS are dogmatic, you ain't seen nothing on the Thermodynamic fundamentalists. You try unstirring your tea and theyll make the milk curdle.

 

[pewterino]

There's no restore function because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of all the universal laws the Thermodynamics Laws are absolutists. If you think ISIS are dogmatic, you ain't seen nothing on the Thermodynamic fundamentalists. You try unstirring your tea and theyll make the milk curdle.

It's simulation! They can do anything, if it runs on computer.

 

[bootsam]

It's simulation! They can do anything, if it runs on computer.

Alas no, as the HDD would have worn out a bit more and thus its entropy increased.