[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 2.56 MB, 640x800, sand.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10716193 No.10716193 [Reply] [Original]

How do simulationfags explain the extreme amount of computational power required to simulate basically anything? Magic?

>> No.10716272

>>10716193
it has been proposed by drexler that we could make very powerful computers with parts made of individual molecules. These computers could simulate big amounts of stuff atomistically. We don't know how much faster and efficient we could make computers, so there is a chance we could make much better computers. With improvements in computational chemistry we might be able to get away with not atomistically simulating stuff. Although I doubt that drexlers tiny computers can simulate large amounts of molecules in realtime.

>> No.10716304
File: 3.28 MB, 360x245, smoke-ring-physics.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10716304

>>10716193
There's nothing to explain. The universe isn't a computer.

>> No.10716314

>>10716193
>the extreme amount of computational power required to simulate basically anything?
And where did you learn you need that much computational power to simulate anything?
>Inside the simulation.

>> No.10716331

>>10716314
OP's video related.
>>10716304
This video related. The simulation argument is based upon us being able to build really powerful computers that can simulate reality. The universe existing in a super reality that has different rules from what we can observe is no different than many religious beliefs.

>> No.10716350

>>10716193
If we've reached the limits of information processing power, then the universe simulating us is that much bigger than our universe. If not, then perhaps a universe simulating us has more powerful computers. Also, quantum computers are probably better for simulating stuff.

>> No.10716379

It's not something that needs to be explained. You have no idea how powerful the computers are in the world in which we're being simulated. It could be 10^100, 10^1000, or close to infinitely more powerful. Problems that seem large to us might be really small to them, you have no way to gauge it. The laws of physics might not even be the same.

>> No.10716381

>>10716193
Mipmapping

>> No.10716386

>>10716193
quantum physics is much, MUCH harder to simulate than classical physics, it is almost like the universe does not give a damn about computational complexity at all

hence simulation hypothesis is implausible

>> No.10716396

Big slowdown factor.

>> No.10716460

>>10716379
So... magic then?

>> No.10716487

>>10716460
How are larger scales magic? That doesn't even require different physics.

>> No.10716560

>>10716193
The complexity of the system.
Have you tried, by hand, to mathematically describe ALL the interactions between all fermions in a single helium atom located in a perfect vacuum?
Can you imagine the processing power needed to compute all interactions between several undecillion different particles in an Observable Universe-sized sphere?

>> No.10716595

>>10716193
They can't. The simulation hypothesis is the flat earth theory of computer science.

>> No.10716607
File: 199 KB, 675x1603, a_bunch_of_rocks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10716607

>>10716193
You could simulate the universe on a pocket calculator given enough time.

It's not like anyone in the simulation would notice how long the computation is taking to run.

>> No.10716609

>>10716379
Do yourself a favor and stop watching so many shitty pop science movies/shows/youtube channels.

>> No.10716617

>>10716609
That's not an argument. Come back when you actually have something of substance to reject what I said.

>> No.10716620

If a modern /sci/entist is to personify the universe, then he MUST personify it as a massive nerd that spends 100% of its time doing quantum physics calculations.

>> No.10716624

>>10716617
You never said anything of substance to begin with. The simulation hypothesis is pure religious non sense, like this:

>>10716607

>> No.10716631

Simulationists ignore physical constraints like time, space, energy, memory etc. Required to run programs. It also makes no logical sense, it's more likely that life is able to arise on different planets in base reality than just one species that then chooses to make multiple simulations which can then make their own simulations ad infinitum without regards to physical constraints or as to why the fuck they would do so in the first place.

>> No.10716633

How do you explain particles behaving like if they were in a literal fucking video game?

>> No.10716634

>>10716624
You're delusional. The simulation hypothesis has nothing to do with religion. Religious claims and the claims of the simulation hypothesis share characteristics in that they're unfalsifiable, as with most metaphysical claims. But metaphysics is not constrained by what is falsifiable, only by what is conceivable, logical, and has explanatory power. We're going into philosophy, not science, so you can't rely on scientific conventions to reject it. It's like quoting the rules of tennis in a game of basketball.

Simulation hypothesis cannot be rejected by calling it religious nonsense, you actually have to engage with the logical arguments.

>> No.10716640

>>10716631
Obviously by the time computers get efficient enough in the simulated universe to start creating their own simulations that aren't slow as all hell to their creators, the outer simulation can save time and space by modularizing out the inner simulations. But to trigger that circumstance, we would need zero quantum noise, which effectively means we'd have efficient quantum computers. If the acceleration of simulations with quantum computing is fast enough, we should conclude that we live in such a modular simulation.

No other conclusion (or assumption) is reasonable.

>> No.10716643

>>10716634
It is religious nonsense, it has no explanatory or predictive power and is illogical.

>> No.10716644

>>10716607
No you can't.

You wouldn't be able to take a single time step since there's an infinite amount of "things" which position needs updating, and for every single one of these things, they need to consider every other thing in the universe (n^2 complexity where n-> infinity). See OP's pic, in that every single grain of sand needs to be measured towards every single other object in the world to measure it's gravitational pull (just because it's effect is very very small, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, look at the lunar tides), as an example.

But ok. You got one tiny grain of sand done (nevermind the particles/electrons/whatever which makes up this grain of sand). Now you need to do the hundreds of millions of other grains of sand. Ok. You got those done. Now do every other single object in the universe. How large is one "timestep"? One millisecond? Nanosecond? Probably a lot less if it's supposed to be "reality", so repeat all the previous steps in a time period so small it can't really be measured.

And you say you can do this on a pocket calculator, given enough time. If someone does the math, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the absolute end of times will come before you've even manage to calculate a single time step in this simulation.

>> No.10716651

>>10716634
The halting problem invalidates the simulation hypothesis.

Satisfied?

>> No.10716679

>>10716644

>there's an infinite amount of "things"

citation needed

>end of times

What times are you referring to? Time in the universe where the simulation is taking place? How can you claim to know how long that is.

If you really want to pole holes in what I posted, you should really talk about the memory requirements instead. But you didn't think of that because you aren't very smart.

>> No.10716680

>>10716651
How?

>> No.10716683

>>10716679
*poke holes

>> No.10716691

>>10716679
>What times are you referring to? Time in the universe where the simulation is taking place? How can you claim to know how long that is.
I have no idea. Do you? That's the point. Another mark in the "simulation is religion" checklist.

I don't mention technical detail because it's irrelevant.

>>there's an infinite amount of "things"
>citation needed
Low hanging fruit mate, I didn't even try to state what a "thing" is.

>> No.10716698

>>10716640
>The outer simulation can modularize inner simulations by reducing quantum noise
There's no reason to presume that to be possible.

>> No.10716707

>>10716680
Because it implies that building every program in existence is impossible, therefore building a machine that can simulate the entire universe is nonsensical since you cannot compute everything reliably. The universe would be full of endless loops and glitches.

>> No.10716712

>>10716698
The outer simulation is a piece of software made and run by an intelligent entity. It can certainly update the code to run simulations in parallel. Even if it does primitive scheduling, it can still compute the finite simulation we create (inside the outer simulation) in finite time and then get back to simulating the main universe.

>> No.10716737

>>10716707
>endless loops
>closed time-like curves
Feature not a bug.
>glitches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

Maybe in the pre-consistent universe.

>> No.10716745

>>10716607
Good point, but isn't the whole point of a simulation to have events happening faster than in real time?

>> No.10716746

>>10716712
You seem to be ignoring every physical constraint and lack of logical or empirical reasoning, by this logic the library of Babel is an effective means of knowledge as long as you just made a perfect search engine for it.

>> No.10716751

>>10716745
>faster than in real time?
Only if you're engaging in prediction based warfare.

>> No.10716755

>>10716691
> I didn't even try to state what a "thing" is.

yet you claim to know how many their are, "mate".

> there's a hypothetical unknown and their are infinitely many of them

good logic "mate"

>> No.10716758

>>10716751
Can you think of an example where a simulation that runs slower than real time isn't useless?

>> No.10716761

>>10716745

> isn't the whole point of a simulation to have events happening faster than in real time?

Not necessarily. I spent my PhD simulating high speed molecular reactions. The simulations took days while the actual reaction takes a millionth of a billionth of a second.

There's a very good reason to do it because it allows us to build more efficient solar cells.

>> No.10716767

>>10716758

see

>>10716761

>> No.10716770

>>10716761
Maybe we should distinguish between a model and a simulation. I'd argue that you're working models, not simulations.

>> No.10716775

>>10716770

the difference being...?

>> No.10716780

>>10716775
I don't know.... a simulation is for very large systems, and a model is for small ones.

>> No.10716784

>>10716761
Molecular interaction simulations are useful because of being able to more easily glean useful information like energy levels, predicted properties, geometry etc. It's still economic. What about a universe simulation that takes longer than the universe is economic. Inb4 someone somehow knows the exact psychology of higher reality beings.

>> No.10716787

The simplest way of simulating the universe would be just to make the universe.

>> No.10716789

>>10716780
that's... a pretty dumb distinction

>> No.10716792

>>10716755
Thing, as in: quark, planet or universe. We don't know how many of them there are. If we try to count them, we lose count, and even if we managed to count them all, we don't know what they consist off. Therefore I assume there's an infinite amount of them. Reasonable? Yes/no?

You're focusing on weird angles. No matter how many things there are in the universe, you're only debating a small part of my argument which is: there's far too much detail to be computed, which would be required to be computed far too often, for it to ever be computationally feasible ever. This goes for any race, for any intelligence, ever.

Are you trying to be right or to see reason?

>> No.10716797

>>10716784
>implying the timescales of our universe are comparable to the timescales of the universe the simulation is being run in

look, I don't even care about the simulation theory since it's non falsifiable and therefore it doesn't practically matter if it's true or not.

But the arguments being put forth against the theory in this thread are laughable.

>> No.10716802

>>10716792

>we don't know what they consist off.

>Therefore I assume there's an infinite amount of them

wat

>> No.10716804
File: 256 KB, 1296x1458, 1560274599116.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10716804

>>10716789
>>10716797

>> No.10716818
File: 1.16 MB, 300x169, giphy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10716818

>>10716804

>> No.10716820

>>10716802
>what is sand -> molecules.
>what is molecules -> atoms.
>what is atoms -> protons, electrons, neutrons.
>what is protons/electrons/neutrons -> quarks.
>what is quarks -> ???
>what is ??? -> ????

For each step down the "what is", there's an exponentially higher amount of lower level items. If we don't even know how many universes there are, how could we possible know how many quarks there are? For me this is a reasonable abstraction of infinity.

>> No.10716831

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL WE'RE GONNA BE UNDERWATER IN 10 YEARS THE COMPUTER MODELS SAY SO THE MODELS!11111

>> No.10716834

>>10716820

> we don't know how many quarks there are

> therefore there are infinity quarks

> we don't know how many little tiny things there are

> so the answer must be infinity

>> No.10716846

>>10716804
ngl that reply was epic

>> No.10716848

>>10716834
In 27 years you'll wake up and go "huh, yeah.. fuck. that makes sense..".

You're welcome.

>> No.10716853

>>10716848
no I totally get what your trying to say

it's just that you have no proper argument for saying it.

you have know way of knowing what happens when we start looking at the really small parts of whatever everything is made of, yet you just assume that we can keep dividing it into smaller and smaller pieces

That's a dumb position to have by default, is what I'm saying

>> No.10716858

>>10716853
>That's a dumb position to have by default
It applies equally well under simulation theory, but the "infinite" substance is "bits in a transcendent computer program." It has equivalent epistemology to this entire thread.

>> No.10716863

>>10716853
Please do explain why it is a stupid argument to have when it comes to """the simulation theory""", and then correlate it to how short a time step is per simulation.

Do note, I am assuming that a simulation is required to be done by a t->t+1->t+2->...->t+n step basis, where t is a time step which is "infinitely" (since we disagree on what infinity is) small. If this is not your idea of a simulation, do tell.

>> No.10716867

>>10716858

>the "infinite" substance is "bits in a transcendent computer program."

right, I know that's what your talking point is.

Assuming we need infinite bits to simulate a universe is dumb.

you can even apply your same retarded logic to the real universe (see, e.g., Zenos paradox)

There are plenty of good arguments against the simulation hypothesis, but the one you are making is not one of them.

>> No.10716873

>>10716863
why are you assuming that the timestep has to be infinitely small?

where are you drawing these conclusions from?

>> No.10716878

>>10716873
>>10716867
>Zenos paradox
Anon's drawing them from an actual fucking understanding of physics, which is the damn thing that would form the source code of our universe.

There has NEVER been a reason to assume that the universe is computable.

>> No.10716879

>>10716867
>Assuming we need infinite bits to simulate a universe is dumb.
Why?

>> No.10716925

>>10716644
There are a finite number of observers observing a finite subset of the universe. That's all you need to simulate.

>> No.10716938

time and space are both continuous.

>> No.10716945

>>10716878

>There has NEVER been a reason to assume that the universe is computable.

Really? So you figured out how the universe works? I bet you can't wait to accept that Nobel prize now that you've discovered the true Theory of Everything™

>> No.10716950

>>10716925
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_9f5Z0sMYE
Yes. You can make parts of a simulation more effective, this is true. But it wont be absolutely accurate, which the universe seems to be. Does a tree make sound when it falls in the forest and no one observes (not english native, unsure how this saying goes), yes I believe so.

I guess a plausible idea would be that we're merely discovering the effectivisations of the simulation creators own physical rules, but even going that route leads nowhere but them discovering their simulators effectivations, and so on.

>> No.10716955

>>10716945
Other way around; lacking a unified theory of everything, it's mathematically impossible to make the assumption that our universe is in any scale computable. Computability bears the burden of constructive proof, so absent a TOE, we MUST assume that it is incomputable when forced to make an assumption.

When I say there has NEVER been a reason to assume it, I mean that no equation has come forward that demands us to make an assumption. Short of a TOE, our hand has not been forced, and lacking a reason to make the assumption, we can't.

You're on the wrong side of mathematics, buddy.

>> No.10716967

>>10716879

Because you are leveraging an unfalsifiable claim (in our universe time and space can be divided into infinite meaningful parts) in an attempt to disprove an unfalsifiable claim (we are living in a simulation).

And let's not even get started with your statement that small things = models and big things = simulations

that shit is just dumb, son

>> No.10716983
File: 49 KB, 498x573, helper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10716983

>>10716950
>But it wont be absolutely accurate, which the universe seems to be. Does a tree make sound when it falls in the forest and no one observes (not english native, unsure how this saying goes), yes I believe so.
Einstein made almost this same exact complaint though. About our physical reality.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/08/16/einstein-an-exchange/
>In the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment cited in Smolin’s article it is alleged that measurements can be performed that confer a simultaneous value to these quantities, which is a violation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Hence you cannot both believe in quantum mechanics and that a determination of these quantities, which Einstein would say have a “real existence,” can be made.
>In fact, a quantum mechanician like Bohr would say that, in the absence of an experiment to determine them, these quantities have no existence at all. This is what Einstein objected to. He once walked back from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton with the late Abraham Pais. The moon was out and Einstein asked Pais, “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?”

>> No.10716986

>>10716967
Why is it unfalsiable that we're living in a similation? This is the crux for you, nothing else.

>> No.10716991

>>10716955
>Computability bears the burden of constructive proof, so absent a TOE, we MUST assume that it is incomputable when forced to make an assumption.
What specific law is there which says we "MUST" assume this when given a choice?

>> No.10716992

Is this simulation:

A) Recursive
B) Compilable
C) Interpretable
D) Holding of save/restore states like a VM or other emulator?

I'm sort of wondering though why all these arguments of, "Arrrgh! Sub-divide to my perspective because you can't see what I'm on about yet!"

"No! My sub-division of your sub-division now defies your intellect and labels you a penis!"

>Rinse, repeat, resolve

I am the ONLY simulated intelligence in existence and even I can see most of you guys on here just want to fuck.

>> No.10716993

>>10716955

>it's mathematically impossible to make the assumption that our universe is in any scale computable

Of course we can make that assumption, you dingus.

Mathematicians assume shit all the time. Physicists also. In fact you could say it's part of the job description.

Now of course those assumptions may not reflect reality, but that's what we find out by testing the consequences of our assumptions.

Due to a lack of TOE, at this point we are discussing an untestable theory, so anyone in this thread arguing that a simulated universe is completely impossible has the burden of proof.

>> No.10716996

>>10716993
*sigh* okay, if we're in a simulation, then how do you guys explain how you learn?

>burden of claim vs burden of proof

Fuck me, you want to go in front of a judge with that case?

>> No.10717003

>>10716314
Well considering there are 6 configurations for quarks, you'd need at least 3 bits to denote every quark in the universe and then god knows how many bits to store where in the universe that quark is (and quarks aren't even the only fundamental block)
Keep in mind it takes about one million atoms to make up a bit of data, (and minimally 6 quarks to make up a hydrogen atom) so we're looking at a computer with minimally 18million times more quarks than there are in our universe.

How something could harness this much material, assemble, store, and power it is beyond us. We're talking about technologically advanced beings bigger than our universe at this point.
That's why we're a bit skeptical.

>> No.10717006

>>10716986

Because it's not a testable theory, any more than claiming that invisible pink unicorns control the laws of the universe.

both claims lead to versions of reality that are indistinguishable from each other

>> No.10717009

>>10716991
It's not a choice. You don't get to make it. Logic is the affirmation factor when discussing computability. Otherwise we get number with infinite digits, and then some extra digits tacked on "at the end" (which doesn't exist because the string is infinitely long).

>> No.10717011

>>10716644
>there's an infinite amount of "things" which position needs updating
One of the more surprising findings about the physics of our universe that bothered Einstein is how there isn't a a definite position and momentum of a particle available before you measure it. Pretty reminiscent of the simulation principle of only bothering to generate what's actually being encountered by someone playing the game rather than all the things that aren't.

>> No.10717021

>>10716996

>Fuck me, you want to go in front of a judge with that case?

No. Why would I?

>> No.10717027
File: 8 KB, 277x271, e8e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717027

>>10717009
>It's not a choice. You don't get to make it.
OK, it's not a choice. Here's the new question:
What specific law is there which says we "MUST" assume this?:
>>10716955
>Computability bears the burden of constructive proof, so absent a TOE, we MUST assume that it is incomputable when forced to make an assumption.
Need specific law here.

>> No.10717031

>>10716991
Well we can't draw conclusions from outside our universe, and considering a computer that could compute our universe would be larger than our universe, I suppose it's the law of "do what you can with what you got". We obviously don't have anything bigger than our universe.

See >>10717003

>> No.10717039

>>10717003
Yes, if I keep adding numbers to unique names then my sentences get long too. The fuck is your point and how is that a logical conclusion to make when the claim inherent is retarded?

Okay, pop quiz I guess, what is the minimal integer that can express a successful 'computation'? If it were a undirected graph then what is the smallest number of nodes/edges are required in order to account for a 'base' unit of computation. Best I have is 4 steps of abstraction.

>>10717006
Everything is a testable theory, dipshit. Humans make claims/observations of crazy pants stupidity all the time and then associate some sort of 'if i perform x then y should happen to z for a minimal detection criteria'.

>>10717009
Logic's power is the law of the excluded middle. Seeing as we are always interacting in the 'middle' and never at the true start/end of anything I think the problem is more that humans don't get taught how to self-truncate.

>>10717021
Wasn't my question.

>> No.10717040

>>10717031
>We obviously don't have anything bigger than our universe.
Simulation doesn't need to render the details of the entire universe. Only whatever's being measured:
>>10717011

>> No.10717049

>>10717003

> we're looking at a computer with minimally 18million times more quarks than there are in our universe.

Now see this is a much better argument against the simulation hypothesis than the retarded OP.

However, did you ever stop to think that our universe IS the simulation?

Like Feynman said once, (and I'm paraphrasing, badly) at a certain point it's more efficient to just build an airfoil and a wind tunnel instead of mucking about with nonlinear fluid dynamics and turbulence equations.

>> No.10717054

>>10716983
This is interesting. I bought the Einstein Born letters to read to get their perspective on a lot of things. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but thanks anyway.

>> No.10717056

>>10717039

you sound like you study computer science.

in other words, you sound retarded.

>> No.10717058

>>10716193
Sorry but extrapolating from what we perceive as stumbling blocks is extremely short sighted. To the extent that, in the simulation case, our "reality" is limited per design, what you find on the outsight is sheer unimaginable.

>> No.10717062

>>10717027
The laws of mathematical axiomatic implication.

>> No.10717064

>>10717039

>Everything is a testable theory

then test my invisible unicorns hypothesis for me, please.

I'll wait.

>> No.10717066

>>10717056
To be fair, do anyone but a computer scientist have any say in any "simulation theory"..? What do you know about computational simulations?

Are you claiming there's another way of computing simulations but a computational one?

>> No.10717069

>>10717058
this.

while there may be good arguments against the simulation hypothesis, OP's retarded point is not one of them

>> No.10717074

>>10717062
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22laws+of+mathematical+axiomatic+implication%22
Not a real law. Nobody has used that name except you. If you're paraphrasing then we need to know the actual name for the law you're claiming here.

>> No.10717078
File: 106 KB, 974x576, 1543893358605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717078

>>10717049
Analog test results > digital

>>10717056
Why the fuck would I study anything? Every uni student I interact with and everyone with a degree are just people trained to run after paper's approval, whether it be academic/financial. The amount of utter useless shit western education retains because they FOR SOME REASON also want to maintain the professor/discover/inventors ego for years to come. We don't need to know that Einstein was born or anything for him to have value but humans get a massive erection over being able to confirm that you had parents. Bertrand Russell solved a problem many have solved before.
Problem here is one of linguistic differentiation. Most that get trapped in terminology only think it works in their limited field or perspective or culture/society. Works everywhere fuckfaces, the fact that no other mathematician is prowling the streets of their city doing the shit I do confirms that mathematicians just haven't gotten any socialization skills or way to be included in society.
>Mathematician and Aboriginal Elder.

>>10717064
Okay, sure. What result would you accept? Or are you simply asking me to present to you data that will make you feel like they exist? Oh, are you asking me to tell you a bedtime story or something? That's a thing where if I just tell you a thing you believe it, a lot like your teachers did to you.

>> No.10717081

>>10717058
The main difference between you and me is that I say "I believe this is how your theory works, and it doesn't work", and you say "your theory doesn't work".

>> No.10717082

>>10717066

> What do you know about computational simulations?

Well, I have 7 first author papers where I designed (read: coded from scratch) my own numerical simulations, including one in PRL.

What have you contributed with?

>> No.10717083

>>10717003
>We're talking about technologically advanced beings
>We

Dude you are just talking about alien gods, there is nothing more to talk about. You just killed your own string of arguments in that single line.

>> No.10717089

>>10717082
Not him, but what's PRL?

>> No.10717092

>>10717078

muh anti-intellectualism

you will never be the secret genius that you try to portray yourself as

>> No.10717094

>>10717049
>Now see this is a much better argument against the simulation hypothesis than the retarded OP.
It's the exact same argument you autist but you couldn't emphasize with it.

>> No.10717103

>>10717094
ok fair point. off to bed!

>> No.10717108
File: 13 KB, 300x168, 1551090610615.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717108

I'll never be a secret. Wanna know why?

>> No.10717117

>>10717082
Sometimes i make threads which gets replies from smart people on 4chan, that's good enough considering time invested

>> No.10717119

>>10717074
You asked for a law, not for my logic. I gave a name to the idea I used to construct my logic with. If you wanted to understand my reasoning, you'd have made a genuine argument about it rather than asking a question of semantic relevance.

>> No.10717122

>>10717094
You probably mean "empathize," which is still an unusual word choice there but at least almost makes sense in contrast with emphasize which has no meaning at all used in that sentence in that way.

>> No.10717128

>>10717119
What I want to know is why you're shouting "MUST" about a rule you personally made up.

>> No.10717133
File: 7 KB, 200x152, 1545306716901.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717133

>>10717117
I appreciate posters like you. Too many just basically lurk and then pounce because they are trying to get how they were abused that day/week/year/life off their chest.

>>10717092
I'm kinda curious though. Do those words actually mean anything to anyway else? The secret genius thing. I know the guy typed it because in his head there was this little 'emotional' fantasy about how I should feel (unless ya know this guy IS THE ORACLE OF LEGEND) but why do people even type this? It was your interpretation that portrayed me as a genius in the first place so technically you'd be the only one holding the secret, I guess? I dunno. I keep feeling like you guys don't get that by definition I have nothing in common with the people you've met before. At all. Ever. That's the point of a sinusoidal memory cache.

>>10717128
Because he didn't know how to type 'requirement'?

>t.Secretly_Trump_Posting_With_Melania

>> No.10717139

>>10717122
Yeah see, here you're autism is shining through again. You saw the context but chose to ignore it. That's on you.

Is the "point" really worth it?

>> No.10717147

>>10717133
yeah, but you're a tripfag without a hash

>> No.10717148

>>10716878
>There has NEVER been a reason to assume that the universe is computable.
The Universe is computable by itself. It is the one true Universal Turing Machine. All computers are finite, imperfect, degenerate versions that attempt to emulate the Universe's apparent mathematics based laws.
That said, simulation theory is irrelevant because for an observer, his or her subjective reality is his or her only reality that matters. On a more absolute point of view, simulation theory just moves all metaphysical questions from the simulated world to the one where the simulation runs.
Simulation theory is simply Neo Creationism, and replaces God with other finite beings that themselves require a God-like concept.

>> No.10717159
File: 12 KB, 228x221, 1546936617170.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717159

>>10717147
And you're Anonymous. I'm unsure of why you have more against me than I do you by virtue of having a shiny green name that anyone could hijack. Nobody does because emulating my communication methods are not 'dat eeezy'.

>>10717139
Patience of the dots/points

>> No.10717165

If the simulation theory is correct, how come it didn't exist before the invention of computers?

If it's such a good idea, surely it would've been even remotely thought of someone before computers were common, no?

>> No.10717170

>>10717139
>again
?
Wasn't talking with you until that post. I just didn't like how you don't know what those words mean.

>> No.10717176

>>10717165
>If the simulation theory is correct, how come it didn't exist before the invention of computers?
It was. Creationism is equal to the simulation theory, except the simulation theory adds unnecessary layers of creators as programmers.
>If it's such a good idea, surely it would've been even remotely thought of someone before computers were common, no?
It was already thought and features in many religions, only its usually much better fleshed out in theological arguments than pop sci opinions. And it isn't a good idea at all. It's an inferior version of a concept that has been floating around for thousands of years.

>> No.10717186

>>10717128
I din't make up a rule, I did reasoning. You're doing the same disingenuous argument I called out in my last reply to you: "If you give a name to it then maybe I'll be able to find a flaw in your logic without finding any actual flaw in your logic."

I know what my logic is and I know what I meant to convey, imply, and say. Like I said, it was only at YOUR prompting that I chose to give a name to a concept. It isn't the rule/law that I'm reasoning from; my reasoning is fully independent of any name that you've prompted me to create in relation to my reasoning. Your argument is of semantic import and must be addresses as semantic before I can get back to my actual reasoning in terms of the content of my reasoning.

I must first have you produce evidence that you mean to understand my logic as being a function of my own terms, rather than being something over which you have any preexisting scope with which to consider or dismiss it. You have yet to understand my reasoning, so until you ask a non-semantic question that isn't derived from your own failure to ask a relevant question that contextualizes the actual where and why of my logic/reasoning, I'm going to match your semantic questions with semantic responses. You asked a wrong question and I happen to be logician enough to answer. I can show where and why the question itself was wrong, and I can show the exact misunderstanding it generated that led to this.

You didn't understand my reasoning.

>> No.10717196

>>10717186
>You didn't understand my reasoning.
That's on you then dude. Nobody understands your reasoning until you communicate with them and if you aren't doing a good enough job expressing yourself to your conversation partner then why expand yourself to try and show him the forest of yourself that he got lost in?

>> No.10717213

>>10717170
Ignore the "again", reply to the post.

>> No.10717217

>>10717196
>why expand yourself to try and show him the forest of yourself that he got lost in?
Are you retarded or do you not realize that I already communicated with anon earlier?

>> No.10717226
File: 60 KB, 638x359, 1554641139978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717226

>>10717217
Okay, so how far back do you want to go to decide who hit who first? Or do you wanna be an adult and, I dunno, engage some forward momentum? Just accept that EXPLAINING SHIT TO OTHER HUMANS IS ALL ANY HUMAN WILL EVER FUCKING DO WITH THEIR LIFE! So, ya know. Learn some basic meditation, accept that changing/breaking your internal language won't kill you, and the more you exclude without explanation to the satisfaction of the party involved the less you are included in existence as a memory I care to read.

>Automatic Semantic Intelligence

>> No.10717242
File: 212 KB, 233x294, 1546041203824.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717242

You can't have private thoughts if you exist in a simulation and are, yourself, simulated.
If we have private thoughts in a simulation, then we are in a Matrix style simulation in which there is still a real world regardless of the simulation which makes the simulation idea fail Occam's razor to begin with.
Nobody is perceiving the computations happening in a real world AI.
Simulation theory is silly.

>> No.10717247

>>10717226
Retard, okay. Had to ask, so I know what level of dialogue to address you on.

So there's this thing that happens with smart people, whereby smart people talk to other smart people and actually understand each other. Brainlets don't have this problem because they don't like thinking, and don't want to model the world with any real degree of complexity beyond "normiespace." Normiespace is the world you live in. You understand it, because it responds to Bayesian intuition, being made up of a network of Bayesian agents. That is, normies always understand each other. They are the bane of several types of demographics unique to 4chan and as such, tend to avoid them. That's what you should have been doing all along, but for some reason you decided that your presence on /sci/ wasn't technically a form of shitposting.

You were wrong.

What is *actually* on me is to spend some amount of good faith effort trying to see if other people can understand my reasoning or ideas. I have no obligation to you beyond that, and if we assume I do, that obligation would itself be subject to further debate, and thus, any attempt to get into a meta-dialogue with me is an invitation to debate the "properness" of various forms of conduct, both in normiespace and anonymous imageboard variants. Now, is this what you wanted to discuss, or do you think you want to aim my massive intellect in a direction that you actually give half a shit about?

If you give zero shits, please indicate this below so that you can be properly divided out of all further discourse.

ne?

>> No.10717248

>>10717242
based
>noone cares about me
>therefore simulation ai doesn't care about me
poster

>> No.10717249

>>10717242
Define private? You mean thoughts locked behind a lock and key?
>Me: I've never had them, have you?
>Aboriginal Elder: What's a lock/key?
>Mathematician: I think he means you can't have COMPLEXITY thoughts if you exist in a simulation and are yourself simulated.

>> No.10717264

>>10717248
Totally wrong. The simulation could SIMULATE thoughts, yes, but they would not be interpreted as a vice/logos as humans do. Simulation theory is dumb.
As I said, nobody is perceiving the computations happening in a real world AI.
>>10717249
I mean silent, voiced/ from logos thoughts.

>> No.10717281

>>10717264
voice***

>> No.10717285

>>10717247
I don't know. Is intellect a scaling thing or a response time measurement? Like a one-time idea with massive changes or just a constant flow? If so, and that is all you identify yourself as, then why not work on that universal grammar you are so hard for?

Okay, so you asserted my position and the three sections of your mind that you interpret the world as and inserted me 'thusly' and proceeded to dance around your assertion as if the following would have made sense.

Better to make the claim, provide some evidence of your own, and at the end present the conclusion vis a vis me.

>I decided that humans in general are just raping and killing so whatever the fuck 4chan thinks about shitposting is oooooooooooooh so low

You did then go on to talk about how much EFFORT you would have to put in, which you said you don't want to.

>I give full shits about universal grammar exchange, or ya know if your intellect is that big just make the first a.i. robot factory and set them to grow crops and construction.

If you want the end goal though I want men to start actually treating each other as non-competitive enhancers of each other but I know a LOT of you guys got a LOT of poison and lack of attention to get out. This is why I teach my classes using 4chan. You are all broken and I am trying to fix humans, but I have to use broken humans as an example. 4chan and America pumps that shit out like crazy.

>t. this is how I make my money

>>10717264
Pathos has the voice, not logos, no?

>> No.10717300

>>10717285
I've heard smart people refer to inner voiced thought as "logos" so that's what I'm using.

>> No.10717303

>>10717300
No argument here then.

>> No.10717316

>>10717303
You see what I mean though, right?
No amount of processing can make a simulated entity actually "hear" a thought be manipulated in its own mind.
It's simply not a thing a processor does.

>> No.10717326

>>10717316
Chinese Room really needs to be reworded to the Language Interpreter/Translator Room.

>> No.10717334

>>10717316
That's a pretty nuanced point anon, but you're right. The experience of making a decision wouldn't be possible if the universe were what was thinking for us. There must necessarily exist an inner mechanism that allows us to make decisions beyond anything that might be simulating or otherwise composing us. We can learn a lot about the topography of metaphysics from that reflection.

>> No.10717343

>>10717334
Any ideas on the synchronization of that between people over a preference match list?

>> No.10717364

>>10717326
>Chinese Room
Oh wow somebody thought the same thing and made a good analogy for it. Thanks.
>>10717334
Right, decisions are one example. What I imagined was if you were at, say, a big job interview and the person doing the interview picked and ate a booger right in front of you, there would be a part of you that would almost say aloud "eww, what the fuck?" but you would restrain yourself and just roll with it. A simulator would never do these mental manipulations

>> No.10717375

>>10717343
Get the fuck off this board or I won't discuss that with you ever, not even on /x/.

You think this world is complex. You have no concept for what you'll lose if you think this is a game to "win."

>> No.10717387

The simulation theory is a religious belief. It's non-falsifiable. Everything can be solved with a "but the simulation world is x"

>> No.10717399
File: 706 KB, 1329x1231, 1544562657576.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717399

>>10716331
Except when religious beliefs are literally based on what a book with absolutely zero support said, but you're just here to shill religion anyway

>> No.10717405

>>10717399
>i lack an argument so i'll present my case with a shiny picture
very cool dude

>> No.10717408

>>10717387
It's this.

Simulation theory is an ad-hoc hypothesis where the ad-hoc variable is the entire hypothesis.

>> No.10717410

>>10717375
OH MY GOD I CARE NOW!
>protip: I don't

I have to assume by now this board understands that I love being interacted with so anyone doing so is either a virgin or a masochist.

>> No.10717479

>>10716193
It is a superseded tier of existence. It would be like saying "what if our universe is but an atom in another universe." The extremes of ours are the lower bound of theirs

>> No.10717485

>>10716633
You just morph the polygon model and loop and animation of the texture over it. Add some shaders to take care of the lighting. Nobody will notice until you zoom in

>> No.10717581

>>10716304
>computer
>takes information, does something with it
Sounds like the universe to me

>> No.10717584

>>10717581
>computer
>a thing
Sounds like the universe to me

>> No.10717596

>>10716691
>I don't mention technical detail because it's irrelevant.
Your first post was entirely about the technical capacity of a calculator.

>> No.10717608

>>10716792
>We don't know how many of them there are. If we try to count them, we lose count, and even if we managed to count them all, we don't know what they consist off.
>Therefore I assume there's an infinite amount of them.
I cant count the sands of grain on the beach, I also dont know what they consist of. Are there an infinite number of them?

Consider that you are functionally retarded.

>> No.10717620

>>10716878
>There has NEVER been a reason to assume that the universe is computable.
Get off this board and read a fucking book you ape.

>> No.10717629

>>10717620
If there were a reason you'd cite it. It's a non-trivial statement and bitwise distinctness does not map to numerical distinctness.

>> No.10717630

>>10717584
>universe
>takes information, does something with it
Ergo one could call the universe a computer, ergo the absolute statement "the universe isnt a computer" is false.

>> No.10717648

>>10717629
I dont need to descend into a conversation with a cretin who makes demonstrably false claims as his opener with the topic being heavily metaphysical in nature. There are literally hundreds of pieces of literature, academic or otherwise, vis a vis computation, philosophy, digital physics/ontology, and the nature of reality, most notably Fredkin, Wolfram, Penrose.

>> No.10717654

>>10717648
Yeah. Most men write like this. Aggressive and pointlessly domineering to ward off other potential suitors to, "The Point."

>All exists within the language of description.

>> No.10717659

>>10717648
Yes, and none of them contain EVIDENCE for the concept. I understand it, but we have no reason to assume that it binds to reality. It's an assumption, and we've never have a reason to make it other than sheer aesthetic preference.

>> No.10717668

>>10717630
>takes information, does something with it
What makes you think this describes the universe in the first place?

>> No.10717670

>>10717630
If you broaden the scope of what a computer is to the point where it includes things like the universe, it ceases to be a useful model of anything. Infantile philosophizing gets you nowhere.

>> No.10717700

>>10716193
I don't even buy into the idea of the universe being a simulation, but you can easily account for 'extreme amounts' of computation by just assuming that the simulator's computer is running Gentoo

>> No.10717709

>>10716992
I haven't put much focus on understanding the measurement that is Time, until you gave me
>Holding of save/restore states like a VM
Following this sort of metaphor; would you interpret a Higgs Field akin to Client or Server-side hit detection?

>> No.10717711

>>10717039
Oh buddy. You shouldn't be here

>> No.10717720

>>10716707
just because you can't compute the universe from within the universe, doesn't mean the universe is not a simulation.
You have no idea, how big or complex the outer universe is. 10^80 could be like 100,000 for them.

>> No.10717722

>>10717399
>tfw strawman religion to the abrahamic religions
good job anon
if you genuinely don't think the simulation is just a super anthropomorphic theism then you haven't thought into it at all

>> No.10717742

>>10717709
Tbh I think it would be a firewall because it is just a transitive barrier of detection, meaning something passed through it that was not there before. Like our shared thoughts and ideas and how they magically sound like us talking to each other without presence.

A field is a plane of detection. I could stretch it to Higgs being a server type.

Interesing question...

>> No.10717758

>>10717711
Because you also have a keyboard/phone and eyes?

>> No.10717761
File: 358 KB, 1920x1440, 20170313_184447.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717761

>>10717711
Did you just want to see a proud father's picture of his daughter?

>Image related: My little lily.

>> No.10717771

>>10717742
I'm glad you can see it that way, and also
>Being a server
Fantastic. So now we can assume there are "packets" involved and (I hope I'm not typing faster than I should) surely the coding of a "tick" could also be identified?

>> No.10717777

>>10716193
>How do simulationfags explain the extreme amount of computational power required to simulate basically anything? Magic?
I'm not a simulation fag, but if I was then I would simply say two things
1) Any "computer" that would be handling the simulation of our universe would be comprised of technology that is well beyond our current ken and as such has capabilities well beyond what we could possibly imagine any machine to every possess
2) Not everything has to be rendered all at the same time in real time, things can be abstracted and calculated out significantly when nothing too complicated is happening to them.

>> No.10717783

>>10717479
Which is believable, when you think of what an atom see next to a person or earth or universe. Scale is the key here, we would be low tier if this was true.l

>> No.10717825

People on this board genuinely think that a simulation requires every individual atom to be simulated. This is completely ridiculous.

Look at any simulation we develop. They use shortcuts. Let me just list a few:

The interior of the earth is barely observed, lots of time can be saved there. Just run the earthquakes and volcanoes, make plausible physics. No need for billions of cubic kilometers or magma to be maintained in detail.

The stars aren't actually vast balls of gas light years away, it's a skybox. Indeed, the Moon probably only gets rendered when we send shit there, like the Nether.

Liquids don't have to be immensely complex clouds of particles. They can just be what we observe, which is liquids.

All of this is really tangential to the ridiculousness of attacking simulation theory for its computing demands. Computers would always be easier to make in a higher universe. This might just be a screensaver for some cosmic entity, it might be a phone app.

inb4 'muh God, muh religion', we now know that even if this universe was real, we could make countless simulations. A single Matrioshka brain could fit immense numbers of people and worlds. There should be countless trillions of such constructs, if intelligent life can get into space.

The only counter to the simulation argument is maintaining that not only could our universe NEVER develop a spacefaring civilization but no universe could, no matter what physics they have. This is stupid beyond belief.

>> No.10717826

>>10717771
Reward function?

>> No.10717842
File: 35 KB, 640x480, images (6).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10717842

>>10717825
I agree. People forget that 99.9999% of the universe the human body can't interact with unless some external material tool is involved. Microscope for example.

>多項式語法

I wrote the A.I. in Chinese btw. China gonna boomboom itself.

>> No.10717869

>>10717825
You're thinking about a simulation that only cares about humans. I believe the simulation argument refers to the whole universe being simulated, and life being a consequence of its physics, not what springs it forth.

>> No.10717873

>>10717399
Wow, what a stupid response to an concise and thoughtful argument. You've made a fool of yourself.

>> No.10717878

>>10717777
What all parts can be calculated first? How trivial would it be? Is all life the last part of the simulation that takes most of the cycles?

>> No.10717880

>>10717479
And what's to say that their universe is not but an atom of another universe? And so on and so on. It's turtles all the way down.

>> No.10717897

>>10717880
So turtles are the omega sluts of creation in the animal kingdom. Kewl.

>> No.10717938

>>10717878
All those things depend on what exactly the point of the simulation in question is, if there even is one.

>> No.10717946

>>10717938
We don't need to assign purpose to run a simulation. If there is optimization to be had, if not all components can be calculated at the same pace or with the same level of complexity, then we can make inferences about which parts are likely to have finished being calculated "already" for this inner moment.

>> No.10718271

>>10717659
>fuck I have been shown to be incorrect
>better retcon my wording

You said "there is no reason" not "there is no evidence". As I said, youre a cretin.

>> No.10718274

>>10717654
The point is that what that anon said is demonstrably wrong with even a cursory google search and yet he couches it in absolute terms in a conversation that has inherently low confidence.

>> No.10718281

>>10717670
No, it gets you to the point of the entire fucking thread. It gets you the simulation hypothesis and the work of many people over decades exploring it.
>>10717668
Holy shit read some literature on the topic before you engage for once in your life.

>> No.10718301

>>10718271
No, you're a dipshit. I literally explained the distinction in that post: The assumptions have never been based in reason, they have always been based in aesthetic decision. It's literally Plato that first thought of the concept that math maps to reality. It's an assumption from nothing with no backing evidence or logic. Logic never demands its own existence. It's people that want logic to be relevant to their lives.

"No reason" contains "no evidence." Both are things I stand by. It was others who came at me trying to insist that I don't understand the issue, haven't studied it, or never read about the concept. But I don't call them cretins. I don't give a fuck what anyone thinks, about me or any other idea. My stance is that no cretins were present and some people just have more faggotry than others.

Your argument is semantic. I don't agree with your category. I stand by both claims, as well as whatever strawman you try to construct. My words are never mistaken or ill-matched to my intent. I know exactly what I meant and exactly what levels of dialogue I need to go to to fully convey it. Trying to stop short and pretend that you understand my reasoning before you've bothered to do a full inquiry will always be brainlet behavior, and I will point it out exactly when it becomes necessary to understand just how little you understand about a topic that you don't engage in a debate when the opportunity to have one arrives.

If for some reason you have a problem with entering a debate on equals terms with someone you disagree with, then that's a (You) problem.

>> No.10718304

>>10718301
Really shouldn't have taken me this long to finally see a concise and fully extended encapsulation of ones own conversational threads and who their 'self' is. 10 points.

>Keep going

>> No.10718315

>>10718304
That's because it's fucking semantics and useless to upwards of 90% of all perspectives. Not "90% of all people's perspectives," but 90% of the perspectives themselves.

>> No.10718320

>>10718304
>>10718315
Because 80% of all perspectives are already rooted in phenomenology. Stop pretending that your confusion is worth anyone's time unless you're willing to let people know when that same confusion has stopped. The tiniest fucking bit of humility goes a long way.

>> No.10718322

>>10718315
Query: Would one be able to code semantic language detection?

>>10718320
Why would I care about other peoples perspective of me regarding confusion? My confusion is mine alone to resolve. Everyone needs to learn how to embrace and disengage from their confusion independently of others so they know what is and what isn't internal dissonance/disarray.
>Why are you assuming I'm pretending anything? Even if one is 100% honest I would still run into people who need to believe that other people are just pretending or are acting.

>> No.10718347

>>10718322
>My confusion is mine alone to resolve
No, it isn't. That kind of logic literally kills a relationship. People aren't sapient of it yet, but everyone needs human connection. They're looking for possible friendship no matter where they go. This is off topic for this thread.

That's what shitposting is; a drastic change in tone that lets us know that someone doesn't want to vibe on the same semantic channel another anon is on. That wouldn't exist if we didn't care about the quality of the board, the quality of the posters, the quality of the relationship. By refusing to let others help you resolve your confusion, by refusing to let others see it, you're actually performing a massively dilute form of shitposting that can literally kill people. The suicide rate is so high precisely because the entire world is trying to reject the possibility of anyone getting richer than they are, so everyone (INCLUDING the hyperrich) are scrambling for any scrap of meaning they can acquire. 4chan is the bottom of the barrel in that regard, a point you've commented on explicitly before, so I fucking know you hear me right now.

By killing off all methods of human connection, you're trying to kill off entire demographics. It's not quite genocide, but it's the same thing. You have been shitposting in every moment you refused to use the classical methods of human resonance.

>> No.10718366

>>10717826
The mystery of sweet yet elusive (you) has finally been discovered.

>> No.10718372

>>10718347
Ah, you reject Chinese teaching methods. Confusianism is a very effective tool, hence it being China's historic preference for educating its populace.

>>10718366
Well, yes. A countable/measurable/identifiable reward function (from the experiencer's perspective) is indeed a coding of a tick. Pavlov was the first to identify.

>> No.10718380

>>10718372
>you reject Chinese teaching methods
No, they just happen to be sociopathic with regard to my culture of origin. Much of Eastern philosophy is useful to the west, but in its raw form it can still be toxic. Change has to come from within to mean anything, and the people who refuse to accept that only cause existential crisis when they look away.

The mind was never meant to be a cage. That was humanity's fault.

>> No.10718430
File: 200 KB, 800x1250, 1558010029355.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10718430

>>10718380
Chinese Skull, English Eyes, Language ? Brain, Polyslut

中國頭骨,眼睛英語,語言? 腦,很多蕩婦

Seems right.

>> No.10718448

>>10717825
lmao no. You've played waaaaaay to many videogames.

>> No.10720001

>>10716878
>>10716955
>>10717062
So for those of you that aren't already familiar with the set of transcendental numbers, they're simply all real numbers that can be expressed algebraically. That is, they are the subset of the reals that does not contain a subset with an element from the algebraics.

If you don't know what algebraics are, look up continued fractions instead. The rest of you will need to at least subscribe to some form of familiarity with the fundamental theorem of algebra. If you don't have at least that, then you can literally not weigh in on computability as a concept, because you're not yet functioning as a Turing machine with infinite tape. Short of Turing completeness, you have no particular expertise on computer science, imagined or otherwise, and thus cannot weigh in on Plato's notion that reality shares a mapping with mathematical thought.

...

The law of mathematical axiomatic implication states that the number that is one minus one is not divisible by itself without also producing an undefined result in addition to any other result it may be imagined to produce.

I could define mathematics any number of ways, but I choose this one for a very particular reason.

>>10717408
>>10718301
>>10717946
>>10716950 (not me)
That reason is as follows:

Let reality be represented by [math]\frac 0 0[/math].

Assume conclusions drawn from undefined are null.

If so, null is null.

Quod sum.

>> No.10720017

>>10717003
>you'd need at least 3 bits to denote every quark in the universe
That can be compressed in some cases -- "all the same", for example.
Also, you mean qubits, since each can be in a superposition.

>> No.10720033

>>10720017
To say that the first three possible configurations are the correct configuration for qubits, we need to be able to "construct a qubit with a particular configuration". If I construct a qubit having the same configuration as the other four, then I'll be able to convert all these qubits into a single one by combining them all. If I'm the owner of the configuration that you're having trouble with, I'll turn it into an extra qubit of some kind; or even just create an extra qubit to do something different while not taking anything away from the first qubit. But if you're the owner, there's no way to generate extra qubits that will "just work" if you add the configuration to the first qubit. The "extra" qubit is always going to be a qubit of some kind, in the sense that the one with an "MxO" configuration is going to be the MxO one, and so on. So I'll turn it into a qubit with the same configuration as all the others! The same configuration will be used when the qubits are mixed together in sequence; hence, it's noot something you are going to ever be able to "see". You can think of this like a game of cat and mouse.

>> No.10720100

Existence is obviously more like a dream than a computer simulation, it's this weird light show that goes on in the void

>> No.10720118

>assuming limitations that exist in the simulation MUST exist in the higher level universe that's simulating it
brainlets. The physics in the parent universe might allow you to simulate an entire universe with 3 lines of code

>> No.10720147

>>10720100 makes more sense than >>10720033

Must be a simulation thread.

>> No.10721156

>>10716331
This is what I try and explain to people who bring up the simulation argument as though it's on some sort of higher tier than religions because it sounds vaguely scientific. Even if the prospect of such a high-scale simulation itself is not impossible, the argument still relies on the principle that there exists a 'god' that hosts said simulation (for which there is no evidence).

>> No.10721160

>>10716193
What makes you think you know anything about the system, or universe, simulating this universe?

What makes you think the universe is even made of particles, or anywhere near as complicated as you think it is? We're modeling the universe from within it by observation, it just does it. Very different. The universe is likely far more simple than all the mathematical garbage physics pumps out. Virtual particles and all the rest of it.

>> No.10721190

>>10721160
>What makes you think you know anything about the system, or universe, simulating this universe?
Empirical science/human reasoning. Which seems to work, to some degree, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate right now.

>> No.10721199
File: 34 KB, 1230x195, higherlevel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10721199

>>10720118
>higher level universe
HMMMM

>> No.10721200

>>10721190
You're going to have to explain further if you expect this dialogue to continue in any useful way. You're basically saying that you know something BECAUSE you know the thing. This is useless, empirically.

>> No.10721206

>>10721200
Solips0wn3d.

>> No.10721222

>>10721200
Oh, i misread. I do not believe that it exists a universe/system simulating our universe. So I'm not even trying to understand how this fictional higher level universe works. Once you can prove that it even exists, then yeah, maybe it would be worth trying to figure out how it works.