/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4095182]

Something has been bothering me recently.
Everyone I talk to about science and technology eventually talks about things like 'What if the universe is a giant, and the galaxy is just a cell?' and 'Everything just a simulation of some supercomputer' and other things.
I always tell them "So what if it is or isn't? I mean, it's kinda cool to think about, but that doesn't actually change anything." but then they get all huffy about it.

Why does this matter so much to people? It can't be simply societal, unless there's some factor I'm missing.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4095191]

>>4095182
because if it's a giant supercomputer then there might be glitches we could exploit.

One theory explaining blackholes is that they are the result of a computer glitch.

[Anonymous No.4095192]

Because people are stupid. If you think "What if we are a simulation?" the next leap should be "How can I build such a thing?" Too many ideas are blocked by simply pondering.

[Anonymous No.4095202]

Because when you question someones beliefs of where they come from, you are cutting into their most sacred held beliefs. People don't want to belive that their lives are small and meaningless. Thats why people invented religion.
And it does'nt matter what these beliefs are. If you question the ancient alien theory held by some people they get angry as well.

[Anonymous No.4095208]

>>4095191
That's a really neat concept, never thought of that. >>4095202
It seems to me like all the folks op is talking too do recognize their own insignificance.

and op wtf is that a pic of?

[Anonymous No.4095217]

>>4095208
It's an astronomy telescope, firing a highpowered laser for accuracy and coolness purposes.

[Anonymous No.4095220]

>I always tell them "So what if it is or isn't? I mean, it's kinda
> cool to think about, but that doesn't actually change anything."
>but then they get all huffy about it.

Prolly cause you sould patronizing.

The correct response when they ask, "Why couldn't?" questions is to say, "No. Thats not how it works." Then be prepared to explain it. And unless you like doing that, maybe you better spend less time around those people...

[Anonymous No.4095222]

Its just pseudo-intellectualism. There's a lot of that in the world today. The idea that the universe is a computer simulation is far easier to grasp than basic thermodynamics, but thermodynamics isn't something "deep and creative" you can impress people by talking about.

[Anonymous No.4095224]

>>4095202
Meaningless doesn't necessarily mean small. Meaninglessness is what gives us the freedom to assign any meaning. That is far bigger than some ultimate preassigned reality.

[Anonymous No.4095230]

>>4095220
>The correct response when they ask, "Why couldn't?" questions is to say, "No. Thats not how it works."
But that's even MORE patronizing as to be almost insulting. You aren't just discounting their worldview (and therefore their feelings), you are telling them that yours is superior, which belittles them even further.

[Anonymous No.4095242]

You are far too confident with your abilities if you think you can explain something like you claim. You may have different givens.

[Anonymous No.4095830]

>>4095182

[Anonymous No.4095836]

>>4095191
There's actually a theory that the observable universe is actually a 3D hologram projected from a 2D plane of information.

Get hacking, gentlemen!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

[Anonymous No.4095841]

>>4095182
Everyone wants their mind blown.
And of course we all know truth is stranger than fiction.

[Anonymous No.4095856]

William Easterly describes 2 kind of aid agencies to Africa, planners who try to impose their vision on a region and seekers who look for problems to solve, observing that seekers are more succesful. Planners are not necessarily wrong, what happens is the seekers are also planners, just planners who are more engaged with fact finding, developing their vision from the ground up.

It's the same here, they're planners, they are unwilling to entertain a number of theories, just their vision. I'm not sure what the psychological basis is for taking an ideological rather than pragmatic approach, maybe something to do with wanting to have the right idea.

[Anonymous No.4095884]

There are cheat codes that give you special powers over the universe. Just like typing 'god' in doom makes you invulnerable. These things work in real life too, but instead of writing stuff you have to kill people and draw pentagrams and stuff.

[Anonymous No.4095886]

>>4095191


huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur

[Anonymous No.4095889]

>>4095836

what the fuck is wrong with physicists

[Anonymous No.4095893]

>>4095886
I thought black holes are when a big star goes kerpluie and the super dense core has such a strong gravitational force that light cannot even escape its wrath?

[Anonymous No.4095903]

>>4095893
Yep. I think the idea is that once we are able to write down all the laws and limitation of the universe though, things look fishy. There is a limit to the speed of light, but no limit on gravitational pull, no limit on how much space can be warped, and so we get black holes. If this were a simulation, someone on the physics programming dept. would be getting fired because this universe isn't in the beta testing phase here.

Our entire idea of the universe revolves around rules of permanence and rules of change, but when we go down too small its anyones guess what the fuck is going on. particles come into existence from nowhere, particles exist in more than one space at a time, particles exist as waves and particles at the same time: its really fucked up when you think about it, and you have to wonder: what is making the rules?

[Anonymous No.4095919]

On a sort of related note, is the multiverse theory based on any evidence other than we exist?

[Anonymous No.4095921]

>>4095903
They've actually recently found that diamonds can act as a single entity,
Personally I suspect that it isn't that the rules change based on perspective, as much as its that our current theories are flawed.
Goodbye causality.

[Anonymous No.4097335]

>>4095830

[Labeled by Request !HOZlQYR1MY No.4097353]

>>4095889
It's not a question of "What is wrong with physicists?"

It's a question of "What is wrong with the human mind?" It's pretty hard to deny that our perceptions of reality are pretty fucking far from what our eyes see and our brains tell us. That's when even "human perception" has to be taken into consideration: Because a model of the universe needs to also explain why we "see" it that way.

[Labeled by Request !HOZlQYR1MY No.4097359]

>>4095884
>but instead of writing stuff you have to kill people and draw pentagrams and stuff.
I dunno.

There's a lot of people I know who become "invulnerable" just from saying the word "God". All of the physical limits of the universe seem to disappear at that point.

[Anonymous No.4097375]

>>4095222
This is your answer, OP. Talk to better people.

[Anonymous No.4097386]

> but that doesn't actually change anything
ok so these clichéd scifi ideas are futile but how are yours different?

[Anonymous No.4098223]

>>4097386
It's not that their different, it's that these ideas haven't changed reality's workings.
Nothing we've done so far in humanity's history has changed how the universe functions, and we should be more concerned about how to take advantage of it's workings, rather than speculate 'what ifs' that we can't even prove.

It is better to focusing on the road you walk upon so that you may not stumble from ignorance of the terrain, rather than staring at the sun so long you blind yourself to the fact you've walked off the road and towards a damned cliff. The sun is only a guiding light to navigate by, and giving it too much or too little attention will only harm you and those around you.

[Anonymous No.4098260]

>>4097386
The problem is not that their ideas are different, that's no issue at all. The problem is that even though these radical ideas haven't changed how reality actually works, they still insist it's still somehow more important, to the point of denying the existence or meaning of any scientific data that doesn't directly agree with them.
Nothing we've done so far in humanity's history has changed how the universe functions, and growth has only come from shedding our own delusions to embrace a deeper understand of the reality we live and function in. We should be more concerned about how to take advantage of out universe's workings, rather than speculate 'what ifs' that we can't even prove, especially to the point of wastefulness through conflict.
To analogize:
It is better to focusing on the road you walk upon so that you may not stumble from ignorance of the terrain, rather than staring at the sun so long you blind yourself to the fact you've walked off the road and towards a damned cliff. The sun is only a guiding light to navigate by, and giving it too much or too little attention will only harm you and those around you.

[Anonymous No.4098279]

The universe if infinitely more clever than we will ever be. I think it will be some time before we as a society truly see the implications of quantum theory, we're still only at the tip of the iceberg of discovery.

[Anonymous No.4098282]

Because one of the questions that has always troubled man since it is man is "What is the meaning of existence?"

From a more practical perspective if we know exactly what the Universe is or belongs to we can understand it, its laws and principles in a much better and comprehensive way.

[Anonymous No.4098287]

>>4098282
Do you really think it is at all like that. Think about this for a bit. Humble yourself. Reality is not obliged to answer any question simply because you posses the power to pose one.

[Anonymous No.4098303]

>>4098287
It is not, of course, there might even be things we will never understand because we lack the "hardware" to do so, our brains are primitive optimized for hunting and gathering, yet we have gotten to this point of discovery and invention by searching for answers to our questions, even if sometimes we have spent thousand sof years in vain, I'm not saying we can answer every possible inquiry, but if our goal is to learn as much as we CAN about this Universe and our place in it, then we must always try to go deeper, until we hit a wall.

[Anonymous No.4098350]

>>4098303
> until we hit a wall.
At which point we do exactly as every other engineer has in the past: we blow it up!
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055360/Giant-1bn-laser-strong-tear-fabric-space-
built-Britain.html