/sci/ - Science & Math

Looks like I am small time :D

This is awesome, best of luck to him.

>>3717668
Regardless of the meaning, I find this kind of thing annoying as fuck. When the point isn't portrayed by 8 year old girls I will give it a shot

Bump

>>3717286

>>3717256
What he's trying to say is that if you get a 2D holographic projector that's really big and really detailed, you can use it to make a 3D model (the same applies for 1D and 2D, 3D and 4D, and every dimension). This was then taken by a guy called Leonard and used to describe our universe- he decided that the universe could actually be a projection like this from one at the edge with two spatial dimensions (like a piece of paper) and a time dimension.

>>3717116
>I wasn't saying you couldn't build a computer larger than the observable universe (which you couldn't) I was just saying that the observable universe does't depend on the size of the universe, it depends on the age of the universe and the speed of light
Evidential basis?
>2)a computer would get less and less feasable the larger it got due to the time it'd take for information to pass from one part to another, one the size of the observable universe would be completely useless due to latency
I posted about this just after you, I think it's possible that the universe is computed stage by stage rather than constantly, Also, there's no reason to postulate that the speed of light exists in this theoretical parent universe and it might be the controlled variable in this here universe.
>3)it's a pretty simple result from the relation between entropy and temperature, go look up the partition function and work it out yourself, go check the temperature increase with however many bits you think will be rewritten per unit time
Again, you cannot assume our laws of physics are theirs. For all we know, temperature might not exist there.

>>3717167
>Sure we could be in a perfectly simulated "clone" universe, and things like hollography and your mention of planck's constant as a universal "resolution" might even suggest as such, but as I mentioned before if this is the case then said universe simulator is indistinguishable from the actual universe.
Again, I disagree. If the universe doesn't physically exist in the upper universe arranged as it is in the lower, then It isn't indistinguishable. Information stored within can't be transferred into the upper universe, and vice versa, unless the lower is literally a model. I'm not necessarily talking about that, I'm talking about a computed version without distinct elements. For our purposes, I agree it is "real".
>You wouldn't be able to adjust the simulation without changing the universe. You would just push go and pop new universe is born. Theoretically that is.
Yes you would, not sure what this argument is based on. There's no reason to believe you can't make changes to the simulation while it's running.

It's also possible, I guess, that the universe isn't simulated constantly, but instead that "frames" are computed. This would make changes even easier to put into place, and explain the gradual and constant theorised expansion of our universe in accordance with the self assembling theory.

Thanks for making solid posts and taking the time to reply. You're a cool guy :3

>>3717111
>Why exactly? Well it turns out information, energy, and entropy are all very closely related. You cannot have information without energy and entropy and if you get enough of those in a section of spacetime the curvature creates a black hole. This is one of the reasons the so called Planck Length is difficult to probe as we use higher and higher energy collisions to detect smaller and smaller spaces we reach a point (the Planck length) where to look any smaller the energy required would form a black hole.
I see, but why is this relevant to what I said? I neither said the computer was smaller than the physical universe, nor that it was in an atom based universe. You also seem to be disregarding the fact that spacetime could in all likelihood be greatly compressed in areas such as intergalactic space.
>You mentioned that we take shortcuts in modeling for efficiency but they are exactly that, shortcuts. To have a totally 100% infallibly accurate simulation you would need the same amount of data as the universe you are simulating.
True, but if that data repeats itself you can compress the repeating areas without losing information.
>If there WERE shortcuts they would create error perturbations which would be observable and would let us know that hey, we're in a simulated universe.
You mean like Virtual particles?
Cont.

Shameless self bump. I still have a load of open questions.

>>3717048
It's massively significant for virtually every field in existence, as it shows life to be artifically simulatable, "Gods" to exist, and physics to not necessarily obey unified laws. It would be the greatest discovery we have, and ever will, make.

I disagree with the idea that if a theory has no ramifications it should be discarded. It makes no sense whatsoever, and the truth doesn't care about practical application.

>>3717042
>the observable universe doesn't depend on the size of the universe as a whole
It does to the observer. If you have never seen it and are only assuming it exists due to circumstantial evidence, how is it stronger than simulationism?

>and i think i have read the article that guy was talking about, it was based on quantum computers
>turns out that computer would also generate so much heat that it'd melt itself
you're going to have to substantiate that, sir.

>>3717001
>Any computer that could run an (accurate) simulation of the universe or any subsection of the universe would have to be at least as large (informationally) as the universe or said subsection.
Yes
>If you tried to pack it into a section of spacetime smaller than the thing you were trying to simulate you would form a black hole.
uh, why exactly would that be? Also, why are you assuming the parent universe to be identical to ours in physical nature? We have atoms, we simulate polygons for efficiency. They might have "tomic" matter, and simulate particle based matter for simplicity.

>If you didn't then this "simulation" would in no appreciable way differ from the actual universe and could be literally considered as the universe.
Yes, it would. While it might not be necessary as a region of the actual universe could be used, it is nonetheless massively different. There's no way of moving lead from inside of it to outside of it, for example.
>If you can't test it, its not a hypothesis.
-You can test it. You could test the planck distance and see if it forms a regular grid, or measure the expansion of the universe's rate when massive computation is done within it.
-Tell that to observational science.

>>3717023
No problem, I posted on reddit too so I got some decent replies as well. I appreciate the politeness but I don't know how he reached his conclusions.

>>3716984
Sorry. Try http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/87750

>>3716951
There's a difference between what I said and what you said. Satanic doesn't have purely Christian connotations. I realise you enjoy trolling, but it'd be nice if I could get somewhere with this.

>>3716903
Try electrocuting a sim to see if it's real.

>>3716870
>implying we don't do this
We do this. Just so you know. Look at life simulators, or strategy based RPGs.

>>3716876
Yes


>>3716885
>Quoting the bible
>In my thread
Shoo.

>>3716827
Why aren't they the real thing, and what do you mean by real?

Why are you assuming we are real?

>>3716798
>a brain is not an electronic machine
Feel free to, you know, back that up. It'd be interesting to see everything we have on nerves overturned.

What if we build a model of a human brain on a subatomic level?

>>Simulated avatars from a computer game have "feelings"... Go to /x/.
Excellent refutation.

>The whole argument seems to boil down to an argument on the level of religion.
As does string theory. Consider the fact that energy is stored in integer amounts and that distance is divided on a certain scale.
>"It works in mysterious ways we don't know how. Everything is hidden from us."
This is how every scientific endeavour, ever, has begun.

>>3716780
Hold on.
>Implying you know how to raise sentience outside nature
Simulate nature on an atomic level. Done.
>Implying you know it can be raised outside nature
Define "Nature"
>Implying you can authoritatively claim sentience can come out of binary circuits in semiconductors
See #1
>Implying you have any clue whether sentience can exist in any silicon based computing device
See #3

>>3716766
It's a hypothesis. What do you expect?

All of the suppositions are essentially completely valid, too. Discounting the theory until you reach a stage where you can actually do what it talks about is remarkably foolish.

>>3716739
You's trollin'.

also, bump

>>3716728
Do you eat meat?

We would be vastly less intelligent than our creators. To an (extremely tenuous) extent, people in Sims games experience emotions and sorrow, just like we do. We simply don't mind this, because they're vastly less intelligent than us.

>>3716718
Throw some at me*

Darn enter key.

>>3716691
>Any computer that can simulate the universe (and if this is a simulation, then those other galaxies must be simulated) must be more complex and use more entropy than the universe.
Agreed.
>Why would you simulate an entire universe down to subatomic level? One of the main differences between simulation and reality is that simulations have limited resolution.
Why are you presupposing that our "Subatomic level" is their "Subatomic level"? Look at the Planck distance, or quanta, for example. The universe has a noticeable resolution in many respects.

>Why are there no glitches?
From the FAQ:
>It seems likely that the hypothetical simulators, who would evidently have to be technologically extremely advanced to create simulations with conscious participants, would also have the ability to prevent these simulated creatures from noticing anomalies in the simulation. This could be done by avoiding anomalies altogether, or preventing them from having noticeable macroscopic ramification, or by retrospectively editing the brain states of observers who had happened to witness something suspicious. If the simulators don’t want us to know that we are simulated, they could easily prevent us from finding out. Consider that even our own humble brains – unaided by technology – usually manage to prevent us from realizing when we are dreaming at night, even though the typical dream is teeming with the most fantastic anomalies.

>There seems to be no purpose to the simulation; why would you run one just 'cause?
Why not? There are many reasons you'd do it. For entertainment, to test your self assembling computation device, to try and understand our history.
>It would violate a whole bunch of ethics to do this, if the simulators were like us it would get shut down as soon as crap like the crusades, holocaust, holodomor etc got started.
I disagree. We don't ban games like Sim City.