|
I agree. Why would anyone doubt that god is a programmer?
|
|
|
|
|
Shirley that's been posted before? Did you notice the date - 12th December 2012. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly the Matrix is affected by the Millennium Bug.
Going to have to switch you all off for a few minutes while I fix it.
But you won't notice. Your snapshot files will save state and you'll carry on where you left off.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Shirley that's been posted before?
Nice Airplane reference. Wonder how many in the audience are too young to even get it?
|
|
|
|
|
I do sometimes feel this is all just a computer simulation, but then the mice come along and tell me otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory.Gadow wrote: I do sometimes feel this is all just a computer simulation, but then the mice hamsters come along and tell me otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hamsters were an upgrade, after the Mice discovered Brockian Ultra-Cricket and lost interest in the Question to the Ultimate Answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting just scanned it but will look at it later...I've actually started the project I've been putting off forever. Went and got materials yesterday and started the actual project today!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
In any simulation of an infinite universe the simulation would run into finite limits since the simulation, being smaller than the real universe, would have limits. Fortunately, our universe has no such number of smallest resolution ... so we know that we are not in a simulation ... oh.
|
|
|
|
|
But since the "real' universe is infinite, a simulation could be so big we couldn't tell the difference between really, really, really big and infinite.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the simulation is smart than you. it would perceive what you are doing and automatically increase the resolution only for you.
|
|
|
|
|
So post-human automatically means universal-scale? Any species that evolves to a universal scale could be able to predict what such a universe could be without having to develop one. Maybe they could create their own pocket universe instead. Since it's all conjecture, I conjecture that I am right.
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: could be able to predict what such a universe could be without having to develop one
Not so sure about that: emergent properties can be extremely unobvious.
Take the game of Life for example - the rules are extremely simple and fully known.
Every cell interacts with its eight neighbours, which are the cells that are horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent. At each step in time, the following transitions occur:
Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.
Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.
Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.
Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.
Despite the rules being fully known, the existence of Gliders, Destroyers and Glider Guns are not obvious unless they actual game is run - these are emergent properties of a system.
Life is a simple game, with simple rules. Assuming that the universe run of rules at least as complicated as the ones we currently believe it does (or even if there are an order or two of magnitude less complex) the emergent properties of such a system are going to be even less obvious. Dinosaurs for example, or us, or quasars.
Sometimes, you do have to run the code just to see what happens!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. However, the OP was talking about evolving to universal-scale and I was alluding to the fact that there can always be something in between. However, with the game of life and the conditions you've stated, every instance that starts with the same initial conditions will play out the same way. This is because there is no randomness created by time sequences or anything under the aforementioned conditions. Not to mention that all game of life examples are run based on a finite grid. Is the universe finite or not? Same thing with the game of chess. You may have a near-infinite number of combinations, but near-infinite is actually nowhere close to infinite. Real life is infinitely more complicated than that.
However, if some beings evolved to where they are capable of creating a universal-sized matrix, I would like to believe that they have better predictive capabilities than we do and are able to predict things at the quantum level (assuming they have super giant sized brains obviously).
OriginalGriff wrote: Sometimes, you do have to run the code just to see what happens!
I agree! However, multiple universes could be multithreads of the same code being run with different initial or random conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
And that's the thing with the "halting problem". The Universe is a computer simulation. And the only way to know is to run the code.
Mathematics can't model all possible programs, just ask a mathematician to come with an equation to fully model an Operating System, and then you will see why they cant come with the Unified Theory.
But they invented the set theory, and then the Turing machine, but they disregard it. Actually they invented a new field, they just cant understand it. But some like Wolfram has understood what was created. Computing > Mathematics.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: I don't know about y'all but I feel kinda simulated?
In some ways, I wouldn't mind that, because that would rather change the concepts of things like God, death, re-incarnation, and so forth. And maybe those psychics are actually somehow connecting with "the real world." Regardless of which it is, I still am left with the uncomfortable feeling that someone forgot to turn off the experiment before they went home for the night. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Regardless of which it is, I still am left with the uncomfortable feeling that someone forgot to turn off the experiment before they went home for the night.
Lights are on but nobodies home?
Yeah it does kinda feel that way sometimes. 
|
|
|
|
|
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream? It only shows the limit of the imagination of a certain era; computers, running on the same platform?
Using the same probabilities, there's a larger chance that we're a non-interesting (but still required) part of that computer. Or some oversized rodents' nightmare.
It will not be a practical problem for years to come.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
