Confirmed, We Live in a Simulation(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Confirmed, We Live in a Simulation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/
8 comments
And general relatively is just the straggler effect because the computation takes longer where mass is concentrated. Empirical evidence the universe is just a large hadoop install.
> Physicist Frank Wilczek has argued that there’s too much wasted complexity in our universe for it to be simulated. Building complexity requires energy and time. Why would a conscious, intelligent designer of realities waste so many resources into making our world more complex than it needs to be?
His original article states it this way:
> Leaving that detail aside, there are many aspects of physics in our world that do not look like the product of an efficient world-simulator. For example, our most accurate formulation of the laws of physics depends on the idea that space and time are smooth and continuous. When you work with continuous numbers, instead of 0s and 1s, it becomes much more difficult, in a simulation, to maintain precision.
> More generally, our world contains a lot of hidden complexity. We can calculate a proton’s properties based on fundamental laws, but those calculations are extremely complicated. It would be a poor strategy to build a simulated world out of such hard-to-compute ingredients.
This argument seems like an interesting kind of fallacy: assuming the only likely kind of simulation is the kind he'd design (e.g. with particular simplifications for certain kinds of economy), then basically taking his own personal preference as evidence. It seems to me like that's assuming too much.
Maybe the simulation is a baroque artwork instead of a utilitarian international-style building?
His original article states it this way:
> Leaving that detail aside, there are many aspects of physics in our world that do not look like the product of an efficient world-simulator. For example, our most accurate formulation of the laws of physics depends on the idea that space and time are smooth and continuous. When you work with continuous numbers, instead of 0s and 1s, it becomes much more difficult, in a simulation, to maintain precision.
> More generally, our world contains a lot of hidden complexity. We can calculate a proton’s properties based on fundamental laws, but those calculations are extremely complicated. It would be a poor strategy to build a simulated world out of such hard-to-compute ingredients.
This argument seems like an interesting kind of fallacy: assuming the only likely kind of simulation is the kind he'd design (e.g. with particular simplifications for certain kinds of economy), then basically taking his own personal preference as evidence. It seems to me like that's assuming too much.
Maybe the simulation is a baroque artwork instead of a utilitarian international-style building?
What if the hardware that runs us is not based on a deterministic 0/1 silicone technology?
We could be running as part of a biological computer that can not be perfectly „programmed“, which creates all those artifacts.
We could be running as part of a biological computer that can not be perfectly „programmed“, which creates all those artifacts.
Physicist Frank Wilczek has clearly never met a software engineer.
Click here to escape the Matrix.
Disclaimer: Escaping the Matrix may result in increased advertisements clogging your browser. Your browser may also be a simulation. In fact, in an alternate simulation, I invented the internet and the only browser, which I call "The Matrix". And the people there all speak Lorem Ipsum.
Disclaimer: Escaping the Matrix may result in increased advertisements clogging your browser. Your browser may also be a simulation. In fact, in an alternate simulation, I invented the internet and the only browser, which I call "The Matrix". And the people there all speak Lorem Ipsum.
[deleted]
Previously submitted to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26670545