Could the universe be a computer simulation?

>a simulation?
Yes.
>a computer simulation?
No.

>>7584004
please go

>>7584013
>>7584015
Fantastic "science" board you have here

>>7584028
fantastic "science" question you asked in the OP, retard

File: 220px-TheHiddenReality.jpg (12KB, 220x325px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x325px

>>7584013
>>7584015
>>7584028
>>7584076
In chapter 10 of The Hidden Reality, Brian Greene covered this topic quite extensively. It doesn't seem out of place to ask such a question on /sci/

>>>/x/

Why would someone want to run such a simulation? What could they possibly learn from it?

>>7584189
How long it takes the cycle:

create imageboard -> memes -> shitposting -> baneposting -> transcend reality

It was completed on March 24, 2015. The simulation from no on is pointless and could be terminated any time.

>>7584004
A type a graph developed for the purpose of representing SUSY Algebras has been shown to contain some type computer code in them.

See:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0051v1.pdf

>>7584201
spoopy

>>7584189
>Why would someone want to run such a simulation? What could they possibly learn from it?
Why do people watch sports? Why do people play video games?

Moreover, for the greeks, math was synonymous with justice. Suppose the simulation's purpose Is part of a legal system.

>>7584004
/popsci/

>>7584197
>citation neeeeeedeedd

File: 754.jpg (622KB, 1876x2739px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 1876x2739px

>>7584224

>>7584201
So if we are actually living in a computer simulation, can I gg?

>>7584013
Pretty much. Simulation is a bit of a technologically loaded word too. Some thinkers used to say "dream" with the same meaning but that word is also misleading.

>>7584004
Your relationships are definitely computer simulations OP, trust me.

>>7584004
define "computer" and "simulation"

>>7584004
Occam's razor says no

>don't even knowing who Nick Bostrom is

Yes OP and, by far, we've no way to demonstrate it. Neither to disprove it though.

>>7584486
Fuck off with your stupid ass meme

>>7584515
It's not a meme, idiot

>>7584004
Certainly not in the sense that we think of simulations today. The underlying idea behind the concept of a unified theory of physics is that there is actually a very small number of rules (hopefully just one) which particles follow. For example, we needed a large number of rules to describe how things react to electric and magnetic fields until Maxwell simplified it to just four rules, and then later that was simplified to a single tensor operator. But even if you only need one rule to describe the behaviour of any one particle, that's still a metric fuckton of equations needed to describe everything in a universe. The processing power needed to run a simulation of that magnitude is unrealistic by any standard that we have today to understand how a simulated particle would be constructed.

>>7584515
Occam's razor is just another way of saying that the best theory makes the fewest assumptions, which is a fundamental concept of how science and the scientific process works.

>>7584004

Your computer can't even propagate a single wave packet in real time. The computing power required to simulate a single glass of water is astronomical.

And even if someone had both the space, time, and inclination to make such a simulation, they'd still run into the fundamental problem of rounding errors and irrational numbers.

>>7584701
Maybe for you humans

Fictional characters in computers simulations cannot think.
So we cannot live in a simulation.

T̴͇͍o̡̢̮͙̭̦̱̤͝ ҉̵͚̥̥͉͉̰̫i͏͕͡n̙̙v̰̝̫̜̀o̶̭̩̱͍̭k͙͉̫͍̬e̜̮͖̼̝̟͔̩̫͜͝ ̢̱̺͇̥t̨̯͔͓̟̖ͅh̡̜̫͠e̴͚ ̟̘̥̟̗̘̖̣͔͟h̴̨͖͔i̩͖̼͎͍v̷̠̩͚̤̺͠e̴̤̘̗͙-̡̺͇̞̯̺̮m̡̖̱i͎̹̝̲ṇ̘͎͎̻̹̳̙̙͠d̸̙̫͖̟ ̴̠̤̱̦̪͉͡r͚̳͍͔e̜̖͠p҉͠҉̟̤̥͖̲ŗ̸̳͍̖̰͕͔͎e̬̣̼͔͖͈̝̭̕ś̬̬͕̮͉̦͢e̵̶͉͕͈n̴̶̩̼͔̰̪͓̤̥͞t̵̠͟í͎̘̳̺̲̠͘n̛̘̗g̷̢͇͕͉̟̮̳ ̴̧͚̭̱̟c̯̺͚͞h̸̴̰̳͕̥͍ą̝͉͇̻͚̪͕̤͠o̭͍̫̭̫̫͔͘s̜̺͕.̕͏̜̦̬̯͉̠̗ͅ
̴͍̦͇͉̝͞͞I̱̺̞̬̪͝n҉̼̼̪̘̲̖ͅv̡̩̼̜̳͢͟ǫ̭k̙̦̱͈͚͍i̛̥̗͎͝ͅn̩̝̼͍͘g͍̀ ҉̞͇ţ̙̦̮h̕҉̹͉̫͚e̶̦̕ͅ ̢͙͈͓f͖̞̥̯̼͕͖́͢ͅe̸̻̝͈̙̰̬͠é̱̤͢l͙̯̠̣i͏̝̘̯̭͎̝͍ͅn̗͉̯̞͍̰͇͖͝g̵̨͔̳̀ͅ ̴̟̭̬̫́́o͔̞̜̟̖̬̦̜͓f̫̥̲͢͝ ̢̫͉͕͓̳ç͙̣h̞́̕a̯͍̖̯͈͟͟o̟̦̜͖͓͈͇͞s҉͇̀ͅ.̺̰̪̙
̷͔͈̥̗͇̣W͔͕̝̣̻̝͎͢i̻̖̻t̖̜̕͞h̶҉̯̫͍͎̺͍̮̣͞ ̵̢͓͖̜o̘͉̰̱̞͕̲͈̕͞u̴̘͔͈t̨̲̹͢ ̸̷͖̳̺͎o̶̪̼͈̖͞r̜̙͓̘̀́d̵̞͓̲͉͚̫̱͝e͈̺̟͜͢r̴̳̖͢͞.̻̩͢
̛̼H̫͕͡͡e̞̯̙̦̙͜͡ ҉͍̭w̛̬͍̲̙̱̯͈̼͞h̷̴̙͔͜ó̳̠̦̺͇ ͙̻̣̕s̟̳͉͔̥̰̟̼͡ḙ̲̥͇̮̀͝e̸͔̣̪̮̺̮k̸͕͟s̞͘͠ ̰̦͙̤t̺̝͚̺h̴̵̞̹̦̹̭͖̳́e͜҉̴̳̲̺̝̞̹̟͍s͏̯̞͍̦͙̱è̖͍̗̫͎͖̭͜ ̧̭͙̼̀a̶̡͈̫͞n̸̗͔s̻͖̹̖̘͙w̨҉̹̙̖̹͇ḛ̸̝̠̥̼̳͙r͏̷̰ś̺͎ͅ ̯̼͢w̧̢̩̱͖͈̳̱ͅḭ̗l҉͎l͡҉̜̳͚͕̻̳̰͔ ̲͚͈͔͎̜̗ò̶͉͇̪͔͘n̛̥̭͎̳̥̜̕l͏̣̠̯͍̩̝̹y̴͈̟̳͟ ̡̞̲̝͎͖̳̣̥͕f̪̙͍͚̭̮̗ͅi̝̳̬̼̰͇̕n̯͕̕̕ḑ̛͈͡ ̦̺͙̰̟̗̲̞̀͜D̯̙̞̭̰̮̻ͅe̶҉̼̣̳a̷̩̘͇͉̙͈͓͠t̵̨͔̣͎̘͞h̤̱̣̳̱͙̜.͖͎̞̙̕͟

>>7584004
No beep boop.

>>7585915
>>7585918
I̢̼̠̘̱̘͓̞̳̟̱͘͝T̵̢̗̮̤͓͍̻͉̬͉́̀ͅS̶̢̧̛̞̳̜͕̠̺̙̣̠͔̯̳̩̱̮̞ͅ ̵̙̹̼̬̯͚̕͟H̷̰͍̺̣͠Ą̴͇̦͚͚̝̣̳̗̻̤̕͟P̢̨͉̖͇̹̣͈̳̻̫̝͈̱͚͕̫̯͝P̤͉̭̻̘̤͓̤͜͢͞E̴̶̢̝̰̞͖̤̬̞͙͉̦̞̝̦͈͕͙͙͓͢͡N̢̧͟͟҉̥̝̙̮I̶̷͍̮̘̩͚̤̲͉͖̲̰̩̲͍̬̕Ń̵̢̝͕̥̤̱͉͠G̨͉̪̺̬͈͖̦̩!̷̡͚̳̳̱̞̹̬͟͡

>>7584701
> The computing power required to simulate a single glass of water is astronomical.

Only in the case of a complete simulation at all scales. Otherwise the amount of information needed to describe the glass of water is a function of the scale of resolution.

>>7584645
>the best theory makes the fewest assumptions
Which isn't the same as saying a theory that relies on more assumptions couldn't be true. It's not a form of proof.

Marvin Minsky thinks it's possible, and he happens to be one of the people who invented computer science in the first place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JnLDbJiPoU

>>7585960
Stack overflow

Are we NPCs or PCs?

>>7584169
It was, the first 100 times it was asked. If you can't understand the meta, don't post (aka lurk moar), otherwise you risk looking like a fool and getting told to fuck off or shove things into your rectum.

>>7585876
The thinking is simulated.

>>7585966
Well, only in pure mathematics is anything ever truly "proven". Buy and large, the scientific process only disproves (though admittedly usually to a point where there's only one possibility that we can think of that hasn't been dis-proven, but you can certainly see how that's not the same as a mathematical proof). Science isn't in the business of providing answers -- it provides questions; questions which will always be answered "no" or with more questions. Given that (beyond math) we never get pure proofs for anything, the fact that Occam's razor only provides a metric for good theories and not proof doesn't really bother me.

File: 1414901145173.png (410KB, 406x536px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 406x536px

>>7584229
>excessive shitposting becomes real life

>>7586031
wow this scared the living fuk out of me god damn it

Go through this experiment:
>>7580225
Depending on your understanding you will find your answer.

>>7584206
>Why do people watch sports?
Because they are primitive?
>Why do people play video games?
Because play is an essential part of a childhood?

>>7585969
>he happens to be one of the people who invented computer science
delusion
>who is church, godel, turing, etc.

>>7584206
>Why do people watch sports?
This is something I will never understand. I understand and enjoy playing them, but watching them...whats the point?

>>7586129
I've always made the analogy to watching Let's Plays for video games (both to video game fans who don't understand professional sports and vice versa). It's for entertainment, and in particular, it's entertaining to watch someone who's good at it, usually much better than I'd be able to see with just me and my amateur friends. There's also some about of learning about the game (sport or video variety) which you gain to enhance your own experience by watching an expert.

>>7586155
*amount of learning
Which apparently I need to do

File: image.jpg (19KB, 300x299px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x299px

>>7586086
>answering a question with a question
Hiroyuki posting?

>>7586106
Minsky is one of the last living founders of Artificial Intelligence at almost 90, invented neural nets and microscopes, and has won the Turing Award along with millions in prestigious prizes and is a living legend at MIT. He's right up there with people like John McCarthy who did invent much of CS, whether you accept it or not.

No it's not, because the referent domain that contains the simulation would still need to be explained without resorting to an infinite regress.

>>7586158
You decide