justdrew wrote:In what way would such a 'simulated' universe be "fake" ?
Exactly. A 1:1 map is no longer a map.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
justdrew wrote:In what way would such a 'simulated' universe be "fake" ?
JackRiddler wrote:Right, the traditional ideas of the universe as divine creation are equally "simulations."
However, I've got a problem with the ease with which a number is assigned. We've all known Matrix scenarios like brain-in-a-vat, all just a program, etc., are a possibility. Just because a top scientist plays with it for the publicity doesn't make it more (or less) plausible, or in any way more legit as a scientific hypothesis. -- Basically? It isn't. Scientific, that is. True, you never know. But scientific? Not remotely. "20 percent" is nonsense.
Dr. Bostrom doesn’t pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that,” he says, “is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/scien ... .html?_r=0
Wombaticus Rex wrote:justdrew wrote:In what way would such a 'simulated' universe be "fake" ?
Exactly. A 1:1 map is no longer a map.
The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation
If the cosmos is a numerical simulation, there ought to be clues
in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays, say theorists
...
The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is more or less equivalent to simulating the universe itself.
...
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... iverse-as/
justdrew wrote:if this is a simulation (or put another way, a system running on a non-observable substrata)...
let's find some cheat-codes!
Nordic wrote:Seems that what used to be strictly scifi is quickly becoming reality.
justdrew wrote:if this is a simulation (or put another way, a system running on a non-observable substrata)...
let's find some cheat-codes!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 171 guests