What are the reasons to think we are living in a simulation?

3 years ago by sabriy01 to c/nostupidquestions

PangolinPaladin 40 points 3 years ago

Every time I need to cross a seemingly empty street, suddenly cars appear. I can't help but imagine it's a render distance issue.

path: 0 724554, hotness: undefined, score: 40, children: 2
OrangeCorvus 21 points 3 years ago

Try to cross the street without turning your head. When you turn your head, they render the cars in the opposite directions.

/jk always look both ways before crossing the street.

path: 0 724554 725283, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 1
PlebsicleMcGee 1 point 3 years ago

I've got a spinbot for crossing the street to exploit the universe's shoddy hitboxes

path: 0 724554 725283 745863, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Smokeydope 33 points 3 years ago

Simulation theory is more or less a kind of modern creation myth, and creation myths are based around its societies current level of understanding of the world. In ancient times people explained the worlds actions and existence through gods and imaginative myths. When the scientific revolution happened people explained the universe in terms of immutable laws and cosmic logic. Now we are in the computational revolution, thus some people explain the worlds existence through computers. All untestable and unfalsifiable explanations for the nature of reality are as good as any other, so pick your poison and enjoy!

path: 0 751147, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 2
qnick 6 points 3 years ago

Simulation theory comes from solipsism, and it's not that modern. According to Wikipedia it originated in Greece in 483–375 BC.

Every human is solipsist until about 2 years old, when they start to realize that the world is not revolving around them. It is called "crisis of 2 year old", or "terrible twos". Some people don't get to go through this at 2, especially the children of billionaires, who have no reasons to think that they are not the center of the universe.

path: 0 751147 759073, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
qnick 5 points 3 years ago

The danger of this approach is that you start treating other people as NPCs, dehumanizing them. When others are not real people, you don't have any problem with robbing, raping or murdering them. See the "Westworld" series for more deep analysis.

path: 0 751147 759073 759185, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
perviouslyiner 31 points 3 years ago
  • The render distance (observable universe)
  • The pixel size (Planck units)
  • And the update rate ('speed of light' = speed of information being updated)
path: 0 725918, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 20
bionicjoey 14 points 3 years ago

Calling Planck units "pixels" is extremely reductive. This is just naively applying video game concepts to physics with a poor understanding of both.

path: 0 725918 729490, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 18
BrerChicken 16 points 3 years ago

I took an entire graduate course in QM and a quantized Universe does, in fact, seem pixelated. That's exactly how I explain it to people. There's simply a finite level to how closely you can zoom in. Space, time, and energy are all quantized, and maybe even gravity though we haven't figured that one out yet.

path: 0 725918 729490 730955, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 9
Kaladin_Stormblessed 3 points 3 years ago

Why can’t you cut a Planck unit in half?

path: 0 725918 729490 730955 735213, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 6
BrerChicken 9 points 3 years ago

The why is not really known. But we simply cannot. There is not line where one particle ends and another particle begins. The best you can do is give a probability distribution, but some of the particles will be in places where they're not really supposed to be. This is actually what drives the fusion processes in stars. The nuclei don't actually have enough kinetic energy to fuse--but she is the protons in one hydrogen nucleus just magically appear in the nucleus of a neighboring hydrogen atom.

You literally can't have distances that are smaller than these probability distributions.

path: 0 725918 729490 730955 735213 753541, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
perviouslyiner 3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 725918 729490 730955 735213 737382, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 4
bionicjoey 0 points 3 years ago

A finite level to how close you can zoom in is very different from pixels. Pixels (or voxels in this case) are indivisible elements of a larger whole that exist along an evenly spaced grid. The universe doesn't have a Cartesian coordinate system measured in Planck lengths

path: 0 725918 729490 730955 731146, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
BrerChicken 4 points 3 years ago

Pixels (or voxels in this case) are indivisible elements of a larger whole that exist along an evenly spaced grid.

That's exactly what a Planck unit of spacetime is. And yes, the Universe--like a screen--is divided into an evenly-spaced grid any time you choose a coordinate system.

path: 0 725918 729490 730955 731146 753593, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
BrerChicken 1 point 3 years ago

I took an entire graduate course in QM and a quantized Universe does, in fact, seem pixelated. That's exactly how I explain it to people. There's simply a finite level to how closely you can zoom in.

path: 0 725918 729490 730876, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 7
Matte 3 points 3 years ago

isn’t the most recent explanation on planck’s length saying that we simply can’t observe further down, but it is hypothesised that smaller lengths actually exist?

path: 0 725918 729490 730876 738590, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 6
Djeikup 4 points 3 years ago

Just searched a bit, looking into how the length came to be and found this from wikipedia. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length "The Planck length does not have any precise physical significance, and it is a common misconception that it is the inherent pixel size of the universe." What I found elsewhere was that it's the only length one can get out of the universal constans of G, c and h. So as far as I know with my limited know how is that the planck length is useful or more convenient than other lengths in quantum physics.

path: 0 725918 729490 730876 738590 753725, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
BrerChicken 1 point 3 years ago

isn’t the most recent explanation on planck’s length saying that we simply can’t observe further down

No. The math has the indivisibility built right into it, and our countless observations agree. There's no smaller length, because then the probability distributions between different particles start overlapping. There's a limit to how closely you can zoom in, and we can describe that limit mathematically. We don't know why it's there, but it's certainly there.

path: 0 725918 729490 730876 738590 753664, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4
perviouslyiner 8 points 3 years ago
  • Status not being updated if no one is looking at it (Schrödinger's cat, quantum entanglement)
path: 0 725918 726023, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
davidgro 31 points 3 years ago

According to some, assuming it's even possible to fully simulate a universe to the degree that life in it can't tell, then there should be multiple simulations running, so there would be more sim-universes than real ones, and odds would be high that any given universe you find yourself in would be a sim.

Personally I don't buy it, I think if we were in a sim the laws of physics would have to be easily computable (they aren't, see gluons) and I think it would take the computing power of an entire universe to simulate one of similar complexity at anywhere close to reasonable speed. (Note how emulators and virtual machines can only emulate a weaker system then the host system, at least at speeds comparable to native hardware)

path: 0 724628, hotness: undefined, score: 31, children: 8
FelipeFelop 33 points 3 years ago
path: 0 724628 725090, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 1
AsimovsRobot 11 points 3 years ago

Exactly. Liu Cixin's trilogy Remembrance of Earth's Past has some great writing on different technological levels between alien species and how one could influence a lower tiered civilization by using physics.

path: 0 724628 725090 725334, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
Spzi 10 points 3 years ago

there would be more sim-universes than real ones

This ties back to the mediocrity principle. If there are 10 billion people living on Earth, but 10 quadrillion living in simulations, the chances for you to live in the latter is much higher.

Along goes the simulation argument by Nick Bostrom. If simulation is possible, and practiced, we likely are simulated ourselves.

Isaac Arthur) noted that housing a population in a simulation is much more efficient than doing so physically. It seems like a convergent choice for powerful civilizations which want to maximize the life supported by fading stars (or energy potentials in general).

I think it would take the computing power of an entire universe to simulate one of similar complexity

Two objections:

  1. It might be sufficient to simulate the experience, without fully simulating the underlying physics. That's how we do 3D games anyways. No one cares if we actually simulate individual air molecules. If the cloth moves indistinguishable as if, that's as good as the original, for a much lower cost. You can also cull unobserved parts of the universe.
  2. Host and simulation can have completely unrelated laws of nature. Specifically, inhabitants of the simulation cannot study their host environment. As such, I think making assumptions about the host makes no sense.
path: 0 724628 728330, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 1
AsimovsRobot 3 points 3 years ago

Those are some really interesting points, thanks for your input.

path: 0 724628 728330 731981, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
webghost0101 9 points 3 years ago

Thanks for typing out what i was gonna say.

I am agnostic about simulation theory. If an advanced enough “something” can create a simulation undistinguishable from the lives we experience now then i would bet that we do live in one. But thats a big if and goes a bit further than one where life cant tell. (A simulated single cell organism is miles of from simulated mammals and society)

path: 0 724628 725162, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
webghost0101 7 points 3 years ago

How much would speed matter to a simulated lifeform. Ive often wondered if time would suddenly stop and then continue we would probably just experience it like it didn’t stop.

path: 0 724628 725248, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0
Matte 6 points 3 years ago

but time is relative. we might very well live in a simulation that takes a minute of “external time” to compute a single tick of our time. we just can’t experience it.

path: 0 724628 738523, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
Mirodir 5 points 3 years ago

I'm not really a believer of the whole simulated universe theory, but I find your arguments against it weak.

You're basing what is and isn't easily calculatable off of our experiences. Same with "complexities of the universes". However, if our world is indeed simulated, there's no telling what the host universe is like. It might have crazy different math and be far far more complex than ours. Us trying to understand it would essentially be an excercise in futility.

path: 0 724628 744247, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
Rikudou_Sage 18 points 3 years ago

You cannot disprove this hypothesis and it's cool. Quite literally nothing can support it - if we live in a simulation, every part of the universe makes sense for us because we have no reference frame for "real" physics.

It's just something fun to think about but ultimately it doesn't matter, you have no way to find out.

path: 0 739581, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 0
BootyCreekCheekFreak 18 points 3 years ago

At this point does it matter? If it turns out tomorrow we have proof we live in a simulation, it doesn’t make my life any less real. I still gotta go to working tomorrow lol.

path: 0 734394, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 1
Eclipciz 4 points 3 years ago

Yea it really wouldn’t matter other than having religious dogma change or about what happens after death.

It’s more of an interesting thought experiment about the seemingly minuscule chances of life forming and us being/experiencing life.

path: 0 734394 745997, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Deestan 18 points 3 years ago

It gives comfort for people who don't adhere to any of the major religions but still need to feel like there is a hidden meaning to existence and something bigger than the universe.

path: 0 745326, hotness: undefined, score: 18, children: 0
Markimus 17 points 3 years ago

The idea that it's theoretically possible that we would be able to simulate a universe of our own leads to the hypothesis that we could be living in a simulation ourselves.

path: 0 725531, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 15
UnfortunateShort 10 points 3 years ago

If we do, I would like a server change. Please 🥺

path: 0 725531 726894, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
redballooon 5 points 3 years ago

That very much reminds me about the reasoning of Descartes why a god must exist: basically because he can think about it.

But really, just because you can think of it doesn’t make anything theoretically possible. For the simulation of a universe we have no idea how to do it.

path: 0 725531 733853, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 8
DogMuffins 1 point 3 years ago

I think that's a poor analogy.

It's true that we're not capable of stimulating a universe in appropriate detail presently, but it's inevitable that at some time we will have that capacity.

Looking at progress in the last 20 years, and extrapolate another thousand years, it's entirely plausible that one could spin up a "universe" on a personal device to play with.

path: 0 725531 733853 735447, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 5
redballooon 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 725531 733853 735447 739989, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
redballooon 1 point 3 years ago

It’s not only about levels of detail. We have no theory about how to compute a universe.

Moores law already does not hold up any more. There’s nothing to extrapolate.

I think the analogy is perfect. Thinkers think, but they’re bound in the context of their time and place. Our time and place is full of technology, of course thinkers will spin up an origin myth that is based on technology.

But that’s really all it is.

path: 0 725531 733853 735447 739911, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
DogMuffins 1 point 3 years ago

That's a false dichotomy... "Moores law or bust". Of course there will be advancements in future.

I guess there's two valid positions here:

We don't know how to do x therefore it's not possible, or... we've made significant progress in the right direction of doing x and its therefore likely that we will achieve it in time.

As you said, our thinking is bound in the context of our time and place, it's difficult to step away from that.

path: 0 725531 733853 735447 739911 762480, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
redballooon 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 725531 733853 735447 739945, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Markimus 1 point 3 years ago

We could already theoretically simulate a universe; our only limiting factor is the amount of power we have available to us.

It might not be identical to our own universe as we are still missing the necessary knowledge to do that, though who's to say our host universe has the same laws of physics etc. as ours? It's not necessary to simulate our host universe, though rather a universe with a specific set of parameters that we decide on.

That specific set of parameters were likely chosen for our own universe.

path: 0 725531 733853 750512, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
redballooon 1 point 3 years ago

We can model things and call them “universe”. But that’s about it.

path: 0 725531 733853 750512 759423, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
thebuttonmonkey 2 points 3 years ago

If you believe it’s possible we could create that simulation (and why would we only do it once), then it follows it would possible for that simulation to create it’s own simulations. And so on and so on.

So if it’s possible, then it’s all but impossible that any of this is real.

path: 0 725531 728027, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
TheButtonJustSpins 2 points 3 years ago

The first mover stimulator theory - we are God.

path: 0 725531 728027 731136, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
UnfortunateShort 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 725531 726884, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
UnfortunateShort 1 point 3 years ago

Yay, the best Reddit bug is alive in Lemmy lol

Long live the network "error".

path: 0 725531 726884 726966, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
redballooon 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 725531 731996, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
fidodo 14 points 3 years ago

What does it mean to "live in a simulation"? If I created a sentient computer program that has no contact with the outside world then you would say it's living in a simulation, but if you took that same exact program and connected it to a robot you'd say it's living in reality. But what's the line? If you add a tiny glimpse of reality but 99.9% of its experiences are stimulated is it living in a simulation or reality? It's not necessarily a black or white thing but more like a spectrum. In that sense you could say that our brains are creating a simulation of the outside world based on real inputs, but our perception of reality is not necessarily accurate. I would say our brains are on the spectrum of being a simulation of reality because not everything we experience is necessarily real.

path: 0 735572, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 1
duckef 2 points 3 years ago

Aliens could land on my lawn and take a 10hour long shit and I'd still have to go to work the next day.

path: 0 735572 754304, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Reliant1087 12 points 3 years ago

For a slightly different take, a simulation and reality are not that fundamentally different given how both are perceived by senses in a similar way. Like how a VR headset uses the same sense that you use to see real objects.

They start to diverge in a way when you start encountering edge phenomenon that are beyond the scope of the simulation, like how a game would glitch. So far, however much we zoom in or zoom out, reality works consistently. So it is less likely that we're in a simulation.

path: 0 764037, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 2
Dfc09 5 points 3 years ago

It depends how you define reality working consistently. Dark matter was first theorized by observing how galaxies and star clusters etc don't seem to have enough mass to produce the gravitational footprint that holds them together. So dark matter was theorized to account for it. Invisible, intangible matter that only interacts with "normal" matter through gravity. Kinda strange 🤔

path: 0 764037 770166, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
Reliant1087 1 point 3 years ago

I mean we knew that gravity as we understood in terms of GR is not a full picture. As people figured out that the expansion of the universe was accelerating, which would be impossible if gravity was simply attractive. So I don't think of dark matter as a glitch. It's more like a placeholder we don't understand yet.

Something that seems like a glitch to me is speed of light being a hard limit, but when you really dig into it you realize that certain limits determine the nature of the reality and they need to have some fixed value like the speed of light went Planck's constant.

path: 0 764037 770166 814257, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
TheButtonJustSpins 11 points 3 years ago

I'm a weak solipsist - I firmly believe that "I think therefore I am" is the only truth we can know. Everything else, we take on faith.

That said, it doesn't really matter. We live in the reality we perceive. There's no practical difference between living in reality and living in a simulation.

path: 0 731317, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
bstix 10 points 3 years ago

I think it's a contemporary way of viewing the creation problem that religion has also been trying to address. Who created the universe, and who created the one who created the universe. What caused the Big bang. Etc.

The whole thing is irrelevant in my opinion. It doesn't matter, because whatever initialised existence is outside of our existence. That would be separated in dimensions, or even if we could interact with it, it would at least be in a completely different frame of time. The entire existence of our universe could be a blink of an eye in whatever is outside of it.

It seems like megalomania to me for humans to believe that they can ever figure this one out. Just like the microbes in our bodies can't interact with us, I don't have any hope for humans to ever understand how the entire universe interacts with it's creator, whether it's a simulation, a devine creation or the result of physics.

If it's a simulation and we are just variables in a sub-routine, then its futile to claim that we can ever figure out what is outside our loop. We can catch global variables from the main loop, like natural constants, but we'll never see the code that calls our sub.

The only reason to believe it is that we can also not prove that it isn't so. Someone claims that it's statistically unlikely that it's not a simulation but I'm not so sure about that argument. It's based on an extremely deterministic view, that everything can be simulated with enough computer power, which itself is a questionable view.

path: 0 727929, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 0
Max_UL 9 points 3 years ago

Because Elon Musk believes in it, I know it’s probably wrong.

path: 0 763971, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
Smokeydope 9 points 3 years ago
path: 0 751156, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
crunchypotat77 8 points 3 years ago

The limits of physics could be a rendering limit on the simulation hardware.

path: 0 724996, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
peter 8 points 3 years ago

Because thinking that we are here for no specific reason is scary

path: 0 724665, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 2
BrerChicken 3 points 3 years ago

It's not an "either/or" situation. I don't think we're in a simulation, but that doesn't mean we're here for hi specific reason. We're obviously here to live, and to help each other out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light of understanding while they live. That's literally our purpose, and so much of what we do is geared toward that. I guess people are looking for something deeper, but that seems plenty deep to me! If you're not actively trying to help the people around you, you're going to feel empty, like your life has no meaning. Unless you're a sociopath, which is definitely a thing. But most of us are not. Most of us just want to feel like we're doing our part, so we should keep that in mind.

path: 0 724665 731197, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
BrerChicken 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 724665 731137, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Kir 6 points 3 years ago

What's the difference?

path: 0 725257, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0
scarabic 6 points 3 years ago

Once I learned about quantum field theory, the distinction between reality and simulation kind of went away for me. It says that all of reality is essentially number values for different fundamental fields. A particle exists when the value for this field is d and the value for that field is y. But the only fundamentally real things are the fields. Everything else are just a configuration of number values within them that together conform to mathematical logic.

This sounds a lot like software to me. Whether it’s running on quantum fields or a fucking Pentium 3 doesn’t seem super important.

So sweeping aside the technology as irrelevant, we have turn to the issue of whether the universe is contrived by programmers. The question becomes: did people create the universe? And my opinion of us just isn’t that high.

path: 0 760911, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 2
Zippy 2 points 3 years ago

I read a series, can't recall the name anymore, but computer simulations were so powerful that the entities within the simulations would think they are alive. In the novel this was done to try and simulated conditions to predict real life outcomes. It was also considered particularly vile and cruel to do this and illegal in some cases. Particularly if the simulated entities realized their situation and knew they would be turned off or understand their past was all made up.

It definately makes you wonder.

path: 0 760911 761590, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
scarabic 1 point 3 years ago

Just like we think we actually have free will, and are pretty upset to find we don’t, and are going to die.

path: 0 760911 761590 764273, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
squirrel_bear 5 points 3 years ago

YOU HAVE REACHED THE END OF FREE PREVIEW OF "THE LIFE". To continue using this entertainment, please deposit 650 kvazons to your blardg.

path: 0 766195, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 2
Sarcasdick28 2 points 3 years ago

Damn I spent my last kvazon at the pizzeria do yall take credit?

path: 0 766195 766471, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
squirrel_bear 2 points 3 years ago

Yes, but you'll regret it later, in about 20 years.

path: 0 766195 766471 1028160, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
mojo 5 points 3 years ago

If you have the fundamental belief that if we know every single possible detail down to the atom, that we can predict what will happen every time, then you believe that free will does not exist. If you think of it that way, and think everything is calculated, then it could be theoretically be possible for some kind of super computer to generate everything since it knows all the information and can calculate what will happen next.

path: 0 762496, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 1
Hexagon -7 points 3 years ago

I also think that free will may not exist, but I'm not sure why. Either everything can be calculated in advance as you say, or everything is fundamentally random because quantum mechanics. But maybe there's something at the edge where neither of these explanations are correct? What happens there?

path: 0 762496 782930, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 0
scarabic 5 points 3 years ago

Here’s Elon Musk’s argument (not saying I agree with it but here’s what he said about it):

Eventually we will be able to create entirely convincing simulations. Just look at video games. The graphics are getting pretty good.

So given that we will inevitably create such simulations, we have to ask whether it has perhaps already happened and this is one of them.

And since we will no doubt create many different simulations, millions of them, the odds are against this one being the prime reality. It’s just millions-to-one odds by the numbers.

Therefore this is almost certainly a simulation.

(Personally I think there are factual and logical problems at many steps in this)

path: 0 760763, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 5
lando55 6 points 3 years ago

I just want to point out that while Musk likes to parrot this rhetoric, it is Nick Bostrom who should be credited with the hypothesis in its current, modern incarnation. That's not to say it is entirely his idea either, as similar hypotheses have been pontificated over for centuries , notably by René Descartes.

path: 0 760763 771215, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
scarabic 2 points 3 years ago

Mm thanks. Worthy footnote.

path: 0 760763 771215 785444, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
sabriy01 2 points 3 years ago

seems consistent..

path: 0 760763 762642, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
lando55 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 760763 771313, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
lando55 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 760763 771284, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
fleeing_snail 4 points 3 years ago

It's based on the idea that if we were, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

path: 0 726101, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
tryingnottobefat 4 points 3 years ago

My life is “Murphy’s Law: the Movie”. Every time I try to reassure myself by saying “well, at least it can’t possibly get any worse than this”, it gets worse. There’s no way that there isn’t some asshole running a simulation where they just fuck with me.

path: 0 730593, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
Chloepoke 3 points 3 years ago

Because everything can be expressed mathematically.

path: 0 794780, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
CodeBlooded 3 points 3 years ago

Ever wonder about reasons to think we are not living in a simulation?

path: 0 731061, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
redballooon 3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 739016, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
tallwookie 3 points 3 years ago

Musk's leadership of Twitter. if we're in a simulation it makes perfect sense - some admin forgot to flip a switch somewhere and shit has gone a bit off the rails

path: 0 753790, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
sebinspace 2 points 3 years ago

Doesn’t sound any more ridiculous than any of the other ideas.

path: 0 795220, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
RacerX 2 points 3 years ago

I never see my neighbors bringing groceries into their house.

path: 0 733365, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
kn0wmad1c 2 points 3 years ago

I'm still waiting for Pi to start repeating so that we have proof.

path: 0 735522, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Smokeydope 2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 751133, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
kromem 1 point 3 years ago

I wrote a much longer comment that was lost (still missing client features from Reddit clients like draft saving).

The TLDR is a lot of the physics behaviors we have in our world relating to quanta (as many others have mentioned), but especially in combination with a ~2,000 year old text and tradition which claimed the most (in)famous person in history was saying we are in a non-physical copy of a dead original world made by a light-based intelligence brought forth by the original humanity, and that the proof for this was in motion and rest - particularly that the ability to find an indivisible point within things would only be possible in the non-physical physical.

So in an age where humanity is on the cusp of bringing forth new intelligence, ever more looking like that will occur in light (optoelectronics), where we are creating digital twins of ourselves and the world around us, where a trillion dollar corporation has already been granted a patent on digital resurrection of the dead, and where the virtual worlds we build often use rendering tricks similar to the behavior of our own world at low fidelities -- that's pretty weird to have existed so far back in antiquity.

Almost like it would be more likely to exist in a simulated world, much like how many of our own virtual world have 4th wall breaking acknowledgement of being virtual buried as an Easter egg in their lore...

path: 0 758800, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
rigatti 4 points 3 years ago

What 2000 year old thing are you talking about?

path: 0 758800 759528, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1
kromem 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 758800 759528 760208, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Smokeydope 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 751170, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
tryingnottobefat 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 730216, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
sorebuttfromsitting 0 points 3 years ago

I don’t see any reason to think I’m not in a simulation, except that it’s just a silly ancient fable, created by the simulation. but none of that affects the “realities” of life and love all the rest of it.

path: 0 724677, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
Ballistic86 0 points 3 years ago

Herd mentality is very weird. People who would never, on their own, commit crimes/violence just kind of start doing it. Almost feels like that “god hand” player controlling the RTS ordered a group of people to do their bidding.

path: 0 751581, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
dandroid 0 points 3 years ago

The fact that this question gets reasked every five seconds.

path: 0 738862, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0
igetzerobread 0 points 3 years ago

Everything there is is made out of atoms, Just seems to easy to me, like 0s and 1s in Matrix

path: 0 734944, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1
Matte 4 points 3 years ago

but atoms are made by particles, and particles are made by gluons, which are made of… strings? quantum foam? we haven’t hit rock bottom yet.

path: 0 734944 738691, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
MelodiousShark -1 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734855, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
MelodiousShark -1 points 3 years ago

Math and physics. (Almost) everything can be calculated, and the stuff we can't calculate is probably because we haven't discovered the constant/formula yet.

path: 0 734781, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
Joe_Moose -1 points 3 years ago
path: 0 742764, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 3
kakes 1 point 3 years ago

The Library of Babel isn't pre-written or cached. It's an algorithm to generate text. Huge difference.

path: 0 742764 760960, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
Joe_Moose 1 point 3 years ago

Seems like an awful good way for a simulation to compress a whole lot of written data.

path: 0 742764 760960 909212, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Joe_Moose 1 point 3 years ago
path: 0 742764 760960 909184, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Joe_Moose -1 points 3 years ago path: 0 742745, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
Joe_Moose -1 points 3 years ago
path: 0 742864, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734875, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742776, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742817, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742829, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742715, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742838, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742790, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742877, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734864, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742706, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742786, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 742757, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742805, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742812, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 742841, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
Joe_Moose -2 points 3 years ago path: 0 742723, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734796, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734805, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734824, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734848, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -2 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734837, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
MelodiousShark -3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734813, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
MelodiousShark -3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734830, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
MelodiousShark -3 points 3 years ago
path: 0 734825, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 0
nostupidquestions
nostupidquestions

@lemmy.world

login for more options
50267
7067
5553

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

go to feed...