A New Law of Physics Could Support the Idea We're Living In a Simulation (phys.org) 170
A physicist from the University of Portsmouth has explored whether a new law of physics could support the theory that we're living in a computer simulation. Phys.Org reports: Dr. Melvin Vopson has previously published research suggesting that information has mass and that all elementary particles -- the smallest known building blocks of the universe -- store information about themselves, similar to the way humans have DNA. In 2022, he discovered a new law of physics that could predict genetic mutations in organisms, including viruses, and help judge their potential consequences. It is based on the second law of thermodynamics, which establishes that entropy -- a measure of disorder in an isolated system -- can only increase or stay the same. Dr. Vopson had expected that the entropy in information systems would also increase over time, but on examining the evolution of these systems he realized it remains constant or decreases. That's when he established the second law of information dynamics, or infodynamics, which could significantly impact genetics research and evolution theory.
A new paper, published in AIP Advances, examines the scientific implications of the new law on a number of other physical systems and environments, including biological, atomic physics, and cosmology. Key findings include:
- Biological systems: The second law of infodynamics challenges the conventional understanding of genetic mutations, suggesting that they follow a pattern governed by information entropy. This discovery has profound implications for fields such as genetic research, evolutionary biology, genetic therapies, pharmacology, virology, and pandemic monitoring.
- Atomic physics: The paper explains the behavior of electrons in multi-electron atoms, providing insights into phenomena like Hund's rule; which states that the term with maximum multiplicity lies lowest in energy. Electrons arrange themselves in a way that minimizes their information entropy, shedding light on atomic physics and stability of chemicals.
- Cosmology: The second law of infodynamics is shown to be a cosmological necessity, with thermodynamic considerations applied to an adiabatically expanding universe supporting its validity. "The paper also provides an explanation for the prevalence of symmetry in the universe," added Dr. Vopson. "Symmetry principles play an important role with respect to the laws of nature, but until now there has been little explanation as to why that could be. My findings demonstrate that high symmetry corresponds to the lowest information entropy state, potentially explaining nature's inclination towards it."
"This approach, where excess information is removed, resembles the process of a computer deleting or compressing waste code to save storage space and optimize power consumption. And as a result supports the idea that we're living in a simulation."
A new paper, published in AIP Advances, examines the scientific implications of the new law on a number of other physical systems and environments, including biological, atomic physics, and cosmology. Key findings include:
- Biological systems: The second law of infodynamics challenges the conventional understanding of genetic mutations, suggesting that they follow a pattern governed by information entropy. This discovery has profound implications for fields such as genetic research, evolutionary biology, genetic therapies, pharmacology, virology, and pandemic monitoring.
- Atomic physics: The paper explains the behavior of electrons in multi-electron atoms, providing insights into phenomena like Hund's rule; which states that the term with maximum multiplicity lies lowest in energy. Electrons arrange themselves in a way that minimizes their information entropy, shedding light on atomic physics and stability of chemicals.
- Cosmology: The second law of infodynamics is shown to be a cosmological necessity, with thermodynamic considerations applied to an adiabatically expanding universe supporting its validity. "The paper also provides an explanation for the prevalence of symmetry in the universe," added Dr. Vopson. "Symmetry principles play an important role with respect to the laws of nature, but until now there has been little explanation as to why that could be. My findings demonstrate that high symmetry corresponds to the lowest information entropy state, potentially explaining nature's inclination towards it."
"This approach, where excess information is removed, resembles the process of a computer deleting or compressing waste code to save storage space and optimize power consumption. And as a result supports the idea that we're living in a simulation."
I saw it in a movie once, must be true (Score:2)
Based on the state of our world recently we need a reboot, badly.
Re:I saw it in a movie once, must be true (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please no, we all know reboots suck. Haven't you learned anything from recent movies?
Re:I saw it in a movie once, must be true (Score:5, Funny)
"This approach, where excess information is removed, resembles the process of a computer deleting or compressing waste code to save storage space and optimize power consumption. And as a result supports the idea that we're living in a simulation."
Thank you. A bugfix has been submitted for this exposure of security-sensitive information.
Based on the state of our world recently we need a reboot, badly.
A Change Request for system downtime will have to be approved.
Re: (Score:3)
Reboot or re-installation without fixing the problems just replicates those problems. This needs a lot more than a reboot. It probably needs removal of a lot of players that created this state and a lot of sheep that let them do it.
Reboot from 2022 (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait to see what next year's reboot will bring.
Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:3)
Knee jerk impression, someone trying to tie disparate phenomena together with a fitted function without predictive value.
Re:Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Simulation hypothesis is creationism with extra steps and always has been.
Yes, it's usually some kind of sensationalism that's based on some kind of argument from ignorance about some unfalsifable hypotheses.
Re:Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:5, Funny)
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's probably science?
No, silly! If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a cartoon. Real ducks don't talk!
Re: (Score:2)
Simulation hypothesis is creationism with extra steps and always has been.
Indeed. Does not mean impossible, but does mean very, very implausible. Which is about as good as impossible for most purposes.
Re:Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is supposed to look explanations that not only rely on inductive reasoning but are also backed up by deductive reasoning.
On the other hand you have a subset of people who goes "you can't explain this. It's a gap. Therefore, without evidence of my own, XYZ".
And from that we got the God of the gaps. Also the Aliens of the gaps, where then a bit later you had people arguing that maybe God(s) are aliens. And in more recent history we have the Simulation of the gaps.
In this case we have less strawman arguments where the "gaps" are often blatantly made up by claiming that scientists are baffled and then either juxtaposing a far fetched hypothesis with a strawman or at best weakman to use it for a false dichotomy, but I see the application of false dichotomy here nonetheless.
I don't see it that far off that people will argue that "God" runs the simulation. That they have figured out how to please "God" and then reap the benefits of their work by having their "consciousness thread" continue running on the "heaven hardware" or something like that.
Though I suppose at least some rhetorical tricks were used here by wording like "could support". Suggests some openmindedness and gives plausible deniability.
But having had to deal with Creationist types quite frequently who brand themselves as Sceptics, Openminded, "Just Asking Questions" not falling myself into the fallacy of hasty generalization has become difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Boffins baffled by these strange gaps! Click to find out more!
Re:Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:4, Insightful)
"God of the gaps" is just another term for "stupid". Yes, there are gaps, and yes, something is in them, and, yes, these gaps are pretty large in some cases, like still no explanation for consciousness and for general intelligence (not that many people have it....). But a "God" is about the most unlikely and most implausible thing to be found there because there really is zero indication for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail. Not a surprise, most people do not have general reasoning ability for shit and that includes you.
And yes, it really is _that_ obvious to anybody with some actual general intelligence.
Wrong Science (Score:2)
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's probably science?
It could be but if so then, like this paper, it's definitely not physics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought God was sysadmin and Jesus was just a power user?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. While the research is nice, it does not imply in any way that this is a simulation. Only somebody desperate to "prove" something like this simulation idea could come to that conclusion. There are a lot simpler explanations.
Re: Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:2)
It just says that the more theres entropy the less there is information.
I don't see how it would make the simulation easier to run anyway unless you consider it simulating only what can be observed.
But my house keeps getting messier and messier or at least I perceive it to be so that can't be it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. Equating entropy and disorder has always been a problem because what we really mean by "order" is actually knowledge of a system. When all the balls are on one side of a box, that's not more ordered, it's giving us more information than if they could be anywhere in that box.
So a messy house where you know the location of everything has the same entropy as a tidy house where everything is in its place.
Re:Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Simulated Universe Theory is the new String Theory:
- Excites the public's imagination
- Makes bold claims of explanatory power
- No obvious practical application
- Untestable and/or unfalsifiable
- Good for maintaining careers of theorists
In a few year's time, don't act surprised when you have celebrity scientists doing TV talk shows circuits hawking their new book all about how amazing and revolutionary their new theories will be once they manage to demonstrate they're valid... it'll just be a few more years and we'll have it figured out!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
OK. And that may be correct. But, the claim that there is no predictive value hasn't been proven.
I admit that I'm a bit dubious about his claims, and suspect that they are overblown, and lack substantiation. But I don't claim to know, and I doubt that you do either.
N.B.: "That we are living in a simulation" is guaranteed to be consistent with any result. That's just headline grabbing stuff. (And even the headline only said "support" rather than "prove".)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like bullshit to me (Score:5, Informative)
BS is exactly it. A "physicist" should know better. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the overall entropy of a closed system will always increase. But when you're talking about genetics, you need to include the entropy of the sun because its radiation is what makes life on earth (and therefore genetic changes) possible. External energy sources make possible a localized decrease in entropy, such as with air conditioners and heat pumps. The same is true with information systems that are powered by the electrical grid. This guy either slept through his thermodynamics course or is deliberately being deceiving. This is not really news for nerds (plenty of charlatans out there) and it definitely isn't stuff that matters.
Not this bullshit again (Score:5, Insightful)
The simulation idea came from AdS/CFT correspondence which is a *mathematical* relationship between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory. The idea is that the bulk, AdS, is coded in a CFT describing the horizon. It says nothing about the real world because we live in deSitter space (positive cosmological constant), not anti-deSitter space (negative cosmological constant). Correspondence mathematics came from Juan Maldacena and a few others.
Philosophically, the simulation concept for the universe is brittle. If we are living in a simulation, then your belief that you are living in a simulation is itself simulated. A co-inductive hole quickly ensues.
Re:Not this bullshit again (Score:4, Informative)
The simulation idea came from AdS/CFT correspondence which is a *mathematical* relationship between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory.
I always thought that the simulation hypothesis came from assumption that with more and more powerful supercomputers there will more and more simulations running with more and more complexity. And eventually the number of simulated universes will be much larger than the number of real universes (one), so the probability is that WE are actually living in a simulated universe, not the one and only real one. See Nick Bostrom's premise here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
e. If we are living in a simulation, then your belief that you are living in a simulation is itself simulated. .
No, the belief itself is not simulated - if the model of the simulation of the universe is complex enough, why there couldn't be emergent AI (i.e. us) coming from it, having our own belief system? In exactly the same way we are debating now, if WE can create AI, eventually, with more and more complex neural networks.
Re: (Score:3)
'I always thought that the simulation hypothesis came from assumption that with more and more powerful supercomputers there will more and more simulations running with more and more complexity.'
Except that this runs up against the laws of physics as we know them. You can't simulate a system perfectly from within that system. To simulate the universe you would either need more enrgy than the universe holds, or you would need to run it at a vastly slower speed than reality. Think using a zx81 computer to simu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the outer universe is of infinite size, there's infinite resources to go around simulating a similar universe. If it runs slower, that is only from the perspective of the outside observer. So if we're 5 layers in, it might be imperceptibly slow to the outermost layer, but still normal for us.
Likely? Who knows, it's just as absurd as the ginormous size of even just our observable universe.
Re:Not this bullshit again (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't simulate a system perfectly from within that system.
As far as I know, no one has said that the entire universe has to be simulated. Depending on the lifetime of the intended simulation, you only have to simulate only the bits your are interested in. The rest is just a boundary condition, conveniently placed out of reach due to the speed of light.
Say you're the species in the simulation above us wanting to simulate us. You might only have to model the Milky Way. Everything outside a million light years can be safely simulated with much less precision, because the living beings inside that simulation would, with almost 100% certainty, would never be able to travel to the Andromeda Galaxy, or witness its collision with the Milky Way, for the illusion to be shattered.
At the boundaries, you'd only need to simulate the expected light, intergalactic matter, dark matter, and dark energy that crosses that simulation radius.
Of course, if you want to simulate up to the collision of the Andromeda Galaxy, you'd expand the simulation radius to include Andromeda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Still there is no evidence this simulation exist
This claim is false. If you want to modify it as "There is no compelling evidence", I'd agree with it. But there is weak evidence, derived from various arguments, including the work referenced in the article and Bostrom's arguments, among others.
more importantly no evidence that this technology is possible
This is even more clearly false. The fact that we can and do create all sorts of simulations is very strong evidence that the technology is possible. It may require more computing power than we currently possess, or maybe just more cleverness in applying it (I doubt
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You can falsify simulation theory. You simply need to find a phenomenon which cannot be represented in a computer.
Anything with infinities or infinitesimals will do. So GR cannot be simulated, no matter how powerful the simulation. If GR is valid, simulation theory is false. It's that simple.
The contention that there is no objective reality would also work. If there's no objective reality, but rather a quasi-independent reality that exists for every particle in the universe, then simulation theory is imposs
Re: (Score:2)
You can falsify simulation theory. You simply need to find a phenomenon which cannot be represented in a computer.Anything with infinities or infinitesimals will do. So GR cannot be simulated, no matter how powerful the simulation. If GR is valid, simulation theory is false. It's that simple.
GR is simulated all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually much slower is not enough. You need to keep the full system state and you cannot do that unless your state-keeping mechanism is larger.
Re: (Score:3)
'I always thought that the simulation hypothesis came from assumption that with more and more powerful supercomputers there will more and more simulations running with more and more complexity.'
Except that this runs up against the laws of physics as we know them. You can't simulate a system perfectly from within that system.
You're not simulating the system within the same system. You're simulating this universe within some different "external" universe.
The problems is, we don't know how much of the universe is simulated, nor anything about the external universe running the simulation. A lot of the simulation hypotheses people think that the entire universe is simulated, but that's silly. The simulation could be any size at all. If it's just alternate histories they're simulating, they only need simulate the very top of the cru
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought that the simulation hypothesis came from assumption that with more and more powerful supercomputers there will more and more simulations running with more and more complexity.
And eventually the number of simulated universes will be much larger than the number of real universes (one), so the probability is that WE are actually living in a simulated universe, not the one and only real one.
That same logic holds true, and more importantly is equally correct, if you replace the word "simulation" with "video game".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you can not make a simulation larger that the system that runs the simulation. Hence all these simulations will be very _small_ compared to the real thing and that particular form of the argument nicely turns out to be bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
you can not make a simulation larger that the system that runs the simulation.
You can't make it more complex, but you can make it seem larger with tricks. A space sim isn't more complicated than real life, for example, but the world within the game is still larger. You can cover greater distances.
None of this speculation proves anything, but you absolutely can have a simulated world larger than the real world if the simulation isn't very accurate. And how would we know it isn't if we're part of it? We could be programmed not to notice.
Re: (Score:3)
I always thought that the simulation hypothesis came from assumption that with more and more powerful supercomputers there will more and more simulations running with more and more complexity. And eventually the number of simulated universes will be much larger than the number of real universes (one), so the probability is that WE are actually living in a simulated universe, not the one and only real one.
I used to think this was all utter nonsense because it implies simulating universes is somehow magically free and therefore there is infinite value in infinite nesting of simulations. Then by chance I discovered a clay tablet in my backyard containing the instruction name and calling conventions for zero cost nesting of universe simulations. Apparently god originally implemented it for debugging purposes and universe simulators have been exploiting it ever since.
CPU vendors if you are listening call me.
Re: (Score:2)
This all reminds me of the sort of "Did you know that in a video game, the electric lights they show there are actually using electricity?" navel-contemplating crap we used to all debate fervently in our freshman dorms.
Of course, most of us were high as balls at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
And eventually the number of simulated universes will be much larger than the number of real universes (one), so the probability is that WE are actually living in a simulated universe, not the one and only real one.
In fact, the odds are 50/50. If you're somewhere in the middle of the chain, you have visibility down to the lower levels of it, but not to the upper levels, without the upper levels choosing to communicate with you. As we are not apparently running this kind of simulation, we can only be at the Top of the Chain, or the Bottom of the Chain.
The universe does seem to have some simulation-like properties, but my suspicion is that this is a product of whatever the medium is that allows the universe to exist, ra
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I can tell, you seem to be assuming that the "large number of simulations" are nested within each other-- a simulation running a simulation running a simulation, etc-- and that would be a fantastically inefficient way to run simulations, in any universe. It's more plausible that you would have multiple simulations running separately.
Re: (Score:2)
All models of the nature of existence, are somewhere between very brittle to complete bullshit. Speculation in the absence of hard data has a tendency to produce things of this quality level. Add that most people cannot distinguish between established facts and speculation or fantasies, and you net nonsense like "God", physicalism, the Universe as a simulation, etc.
The actual scientific state of things is that we have no clue how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I consider the simulation hypothesis more akin to a religious debate, rather than scientific, since the concept is demonstrably not falsifiable (any attempt to *prove* it isn't true can just be hand waved away by saying that test was just simulated that way). Thus it's more a matter of ascribing an 'interesting' explanation to some of the weirdness we see.
you would need a larger faster universe to simulate it on and the visible universe is already mind numbingly large, it would be far easier to simulate a weeks worth of supercomputing cluster time using a calculator by hand in your lifetime
Our perception of what "mind numbingly large" is limited by our own observable reality. We imagine possibilities through the lens of our "obser
Re: (Score:3)
Also always remember that "possible" is not the same as "likely". The Flying Spagetti Monster is certainly possible, but is it likely? Not so much, same as any other "God". In fact, demonstrating that was the very reason for its creation. Just claiming some fantasies are the "truth" is pretty damn stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That video must be on some porn site. Those guys do everything first.
Re: (Score:2)
Our perception of what "mind numbingly large" is limited by our own observable reality.
You missed the point I was making by saying you would need a larger faster universe to describe it, just as the Minecraft engine requires a server of some sort able to process more information on a time basis than just the engine delivers because it requires an operating system and other functions as well. It should be obvious you can’t emulate a faster computer on a slower one and thus the recursion, trying to say it’s simulation and we just haven’t seen the discrepancy yet again and aga
Re: (Score:3)
Right, as said, you have to answer the simulation hypothesis with the reality it is not falsifiable, full stop. That engaging in any discussion is for 'philosophy' or 'fun' and not of scientific value.
When you start trying to talk about scale of computation, you fall into the problem of trying to compare scale of the familiar to something that can't be even speculated about other than to wildly throw out a hypothetical that works.
The main attraction for the 'fun' part is noting how relativity and quantum p
Re: (Score:2)
When you start trying to talk about scale of computation, you fall into the problem of trying to compare scale of the familiar to something that can't be even speculated about other than to wildly throw out a hypothetical that works.
Again, that’s not the point I was trying to convey. You need to invoke a larger more complex system with no foundation in any measurement or logical basis to explain the current system and it has no predictive power whatsoever in addition to being unfalsifiable.
The main attraction for the 'fun' part is noting how relativity and quantum physics funnily enough resemble limitations if we went about simulating something and what happens when propagation in-universe time would outpace communication of the simulation equipment or when things drop below the resolution of simulation
This brings us back full circle to ads/cft where the horizon of a black hole grows in radius linearly with mass (or conversely information) such that a low mass one has incredibly high density many many orders higher than ordinary or even ult
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the anti-desitter space here is used a mathematical tool for helping solve cft problems, not as a representation of reality. However, since the ads is one dimension higher, one thought experiment is that our 4d de-sitter space is a 4d brane(membrane) existing within a 5d anti-de-sitter space. But this is mostly just a thought experiment
Re: (Score:2)
If we are living in a simulation, then your belief that you are living in a simulation is itself simulated. A co-inductive hole quickly ensues.
False Your reductio depends upon hidden assumptions. Mathematical formalism recognises simulation without establishing existence, let alone belief, living, or any other essence.
Precipitous conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
One should, of course, read the whole paper and, most importantly, understand it. Unfortunately I don't have the time or the presence of mind.
However the conclusion "And as a result supports the idea that we're living in a simulation" seems a bit precipitous....
From the premise... this could also support the theory of Intelligent Design!
Re: (Score:2)
Just another afterlife 'theory' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... essentially we don't get rebooted but instead vanish into a backup tape?
Re:Just another afterlife 'theory' (Score:5, Funny)
Working backups are a myth.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... if anyone requests it, god will just say he lost the tape?
Re: (Score:3)
On that note-
Jesus saves.
Buddha makes incremental backups.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An afterlife is completely speculative. One thing with some plausibility is rebirth: There definitely is the environment, concrete memory is in the brain (which does not get reborn) and children go through memory-purges but come in this world with a complex personality already in place. Could have other explanations, but this one is sort-of simpler than the other possibilities. Still does not mean it happens that way, we just do not know enough to say either way.
I guess they're missing... (Score:2, Funny)
I guess materialism & the rejection of the metaphysical is just too much to bear for some people.
Re:I guess they're missing... (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus saves!
But Buddha makes incremental backups.
Re: (Score:3)
If Jesus appeared today he would get called a liberal woketard and crucified again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he'd end up somewhere else [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...God! The one & only true creator of our universe. Praise be! I guess materialism & the rejection of the metaphysical is just too much to bear for some people.
I guess God is really just a sys admin that works remotely...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:2)
What it supports is basically the universe as a multi-agent-system. No need for a simulation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Or more succinctly, it does not disprove that the universe is a simulation. So, you know, we might be in a simulation if believing that is exciting to you in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Not conclusive either way. Not that it matters.
I think he misunderstand thermodynamic (Score:3)
I would not expect open system to have a certain direction for entropy, when he consider only the information genome of a being or the information of a memory stick, there is nothing to say the entropy should increase in that system. What the second law says is that in a fully closed system (or the universe) the entropy of the system can only increase. When he compare that to information system with his infodynamic he takes open systems anyway, and find the entropy must be equal or decrease, i can only say "duhhh". If the information entropy was always increasing for , say, a hdd, then it would be a very very poor information system. Am I missing something ?
If we're living in a simulation... (Score:2)
If this is a simulation (Score:2)
If this is a simulation, then what is the host environment?
Re: (Score:2)
please stop (Score:2)
Or, what if we're living in a guest universe? (Score:2)
To observe the host universe, we just need to train the CPU to mispredict branches and forget to clean up contents in registers that came from a protected address space.
Re: (Score:2)
To observe the host universe, we just need to train the CPU to mispredict branches and forget to clean up contents in registers that came from a protected address space.
Isn't exactly this what they are doing at CERN?
Re: (Score:2)
Silicon Heaven (Score:3)
If this is a simulation (Score:2)
Then I must have pissed off the creators. Once again, I didn't win the Powerball last night so that my life could reboot. Nope.
Universe or simulation creators clearly hate my character.
Not Science (Score:3)
Propositions like "we are living in a computer simulation" are not falsifiable and cannot properly be regarded as science. The line of thinking goes back to Descartes (and almost certainly before)- simply substitute Descartes' idea of a "Deamon" tricking into believing in his existence for a computer doing the same. It can be a bit tedious when scientists with no or minimal philosophy background end up rehashing the same arguments that hundreds of years of philosophers have been making with little more than a new vocabulary and scientific sheen.
Of course it is! (Score:2)
Reality (Score:2)
If our reality is a simulation then it is our reality. Maybe the computer simulation is a simulation and that is a simulation in a simulation...
The "Evidence" summarized (Score:2)
We don't know how certain things work. This wacky theory that accounts for it, so we'll take this as evidence that the wacky theory might be true. ...because nobody can prove that it isn't.
So, it's basically religion all over again, with robots.
Ignorant (Score:2)
The authors still believe Clausius (19th century) stating that âoeThe entropy
of the universe tends to a maximum.â At the time the universe was believed as static and filled with stars, people except Kant didn't even thought about galaxies.
Today we know 2 things that the ignorant authors don't:
1) The universe is expanding since its birth, so there is no mechanical, thus thermal equilibrium, which is obvious when looking at the sky.
2) Gravitating systems, which make the bulk of the universe, hav
wait what (Score:2)
the argument here in favor of this universe being a simulation is "information complexity in this universe seems to tend to decrease, which is kind of sort of like a computer cleaning up disk space, so probably we're in a simulation" ?
Ad absurdum (Score:2)
They mentioned Elon Musg (Score:2)
That's when I stopped reading.
Nonsense (Score:2)
He actually claims (with a straight face) that we will 'create' more bits of information than there are atoms in the Earth within the next few centuries. One could have also argued a few years (decades?) ago that we were on pace to have the entire surface of the Earth covered in humans within a few centuries. Both of these arguments based on, "Hey, if these rate keeps up, then..." are nothing more than garbage for obvious reasons. I didn't really listen to much more of his video, as little of it made muc
Re: (Score:2)
spot on. I made a similar comment.
Also, people have been talking about this since the Matrix movie first came out, and even before just less publicly. Hell Rene Descarte taught us all about it in the 17th century.
Physicists don't seem to be making much real progress these days, so I guess they come up with stuff like this instead....
Not likely (Score:2)
The only people (Score:2)
The only people living in a simulation are the people who think we are living in a simulation. Pay no heed to simulacrums.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Useless to speculate. ergo, cogito, sum. (Score:2)
Of course we *could* be living in a simulation. Or a cosmic video game. Or in an endless series of simulations, Or as part of some Alien's imagination. or maybe only I exist. Or God(s) made us, or..., or..., or... ad infinitum.
Descarte taught us long ago, ergo cogito, sum. I think therefore I am. I exist, somehow. And that's all I can ever really know because my every sense could be deceived.
Let's say we are in a simulation. That implies there is an underlying physical reality of the realm
Re: (Score:2)
"cogito, ergo sum". whoops.
heh, in 25+ years slashdot has never figured out how to make an 'edit comment' feature.