this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
405 points (76.9% liked)

Memes

45899 readers
1490 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do "they" ever intervene or do you think its strictly regulated, like double-blind or whatever?

Like do you think they actually do or can pick favorites (protagonists/main characters) or is it way more sterile?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it’s truly meant as a simulation, then intervening in any way would go against the purpose of the simulation.

Just think about how we run our simulations. We give the computer parameters about the “real” world because we’re interested in the results. If our entire world is a simulation, amongst other simulations, then intervening would ruin the simulation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Checkpointing interesting points in simulations and rerunning with modified parameters happens literally all the time

Especially weather / climate / geology and medicine

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They’re re-run, though. You don’t change the parameters in the middle of the simulation. That goes against the point of simulating something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You don't rerun everything from scratch. Especially weather simulations can be checkpointed at places you have high certainty, and keep running forks after that point with different parameters. This is extremely common with for example trying to predict wind patterns during forest fires, you simulate multiple branches of possible developments in wind direction, humidity, temperature, etc. If the parameters you test don't cover every scenario that is plausible you might sometimes engineer it into the simulation just to see the worst case scenario, for example.

And in medicine, especially computational biochemistry you modify damn near everything

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re confusing simulations of specific events with a simulation environment. If our universe is simulated, then it’s unlikely that the creators of the simulation would be interested in the individual occurrences you’re describing. The universe is what’s being studied, not the happenings inside of it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Simulations of boats in water don't care about what's happening to the water much of the time yet it needs to be there, you seem to be way too confident in your conclusions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re still confusing a simulation of a specific event with a simulation of a universe. If you’re simulating a boat in the water, you need the water but you don’t need to build an entire ocean with fish and land near the water and buildings on the land. You just build what you need to simulate. We are clearly in a much larger simulation than one that would simulate an event.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If you don't know what they're testing that could certainly seem excessive. But failure of imagination doesn't prove it's impossible, although you can argue it's unlikely