We can model things and call them “universe”. But that’s about it.
redballooon
joined 1 year 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.
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.
I remember the general feeling you talked about, and the insanity of the idea when DRM was introduced.
It seems we vastly underestimated the ideas corporations can produce and implement.
For a short while it seemed as if with AI the field would be leveled again, but then I was astonished how quickly the EU moved with regulations first and foremost to protect copyright.
- Grow a platform
- AI appears on the stage
- ???
- Profit
Rename to “armed conflict” or “special military operations”
For me the GitHub repo is on page one.
view more: next ›
No, what I'm saying is, the progress that we've seen may be a necessary part (a very small one) of a universe simulation if such a thing can be build.
But my claim is that we have absolutely no evidence that such a thing can be build, and even less that we're living in one. As of today the simulation "hypothesis" is as well founded as every other metaphysical claim, creator gods included.
A sentence like "it's very likely we live in a simulation" is about as well founded as trying to place us in any other science fiction world that has a 21st century earth at its heart.