Thank christ I still remember IDDQDKeyMaster45 said:Awesome, so when can when can we open the debug console and turn on invincibility?
It always amazes me how people insist on making it sound like only a concious agent can be an observer in quantum measurement. This notion is in fact wrong and I implore you not to confuse public further on this matter. We get enough stuff like "What the bleep do we know" as it is.Bobic said:I've always thought the whole Observer Effect (specifically relating to quantum physics) was evidence that we were living in a simulation. The fact that things only choose values (i.e. exist in a defined way) when we observe them. So if no-one is looking, things don't exist. Sounds an awful lot like they're saving on processing power to me.
This actually raises an interesting point. There are several serious problems with the process of wave function collapse in quantum theory and the only interpretations that avoid these problems involve multiple universes in one way or another, so existence of quantum effects in our universe actually means that we most likely are not in a simulation. Imagine how much computing power it would take to continually simulate a universe which basically makes a slightly different copy of itself every time a quantum state inside it loses coherence. Then you have to keep track of both copies and the copies they will generate and so on. And that's only to simulate one layer in nested structure. Imagine that every copy is running a similar simulation itself. I think that a civilisation that has such computing power would be able to find a more useful way of using it.Bobic said:From Wiki:
A key topic is that of wave function collapse, for which some interpretations assert that measurement causes a discontinuous change into a non-quantum state, which no longer evolves. The superposition principle (ψ = Σanψn) of quantum physics says that for a wave function ψ, a measurement will give a state of the quantum system of one of the m possible eigenvalues fn, n=1,2...m, of the operator which is part of the eigenfunctions ψn, n=1,2,...n. Once we have measured the system, we know its current state and this stops it from being in one of its other states.[1] This means that the type of measurement that we do on the system affects the end state of the system. An experimentally studied situation related to this is the quantum Zeno effect, in which a quantum state that would decay if left alone but does not decay because of its continuous observation.
Or, in none baffling science terms:
Quantum systems exist as what is known as a probability density (i.e. a system of possibilities, rather than something specific). Observation makes it pick one of these possibilities, and become defined. Therefore Keanu Reeves will lead us to salvation.
Well maybe not a simulation.The_Waspman said:I'm calling bullshit on this.
If videogames have tought me anything its that you cant even enter a building without a fucking loading screen.
No loading screens in real life? Well then its not a fucking simulation, is it?
Think about it, If there were loading screens, you wouldn't see them - your simulation would be paused while more data is loaded. Only those who made the simulation would notice anything happening at all.The_Waspman said:I'm calling bullshit on this.
If videogames have tought me anything its that you cant even enter a building without a fucking loading screen.
No loading screens in real life? Well then its not a fucking simulation, is it?
I... I think I love you.Elate said:
Me, quite obviously.TimeLord said:So who's our Neo?
...And that bastard just took away our pool ladder. THE FUCK?!?!Sonic Doctor said:Yup, I thought so. To all the non-believers, God does exist. It's just that the world is just one big game of The Sims to him.
Maybe magic was the wrong word. I think I should have meant usage of the debug engine. Just type in a specific cheat code, and suddenly certain objects can disobey gravity, go through walls or instantly clone themselves without any negative repercussions.Ferisar said:Magic and and purpose don't factor in here. Magic is a broad brush-stroke. If this "simulation" contains nothing that would be interpreted as magic, then there will be no magic. This isn't a novel written by some random person, it would have to be a precise set of systems which all function together. It's more like... everything is magic, but comes from somewhere.
Except sandboxes do serve a clear purpose, exploration. Just because it's open ended, doesn't mean it lacks purpose. Most simulations do have open ends in order to come up with new results.Purpose is an obvious no-no. Even basic functions don't serve any purpose when just scattered around a sheet. It's the very definition of sandbox.
If our universe really was a simulation, then yes, I'd say enthropy would be the purpose. I.e., this simulation was made to investigate the creation, expansion and dissolution of this type of universe.Also, who's to say entropy is not a purpose?
I think you misunderstood me, I do not in anyway try to deny E=mc^2 or Newton's Golden Law. What I meant was that I didn't understood how this may prove we live within a simulation. If energy and/or mass can magically appear out of nowhere, then it must mean we live in a simulation. That's at least how I resonate.And why would energy not be limited, dare I ask? We know the universe had a beginning, which then puts a limit on energy based on just... well, mass. Energy doesn't just pop out of nowhere, ever.
As I said, this is a very intriguing thought experiment, and I don't want come of as a party-pooper. I do in fact wish that this is a simulation we live in. That it's something we can wake up from. Alas there is no hard proof, so I don't want to get too excited.The first point makes the most sense, but even then, the perception of time doesn't hold up. This "simulation" may take nano-seconds on a higher state, and entropy would be the shut-down point, where-as we experience the same thing in billions-trillions of years. You just have to look at this from a different perspective.
On a more serious note, I'm fairly sure this is just Wolfram with "But literally machines"Binnsyboy said:Me, quite obviously.TimeLord said:So who's our Neo?
I break all the rules.
On a more serious note, isn't this Descartes' three levels of doubt all jazzed up with science?