• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well, we can’t simulate our universe inside of our universe (it’d take more matter and energy than our universe has, since it’s trying to calculate our universe). We will be able to (and can) simulate simpler systems though. Potentially our universe is a simplified version in an even larger version though, and that could also be another simulation. Things like the Planck length and time make this seem more reasonable to me, since an expected simulation would have minimum sized units where it stops storing extra data.

    We should still all behave like it isn’t a simulation, since nothing changes if we do or don’t. Still, it is interesting to consider.

    • doctordevice@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Planck scale units aren’t known or typically assumed to be minimum units. They’re just the units that come out of combining some fundamental constants and are thought to represent a scale where the effects of quantum gravity have too much effect to be ignored. They just represent a theoretical limit to the validity of our current models.

      Human knowledge will continue to push these boundaries as long as humans still exist, but it’s arrogant to think our current human limitation is a universal limitation.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, I oversimplified it but it’s the scale where the data doesn’t matter anymore. It isn’t a minimum distance or time, but it is a minimum distance or time that actually matters. It is in no way evidence of a simulation, but a simulation could be expected to have things like that, because infinite precision would require infinite data.

    • nymwit@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      What about the equivalent of foveated rendering? They’re only simulating the bits conscious observers can see, the rest is …not simulated to the same level? I guess you’re kind of going there with your model within a model thing. If we are the point of the simulation, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to simulate much beyond the planet besides what little astronomers can work with? Gonna crash this thing with enough players!

      There’s a weird SF story that has blood cell sized intelligences and reality starts to break because there are so many observers on such a small scale that reality can’t change without being observed and then they all “poof” into another dimension or something and humans are left alone again. Anyway, the number of players crashing the simulation made me think of it. Blood Music by Greg Bear.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not only we can’t simulate our universe, but the total simulating capacity of every level of every one of our simulations can’t reach the size of our universe either.

      The pseudo-probabilistic argument people use is bullshit on many levels, but the simplest reason is that there will always be more universe outside the simulations than inside it.