this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
176 points (96.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35882 readers
1582 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PangolinPaladin@social.fossware.space 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every time I need to cross a seemingly empty street, suddenly cars appear. I can't help but imagine it's a render distance issue.

[–] OrangeCorvus@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try to cross the street without turning your head. When you turn your head, they render the cars in the opposite directions.

/jk always look both ways before crossing the street.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Simulation theory is more or less a kind of modern creation myth, and creation myths are based around its societies current level of understanding of the world. In ancient times people explained the worlds actions and existence through gods and imaginative myths. When the scientific revolution happened people explained the universe in terms of immutable laws and cosmic logic. Now we are in the computational revolution, thus some people explain the worlds existence through computers. All untestable and unfalsifiable explanations for the nature of reality are as good as any other, so pick your poison and enjoy!

[–] qnick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Simulation theory comes from solipsism, and it's not that modern. According to Wikipedia it originated in Greece in 483–375 BC.

Every human is solipsist until about 2 years old, when they start to realize that the world is not revolving around them. It is called "crisis of 2 year old", or "terrible twos". Some people don't get to go through this at 2, especially the children of billionaires, who have no reasons to think that they are not the center of the universe.

[–] qnick@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The danger of this approach is that you start treating other people as NPCs, dehumanizing them. When others are not real people, you don't have any problem with robbing, raping or murdering them. See the "Westworld" series for more deep analysis.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • The render distance (observable universe)
  • The pixel size (Planck units)
  • And the update rate ('speed of light' = speed of information being updated)
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Calling Planck units "pixels" is extremely reductive. This is just naively applying video game concepts to physics with a poor understanding of both.

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I took an entire graduate course in QM and a quantized Universe does, in fact, seem pixelated. That's exactly how I explain it to people. There's simply a finite level to how closely you can zoom in. Space, time, and energy are all quantized, and maybe even gravity though we haven't figured that one out yet.

[–] Kaladin_Stormblessed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why can’t you cut a Planck unit in half?

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The why is not really known. But we simply cannot. There is not line where one particle ends and another particle begins. The best you can do is give a probability distribution, but some of the particles will be in places where they're not really supposed to be. This is actually what drives the fusion processes in stars. The nuclei don't actually have enough kinetic energy to fuse--but she is the protons in one hydrogen nucleus just magically appear in the nucleus of a neighboring hydrogen atom.

You literally can't have distances that are smaller than these probability distributions.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wikipedia's description quotes Bernard Carr and Steven Giddings as saying that any attempt to investigate the possible existence of shorter distances [via particle accelerator] would result in black holes rather than smaller objects

[–] Kaladin_Stormblessed@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have probably heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? It's the one about how you can't both know the position and the speed of an electron or photon, because the observation itself changes the outcome of the other.

Something similar exists for length. If we try to observe things at Plancks length, we introduce issues about whether the thing or space even exists there. The observation of infinitely small space requires infinitely large energy in this space causing a black hole or something. I'm not really sure I get it.

There are several good YouTubes on it, but this video sort of made sense to me: https://youtu.be/snp-GvNgUt4

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  • Status not being updated if no one is looking at it (Schrödinger's cat, quantum entanglement)
[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

According to some, assuming it's even possible to fully simulate a universe to the degree that life in it can't tell, then there should be multiple simulations running, so there would be more sim-universes than real ones, and odds would be high that any given universe you find yourself in would be a sim.

Personally I don't buy it, I think if we were in a sim the laws of physics would have to be easily computable (they aren't, see gluons) and I think it would take the computing power of an entire universe to simulate one of similar complexity at anywhere close to reasonable speed. (Note how emulators and virtual machines can only emulate a weaker system then the host system, at least at speeds comparable to native hardware)

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there would be more sim-universes than real ones

This ties back to the mediocrity principle. If there are 10 billion people living on Earth, but 10 quadrillion living in simulations, the chances for you to live in the latter is much higher.

Along goes the simulation argument by Nick Bostrom. If simulation is possible, and practiced, we likely are simulated ourselves.

Isaac Arthur) noted that housing a population in a simulation is much more efficient than doing so physically. It seems like a convergent choice for powerful civilizations which want to maximize the life supported by fading stars (or energy potentials in general).

I think it would take the computing power of an entire universe to simulate one of similar complexity

Two objections:

  1. It might be sufficient to simulate the experience, without fully simulating the underlying physics. That's how we do 3D games anyways. No one cares if we actually simulate individual air molecules. If the cloth moves indistinguishable as if, that's as good as the original, for a much lower cost. You can also cull unobserved parts of the universe.
  2. Host and simulation can have completely unrelated laws of nature. Specifically, inhabitants of the simulation cannot study their host environment. As such, I think making assumptions about the host makes no sense.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] webghost0101@lemmy.fmhy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Thanks for typing out what i was gonna say.

I am agnostic about simulation theory. If an advanced enough “something” can create a simulation undistinguishable from the lives we experience now then i would bet that we do live in one. But thats a big if and goes a bit further than one where life cant tell. (A simulated single cell organism is miles of from simulated mammals and society)

[–] webghost0101@lemmy.fmhy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

How much would speed matter to a simulated lifeform. Ive often wondered if time would suddenly stop and then continue we would probably just experience it like it didn’t stop.

[–] Matte@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago

but time is relative. we might very well live in a simulation that takes a minute of “external time” to compute a single tick of our time. we just can’t experience it.

[–] Mirodir@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I'm not really a believer of the whole simulated universe theory, but I find your arguments against it weak.

You're basing what is and isn't easily calculatable off of our experiences. Same with "complexities of the universes". However, if our world is indeed simulated, there's no telling what the host universe is like. It might have crazy different math and be far far more complex than ours. Us trying to understand it would essentially be an excercise in futility.

[–] Rikudou_Sage@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

You cannot disprove this hypothesis and it's cool. Quite literally nothing can support it - if we live in a simulation, every part of the universe makes sense for us because we have no reference frame for "real" physics.

It's just something fun to think about but ultimately it doesn't matter, you have no way to find out.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

It gives comfort for people who don't adhere to any of the major religions but still need to feel like there is a hidden meaning to existence and something bigger than the universe.

[–] BootyCreekCheekFreak@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point does it matter? If it turns out tomorrow we have proof we live in a simulation, it doesn’t make my life any less real. I still gotta go to working tomorrow lol.

[–] Eclipciz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yea it really wouldn’t matter other than having religious dogma change or about what happens after death.

It’s more of an interesting thought experiment about the seemingly minuscule chances of life forming and us being/experiencing life.

[–] Markimus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The idea that it's theoretically possible that we would be able to simulate a universe of our own leads to the hypothesis that we could be living in a simulation ourselves.

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

If we do, I would like a server change. Please 🥺

[–] redballooon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] fidodo@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does it mean to "live in a simulation"? If I created a sentient computer program that has no contact with the outside world then you would say it's living in a simulation, but if you took that same exact program and connected it to a robot you'd say it's living in reality. But what's the line? If you add a tiny glimpse of reality but 99.9% of its experiences are stimulated is it living in a simulation or reality? It's not necessarily a black or white thing but more like a spectrum. In that sense you could say that our brains are creating a simulation of the outside world based on real inputs, but our perception of reality is not necessarily accurate. I would say our brains are on the spectrum of being a simulation of reality because not everything we experience is necessarily real.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Reliant1087@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For a slightly different take, a simulation and reality are not that fundamentally different given how both are perceived by senses in a similar way. Like how a VR headset uses the same sense that you use to see real objects.

They start to diverge in a way when you start encountering edge phenomenon that are beyond the scope of the simulation, like how a game would glitch. So far, however much we zoom in or zoom out, reality works consistently. So it is less likely that we're in a simulation.

[–] Dfc09@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It depends how you define reality working consistently. Dark matter was first theorized by observing how galaxies and star clusters etc don't seem to have enough mass to produce the gravitational footprint that holds them together. So dark matter was theorized to account for it. Invisible, intangible matter that only interacts with "normal" matter through gravity. Kinda strange 🤔

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 11 points 1 year ago

I'm a weak solipsist - I firmly believe that "I think therefore I am" is the only truth we can know. Everything else, we take on faith.

That said, it doesn't really matter. We live in the reality we perceive. There's no practical difference between living in reality and living in a simulation.

[–] Max_UL@lemmy.pro 9 points 1 year ago

Because Elon Musk believes in it, I know it’s probably wrong.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it's a contemporary way of viewing the creation problem that religion has also been trying to address. Who created the universe, and who created the one who created the universe. What caused the Big bang. Etc.

The whole thing is irrelevant in my opinion. It doesn't matter, because whatever initialised existence is outside of our existence. That would be separated in dimensions, or even if we could interact with it, it would at least be in a completely different frame of time. The entire existence of our universe could be a blink of an eye in whatever is outside of it.

It seems like megalomania to me for humans to believe that they can ever figure this one out. Just like the microbes in our bodies can't interact with us, I don't have any hope for humans to ever understand how the entire universe interacts with it's creator, whether it's a simulation, a devine creation or the result of physics.

If it's a simulation and we are just variables in a sub-routine, then its futile to claim that we can ever figure out what is outside our loop. We can catch global variables from the main loop, like natural constants, but we'll never see the code that calls our sub.

The only reason to believe it is that we can also not prove that it isn't so. Someone claims that it's statistically unlikely that it's not a simulation but I'm not so sure about that argument. It's based on an extremely deterministic view, that everything can be simulated with enough computer power, which itself is a questionable view.

[–] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Simulation theory is more or less a kind of modern creation myth, and creation myths are based around its societies current level of understanding of the world. In ancient times people explained the worlds actions and existence through gods and imaginative myths. When the scientific revolution happened people explained the universe in terms of immutable laws and cosmic logic. Now we are in the computational revolution, thus some people explain the worlds existence through computers. All untestable and unfalsifiable explanations for the nature of reality are as good as any other, so pick your poison and enjoy!

[–] crunchypotat77@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The limits of physics could be a rendering limit on the simulation hardware.

[–] peter 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because thinking that we are here for no specific reason is scary

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Once I learned about quantum field theory, the distinction between reality and simulation kind of went away for me. It says that all of reality is essentially number values for different fundamental fields. A particle exists when the value for this field is d and the value for that field is y. But the only fundamentally real things are the fields. Everything else are just a configuration of number values within them that together conform to mathematical logic.

This sounds a lot like software to me. Whether it’s running on quantum fields or a fucking Pentium 3 doesn’t seem super important.

So sweeping aside the technology as irrelevant, we have turn to the issue of whether the universe is contrived by programmers. The question becomes: did people create the universe? And my opinion of us just isn’t that high.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] squirrel_bear@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

YOU HAVE REACHED THE END OF FREE PREVIEW OF "THE LIFE". To continue using this entertainment, please deposit 650 kvazons to your blardg.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kir@feddit.it 5 points 1 year ago

What's the difference?

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Here’s Elon Musk’s argument (not saying I agree with it but here’s what he said about it):

Eventually we will be able to create entirely convincing simulations. Just look at video games. The graphics are getting pretty good.

So given that we will inevitably create such simulations, we have to ask whether it has perhaps already happened and this is one of them.

And since we will no doubt create many different simulations, millions of them, the odds are against this one being the prime reality. It’s just millions-to-one odds by the numbers.

Therefore this is almost certainly a simulation.

(Personally I think there are factual and logical problems at many steps in this)

[–] lando55@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I just want to point out that while Musk likes to parrot this rhetoric, it is Nick Bostrom who should be credited with the hypothesis in its current, modern incarnation. That's not to say it is entirely his idea either, as similar hypotheses have been pontificated over for centuries , notably by René Descartes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mojo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you have the fundamental belief that if we know every single possible detail down to the atom, that we can predict what will happen every time, then you believe that free will does not exist. If you think of it that way, and think everything is calculated, then it could be theoretically be possible for some kind of super computer to generate everything since it knows all the information and can calculate what will happen next.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tryingnottobefat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

My life is “Murphy’s Law: the Movie”. Every time I try to reassure myself by saying “well, at least it can’t possibly get any worse than this”, it gets worse. There’s no way that there isn’t some asshole running a simulation where they just fuck with me.

load more comments
view more: next ›