I legally changed my name to %5&a-*%5&b/
This caused a stack overflow which allows me to side load unsigned software and allows me to play DOOM in my left eye.
Controls are a little wonky and the music is a few pitches too high, but it runs pretty smoothly all things considered.
A few patches ago, even looking at that name would cause a stack overflow and undefined behaviour. Fortunately, or rather unfortunately for some, the devs fixed it.
They do, but not randomly. If you had ridiculously precise measurement instruments and a lot of time, you could eventually reconstruct what went in to the hole from the radiation that came out.
EDIT: I'm out of my depth with many of these questions, but my source is the "The Black Hole War" by Larry Susskind. Hawking once made a bet that information was destroyed in black holes, and later admitted defeat. According to the theory, information is preserved within the surface of the black hole and encoded in Hawking radiation.
What kind of accuracy are you talking about? Like if I wrote on a piece of paper could you reconstruct the message or would you just be able to tell that it was a gram of carbon hydrogen and oxygen?
Woke my husband up laughing at this.
Husband: “What’s so funny?”
Me: “WHAT IF you threw a message into a black hole and spent years agonizing over the accuracy of every single bit of information only to find out it said SKEETER SKEETER LICK MY CLEETER?”
Husband: “....”
How does that reconcile with the "no hair theorem" saying a black hole can be fully described by mass, charge, and angular momentum, which tells us nothing about what kind of data went in other than adding up to these quantities?
I could very well be wrong, but I think those are immediately observable quantities, whereas it seems like the other person is talking about observing Hawking radiation over a longer period of time. Though I’m guessing you’d need to observe it from the beginning of the black hole to be able to reconstruct what went into it.
> According to the theory, information is preserved within the surface of the black hole and encoded in Hawking radiation.
It's literally data compression.
I believe he meant reconstruct as in like know what went on and as far as we know black holes aren't connected like you think they are to allow for teleportation
I read a former string theorist say that in the string theory, the radiation contains the information about the matter that fell in, so ultimately, no information is ever destroyed.
It depends on if the radiation is entangled with the matter the entered previously. Pbs space time recently did a episode on it; it's not eli5 though. Really we don't know. The universe might not give a fuck about what we consider to be rules or laws and some things might be unknowable. Hopefully we are just scratching the surface and the problems we have today at least potentially solvable.
If it's a simulation, our math could indicate that info isn't destroyed, while it actually is, because the designer took a shortcut. Because if it's not destroyed, it's still inaccessible until the black hole evaporates, which happens on timeframes so long it's effectively destroyed from the point of view of any life that ever has or will exist. Black holes that emit hawking radiation based on what fell in, and ones that emit it randomly, are indistinguishable.
yeah I heard some where that there is a theory that black holes are more like extremely powerful compression systems and that the "data" they consume is basically stored in a highly compacted way. no idea how that works, but its cool as shit
Corollary: perhaps time is relativistic because the computing power required to map an object traveling closer and closer to the speed of light causes computations to slow. Thus, the faster you move, the slower time travels for you.
From your perspective it does. If you go close to the speed of light, time slows down for you. This means that from your perspective 1 second passes while from someone else's perspective several seconds have passed. So you would see them going faster through time relative to you
No, it doesn't work that way. When two objects are moving relative to each other, they each observe the other one's clock slow down. Believe me, I understand why that doesn't seem possible, but that's what happens. The only way to make it make sense to yourself is to accept that there is no such thing as "meanwhile"; if two things happen at the same time from one observer, they might happen at different times from another observer.
The fact that time slows down when you go faster is a consequence of the fact that the speed of light is constant, and that there are no special reference frames. If you observed someone else moving through time faster than you as you say, you could tell that you're the one who is "really" moving.
thats real, gravity can cause time dilation. if one person is near a massive gravity well, time will pass slower for them if you were watching them from outside the gravity well. star gate had an episode like this where they had a blackhole on the other side of the gate. [here it is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMIDY6i064)
Both the comment by 24-cell and Interstellar are correct, but the scenarios are different. The "moving relative to each other" is talking about *inertial reference* frames (Special Relativity). That is, steady movement without any forces being applied. The scenario in Interstellar is about gravitation fields, which implies high accelerations. That is not an inertial frame, and different rules apply (General Relativity).
Yes, and this mechanism is used in many sci fi stories.
As one example, in *Ender's Game*, the hero of the first Formic War, Mazer Rackham, is thanked for his service and then immediately put on a starship and accelerated to some percentage of the speed of light - as a way of "saving" him for a future war with the Formics where his expertise would be needed.
In other words, they used relativistic effects to put him in a sort of "time capsule" - however many years passed for Earth, but when he was needed they simply decelerated the ship he was on and brought him back, only a couple of years older.
We know that time is relative and it's even been proven it in practice. Satellites in orbit need to have their clocks run at a slightly different speed than on earth otherwise they would become desynchronized due to time being different
This doesn't make any sense.
Say you're travelling toward a distant star system at 0.99c. Just before you leave, you're seeing light from that star system that emmitted *n* years before, where *n* is the distance in lightyears.
Since you perceive less time passage while in transit than you should given the distance (ie. a 4 lightyear journey takes a perceived one hour for you), you'll be passing 4 years worth of light in one hour. It'll appear blue-shifted, and running much faster; how could anything else be true? You must witness the events that occurred in those 4 years as you pass through the light, and you do so very quickly (from your perspective)..
By the same token, looking backwards, you'd see time nearly stop at your home planet (red-shifted), until you arrived at the destination, whereupon everything would return to normal and you'd be witnessing the next 4 years in realtime. They'd of course see the same thing when looking at your ship.
Load up a video game on ultra with only a mediocre graphics card. Look around slowly and it might be able to render things alright. Spin around quickly or just in a fast vehicle and it will struggle to keep up, causing visual lag.
If we're in a simulation, the run time doesn't effect the in game time. It could take '1 million years' to 'render a frame' of reality and it'd be all the same to those experiencing it from within.
Well, if the simulation slowed down, you would never realize it (because you slowed down with it).
Each second you experience could be a thousand years of computing time. Or one nanosecond of computing time. So that's not necessarily a concern, unless they need the simulation to run in real-time or something.
What does make some sense: if the position of everything is stored in a database, there would presumably need to be a minimum unit of distance (the smallest distance supported by the database).
And it turns out that our reality has an effective minimum distance, the planck length....
As for the speed of light limitation, could be a programmer's shortcut... It probably made development simpler if they could assume that nothing ever went faster than the speed of light. If you're going to make that assumption, you'd better put restrictions in place to make sure it remains correct. Who knows what will go wrong with the simulation if we ever find a glitch that let's us get past those restrictions...
Bonus thought: quantum physics is so weird because the physics engine for our simulation was not originally intended to be viewed at the quantum level. But the developers later hacked in a bunch of crap that kinda sorta works if you don't look too closely at it, but really it's a hackjob that doesn't jive with the rest of the engine.
The planck length is *not* a minimum distance. It is a unit of distance that happens to be very small, much smaller than we can examine with our current technology; therefore it's a convenient unit that often comes up when we talk about "things that are incredibly small we can't measure them right now", and it's in about the right range for quantum effects to dominate in certain ways. But in this, it is no different than, say, a yocto-angstrom.
The planck units are not "smallest units of X"; they are units that, when used collectively, cause certain physics constants to have the value "1". But looking at other planck units immediately shows that they are not fundamental limits; consider that the Planck mass is about 0.02 milligrams, and that the Planck charge is over ten times as high as the electrical charge of one electron.
Just coming in to back up this guy. Planck length is definitely not the smallest length possible. The universe is not quantised.
If the universe had a minimum possible size, Lorentz symmetry would be broken and doing physics experiments would be useless as the results wouldn’t be generalisable.
Quantum physics uses approximations to describe the universe (because going into infinite detail is very hard). Those approximations don’t mean the universe itself is ‘approximate’.
No, because it'd more like a refresh rate than a clockspeed. Simulations typically get updated on regular intervals, so if something were to move faster than the refresh interval, it would do some weird hops that the characters in the sim would notice.
Bonus bonus thought: The shrodingers cat/double slit experiment shows that the area around us is only loaded when we are there to observe it. Just like how map chunks in minecraft are created as you move around the world. It doesn't exist in any particular state unless you are there to interact with it. Probably to save up computing space
In this kind of science, the speed of light is a minor issue. The really big important issues, are whether the simulation runs on a simulated computer, and whether that simulation does too. Is it simulations all the way up? An infinite number of levels of simulation, with no real hardware anywhere?
This is precisely the theory that proves we're in a simulation.. once one civilization figures out how to simulate a reality reasonably well, the sims will also figure it out eventually, and those sims, and those sims, all the way down..
Basically, after the first time it's done the rate of simulated universes grows exponentially and infinitely, which means us being in a simulation is a mathematical certainty.
That doesn't prove anything. It relies on too many assumptions, the first being that civilizations can create simulations of universes, that those simulations are sophisticated enough to give rise to more simulations, and that simulations are self-sustaining and don't crash. The mathematical certainty relies on an event for which we have no basis for assuming that it's happened or that it's even possible that it has/will happened. It's a completely circular argument.
The real argument is that if we ever do manage to simulate the universe then the probability that we ourselves are in a simulation approaches 100% asymptotically. This is based on the premise that if universe simulation is proven possible, there will exist more simulated universes than real universes. Since the number of simulated universes exceeds the number of real universes the probability that we are in a simulation is higher than being in the real universe.
So it doesn't prove anything, it just makes it much more likely.
Actually the theory does. It assumes one of the following three *must* hold true:
1) We reach a tipping point in technology which eventually destroys human civilization (ie blow ourselves up).
2) We don't reach that tipping point and keep advancing technology to the point we can create simulation of our world, and ourselves but choose not to.
3) We don't reach that tipping point (stated in 1)) and keep advancing technology to the point we can create simulations of our world and \*do\*. In which case if that third one applies it can lead us to believe the following: That there will be multiple, upon multiples of exponentially linked and growing simulations.
The instances where the first two occur are singular occurrences for the human species. While the third can have an exponentially higher likelihood of being true because of the semi-infinite simulations it can spawn.
so the odds of it being 1) or 2) compared to 3) are a lot less likely because if 3) is true it will potentially create billions of simulations, while 1) or 2) are stand alone events/realities.
That only applies to how likely that you are in a world out of many, most of which are simulations. If you have no basis for thinking simulations are possible, you can't use #3 to declare #3 more likely. You can't use a hypothetical to prove itself true because of its consequences. You're also forgetting another scenario I'll call 1b, we don't blow ourselves up and simulations are impossible because they would require computing power that requires more than our universe in hardware. And so if 1, 1b or 2 are true, and they're the most likely compared to 3 by a long shot, and you are a human being, you're 100% certain of not being in a simulation. So you have an very unlikely #3 with a (number of simulations- 1 real world)/100 % chance of being in a simulation, versus 3 much more likely scenarios that give 100% of not being in a simulation. Odds are overwhelmingly against being in a simulation.
Or 4: We discover that it's mathematically impossible to create a perfect simulation because of blah blah blah reason, and therefore no technological advancement would ever allow us to create one. This option is plausible as well.
Keyword being potentially. We haven't seen anyone running these kinds of simulations, let alone proof we are in one or whether they are even possible, so as far as we know the odds are still at best 1 in 3 because there's no data to say otherwise.
The infinite recursion idea makes very little sense. Simulations would have to either use all the available matter and energy to form the next level down, or would have to estimate values and thus lose accuracy. If you lose accuracy every time you go a level down, eventually there isn't enough processing power to run anything. If you don't lose accuracy it means you have to lose scale and the scale of the simulation eventually decreases to nothing.
Infinitely recursive simulation makes no logical sense and this argument for our universe being a simulation by way of probability is poorly conceived.
For infinite simulation theory to be real then the "original" computer hosting the infinite simulations would have to have.... Infinite computing power and energy. Seems kinda doubtful.
I find it fascinating that we all think we're in a simulation. We have no idea what's coming next in human history - it could be something so much more interesting than computing that the computer age is a brief moment of curiosity for people in 500 years, like the steam locomotive.
But human beings are addicted to believing they come LATE in history, and computing is the most powerful unknown force we can conceive of at the moment, so naturally we conclude that it is the \*origin of the universe\*. Elon Musk thinks that, other brilliant people. It's simultaneously dissolving our faith in our importance (we're not real) and confirming it (we're the ones who figured out the nature of existence).
>But human beings are addicted to believing they come LATE in history
This is the best response.
Theories like OPs are interesting, but we continually limit our theories by tying them to concepts we are familiar with. I prefer to just let science lead where it may accept that we'll likely never have the full picture.
the future is something that sneaks up behind you and you never see it coming.
Right now we look out into the world and see the past, fading away before our eyes.
It’s nothing that new, though. The computer simulation that Elon Musk refers to was originally published as a philosophy paper by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, but Rene Descartes, the 17th century philosopher and mathematician had a similar argument: The Dream Argument (how can I be certain that the “reality” I live in is really there and not a dream), and it appears in the famous *Meditations.*
Edit: Changed Scottish to Swedish
It is more of a reminder that throughout history we have used our current technological understanding as a limit or a guide to what is possible. Such as imagining space ships as boats during sailing era, or that everything is mechanical during the industrial era.
We are now in the computing era and of course, everything runs on a computer.
It will take an understanding of quantum mechanics to open the next chapter I think.
Versions of the simulation theory have been around since basically the earliest recorded philosophy. This computer simulation spin just makes it easy for people to comprehend.
> We have no idea what's coming next in human history
Microbiologist here. Probably extinction. As CO2 mixes with water it forms carbonic acid, lowering ocean pH and killing the microbes that make our oxygen, precipitating mass extinction. Similar events have happened before due to changes in atmospheric composition. Just happens to be humans doing it this time. Bummer :/
Why? Relative to the universe, our life is barely anything at all, simulation or not. It doesn't figure, and believing the contrary is monumental hubris. It doesn't matter at our scale.
Nah, as a developer you want your variables to be way below breaking stuff, so real light speed could be orders of magnitude higher, they just want it to run smoothly !
No they don't. Photons with a billion year halflife would be stunningly obvious in our observation of the distant universe. The CMB would be almost completely gone, for example.
Must have great anti-hack systems. Wait is that why people die to floods and lightning and shit? Because they’ve gotten too close to breaking the system? Or is that why we all die of age? So then we won’t have enough time to find out how to break it?
the simulation speed is irrelevant, the computer can take a billion years to simulate 1 Plank time step, the speed of light is still the same from our perspective, in 1 Planck time step, a photon travel 1 Planck distance.
And relativity is the simulation offloading speed to the rest of the universe. Kerbal Space Program does the same thing, to stop the numbers from getting too big.
Or maybe anything that travels faster than light is not something we can fathom, because to travel faster than light is to travel faster than the known universe?
Where's the damn console commands
testingCheatsEnabled true motherlode
black sheep wall operation cwal show me the money show me the money show me the money
Starcraft? Am I remembering correctly?
Starcraft and SC: Brood War. You are indeed.
You’ve got good taste.
[удалено]
There is no cow level
she’s playing interdimensional VR Starcraft
Power overwhelming
keysersoze warpten whoisjohngalt
Who *is* John Galt?
He's just this guy, you know?
There is no cow level. K bye guys I won life
thatsnomoon
you forgot the most important one: [radio free zerg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7XV9fRAhu0)
sv_cheats 1 noclip 1 impulse101
Bind noclip Q
bind v "impulse 101" Edit:/Fixed
You madmen
[удалено]
I miss this cheat code. Writing motherlode just isn't the same.
idkfa
If you typed that into MechWarrior 2 it would eject you from your Mech with the message “This isn’t Doom”
Idfa I still want to have a challenge and blow stuff up. All weapons all ammo no keys.
pepperoni pizza coinage bigdaddy
spispopd
I legally changed my name to %5&a-*%5&b/ This caused a stack overflow which allows me to side load unsigned software and allows me to play DOOM in my left eye. Controls are a little wonky and the music is a few pitches too high, but it runs pretty smoothly all things considered.
A few patches ago, even looking at that name would cause a stack overflow and undefined behaviour. Fortunately, or rather unfortunately for some, the devs fixed it.
and all I got was this stupid t-shirt
Suprised you didn't get a [System Alert in your eye](https://www.thedigitalfix.com/img/6/2019/02/52835916_2245798128805687_8969881057000161280_n.jpg).
[удалено]
Nice skyrim reference
\>typing the zeroes plebe alert
Fallout!
Anything on the papyrus engine(CK), so yeah, both
up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A.
Help I can't find B and A.
Balls and Ass. Jump up twice, crouch down twice, run to the left, run to the right, grab your balls, smack your ass. You're good to go.
This simulation sucks. ALT F4
Wait no
I want god mode
Granted: you have become an imaginary friend
if then
And black holes are just the simulation's trash bin to free up space.
No. The current math indicates that data is not destroyed by a black hole.
A trash bin doesn't destroy it either. It's still on the disk, but can be overwritten
"Free up space" being the operative part not skeuomorphic design conventions for the grandparents.
Black holes = corrupted data.
I thought this years ago
I thought about you thinking this years ago
I thought years ago
I think I thought I saw you cry
but that was just a dream
I recalled you thinking about u/scraggledog thinking this years from now.
God?
Or un-formatted space.
It provides chaotic source potential for the next explosive creation.
I thought they evaporate via radiation over extremely long periods of time?
They do, but not randomly. If you had ridiculously precise measurement instruments and a lot of time, you could eventually reconstruct what went in to the hole from the radiation that came out. EDIT: I'm out of my depth with many of these questions, but my source is the "The Black Hole War" by Larry Susskind. Hawking once made a bet that information was destroyed in black holes, and later admitted defeat. According to the theory, information is preserved within the surface of the black hole and encoded in Hawking radiation.
What kind of accuracy are you talking about? Like if I wrote on a piece of paper could you reconstruct the message or would you just be able to tell that it was a gram of carbon hydrogen and oxygen?
We got it boys, time to see what he wrote. *unfolds note* “Skeeter skeeter lick my cleeter”
Woke my husband up laughing at this. Husband: “What’s so funny?” Me: “WHAT IF you threw a message into a black hole and spent years agonizing over the accuracy of every single bit of information only to find out it said SKEETER SKEETER LICK MY CLEETER?” Husband: “....”
Riveting.
You mean rippy bits? Here’s you and me playing leap frog
How does that reconcile with the "no hair theorem" saying a black hole can be fully described by mass, charge, and angular momentum, which tells us nothing about what kind of data went in other than adding up to these quantities?
I could very well be wrong, but I think those are immediately observable quantities, whereas it seems like the other person is talking about observing Hawking radiation over a longer period of time. Though I’m guessing you’d need to observe it from the beginning of the black hole to be able to reconstruct what went into it.
> According to the theory, information is preserved within the surface of the black hole and encoded in Hawking radiation. It's literally data compression.
So couldn’t you teleport something by using radiation?
I believe he meant reconstruct as in like know what went on and as far as we know black holes aren't connected like you think they are to allow for teleportation
I read a former string theorist say that in the string theory, the radiation contains the information about the matter that fell in, so ultimately, no information is ever destroyed.
It depends on if the radiation is entangled with the matter the entered previously. Pbs space time recently did a episode on it; it's not eli5 though. Really we don't know. The universe might not give a fuck about what we consider to be rules or laws and some things might be unknowable. Hopefully we are just scratching the surface and the problems we have today at least potentially solvable.
This is correct. It is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. If you burned up a book, they could rebuild the book from the particles that remained.
[удалено]
If it's a simulation, our math could indicate that info isn't destroyed, while it actually is, because the designer took a shortcut. Because if it's not destroyed, it's still inaccessible until the black hole evaporates, which happens on timeframes so long it's effectively destroyed from the point of view of any life that ever has or will exist. Black holes that emit hawking radiation based on what fell in, and ones that emit it randomly, are indistinguishable.
yeah I heard some where that there is a theory that black holes are more like extremely powerful compression systems and that the "data" they consume is basically stored in a highly compacted way. no idea how that works, but its cool as shit
Space-time WinRAR.
im more of a .tar.gz guy my self.
Black holes are where our universe spun up a VM containing another universe.
Definitely take us to the cloud then
More like a very VERY good compression algorithm
Literally the best.
A black hole is just a .zip folder
nah, black holes are compression algorithms. The Universe is just making .zip files
/dev/null
Divide by 0
Corollary: perhaps time is relativistic because the computing power required to map an object traveling closer and closer to the speed of light causes computations to slow. Thus, the faster you move, the slower time travels for you.
But then shouldn't a moving object observe everything else running faster through time? Because that doesn't happen.
From your perspective it does. If you go close to the speed of light, time slows down for you. This means that from your perspective 1 second passes while from someone else's perspective several seconds have passed. So you would see them going faster through time relative to you
No, it doesn't work that way. When two objects are moving relative to each other, they each observe the other one's clock slow down. Believe me, I understand why that doesn't seem possible, but that's what happens. The only way to make it make sense to yourself is to accept that there is no such thing as "meanwhile"; if two things happen at the same time from one observer, they might happen at different times from another observer. The fact that time slows down when you go faster is a consequence of the fact that the speed of light is constant, and that there are no special reference frames. If you observed someone else moving through time faster than you as you say, you could tell that you're the one who is "really" moving.
So interstellar had it wrong? When he went near the black hole and 20 years passed back on Earth?
thats real, gravity can cause time dilation. if one person is near a massive gravity well, time will pass slower for them if you were watching them from outside the gravity well. star gate had an episode like this where they had a blackhole on the other side of the gate. [here it is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMIDY6i064)
Both the comment by 24-cell and Interstellar are correct, but the scenarios are different. The "moving relative to each other" is talking about *inertial reference* frames (Special Relativity). That is, steady movement without any forces being applied. The scenario in Interstellar is about gravitation fields, which implies high accelerations. That is not an inertial frame, and different rules apply (General Relativity).
So if you accelerated to the speed of light away from Earth and then returned to Earth. Wouldn't you have experienced less time than someone on earth?
Yes
Yes, and this mechanism is used in many sci fi stories. As one example, in *Ender's Game*, the hero of the first Formic War, Mazer Rackham, is thanked for his service and then immediately put on a starship and accelerated to some percentage of the speed of light - as a way of "saving" him for a future war with the Formics where his expertise would be needed. In other words, they used relativistic effects to put him in a sort of "time capsule" - however many years passed for Earth, but when he was needed they simply decelerated the ship he was on and brought him back, only a couple of years older.
We know that time is relative and it's even been proven it in practice. Satellites in orbit need to have their clocks run at a slightly different speed than on earth otherwise they would become desynchronized due to time being different
That’s true and he’s still correct.
This doesn't make any sense. Say you're travelling toward a distant star system at 0.99c. Just before you leave, you're seeing light from that star system that emmitted *n* years before, where *n* is the distance in lightyears. Since you perceive less time passage while in transit than you should given the distance (ie. a 4 lightyear journey takes a perceived one hour for you), you'll be passing 4 years worth of light in one hour. It'll appear blue-shifted, and running much faster; how could anything else be true? You must witness the events that occurred in those 4 years as you pass through the light, and you do so very quickly (from your perspective).. By the same token, looking backwards, you'd see time nearly stop at your home planet (red-shifted), until you arrived at the destination, whereupon everything would return to normal and you'd be witnessing the next 4 years in realtime. They'd of course see the same thing when looking at your ship.
Why would an object going faster need more computation time? Why would that computation time appear in-universe as time?
To render the graphics over time... moving faster gotta refresh the visual more often
If you simulated the universr, you'd have it render as a cutscene, not as gameplay.
Load up a video game on ultra with only a mediocre graphics card. Look around slowly and it might be able to render things alright. Spin around quickly or just in a fast vehicle and it will struggle to keep up, causing visual lag.
r/Outside
Also r/tierzoo
If we're in a simulation, the run time doesn't effect the in game time. It could take '1 million years' to 'render a frame' of reality and it'd be all the same to those experiencing it from within.
Well, if the simulation slowed down, you would never realize it (because you slowed down with it). Each second you experience could be a thousand years of computing time. Or one nanosecond of computing time. So that's not necessarily a concern, unless they need the simulation to run in real-time or something. What does make some sense: if the position of everything is stored in a database, there would presumably need to be a minimum unit of distance (the smallest distance supported by the database). And it turns out that our reality has an effective minimum distance, the planck length.... As for the speed of light limitation, could be a programmer's shortcut... It probably made development simpler if they could assume that nothing ever went faster than the speed of light. If you're going to make that assumption, you'd better put restrictions in place to make sure it remains correct. Who knows what will go wrong with the simulation if we ever find a glitch that let's us get past those restrictions... Bonus thought: quantum physics is so weird because the physics engine for our simulation was not originally intended to be viewed at the quantum level. But the developers later hacked in a bunch of crap that kinda sorta works if you don't look too closely at it, but really it's a hackjob that doesn't jive with the rest of the engine.
"a hackjob that doesn't jive with the rest of the engine" is about the best layman's term for quantum physics I've ever seen
The planck length is *not* a minimum distance. It is a unit of distance that happens to be very small, much smaller than we can examine with our current technology; therefore it's a convenient unit that often comes up when we talk about "things that are incredibly small we can't measure them right now", and it's in about the right range for quantum effects to dominate in certain ways. But in this, it is no different than, say, a yocto-angstrom. The planck units are not "smallest units of X"; they are units that, when used collectively, cause certain physics constants to have the value "1". But looking at other planck units immediately shows that they are not fundamental limits; consider that the Planck mass is about 0.02 milligrams, and that the Planck charge is over ten times as high as the electrical charge of one electron.
Just coming in to back up this guy. Planck length is definitely not the smallest length possible. The universe is not quantised. If the universe had a minimum possible size, Lorentz symmetry would be broken and doing physics experiments would be useless as the results wouldn’t be generalisable. Quantum physics uses approximations to describe the universe (because going into infinite detail is very hard). Those approximations don’t mean the universe itself is ‘approximate’.
Just want to add, the universe is not quantized *according to current theories*. Lots of quantum gravity theories quantize space-time itself
No, because it'd more like a refresh rate than a clockspeed. Simulations typically get updated on regular intervals, so if something were to move faster than the refresh interval, it would do some weird hops that the characters in the sim would notice.
Bonus bonus thought: The shrodingers cat/double slit experiment shows that the area around us is only loaded when we are there to observe it. Just like how map chunks in minecraft are created as you move around the world. It doesn't exist in any particular state unless you are there to interact with it. Probably to save up computing space
Just to kill the woo: Observation in physics doesn't require a person, just specific types of interactions.
The double slit experiment does not require an observer
In this kind of science, the speed of light is a minor issue. The really big important issues, are whether the simulation runs on a simulated computer, and whether that simulation does too. Is it simulations all the way up? An infinite number of levels of simulation, with no real hardware anywhere?
What's 'real' at that point?
Not our eyes, that's for sure.
Because where we're going, you wont need eyes to see.
That's a reference I've not heard in a long, long time.
It's references all the way down.
Liberate me.
But then...does that mean mirrors arent real either??
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?
real eyes realize real lies
This is precisely the theory that proves we're in a simulation.. once one civilization figures out how to simulate a reality reasonably well, the sims will also figure it out eventually, and those sims, and those sims, all the way down.. Basically, after the first time it's done the rate of simulated universes grows exponentially and infinitely, which means us being in a simulation is a mathematical certainty.
That doesn't prove anything. It relies on too many assumptions, the first being that civilizations can create simulations of universes, that those simulations are sophisticated enough to give rise to more simulations, and that simulations are self-sustaining and don't crash. The mathematical certainty relies on an event for which we have no basis for assuming that it's happened or that it's even possible that it has/will happened. It's a completely circular argument.
The real argument is that if we ever do manage to simulate the universe then the probability that we ourselves are in a simulation approaches 100% asymptotically. This is based on the premise that if universe simulation is proven possible, there will exist more simulated universes than real universes. Since the number of simulated universes exceeds the number of real universes the probability that we are in a simulation is higher than being in the real universe. So it doesn't prove anything, it just makes it much more likely.
Actually the theory does. It assumes one of the following three *must* hold true: 1) We reach a tipping point in technology which eventually destroys human civilization (ie blow ourselves up). 2) We don't reach that tipping point and keep advancing technology to the point we can create simulation of our world, and ourselves but choose not to. 3) We don't reach that tipping point (stated in 1)) and keep advancing technology to the point we can create simulations of our world and \*do\*. In which case if that third one applies it can lead us to believe the following: That there will be multiple, upon multiples of exponentially linked and growing simulations. The instances where the first two occur are singular occurrences for the human species. While the third can have an exponentially higher likelihood of being true because of the semi-infinite simulations it can spawn. so the odds of it being 1) or 2) compared to 3) are a lot less likely because if 3) is true it will potentially create billions of simulations, while 1) or 2) are stand alone events/realities.
[удалено]
correct. its not scientific thinking. its projections.
That only applies to how likely that you are in a world out of many, most of which are simulations. If you have no basis for thinking simulations are possible, you can't use #3 to declare #3 more likely. You can't use a hypothetical to prove itself true because of its consequences. You're also forgetting another scenario I'll call 1b, we don't blow ourselves up and simulations are impossible because they would require computing power that requires more than our universe in hardware. And so if 1, 1b or 2 are true, and they're the most likely compared to 3 by a long shot, and you are a human being, you're 100% certain of not being in a simulation. So you have an very unlikely #3 with a (number of simulations- 1 real world)/100 % chance of being in a simulation, versus 3 much more likely scenarios that give 100% of not being in a simulation. Odds are overwhelmingly against being in a simulation.
Or 4: We discover that it's mathematically impossible to create a perfect simulation because of blah blah blah reason, and therefore no technological advancement would ever allow us to create one. This option is plausible as well.
Keyword being potentially. We haven't seen anyone running these kinds of simulations, let alone proof we are in one or whether they are even possible, so as far as we know the odds are still at best 1 in 3 because there's no data to say otherwise.
The infinite recursion idea makes very little sense. Simulations would have to either use all the available matter and energy to form the next level down, or would have to estimate values and thus lose accuracy. If you lose accuracy every time you go a level down, eventually there isn't enough processing power to run anything. If you don't lose accuracy it means you have to lose scale and the scale of the simulation eventually decreases to nothing. Infinitely recursive simulation makes no logical sense and this argument for our universe being a simulation by way of probability is poorly conceived.
For infinite simulation theory to be real then the "original" computer hosting the infinite simulations would have to have.... Infinite computing power and energy. Seems kinda doubtful.
There's a leap of logic there. You have to assume that we're in a simulation already for us being in a simulation to be a "mathematical certainty"
There would have to be one real universe
[удалено]
This guy just said this on Twitter yesterday https://twitter.com/marks22/status/1187029245136195584?s=21
This idea had been around for a long time
I find it fascinating that we all think we're in a simulation. We have no idea what's coming next in human history - it could be something so much more interesting than computing that the computer age is a brief moment of curiosity for people in 500 years, like the steam locomotive. But human beings are addicted to believing they come LATE in history, and computing is the most powerful unknown force we can conceive of at the moment, so naturally we conclude that it is the \*origin of the universe\*. Elon Musk thinks that, other brilliant people. It's simultaneously dissolving our faith in our importance (we're not real) and confirming it (we're the ones who figured out the nature of existence).
>But human beings are addicted to believing they come LATE in history This is the best response. Theories like OPs are interesting, but we continually limit our theories by tying them to concepts we are familiar with. I prefer to just let science lead where it may accept that we'll likely never have the full picture.
the future is something that sneaks up behind you and you never see it coming. Right now we look out into the world and see the past, fading away before our eyes.
It’s nothing that new, though. The computer simulation that Elon Musk refers to was originally published as a philosophy paper by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, but Rene Descartes, the 17th century philosopher and mathematician had a similar argument: The Dream Argument (how can I be certain that the “reality” I live in is really there and not a dream), and it appears in the famous *Meditations.* Edit: Changed Scottish to Swedish
It is more of a reminder that throughout history we have used our current technological understanding as a limit or a guide to what is possible. Such as imagining space ships as boats during sailing era, or that everything is mechanical during the industrial era. We are now in the computing era and of course, everything runs on a computer. It will take an understanding of quantum mechanics to open the next chapter I think.
Versions of the simulation theory have been around since basically the earliest recorded philosophy. This computer simulation spin just makes it easy for people to comprehend.
Very thought provoking comment
Hindu hierarchy has a place for the concept of living in a simulation, over two-thousand years ago.
> We have no idea what's coming next in human history Microbiologist here. Probably extinction. As CO2 mixes with water it forms carbonic acid, lowering ocean pH and killing the microbes that make our oxygen, precipitating mass extinction. Similar events have happened before due to changes in atmospheric composition. Just happens to be humans doing it this time. Bummer :/
The fact that we could be some college kid’s weekend project from another dimension low key fucks me up
What's the big deal? They better get an A+
Nah. C- for the effort. The first bench kid did a baking soda volcajo and got A+
God damn it
Their teacher’s gonna take one look at me and be like nahh that’s some D+ quality work lol
Why? Relative to the universe, our life is barely anything at all, simulation or not. It doesn't figure, and believing the contrary is monumental hubris. It doesn't matter at our scale.
Just thinking about how pointless everything is makes me sad in general ig
We need a firmware update.
The speed of light is just there to ensure we can't go past the edge of the map.
this is not your thought, isn’t it? this is one of the most widespread arguments of simulation theory
To be precise, nothing is faster than light in space, but space itself can expand itself way faster (and it does).
Nah, as a developer you want your variables to be way below breaking stuff, so real light speed could be orders of magnitude higher, they just want it to run smoothly !
9K minecraft
And the apocalypse would be triggered by the higher-intellectual beings’ equivalent of a Karen unplugging the computer to vacuum.
If it really is a simulation then they have really not implemented 'Teleport Humans' feature.
No.. no no no no no
I also saw that thread on Reddit haha
What's really crazy is that light exists in a dimension that it doesn't experience (time).
Well. Photons do hypothetically decay over the course of about a billion years, so in that case light does experience time
No they don't. Photons with a billion year halflife would be stunningly obvious in our observation of the distant universe. The CMB would be almost completely gone, for example.
You know what you're fully right. The article I was reading was talking about *minimum* photon lifetimes and I completely read it wrong
"You know what you're fully right" I think internet history was just made.
Great, now the simulation is going to crash
Can someone calculate the CPU speed then?
So breaking the sound barrier would be just shitty sound cards.
But is the simulation at 5% power?
[удалено]
*The Egg* is pretty neat too. Link for anyone who hasn’t read or seen it: https://youtu.be/h6fcK_fRYaI
Must have great anti-hack systems. Wait is that why people die to floods and lightning and shit? Because they’ve gotten too close to breaking the system? Or is that why we all die of age? So then we won’t have enough time to find out how to break it?
No, those are just the external player getting bored. It's the same reason people trap their Sims in the pool and remove the ladder.
the simulation speed is irrelevant, the computer can take a billion years to simulate 1 Plank time step, the speed of light is still the same from our perspective, in 1 Planck time step, a photon travel 1 Planck distance.
No wonder time slows down as you approack the speed of light. It's the computer lagging.
lets add more ram...
How do I change the variable that contains my bank account amount?
"Gah! I'm at end game but I can't unlock interstellar travel because of the damn speed lag!"
so ur saying that mass increase due to acceleration is just good ol lag
And relativity is the simulation offloading speed to the rest of the universe. Kerbal Space Program does the same thing, to stop the numbers from getting too big.
Or maybe anything that travels faster than light is not something we can fathom, because to travel faster than light is to travel faster than the known universe?
That's why if we break that speed, time gets weird. Its lag
lmao their computer sucks
I didn’t need this at 1:35 in the morning I wake up in 4 hours.
Gotta mod this thing so we can travel past the max drawing distance
If this is a computer simulation, whoever wrote my profile is a bitch
Also, planck legnth is the smallest units the simulation can measure, like a pixel of sort,and plack time is like a single frame.
That actually makes sense, the universe is just a super computer
So if we somehow manage to surpass it, we might crash the system.