It would be a simulation of the Universe and everything in it, down to people on an Internet forum having discussions about the Universe being a simulation.
Apparently the ⌠Simulator(?) ⌠finds it cheaper and easier to use massive computational power in place of rats, a maze, and a few bits of cheese.
WHY might be a better question. Simulations are often used to test âWhat IF?â scenarios, changing one factor at a time to see how the results change. All manner of strange ideas could be tested in this way without running the risk of trying these strange ideas in the real world (whatever that is).
So if you ever wake up and read the news headlines in the morning, thinking âThis just canât be realâ, be consoled in the possibility that it may not be.
âImpossibleâ usually means âincompatible with current theoryâ. As recently as 1915, we thought that mass and energy wer totally separate. We now know that they are the same entity, just different units.
We also thought that a particle could not exist in multiple states at once, but quantum mechanics now tells us differently.
And instant correlations across distance seemed a violation of causality, but today experiments confirm it with âentanglementâ.
We now know that light and matter behave as both waves and particles, contradicting earlier concepts.
We now know that time passes at different rates depending on speed and gravity.
And the leading edge of a black hole we now think allows some escape, according to Hawking.
We now think that electrical resistance drops to zero at absolute zero temperatures.
Protein motors such as those lining the mitochondrial membranes seem like science fiction to us, even today, yet we now can visualize them in 3-D
From the interactions so far, I think that the dialogue has addressed, and may have even answered your question. In addition, technology makes it feel increasingly possible, and that is not for nothing. Thinking that our ârulesâ may not be permanently fixed has an exciting feel to itâŚmy guess is that this would apply to you as well. A problem (the problem?) has been that it was not testable or falsifiable. I wonder if the investigator mentioned in the OP deals with that formally? It has the feel of possibly becoming a revolutionary thought to most of us, I think.
I hadnât looked at the article until now but found this in a quick scan:
Lawrence Krauss, a co-author of the study, explained: âThe fundamental laws of physics cannot exist inside space and time; they create it. This signifies that any simulation, which must be utilized within a computational framework, would never fully >express the true universeâ
My lack of curiosity was due to my lack of interest. I know science continually comes up with useful models which allows solutions to difficult problem such as navigation. However not only do I not make much use of them in my own life, but I have a disposition toward staying open toward experience rather than the simulacrum which is found to successfully model it. That may make me old fashioned but I like to think I am maintaining my connection to the primeval. That to me is what is most authentic.
How about you? I assume you find some simulations useful since they are but do you think there is any reason to blur the line between the map and the terrain?
I admit that outside interference reshapes my lived experiences. And rather than finding that unproductive, I see it as a push toward becoming more open to alternative ideas and/or possibilities. What my life has taught me so far is often altered by someone elseâs model that I may have never considered or had dismissed entirely. I can see how, and why, that might become less authentic to many. I see the blurring of the line âbetween map and terrainâ as an opportunity rather than a difficult challenge to my âassumed wisdomâ. As I ponder your question, I realize I may be building layers of observations in my mind that become a belief, and then perhaps evolve into a new possibility. In my perfect world, this will lead to more opportunities, but I am not there yet. I find myself often searching for contradictions as I study anothers opinon piece. I see that often as a flaw in my synapsesâŚwho knows where they lie inside by brain!
