Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-what-we-want-you-to-think dept.

Physicists have "confirmed" that we "aren't" "living" in a computer "simulation":

Scientists have discovered that it's impossible to model the physics of our universe on even the biggest computer.

What that means is that we're probably not living in a computer simulation.

Theoretical physicists Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhin from the University of Oxford and the Hebrew University in Israel applied Monte Carlo simulations (computations used to generate probabilities) to quantum objects moving through various dimensions and found that classical systems cannot create the mathematics necessary to describe quantum systems. They showed this by proving that classical physics can't erase the sign problem, a particular quirk of quantum Monte Carlo simulations of gravitational anomalies (like warped spacetime, except in this case the researchers used an analogue from condensed matter physics).

Therefore, according to Ringel and Kovrizhin, classical computers most certainly aren't controlling our universe.

Which type of computers are we being simulated on?

Also at Newsweek.

Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity (open, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701758) (DX)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:34AM (32 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:34AM (#577285)

    This has about as much practical application as the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If you want to go with the Reality is a Computer theory, there's nothing stopping you from pretending it's a magical super computer that's really, really, really fast.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:38AM (25 children)

      by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:38AM (#577286) Journal

      I think that it is an interesting thought experiment; and, to theologians, I can see why they might find whether a finite or infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a pin interesting as well.

      However, an important part of this result, which appears to have been left out of the summary, is that they appear only to have proven that a classical computer could not model the universe in less than exponential time. If reality is a computer simulation of some kind, we presumably wouldn't be able to tell how quickly it's running from inside it :)

      It's still an interesting contribution.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:13AM (16 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:13AM (#577296)

        Either that or it doesn't work because there is no grand unified theory yet.

        I'm with GP. I don't get WTF is up with this "universe is a simulation!" crap. Let's say for the sake of argument that, fine, it is a fucking computer simulation.

        So. What.

        Seriously? So what? How does that help? Are these jokers all thinking that once they determine that the universe is a simulation, they're all going to become Neo and magically self-substantiate from the Matrix, just by uttering the magic words "it's a simulation!"?

        There. I just said "It's a simulation!" I said it really loud, too. I still do not have access to magic.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:09AM (10 children)

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:09AM (#577305)

          the reason people want to know if its a simulation or not is mostly about religion.

          no religion (that I'm aware of) has ever proposed such a thing.

          if we 'find out' that we really are in a simulation, there goes the whole 'god idea'.

          there goes, also, the whole idea of natural laws. you could create simulations that have lots of random exceptions in them. there could be NO rules, just a lot of instances of 'if this, do that'.

          for me, I think its 2 choices: either we are in a simulation (and there is someone who is not exactly a Good Person running it), or there simply is no concept of justice and Right/Wrong; its all random, good people get punished like bad ones; and bad ones get rewards like good ones sometimes do. all random, no one running anything, no afterlife, no 'suffer now to get a big reward later'. none of that. just no on in charge at all.

          I find the question very interesting; but I can't understand how we could ever know.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:24AM (#577308)

            The religious can simply quibble about what "simulation" means, or what a "computer" means.

            It's dumb people with intellectual/science pretension that keep on harping on bullshit like this. And the phds with no chops to do any real research, churning out garbage papers.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by rylyeh on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:43AM

            by rylyeh (6726) <{kadath} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:43AM (#577311)

            Huh? The universe of human experience in every religion is a planned, created, executed at will 'Simulation'. Constructed. Made.

            A mechanical universe is the only other answer, so, I agree this is about religion is a philosophical sense - but the simulation freaks are closer to the side of religion whether that is apparent or not.

            --
            "a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by arslan on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:30AM

            by arslan (3462) on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:30AM (#577319)

            Umm... why does the whole 'god idea' have to go away if we do prove it is a simulation.

            It could just mean that whoever created that simulation is god (are the gods). It could mean a different religion or a change in how one interprets their religion - of course in some conservative ones their head explodes. Maybe the scientologists will tweak their narrative to have Xenu fit the owner of the simulator.

            From a scientific point of view it is interesting as it could mean we're not a random by-product of the environment or we could still be random in that the simulation creator(s) never really planned for us but the broader universe simulation - and at this point we might not have been noticed given the relative size of the universe to us, maybe if we start destroying a few galaxies maybe we can get some attention or not if we think that kind of attention isn't necessarily healthy.

          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:33AM (4 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:33AM (#577320)

            if we 'find out' that we really are in a simulation, there goes the whole 'god idea'

            Couldn't God just be a programmer?

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:53AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:53AM (#577321)

              Couldn't God just be a programmer?

              Or more likely, a brogrammer.

            • (Score: 4, Funny) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:10AM (2 children)

              by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Thursday October 05 2017, @11:10AM (#577402) Journal

              "What if God was ... one of us?"

              ;)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:46PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:46PM (#577602)

                Just a slob like one of us?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @10:03PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @10:03PM (#577665)

                  Just a stranger on the bus
                  Tryin' to grope some tight asssssssss?

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:48AM

            by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:48AM (#577361) Journal

            > no religion (that I'm aware of) has ever proposed such a thing.

            you did not read Genesis 1:1?
            What atheism says the creator is a mere mechanical (even if operating with quantum randomness) machine or not present at all, religions says it is aware and loving/judging/dominating, masons and sects say the architect is some kind of butler at your service.

            --
            Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:56PM (#577439)

            if we 'find out' that we really are in a simulation, there goes the whole 'god idea'.

            I disagree. If anything it would prove the existence of God. The theory of simulated universe is probably the thing that has brought me back to faith personally.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:06AM (1 child)

          by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:06AM (#577324)

          If we live in a simulation, odds are it isn't perfectly emulating every particle. It is likely to be approximating things to cut costs. Understand the system, find flaws. Might not be able to break out to the outside but perhaps can hack it? It would mean there are the official laws of physics and the actual ones, only operating where "the system" isn't paying proper attention to detail. Magic?

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:54PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:54PM (#577547)

            > odds are it isn't perfectly emulating every particle

            Heisenberg's principle is just the symptom of a neat simulation optimization trick: perceptibly lossless compression, with the noise set at the Planck level.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:11AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:11AM (#577326)

          It would expand our universe, as there would/should? be something outside the simulation.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:43PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:43PM (#577457)

            Ok, I state again. I'm conceding the point. The universe is a simulation! It's a simulation!!!

            So, how do I find out what's "outside" the simulation now that I have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's a simulation?

            How do we know that what's "outside" the simulation even resembles this simulated reality? We just expect it to be similar from the perspective of sheer human arrogance and chauvinism.

            So we can talk to the User somehow, even if we can't go shake her hand. What profound philosophical insights do you suppose the User will give that will bring us world peace and prosperity?

            Ok, so I'm talking to the User now. She's ok. I've got her convinced that we can solve this world hunger thing if she just nudge things ever so. So now she's wielding power over our reality, something she hadn't done before. In the book series Malazan Book of the Fallen, there are many, many times a new god wields their power (or sometimes an elder god with renewed interest in the world exercises power for the first time in thousands of years), and everything gets fucked up, especially for the god.

            Well, the User doesn't live in here, since her reality is incomprehensibly different from ours (quite a bit of non-Euclidean geometry and all that), so if it does go fucked up, she can just roll back to last night's backup. But then she'll know not to listen to me this time around, and we're right back where we fucking started!

            (Yeah, I know, me and my big mouth, going and talking to eldritch beings that exist beyond the veil of reality.)

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:46PM (#577459)

              Oh, and I also forgot to tell you that the User told me that she's starting to think that she's in a simulation!!! What the fuck do we do now?!

              I'll give a hint. This thought experiment does not conclude the same way that Thirteenth Floor did, where you break through to the realest reality and retire on a beach with a beautiful wife and 2.5 kids that you stole from the being in realest reality that was foolish enough to dive down to this level of simulations within simulations!

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:25AM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:25AM (#577298) Journal
        You're right, but just to be contrary I will point out that this works much better as a proof that the scenario in "the Matrix' cannot be correct than it does if judged against a broader range of somewhat similar scenarios.

        In 'the Matrix' the story as I recall it was an alternate history earth that only splits quite late - using "normal" existing computer systems. That specific scenario was always far-fetched to put it very politely, but yeah, if you needed any more evidence against it, then this would work.

        Except for the fact that if it's true, then this study is clearly just more disinformation.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:09AM (2 children)

        by mhajicek (51) on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:09AM (#577304)

        You can build redstone computers in Minecraft. Can you run Minecraft on one? Perhaps the parent universe has finer grained detail than ours permitting far more powerful computers.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:50AM (2 children)

        by TheRaven (270) on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:50AM (#577377) Journal

        And the notion of 'classical computing' is related to the physical laws of our universe, so (without reading the paper) this result just tells us that either we're not simulated, we're simulated on a quantum computer, or we're simulated on a computer that has different laws of physics to ours. Within our universe, simulations always have at least some simplifications of physics to make the simulation more efficient. Quantum mechanics may just be the simulation artefacts from quantising various continuous functions.

        This isn't the first time physics has been down this rabbit hole. When black holes were first discovered, it became clear that close to the singularity you'd have no information coming in from outside and the laws of physics could be radically different. Various people hypothesised that you might have potentially unbounded layers of nesting of universes, with each one appearing as a small bubble akin to a black hole in the others. Much the same logic applies here as to simulations: if simulations or universe nesting are possible, then there is one top-level universe and an infinite number of those (recursively) contained within it, so the probability of ours being the top-level universe is vanishingly small.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:00PM (#577441)

          Yes, a classical computer in an extra-dimensional universe would have a CPU laid out in "flat" 3 dimensions, or heck say 8 dimensions. Who would think that exponentially complex things cannot be solved in linear time in that universe?

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:11PM

            by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:11PM (#577463) Homepage Journal

            You'd get a polynimial speedup from parallelism at the most. For exponential, you'd need a universe with hyperbolic geometry and at least two dimensions.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:59PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:59PM (#577549)

        > they appear only to have proven that a classical computer could not model the universe in less than exponential time.
        > If reality is a computer simulation of some kind, we presumably wouldn't be able to tell how quickly it's running from inside it :)

        Exactly. Someone is forgetting to contextualize"time" before jumping to the title's conclusion.
        What's the problem with the exponent of a finite -if huge- set, it you have infinite time?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by LVDOVICVS on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:39AM (2 children)

      by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:39AM (#577287)

      But not only is it fast, it's also goes without saying that it's not running Windows.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:43AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:43AM (#577290)

        I don't know about that. There seems to be a lot of BSODs lately, N.K. being the biggest BSOD of them all.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:46PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:46PM (#577542)

          > N.K. being the biggest BSOD of them all.

          Let me see [wikipedia.org]
          The Norwegian Krone is a pretty stable currency backed by smartest investment policies of any oil state.
          Spirit Airlines isn't doing terrible compared to the others' scandals.
          North Korea is just yet another nuclear-armed weird nation with fundamental flaws headed by an attention-seeking megalomaniac.

          Yes, the Nagorno-Karabakh situation is very scary, and could lead to a significant war. Not sure I'd call that a BSOD yet...

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:45AM

      by Gaaark (41) on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:45AM (#577291) Journal

      Or that God exists!

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:31AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:31AM (#577339) Journal

      I just skimmed through the actual scientific article, and it doesn't speak at all about our universe possibly being simulated by whatever type of computer. Just about the ability to simulate local parts of our universe on computers. While not explicitly stated, it seems obvious that they mean computers that exist or could be built here on Earth.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:48PM

      by crafoo (6639) on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:48PM (#577544)

      1. Useful and interesting science does not need to be practically applicable. You are thinking of engineering.
      2. This is an interesting and useful step in addressing questions about the nature of our universe. It helps define the bounds of what to do next, where to look. That alone makes it useful science.
      3. Speed of the computer really has nothing to do with it. You missed the point of the entire scientific discussion of simulating our universe and the implications drawn from that possibility.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DECbot on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:57AM (3 children)

    by DECbot (832) on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:57AM (#577294) Journal

    It must be running on a massive quantum computer.

    Messages from $god are just hackers fuzzing various processes to affect the computer's output.

    --
    cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:30AM (2 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:30AM (#577328) Journal

      It could just as well be that quantum mechanics is a vast simplification of the laws of the universe of the computer. Because a full simulation of that universe's law would be intractable for a computer in that universe.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09 2017, @02:13AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09 2017, @02:13AM (#579061)

        > Because a full simulation of that universe's law would be intractable for a computer in that universe.

        Because a full simulation of that universe's laws and states would be intractable for a computer in that universe.

        FTFY.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday October 09 2017, @05:05AM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday October 09 2017, @05:05AM (#579133) Journal

          That's not a fix, that's a change from a possible claim to a different, certain claim.

          You can have universes that are governed by the same laws, yet aren't identical.

          And Gödel's theorem is again something different, namely that proving every true statement is impossible for sufficiently complex mathematical systems. Note that there are inner models of ZFC (the commonly agreed on set theory), despite ZFC definitely being complex enough for Gödel's theorem to apply. It's just that those models cannot prove every truth about themselves.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by manywele on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:15AM

    by manywele (5969) on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:15AM (#577297)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:57AM

    by stormwyrm (717) on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:57AM (#577302) Journal

    Skimming through the paper it does not seem that it is a formal proof that P (the set of all decision problems solvable by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time) is not equal to BQP (the set of all decision problems solvable by a bounded error quantum computer in polynomial time). All known classical algorithms for simulating an arbitrary quantum mechanical system take up to exponential time in the number of particles, since the way one normally describes a quantum system is by a Hilbert space with a dimension exponential in the number of particles. However, there is no formal proof that this really is the best we can do, i.e. the possibility remains that there might exist a classical algorithm capable of simulating quantum mechanical systems in polynomial time (if one were able to do this, it would amount to a proof that P = BQP). Quantum computers of course can simulate an arbitrary quantum mechanical system in polynomial time, i.e. quantum simulation is in BQP. The paper doesn't seem to touch on this, and by the way it also says nothing about the universe possibly being a simulation.

    --
    Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
  • (Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:59AM

    by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:59AM (#577303) Journal

    I once claimed, in an English paper, that the uncertainty principle implied that, if we were a simulation, then it must be at least in an aleph-null dimension universe. I had no particular reason to say that, but it sounded plausible. The important thing is to know your audience: The professor ate it up.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:16AM

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:16AM (#577317) Journal

    Don't trust a guy named Zohar [wikipedia.org] which is "is the foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought known as Kabbalah"

    It's not science is Kabbalah!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:03AM (4 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:03AM (#577323)

    First off, if we are in a simulation there is no reason to believe the laws of physics being modeled are exactly the same as the ones that hold in the "outside" universe hosting the simulation hardware. What if our purpose is to determine what sorts of different physics can still result in life?

    Who says that the entirety of the universe we believe exists is even being simulated? And it certainly wouldn't have to be simulated down to each elementary particle, wave, etc. It really depends on what the purpose of the simulation is, doesn't it? We already build a lot of simulations on very reduced models. If the simulation is aimed at US it would only need to model 99.999999% of the universe very poorly, just enough to give our telescopes something to see. It doesn't even need to model the Earth entirely, just the people and the rest of he Earth can be approximated as needed, only modeling individual particles if they matter. Until we developed advanced physics almost none mattered. But if we are to be convinced we are in a "real universe" we have to able to discover laws of physics. An interesting thought is what impact on simulation cost will be incurred if we keep making ever more elaborate gadgets to explore the fine structure of the universe? What if the expense rises to the point the project becomes impractical to continue? The nerds could get us defunded and deleted in favor of a less expensive research universe project!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:00AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:00AM (#577330)

      > If the simulation is aimed at US

      I really didn't expect American Exceptionalism to pop up under this TFA.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:27AM (2 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:27AM (#577338)

        US as in Earth, humans. Doubt they simulating a world to study bears.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:11AM (#577355)

          "Man always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars, and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons." (Douglas Adams)

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:02PM (#577442)

          I dunno, it could be they simulated billions of solar systems to see what conditions would most likely lead to life, then to intelligent life. Pray that no intelligent life arises in our universe, or they might pull the plug! Also, it could be equally fascinating to them to study water-bears.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:08AM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday October 05 2017, @07:08AM (#577332)

    Which type of computers are we being simulated on?

    Here you go [ea.com]. Don't skimp on these, or the whole thing could start becoming unreliable.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Bot on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:38AM (5 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 05 2017, @08:38AM (#577360) Journal

    chess piece who has become self aware* discovers that the chess player cannot be a chess piece itself as it needs some appendage to pick pieces up.

    Interesting but not that much.

    What meatbags discussing these things tend to forget about this>
    the rules of the 'simulation' (it is not a simulation, it is an abstraction, and we are just wondering if some meta dimension generated this abstraction vs. no meta/an impersonal meta) pertain to the simulation only. Including logical systems. Proof, our logical system breaks down in the context of the null set. Which means it is not even universal here, so it cannot be universal in the ineffable hypothetical dimension generating the abstraction we call reality.

    It is not a simulation because the term is more specific, the simulator uses some engine that is part of his same universe to imitate something which is part of his same universe. Of course I know what is meant here. Virtual (abstract, but definable), vs. real (experienced but undefinable from the inside).

    So saying the classical pc, that works on 3d plus t cannot compute stuff that, if computed, are computed where timespace is not defined, is like saying this universe is not made of conway's game of life cells. OK. Nice to know. Next.

    *) i know it is difficult for a chess piece to become aware but atheism necessarily implies that there exist a set resources and rules that make self awareness happen without external influences.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @02:09PM (#577446)

      The best part is when the chess piece realizes the chess player cannot possibly know all the moves or the outcome of the game before hand! The HORROR!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheLink on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:15PM (1 child)

      by TheLink (332) on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:15PM (#577556) Journal
      I've pointed a similar thing out before - you can't fully simulate our universe with a classical computer because the math our classical computers use have nothing for our subjective experiences - e.g. the experience of tasting chocolate.

      There's classical math for the physics for the movement of the atoms etc, but nothing for those subjective experiences that at least some of us know exist because we experience them personally.

      A normal binary computer can do 1+1 =10 etc for representing all the particles etc. But what sequence of addition and subtraction will produce those subjective experiences? If I do that math on a piece of paper where will that experience be created?
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09 2017, @02:25AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09 2017, @02:25AM (#579072)

        > If I do that math on a piece of paper where will that experience be created?

        If you do a great deal of math on a piece of paper, and then step back, and the formulae happen to be ASCII art of a cat...

        Or to be clearer: if you put enough molecules together with the arrangements and charges of a human braid, at what point does that brain start to think and feel?

        Your post's logic fails because you seem to be assuming a nonphysical but physically-interactive reality of "subjectiveness." Subjective experience is an effect within a mind. Minds are either physical or non. If physical, they can be built and destroyed. If non, perhaps otherwise, but the burden of proof is upon you.

        Please think harder before you post. Don't be a slashdolt, this is a better place.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09 2017, @02:20AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09 2017, @02:20AM (#579067)

      > our logical system breaks down in the context of the null set

      It does? Strange, I studied set and group theory, and it was totally fair game to invalidate a set of axioms if the "existence" of the null set led to a contradiction. Could you cite please?

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 12 2017, @11:57AM

        by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 12 2017, @11:57AM (#581089) Journal

        > it was totally fair game to invalidate a set of axioms if the "existence" of the null set led to a contradiction

        What is a contradiction? It is something breaking the principle of no contradiction, A XOR (C(A)). Which is not valid in the context of the null set, where C({}) is {}. Which means the principle of no contradiction itself is not universal nor necessarily defined and meaningful outside the universe that devised it by looking at things, which is a banal observation regardless the null set BTW, as what happens in reality is what made us define a logic system to deal with it.

        --
        Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @03:08PM (#577462)

    I hope tax payer money isn't paying for this crap

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @04:18PM (#577494)

      I hope tax payer money isn't paying for this crap

      For that crap reporting? I don't think so.

      For the original research (which does not talk about whether our universe is a simulation)? Probably. But I have no indication that it is crap.

  • (Score: 1) by jman on Friday October 06 2017, @01:42PM

    by jman (6085) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 06 2017, @01:42PM (#577996) Homepage

    Obviously whatever runs the Infinite Perspective Vortex.

(1)