Slashdot Mirror
Neil deGrasse Tyson Says It's 'Very Likely' The Universe Is A Simulation (extremetech.com)
mspohr quotes a report from ExtremeTech: At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, [scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.] This is the crux of Tyson's point: if we take it as read that it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe. And, on a truly infinite timeline, we might expect an almost infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations -- and indeed, a sophisticated-enough simulation might be able to let its simulated denizens themselves run universal simulations, and at that point all bets are officially off."
He didn't form anything. It's a very old philosophical argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality) and was made into a major motion trilogy 15 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_%28franchise%29). Also known as the simulation argument, there ave been a few philosophical papers written on it in the last few years, notably one that says odds are we are likely in a simulation that came out about ten years ago (along with he proof).
You think? He is essentially opening the possibility of there being a creator who designed the universe to appear naturally occurring.
The universe is a weird place. At one point in time, the whole thing occupied the same amount of space as my mouse. Where did THAT object come from? I know, we're not supposed to bother thinking about it since conventional wisdom says we can't find out about it.
"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be." -- Douglas Adams
The fact that the seeds of life and consciousness - us - are embedded in the fabric of the universe is interesting. A dust devil starts in space, a gravity well forming in a gas and dust cloud, the solar system starts coalescing. Sub-whirlwinds start in the spinning cloud, coalescing into planets. On the third one from the center, life appears. Let it spin for a few billion years more, and here we are, contemplating the mechanism that spawned us.
"A physicist is an attempt by an atom to understand itself." -- Michio Kaku
I find flights of fancies like Tyson's to be rather interesting.
This *IS* science. He's forming a hypothesis based on observed evidence.
No this is not science. Science is coming up with a testable hypothesis which explains an observation making the fewest possible additional assumptions (Occam's razor). This is a wild guess which explains nothing, is untestable and requires the existence of a vast chain of increasingly complex universes filled with intelligences each of which have created a simulation of a universe. If this is science then so is every religion we know of since they only assume the existence of one (or more) intelligences with the ability to create universes not a semi-infinite chain of them.
What kind of simulation would give up empirical evidence of its simulationness?
1. Due to limited computational resources, the simulated universe would be granular or "quantum".
2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how virtual reality skips the generation of hidden polygons.
Both of these are actually true in our universe, ergo, we are a simulation.
No, The links I posted used to contain the comments I made. They no longer do. The comment is gone. They only show the banners. Normally deletion of the article did not also delete the comments. This is a recent phenomenon. Not cool at all. They could just remove it from the front page. I've been very watchful for this when various ACs started complaining. They were wrong every time. I always found their comments. But now I was able to prove that comments are being deleted. Probably only when the article is, but now we can't be sure anymore. Maybe a policy change is afoot. But without indelible comments, Slashdot completely loses its advantage and uniqueness, it becomes just another clone.
Anyway, I'm done fighting over it, not going to hijack any more threads.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Not infinite. He is just suggesting a very, very large but finite stack. We do not know our place in the stack, but the odds of being the one on the bottom are pretty remote.