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

No Stupid Questions

35806 readers
1702 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] redballooon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 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.

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

We could already theoretically simulate a universe; our only limiting factor is the amount of power we have available to us.

It might not be identical to our own universe as we are still missing the necessary knowledge to do that, though who's to say our host universe has the same laws of physics etc. as ours? It's not necessary to simulate our host universe, though rather a universe with a specific set of parameters that we decide on.

That specific set of parameters were likely chosen for our own universe.

[–] redballooon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

We can model things and call them “universe”. But that’s about it.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think that's a poor analogy.

It's true that we're not capable of stimulating a universe in appropriate detail presently, but it's inevitable that at some time we will have that capacity.

Looking at progress in the last 20 years, and extrapolate another thousand years, it's entirely plausible that one could spin up a "universe" on a personal device to play with.

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

It’s not only about levels of detail. We have no theory about how to compute a universe.

Moores law already does not hold up any more. There’s nothing to extrapolate.

I think the analogy is perfect. Thinkers think, but they’re bound in the context of their time and place. Our time and place is full of technology, of course thinkers will spin up an origin myth that is based on technology.

But that’s really all it is.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a false dichotomy... "Moores law or bust". Of course there will be advancements in future.

I guess there's two valid positions here:

We don't know how to do x therefore it's not possible, or... we've made significant progress in the right direction of doing x and its therefore likely that we will achieve it in time.

As you said, our thinking is bound in the context of our time and place, it's difficult to step away from that.

[–] redballooon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, what I'm saying is, the progress that we've seen may be a necessary part (a very small one) of a universe simulation if such a thing can be build.

But my claim is that we have absolutely no evidence that such a thing can be build, and even less that we're living in one. As of today the simulation "hypothesis" is as well founded as every other metaphysical claim, creator gods included.

A sentence like "it's very likely we live in a simulation" is about as well founded as trying to place us in any other science fiction world that has a 21st century earth at its heart.