Question

[Kairos]

you don't need allot of computer power to simulate something in an exponentially bigger universe, and the simulation can use exponentially less computer power by simulating something over a longer length of time you wouldn't know the diference. You use your senses to perceive something externally but because you don't know weather the simulations laws of physically are close to the same as the "real universe" then you can never be certain. You cannot rule anything out or determine which possibility is more likely to be true therefor the odds that you are perceiving the outside universe not in someway different then you percieve it to be is one over infinite because that is one out of an infinite amount of possibilities of ways your senses could be manipulated in that moment. Thats what I define a simulation is.

also, what does p=np mean and what is non and polynomial space?
similar two this? two neurons interacting are just two neurons interacting and byitself doesn't create consciousness like balls colliding does not produce percievable data that the objects interacted. cause and effect by definition are two things interacting to create an effect by definition is incorrect.

please correct anything in this statement that you percieve to be logically incorrect. I am open minded

Your first paragraph simply is not correct. I am not interested in giving a theoretical computer science lecture on an internet forum but, as I said, a pretty good rundown can be found in the book titled Fabric of Reality.

Second paragraph:

Explained: P vs. NP

The most notorious problem in theoretical computer science remains open, but the attempts to solve it have led to profound insights.

news.mit.edu

 

[dimension-1hacker]

Your first paragraph simply is not correct. I am not interested in giving a theoretical computer science lecture on an internet forum but, as I said, a pretty good rundown can be found in the book titled Fabric of Reality.

Second paragraph:

Explained: P vs. NP

The most notorious problem in theoretical computer science remains open, but the attempts to solve it have led to profound insights.

news.mit.edu

my first paragraph is based off the concept of every possibility because possible because you can't rule out what can't be possible. Because any thing that you perceive that could cause you to be able to rule out the odds could be an innaccurate perception of the external world in any moment there is no way to rule out or determine which possibility is as greater odds of being correct using your senses

 

[Kairos]

my first paragraph is based off the concept of every possibility because possible because you can't rule out what can't be possible.

I can rule out something that is mathematically impossible or logically contradictory. The problem is that you do not understand what computation is and what resources are needed to compute really anything (no offense). This is a deep topic.

That said, you could theorize a simulation with a lot of optimizations. For instance, the simulation does not really compute anything to any detail outside of the solar system but, rather, just computes general properties that we might find through various observations, but I would argue even that falls apart for various reasons and, in any case, we'd probably have bumped into one of those illusions by now. What is generally postulated is that our entire universe is one big simulation. That would require a much, much larger universe to accomplish. Also, the physical laws and logical framework of that universe (such as problem spaces like np-completness) would bleed through in various ways.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

I can rule out something that is mathematically impossible or logically contradictory. The problem is that you do not understand what computation is and what resources are needed to compute really anything (no offense). This is a deep topic.

That said, you could theorize a simulation with a lot of optimizations. For instance, the simulation does not really compute anything to any detail outside of the solar system but, rather, just computes general properties that we might find through various observations, but I would argue even that falls apart for various reasons and, in any case, we'd probably have bumped into one of those illusions by now. What is generally postulated is that our entire universe is one big simulation. That would require a much, much larger universe to accomplish. Also, the physical laws and logical framework of that universe (such as problem spaces like np-completness) would bleed through in various ways.

that could be part of the simulation though, and you have know way to know based off your senses to posit which part of the simulation is caused to occur because of the larger universes laws of physics could be bleeding though. anything by definition is possible if any way to determine what is possible is just one of an possibilities for how what you could be perceiving how to determine the begining and end of the simulation. because there is no way to rule anything out.
correct?

 

[Kairos]

correct?

No.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

No.

why?

 

[TimeFlipper]

Check out the supposedly "Teslas', Zero Time Generator

I built one and am 90% convinced it stopped or locked my "Mandella Effects"

Would you kindly show us the schematic that you constructed the ZTG from, and your explanation on how it works and what it actually does?..
A photograph of it would be appreciated also ..

 

[Kairos]

why?

Because the logical framework of the universe would bleed through into the simulation.

That's aside from the resource problem. There are physical constraints as to how many atoms you'd need to run a simulation, and when you are talking about simulating a universe..

 

[dimension-1hacker]

Because the logical framework of the universe would bleed through into the simulation.

That's aside from the resource problem. There are physical constraints as to how many atoms you'd need to run a simulation, and when you are talking about simulating a universe..

I didn't mean simulating atoms but the concept of one or 1 = "atom" causing x, and how can an atom be simulated in the code using to represent the simulated atom is binary in origin? Also, why is there a garentee the logical framework of the universe would bleed through into the simulation. Is that concept literal or metaphorical?

 

[Kairos]

I didn't mean simulating atoms but the concept of one or 1 = "atom" causing x, and how can an atom be simulated in the code using to represent the simulated atom is binary in origin?

You need to consider how much matter is required to run the computer that simulates one atom.

I am not saying it is impossible to turn the entire universe into a computer that runs a simulation. That, after all, is the entire point of the omega point hypothesis. But I am telling you that we'd be able to detect we are in that simulation. You are not just talking about a simple game either. You are talking about a simulation that almost perfectly matches reality to the point where it becomes a kind of reality. That kind of simulation is able to create sentient life and literally everything that happens in the real universe. Once you get to a logical system of that complexity, you run into some logical problems, such as: Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia