HDRKID
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,582
Question for you. Why is it that when people do physical time travel they do not materialize in outer space. After all, the earth is moving.
Question for you. Why is it that when people do physical time travel they do not materialize in outer space. After all, the earth is moving.
Question for you. Why is it that when people do physical time travel they do not materialize in outer space. After all, the earth is moving.
After all, the earth is moving.
an invisible, dragon; you say to the other person your talking too; its in my garage you say. The garage is empty the other person says, and you reply the dragon is invisible but there. The other person says, why can't I hear the dragon moving around after all I explored every inch of the garage with a broom. You say, nothing can touch the dragon but it is still there. There is no proof the dragon exists but nothing rules out its existance either because you are not omnipotent, you can't rule the possibility out therefore it is possible; like god.What if it isn't though?
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.My academics in theoretical computer science lead me to very strongly discount the proposition that we live in a simulation within a larger universe. I could write out some decent arguments as to why, by the physicist David Deutsch makes a fairly good case for the average person with no computer science background to understand that is better than I would be able to do. Read Fabric of Reality.
I am not saying it is impossible, but the physical laws and phenomena of the real universe would bleed through and I am pretty sure we'd have noticed it by now.
That said, there are plenty of people in computer science who would disagree with me on this as well, so it's not cut and dry. It's just not that trivial to make such a claim as if it were self-evident or even likely. Most physicists who take positions like this don't understand computer science and don't really understand the problem either because they assume (wrongly) that they are the most fundamental science.
Personally, I think the universe actually does work much like a computer does, but it's not a simulation running inside of a more real (and obviously exponentially bigger) universe.
And for those of you who understand what I am saying, I think P=NP because the universe solves that problem in less than linear time. Hell, it solves the n-body problem instantly. It's a weird mental shift when you see it. If you can reduce an np-complete problem to a physical experiment (like a network of balls falling down inclines with collisions and whatnot causing only one solution in one of the final states of the experiment), then you can solve all np-complete problems in polynomial time (not including experimental setup).