Comment by indigoabstract
2 years ago
> “In fact, you can’t even imagine how complicated it is.”
Well, maybe someone could imagine it, otherwise, all that complexity would have led to a gargantuan number of bugs and the universe would have crashed..
2 years ago
> “In fact, you can’t even imagine how complicated it is.”
Well, maybe someone could imagine it, otherwise, all that complexity would have led to a gargantuan number of bugs and the universe would have crashed..
Maybe all the other instances crashed, but we got lucky and get to apply the anthropic principle.
The real question is, are we running on bare metal, in a VM, or in a container?
> The real question is, are we running on bare metal, in a VM, or in a container?
We can't be running on the bare hardware; there is clearly an OS enforcing the hardware abstraction (e.g. every electron is identical).
But is each universe its own process? What happens if you fork()?
> every electron is identical
That's an illusion; there is only one electron.
2 replies →
Universe is a quantum computer, forking every Planck interval.
Why do you ask? Are you hoping to ROWHAMMER a parallel universe?
Genuinely curious if there’s any scientifically useful direction to this question
"According to the more conservative cosmologists, an alien superpower – maybe a collective of Kardashev Type Three galaxy-spanning civilizations – is running a timing channel attack on the computational ultrastructure of space-time itself, trying to break through to whatever's underneath." in Accelerando
I'd watch a movie with that premise.
1 reply →
I’ve never understood the anthropic principle. It’s a very big maybe for seemingly no reason. Existence of a single universe is a pretty hard thing to contemplate, why should we consider multiples of it?
We run on GPUs. The real question is, what does the AI that runs us, run on?
It's all WebAssembly
hahaha as a founder working on the Wasm space, this made me giggle!
This has always seemed to me one of the best arguments against the simulation hypothesis.
>> all that complexity would have led to a gargantuan number of bugs and the universe would have crashed
> This has always seemed to me one of the best arguments against the simulation hypothesis.
Can you expand on that? Are you saying that if we were in a simulation, the observed complexity of the universe (or the complexity of particle physics) would have caused the simulation to crash? Ergo, we are not in a simulation?
My thinking is more that if it was a simulation they wouldn't make it so a single proton was so complex as to be almost impossible to simulate accurately. I mean is a simulation you might expect if to look like pixels or minecraft or something close up. Or maybe simple point particles. But I don't thing the equations describing a proton are exactly soluble and also the results very complex so the best you can do is a very approximate simulation.
Just needs a little abstraction- and not the leaky variety