Simulation Theory.

[variant]

I'm not convinced - it would be limited by the precision of the simulation, and chaotic behaviour would make exactness impossible.

No that's the point. You would only really need to make the universe to really capture the importance of the chaos in the system.

 

[variant]

That would be a finite but incredibly large number of simulations - all the more reason to 'limit' it to all possible planetary configurations

One would only go one step further if that didn't yield satisfactory results.

I mean. What are all the possible planetary configurations in the first place? And, is an approximation good enough?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You actually don't need to simulate the whole universe down to quantum level. The concept of Viewer can be used. Meaning if something a human doesn't interact with shouldn't be simulated precisely. That can even explain things like duality of particle and wave in physics. Waves are less computational to simulate than all individual particles. We don't even need to have all those stars in the universe since they can be stored as dots in memory and only expand into full blown solar systems once we start study them.

Exactly, that's near enough the point I'm making.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No that's the point. You would only really need to make the universe to really capture the importance of the chaos in the system.

Chaos would only arrange the stuff differently under the same physical laws, so wouldn't tell you anything really new.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I mean. What are all the possible planetary configurations in the first place? And, is an approximation good enough?

Whatever configurations and whatever the precision, it's still far simpler to not simulate a whole universe of other stuff along with it, that has no significant influence on what you wish to simulate.

This is one of the arguments against special creation - the rest of the universe is pointless and unnecessary.

 

[variant]

Whatever configurations and whatever the precision, it's still far simpler to not simulate a whole universe of other stuff along with it, that has no significant influence on what you wish to simulate.

This is one of the arguments against special creation - the rest of the universe is pointless and unnecessary.

I'm not sure it's a good argument against special creation, what is and isn't pointless to a being that can create universes is a bit difficult to surmise. They would necessarily have more elaborate and interesting questions than I would.

So, is it really more work to set up or not? I don't know. It would take more power and resources from whatever we're using to make the simulation, but I have no idea what those limitations would be. You might have to set up fewer parameters if you start at the beginning and let the universe take it's own shape.

Blurring most of it out and only having it appear when an observer is inside is only relevant if the point of the simulation is to exist for the observers inside it. That's a bit more like optimizing game design than investigating how a relatively simple set of parameters can produce great diversity.

 

[variant]

Chaos would only arrange the stuff differently under the same physical laws, so wouldn't tell you anything really new.

Sure it would. I could run the simulation forward for as much time and as fast as I can simulate to answer questions about things that are very unlikely to appear in a universe for instance.

In that case the exact nature of what the chaos actually does given simple starting conditions is very interesting.

 

[George Tolson]

Diversity doesn't matter. Understanding of Good and Evil cannot come from diversity. It can only come from God himself. Therefore no matter what parameters you put in simulation you need to pass understanding of Good and Evil to your creatures. This should be passed directly

 

[variant]

Diversity doesn't matter. Understanding of Good and Evil cannot come from diversity. It can only come from God himself. Therefore no matter what parameters you put in simulation you need to pass understanding of Good and Evil to your creatures. This should be passed directly

That's a conclusion not a question. We could actually see whether it is better to pass good and evil on directly or letting the sims work it out for themselves.

Assuming of course that we're qualified to determine what is good and evil ourselves for other intelligent beings.

 

[George Tolson]

" pass good and evil on directly or letting the sims work it out for themselves."
Sorry, Guys, I am still under the impression from the book... and I can tell you 100% that it clearly points that Good and Evil NEVER comes from ANY intelligence but God himself. No matter how smart intelligence is it simply cannot define that. It needs point of reference.

 

[variant]

" pass good and evil on directly or letting the sims work it out for themselves."
Sorry, Guys, I am still under the impression from the book... and I can tell you 100% that it clearly points that Good and Evil NEVER comes from ANY intelligence but God himself. No matter how smart intelligence is it simply cannot define that. It needs point of reference.

We're talking about simulations here though. The point of a simulation is to inform ourselves, not enforce a world view.

Fiction on the other hand is usually a story we tell about the way we think things will go (without actually knowing).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not sure it's a good argument against special creation, what is and isn't pointless to a being that can create universes is a bit difficult to surmise. They would necessarily have more elaborate and interesting questions than I would.

The argument is that if the universe was created just for humanity, it's absurd overkill.

Blurring most of it out and only having it appear when an observer is inside is only relevant if the point of the simulation is to exist for the observers inside it. That's a bit more like optimizing game design than investigating how a relatively simple set of parameters can produce great diversity.

Yes, George's concept is a viewer-oriented subset of optimizations, but there are any number of others; for example, you don't have to simulate a celestial body in detail if only its gravity is relevant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure it would. I could run the simulation forward for as much time and as fast as I can simulate to answer questions about things that are very unlikely to appear in a universe for instance.

In that case the exact nature of what the chaos actually does given simple starting conditions is very interesting.

OK.

 

[George Tolson]

So there is a church for simulation these days )): Simulation Home - Simulationists united

 

[FireDragon76]

It's laughable metaphysics, as it posits a dualism of sorts between the observer and the universe/simulation. If the universe is unreal, then so is the observer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's laughable metaphysics, as it posits a dualism of sorts between the observer and the universe/simulation. If the universe is unreal, then so is the observer.

True, although here's a reasonable argument to be made that a simulation is real to observers within it (assuming they are simulated well enough to have subjective experience).