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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not convinced - it would be limited by the precision of the simulation, and chaotic behaviour would make exactness impossible.
That would be a finite but incredibly large number of simulations - all the more reason to 'limit' it to all possible planetary configurations
Exactly, that's near enough the point I'm making.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.
Chaos would only arrange the stuff differently under the same physical laws, so wouldn't tell you anything really new.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.
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.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.
Chaos would only arrange the stuff differently under the same physical laws, so wouldn't tell you anything really new.
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
" 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.
The argument is that if the universe was created just for humanity, it's absurd overkill.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.
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.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.
OK.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.
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).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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?