Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 392

The simulated universe conjecture doesn't lend anything new to the believers of the supernatural that they don't already have.

Oh but it does. One of the greatest victories for the fundamental set would be if they could manage to get their religious beliefs taught as science in the classroom. Angered by biology and evolution, they have been trying every ten years or so to re-introduce their belief into science classrooms. Creation science was rejected by science first, then the creationists turned to Intelligent design, which ostensibly suggests the possibility of their god or aliens - though of course, wink wink, you know who we really mean. Fortunately that was shown to be lying for god.

So now, here we have people claiming that our universe is a simulation. Any Intelligent design advocates will hop on that like crocodiles on a wildebeest.

What does God need with a starship (or simulation)?

If existing, it could do all that without a simulation. So any evidence for a simulation would be evidence against it being a supreme being.

Of course. But how well will your logic play with people who believe things like the Noah's Ark myth being literally true? People who believe that the entire world was covered with water to overtop the earth's highest mountains in a rain event lasting 960 hours raising sea level by 8,850 meters today's Everest height, less at that time due to plate tectonics. I did BOE calculations and it was essentially a solid wall of falling water - the ark would need to be a submarine or else be swamped. Not to mention, all of the animals from Australia would have to swim to the middle east, covering thousands of miles - so they wouldn't drown.

People who believe that would have no problem with a spaceship god, and it's computer simulation.

And it would go against the tenets of free will. Granted, some flavors of godbothering believe in predestination, but most claim there's free will, including creationists.

Free will is another one of those philosophical brouhahas that I prefer to avoid, reminds me of angels dancing on the head of a pin discussions.

Regardless, the same folk who got wood over their incorrect application of the second law of thermodynamics will be really excited to talk about how Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with them about a single creator of the universe. Scientists will rue the day they came up with this admission of defeat.

Comment Re:Well I'm gonna break up the hate party (Score 1) 109

There is a perplexing amount of GNOME hate in the top comments. I'm a very happy user. I've been using Linux almost exclusively in all capacities since about 1999 and have sampled and/or used a lot of desktop environments. GNOME is the best, IMHO.

If its what you like, it's all you need. Too many slashdot users seem to think that something they don't like must suck.

Comment Re:sunset mode (Score 1) 109

Seriously, why is this a thing?

So someone held a gun to your head and forced you to use it? Go to distrowatch, and get one of the distros that doesn't cause you to blow your stack

Comment Re: Finally, I can switch to Gnome! (Score 1) 109

Don't whinge about Gnome 3 and its applications, just use MATE

Exactly. I don't like Gnome, and I found this incredibly simple trick to avoid it. You won't believe what happens next!

I use Ubuntu Mate. Works a trick. If I didn't use Mate, I'd use Mint. Seems weird about people crying about an interface thy don't like, then there are so many alternatives, a few of them exemplary.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 2) 392

Umm no and here's the rebuttal: http://backreaction.blogspot.c...

To tell the truth, I think that the "Universe is a simulation" is just the latest creationist effort. In a simulation, dinosaurs can be put in the ground just for fun, bioogical relations are just that way because the great simulator in the sky wants them that way, and the apparent age of the universe, speed of light, and radioactivity are all 100 percent arbitrary.

So if the universe is a simulation, there is no reason why the Abrahamic God didn't create it in October 4004 b.c.e. as determined by Usher so it is now science, and must be taught in the nation's classrooms. The Bible is now the scientific description of a scientific simulation program.

Solved everything and did the final endrun around those supreme court athiests. Howbow dah?

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 392

It isn't even a theory though, as there isn't anything to support it.

There is no conclusive proof, but there is plenty of evidence that the universe is a simulation. In many ways, the universe appears to be designed to be easy to simulate. If you were designing a universe simulation, what would you do?

1. Due to limited computational resources, the simulated universe would be granular or "quantum". 2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons. 3. The maximum speed of information transfer would be finite, to limit the propagation of changes through the universe.

All of these are actually true in our universe, ergo, we are very likely a simulation.

I have it even better using the same logic. God made us - let's say the Abrahamic God. We are here, which is completey consistent with God making us, therefore - proven that God made us.

God's running the simulation, and that's all anyone needs to know. It all depends one's ability to give up and stop thinking, because if we live in a simulation, there is no point in studying anything, because at any moment, the great simulator in the sky can turn off the computer, and make a different simulation.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 392

it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all.

Unless the simulation has major bugs, the simulated entities will never be able to prove that they are, in fact, simulated, unless the entity running the simulation allows it.

Exactly - no evidence.

And as such, it's religion. The simulation might have been caused by the Desert God, her multiple offshoots Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, Buddha, Dagon, or any of the thousands of other Gods man has created.

Which is another interesting philosophical inanity. If man creates God in his own image, and our existence is a simulation, did man there create his own universe in a simulation?

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 2) 392

The problem comes when a theory such as this is "abused" as it were to justify a whole bunch of metaphysical claptrap.

It isn't even a theory though, as there isn't anything to support it. Even if in some incredibly unlikely circumstance that we are able to prove we are in a simulation, maybe the entity that made up the simulation we are in is likewise in a simulation.

It's the old who created the creator problem, and just like the creator business, the simulation business is in the realm of religion. Everone can have thier own religion, and thy are all right because that's what they believe.

No thanks.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 392

To describe it as simply such is a bit dismissive. It is a provocative speculation that can spur interest, thought, and motivation to devise new experiments. I agree, it can be of some use.

The problem of course, is the speculation might be that whoever stated this simulation has structured it in such a way that the poop people in the simulation might never be able to find out if they are in a simulation.

And thus ends the discussion. We can't determine it. Or maybe we can, but maybe not - probably not, maybe the great simulator kills everyone who gets close to understanding. Maybe not. Opinions trump facts. Maybe, maybe not.

For some strange reason, the string theorists are also behind this sort of malarky, wanting to not have to subject their "theory" to critical thinking or the scientific method. It's the sort of thing that ends up with you coming to the conclusion - "It's how it is because that's how it is."

In the end - sure, something for some folks to talk about. Philosophers, perhaps some religious folk. But also in the end, it's the mental equivalent of "Can God make a burrito so hot he can't stand it?"

Slashdot Top Deals

"You can't make a program without broken egos."

Working...