And here I was waiting to get unplugged, or maybe finding a Nokia phone that received a call.

  • witty_username@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I was under the impression that something along these lines was already accepted from the perspective of information theory. I.e. a machine that could simulate the universe must at least be composed of as much information as the universe itself. Given the vastness and complexity of the universe, this would make it rather unlikely that the universe is simulated. Unless you want to view the universe itself as a machine that calculates it’s own progression. But that is a bit of a semantic point.

    Disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise and I probably got some terms or concepts wrong. I am basing this off of ‘The information’ by James Gleick

    • lemmeLurk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      But you wouldn’t have to simulate the whole universe, only one brain. There is no way for you to know, if everything your brain experiences is caused by it actually happening, or just the neutrons being triggered in that way from outside.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I mean, maybe the machine is five-dimensional and has no problem containing all the information of a three-dimensional universe? I don’t know, yadda yadda talking out of my ass.