The multinational conglomerates who own all manufacturing and research become Chinese in name only instead of American in name only (or is it Irish this week?)
It is falsifiable if you consider that a simulation would have limited resources allocated to it. The null hypothesis would be the universe runs in a way where a simulation couldn't cheat by performing a rough calculation at the hard parts, thereby spending a tiny fraction of what would be needed and produce the same observable result.
The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, since a simulator could be deferring calculations on things not observed.
Also, the very program this article is referring to could be considered as evidence for it, since if a rough simulation can be made where the observable result is indistinguishable from a result where every atomic element in the entire universe was simulated, then, again, a simulator with limited resources would make do.
The law of conservation of energy is built the same way. There is no way we can test ways that energy is transferred that we don't yet know about, but this law is still considered true, because we have so many examples of it working.
Well I guess you can disprove particular forms of simulation - e.g. since a computer with 16GB RAM can be adequately simulated, we can reject the notion that the current universe is simulated on a computer with 16GB RAM or less.
> The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation,
How is that evidence? Current physics can model that without relying on a simulation hypothesis. Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.
Why did you quote half my sentence, leaving out the part where I explain why, and then ask why?
> Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.
I explain this. It's falsifiable if it can be shown there is some extremely large and complicated process that be observed to be different than any possible rough calculation that could be accomplished by a simulator with very constrained resources (constrained in comparison to all the supposed atomic particles in the universe)
The notion that all forms of energy must be conserved, even undiscovered ones, has been used as the basis for the theory of Hawking radiation, isn't it? Yet claiming that undiscovered forms of energy are conserved, just as known ones, is unfalsifiable, too.
The law of conservation of energy, including undiscovered ones, is in the same boat as the theory that the universe is a simulation.
Until we find a form of energy that isn't conserved, it is simpler to assume all types of energy are conserved.
Similarly, until we find a process that is of large enough scale that it couldn't be simulated on a computer with resources much more limited than the size of the universe, and be observable identical to a process taking much more resources, it is simpler to assume it all is being simulated in such a way.
> Why did you quote half my sentence, leaving out the part where I explain why, and then ask why?
Sorry I just didn't want to quote the whole comment, didn't mean to imply I was only responding to the first part of the sentence.
I understand you can hypothetically prove that a simulation of the universe would require a simulation engine of at least a certain complexity. But since the simulation engine does not exist in this universe, we have no idea about what limitations or laws of nature (if any) it is subject to. You will never be able to prove or disprove the existence if this hypothetical simulator.
Well, a Turing complete computer is about as abstract as you can get, and so is the concept of memory, regardless of the natural laws of some outer universe, it'd probably be a good starting point to consider a turing computer except with limited memory.
The point is not to prove one way or another whether the universe is a simulation, just like there is no point trying to prove the law of conservation of energy as universal for all forms of phenomena, discovered and undiscovered.
It's just if we can show that all known phenomena can be the result of a very limited simulation, then when analyzing new phenomena, we can also expect it to be runnable on a very limited simulation,
too.
It's the same as assuming that the law of conservation of energy would apply to any new phenomena we discover. There is no proof, but it's a good starting point.
You cannot through experiments prove that the law of conservation of energy holds in all cases. Indeed you cannot through observation prove that any law of nature holds in all cases. But you only need a single counterexample to show that a law doesn't hold in all cases. This is exactly the rationale behind the principle of falsification. You cannot prove through observation that all swans are white. But you can prove that not all swans are white by a single observation of a black swan.
The bottom line is that it is possible to devise experiments or observations which would give different outcome if the theory holds and if the theory doesn't hold.
But you cannot devise an experiment which would give different outcomes if the universe is a simulation versus if it isn't. More specifically, you cannot imagine an observation which would prove that the universe isn't a simulation. Therefore it is not a legitimate scientific theory. At best it is a fun thought experiment.
> But you cannot devise an experiment which would give different outcomes if the universe is a simulation versus if it isn't.
I've already mentioned 5 times in this thread that the theory I'm talking about is of a simulation with very limited resources, but you seem to be ignoring this point.
Show that a particular phenomenon can't be simulated using extremely limited hardware (compared to the size of the universe) and you can falsify this theory.
> But you cannot devise an experiment which would give different outcomes if the universe is a simulation versus if it isn't.
Does this or does this not apply to a simulation with very limited resources (compared to what it would take to model all the atoms of the universe) or not, then?
> “Plants and mushrooms have intelligence, and they want us to take care of the environment, and so they communicate that to us in a way we can understand.” Why us? “We humans are the most populous bipedal organisms walking around, so some plants and fungi are especially interested in enlisting our support. I think they have a consciousness and are constantly trying to direct our evolution by speaking out to us biochemically. We just need to be better listeners.”
That statement just killed my enthusiasm to ever try mushrooms. If using them results in this sort of thinking process, I think that I would be better off steering clear.
> If using them results in this sort of thinking process, I think that I would be better off steering clear.
This is a normal sort of thinking process, psychedelic or not. Let's look at this sentence:
> ...so some plants and fungi are especially interested in enlisting our support. I think they have a consciousness...
Pollan is exploring a metaphor. The metaphor in question is "plants as people": plants are "interested" parties, plants "have a consciousness." He's using the metaphor to better understand how plants work. Anthropomorphization is a major feature of how humans understand their environments.
You'll note we use similar mental constructs with software, if you look closely at the language... Metaphor is the root of all abstract understanding.
Mushrooms definitely give you the feeling that everything around you has purpose and motive. The tree to your left isn't just a tree any more, it reminds you of a dragon, and you can determine its character, etc. You feel connected to things and can sense the "life" in everything. It doesn't mean you have to update your physical worldview. But the feeling is powerful, and is accompanied by some strong insights into your own life. Highly recommended, even without any spiritual inclinations.
fwiw, i've done a bunch of LSD and mushrooms and I think it sounds as stupid as you do.
That said the experience of a psychedelic trip feels completely impossible and indescribable on every level so I can understand how people reach for absurd metaphors to come to terms with the experience. It's a very difficult experience to integrate.
So now it just tries to keep track of who's where and when. If someone leaves by the school-gates during classes, their gait is checked to see if it kinda-sorta matches any student gait and if it does, whoop-whoop-whoop, ring the alarm!
Chavez High is ringed with gravel walkways. I like to keep a couple handsful of rocks in my shoulder-bag, just in case. I silently passed Darryl ten or fifteen pointy little bastards and we both loaded our shoes.
- Cory Doctorrow, Little Brother: https://craphound.com/littlebrother/Cory_Doctorow_-_Little_Brother.pdf
It's quite a gimmick imo. The amount spent has no basis in what is needed, but simply chosen by multiplication of the guesswork of a person several years ago by the chaotic swings of the market.
It's also quite inefficient and even if it was chosen with some rationale basis, the idea of burning energy for years in the hope of providing a high enough bar to prevent a single tsunami of effort over the a brief period of time, less than a few hours and only required to match it, is one of the dumbest security ideas I've ever heard.
I'm not against cryptocurrency, not do I think it will fail in concept,
but I very much hope that PoS proves viable and will succeed this utter waste.
Because decades of discriminatory lending practices and policy mean that there's a strong racial component to where people live. There's a trite statement about how desegregation never happened in the North, because black people end up basically stuck in poorer areas of town anyways.
The thing about systemic racism is that even if every participant is legitimately trying to give everyone a fair chance, the existing systems (artifacts of redlining, for example) are still biased in a certain direction, and will end up giving discriminatory results.
"Black people with upper-middle-class incomes do not generally live in upper-middle-class neighborhoods. Sharkey’s research shows that black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000."[0]
This looks like a legitimate complaint, but the way you worded it leads one to believe it is some innate quality of being white that makes people do selfish things, rather than circumstance; in this case, preventing poor people from finding favorable housing.
That's a good point. While there are a lot of cases of people in city council meetings saying overtly racist things as justification for these policies (mostly making equivalent poor, POC, and criminals). But I imagine a lot of people are basically just looking out for their own well being.At most being selfish, not discriminatory
There is still the issue that many POC don't even get this opportunity to be selfish, but that discussion doesn't lead to much
It depends on how you look at it. A phase out of UBI could also be viewed as an additional tax.
In fact, you could consider the current system of benefits only if you are not working a form of UBI, if you just treat the UBI not received by the working as a tax against the benefits they would have received.
All in all, UBI isn't much of a departure to what we already have, except that people are expecting the benefits given would be much moar.
