Does eternal inflation disprove simulation theory? If the inflaton field just expands exponentially fast, wouldn't it very quickly just max out all the computational resources for the simulation?
>>16165034What if it's procedurally generated?
>>16165034What if analog
>>16165034if it's anything like a traditional computer then it will just suddenly stop at some point. Or it might overflow, whatever that means in this sense
>>16165108Who would develop such a sophisticated program only to have it memory leak insanely fast and crash?
>>16165034A common low IQ rebuttal to Simulation Theory. The only way we "know" The Universe "exists" is based off two actions. The visual observation of space with optical telescopes and the collection of analog and digital data from instruments. You've never been to The Universe and if you believe in such things the farthest humans have physically gone to confirm it exists is The Moon, which can also be explained away. Notice how long trips always have a "loading screen" stage? Long plane rides, long space rides, you always end up in some loading status where you must be trapped and confined while "the server loads a new map". So all we know is what we have stored in computers and on ancient film. That's it. How much computer power do you suppose it would take to make that small amount of data? By definition less power is needed to generate it than we used to collect and store it. Thus we can never observe more bandwidth worth of data than Earth alone can observe and store. This translates to 99.9999999999999999999999% of the alleged universe being unrendered and not a burden on the simulation. The amount of data we get from deep space is so limited and low bandwidth sometimes all you get is a few lines of numbers or a graph. Look at deep space spectroscopy, they get a spectrum readout from a planet and extrapolate the other 99.98% of data. The simulation generates 0.01% of the data and the humans do the rest or not at all.
>>16165150intradasting
The whole simulation theory bit is based on a fallacy. Two reasons.1. Doesn't matter. Zero impact on day-to-day life, or even much in general.2. If any simulation exists, there is zero reason to believe our world is an accurate reflection of it. Technically, we could be simulated from a world that operates off of completely different rules and is a dozen dimensions higher. doesn't matter.
>>16165230"As above so below" should be self-evident. That belief is a tendency to make a certain kind of analogy. Having more thoughts is an improvement.
>>16165115An Indian probably
>>16165150>This translates to 99.9999999999999999999999% of the alleged universe being unrendered and not a burden on the simulationI don't think that would be the case. For example, say you're monitoring two stars orbiting eachother. Then you stop monitoring one of them. If that star then becomes unrendered (i.e. temporarily removed from the universe) then the other star is going to suddenly fly off into space. Even if you're only monitoring one of the stars it's still being affected by the gravity of the other star you're not monitoring. Now imagine two clusters of galaxies orbiting eachother. Trillions of stars all moving in certain ways due to the gravity of their neighbouring stars. The point being if things were suddenly removed from the system there would be obvious effects on the things that aren't removed. But we don't see anything like that in nature, everything behaves as though it's always all there, all constantly affecting eachother.
>>16165034Hate to break it to you anon, but your simulation is ending in like 80 years max. Enough resources for that.
>>16165530We don’t control check 99.99999% of the universe like you describe. The logic could be irregular where we don’t look.
No since it only needs to compute the observable universe
>>16165034If something is stimulating single particles (quanta) then the computing resources would be scaled for number of particles. Spatial coordinates would just be a property of each particle.
>>16165035Godd Howard
>>16165150Almost a useful analogy until you arrived at fucking air planes beeing loading screens holy fucking dingus
>>161652302 is a good point. 1 is stupid
>>16165530Things can be rendered at different levels of detail
>>16165800I think the point was that things like stars would be making erratic movements in the sky whenever other stars weren't being watched. But we don't really ever see that happening. Like a star that has been moving back and and forward a short distance for a few decades might suddenly start moving a large distance across the sky if the stars around it weren't being watched anymore for some reason.
>>16165034It basically depends on the feasibility of hypercomputation.
>>16165150If you aren't rendering something to save resources, you still need to run the logic for it in the background to have everything be coherent. And if you aren't doing even that then an eternally increasing inflaton field does not exist and eternal inflation is false.Eternal inflation and simulation theory are mutually exclusive, unless the runtime for the simulation is very short.
>>16165314>"As above so below" should be self-evident.Its not since The SIMS physics is obviously very different from real physics.
Eternal inflation means eventually the prices in the supermarket will cause an integer overflow in the simulation and hence become negative.
>>16165811Why would that be the case? Clearly such things could be simulated at a lower resolution,What would be mir interesting is the chemical and physical processes going on in distant stars. Those could be far more erratic and not „low detail“
>>16166859If we are a videogame who is the player character?
>>16167000Depends on the type of video game since the sims lets the player control many characters and numerous real time simulations put the player in control of every character.
