The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes.  Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.

More formally as it is written:  The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true.  Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot.  :-)

In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

I'll assume you were (for once) at least attempting to answer my question: What in the paper makes the hypothesis of a simulated universe more likely than not (statistically strong) and as entertaining as it was to watch you go through and attempt to shoehorn a paper to conform to your prejudices.  Let's see if I can clarify something for you:

Do you agree that "strong statistical evidence" is presented only when someone shows you a probabilistic calculation which is greater than 0.5 in favor of the hypothesis. If you disagree please tell me what you standard of evidence is for something to be considered "strong statistical evidence".  i.e. Why would it be "strong" if it is less likely than not and why would it be "statistical" if you have no probabilities?

It's worth pointing out that most of your above reply is of the form: "Why would someone say X if there's wasn't strong statistical evidence".  So my response would simply be: This can not be "strong evidence" in and of itself and it's definitely not "statistical".  Since it fails to meet the definitions I provided.  If you want to provide your own definitions then you can answer the question I asked in bold above.

The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true.  Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.

No.  Just because A -> B that does not necessitate B -> A. That's the logical flaw of "affirming the consequent".  Also what man-made intelligence equal to humans exists.

Also I notice that you didn't produce the information you said you would about the simulation actually being run.  Can't depend on you for anything can I?

In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.

As it was written in the Booke of Ricke. Thereth will be those who were called stupid before the lateness of dayes and will continue to be called stupid in the latest of dayes because..yea it was found...that this was the rightest name for them...and it cameth to passeth that of those so called gravrock deservedeth it most!

Amen!

[gravityblock]

sarkeizen,

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources.   The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.  With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).  Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated.  Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales.  The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.  Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it.  This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013.  I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.

Gravock

[MarkE]

sarkeizen,

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources.   The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.  With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).  Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated.  Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales.  The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.  Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it.  This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013.  I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.

Gravock

Probability values are not the result of suggestion.  Basically, what you are saying is that you find the idea that they propose appealing.    The likelihood that an idea is true does not stem from it's appeal or lack thereof.