PCGamer: A new physics paper suggests that we may all be living in the ultimate 4X strategy game after all

[The_J]

This news article is a bit bonkers, and only barely related... I might regret this thread lol:
PCGamer has today published an article called "A new physics paper suggests that we may all be living in the ultimate 4X strategy game after all". Most people here have probably watched the Matrix, a similar movie, read a book in this vein, etc: We could be all living in a simulation.
Apparently a new physics paper was published, which puts together a theory that if we are living in a simulation, then parts of the simulation could be added or deleted, that new underlying hardware could be added, etc. This would allow to explain why sometimes information is missing, such as the hypothesized "dark matter", which is not proven, but necessary to explain our current cosmos. Apparently there is itself not much more to this physics paper, and neither is to the PCGamer article.
The latter mentions Civ6 though:

But is the universe really a simulation or a computer game, played by an errant mega-being or two in another dimension? If it's the latter, my money's on it being a 4X strategy game, like an ultimate version of Civilization 6.

If you're interested, then read the article here, and tell us if you're thinking you're ruled by Monty.
If you're not interested, then let us know how much you think this is probably junk .

 

[Krajzen]

Admittedly I am not a physicist, but I have never liked simulation theory for the same reason I don't like multiverse/alternate universe theory and its traction in popculture: an enormously gigantic claim, which would require a lot to even make it viable hypothesis, and doesn't actually explain a lot. Simulation theory doesn't even explain mechanisms ruling our universe or its creation, it just moves the problem further away from us. Ok sure man, we live in simulation. Can it be verified, do observations confirm it, or does math point at it, does it fill holes in our theories and offer better one, are there no simpler explanations etc. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary arguments.

The universe being 4X game doesn't make sense either - 4X games are too simple and too easy to understand in comparision

 

[Urlance Woolsbane]

The gist of that is information is the same as energy, and thus has mass; Dr Vopson has suggested that this could be explored in an experiment by which information is removed from a storage device, which is recorded for any changes in mass.

If this is an accurate representation of Dr. Vopson's belief, then I think it's utterly damning for his credibility: If, for instance, the value of a byte is changed from 10001000 to 00000000, there isn't any less information in the second state than in the first, merely different information; a "full" hard-drive doesn't contain any more information, computationally speaking, than an empty one, and Dr. Vopson's failure to understand this fundamental principle of computing bodes ill for his ability to discern computational patterns in the workings of the cosmos

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Again, not a physicist here, but it seems to me that using "this is all a great, big, humongous Game" to explain the Universe and All That Surrounds It (to use the wonderful old Beyond the Fringe phrase) is about like saying "God Wills It!" or "Just Because!" - and has about the same amount of actual information about the Cosmos in it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Again, not a physicist here, but I don't need another existential crisis.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

*looks around*

Ugh, another MMORPG!

 

[Vandlys]

View attachment 689425

This news article is a bit bonkers, and only barely related... I might regret this thread lol:
PCGamer has today published an article called "A new physics paper suggests that we may all be living in the ultimate 4X strategy game after all". Most people here have probably watched the Matrix, a similar movie, read a book in this vein, etc: We could be all living in a simulation.
Apparently a new physics paper was published, which puts together a theory that if we are living in a simulation, then parts of the simulation could be added or deleted, that new underlying hardware could be added, etc. This would allow to explain why sometimes information is missing, such as the hypothesized "dark matter", which is not proven, but necessary to explain our current cosmos. Apparently there is itself not much more to this physics paper, and neither is to the PCGamer article.
The latter mentions Civ6 though:


If you're interested, then read the article here, and tell us if you're thinking you're ruled by Monty.
If you're not interested, then let us know how much you think this is probably junk .

*looks around*

Ugh, another MMORPG!

Like Eagle Pursuit already alluded to, if we are living in a simulation there is no reason to think it is a 4X, or to narrow it down to such a category in the first place. It would more likely be a combination of the Sims, Civ, and a myriad of very different games from very different genres. Plus, purely because it's a simulation, does not mean it would have to be a game. There might be no win / lose condition connected to the simulation. There might not even be an observer, or a goal.

Admittedly I am not a physicist, but I have never liked simulation theory for the same reason I don't like multiverse/alternate universe theory and its traction in popculture: an enormously gigantic claim, which would require a lot to even make it viable hypothesis, and doesn't actually explain a lot. Simulation theory doesn't even explain mechanisms ruling our universe or its creation, it just moves the problem further away from us. Ok sure man, we live in simulation. Can it be verified, do observations confirm it, or does math point at it, does it fill holes in our theories and offer better one, are there no simpler explanations etc. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary arguments.

The universe being 4X game doesn't make sense either - 4X games are too simple and too easy to understand in comparision

I thought that was the whole point of simulation theory. That it was "sort of / yes / offer a better one / no" to what you posed. But that's from me either listening too much to Brian Cox, or not enough. Also, I do not have any knowledge of this outside of what I listened to on podcasts, saw in documentaries, and read online. I am absolutely not a source and my response is purely a social engagement.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

As a theist, this basic concept tends to interest me; however I don't particularly like the use of the term "simulation". The implication being that the reality is somewhat similar to this one in appearance, yet it will simply be a much more full and complex one.
I tend to use the term "test" to describe the journey through this particular existence, towards enlightenment.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If it were a sim, all other armies than our own would suck at conducting wars.

 

[Ashbery76]

Nihilism just like all this sim stuff.

 

[Vandlys]

If it were a sim, all other armies than our own would suck at conducting wars.

That is entirely illogical. What is "our own" in this context? The US Army? What about anyone from England on this forum? What about Denmark? What about Poland?

Are you just saying that because you conflate 'sim' with Civ VI as ran by 1 player against AI?

 

[GIO888]

I think OP has something.

There's plenty of mountains with coal on we can't get at, for example.......

 

[GeneralZIft]

Physics paper suggests that Gandhi was a nuke warlord in another universe

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Admittedly I am not a physicist, but I have never liked simulation theory for the same reason I don't like multiverse/alternate universe theory and its traction in popculture: an enormously gigantic claim, which would require a lot to even make it viable hypothesis, and doesn't actually explain a lot. Simulation theory doesn't even explain mechanisms ruling our universe or its creation, it just moves the problem further away from us. Ok sure man, we live in simulation. Can it be verified, do observations confirm it, or does math point at it, does it fill holes in our theories and offer better one, are there no simpler explanations etc. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary arguments.

The universe being 4X game doesn't make sense either - 4X games are too simple and too easy to understand in comparision

Except even the multiverse theory has genuine credibility, as it serves as a helpful model in understanding some aspects of quantum mechanics, whereas it has been proven that it's physically impossible to simulate a universe as complex as ours or more with a computer, even if said computer was made with literally every atom in existence.

If this is an accurate representation of Dr. Vopson's belief, then I think it's utterly damning for his credibility: If, for instance, the value of a byte is changed from 10001000 to 00000000, there isn't any less information in the second state than in the first, merely different information; a "full" hard-drive doesn't contain any more information, computationally speaking, than an empty one, and Dr. Vopson's failure to understand this fundamental principle of computing bodes ill for his ability to discern computational patterns in the workings of the cosmos

This follows the same logic as believing the human body has a soul, simply because it loses a few grams of weight upon death.

 

[r16]

if people do not want to believe in a deity , they simply should not believe in one . Instead of inventing new "explanations" . There have truly amazing numbers of "unbelievers" with 100% correct morals and a sense of what's right and what's wrong . Let people follow their example instead time travel or paralel universes or simulation so you can sin without consequence .


and like why is this in VI forums ?