Sayonara

Well it's not really mine, hence why it's not called the Sayonara Equation. The necessity of that equation comes from the fact that you have to work with species probabilities, and is not anything to do with the mechanics of simulation technology (which, again, are not relevant to the question really) but rather to do with the actual discussion. By "tiny" I am assuming you mean "compared to something an awful lot bigger".

It's a formula that is used to predict the emergence rate / prevalence of communicative sentient races in the galaxy (N): N = R * Fp * Ne * Fl * Fi * Fc * L R - Rate of formation of suitable stars in our galaxy (number per year) Fp - Fraction (percentage) of those stars with planets Ne -Number of "earths" per planetary system Fl - Fraction (percentage) of those planets where life develops Fi - Fraction (percentage) of sites with intelligent life Fc - Fraction (percentage) of planets where technology develops L - "Lifetime" of communicating civilizations (years) The question of how much work the simulator has to do depends on to what level we are assuming our civilisation is simulated. The system in the Matrix (which, by the way, I think is bollocks. I mean the system itself could work, but not for or because of any of the reasons given in the film) got off light because all it had to do was present the external stimuli of "being in a world". This philosopher chap who wrote the article, however, seems to be assuming 100% simulation - that is, no bodies anywhere - just data controlled externally. Kind of a circular argument.

That's only a factor to his equations if you can show the probability of such a device being built by a race before they became extinct, and the probability that such a computer would be used for that purpose if constructed. Neither of which make any of my additional possibilities invalid. I think the Drake equation might end up coming into this... groan.

This thread isn't here to discuss what's in your head, it's here to discuss that article. As it is. I suggest you make a thread about the potential for simulated realities in the computing forum, because it's clearly something you have given a great deal of thought.

I cite your above posts as evidence. You really are a complete muppet, aren't you? I understand the points about computers, and simulation being a matter of processing power. However when you get to the level of processing required to simulate an entire civilisation -- and not just the frills such as water, light and blossom, but the essential shit like SELF AWARENESS, IMAGINATION and EMOTION, and transient self-propogating information like data, metadata and so forth -- you end up with mass and energy requirements that give you a computer the size of a small star. It is you who misunderstands what is going on, because for the nth time I am not saying that such technology is impossible per se, I am saying that the article relies on a state where no civilisation capable of such technological feats could exist as anything but a simulation, which is clearly nonsense. When you read my comments like the one about the computational power required to simulate a civilisation not being possible, it helps if you don't choose to ignore key words like "possibility" and "may not be".

So you don't actually have any arguments or reasoning then? Just a burning, inexplicable desire to let us all know what you think you should be entitled to? I suggest you read the thread. Most of what you are... proposing has already come up.

I'm saying "wtf" because of your complete lack of ability to recognise the scope of this discussion. I strongly suggest you drop this line of approach.

Yes, whereas you'll notice I managed to stay spectacularly on-topic. Your criticisms and misunderstanding of the scientific method, and references to your so-called "gravity theory" which provides no new mechanism, are irrelevant to this discussion and wouldn't allow you to disregard logic even if they were relevant. You're forcing me to invest a lot of time in this joke of a discussion. Demosthenes can tell you how much of a good idea that is. Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out. That's not so much "science cheating" as it is you again failing to understand how theories work.

No, that is not what I am saying. Furthermore, you will not hijack this thread for your unfounded gravity imaginings.

Wtf?

See, that's the problem. The theory seems to be correct with the 3 choices. The theory is the inevitable consequence if and only if those are the only possibilities, as is suggested, but they are not. The author has created an artificial set of constraints that return his answer as the only possible one. Hence: pseudoscience.

I KNOW. If you are going to argue with me it might help if you familiarised yourself with the discussion as it was prior to your involvement, instead of just the bit that interests you. Try looking at the logical fallacy in the original proposal that inadvertantly renders impossible the very simulation it is propounding.

Giant man-eating space carrots are possible, but we don't simply assume they exist.

See Pinch, I knew you know about the method. I agree: pseudoscience.

Hello, this is the Modern and Theoretical Physics forum.

You might want to provide a reason.

Can't I just have the goat?

I notice you didn't get around to answering his question.

What makes you think a good smack in the face or a swift introduction to a baseball bat won't be just as effective? It'll certainly mean less trouble. I take it burglary is not a problem where you live then. ANYBODY has the potential to end an intruder's life, not just people with guns. I'm guessing there are few burglars who don't imagine they'll ever face mortal danger. Would you mind stating why that's ludicrous? Bearing in mind that something being legal doesn't mean it's all super and great. Strawman. Nobody said there was anything wrong with it, the question is "why do you need something so dangerous as an automatic weapon".

As far as phasers and disruptors go, they don't actually deliver that much power. They are designed to induce an effect that's kind of a chain reaction.

The exact point where your argument loses any credibility. I also think Godwin's law should be expanded to include the matrix.

And you are misunderstanding what I said. Fine. Then provide a model that demonstrates a simulator capable of providing 6 billion aspects of reality, the wrinkle of every leaf, the curve of every smile and the wave of every blade of grass. Show how raw processor power can be harnessed to represent emotional context and all the myriad nuances of individuality, the slightest reaction to a stimulus already lost to time, the power of ambition's draw and the chaos of broken reason. Show me a model of a system that can do this on a planetary scale and then you will actually have evidence instead of rhetoric. Incidentally, this is all beside the point since the "3 options", as quoted from the article, are artificial constraints.

Not a civilisation by any measure. Pseudoscience at its worst. The Modern/Theoretical Physics thread is not for "any old ideas that don't need to take current models into account", it is for Modern and Theoretical Physics. Spam this thread with useless nonsense and you'll get warnings.

That's right.

I think they made it up. Iirc it's some kind of subatomic entity.