Well you are in a way, what is a simulation ? It's just a set of rules you follow that are simpler than the more complex environment that it runs in: I suppose if we could "see" "outside" the "universe", we'd understand that maybe our reality is very simple and limited compared to the "reality" outside. Maybe this would be true infinitely, or maybe the outside reality would be much more logical than ours, and we'd accept it's finite.
But since we have a beginning, and a flow of time, we probably also have a birth, a mother, and maybe even a purpose... but that's a very human way to think, might all just be random soup.
But imagine there's a self-aware agent in a simulation we create, he starts thinking the same thoughts, everyone mock him "we're all just random, there is no God, no design, how could so much energy be spent on such a useless giant block of empty space for any reason", he would have to sort of agree, but he would be sort of wrong. And discovering us, would bring him no solace: we can't tell him of our own designers ourselves. Discovering them, would bring us no solace either, for the same reason. That's why the concept of God is stupid: God has a God too, so what do we do now, solved no problem to accept His existence.
That concept of God is stupid, some are tautological, and some are experiential. Eg the concept of God is love (if you have faith in the concept and reality of love being real).
I think modern people have so much faith in this reality, they'd have little chance accepting that it is other than it seems. Any evidence would have to be stark.
Actually, physics supports the probability that we live in a simulation. Our universe has the highest limitation of speed and the smallest units of length and energy.
Neuroscience, psychology, public opinion polls, and internet forums demonstrate that we do.
The problem is, the nature of this style of simulation, as opposed to the Bostrom theory ("the" simulation theory (singular, there can be only one)), makes it (nearly) impossible to realize.
This is both tragic and hilarious, especially since we have extensive knowledge of this flaw.
When thinking about this one, I always wonder if it even matters.. playing both "Yes" and "No" scenarios doesn't really offer any insight for me. Maybe it's a degree of nihilism but it makes me not get overwhelmed.
God created electromagnetism as a way to transmit power between the fusion plant and its simulated planet, and is now delighted that we also use it to trade Pokemons back and forth.
We are at brink of starting another World War.
Climate change is only accelerating.
Pandemic is not over yet.
Is it only me or does future look gloomy? I'll set a low bar, as long as we don't kill enough skilled workers (pick your flavor of annihilation) we, humans, should be able to carry on trajectory of technical evolution even if world order changes in next few decades.
No it's not just you and as a 40-something sci-fi fan I feel like I've neglected the basics to pursue a Star Trek-ish post singularity dream. My lesson? You can't ignore politics. Not ever. You can't ignore the environment. Not for a generation or three. Working towards a techno-utopia is fine, as a sideline. It cannot and should not be your primary focus, or the real world can and will turn to shit while you're not looking.
The fact that vaccination rates remain as low as they are is one of the most convincing arguments I've ever heard that we, as humanity, have done messed up.
Wars between autocrats and an inability to conceive of the damage your actions will take on long future generations (it's more immediate now but a lot of folks are still stuck in this mindset) all pale in comparison to "Hey, we just discovered that you'll die if you don't eat a baked potato in the next week" and getting the response "Hey - what's with all these free potatoes all the sudden, is the state of idaho lobbying the government? What is the hidden tuber agenda? My friend ate a turnip - that was enough for his grandfather! I've heard that potatoes can be used to power world-ending test executing AIs - I don't want that in my digestive system!"
"And finally, if you're interested in supporting this kind of thing financially, I did set up a Patreon account with the goal of trying to turn this into a potential career of an independent researcher, not tied to any institution necessarily, but just being able to continue doing the research and the teaching the work that I do, perhaps writing books, and the second edition of my current book is potentially in the works."
I am with you but you missed a key issue of comparison: granularity.
Unix Epoch is by definition at granularity of seconds.
How do you compare 2 epochs where one is in seconds while other in milliseconds. We sort of end up in same comparison game.
I wonder how did this really happen?
I mean, mountains don't move, at least not the the timescale of a submarine's motion:
1. Don't submarine use some form of radars to figure what's around then and where are they headed?
2. Assuming there were radars, were there no alarms or were the alarms ignored?
> Don't submarine use some form of radars to figure what's around then and where are they headed?
No. Radar is basically useless under water (many submarines do have surface search radar available, but that wouldn't help), and while they have sonar it breaks stealth and is usually used tactically, and with a very specific cause, not as a continuous interrogation of the environment.
> Don't submarine use some form of radars to figure what's around then and where are they headed?
No. When submerged they rely on navigation charts (with higher than normal bathymetric details), passive sonar, and their navigation instruments. A submerged submarine blasting out active radar and sonar to determine its position wouldn't be very stealthy.
Not every part of every ocean has complete bathymetric details. Seamounts don't necessarily move but undersea volcanos can grow in size significantly in short periods of time. A change in a few meters height can make last year's chart inaccurate today.
There are several circumstances where submarines don't actually use their sonar. They have it, but a submarine that is pinging is easily identified / tracked.
The underlying question is why they were in an area that hadn't been adequately mapped.
When evading, sometimes you have to leave the safe zone. OpFor will probably be familiar with safe operating areas and limit search zones. Would a USS Captain risk the boat by leaving uncharted areas to avoid detection? Just an idea of why.
Just to add to what others said. If a submarines uses its sonar enemies can hear it. They can also save the subs unique signature and then use it later to identify it. You don’t want an enemy to know where and who you are.
Wow! If we can go from code to diagram, can we also go the other way?
It'll be awesome if I can draw seq. diagrams for my service and code gets generated from it.
There's not much to verify there. They claim they got a way to use electromagnetic time crystals as an electromagnetic sensor. It's not an extraordinary claim, but they don't exactly say how either, so we can't check.
And if they improve their sensor into something that seems viable, it would be good at detecting the minuscule fields that some candidate dark matter particles should create very rarely when they interact with something. Maybe becoming a better detector for them than the current state of the art (this, I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion_Dark_Matter_Experiment).
The keyword you want to look for is 'ultra light bosonic dark matter'. This search is legit.
This paper will send you almost in the right direction. The coupling is different, but the rest of the physics is the same: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.06165
No idea about the veracity of it, but it sounds almost like it's a dark matter/gravitational analogue to the piezo electric effect. That's a very interesting idea, it'd create a signal from a dark matter partical (assuming they are particals) interacting gravitationally and disrupting the crystal temporarily.
