• cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Do “they” ever intervene or do you think its strictly regulated, like double-blind or whatever?

    Like do you think they actually do or can pick favorites (protagonists/main characters) or is it way more sterile?

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If it’s truly meant as a simulation, then intervening in any way would go against the purpose of the simulation.

      Just think about how we run our simulations. We give the computer parameters about the “real” world because we’re interested in the results. If our entire world is a simulation, amongst other simulations, then intervening would ruin the simulation.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Checkpointing interesting points in simulations and rerunning with modified parameters happens literally all the time

        Especially weather / climate / geology and medicine

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They’re re-run, though. You don’t change the parameters in the middle of the simulation. That goes against the point of simulating something.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You don’t rerun everything from scratch. Especially weather simulations can be checkpointed at places you have high certainty, and keep running forks after that point with different parameters. This is extremely common with for example trying to predict wind patterns during forest fires, you simulate multiple branches of possible developments in wind direction, humidity, temperature, etc. If the parameters you test don’t cover every scenario that is plausible you might sometimes engineer it into the simulation just to see the worst case scenario, for example.

            And in medicine, especially computational biochemistry you modify damn near everything

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              You’re confusing simulations of specific events with a simulation environment. If our universe is simulated, then it’s unlikely that the creators of the simulation would be interested in the individual occurrences you’re describing. The universe is what’s being studied, not the happenings inside of it.

              • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Simulations of boats in water don’t care about what’s happening to the water much of the time yet it needs to be there, you seem to be way too confident in your conclusions

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You’re still confusing a simulation of a specific event with a simulation of a universe. If you’re simulating a boat in the water, you need the water but you don’t need to build an entire ocean with fish and land near the water and buildings on the land. You just build what you need to simulate. We are clearly in a much larger simulation than one that would simulate an event.

                  • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If you don’t know what they’re testing that could certainly seem excessive. But failure of imagination doesn’t prove it’s impossible, although you can argue it’s unlikely