• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    The purpose is to observe our behavior and how we react to stimuli. And it’s not that it’s “correct”, it’s just that it requires no intervention. If it’s “real”, then it was started by an outside force and is being observed like a Petri dish amongst other simulations.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 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
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 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.