Greentext

7892 readers

471 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

401

Anon thinks we're being bamboo-zled (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If you mean the paper saying it can't be a simulation because the universe has true randomness, which can't be created in software: we ourselves do in fact have true randomness in software, by capturing it from the environment via hardware sensors for fluctuations in temperature and such.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a source for this claim?

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

For what claim?

If you mean the fact that we have true randomness, just read about how secure random number generators work, like urandom. It's not some industry secret, they're in every computer and likely every smartphone out there, and have been around for twenty years at least.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That having true randomness in machines means the study is debunked?

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If we're talking about the same thing, then afaik their whole claim is that we aren't in a simulation, because we have true randomness which can't be created in software. But it's not necessary to create true randomness in software to have it in said software.

Although I haven't read the full paper, and am going off what people wrote about it in comments.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you haven't read it. Why should I trust your opinion?

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Then don't trust it, what the fuck is it to me.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I love this answer, it tells me a lot of positive things about you.

It also tells me that like me you are oh so weary.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Btw, it's obvious from your questions that you haven't read the paper either, so this whole thread seems like pointless wankery.

[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

I am also oh so weary