Scientist Suggests We Explore 'Universe is a VR Simulation' Theory 1144
holy_calamity writes "A New Zealand physicist has written a paper saying that physicists should seriously explore the possibility the universe is a giant virtual reality simulation. He says that the existence of quantum phenomena could be due to the underlying digital nature of the simulation and also claims his VR hypothesis can explain relativity, the big bang and more. It should be possible to perform experiments to prove the hypothesis too. He reasons that if reality was to do something that information processing cannot, then it cannot be virtual."
1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Philosophers have been pondering this nonsense for centuries, and have gotten nowhere...It's an argumentative blackhole, a solipsim. It's not testable...his "testable" experiments are like the sort of thing you see an idiot do to try and demonstrate that they have free will (e.g. "See? I just punched myself in the face, no way would anyone make me do that, so I must have free will!") If our reality is virtual, then all data is suspect, and it would be impossible to trust any sort of experimental data. Even if you come up with a clever test that would pierce the illusion, one would have to assume whoever maintains the illusion would simply fix it so that didn't work a second time. Nothing would be repeatable.
It's just not a useful avenue for speculation. This guy brings nothing new to the table except the kinda crap the ID people bring..."Hey, if the universe was a simulation, it would explain why everything tastes like chicken!" Just because there is no currently workable theory for some occurrence, there is no reason to invent a wild explanation that just makes it go away.
Without some compelling proof (which he lacks) this is nothing more than a conversational topic over a bag of weed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you believe some programmer in a 'higher' level of reality created this one, doesn't mean you don't believe he did it with rules that we see as the Laws of Nature. You can still investigate those Laws and try to figure them out.
This is different from the ID crowd, who apparently feel that 'God did it' means you actively refuse to even think about the rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i can't see believing in god as something that can withstand simple questions.
i mean, if the life on earth is too complex to have originated on itself and somebody created it, then that how did that somebody come to be ? did somebody else create him (and why not her
if somebody else, we get into a loop, where we still have to break out at some point.
if not, then there can be no scientific, critical thinking that could accept the "he just exists, you may not question that".
so
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Flamebait mod unfair (Score:3, Interesting)
The flamebait mod of the parent was unfair. Yahweh would be a scary, immoral bastard if he were real. Thank non-god he isn't. Silly theists, myths are for kids!
If a book is of divine revelation, does that not mean that it has to be true in its entirety? Christians do not follow many of the practices talked about in the Old Testament, and, in fact, would be abhor many of them if they were to take place in modern times.
The fact that Christians pick and choose which verses to incorporate into their moral c
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:4, Interesting)
You also do not have to believe "you may not question that" to believe "He just exists." You can easily believe that you can question it all you want - but a) questioning it doesn't make it less true and b) the fact that you can't get good answers to your questions right now doesn't make it less true. Maybe someday we'll know the answers to those questions, maybe not. Maybe our piddly little brains just aren't capable of comprehending whatever it is that created God, so we can physically never know.
God isn't threadsafe. (Score:3)
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:4, Interesting)
There are reasonable people on both sides of the question of god's existence. In this case, the issue is one of causality. Specifically, the "it's watchmakers all the way up" fails because it posits an infinite series of causes.
We exist right now at a point in the series of causation. But an infinite series cannot be traversed, so the infinite series of watchmakers cannot lead us to any present we are part of.
This doesn't connote necessarily the existence of god. It does mandate at some point a cause which is uncaused, non-contingent and necessarily existing as the foundation of existence, but there is no purely logical reason that says a higher order universe cannot have these attributes.
The idea that what we experience as the universe is a VR simulation really doesn't advance the question about ultimate being at all, it just moves it down (or up) one layer.
Ultimately, though, since all we know and experience is both caused and contingent (including the universe itself) there must be something uncaused and non-contingent behind it. Non-being cannot give rise to being, so self-creation is out as well. Again, this doesn't on purely logical grounds have to be god, and even if one suggests that god is the ground of being this sort of argumentation doesn't come anywhere near proving the existence of any particular god.
In my own case I am a theist, but I have reasonable friends who disbelieve on reasonable grounds (I also have both theistic and atheistic friends who are unreasonable - I hope I'm not falling into that camp by this post). Hope this helps a bit at least to clarify the implications of the concept of causality.Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you have to be "pissed off"? Why not just let people believe what they want and go on with your life?
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:5, Insightful)
Stipulating that some god or goddess or pantheon exists, please provide proof (or even a little evidence) that your religious views won't doom yourself and everyone who listens to you to eternal torment.
The thing about statements that can't be falsified is that they have 0 predictive power. True or false, it doesn't matter: no reason to care.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. You shall have no gods but me.
2. Worship me or go to hell.
Pascal's wager won't help you here!
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:5, Funny)
I once had a very similar experience after drinking a bottle of Robitussin.
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:5, Insightful)
Hallucinations are hallucinations. It doesn't matter if they're induced by illegal drugs, abused products (like the DXM in Robitussin, the nitrous oxide in whipped cream cans, or other of thousands of abused products), lack of sleep, or lack of oxygen to the brain, they're all still hallucinations.
A few that have been passed on to me have been...
Are they giant purple lizards crawling along the roof tops, following you around?
Separating from your body, having your spirit become one with the universe, being everywhere, and then thinking to yourself, "I had a body once. I wonder what that was like..." only to be slammed back into reality a few seconds later.
The ceiling turning into a gridwork, then the cells of the grid being filled with green paisley patterns, which all began to spin simultaniously. The sound of the music turned into taste and color, and your body becomes one with the waves of music.
Or..
Lying in a bed, a dark spirit floats above you, with an evil face, and large tattered black wings, who simply says "it's not your time yet", and then disappears.
Some people relate that when hallucinating, they are easily guided into their hallucination, either through ideas that have been impressed upon them before, or during the hallucination. "Are those ants all over your body??". We've all heard of the floating spirit hallucination, and the light at the end of the tunnel hallucination. Since those have been so impressed on us as the way it's going to be, it's very easy for that to be a driving factor in such hallucinations.
In my only near death experiences, I saw
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the Vatican is starting to back Evolution. Not all Christ-lovers are insanely trying to get ID accepted as science.
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:5, Informative)
This statement annoys me. I've seen it on various evolution websites, like it was news. The Vatican has backed evolution since the 1950's, but it seems that no one outside the religion got the memo. In the "Humani Generis," encyclical (a letter from the Pope to the rest of us) released in 1950, Pope Pius XII states "The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI (the current pope) have also made statements in support of evolution. The Vatican hasn't started to back evolution, it does and has for quite some time.
All research taken from Wikipedia.
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:4, Insightful)
Preconceived my ass. Religion has always put God at the limit of scientific knowledge, and so was always threatened by scientific advance, and both Galileo and Darwin know a thing or two about that. The mysteries explained by science are the source of wonder that people are supposed to take as blinding evidence of bearded friends in the sky. Take away the mystery and you suddenly get a bunch of embarrassed preachers left holding their dicks and looking confused. I'm tired of reading this thread and seeing how everybody is making the astute observation that not all christians are "extreme" like ID nutjobs. Well guess what guys, your extreme is yesterday's norm. Every time science collides with some religious "belief" about the universe, it takes a while to convince the clergy to come up with some half-assed explanation of how "abstract" the biblical account actually is(we're not orbited by the sun after all, sorry) and how there really is no problem in the least. And the honest few who still cling to the words handed down to them (from people who are more religious than this generation, and who will go to heaven for believing in these ideas) are called "extreme". These are people who lived and died by the books you're talking about, and who would call YOU heretics. What kind of sick deity would think up this sort of scenario?
In fact, science has covered so much ground today that "rational" christians are forced to reduce godly activity to a bare minimum of meta-physical abstraction. They talk "first causes" and quantum behavior and other cute topics, because that's where the knowledge (god did it!) barrier lies. And as soon as the next breakthrough happens, the rhetoric will change.
I normally do not care to excite emotions by attacking the beliefs that make people happy. I honestly don't care if someone thinks we are here because a snake covinced a woman in a garden in the sky to make her man eat from a magical tree, or that the millions of other religions (and sects of those religions) are going to suffer eternal damnation in Hell because of technical differences in their version of the story about the deity that is playing The Sims with us as characters. Believe what you want. Have a blast. Drinks are on the house. That's what freedom is all about.
But all the nonsense posted here today needed reality check. You are trying to be more rational than the books you follow. Religion is at odds with science because religion depends on ignorance as "evidence" for its outrageous claims, and science has always suffered, and continues to suffer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your second paragraph, however, does not follow at all. There's simply no need implied by science, to automatically ask who created God. If there was, then back when science took the Steady State theory seriously, it would have been automatically rejected as unscientific. Since there's no "before the steady state" in that model, there's no meaning in asking what that before was like. People ask what was before the
Re: it's programmed to be this way (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, Evolution was banned because it contradicted the written word of God... in 1925. Evolution is right, not because it opposes religion, but because it has been repeatedly tested by comparing evidence with predictions of the theory.
Arguments that oppose Evolution also oppose verifiable observations, and must be discarded because they are wrong. You can claim religions persecution for being locked out of science class when you want to insist that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the sky is red at night and green during the day. Good luck with that.
The only fundamental difference between the two is that Evolution is a testable and tested scientific theory backed up by over a century of evidence, while ID is rehashed creationism, a religions belief contradicted by evidence and illegal (and unwise) to teach in public school science classrooms.
One final clue: Evolution does not speak at all to the origin of life.
Re: (Score:3)
Read much of evolution theory? Evolution is not fundamentally a random process. DNA Mutation happens all the time. Some put it at 17 mutations per person per generation [0catch.com]. Pit that against billions of years of time, and the common-sense notion that some variations ensure their own survival (survival of the fittest), and voila, you have evolution at its grad scale.
May I suggest the book Climbing Mount Improbable [amazon.com] for a better/more complete explanation.
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Informative)
A much more lucid and convincing discussion of these ideas is presented by Max Tegmark in his paper "The Mathematical Universe" (preprint available here [arxiv.org]). In it, he discusses this idea of whether we could detect being inside a virtual reality and provides arguments for why there may be no meaningful difference between a "simulation of reality" and "reality itself". His overall argument, that the universe may be fundamentally mathematical, is quite interesting, and again he provides some means by which we could determine to what extent his arguments actually apply to our universe. Worth a read.
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume that the Universe is a VR simulation running on some machine. What we experience as time is a sequence of calculations produced by this machine. We are only aware of those parts of the calculation which the simulation specifically makes us aware of. No experiment can prove or disprove this because the calculations which the VR machine makes need not be 1-to-1 with our experiences. For example, the VR machine could 'suspend' the reality simulation while it performs some complex task, and we would be none the wiser.
Further, since the sum of our existence is contained within the VR simulation, and it can be paused OR ALTERED at will, the VR simulation could self-correct for any flaw we discover by simply rewriting the memories of any experiences we had, or deleting and replaying that part of the simulation with different variables. Again, since our experience is wholly under the control of the simulation, we again would be none the wiser.
Finally, since all information within the VR machine is controlled by the VR machine, any experiment we design is itself fully under the control of the VR machine. All data we perceive is perceived because the VR machine has elected to let us perceive it. Ergo, no experiment we could produce would allow us to discern the reality of the VR machine unless it chose to reveal itself to us.
There is nothing new here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does this every instant of every day. This makes Pastafarianism logically sound while other religions are a mass of contradictions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the failure of reconciling the metaphysical with the physical. I agree with you completely. There is no way for us to remove ourselves from the universe at large to observe it. Whitworth is not a scientist when he speaks of this. He is a philosopher exploring metaphysics and ontology.
I can come up with a number of theories about reality myself, and without being able to experiment on them they are just as valid. Therefore I propose that the universe we experience is really just the eye of an aether system. Once you get beyond the aether, it really is turtles all the way down. That's just as valid, without relevant experimentation, as the universe being a vr sim. Metaphysics is cool and all, but just don't call it science or its practitioners scientists.
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no! He's on to something. Consider this example:
When routing TCP/IP packets, the best available software algorithms are tree-based. You step down the branches of the tree until you find the most specific route known for the destination address. Its O(log n).
However, if you step out of the software universe running on a general-purpose computer, you can design a hardware device called a "TCAM." A TCAM is a special kind of static ram where a request is processed across all cells in the same cycle in order to produce the best match. Not only does it return a routing decision in O(1), it returns that decision in exactly one clock cycle.
Now, we could describe how a TCAM works within software and we could even simulate it but the simulation would run in O(n) because the simulation would have to activate each cell in sequence instead of activating all cells at once the way a real TCAM does.
So the challenge for detecting whether we're in a virtual reality is this: find a mathematical problem which is conceptually simple (e.g. factoring the product of large primes) but which we know to be hard ( O(x^n) ) and then construct a simulation of a finite ur-universe in which the problem is easy. The simulation itself won't run any faster than the best known factoring algorithms but it would be able to prove that given the physical rules of the ur-universe the factoring would have completed in O(1).
Successfully constructing such a simulation wouldn't prove that we're actually in a virtual reality, but proving that such a simulation can't be constructed would prove that we're not. Thus the theory is falsifiable. Thus it is science, not philosophy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I think your argument fails is that no scientific theory can have the kind of certainty that would prove beyond doubt that w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then I pause the emulator for three days of 'my' time; no time has passed in the game.
Given what we know about software and what not, first and foremost - assuming we are all just a VR simulation, intentionally trying to cras
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about "The fact that the universe could be a VR simulation doesn't mean that we should suspect it is"? That's the real root of the problem; there is zero evidence the universe is anything other than it appears to be.
As soon as you start saying, "Well this could be a simulation" then you have to throw out all knowledge that comes to you through sense data. ALL
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Insightful)
Diversity of effort in science is good. This guy has a diverse approach to trying to understand the universe. He also says some interesting things and is looking for predictive qualities in his theory. That's good.
The problem is that we know nearly nothing about what simulations "have to be" or "cannot be" in the case of a system advanced enough to simulate our universe. So he might have a long road ahead of him. But it's an approach worth pursuing, if damn difficult to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And the answer to the equation is, of course, 42.
And bugs in the simulation produce magic. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hear hear!
One interesting avenue for speculation: What if there are bugs in the simulation? Perhaps algorithmic, perhaps the equivalent of the "pentium floating-point bug" or the lack of denormals in the Weitek floating-point acceleration coprocessor chip that was used in the
not quite a paradox but.. (Score:3, Informative)
just an old idea with a simple scifi twist
Re:not quite a paradox but.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yup. Just turtles, all the way down
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you write a computer program with certain restraints, that certainly does not mean that those restraints apply to you outside of that program.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not be surprised at all to learn that reality is a simulation. Many of my brethren seem to be bots, executing fairly simple scrip
I disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
Do such problems exist? Well, chaos theory is full of them. You cannot have a system that is truly chaotic and computable at the same time - the two are mutually exclusive. Both are deterministic, but only one is predictable.
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the absence of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you can prove this, of course. Let's rephrase this to be more realistic and correct:
All currently known computers can ultimately be related to the classical Turing Machine
That being said, your general argument is of course an allusion to von Neumann's quote "Anyone attempting to produce random numbers by purely arithmetic means is, of course, in a state of sin." - saying basically that since the universe contains true randomness, it cannot be the pro
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
While this isn't the main point of your comment, I should call a red card on your reference to chaos theory, determinism, and predictability. First of all, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "deterministic". If a system is deterministic, then by definition it is, at least at some level, predictable. In terms of physics, the alternative to a deterministic system is a probabilistic system (which is the general interpretation of quantum mechanics). But even probabilistic systems are predictable to a degree (one can predict the probability of certain outcomes).
But when one talks of chaos theory, and a chaotic system, this has nothing to do with its predictability. A chaotic system is in fact predictable. The 'chaos' label refers to the system's sensitivity to initial conditions. But given a set of initial conditions, the later dynamics of that system can be computed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you distinguish a deterministic system governed by a non-comp
Testability is irrelevant. (Score:3, Insightful)
Put simply, let's suppose you do prove that it's a simulation. You write a paper about it, and you publish it in a major scientific journal.
Fine, then the simulation notices. It subtly alters your results, inserting fnords [wikipedia.org] (which really work, as they can directly control anyone's brain) into every published copy, and altering everyone's memory to suggest that your experiment had either failed utter
Re:I disagree (Score:4, Interesting)
As for your question, yes, there is a classic example of a deterministic-but-not-computable system. However, it is not chaotic. I will describe it anyway, just to be cool. The system is as follows:
Let A(n,s) be a random algorithm that operates on the input, integers n and s. Let t be number for the current state. (If you are on the 1000th iteration in time of the system, t is 1000.)
The system has one binary variable, s.
The state at any given time t is defined by:
If A(t-1,s(t-1)) halts, s=1 at time t; s=0 otherwise.
As you can see from the description, each state t is fully determined by the previous state, s(t-1). Therefore, it is deterministic. However, there exists no algorithm that can tell you if an arbitrary algorithm, for an arbitrary input, halts. (That is the famous Halting Theorem.) Therefore, you cannot compute it.
Okay, I might have gotten the system a bit wrong...
Re:I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called the Church Turing Thesis [wikipedia.org]
They haven't even invented quantum computers yest, and if by "neural network" you mean livingbrain tissue, you're flat wron, and it's based on facts, not speculation. The brain is a chemical process using various mixes of chemical. Thought, sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, are nothing more than a complex chemical reactions.
Right, and all those chemical reactions are defined by laws of physics. The same laws of physics that govern the computers we all know and love. What is it that makes you think computers can't be implemented with chemistry?
If brains were turing machines than dogs could do math.
Wow. To paraphrase Charles Babbage, I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.
First off, what makes you think that dogs don't do math? Just think about their brains controlling their muscles. Somehow they have to be calculating how much neuronal stimulation to apply to a muscle to get the desired amount of force. Isn't that math?
Secondly, what would make you think that dogs being an implementation of a computer implies that they would be able to consciously do math? You've got your logical levels hideously confused. Have you ever seen the animal simulation toy program "Dogz"? I don't think there's any question that that dog is an algorithm. But can it do math?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So? You can make mechanical computers, even hydraulic computers. The physical substrate doesn't matter.
And I imagine you could make a chemical computer, but it woudn't necessarily be a Turing archetecture.
You just don't understand Turing equivalence. Any algorithm anywhere ever imagined by anyone can be implemented on a turing machine. If you can express a process as an algorithm, as you can chemical reactions, then the same algorithm can be implemented on a turing machine
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Err... actually it's pretty blurry, chemical reactions are the results of electrical charge between atoms, and the human brain is actually a lot more digital than you might think, with each neuron being not too dissimilar to transitors... they have gates that get opened, which allows ions to flow into the neuron, which changes its potential (overall charge). When its charge reaches a certain level, it will fire. Equivalent would be a transistor with multiple connections att
oblig alpha centauri (Score:3, Funny)
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:4, Informative)
Not necessarily. As a developer, when you run a bunch of testcases, if you find a bug, you don't halt everything in the debugger and fix the bug immediately, you just wait until it's all over, fix the bug, and re-start the test run. If this guy's theory is correct, then I would assume that any such flaws would persist until the end of our universe and then get fixed for the next one.
Personally, when I first read about the double-slit experiment, it reminded me of short-circuiting in if statements, so I can see the appeal of this line of thought. But I think it's silly to purposefully investigate it rather than simply wait and see what we can deduct from the ToE, if and when we figure it out.
Er, that's exactly how science is supposed to work. You don't have a theory for some occurrence, so you invent an explanation, you don't have proof, so you perform experiments to get evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
False. You can do experiments within virtual worlds to determine the rules under which it operates, just like you can in the real world. For example, in second life, if you don't RTFM, you can still do scientific tests with your avatars to learn the internal physics of that virtual world.
Even if you come up with a clever test that would pierce the illusion, one would have to assume whoeve
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When I'm running a simulation, I don't change the "rules" in mid-run if it goes wonky, I kill it & re-start after fixing the problem. So let's not run this particular experiment, m'kay?
Re:1637 called, they want their idea back. (Score:5, Funny)
That, or they call it a "feature".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No meaningful argument *against* simulism either (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but it seems like a distinct possibility. Who among us would not set up such a simulation if we had the capability? And who among us, watching the progress of technology over recent decades, seriously doubts that we will soon have the capability to se
Before we explore this theory... (Score:5, Funny)
*cough*
Ok, ready!
A question... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, and this guy won! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahhh good shield...
Uh oh detecting anomolies... Captain we need to reroute power from the phasers & the warp drives to the shield deflectors.
Make it so.
Ahhh it worked. Good job!
K now that my Karma is safe... Please understand what I mean.
Philosophical, unprovable arguements are by nature not worth more than discussion, and can not by nature lead to any outcome other than heated debate, War, or in this guys situation, a bad case of the munchies. I totally agree that this is like a conversation over a bowl of weed after watching the Matrix.
Personally, I believe in God because of certain situations in my life where I should have died or been seriously injured but was preppared by a "voice." But if god is just a program to inject thoughts in my head that save my life, then my belief in God is still valid, because from my perspective that program IS GOD.
Secondly if this is a VR sim, than there must be some Reality sufficiently advanced to where we could get replicated in RL from our VR selves after we proved our worth here! (another reason to be good!)
Exploitable bugs could be very valuable. (Score:3, Interesting)
However if the simulation is buggy it could lead to some useful special-cases in the (simulated) natural laws. "Special cases" that violate, say, conservation of momentum, or mass/energy, or a host of other stuff. Think of the technologies you could build on exploiting such bugs: Free power. Teleportation. Duplication of organized matter. Etc.
Such bugs might have a form that
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is just like playing virtual ski ball!
Re:A question... (Score:5, Funny)
Vacation (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://infocom.elsewhere.org/gallery/amfv/amfv.html [elsewhere.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Although, perhaps, the "point" of the simulation/experiment is to evolve intelligence to a given (as yet unknown) level.
Consider that there are between 200 and 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, 27 galaxies (IIRC) in our local group alone and (probably) over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. That's a lot of opportunity for all kinds of interesting things to happen over 13+ billion yea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
there is a scientific explanation for this (Score:4, Funny)
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Score:4, Insightful)
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7 (Subject termination advised)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Academician Prokhor Zakharov
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"
Proving that... (Score:4, Insightful)
the Off switch (Score:3, Funny)
The entity[ies] running the simulation created it to find out whether their creations could work out that they're in a simulation. As soon as we come up with a definite proof, they will have achieved the goals of the simulation, and will shut it down.
Possibly.
Or they might just replace it with something even more baffling.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It will never work.. (Score:3, Funny)
Space is big, you may think it is a log way to the Chemists but that is just peanuts compared to space.
And just how we simulate the computer running the simulation of the universe in the simulated universe?
The price of RAM will go through the roof.
mathimatical basis for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a posthuman stage.
2. any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).
3. we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become post-humans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.
It all breaks down to probability...if any "post-human" species with enough computer power to model our universe down to the quantum level decides to run Sim-like models, there would almost assuredly be many many simulations run. Now, it might require a computer the size of a small planet to run the estimated 10^42 ops/second that modeling our universe may require, but it is not totally unbelievable that 200-500 years from now we, as a species, will harness this type of computer power.
The real problem is...who cares? Even if it were possible to discover this "truth" what difference would it make in our lives?
Simulating the universe (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need a computer the size of the universe to model the universe. You just need a computer the size of the universe to model the universe *in real time.*
Not to turn this into a religious debate, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bad science. Hell, it's not science.
Trippy, duuude (Score:5, Interesting)
He is NOT a physicist (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwiims/people/b.whitworth/ [massey.ac.nz]
Here are his degrees: BSc (Maths), BA (Psych), MA (Hons), IS Doctorate
Masters Thesis: Brian Systems and the Concept of Self
PhD Thesis: Generating Group Agreement in Cooperative Computer Mediated Groups
He also suggests that our universe could be running on a "three-dimensional space-time screen", which doesn't make any sense given that space-time is 4 dimensional. The verbiage on page 2 of his paper continues to make it clear that besides not having any formal training in physics, he seems to only have a layperson's understanding of the modern physical concepts that would be needed to begin to make a coherent argument on this topic. The idea isn't total crap, but this guy does not seem qualified to champion it.
Oh great, we're doomed (Score:4, Funny)
God: Hmmmm.....15.5 billion years? Took them long enough.
Tech: Yes sir. Shall I transfer them over with the other sentients?
God: What's the status of the species that figured it out?
Tech: They call themselves "Humans" sir, a bipedal mammalian race. They've been out of the trees for a few hundred thousand years so far, can control fission but not fusion, only live for about 100 years, and have just recently had unmanned spacecraft pierce their own solar system.
God: Good Me, is that it? What the hell have they been doing this whole time?
Tech: Mostly fighting amongst themselves judging by their media.
God: Yes, I see. Nasty little buggers aren't they? No, we can't risk contaminating the other sentients with this lot, schedule the universe for wiping and reload the OS. Let's go ahead and move this one from the mammalian test group to energy beings, it's looking like energy-based lifeforms might be the way to go, I'd like to get a larger sampling.
Run our own (Score:3, Interesting)
What would our subjects think? Would they ask the question we do? Would they run their own simulated universe? Would their subjects ask if they live in a simulated universe in a simulated universe?
If you were to devise a test that our universe is simulated, and we were to test positive, you would never be able to test if our hosting universe simulated. It's turtles all the way down.
What is a non simulated universe like?
I think if we were in a simulated universe, our gods would be having much more fun messin' with us. By likelihood, we wouldn't be a scientific simulation, but in some curious kids' basement. Now that's scary.
Will quantum technology end the world? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, along those lines:
The notion that the apparent quantized nature of physics could be an approximation--a way for a simulation to limit memory requirements--occurred to me some years ago. It has some potentially disturbing implications (at least if you take it seriously).
This idea is meaningful only if the simulation is embedded in a universe is not itself quantized. Of course, our universe could be an accurate simulation of a quantized universe, but then our universe's quantal nature is not any kind of evidence for our universe being a VR.
This leads to some concerns about the motivations of the creators of the simulation. Generally, one constructs a simulation to answer questions about one's own world, so we may speculate that the developers of the simulation presumed that quantizing reality at such a tiny scale would not be a major source of error.
Yet here we are, developing technologies that work only because of the quantal nature of physics, happily exploiting what are really "bugs" in the simulation. If the developers happen to notice what we are doing, they might not be too happy about this--potentially, the use of quantum technology to any major extent would undermine the validity of their simulation in terms of making predictions regarding their (presumably non-quantum) universe. What if they notice, realize that their simulation is faulty and decide to turn us off?
The reality of the reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, reality being some kind of "VR" begs all kinds of questions. Like how was the VR created (it's existence as a simulation implies it was created). What is the "reality" that the simulator resides in? If the VR was created, how was it created? Does this imply some sort of intelligence at work here? The only possible interesting thing that could come about if reality is some sort of simulation is whether or not there are glitches in the simulation. Everything else, if it ran perfectly, is irrelevant because the simulation would be indistinguishable from any form of reality.
A Quick Test to find out if this is a simulation.. (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
The obvious question is... (Score:4, Funny)
Not necessarily VR- Compressed (Score:5, Insightful)
But, we live in 3, and are constrained in one direction in the 4th (time).
So, the universe is compressed, and the quantum weirdness is a (digital?) artifact resulting from the compression.
It's like we're an mp3, and it works well until you look too closely and then the weirdness and approximations start to show up.
I feel like I'm a
Last thing I remember... (Score:3, Funny)
Here's one (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the material falling into a black hole escapes as Hawking radiation, and also adds to the mass, spin and and/or or charge of the hole, but there's no evidence these are increased by an amount equal to the infalling matter/energy according to E=MC^2. Disappearance of the time dimension at the event horizon also 'freezes' processing and any information there gets locked up.
Does information processing theory (by itself) provide a mechanism for complete loss of some information?
Even if the hole later 'explodes' and becomes a naked singularity (something I can't hold with) there's no indication that what's already in the singularity can affect what's outside other than by the forces noted above.
Suggestions (Score:3, Insightful)
o We are living in a VR and don't know it
o We are living in a VR and come to realise it
o We are not living in a VR and do not believe we are
o We are not living in a VR but believe we are
In case one: No problems.
In case two: Either the simulation ends, or the simulation is not geared towards working out how long we take to find out. Either way, there is no higher level of understanding in either, as we still wouldn't know the goal of the simulation, and there would be know way of knowing until the simulation ended, meaning we would not profit from it.
In case three: No problems.
In case four: We progress to trying to work out what this simulation is aimed at, failing miserably. The only thing wasted is time (and money, in the form of research grants).
As I look it at, it's no different to religion, really. Believe what you like; it doesn't really affect the environment in which we live.
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, this one is a bit over the edge, but if you force people to bend to the orthodoxy in all things, then your science has become a religion. Either the current theory can withstand a dissenting voice, or the current theory sucks, and needs to be replaced.
Questions vs. assertions (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but asking them by way of sloppy logic and weird assertions is not a good way to do it.
Consider, for example, this excerpt from p.8:
Not really. (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer is yes - chaos theory can be simulated on a computer but it is not going to be as sensitive to initial conditions as something in an analogue universe. Thus, chaotic systems on a compute
Re:Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the speculation around the theory - possible ties to quantum physics and relativity, etc. - is entertaining and might make good sci fi. I've found myself wandering down similar lines of thougth at idle times. But I don't believe any true reasoning on the topic is possible.
In that spirit, here's what's wrong with your attempts to reason on the topic
Occam's Razor already negates the need for testing if the universe is real or not . . . the universe must be real, because they are equally capable of explaining what goes on in the universe, and one requires fewer assumptions.
For all the times I've seen Occam's Razor referenced on Slashdot and/or in pop culture, I've never once seen it used correctly in either place. This is no exception. Occam's Razor does not prove anything; it merely give guidance as to which of two competing theories is preferable to work with.
Or to rephrase that. Science is about the how, not the why.
That would be a false (or at least oversimplified) dichotomy. Speculative "why"s are often steps in reasoning that lead to more complete models of "how".
Further, if the universe was a simulation there would be no random numbers, only pseudo-random numbers.
If our world is a simulation, then you cannot know what technology exists in the "real" world. Just because we (in this world) haven't invented a true random number generator for a computer (yet) doesn't mean one can't exist, especially since we'd have no baseline for knowing basic physics in the "real" world.
Quantum physicists have to work with statistics and effectively random numbers
I question whether we know that variables in quantum physics are truly random vs. pseudorandom, but I'm a bit rusty in that field. But ironically, if they are truly random, then that suggests a perfectly sound procedure for making a truly random number generator for a computer...
with our current view of the universe, we can know every detail of every thing in the whole universe, and still not be able to predict the future
Yes, but if the universe is a simulation then any random number seeds would not be included in "every thing in the whole universe".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be thirty years. But the Voyager craft were designed to explore the solar system, not to just get the hell out of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)