BottleGnomes
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/
ADHD VERSION: Basically strong nuclear force, the force that holds atoms together, functions indistinguishably from mechanical computations. With a sufficiently powerful computer, we could (or someone else could) simulate the universe so that it is identical to the one we're in. As far as physics go, anyway; I'm not a determinist. We could find a grid that our universe forms itself around with precise measurements of science magic and other things.
Can you fucking feel it?
43 Replies
Parks Ass To Ass
There is no way that about 16 years ago at sunday school when i bit a girl was a simulation of something. I'm 17 on Nov 6 by the way.
BottleGnomes
Well, if it was a simulation, it would function identically to reality. Besides, how would you know the difference between reality and the simulated universe if you have only ever known one?
Also, you can't explain yourself out of this one with the cogito. Intelligence in 'reality' arose from the same interactions that would be simulated in a computer.
FappingBlackGuy OW;TheJosher
I honestly don't think reality exists. And if it does, it is as subjective as the basic building block of matter makes it out to be. It is nothing more than struck chords, vibrations and frequencies imitating the solidified matter we know and identify with. At any moment, the atoms could disperse and what would there be? Empty space, the all-pervading, all-compassing quanta-like energy that needs no energy to sustain itself, packets of probability that are the cosmological chaos, inert nothingness that acts as potential from which all things emerge only to dissolve then back into.
podboq
There's no way to know if we are in a simulation.
If we are, we have nothing to compare it to;
Maybe the world we know is actually a really crappy low res simulation with a bunch of features missing.
It's all we've ever known, but it could be just a program on (the equivalent of)some teenagers laptop.
Platos cave says it better than I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
BottleGnomes
Replying to podboq:
The idea of the article is that there may be a measurement we can take in order to tell if we're in a simulated universe. If we were in a simulation, our universe would be constructed around a lattice which we could theoretically measure by using the angular distribution of certain high-energy background radiation. It's like as if Plato's cave was actually made of cardboard boxes and he was able to find the words "made in china" printed all over it.
BottleGnomes
Also, @fappingblackguy
Very poetic and mostly dead on to the ideas this article presents. In fact, one of the three dominant ending scenarios of the universe (which happens to be the one science favors right now) is that space itself is expanding rather than simply the distance between matter, and therefore, theoretically, the space between all matter will eventually expand to the point where all the smallest parts are ripped apart and no longer interact. Energy wouldn't exist kinetically anymore.
BottleGnomes
Replying to sonny88p:
Like I said, doesn't work.
Intelligence can be created algorithmically in the same way that life can be created with chemical soup and lightning.
krog_mlp
tÌ͈̘̱̤̗̳̃̃̆͗̇̎̓hÍŽÌÍ͋̊̇̃̈̀̑ͅė̼̲̮̗̬͎̪̱ͬͬ̽̿ ̘̇ͦÌͪÍÌšu̪̼͊ͤ̈ͬn̻͔̘̓̒̓͂Ìͨͅͅì̙̮̈ͦ̀̀͑v̫̬͇̰̤̫͂ͮ̈̇e͉̟͓̥͛ÌÌ…r͉̱̜̣͇͚̤̜ͦͣ͂s̪̻̲͉̦͙͔ͥ̿̂̑eÌŸÌ ÌžÌ¥Ì©Ì¤Ì͊̾̌͛̌ͅ ÌÌ̥̩͖̣̖ÌÍ͋͊̒ͩ͑ͯͨÌi͈ÍÌŽÍŠÍ£sÍ–Ì̦͖̘͛̎̄ ÌœÌ̖̲͉̖̾ͤͧ̔ͅn̯̤̘̂̊ͬ̉͌̀͆ò͉̱͇̤͙̺ͫ̀t̥͇͎̺ÌÌ Ì©Ì¾Í©Ì‘ÌÍ Í‰Í™Ì¦ÍŽÌ̬̇s̪̙̻̜͑Ìi̼̜̻͂ͬ̃͗͒ͤ̊ͣÌm̗̣̲̳͎̓͆uÍ̪͉̮͖Ìͪ̿ÌÍ…Í…l͎ͮǎ̺̬̺̜͔̯Í̜̑Ì̾ͨͨÍÌ…tÌ¤Ì Ì³Ì£Í•Ì¬Ì Ì©Í‚Ì‚Í¯Ì½ÌeÌ Ì¹ÌœÌ̪̻̗̋̓Ì̅̌̄͌d̬̺̺͕̘͇̒͂̅̂ÌÌÌ
sonny88p
Replying to BottleGnomes:What I meant was, you just have to believe that the universe is real and then that's all that matters
BottleGnomes
Replying to Neal:
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying the possibility exists and we could potentially use scientific methods to provide evidence for the hypothesis. Science rarely touches these sorts of reality shattering ideas.
@sonny88p: If you believe this sort of thing is going to damage your mental state, perhaps it is best that you don't read the article. However, if you're open to possibilities and think clearly about what they indicate, there should be no reason you should be so closed minded.
FappingBlackGuy OW;TheJosher
Replying to BottleGnomes: They call that the big crunch, if I remember correctly.
While we're on the subject, what is your opinion on the oscillation universe theory?
BottleGnomes
Replying to FappingBlackGuy:
It is called the Big Rip; the oscillation theory is a branch off the Big Crunch theory. The Big Crunch theory is that gravity will eventually win out against expansion, an idea that has fallen out of favor, and the universe will start to move back towards the gravitational center and collapse into a singularity. The oscillation theory is the idea that once it collapses into a singularity, it will then again explode into a new universe. There's quite a bit against the Crunch theory and most theories about dark matter don't allow for it (although dark matter is silly anyway). However, I'm a big fan of Roger Penrose, who is a big proponent of the cyclic model. He has been pretty spot on about a lot of things in the past. So I don't know. I suppose the science would support the Rip, but I wouldn't count Penrose out.
FappingBlackGuy OW;TheJosher
Replying to BottleGnomes: I see, I see. Don't know what I really have as a response, however.
FappingBlackGuy OW;TheJosher
Replying to Tereall: Everything. From a theosophical point of view, however, and not some faggy, pretentious ass apathy.
FappingBlackGuy OW;TheJosher
There was a movie on Crackle or Hulu about this phenomena. It had the guy who was in Scary Movie 4, the idiot dad one.
Spoiler: In it, they built a virtual reality machine to prove that this reality was a virtual reality, and it was.
aStingyMiser
There's an ending to Silent Hill 2 where you walk into a room with (what I believe is) a Shiba Inu in front of a series of monitors and buttons. You walk in an shout something along the lines of "of course!" or something, fall to your knees, and then dogs bark as music plays for the credits. I forget it exactly but there's footage somewhere. But can you PROVE that there isn't a Shiba Inu controlling you this entire time?
BottleGnomes
So the question is, guys, if you could prove without a doubt that the universe is simulated (regardless of how, it's proof and anyone that sees it believes it) would you tell the world?
Any world shakers out there?
podboq
There's no such thing as proving something without a doubt.
If I had a solid theory though, yes I would share it.
But whether or not reality is a simulation, it's still our world. We still think, therefore we still exist.
The substrate of our existence takes a back seat to that fact.
Ofcourse, if we could 'prove' that the substrate was a higher beings laptop, I'm sure there would be a large refocusing of effort towards communicating with this 'god' and breaking out of the simulation, 'ascending'.
Also some people might go a little batshit insane...
--
"Intelligence can be created algorithmically in the same way that life can be created with chemical soup and lightning."
Not necessarily. We've never done it, we can't be sure of that. Until we create a true AI, that's not a claim we can make.
--
"(although dark matter is silly anyway)"
I wouldn't be so quick to say that.
Yes, the media has jumped on it, but that doesn't mean we should discard the concept. It's one of the best ideas we have to unite our various theories.
And recently it has been looking more likely that it exists.
For example:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/07/120704-god-particle-higgs-boson-new-cern-science/
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-say-they-have-discovered-mysterious-dark-matter-threads/story-fn5fsgyc-1226418273636
--
And re faps first post;
I think you're reading too much into Diracs theories.
I know it's romantic to think of zero point energy as an all pervading aether, like some sort of primal mana, but that's really not what the theory states.
sonny88p
Replying to BottleGnomes:I'm not closed minded, I know the possibilities out there
I just don't care whether this universe is a simulation or not, I just do what I do and live in it whether it is a simulation or not
If this is a simulation, then there is nothing you can do about it
if this isn't a simulation, then there is nothing you can do about it
podboq
Replying to podboq:
re fap again,
I do like the concept of everything being just another frequency though.
Every different kind of matter and energy is just another frequency of a single multidimensional wave.
It's just one of my pet ideas though.
Anyway, it's only romantic when you look at it from our macro perspective.
At the atomic level, everything's the same already.
BottleGnomes
Replying to podboq:
It's just a hypothetically situation
it doesn't work as intended if I don't build in that it's absolute proof, no matter how impossible that sounds. It's only a thought experiment.
Under the idea that we can simulate reality to the point where it would be indistinguishable from actual reality, we can't subtract the possibility of life and therefore intelligence. If we're working with the assumption that absolute simulation is possible, we must allow for the creation of intelligent life. Just because we haven't done it doesn't mean it isn't on the table and shouldn't be considered.
My problems with dark matter are a whole other topic entirely and I'd rather not go into them now. But spoiler: it both does and does not exist. And it bothers me. Especially with how it's presented to the uninformed public.
podboq
Replying to sonny88p:
I don't like that attitude.
You shouldn't baulk at someone's theory just because you don't see where it could lead.
If the everyone thought like that, the neanderthals would have squashed us.
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
The journey is the important part, it's what defines us when we're at the end.
FappingBlackGuy OW;TheJosher
Replying to BottleGnomes: In the movie I was talking about, how they proved that the reality they existed in was a virtual reality... was because they went farther out than anyone had ever dared to, which revealed to them reality as it is, a series of code.
I know it sounds pretty dumb that I'm using this movie as some sort of allegory, but if reality was a virtual simulation, and if we truly could prove it like they did in this movie, then yes... I would tell the world. I'd prove it to everyone and drive them well beyond the brinks of sanity.
podboq
Replying to BottleGnomes:
"If we're working with the assumption that absolute simulation is possible"
We can't work under that assumption because we've never demonstrated an absolute simulation.
Hypothetical situations are great, but you can't use a concept from within your hypothetical situation to help prove your hypothetical situation.
http://imgflip.com/i/6ydk
Anyway, my original point was that an absolute simulation is unnecessary. Denizens of an imperfect simulation will have no base point against which to hold their reality.
To them this crappy simulation is perfect reality.
Our universe could be the same, and we may never know. We only have our frame of reference to view from.
Platos cave shows that that frame of reference could be woefully inaccurate.
The way information is presented to the public always sucks. Media gets into the gears and just fucks everything up.
Just gotta get over it and realise that intelligent people will ignore the bullshit that's shoveled into the proletariats faces.
BottleGnomes
Well, to be fair it's not so much an assumption as a mathematical certainty. No one is arguing whether or not we CAN simulate reality and to suggest otherwise would be to present an alternative hypothesis to our null hypothesis (the one we have accepted). What I was trying to say is that, barring any radical alternatives, our ability to simulate equates our ability to mechanically generate life.
BottleGnomes
Replying to FappingBlackGuy:
you're certainly in the wrong thread, then
we're working under all kinds of different idealisms
podboq
Replying to BottleGnomes:
And since our ability to simulate is currently 0, so is our ability to mechanically generate life? :p (I'm just messing with you there)
I am arguing that a perfect simulation of reality is unnecessary to this thought experiment.
You still haven't commented on that.
Sorry if it derails your original question too much.
BottleGnomes
Replying to podboq:
Oh, don't worry
Well, a perfect simulation would be necessary because it would change the way people react to finding out they're simulated
if reality, they find, is objectively a better universe (as in a less restrictive one or whatever), they would react one way, but if they find that both universes are functionally identical, there isn't a connotation of being "worse", but rather being a different form of the same thing.
It's a subtle difference in the question, but it might change how people answer.
JAH
Replying to BottleGnomes:
A perfect simulation may not be passible more over it may be unknowable weather a simulation is perfect.
meny people asume that all things are posible if enough work technology and resource are put into it. Sadly that is not true.
BottleGnomes
Replying to JAH:
Simulations may very well have the capacity to be passible, however a weather simulation would be far off. Shoot for the stars!
You must be signed in to reply.