Simulation theory.

[Comatoke]

So i've been pondering this theory that blows my mind, and to be quite honest is pretty plausible, to me at least.

it might be hard for me to explain, because im burry hiiii but ill give it a go:

imagine sims the game. or really any video game but sims works better for the argument. now everyone knows that technology grows exponentially because we use the new tech, to make the new tech.

in games like fable, or the sims, there are many characters that have a pretty advanced personality. so in lets say...100 years, we could have a video game or simulation that is verrrrrryyy high tech. and the personalities in just our simplest video games could each have characters that ARE people. they dont stop even when were not playing, a lot of games record time even after the console or w.e is turned off.

i think your getting the picture. couldn't we be an advanced simulation, or game. there are signs that this is true. look hard at a game you see pixels, look hard at nature, you get pixels. and many more that i cant think of at the moment.

once again not saying i believe this to be true, but the reality is that nobody knows what this whole thing is.

A fun idea to ponder while in the clouds.

 

[cannabineer]

I don't see pixels in nature. Please elaborate? cn

 

[Ringsixty]

Science fiction... has a way of coming true.

 

[ganja man23]

I don't see pixels in nature. Please elaborate? cn

What is an atom but a pixel of physicality?

 

[cannabineer]

What is an atom but a pixel of physicality?

Pixels are ordered. To equate atoms (other than in a cubic or orthorhombic crystal) with pixels would be like claiming that the grains of silver in an old emulsion print are pixels. It's a misapplication of metaphor imo, and it's that misapplication that is at the root of the OP's attempt to invoke a Matrix-like model of our perceived reality. Jmo. cn

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Sometimes the visuals i see on mushrooms look like pixels... but they never stop moving so i can't concentrate on one long enough to figure out what the hell it's doing, let alone where it's headed.

Check out this link:
Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

 

[ganja man23]

Sometimes the visuals i see on mushrooms look like pixels... but they never stop moving so i can't concentrate on one long enough to figure out what the hell it's doing, let alone where it's headed.

Check out this link:
Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

'may have evidence'... im a bit skeptical. i thought evidence was either concrete or inexistant?

 

[cannabineer]

Evidence can also fall into the inbetween category of "suggestive". In this instance, it would be a measure of trust that these modelers have wisely dsorted the premises, on which the quality of the simulation will completely depend.

The other cavil (that cannot at this time be falsified) is that we're seeing a broken syllogism:

Computer simulations proceed in stepped time (which generates certain properties in the simulate).
The simulation shows properties similar to those we observe in parts of nature.
Thus (and the part I protest!) the universe operates on stepped time.

The whole thing presumes much on rather thin support. Imo it's a symptom of journalists trying to present abstruse science in a popularly-accessible manner. It works better for paleontology than for physics that operate far from the human scale of time or space. Jmo. cn

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Evidence can also fall into the inbetween category of "suggestive". In this instance, it would be a measure of trust that these modelers have wisely dsorted the premises, on which the quality of the simulation will completely depend.

The other cavil (that cannot at this time be falsified) is that we're seeing a broken syllogism:

Computer simulations proceed in stepped time (which generates certain properties in the simulate).
The simulation shows properties similar to those we observe in parts of nature.
Thus (and the part I protest!) the universe operates on stepped time.

The whole thing presumes much on rather thin support. Imo it's a symptom of journalists trying to present abstruse science in a popularly-accessible manner. It works better for paleontology than for physics that operate far from the human scale of time or space. Jmo. cn

I completely agree, i just remembered reading about it and thought it would be relevant.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I dont think this theory is likely, but I heard on a Joe Rogan podcast that they found computer code in physics. They didnt translate it into computer code, they found it. I dont know though, I didnt look into it much. Joe Mentioned it was getting some harsh criticism.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

String theory, to be more specific.

 

[cannabineer]

I dont think this theory is likely, but I heard on a Joe Rogan podcast that they found computer code in physics. They didnt translate it into computer code, they found it. I dont know though, I didnt look into it much. Joe Mentioned it was getting some harsh criticism.

You sent me into the Web .... I'd not heard that claim. I found a SciForums debate board, and am reproducing this post entire. It says some very important things.

AlphaNumeric

05-06-12, 03:38 AM

Most Cosmologists acknowledge the plausible (yet not probable) possibility that we exist in a computer-generated universe.I don't know why you're singling out cosmologists because all scientists would admit we cannot disprove that notion but that's a long way from saying it's plausible. Atheists acknowledge they (we) cannot prove there is no deity or deities but that doesn't mean we consider the notion to be plausible. *

As for the work in question he's dealing with spinor structures, specifically spin 1/2 structures so you get binary representations naturally. This \pm \frac{1}{2} structure can be written as 0,1 structure instead, so it's not like binary representations are unknown things in physics. In this case it happens the particular spinor constructs he's considering also can be put in a graph structure. Again, this is not a new concept, using graphs to represent decompositions of algebras is a centuries old procedure, known to anyone studying theoretical physics, particularly gauge theory. In this case the graph structure happens to be equivalent to error correcting code.

It's important not to fall into the trap of confirmation bias**. As I said, there's many many years of physics involving graph structures, spinors, decompositions and symmetries. It's not terribly shocking that at some point someone comes across a structure which has been seen elsewhere. Saying "Wow, this is clear justification for the Matrix view of the universe!" is a bit like me asking someone to think of a number between 1 and 1000, trying to guess it and when I finally guess right after many failed tries I declare it evidence I'm telepathic.

Part of being a good mathematician is noticing structures which link seemingly different concepts. Realising "Oh, if I just write this like that then it becomes a well known expression whose solutions are known" is something every mathematician will do at some point in their research. In this case it's connected error correcting code with string theory and so people have started reading all sorts of things from it.

If this is reason to consider the universe as just a computer simulation can we therefore use the same reasoning to say the thousands of things not related to computer programming in string theory are pieces of evidence against that notion?*** Because if we can't then you're making a logical fallacy.

My comments on the asterisked (asterisks were my addition):
* I do not agree. As an almost-atheist myself, I consider the proposition of no God to be more plausible than the proposition of yes God.

** This is the big one here, and worth pondering until it sinks in. Humans are very prone to confirmation bias - so much so that we'll allow it to override stuff we rationally know. Why else would people allow themselves to be swayed by the pageantry of a casino floor? Unless you pay real attention, you only see the winners. Yet, it's common knowledge that the casino returns only a percentage of what folks load into the bandits. But the winners make such a fine, penetrating noise and show ... that many allow themselves to be wooed into contortions of reason like "this floor is winning tonight!" The emotional payout of yielding to the feeling exceeds the more sobersided rational payout of knowing the pageantry conceals the actual and disadvantageous odds. That is how powerful confirmation bias is.
Speaking to people who gamble, I've noted another, even more startling phenomenon. Many experience a feeling that they Feel Lucky, that they're in however-temporary possession of an Edge, and they will then play, or perhaps up the risk of their game. What grabs me about this is that is is an (unarticulated) belief not only in magic, but in one's own magicality.

*** I highlight this one because it's germane to a discussion I had in this forum last night. Its about the fit of facts to a hypothesis. A compelling similitude is great for starting a hypothesis, but for elaborating it, you have to accommodate all the other pieces of evidence as well. Selection bias is another great human skill, but it harms reason. My opinions. cn

 

[guy incognito]

If you accept the fact that humans will one day have the technology to create a model that from inside will appear to be real, then we are almost certainly just a model.

In other words, if you think it is at all possible that your experiences right now are part of a model, and is indistinguishable from actual reality, then the odds of our universe being the "real" universe is 1 out of infinity*, or pretty much zero.

*we could be one of any number of infinite models, or models within models

 

[guy incognito]

I don't see pixels in nature. Please elaborate? cn

You don't see pixels on a sufficiently high definition screen either. Your eye doesn't have the resolution to see pixels in nature, everything appears continuous.

 

[cannabineer]

You don't see pixels on a sufficiently high definition screen either. Your eye doesn't have the resolution to see pixels in nature, everything appears continuous.

I don't see them in micrographs or astrographs either. I didn't limit myself to the unaided eye.

Are you saying you believe nature to be a regular array at a sufficiently small scale? Links? cn

 

[guy incognito]

I don't see them in micrographs or astrographs either. I didn't limit myself to the unaided eye.

Are you saying you believe nature to be a regular array at a sufficiently small scale? Links? cn

micrographs and astrographs don't really photograph on the atomic scale. Even a high magnification micrograph consists of an unfathomable number of atomic particles.

A plane of magnesium atoms (white spheres) above a plane of boron atoms (grey spheres) in MgB[SUB]2[/SUB], as seen by the transmission electron microscope used in the study. The embedded image (top left) is a model of the structure, showing the expected positions of the atoms and the distance between two magnesium planes.

 

[guy incognito]

And I suppose you could get even further resolution than that, right now to sub atomic scales. What happens when you hit the planck length though? Did god decide that was enough resolution for his universe, and no one would even need to perceive anything beyond that small of a pixel?

 

[cannabineer]

micrographs and astrographs don't really photograph on the atomic scale. Even a high magnification micrograph consists of an unfathomable number of atomic particles.

At the atomic scale, ordered constructs (crystals) are common, but they lack the "address" feature inherent to pixels.

And I suppose you could get even further resolution than that, right now to sub atomic scales. What happens when you hit the planck length though? Did god decide that was enough resolution for his universe, and no one would even need to perceive anything beyond that small of a pixel?

As for the Planck length, where is the ordering there? I see it more as a resolution limit like the graininess of silver bromide film. No pixels. Jmo. cn

 

[guy incognito]

At the atomic scale, ordered constructs (crystals) are common, but they lack the "address" feature inherent to pixels.


As for the Planck length, where is the ordering there? I see it more as a resolution limit like the graininess of silver bromide film. No pixels. Jmo. cn

i dont get what you mean

 

[Heisenberg]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/

There are one or two challenges of course. The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the world's most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.)

That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it).

It's not hard to imagine that Moore's Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell.

Again, the behaviour of this human cell would be indistinguishable from the real thing.

It's this kind of thinking that forces physicists to consider the possibility that our entire cosmos could be running on a vastly powerful computer. If so, is there any way we could ever know?