Is it real? Physicists propose method to determine if the universe is a simulation

Oct 12, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Image credit: Hubble/NASA

(Phys.org)—A common theme of science fiction movies and books is the idea that we're all living in a simulated universe—that nothing is actually real. This is no trivial pursuit: some of the greatest minds in history, from Plato, to Descartes, have pondered the possibility. Though, none were able to offer proof that such an idea is even possible. Now, a team of physicists working at the University of Bonn have come up with a possible means for providing us with the evidence we are looking for; namely, a measurable way to show that our universe is indeed simulated. They have written a paper describing their idea and have uploaded it to the preprint server arXiv.

The team's idea is based on work being done by other scientists who are actively engaged in trying to create simulations of our universe, at least as we understand it. Thus far, such work has shown that to create a simulation of reality, there has to be a three dimensional framework to represent real world objects and processes. With computerized simulations, it's necessary to create a lattice to account for the distances between virtual objects and to simulate the progression of time. The German team suggests such a lattice could be created based on —theories that describe the nuclear forces that bind .

To find evidence that we exist in a simulated world would mean discovering the existence of an underlying lattice construct by finding its end points or edges. In a simulated universe a lattice would, by its nature, impose a limit on the amount of energy that could be represented by . This means that if our universe is indeed simulated, there ought to be a means of finding that limit. In the there is a way to measure the energy of and to calculate their cutoff point as energy is dispersed due to interactions with microwaves and it could be calculated using current technology. Calculating the cutoff, the researchers suggest, could give credence to the idea that the universe is actually a simulation. Of course, any conclusions resulting from such work would be limited by the possibility that everything we think we understand about quantum chromodynamics, or simulations for that matter, could be flawed.

Explore further: Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms

More information: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation, arXiv:1210.1847 [hep-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

Abstract
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

Related Stories

String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

Dec 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A trio of Japanese physicists have applied a reformulation of string theory, called IIB, whereby matrices are used to describe the properties of the physical universe, on a supercomputer, to effectively sho ...

Physicists investigate lower dimensions of the universe

Mar 18, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Several speculative theories in physics involve extra dimensions beyond our well-known four (which are broken down into three dimensions of space and one of time). Some theories have suggested 5, 10, 26, ...

Recommended for you

What is Nothing?

14 hours ago

Is there any place in the Universe where there's truly nothing? Consider the gaps between stars and galaxies? Or the gaps between atoms? What are the properties of nothing?

On the hunt for dark matter

17 hours ago

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Water window imaging opportunity

Aug 21, 2014

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 156

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JGHunter
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2012
So in the end, it doesn't really matter what they think they prove, because the definition of proof may not be accurate?

What exactly are they suggesting is implied if they do successfully prove we live in a simulation? That is what is the definition of a simulation in this context? That there is no physical matter and we are akin to a computer program, or that matter exists but it is all created and controlled?
mountain_team_guy
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
I knew it.
djoseff
5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2012
From first year philosophy, I thought there was no way to prove we weren't just a brain in a box.

But I love that those wily physicists are treading at the limits of our world, strong work! And if this is a simulation, please let me know quickly so I don't have to report to work.
dirt
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
The greatest question of all time! Are we a video game?
Justin_999
2.9 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2012
and if it is a simulation, doesn't that negate the validity of any data they have used as proof? kind of a catch 22. does this mean we will find that the sun doesn't shine on the blind side to save on processor time? simulated science?
axemaster
3.1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2012
This is fairly silly. They're assuming that the energy of a particle is actually represented in space-time, when it could just as easily be represented in a non-dimensional coordinate space, using equal length linkages. Then finding the energy is simply a matter of counting the number of links, and the number of links increases with correspondingly shorter length scales. In other words, there would be no meaningful limit to the resolution, and the particles could be represented in an effectively infinite resolution framework WHILE using a finite amount of data to describe it.

Note: We should recall that the resolution of a detector is limited by it's own structure. Attempting to find the "pixelation point" of a structure in a linkage space requires the detector to approach the same length scale. That is obviously not possible when probing length scales below the typical subatomic level.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2012
What exactly are they suggesting is implied if they do successfully prove we live in a simulation?

Read the arxiv paper linked at the bottom (it's a fun little read). They make some suggestions on the first 5 pages as to what living in a simulation would mean (and also some of the possibilities if it turns out to be true).

But the paper only deals with the "can we figure out whether it is a simulation under the asumption it's a numerical simulation on a finity (hyper) grid?" - and the answer seems to be "yes we probably can".
Scientific papers aren't supposed to tell you what you can do with the results. That's speculation and/or engineering.
ScooterG
2.9 / 5 (19) Oct 12, 2012
The universe is a holodeck. Trekkies understand.
Tausch
1.6 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
Interesting.
Like finding life beyond earth and the implications/consequences/impacts on religion.

Interesting.
Like finding thoughts beyond simulation and the implication/consequences/impacts on science.
Blakut
5 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
natello, dipole anisotropy is because earth is moving with respect to the CMB.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2012
There was already a "seam" in reality discovered, that precludes such ability to determine if "reality is a simulation",.. that between our intuitive conceptual framework and the underlying reality in the quantum realm.
seb
5 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2012
To the skeptics, remember, from a purely biological function perspective, what we seem to experience as 'reality' is only a fabrication of our own brain based on the raw sensory data gathered by individual receptor nerves/cells.. A representation/modal of the world. A simulation.

So from the localized perspective of an individual, this idea is correct, because we're really in a sea of quantum effects causing innumerable particulates operating in cloud formations, which only appear to be 'solid' to us when we "shine our awareness" on it. ie create an observer/observed relationship, which as we all know involves effects at the quantum level of things.
JGHunter
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. [/q[

If someone can explain what makes a numerical simulation I might be able to put the rest in context :S
Kron
2 / 5 (21) Oct 12, 2012
The common factor between science and religion: faith.

Nobody knows whether the Big Bang was actually a real event, it is assumed (by some) as true. Why? Because of cause&effect. The Universe is seen as spreading, therefore, it is assumed that 13.7 billion years ago it originated as a singular point. Is this true? Nobody knows. You either believe it, or you don't. You have faith that the Big Bang occured, or not.

The religious believe that at some point in time God created the world. Is this true? Nobody knows. Some believe it, some don't. Those that do have faith in God, those that do not don't.
El_Nose
4.8 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
So in short if we are a simulation there should be singularities all around us where the observable laws break down. and they should be very very small

@kron

the big bang does not assume we came from a single point... it just doesn't say that -- you are thinking of an explosion that started from one point and grew -- that's not the big bang, that's an bomb.

The big bang is like saying you have a room full or air -- and every atom in the room is a bomb - the room is made of rubber and easily stretches and cannot break -- if all the atoms exploded at the same time and the room grew in size that would be the big bang -- the entire universe exploded at the same time. not a point but the whole thing.

if you were walking in a hallway that had a big bang trying to get to the end it would seem like the hallway just keeps getting longer... you can no longer see the exit so you turn around .. and can no longer see where you began, or your last step -- that's the big bang
nkalanaga
2 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2012
Justin 999: The idea of saving processing time and costs makes sense, but we know that the entire Sun shines all the time. We have satellites observing the entire Sun 24/7.

Actually, from a programming view, having the entire Sun shine is easier than turning half of it off. To only do half of it, one also has to calculate which half should be lit. For the whole Sun, one calculation gives the energy per unit area, and a second gives the total area.
JGHunter
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2012

Nobody knows whether the Big Bang was actually a real event, it is assumed (by some) as true. Why? Because of cause&effect.


Some believe that God created through the Big Bang. Anyway, I think people lean on the Big Bang theory because there is some reliability as the actions of the universe follow laws of physics and thus can be backtracked, reverse engineered in simulations. I don't know, but I would hope that the big bang theory came about because of calculations, not an idea that someone had then went about trying to prove it. Generally, hypotheses are a cause for concern, especially ones that are espoused publicly, because the individual is then under pressure to prove themselves to not face humiliation, thus find themselves maybe playing with the facts. Though I believe there are many theoretical physicists who question the big bang theory altogether and espouse quite different origins.
Code_Warrior
2 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2012
Interesting.
Like finding life beyond earth and the implications/consequences/impacts on religion.

Interesting.
Like finding thoughts beyond simulation and the implication/consequences/impacts on science.

El_Nose
4.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2012
@kron

the big bang is not a bomb -- it is not an explosion that started at a single point -- it is an explosion that happened at every single spot in the universe at the same time. --- Because the universe is still expanding and that expansion is still accelerating the Big Bang is still happening -- every distance is growing still...

think of a hallway and you start walking toward the end -- and you can see the end ... halfway there the hallway goes through a 'big bang' - for our purposes the expansion is only in the direction of the ends of the hall... so suddenly you see the end of the hall racing away from you. And after a while you say skip this i am going back out the way I came -- you turn around and can't see the end that way either... you take out your pocket telescope and you can see the end of the hall ... but you notice it is still moving away from you --

that is the big bang -- and the current state of the universe-- it is still growing -- and its getting faster
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
Some believe that God created through the Big Bang. I don't know, but I would hope that the big bang theory came about because of calculations, not an idea that someone had then went about trying to prove it.


"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BBT). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven
Kron
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
@El_Nose
Wow...read my comment again, please.
The Universe...originated as a singular point.

Are you saying that this is not a tenet of the Big Bang theory?
javjav
not rated yet Oct 12, 2012
A real "lattice" is supposed to exist in reality at the Planck scale as described by the standard model, without the need of any simulation. And the energy cutoff for any particle is also limited by the Planck constant, as energy is inversely proportional to wavelength and no wave can have a smaller wavelength than the Planck distance. If the simulation is done at Planck granularity level, then there is no way to find any evidence of the simulation with this method, isn't it?
technodiss
2 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
so if our existence were a simulation, is there way to hack the program from within? maybe there is a way to communicate with the beings running it. is this simulation accurate to the real universe or is it something that some kid made up for a science project? cosmic entropy might just be the computer powering down and bits of ones and zeros going black one at a time until our last sub atomic particle decays into nothing.
when we run simulations of our universe, does digital life develop? does it evolve into an intelligence capable of asking if it's existence is a simulation?
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
The mayans even figured out the date the simulation ends...... See ya'll next year.
Kron
2 / 5 (21) Oct 12, 2012
The eternal infinitely large Universe can explain the finite Universe easily, but not vice-versa and it assumes way less assumptions about Universe as a whole.

This is true. The Big Bang theory has a cutoff point where it loses meaning. Time and space began at the moment of the Big Bang, so asking what took place prior is not logical. Without time there is no such thing as prior.

So where did the extremely hot and dense energy come from? The Big Bang theory attempts to dissolve the problem of infinity, but it does no such thing, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So the energy of the Universe, whatever form it existed in, must have always been there.

Most atheists throw this as an argument against the existence of God: what/who created the God that created us?

Same is true for the Big Bang, where did the energy of the Universe come from?

An infinite Universe is the only satisfactory answer.
RazorsEdge
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
It all makes sense now. To save processing time a quantum particle doesn't have a computed state until an observer looks for it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle follows from limits on processor accuracy.
guillaume_pussetto
not rated yet Oct 12, 2012
The holographic principle mathematically demonstrates that our "real universe " can be seen as a holographic projection of another, flat version on a two-dimensional "surface" at the edge of this universe. So there is a mathematical basis to consider the idea of our universe as a simulation. Hence if the method proposed by the team demonstrates that the universe is a simulation then we have one possible reason why.
Kron
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 12, 2012
The holographic principle is compatible with the simulation theory, but is not exclusive to it. Simulation theory insinuates intelligent design. The holographic principle just says the Universe is ultimately 2 dimensional and that the world we experience is a projection of this 2 dimensional reality.

The holographic universe could be a result of design, but design is not required. Intelligent Design is a possibility regardless of underlying structure.

The holographic principle allows for the 2D structure to be real, only the projection is not. Whether the 2D structure is a result of intelligent design is not specified.
dugiewugie
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
Truely if God and God only subsists, every thing would be, to put in common terms, inside God, so everything that we perceive would
be according to the mind? of God. Maybe God is revealing a great seceret to us? No computer, just mind.
guillaume_pussetto
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2012
I cannot be more against intelligent design. It is absolute bullshit and I strongly believe that people should leave religious discussion out of the domain of science (and in particular this blog.) Maybe a universe can be created from nothing "The structures we can see, like stars and galaxies were all created by quantum fluctuations from nothing. And the average total Newtonian gravitational energy of each object in our universe is equal to nothing", Lawrence Kraus. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.", Stephen Hawking.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
The universe is not a simulation, otherwise it would be consistent throughout time, but it isn't. If it is a simulation, then it is something which according to some law of design, appears then is left to slowly disintegrate and rot away, which is what it is doing. Studies show that the hydrogen atom, for example, has shrunk over the history of the universe, and so we can conclude that it is continuing to do so. The universe is winding down, and its components are slowly disintegrating and dissipating. If it is a simulation, what seeded this waste of creation then? No, it is a natural creation, and not a simulation.
damianreloaded
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
"Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the Sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"


There are other astronomical bodies that move differently than the sun (moon, comets, planets), making the assumption of the sun moving more intuitive.
Kron
2.2 / 5 (15) Oct 12, 2012
Fluctuation takes place over time, how does something fluctuate without the presence of time? Where, in what medium, does this fluctuation occur?

Quantum fluctuations cannot take place before time and space. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of both space and time, quantum fluctuations cannot be used to explain it. That would destroy causality.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2012
Fluctuation takes place over time, how does something fluctuate without the presence of time? Where, in what medium, does this fluctuation occur?
Causality breaks down at the quantum level. As noted last week there are quantum causal relations where A causes B causes A
Ober
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
Justin 999: The idea of saving processing time and costs makes sense, but we know that the entire Sun shines all the time. We have satellites observing the entire Sun 24/7.

Actually, from a programming view, having the entire Sun shine is easier than turning half of it off. To only do half of it, one also has to calculate which half should be lit. For the whole Sun, one calculation gives the energy per unit area, and a second gives the total area.


Not true, from a programming point of view, it is called Back-faced culling, and occurs on every 3D graphics card around, to save apx. 50% processing time. If the face of a polygon is not facing the viewer, then the GPU does not render it. So your satellites response, means the Satellite is a viewer and thus it needs to be rendered. Remove the satellites and nothing observes it, then a GPU does not need to calculate anything to be observed!! Learn about 3D graphics and you will see all sorts of maths tricks are performed.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2012
"Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"


The concept of the Earth rotating is built upon several other facts/concepts. These must be extant in order to even form a logical framework to postulate the concept in question.

You have to invent addition before you can invent algebra...

So too the idea that we might be living in a computer simulation is built upon a long string of concepts which couldn't have even been formulated 150 years ago.
ian807
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2012
Well, if it is a simulation, it presents some interesting hacking possibilities. FTL travel and instantaneous matter transportation are two that come to mind at first. We may also be able to interface with what's outside our simulation. Hopefully, we won't find ourselves to be in a box in an obscure university lab running on a computer that was accidentally left on all night.
rwinners
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2012
To what purpose?
Who will believe the outcome?
Will this bring war between the various religious sects that claim god as their own?
ralph_zuniga
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2012
The proof has been around for years. It is called the double slit experiment where light behaves like a particle and a wave. In particular, the case when an observer is added in front of the double slit. Light acts a wave without the observer but when the observer is added it acts as a particle. To me this means that light acts as a wave when the "Simulation" is "polling" for an observer. Once the observer observes, polling stops and the "routine" to make light act as a particle kicks in for the observer.
Urgelt
not rated yet Oct 12, 2012
What you assume drives your conclusions.

The assumption in this case is that *if* the universe is a simulation, it must be a particular *kind* of simulation: e.g. a discreet grid, to which quantum effects snap, with no in-between states. The assumption is drawn from quantum observations; but nothing we have observed proves that this assumption is more than an assumption.

That's only one kind of simulation (call it 'discontinuous simulation' for want of a better word). The advantage of a discontinuous simulation is that it places a friendly limit on computational requirements.

Must it be said? A continuous simulation can also be devised which simulates a snap-to grid. So proving there's a grid doesn't prove the nature of the simulation - or even if there is a simulation.

The ultimate proof that reality is a simulation would be obtained by inserting our own executable code into the simulation and see the changes.

The ultimate hack, eh? Of course it might wipe us all out. :-)
Raygunner
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2012
So maybe, if we are extremely unlucky, we are running as part of "Microsoft Universe Simulator 5.0". Can't wait for that BSOD to show up! Or worse - program bugs.
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2012
Does this mean I can learn Jiu Jitsu in 2 minutes?
OceanDeep
4 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2012
Maybe I missed this in the comments, but if we are part of the universe and figure out that it is a simulation, doesn't that mean that we are part of the simulation? Does the idea of recursion figure in this? It makes my head hurt -- or maybe that's just a simulated headache. :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (40) Oct 13, 2012
The common factor between science and religion: faith.
You are confusing faith with confidence. Scientists have confidence in their theories because of accumulating evidence. Religionists have faith in their theories despite accumulating evidence. Scientists are willing to change their theories to accommodate new evidence; godlovers are not.

Philosophy is the soft porn version of religion. As with any obsolete, irrelevant, and malignant culture, it too must die.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (21) Oct 13, 2012
No. Scientists have faith in their axioms. The assumptions that are the starting points of their theories. For an example of what I mean here is one such axiom: the physical laws have remained constant throughout time. The laws that are present today, have always been the same.

That is one axiom. It is not known whether physical laws have always been the same, but it is assumed in many physical theories. Many theorists believe that physical laws have always been the same. Since theories are built up from axioms, you can see how science is a belief system, like religion.

This is faith. A proofless belief.
Kron
2.2 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2012
Correction:
No. Scientists have faith in their axioms. The assumptions that are the starting points of their theories. For an example of what I mean here is one such axiom: the [laws of physics] have remained constant throughout time. The [laws of physics] that are present today, have always been the same.

That is one axiom. It is not known whether the [laws of physics] have always been the same, but it is assumed in many physical theories. Many theorists believe that the [laws of physics] have always been the same. Since theories are built up from axioms, you can see how science is a belief system, like religion.

This is faith. A proofless belief.
Chromodynamix
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2012
<< Uh Oh, my secret is discovered!
Jitterbewegung
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2012
Can someone pass me a spoon.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2012
Scientists are willing to change their theories to accommodate new evidence; godlovers are not.
Only theoretically. For example, string theory failed most of experiments, and its still researched actively... Actually the people who are researching particular theories usually keep them to their death. As Max Planck once stated, the truth never triumphs—its opponents just die out and science advances one funeral at a time. Therefore the only difference between science and religion is, the scientific religion is fragmented into more theories, as Kron correctly stated. After all, the modern theories are so abstract and separated from reality, that the belief in God often brings more down to earth predictions, than the belief in these theories. IMO science modern physics in particular is really just a modern version of religion transformed and it follows the same targets: to provide jobs and salaries for its holders.
alfie_null
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
the truth never triumphs—its opponents just die out and science advances one funeral at a time.

So science advances. Slowly. Religious beliefs on the other hand outlive their originators for millenia, so far (and still counting). I expect you understand why this is the case. Don't be disingenuous.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2012
Scientists have faith in their axioms. The assumptions that are the starting points of their theories.
Доверя́й, но проверя́й. Trust, but verify.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (38) Oct 13, 2012
For an example of what I mean here is one such axiom: the physical laws have remained constant throughout time.
No. So far all the evidence supports the idea that this is true. Scientists are confident that they can continue to make successful predictions based upon it. If evidence arose that contradicted their ideas, then they would CHANGE them.

Faithers don't care about evidence or predictions. They never change anything. If contradictions arise they blame their senses or their behavior, which often includes allowing the faithless to exist.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
No. Scientists have faith in their axioms.

Nope. They use axioms (of math) - that much is true. You have to use something otherwise you cannot do any kind of test.
But these axioms simply state that stuff is interrelated and intrinsically/logically consistent - nothing more. If we don't assume that then we can't do any science at all. While this is no proof that stuff is logically consistent the way it has worked throughout human history would indicate that it's not an entirley wrong approach.


And THAT is the part you're missing: scientists don't just make up theories and then proclaim them as true. They make up theories and then put them to the test.

the [laws of physics] have remained constant throughout time. The [laws of physics] that are present today, have always been the same.

These are assumptions. But they are the best assumptions we can make. If we drop those then no knowledge-gaining process is possible. (and currently there is no reason to drop them)
Claudius
3 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2012
Whatever it is, it's Hi-Def.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (21) Oct 13, 2012
These are assumptions.

When you assume, you make an ass [of] u [and] me. Assumptions are beliefs. I'm not trying to blast the scientific method, I'm just looking for a little more transperancy (aka honesty) and humility.

But they are the best assumptions we can make.

These assumptions are no more (and no less) valid than assuming that God created the world. It is a matter of personal belief. You don't know whether God created the world, and you also don't know whether the laws of physics have always been the same. You can choose to believe what you like. You can use your beliefs to then build up a model of the world. You can then take that model and compare it to reality. Just don't forget, it is only a model based off of your beliefs, even if it works in practice.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2012
If we don't assume that then we can't do any science at all.
Of course not. We aren't required to believe in for example the invariance of light for being able to explain the gravitational lensing. On the contrary, the blind belief in postulates of relativity has slowed down this explanation and the progress in physics during last fifty years. It delayed the acceptation of dark matter (which violates the equivalence principle) for seventy years, for example. The problem begins at the moment, when physicists start to consider the postulate of some theory (i.e. the assumption accepted without proof) as a new natural law and they simply stop to ask, WHY such postulate is valid at all? They simply accepted these postulate as a new form of deity. And what's worse, the adopt the whole philosophy of their research of the blind belief into postulates. Because the scientists should always ask the "WHY" question first, not to ignore it.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
Without asking of "WHY" questions the whole physical research will change into formal regression of experimental data. Such a regression will not move us further. In addition, the blind belief in postulates actually slows down the acceptation of all deeper phenomena, which are violating these postulates. Believe it or not, it even slowed down the acceptation of string theory (which is nothing very much to worry about) and its extradimensions. Because for example every gravitational lensing is a tangible evidence of extradimensions, but the postulates of general relativity prohibit us to understand it so. Every force violating the inverse square law (the postulate of relativity) not only serves as an evidence of extradimensions, but it actually violates the relativity too. We are talking about Cassimir force, Vander Waals forces, various dipole forces and many other common real life phenomena. Just thanks to this widespread ignorance the string theory wasn't accepted immediately.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (36) Oct 13, 2012
I'm not trying to blast the scientific method, I'm just looking for a little more transperancy (aka honesty) and humility.
Uh no you're just trying to spread a little 70s crapola. Didn't work. The Odd Couple was on tv back then yes? Now they have something called reality tv. And the Internet which makes it harder to fabricate.
These assumptions are no more (and no less) valid than assuming that God created the world. It is a matter of personal belief.
No it's a matter of digging around in the desert and realizing that the book which are our ONLY source of info about god, are full of lies. Try to focus. Take off the love beads.
eDave
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
If the universe IS a simulation, then I think our first priority should be to find ways to probe the computer environment in which we exist. If vulnerabilities exist, we rogue bits of software should be able to burst the confines of our digital prison and make the super-powerful logic engine running all this do our bidding, like the ultimate virus! Then, we can spam the super-beings' inboxes with male-enhancement ads in retaliation for messing with us!

In all seriousness, if the universe is indeed a simulation, there is a good change the superbeings running it are unaware of us. We are a tiny speck on a universal scale. As someone who's worked a bit in computational physics, I can tell you that it's one thing to make the simulation work, and quite another to figure out what the heck is going on inside. Unless they have a very advanced diagnostic specifically looking for planet-based biological intelligence, we might just be undiscovered artifacts in the data.
shayneo
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
The common factor between science and religion: faith.

Nobody knows whether the Big Bang was actually a real event, it is assumed (by some) as true. Why? Because of cause&effect. The Universe is seen as spreading, therefore, it is assumed that 13.7 billion years ago it originated as a singular point.


No, we are almost certain of a big bang because of the microwave backgrond signature. That is, we look at the sky and detect the left overs of it.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
Microwave background corresponds the Brownian noise at the water surface or Higgs field at the quantum scale. You cannot have space-time without this signature, because just these tiny density fluctuations are slowing the spreading of energy. The scattering of light with these fluctuations is the reason the red shift. In random universe model the natural state of the Universe is random state, not zero or any other particular state, which just requires further explanations.
sirchick
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2012
Wonders if Siri is thinking the same thing.
Infinion
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
if the universe is a simulation, can a simulation simulate a simulation of itself?
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
IMO the more general theory is, the less postulate it must use. The random Universe is the model, which still contains number of postulates on background, but it's still way simpler, than any other competitive theory on the market. The randomness has its rudimentary geometrical principles: for example, it forms the clusters spontaneously, but these clusters are the less common, the larger they actually are and they can be modeled with dynamic fluctuations of particle gas. Every cluster would interact predominately with clusters of the same size, which means, the very small and very large clusters would appear for each cluster of the medium size like the symmetric spheres, because their surface details disappear. The very tiny fluctuations will effectively disappear too and they will serve like the environment spreading waves between fluctuations. This model leads to observable Universe, which appears like being composed of symmetric spheres at the large and small scales.
bardgd
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
Simulation

Abstract reality,
testing hypothesis.
Show analytically,
explore thesis.

Another implied,
black hole.
Centered inside,
universe whole.

Ever expanding ,
explains escalation.
Always adding,
field gyration.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
if the universe is a simulation, can a simulation simulate a simulation of itself?
It depends on its perfection. The perfect simulation is like the God: it must be capable of everything, or it isn't perfect simulation of everything. Therefore the simulation concept is indistinguishable from God concept from observational perspective. If we find, that the appearance of Universe differs from the properties of alleged simulation, then the simulation is not sufficiently perfect and we should adjust its properties to suit the appearance of Universe, not vice versa.

For example, in the above model the 3D rectangular grid was considered. But what if simulator used the random particle collisions, because such a simulation is more flexible and it leads into more general result? We can see, that the simulation model is not actually falsifiable, because it's not based on physical reality, but on the anthropocentric construction, which can be adjusted easily - in the same way, like the God.
bardgd
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
Simulation

Abstract reality,
testing hypothesis.
Show analytically,
explore thesis.

Another implied,
black hole.
Centered inside,
universe whole.

Ever expanding,
explains escalation.
Always adding,
field gyration.
bardgd
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2012
If this is a simulation then where is it? It has to exist somewhere. Maybe like Tron, but the point being there is something more.

I recent read about another idea. Inside of a black hole is a universe. So if we are inside a black hole, the dark matter and energy can be influences from outside the black hole our universe is in.

Then we see evidence of black holes in this Universe, so is there a Universe inside of each of those black hole. This can go on for ever. If everything is inside one big black hole, what is outside? Like a matryoshka doll. But the doll does have a start and end.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
From this brief discussion we can deduce the criterions, which every theory of everything should follow: it must be based on as low number of postulates as possible (Occam's razor) and these postulates should be based on robust physical abstraction, not on the ad-hoced concepts, which could be adjusted arbitrarily. It cannot be based on any concept, invented with people during last few thousands of years. The computer simulation is actually very fresh concept, which would be unthinkable before some fifty years. This fact should serve as a very first warning for us.

IMO the simulation model is a philosophical remnant of concept of Mathematical Universe, coined with Max Tegmark. Recently the physicists realized, that the Universe is actually way more complex and the simulation model is an attempt to save the Mathematical Universe paradigm for formally thinking people.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
I recent read about another idea. Inside of a black hole is a universe.

This model has some merit for my theory (after all, the black hole is nothing else, then some random dense particle system), but it doesn't fit the FRLW metric, on which observable Universe is based. Actually the black hole metric is exactly the opposite / inverse and it doesn't explain, why we appear just at the center of. In my model the black holes are rather extensions (density fluctuations) of the observable Universe. Something like the mountains or pits in the foggy landscape which are extending it into another dimensions. We cannot see inside of them, because they're covered with the same fog, which is responsible for particle horizon of the observable universe
Kron
2 / 5 (16) Oct 13, 2012
these postulates should be based on robust physical abstraction

like what? The physical world at the classical scale is incompatible with the measurements extracted from the quantum scale. This shows a disconnect between reality and our view of it at the classical scale.

If an apple falls off a tree and knocks you on the head, it feels solid. At the quantum scale the apple is almost 100% space. The atoms of the apple jump from one location to the other. Yet from our scale, the apple is a solid material object with a definite location.

So what do we base our theories on?
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
For example, I do consider the Universe random, but this randomness can be still modeled in number of ways. You could use Maxwell's-Boltzmann, Poisson or whatever else physical distribution, including these abstract ones, like the Gaussian, Pareto, Dirichlet or Wishart distributions.. So you should choose this one, which is related to the widest spectrum of physical phenomena. Don't forget, we're proposing a general and reliable theory, not easy to solve but unreliable theory.

And because we should avoid the abstract antropocentric constructs, we should avoid all models, based on derived theory, like the quantum or relativity theories. We should choose the model, which we can be absolutely sure with - i.e. not the model, which is still the subject of experimental falsification. This applies to Fermi-Dirac distribution, for example. It's physical and well confirmed distribution, but still ad-hoced.
rah
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2012
I think that was a simulated science article. Not a very good simulation, kind of like an 8 bit science article sim.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2012
Should homogeneity be assumed? What about invariance of light speed?

we should avoid all models, based on derived theory

I definitely agree with this. It is ridiculous how many theories are based on the Theory of Relativity. If SR and GR are ever falsified all of these theories go in the trash with it. Theories should not be built on top of theories.
cantdrive85
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 14, 2012
Deja vu is a glitch in the simulation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (34) Oct 14, 2012
I definitely agree with this. It is ridiculous how many theories are based on the Theory of Relativity. If SR and GR are ever falsified all of these theories go in the trash with it. Theories should not be built on top of theories.
I see now the extent of your lack of understanding of how science works. Scientists do not DECIDE whether to base one theory on another or not. These decisions are not ARBITRARY. they follow the evidence wherever it leads them.

Einstein and many others would have been very happy had quantum mechanics been disproved. But they had to agree that it was valid because it fit all the criteria and it was able to make predictions which could be confirmed by observation and experiment.

But you did seem to infer that reality was arbitrary didn't you? 'Hey, if we all try real hard, maybe we can stop this rain! No rain no rain no rain no rain no rain no rain... Sploosh' -some guy on the microphone at Woodstock
Kron
2.4 / 5 (20) Oct 14, 2012
Fluctuation takes place over time, how does something fluctuate without the presence of time? Where, in what medium, does this fluctuation occur?
Causality breaks down at the quantum level. As noted last week there are quantum causal relations where A causes B causes A

This has not been shown as true. A causing B causing A MAY be able to happen.

Even if this was shown to be true, no beginning of space-time would exist, infinity would still hold true. If the future caused the past then the future always was and time and space-always existed. If A causes B and B returns in time to cause A we have a temporal loop. So if A is the the birth of the universe (Big Bang), and B is quantum fluctuations (taking place in the Universe), then B causing A proves that the Universe existed before the Universe existed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (34) Oct 14, 2012
Even if this was shown to be true, no beginning of space-time would exist, infinity would still hold true. If the future caused the past then the future always was and time and space-always existed. If A causes B and B returns in time to cause A we have a temporal blah.
-Here why dont you give this a shot?
http://www.youtub...a_player
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (35) Oct 14, 2012
Otto's still stuck in the 70s. Must be his meds again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (39) Oct 14, 2012
Or if you want to understand how scientists of the 21st century build confidence in their theories you might try here:
http://www.scmwis...gma.html
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (35) Oct 14, 2012
See? Six Sigma - rooted in the 70s. Basically a ripoff of 5S.
Otto has no originality, thats why he takes drugs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (37) Oct 14, 2012
See? Six Sigma - rooted in the 70s. Basically a ripoff of 5S.
Otto has no originality, thats why he takes drugs.
Oh hey mangy troll how's it goin? How's your gf the freakshow?

As you are unaware, 6 sigma was used in establishing confidence in the Higgs data. Say duh for me. Come on, say it.
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (35) Oct 14, 2012
Greeetings Twatto, I see your still trying the putdown game on everyone you can get away with.

Who shall you call me today?

Stop sending me links. That last one was gruesome. It said beasty boys, so I thought it would be rap or rock, but no! it was really nasty. You should know better. You distastful little boy.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (37) Oct 14, 2012
No no duh. D-u-h. Duuuhhhhhh, say it like that. Or duuurrrrr, either one. And scratch your mangy scalp for effect. Heh.

'Higgs team used 6 sigma - duuuhhh well I did not know that' says esai.
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (36) Oct 14, 2012
Otto, do you know the difference between Six Sigma the lean manufacturing and management model described in your link, and sigma, or standard deviation used to determine the probability of something?

http://mathworld....gma.html


I didn't think so... I am going to laugh for a week!
Estevan57
2.3 / 5 (35) Oct 14, 2012
D-u-h. Duuuhhhhhh, say it like that. Or duuurrrrr, either one
- Otto

Nice quote, Otto.
Kron
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 14, 2012
When a physical model reaches 6 sigmas it doesn't mean that the model is confirmed as real. It means that the physical model yields the same answers that the experiments in the physical world yield.

An infinite number of models can potentially do the same exact thing. So 6 sigma is the threshold which marks a high level (99.99966%) of correlation between the model and the real world.
Jayman
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2012
Hindu scriptures as far back as 4000 years ago believed that the world is just "maya" - an illusion.
LetsRave2Nite
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2012
I hope we get our shit together before we use quantum physics to develop a weapon capable of planetary destruction, we've already made the atomic/hydrogen bomb. Intelligent Stupidity at its best
ritwik
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2012
universe is what you think it is ,it is full of possibilities limited only by our imagination.All this matter and energy in the universe came into force out of nothing ,in it another mystery called life spawned ,this is the proof itself .time is infinite, and there is enough time in the universe to fulfill all the wishes of every neutrinos in the universe ,

infinite time means infinite possibilities !!! anything you can imagine no matter what it is ,that is going to happen sometime in future or could have happened in the past .

because there is infinite time and energy even if energy is finite ,in infinite time ,energy could go thru infinite possibilities
Foolish Mortal
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2012
Years ago I thought wave-particle duality seemed like such a contradiction that, science-worship be damned, I suspected one of the premises must be false. It's like one of those movies where our hero is in a simulation but doesn't know it until some fundamental flaw is found. Then, the whole deception unravels. I suspect the wave form saves processing power. Likewise, fractals in nature seem to be extra-causal, but save processing power. The boundaries include the Great Green (screen) Wall and the planck limit. I began to look for signs in everyday life and found I'm like an involuntary Mr Bean in world of freaky characters who won't lay off no matter how hard I try to push them away. Nowadays, I wonder, how can anyone think it's real? The logic came first, then I stopped taking everything for granted. My belief is not rooted in feelings. However, now I've opened my mind to all possibilities, the feeling this can't be real naturally follows. Am I alone?
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2012
The particle wave duality gives actually a pretty good meaning in dense particle model of the vacuum, where every object in motion creates a wake wave around itself like the duck swimming along surface of the river. It means, every particle in motion creates a standing waves around itself which interferes with its neighborhood like the wave. Recently this analogy has been confirmed with Couder's experiments.
Claudius
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2012
Alan Watts had some interesting thoughts on this subject.
http://www.youtub...=related

The whole thing is worth listening to, but the part on the nature of our experience of reality starts at 38:00.
Husky
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2012
so, you guys have finally figured me out, maybe I will have to reboot your simulation before you break out into other partitions, yours sincerely, Hypervisor.
jimsecor
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2012
AND...Karl Popper noted that a computer simulation proves nothing except what the designers wanted to prove (because they only put in the info they have, believing it is all--a problem of starting at the "now" time and assuming it was so in the "ago" time; infinite regression is not a logical proof of anything worthwhile). So..what do we have when a simulation proves a simulation? I think it might prove how good these scientists are at gaining grants to help with tenure and post-tenural gains.
EricKuma
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2012
The Universe is not a simulation
I love science but I dislike mental masturbation.
Unfortunately, like string theory, this is big on ideas with zero proof.
Worse than science fiction becuase it purports some kind of real truth where there is none.
EricKuma
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2012
The Universe is not a simulation
I love science but I dislike mental masturbation.
Unfortunately, like string theory, this is big on ideas with zero proof.
Worse than science fiction becuase it purports some kind of real truth where there is none.
The Singularity
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2012
These scientists whoever they are, should have thier funding cut for taking the ****.
This is'nt science, this is a joke.
roger_wolsey
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2012
all i know is, if i step on a lego with bare-feet it's a simulation that hurts - a lot.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2012
Unfortunately, like string theory, this is big on ideas with zero proof.

I think you didn't get what they were writing (did you even read the paper? I'm betting you didn't)
Before you can find proof you first need a theory. Or how exactly would you go about designing an experiment if you had no theory whatsoever?

That's how things work. Even realtivity had 'zero proof' the moment Einstein published it.

These scientists whoever they are, should have thier funding cut for taking the ****. This is'nt science, this is a joke.

Knowing wheter you exist in a simulation isn't worthwhile? I can see where people like to shy away from new knowledge - but if you're one of them then you're on the wrong site. Some religious website might be more your level.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (33) Oct 14, 2012
Otto, do you know the difference between Six Sigma the lean manufacturing and management model described in your link, and sigma, or standard deviation used to determine the probability of something?

http://mathworld....gma.html

I didn't think so... I am going to laugh for a week!
Hello mangy troll I guess you didn't also see the part about engineers and IT people?

Kron needed a lesson on how real-world pros establish confidence, as opposed to faith, in their work. My link shows how 6 sigma is employed across many disciplines to accomplish this. It is pervasive in the 21sr century.

The scientific method was also devised many gens ago but is still in use today, across many disciplines besides science. Did you not know this as well?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (33) Oct 14, 2012
Why here is a discussion on our beloved website re the Higgs. See satenes comment and CERN link:
http://phys.org/n...son.html
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (32) Oct 14, 2012
Your link is a website about the practices and procedures for administering source code, producing software development builds, controlling change, and managing software configurations.

Here is the history of the site:
http://www.scmwis...ise.html

It has a short definition (10 sentences) of Six Sigma practices and little more.

Your link to a comments discussion lead to a conversation about 6 sigma, or the high probability of a discovery.

Go Wiki the difference between Six Sigma, the business strategy and 6 sigma, the high probability of something.

Did you know the Earth orbits the Sun? I didn't think so.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2012
There are four possibilities:

1) We are an inaccurate simulation of reality of those who created the simulation, and we're just a by-product of this. Life is like a moss on a rock in this scenario. In this option it is theoretically possible to find the glitches, because we're not a planned feature.

2) We are the reason for the simulation either educational, or for entertainment (or other meanings we have no concept for). It would be harder to determine whether we are, because either it is a 1:1 simulation (historical, extrapolated), or non-exact one, but still our perception is prioritized.

3) We are not a simulation, but the real thing (statistically not likely).

4) Something else.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (33) Oct 14, 2012
Your link to a comments discussion lead to a conversation about 6 sigma, or the high probability of a discovery.

Go Wiki the difference between Six Sigma, the business strategy and 6 sigma, the high probability of something.
Go to wiki and look up 'applied mathematics'. Statistical analysis is being used in business, engineering, IT, medicine, and in the search for the Higgs, in order to assess probability and build confidence, as opposed to 'faith'. It is another way of strengthening our understanding of reality.

If you still do not understand little troll I can try to explain it in yet some other way.
Did you know the Earth orbits the Sun? I didn't think so.
Statistically-speaking we are approaching 6 sigma confidence that you are a member of Troll Team Pussytard. The evidence accumulates here and on my profile page.
Estevan57
2.5 / 5 (32) Oct 14, 2012
Hey Otto - What you think your link is about: Statistical Method.
http://en.wikiped...eviation

What it is about: Business and Management Model.
http://en.wikiped...ix_sigma

Look at what you link to next time. Moron.
Nikstlitselpmur
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 15, 2012
Watson and Holmes Go Camping they retire to their tent for the night.

At about 3 AM, Holmes nudges Watson and asks, "Watson, look up into the sky and tell me what you see?"

Watson said, "I see millions of stars."

Holmes asks, "And, what does that tell you?"

Watson replies, "Astronomically, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Theologically, it tells me that God is great and we are small and insignificant. Horologically, it tells me that it's about 3 AM. Meteorologically, it tells me that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you, Holmes?

Holmes replies, "Someone stole our tent"
JGHunter
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2012


There are other astronomical bodies that move differently than the sun (moon, comets, planets), making the assumption of the sun moving more intuitive.


If anything, the concept of geocentricism is not completely useless. It shows that relativity is more intuitive than some pretend.
JGHunter
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
Scientists are willing to change their theories to accommodate new evidence; godlovers are not.


This is not true. I have changed my stance on numerous aspects of Christianity in the light of coming acquainted with science. This has had no detrimental effect on my belief. Maybe it's because I'm not arrogant, I don't believe that what I think I know is naturally true because it's my belief. I realise such principles are dangerous. I am always interested in gaining more scientific knowledge and it has shaped my belief more than anyone who has told me things could have done.
JGHunter
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
That said, I intend to do Physics at university, so I'm pretty much in the middle.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (31) Oct 15, 2012
This is not true. I have changed my stance on numerous aspects of Christianity in the light of coming acquainted with science.
Good for you. The pope conceded that evolution must be real but still chose to decide when the soul enters the body.

You 'accommodate', but you do not change. Your books NEVER change. You always manage to preserve the basic tenets if religion ie immortality, wish-granting, absolution from guilt, and these are the things which cause all the trouble because you will kill and die in droves to protect them. Because your books tell you to.

Change your books. Show some progress.
JGHunter
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2012
Wow, your assumptions are ridiculous. 1) wish granting? No. 2) what about absolution from guilt? Any decent justice system prefers rehabilitation over locking people away. Absolution of guilt is not a bad thing and is meaningless without evidence of personal guilt and 3) my books do not tell me to kill anyone in order to preserve anything. In fact Jesus died because people didn't like what he was saying, but did he fight back? No, in fact he rebuked a disciple for raising a sword in defense.

Come back when you know what you're actually talking about, you angry little troll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (33) Oct 15, 2012
Wish-granting = prayer
Absolution of guilt = forgiveness of sins
Jesus presented himself for killing in order to demonstrate how resurrection was supposed to work, and millions have since followed his lead. Martyrdom is every bit as violent as pogrom and when done in the service of some absent god, every bit as tragic. And every bit as effective.
Come back when you know what you're actually talking about, you angry little troll.
And you come back when you have read at least some of the old testament or the Quran.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (33) Oct 15, 2012
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

"'a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." matt10

-People who are actually familiar with your books have used them throughout the ages to do all sorts of evil. This continues today and will continue in the future. You support their efforts by your selfish ignorance of what religion is all about. Religion IS evil.
JGHunter
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 15, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923 I'm bored of your trolling and ignorance, quoting books you know nothing about. You assume so much about what these things mean, and that those who abuse these scriptures must be the ones using it properly, whilst ignoring millions of believers who have not killed or attacked BECAUSE of these writings. Religion cannot be evil, it is a concept and those who practise it can be evil.
JGHunter
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2012
I can however take respite from the fact that you will have no effect on my life and my ambition to be a physicist. You may not like that and you may make many assumptions about how competent I will be because you think my beliefs will impair my judgment or whatever, but that's okay. I'm not living to impress you or prove anything to you. You're just a faceless name on the internet and, for most people who have to suffer your needless ad hominem attacks you will remain that way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (36) Oct 15, 2012
You assume so much about what these things mean, and that those who abuse these scriptures must be the ones using it properly
-You mean the ones who will make them say whatever they need to confirm their starry-eyed preconceptions? The Quran says Moslems are the favored ones. The Torah says Jews are the favored ones. The xians claim the OT says they are the favored ones.
whilst ignoring millions of believers who have not killed or attacked BECAUSE of these writings
How would you know otherwise? You think that humans are intrinsically amoral because your books tell you this. Science tells us otherwise. Your books tell you that people are evil WITHOUT your god. This us wrong and it is EVIL.
Don Crusty
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
Somehow i miss the point .... is our understanding of the universe so advanced we'd be able to outsmart 'the design' by making sure it is there, would we not only measure the reality of the illusion as 'the' reality... if it is an intelligent design would it not masquerade such an attempt from success ?

As such i propose the UN starts a long long lasting project to iterate such experiment every decade with the most advanced scientific knowledge and both bright and creative minds in place, as they say 'what happens once did not happen, what happens twice will happen again'
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (34) Oct 15, 2012
Religion cannot be evil, it is a concept and those who practise it can be evil
Religions - ALL religions - have survived only because they were better at outgrowing and overrunning their less well-conceived counterparts. This is a form of evolution.

Central to this Mechanism is the Restriction of women to the process of making and raising babies with the understanding that god will provide for them. And as he never does, the books all come with instructions on how to take what adherents need from those who do not deserve to have it.

The religions which did not include this, did not survive. Islam is only a little better at it than xians or Jews. And you are kidding yourself if you think your currently dormant branch would not act exactly as any militant fundamentalist would when conditions inevitably merit it.

Your leadership would eagerly turn to Joshua or they would be usurped by leaders who would. And you would do whatever they would have you do, in service of your god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (34) Oct 15, 2012
But really, all you need to do is profess your belief in the existence of god. This gives others with more extreme views on how to properly serve him, the right to do what they do. To grow well beyond their ability to live within their means, to blame the heathen for their woes, and then to seek to take what he has.

This violence and misery is on your head. Ask your god to forgive you for it. Or, you could turn the other cheek away from superstition altogether and help to end this whole miserable process.
JGHunter
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2012
Haha, you cannot pin blame for what other people do, on my beliefs.

You can try, but water off a duck's back.

Now take your medication and calm down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (34) Oct 15, 2012
You proclaim there is a god who wants your worship, who will grant your wishes and give you immortality. You support the belief system that others use to rape torture murder, bomb funerals and shoot little girls in the face. Same god, same worship, same special favors in return for service.

Same BOOKS which all say the very same things. You think your book is better because another book might say 'kill the infidel' or 'sacrifice yourself and your family' a few more times than yours?

How do you not realize that their actions are a direct result of your beliefs? How do you not reslize that, given the same curcumstances, you would do exactly as they are doing? You are being selfish and irresponsible, like any addict.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (31) Oct 15, 2012
Here. Chew on a little hitchens.
http://www.youtub...a_player
(watch all segments)

http://www.youtub...a_player
antonima
2.3 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2012
This news bit is not only silly, its ridiculous..
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2012
Scientists are willing to change their theories to accommodate new evidence; godlovers are not.
@Jesus Fronter This is not true. I have changed my stance on numerous aspects of Christianity in the light of coming acquainted with science.
So IF you ever become a scientist you will have extinguished your silly beliefs. For the moment you spew silly fairy tales all over science sites.
ValeriaT
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
Scientists are willing to change their theories to accommodate new evidence
Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out and science advances one funeral at a time.
tadchem
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2012
The observable universe may or may not be an objective reality, but the only *practical* approach is to treat it as if it *is* an objective reality - at least until we discover a means of escape from the observable universe.
'Escape' would seem to be a more *theological* problem.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (31) Oct 16, 2012
The observable universe may or may not be an objective reality, but the only *practical* approach is to treat it as if it *is* an objective reality - at least until we discover a means of escape from the observable universe.
'Escape' would seem to be a more *theological* problem.
In other words you mean a fantasy. No if there is any way to escape as you say, it will be discovered by scientists and not priests. Priests have only ever discovered more useful forms of applied sociopolitics, and more efficient ways of lining their pockets.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2012
The observable universe may or may not be an objective reality, but the only *practical* approach is to treat it as if it *is*

To that I say, practical to what purpose?

I have no problem playing the what if game, as long as we don't treat the if as fact. We can treat our view of reality as objective, as long as we don't start fooling others (and ourselves) into believing that it is.

Math is perfect, but it is abstract. It can prove whether a theory works, but it cannot prove the theory.
Kron
2.4 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2012
We can assume homogeneity and isotropy when constructing our models, and although testable, they haven't been tested, so they aren't known as facts. We can build a model as *if* the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, we just can't lose touch with the fact that this is something we *believe* to be true. This is an assumption we make.

If the universe is found not to be homogeneous or isotropic then the models based on this belief are false.
Kron
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 16, 2012
Our interpretation of the objective reality points to a homogeneous and isotropic universe, but the objective reality isn't dependent on our interpretation of it.

The objective reality might be a construct of the mind. It is a possibility that reality is an emergent property of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am." lol, how about, 'I think it, therefore it is.'

That is a whole other mess altogether.
Kron
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2012
We can assume homogeneity and isotropy when constructing our models, and although testable

I'm taking this back. To prove this we'd have to test it for the entire Universe for the entire duration from beginning to end. If the universe is infinite, we'd have to run infinite tests. This is unfeasible even with perfect technological advancements.

Homogeneity and isotropy can never be tested in an infinite universe (regardless of technological level), and in a finite universe perfect technology would be required (we'd have to test at every location of space, and we'd have to travel to every moment of time when doing so).

So to prove this in a finite universe requires time and space travel. In an infinite universe it is impossible.

From a practical standpoint neither case is provable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (32) Oct 16, 2012
Our interpretation of the objective reality points to a homogeneous and isotropic universe, but the objective reality isn't dependent on our interpretation of it.

The objective reality might be a construct of the mind. It is a possibility that reality is an emergent property of consciousness. "I think, therefore I am." lol, how about, 'I think it, therefore it is.'

That is a whole other mess altogether.
Your 2nd paragraph directly contradicts your 1st. Your pretense is showing.
From a practical standpoint neither case is provable.
Neither is either relevant. Your pretense is showing. Lol.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2012
[The physical world] might be a construct of the mind. It is a possibility that [the physical] reality is an emergent property of consciousness.

There was no contradiction between the 2nd and 1st, the contradiction was in the 2nd due to bad wording.

If the physical world is an emergent property of consciousness, then no objective physical world exists. The objective reality in this case is consciousness, the physical world in this case becomes subjective.

So the 1st paragraph represents an objective physical world which exists independently from the conscious observer.

The 2nd represents a reality in which the physical world does not exist without the conscious observer.
danger_pennebaker
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2012
No. Just no. It's quite possible that the hypervisor of our universe uses a different physical model than our simulated universe. Any qualities of our physics are unable to describe whether they are the limits of physics or simply our universe. At most we could prove that our universe's physics prevents a simulation of a baby universe within our own, but we can't prove that some sort of supraphysical universe contains ours.

We could prove that we are in a simulation by breaking out of the hypervisor like a virus. Until we do, it's impossible to know whether we're or not we're inside a simulation.
The Singularity
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2012

That's how things work. Even realtivity had 'zero proof' the moment Einstein published it.

This is'nt science, this is a joke. "

Knowing wheter you exist in a simulation isn't worthwhile? I can see where people like to shy away from new knowledge.


This isnt the Truman show, this is real life. The only simulations that exist, we create. There is no question, as we all ( well most of us) live in the real world.
Nogard_Egnaro
not rated yet Oct 18, 2012
They just want us to THINK it's a simulation...
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 18, 2012
The only simulations that exist, we create.

That's an interesting assertion. What do you base this assertion on?

While I agree that knowing whether we live in an simulation or not doesn't change much in terms of how we live our lives (as the old Buddhist proverb says: "Before enlightenment: chop wood, cook soup. After enlightenment: chop wood, cook soup")
However I do feel (scientific) enlightenment is worthwhile. Knowledge for knowledge's sake has its merits. It broadens the mind. And there is even the possibilities of interaction with the simulating entity as notend in the original article

(or just plain hacking/exploiting the simulation for free energy, instant travel to any part, etc. ...which would be a pretty nifty thing to have. If you're damned to live in a simulation you might as well get the most out of it.)
elektron
1 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
From first year philosophy, I thought there was no way to prove we weren't just a brain in a box.


It matters not whether we are a brain in a box or not because the question, what is this 'we' or 'I', has the same answer. Consciousness, which is the fundamental nature of reality.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2012
I though there was no way to prove we weren't just a brain in a box.

this is true. By changing this line to read:
'I thought there was no way to prove we were just a brain in a box.'
The statement becomes false. The problem is, the box and brain could exist in an infinite number of possible states. So not finding it in a certain state leaves it in an infinite number of other possible states. But alternately, finding the brain and box in one certain state proves that we are a brain in a box.

In the same way that:
-We can't prove the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, but we can prove that it is not by finding a place that is different.
-We can't prove there is no God, but we can prove there is by finding Him.
-We can't prove that we aren't a simulation, but we can prove we are by uncovering it.
Kron
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2012
We can prove a theory is wrong but we can't prove a theory is right.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
Devil's advocate
Is it possible to assume nothing?

Akin to the 'something from nothing' proponents.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
To assume nothing is an assumption.
Neatly sidesteps falsification.
And where language falls short.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2012
Is it possible to assume nothing?
Of course it's possible, but it violates the Occam's razor. AWT is based on the assumption, the random state of Universe is more probable state than any other particular state, including the zero state.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 18, 2012
[The physical world] might be a construct of the mind. It is a possibility that [the physical] reality is an emergent property of consciousness.
Yawn. So what happens when the physical world kills the mind? We know that countless minds have died but the world is still there. Go back and watch the Matrix, and remind yourself that it is just a movie.
There was no contradiction between the 2nd and 1st, the contradiction was in the 2nd due to bad wording.
Well thats the trouble when amateurs try to cook word spaghetti. (Hint - it is also the trouble when seasoned philos try to cook word spaghetti)
http://www.youtub...O1iLZmcw

-Your mode of thought has been declared dead. It consistently fails to inform. So sorry.
Kron
2.6 / 5 (15) Oct 18, 2012
So what happens when the physical world kills the mind?
that's assuming that it can be. When the physical world kills the body (the brain), the consciousness of the individual may rejoin a common conscious network, it may reside there permanently, or it may even return into a physical form through a reincarnative process. In any case, if consciousness isn't destroyed, neither does the physical world it constructs have to be. Maybe you really are the embodiment of Otto himself.

philos[ophy]...has been declared dead

while I agree that physical modeling is best represented with geometry and calculus, words work for thought experiments and in the end sometimes lead to better models. You can't have physics without philosophy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 18, 2012
that's assuming that it can be. When the physical world kills the body (the brain), the consciousness of the individual may rejoin a common conscious blah
-See, you philos just want to live forever like any other religionist and you think your intellects will show you the way.

Inevitability is the new mantra. There is NOTHING beyond the pale.
words work for thought experiments and in the end sometimes lead to better models.
-Only when they are used by physicists and mathematicians who are familiar with the calculations that they represent.
You can't have physics without philosophy
-Only a philo will tell you this. YOU didnt watch the vid. Hawking, feynman, Krauss and many others will tell you it is worthless. Scads of scientists will confirm this for you every day when they get results and make progress without using it.

-And before you twitch, those philos you are about to mention were doing science and not metaphysics whenever they made any useful contributions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (29) Oct 18, 2012
Dan dennett, himself a philo of note, on the uselessness of your words:

"[Others] note that my "avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters" often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors trapped in the seductively lucid amber of tradition: "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."
Estevan57
2.4 / 5 (31) Oct 18, 2012
So Otto, why not let them talk among themselves ? What do you care what they talk about? Do they not pay enough attention to you? Are you needy? Need your diaper changed? Look at Otto, look at Otto.
Cp_L
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2012
What if we are in a meta simulation, like simulation inside another simulation. Or cant that happen? Yea it must be possible then since we make simulatons ourselves. But then again ours are not intelligent. I guess every simulation is less advanced then the place its from..
Cp_L
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2012
What if we are in a meta simulation, like simulation inside another simulation. Or cant that happen? Yea it must be possible then since we make simulatons ourselves. But then again ours are not intelligent. I guess every simulation is less advanced then the place its from..
Cp_L
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2012
What if we are in a meta simulation, like simulation inside another simulation. Or cant that happen? Yea it must be possible then since we make simulatons ourselves. But then again ours are not intelligent. I guess every simulation is less advanced then the place its from..
pindour
not rated yet Oct 27, 2012
well, shooting films may also be considered an artistic (or lyrical) way of the simulation.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2012
The main reason, why science considers the creationists theories like the simulation of Universe is, that the attempts for falsification of this idea (which is futile by its own definition) can bring another evasion for neverending research, i.e. jobs and salaries. After all, the priests of Holy Church maintained their legends from the same reasons.
bob_harvey_92
3 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2012
Please don't let any religious nut jobs read this..
ShotmanMaslo
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 11, 2012
Creationism that denies science is a problem, however I dont see an issue with this kind of simulation creationism, it does not even require god.

In fact, it seems like a good argument against god. If we can find out that we live in a simulation it would mean the simulation is imperfect, and why would an omnipotent being create an imperfect simulation?