Physicists May Have Evidence the Universe is a Computer Simulation

[Kaos]

Sharing from a facebook post... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1957777.html Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation. How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us. A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible. And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial. Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true. In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws. Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time." What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program. These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist. For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation. Naturally, at this point the science becomes pretty tricky to wade through - and we would advise you read the paper itself to try and get the full detail of the idea. But the basic impression is an intriguing one. Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison -- but through physics we may be able to reach out and touch them.

[Mike70]

Sharing from a facebook post... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1957777.html funny that you post this. there is an experiment underway at Cal Tech (which will take possibly 2-3 more years to complete) to see if the holographic principle of mathematics applies to the universe as a whole. if it does, it would indicate that the entire universe is, in fact, a holographic projection. i'll leave you all a moment to wrap your brains around that one. i'm steadily gravitating (hahaha aren't i funny) towards choosing Astronomy. i've been doing it at the amateur level for years, so why not turn pro?

[Kaos]

Go for it, Mike! As for the article... it seems to cause people to freak out at the prospect. My daughter and I only see the possibilities at exploiting the condition. By gosh, I love that girl. If we are a simulation, I wonder how many other civilizations that sprout up in the simulation have come to the same conclusion? I wonder what the creators of the simulation think of us becoming truly self-aware as a simulation.

[Mike70]

As for the article... it seems to cause people to freak out at the prospect. yes, i know it does. some folks even get damned angry over the prospect and try the old "it's all manipulation of numbers" line. i try my best to explain that this kind of math isn't statistics - it simply reveals what is or isn't. math is the ultimate truth of the universe. most folks would be hard pressed to graph an equation but yet instantly become experts when their precious existence is questioned - if they can drag themselves away from "dancing with the stars" or "survivor" long enough to remember how many fingers they have. like you and your daughter, i see only the most intriguing of possibilities in such a thing. "i sense plans within plans."

[MoonSylver]

Huh. So "The Matrix" is true, in a manor of speaking. Thought so. No wonder I've come to the conclusion that there is a "god"(creator), but that he doesn't give a shit about us & that the only reason for our existence is for his amusement or observation, or both. I fucking knew it.

[krakenslayer]

yes, i know it does. some folks even get damned angry over the prospect and try the old "it's all manipulation of numbers" line. i try my best to explain that this kind of math isn't statistics - it simply reveals what is or isn't. math is the ultimate truth of the universe. most folks would be hard pressed to graph an equation but yet instantly become experts when their precious existence is questioned - if they can drag themselves away from "dancing with the stars" or "survivor" long enough to remember how many fingers they have. like you and your daughter, i see only the most intriguing of possibilities in such a thing. "i sense plans within plans." With something like this, though, there is still an element of interpretation - we can show the GZK cut off exists and operates in a certain way, that would be consistent with how we'd expect such a simulation to operate if it was being run from a universe with similar laws of physics to our own. It doesn't prove that we are living in such a sim, it merely indicates that it's possible, which is all science does, true, but in this case a fairly tenuous and speculative probability. Anyway, it's silly that people get upset at the idea. Whether you are a magic ghost sent down from heaven or an element of a computer sim being run in another dimension , it makes no difference to your life here and now. In any case, the God Squad should be happy - this is pretty much the closest thing to cautious scientific acceptance of the concept of a creator in probably 100 years.

[Neil]

When you read about freaky $hit like the double slit experiment, that seems to imply that the 'simulation' has flaws which can be spotted!

[krakenslayer]

When you read about freaky $hit like the double slit experiment, that seems to imply that the 'simulation' has flaws which can be spotted! That's a really great point! We'll have to watch out, though, that "must be a glitch in the simulation" doesn't become the new "God did it" when faced with something that doesn't fit the established worldview.

[Kaos]

With something like this, though, there is still an element of interpretation - we can show the GZK cut off exists and operates in a certain way, that would be consistent with how we'd expect such a simulation to operate if it was being run from a universe with similar laws of physics to our own. It doesn't prove that we are living in such a sim, it merely indicates that it's possible, which is all science does, true, but in this case a fairly tenuous and speculative probability. Duh, that is why the article says "may have evidence" and the discussion has other qualifiers such as "if". The science behind the paper will be peer reviewed and otherwise evaluated. Drawing definitive conclusions is clearly premature. If deemed worthy, other investigations along the lines of the article would be pursued. As Mike mentioned there are other completely different approaches to discern the nature of our reality. It is irrational to believe we are without a doubt a simulation. It is even more irrational to be frightened/dismayed/despondent over the prospect. If one can't entertain the idea at all it points to a deficit in imagination more than anything else. Not saying anyone responding to this thread falls into any of these categories, and especially not kracken!

[Neil]

Thing is, if the simulation is (nigh on) so perfect we can't tell... then why should we care?

[krakenslayer]

Duh, that is why the article says "may have evidence" and the discussion has other qualifiers such as "if". The science behind the paper will be peer reviewed and otherwise evaluated. Drawing definitive conclusions is clearly premature. If deemed worthy, other investigations along the lines of the article would be pursued. As Mike mentioned there are other completely different approaches to discern the nature of our reality. It is irrational to believe we are without a doubt a simulation. It is even more irrational to be frightened/dismayed/despondent over the prospect. If one can't entertain the idea at all it points to a deficit in imagination more than anything else. Not saying anyone responding to this thread falls into any of these categories, and especially not kracken! Totally agree, I was referring only to Mike's specific point about people claiming "manipulation of numbers", etc. The simulation hypothesis is something I have been interested in for a long, long time.

[AcesandEights]

It is irrational to believe we are without a doubt a simulation. Exactly what a time-keeping cog in The Great Apparatus would want us to go on believing!

[Mike70]

With something like this, though, there is still an element of interpretation - we can show the GZK cut off exists and operates in a certain way, that would be consistent with how we'd expect such a simulation to operate if it was being run from a universe with similar laws of physics to our own. It doesn't prove that we are living in such a sim, it merely indicates that it's possible, which is all science does, true, but in this case a fairly tenuous and speculative probability. certainly science is all about the interpretation of data through mathematics. sometimes you are right the first time (rarely). often, it takes years of experiment/observation to prove whether something is true or untrue. i'm speaking more of scientifically illiterate people who cannot even explain to me one of the many, many ways that electricity is generated, who suddenly feel themselves competent to cast aside the ideas and work of people who spend their entire lives studying a subject. that's just stupidity and hubris. i'm a trained scientist in my own right (in history) and i still remain humble because there are new things i learn (and relearn) everyday about a subject that i've been studying since i was 10 years old. now i've decided to go back, study more and become proficient in one of the natural sciences. right now i am a proponent of M theory because the math seems to work and it would explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other natural forces but maybe it is all the design of what Ace has labeled The Great Apparatus.

[MoonSylver]

It is even more irrational to be frightened/dismayed/despondent over the prospect. Meh. You'll forgive me of course if I find the fact that I'm merely a demented delusion or a lab rat somewhat unpalatable & distasteful. It does go a long way though towards confirming the essential wrongness I've always perceived in all that is. To the creator of this simulation I say this: Is this the best you can do? Then you can kiss my ass.

[Legion2213]

Meh. You'll forgive me of course if I find the fact that I'm merely a demented delusion or a lab rat somewhat unpalatable & distasteful. It does go a long way though towards confirming the essential wrongness I've always perceived in all that is. To the creator of this simulation I say this: Is this the best you can do? Then you can kiss my ass. Yeah, where are my rocket boots and my pet dragon you ass-holes! There is a neat short story by Stephen Baxter about what happens when we inadverdantly break the simulation that we are in, it don't be pleasant!