Physicists are trying to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is equivalent to simulating the universe itself. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell. If the cosmos is a numerical simulation, there ought to be clues in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays, say theorists.
Descrição original:
Título original
The Measurement That Would Reveal the Universe as a Computer Simulation
Physicists are trying to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is equivalent to simulating the universe itself. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell. If the cosmos is a numerical simulation, there ought to be clues in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays, say theorists.
Physicists are trying to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is equivalent to simulating the universe itself. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell. If the cosmos is a numerical simulation, there ought to be clues in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays, say theorists.
Simulation If the cosmos is a numerical simulation, there ought to be clues in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays, say theorists
One of modern physics most cherished ideas is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that describes the strong nuclear force, how it binds quarks and gluons into protons and neutrons, how these form nuclei that themselves interact. This is the universe at its most fundamental. So an interesting pursuit is to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer to see what kind of complexity arises. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is more or less equivalent to simulating the universe itself. There are one or two challenges of course. The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the worlds most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.) That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it). Its not hard to imagine that Moores Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell. Again, the behaviour of this human cell would be indistinguishable from the real thing. Its this kind of thinking that forces physicists to consider the possibility that our entire cosmos could be running on a vastly powerful computer. If so, is there any way we could ever know? Today, we get an answer of sorts from Silas Beane, at the University of Bonn in Germany, and a few pals. They say there is a way to see evidence that we are being simulated, at least in certain scenarios. First, some background. 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. The question that Beane and co ask is whether the lattice spacing imposes any kind of limitation on the physical processes we see in the universe. They examine, in particular, high energy processes, which probe smaller regions of space as they get more energetic What they find is interesting. They say that the lattice spacing imposes a fundamental limit on the energy that particles can have. Thats because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself. So if our cosmos is merely a simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles. It turns out there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic ray particles, a limit known as the GreisenZatsepinKuzmin or GZK cut off. This cut-off has been well studied and comes about because high energy particles interact with the cosmic microwave background and so lose energy as they travel long distances. But Beane and co calculate that the lattice spacing imposes some additional features on the spectrum. The most striking featureis that the angular distribution of the highest energy components would exhibit cubic symmetry in the rest frame of the lattice, deviating signicantly from isotropy, they say. In other words, the cosmic rays would travel preferentially along the axes of the lattice, so we wouldnt see them equally in all directions. Thats a measurement we could do now with current technology. Finding the effect would be equivalent to being able to to see the orientation of lattice on which our universe is simulated. Thats cool, mind-blowing even. But the calculations by Beane and co are not without some important caveats. One problem is that the computer lattice may be constructed in an entirely different way to the one envisaged by these guys. Another is that this effect is only measurable if the lattice cut off is the same as the GZK cut off. This occurs when the lattice spacing is about 10^-12 femtometers. If the spacing is significantly smaller than that, well see nothing. Nevertheless, its surely worth looking for, if only to rule out the possibility that were part of a simulation of this particular kind but secretly in the hope that well find good evidence of our robotic overlords once and for all. Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation Digital Summit June 9-10, 2014 San Francisco, CA Register now
21COMMENTS. Share your thoughts Tagged: Computing, A123 Systems Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor RELATED STORIES YOU MAY HAVE MISSED MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
Do We Need Asimov's Laws? As robots become ever more present in daily life, the question of how to control their behaviour naturally arises. Does Asimov have the answer? CONTINUE 26
Seven Must-Read Stories (Week Ending May 24, 2014)
Seven Must-Read Stories (Week Ending May 17, 2014)
Seven Must-Read Stories (Week Ending May 10, 2014)
Why Virtual Reality Will Compete with the Real World
Seven Must-Read Stories (Week Ending May 3, 2014)
Five Things Obamas Big Data Experts Warned Him About
How to Win at Rock-Paper-Scissors
Seven Must-Read Stories (Week Ending April 26, 2014)
THE LATEST POPULAR MOST SHARED
1 day ago Other Interesting arXiv Papers (Week ending May 24, 2014)
1 day ago Dating Mining Reddit Posts Reveals How to Ask For a Favor--And Get it
1 day ago Long-Sought Compound for Treating Diabetes Identified with Unique Chemical Synthesis Method
1 day ago Seven Stories You Shouldnt Miss (Week Ending May 24, 2014)
2 days ago Charging a Smartphone, No Wires Required
Websites Turn to Experiments
2 days ago Best Tech Stories from Around the Web (Week Ending May 24, 2014)
3 days ago Three Questions on the U.S. Indictment Against Chinas Alleged Cyberspies
3 days ago The $35 Firewall For The Developing World
4 days ago Three Questions with Baidus Deep Learning Research Boss
4 days ago The Secret Science of Retweets
Making Money in Mobile Business Report Free download courtesy of
5 days ago Developing a MERS Vaccine Is Risky Business
1 week ago Other Interesting arXiv Papers (Week ending May 10, 2014)
1 week ago Chinese Search Giant Baidu Hires Ex- Google AI Researcher to Run New Silicon Valley Lab
The Next Silicon Valley Business Report Free download courtesy of
1 week ago Do We Need Asimov's Laws?
Smarter Embedded Systems, Faster Deployment In partnership with
1 week ago Seven Stories You Shouldnt Miss (Week Ending May 17, 2014)
1 week ago What Will Activity Tracking Bands Do with Their Prime Real Estate on Your Wrist?
SEE FULL ARCHIVE 21 comments Sign in 83 people listening
+ Follow Share Post comment as... Newest | Oldest | Top Comments SpacemanJupiter Mar 29, 2014 I'm not really sure why people always equate this type of theory to literal computer processing like we earthlings have 'invented' at an infinitely small scale with our desktop PC's, super computers, mobile devices, etc.. I think it's more accurate to say that we are simulating what is fundamentally an operation of consciousness. Before the physical universe there was consciousness. Before consciousness there was a potential. A state. That state becomes dimly aware that it can change states, from ON or 1, to OFF or 0. The consciousness evolves developing more states, more awareness. It multiplies, divides, experiments, eventually creating rules that non physical consciousness normally doesn't adhere to, but these rules create experiences and constraints, physics, the physical. In that respect you could call this a simulation. We're living in a set of rules that you can probably break down to a grid, then on or off states, binary so to speak. As this might be the case, the physical universe would be infinite in all directions and the 'universe' doesn't exist without objects to create coordinates. It explains a lot really, the simulation theory, but mathematics, binary, programming, simulation, it's all a product of consciousness. The consciousness can't have experience without constraints, rule sets (physics), on and off, light and dark, duality, etc.. thus the universe (simulation) was created. But calling our universe a simulation is too robotic and computery when it's really not because of the addition of more fundamental elements such as consciousness, awareness and emotion. That leads me to assume that a so called computer simulation here on earth could with enough complexity develop its own conscious awareness, its own emotions, and it wouldn't be any less real or natural than our own because that is fundamentally what consciousness is. I have not been drinking tonight. FlagShare 1LikeReply kphil Sep 24, 2013 simulation would give the creaters an opportunity discover new technologies and new works of art. If they create it in a simulation, then incoporate the simulated technical or artistic creation(books and Music) into the real world. The ultimate tool that can be used for discovering inventions, probably using a quantam computer. i figure we are only a few hundred years behind the simulations creation. the reason being is becasue the creator could only create a flat world when they started running the program, which was right before christopher columbus discoverd america because then world was flat because of the limited technology of the creator when they created our simulation. when we first started creating simulaitons within simulations(video games) our creations were also flat and had an edge. remember those days....get to the edge and couldnt go any further, the game wouldnt alow to you cross into the dead zone.. now we are able to create whole world simulations and remove the edges(grand theft auto). Now the big question is how do we communicate to the creator and have influence on our simulated time line. how do we as individuals get the creators attention, but the realization that this is a simulation would ruin the experiroment. may be the reason why they decide to terminate the program, we would no longer be useful if the world new this was a simulation. FlagShare LikeReply GameTheory Sep 14, 2013 Close but no cigar. It's a game. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Complex-Evolution/119472201544094
FlagShare LikeReply Belljj2009 Aug 18, 2013 Cool new book on the subject. Discusses that by having universe simulations running within simulations, you could have a natural selection of habitable universes over time with favorable physical characteristics for life. "On Computer Simulated Universes" http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Simulated-Universes-Mark- Solomon/dp/0989832511/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1376855339&sr=8- 3&keywords=On+computer+simulated FlagShare LikeReply wharrison007 Jul 9, 2013 With your theory of multiple simulations we as people could be traveling through time riding on a cosmic roller coaster living simulated lives, which is a choreographed by a virtual amusement park designed to break up the boredom. FlagShare LikeReply skywalkez May 8, 2013 Doesn't make sense to be only one "supercomputer" simulating everything, but multiple computers (even from different generations) interacting in the universe-created simulation program. This way, each atom/particle can be one computer and it's behavior is fully defined by the programmer rules. So a person can be an almost infinite number of computers simulating each particle of him/her, and interactions will be governed by the main simulation program they are connected. Think that when you skin off, those cells will have their own energy that can be re-used by other beings (like an insect eating it). The computer(s) responsible for this specific cells will now connect to this insect and keep it's tasks into the simulation. If you follow my line, the minimum measurement they will get is for a specific computer and not for the main simulation program, and if may vary according to what computer you are measuring in the big Matrix. I can't imagine all different computers being identical nor how to apply a patch in the theory of one "supercomputer" (dump all information to a HDD, apply the patch, restore it, run... BUG... rollback, quick! Restore previous state and data and run again...: With all the information we are talking about it may take centuries for the simulation admins to to this :) ) FlagShare LikeReply skywalkez May 8, 2013 This way, some answers you can probably get are: 1) the "Big Bang" was the first boot of the main simulation program. 2) The mass ammount in universe is governed by the amount of computers you have currently connected. This can increase or decrease over time, unless there is a limitation for connections on the simulation program 3) Computers can migrate from one simulation environmnet to another as a particle can travel from the Sun to Earth. 4) Max speed (i.e. light) is the simulation program cycle and this can be different from the time for each node to simulate itself. 5) It's not like playing the Sim's as they don't play a human being... but "they" can collect information from the interactions and results... maybe they don't even noticed the "intelligence" presented in a specific network of computers simulating the Earth interactions, or maybe this is the only interesting part to gather information from. FlagShare 1LikeReply Victech Jan 26, 2013 Cool Theory very deep but understandable FlagShare LikeReply Gwyneth Llewelyn Jan 10, 2013 So, this article is three months old. Has the research team published any results so far? I'm curious about that :-) FlagShare LikeReply 994u Jan 8, 2013 The aim of the game would be to create unique experiences. So we always would/will create new a impossibility.
It is a matrix. We enjoy it. We get better with each interaction.
See you on/in the next level.... FlagShare LikeReply Thingumbob Jan 9, 2013 @994u Well, yes. But here you are talking about classical artistic beauty such as the unfolding development of a great fugue by, say, Johann Sebastian Bach. FlagShare LikeReply dmm Jan 2, 2013 I don't believe any of this, but just for the fun of argument: Why would anyone bother simulating the entire universe? And anyway, LOOOONG before anyone _could_ simulate the entire universe, they'd be simulating one planet at a time, as a MMOG. The rest of the universe would be just filler. And most of the people you encounter would be NPCs, with a few of them PCs. To make the realism as good as possible, it might be all but impossible to distinguish PCs from NPCs, so that even the PCs wouldn't know who was who. It might even be considered good gaming to alter the psychological state of PCs to prevent them from realizing they are in a game (while they are playing), e.g. Total Recall. But this way leads to madness. Are serial killers evil and/or insane, or simply punk kids messing around with a MMOG? Was Hitler evil, or a highly successful PC trying to kill off his brother's (non-Aryan) PC -- for fun? Since all of the people around you are merely simulated, does it really matter how you treat them? It seems to me that we must assume reality is real, or we cannot function. FlagShare 1LikeReply Crafty Mitch Jan 2, 2013
will man one day become so far advanced to create a genuine simulated universe, inside a holographic quantum computer? yes or no
If yes, would it be likely for us to run a significant number of simulations of our evolutionary history and possible future predictions? yes or no
If you answered yes to both questions, the chances of our universe presently being a simulation would be well over 90%
If we are presently in a simulation our creators would not only use the simulation to find out how they evolved, but would possibly use the simulation to show how their own future will likely unfold, including new cures, advancements in technologies, coming natural disasters, all viewable through our simulated universe years in advance to their own. Could this not possibly be achieved through speeding up (our universes) their simulated universes time by X amount?
There would be a point where they could not speed up time much faster for the chance of not getting an accurate simulation of their own past and future, thus ruining the entire project, the project would be infinite as we would at some point (after creating our own simulated universe) surpass their time and knowledge, bringing ever new knowledge to our creators.
Their simulation of our universe, would be showing them their future, possibly many years in advance. We would go on to create our own simulated universes which could also bring new inventions and new ways of thinking to our own creators. Would this not give our creators and possibly their own creators, the desire to make sure that our simulated universes would never end?
FlagShare 1LikeReply AdamJTP Dec 18, 2012 I'd love to see the comments in the simulation's code.
//I'm storing sigma_x and sigma_p in same field. Shouldn't be a problem unless arbitrary precision required for BOTH position and momentum.
//TODO: Fermions key on quantum state - a better key should be found to allow duplicates.
//Optimized for lazy calculation. Doesn't bother performing calculation until observeResult is called. FlagShare 2LikeReply AdamJTP Jan 4, 2013 //TODO: fix arithmetic overflow where positive temperatures become reported as negative // Bug report: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/52 FlagShare LikeReply benlewis Dec 15, 2012 It seems the question posed here is plagued by problems involving semantic externalism, quite similar to those described by Putnam (1).
(1) Putnam, H., 1981, Reason, Truth, and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1, pp. 121; reprinted as Brains in a Vat, in DeRose and Warfield (eds.) 1999, Chapter 2, pp. 2742 FlagShare LikeReply Crafty Mitch Jan 2, 2013 @benlewis hi FlagShare LikeReply chales Dec 12, 2012 There is a severe error being made here: confusion of (A) reality-as-computation with (B) computer-computation of a physics model of reality. A) The former creates a scientific observer that sees the world and describes it with symbolic regularities we call the 'laws of physics' - how it appears to us from within.
B) The latter computes the 'laws of physics' on a computer within the system.The problem is that B) will never create a scientific observer because it presupposes it. In philosophy terms this error is called a category error and usually sends the discussion back to the drawing board. The physicists need to do some neuroscience, where there is an attempt to explain the scientific observer (the empirical science of phenomenal consciousness). It is only about 20 years old, but it is making some progress. Once they do this they will understand the real issues involved in the project.Note that we could still be in a substrate created by an 'outside agency', created for purposes unknown. I am saying that the substrate is NOT a computer of the kind being used in the activity under discussion. FlagShare 3LikeReply Thingumbob Dec 12, 2012 @chales Your comment here is a vast improvement over the rest due to the fact that you have questioned the assumptions that underlie this rather fatuous premise. The issue you bring up naturally leads next to the question of free will. There is a lawful succession of changes in humanity's progress as it comes into greater conformity with a continuous unfolding of universal physical creation. We have the unique capacity as a species to decrease the errors of our practice by using that knowledge thereby attained. Taken over the historical span of civilization such knowledge constitutes a principle of the human mind as distinct from that rather feeble biological human brain. Only from this perspective can a mission orientation for future truly worthwhile human endeavors be envisaged. FlagShare 1LikeReply Gwyneth Llewelyn Dec 15, 2012 @chales Fascinating answer! I was wondering if you could point to some of the current research on the attempts to explain the scientific observer e.g. what it is. It's not my field, of course, so I'm totally ignorant, and, so far, I've just seen a few pointers in mainstream scientific books like the ones from Antnio Damsio and eventually Hofstadter, where there is a hint that what we call an observer or a "mind" is merely an epiphenomenum of the complex relationships and interconnections inside our brain.
On the other hand, I have this issue with some of my philosophically-oriented, physics-trained friends, who squirm away from the Anthropic Principle, by saying "everything (e.g. particles) can be mathematically defined as an observer", which lead one of them, after much discussion around the meaning of the word "observer" in this context, to reject the idea that particles can be conscious by simultaneously affirming that they can make measurements (a concept that requires a conscious mind behind it).
The likes of Hofstadter and Damsio are pointing the way towards "mind", "consciousness", "observation", and "measurement" being merely epiphenomena without intrinsic existence, but this creates an interesting loophole: it takes a mind to recognise another mind as being an epiphenomenum. In what I've read so far, this paradox (intended mostly to break free from the Anthropic Principle) remains subject of much discussion, and I'm keen in learning more about what advances have been done so far in this area.
Thanks in advance! FlagShare 1LikeReply CamiT Sep 21, 2013 @Gwyneth Llewelyn @chales Good God you people are smart! This leads me to believe I am a mere NPC! And the computer taking care of me is surely broken! Or hasn't been updated in 49+ years! FlagShare LikeReply CamiT Sep 21, 2013 @Gwyneth Llewelyn @chales I'm feeling like Penny on The Big Bang Theory! ughh FlagShare LikeReply JimRoth Nov 20, 2012 There is no reason to assume that real (I.E. non-smulated) physical properties are continuous. FlagShare LikeReply Phil Goetz Nov 12, 2012 This supposes that the universe would be simulated to a physical grid. That doesn't make much sense - the universe uses a lot of computation; you'd want to do it efficiently. If there's a grid, it would be in information space, not physical space. Quantum mechanics shows how the properties of a particle are described as a probability distribution. If there is a fundamental "distance", it would be the increase in uncertainty about, say, a particle, required to trigger a computation. FlagShare LikeReply yasser Nov 7, 2012 we live in computer simulation because we can not observe the large scale structure of the universe or observe the quantum scale exactly like the computer screen , if you enlarge it you see nothing FlagShare LikeReply jayelliii Oct 31, 2012 Some people seen to have too much time in their hands. How about real contributions? FlagShare LikeReply NDJS Oct 31, 2012 i've always thought that quantum physics provides a possible argument in favour of computer simulation, ie, saving processing power by simulating individual particles only when necessary. FlagShare LikeReply jayelliii Oct 24, 2012 The most interesting thing about all these THEORETICAL PHISYCISTS is how much mambo jambo (smj dot int dash domains dot com) these guys are willing to throw at us.
Before going any further on this MATRIX, let's go back to the fundamental question: WHO is operating the holographic machine; WHO are the players? FlagShare LikeReply walkerjian Oct 24, 2012 @jayelliii according to the principle of universal multiperson pantheistic solipsism, I am... FlagShare 1LikeReply NDJS Oct 31, 2012 @jayelliii asking "who controls the matrix" is akin to asking "what happened before the big bang?"While the answer may be fascinating, it's not clear whether it's even possible to discern. FlagShare LikeReply walkerjian Oct 31, 2012 @NDJS @jayelliii My bathroom has one of those frosted windows - a rather ripley one... I have often mused, whilst otherwise occupied, that it seemed reminiscent of the big-bang remnant... the ripples corresponding to fluctuations in space-time... and if you could deconvolve that window to see the image behind it (my garden) then you may be able to see the BB more clearly. And now some scientists have found a way to deconvolve the effects of a ripply window - maybe someone should ask them to take a look at the CMB...
My hunch is a projection of a lab assistants noggin (or some reasonable facsimile thereof) writ large on the cosmos... The original woops theory if you like...
FlagShare LikeReply walkerjian Oct 20, 2012 finally (sorry to spam you, I will go away now promise) Doesn't Wolfram's NKS really relate very well to this? FlagShare LikeReply HenryEckstein Nov 21, 2012 @walkerjian Wolfram's New Kind of Science (sitting on my shelf as I type this!) says the universe is just a SMALL bunch of attractor and repulsor equations that probablyis running as a large universe-scale computation. One thing that bugs me though is, maybe I AM THE ONLY full human simulationon this board and the rest of you are just Weak-A.I.-based avatars only superficially being computed. You don't even KNOW you're just an avatar (like those Call-of- Duty video game "Buddies" you go out on a simulated mission with!)...you have a set bunch of limited input rules and output responses and I AM the only one who is being simulated down to the atomic level! I just have NO IDEA if YOU are a rule-based avatar engine beingcomputed as a crude and empty shell of "pixels" .PONDER THAT FOR A MOMENT! And if you have a SUDDEN insight, it means the larger computation engine is MOMENTARILY EXPANDING the localized simulation precision to temporarily expand your simulation intelligence so as to MAKE ME BELIEVE you are all truly intelligent beings, when in reality once I'm done here, you'll be collapsed BACK INTO being just a rule-based 3D-wireframe avatar shell! FlagShare 1LikeReply walkerjian Nov 22, 2012 @HenryEckstein the real issue is just how is the universal information represented? when we say that point 1 is at x and point 2 is at y, and we measure distance via a metric, is the universal simulation a faithful one, a mechanical one? or do x and y exist just as representations in some database where the real distance is irrelevant - it doesn't really have any meaning. The entire universal simulation could exist at the planck scale in some superposed state. The 'measured' distance IN the simulation is a different matter - it could be anything couldn't it? Or does the simulation HAVE to measure distance according to familiar metrics? Does quantum mechanics emerge because there is no other way for the simulation to progress when modelled by such a state? What about Relativity? The zitter? Is there a global isochronous clock, or does each event just have a time coordinate updated accordingly only via interaction.... If the universal simulation designers have created a 'faithful' (sorry pun intended) representation then the cosmic ray question is relevant. If they have used tricks in the rendering pipeline where only a reasonable facsimile thereof of 'reality' is rendered, like COD and most other games, then the rules we call 'science' are only relevant in terms of tricks needed to get things playable... Or are they? ;) Have the game designers not been tricksy, or is it turtles all the way down once the veils are stripped away? Is it possible to have any form of a working simulation without having the FULL implementation of the science API...
so when you say "when in reality once I'm done here, you'll be collapsed BACK INTO being just a rule-based 3D-wireframe avatar shell!" it could actually worse than that - the 3d wireframe shell is an instantiation (or partial instantiation from the object pool) that is part rendered and parked in a buffer maybe...
and I could go on - what really fascinates is thinking about how databases and computer systems could be programmed to 'faithfully represent' reality. Or as much as possible anyway, and how this could shine a light (sorry, pun intended) on new physics... What elements are absolutely required to faithfully reproduce reality, to be predictive? And what do they say about say renormalisation, and even irrational numbers if you want to get absurd?
Maybe dark energy and dark matter are just buffer overruns heading to the NOOP slide to hell, as exceptions are thrown in response to cosmological absurdity (in the numerical sense - the square root of two not being calculable on an apple), so causing a rampantly inflated memory leak that WILL BSOD US ALLLLLLLLL
bwaaaahahahahahahhhaaaaaarrrrr
And what did Turing, Tarski, Godel have to say about this anyways?
cheers FlagShare LikeReply ruggedgeolife Nov 23, 2012 @HenryEckstein @walkerjian ..Yeah, well, I'm probably not some kind of simulated avatar thing. But in case I am, I got greivances against my cosmic 'simulator' out there! Why are you keeping my life in the crapper!? I want you to quit jokin' around and give this simulation some respect! And I got demands! I want a better job! More money! More women! More power! More popularity! I been makin' stupid mistakes lately! Totaly your fault! Put an end to that! Most of all, keep Mama Nature's ugly nephew Murphy off my back! He's been doggin' me lately! Always watchin' for me to slip up! And I work outside! Please do something about the damn bugs! Just letting you know I'm on to you Mr Cosmic Smulator Guy. If you want me to keep amusing you then I expect results! ;op FlagShare 1LikeReply largo.lagg Feb 16, 2014 @HenryEckstein @walkerjian yeah, actually, YOU are the avatar, I am the true simulation. You don't even exist, you're just a fictitiious author of a note on a board I'm reading.
I had the very same idea, and I posted it over a year after this post is dated. But of course, the post didn't really come into existence until I loaded this page, and I didn't read your post until after I wrote mine, so the simulator must have taken my idea and regurgitated it into a post and dated it from some fictitious time in the past.
If the world was actually real, I'd feel some pity for it for when I die, because the whole simulation will undoubtedly abend. FlagShare LikeReply walkerjian Oct 20, 2012 a long time ago I asked a question on an internet newsgroup about what the highest frequency/shortest wavelength could be and still be consistent with Heisenberg (uncertainty) and Planck (length) As usual I was variously ridiculed and cast out as being a nitwit... yet I still reckon the question is a good one. It does set an absolute scale does it not? Other things that puzzle are the higher derivatives of position with time - force producing an acceleration, time varying force producing snap crackle and pop. But how? And why? What does it say about the rules on the universal lattice, and the real origin of 'force' and 'mass'. And do Greens propagators devolve to Bresenhams algorithms when devolved to the lattice? FlagShare LikeReply jovcevski Dec 25, 2012 @walkerjian I was also thinking along this path. Coming from completely different background, I had problem understanding all the maths behind, but one thing came to my mind; what if the universe pulsates? If it is simulation it will have to redraw itself I guess. So this h/c frequency would be the smallest quanta of time/space. And it also explains the speed of light limitation; one can't be redrawn (moved) to different position without skipping 'pixels' if it's speed is greater than the redraw speed/frequency :) And mass becomes larger when speeding up cause maybe the 'pixels' have ghosting remaining in them so it takes time to clear that up, so mass becomes larger as the body is inhabiting more 'pixels' . When I posted this somewhere most of the 'scientists' were also not taking it seriously, but at least if someone has some deep understanding, please write what stops it from being valid? I would love that :) frequencyofreality.blogspot.com FlagShare LikeReply walkerjian Oct 20, 2012 so everything is a kind of cellular automaton? kewl! thus many of the issues we have with math will simply drop away as physics devolves to simple rules on the lattice. The electron is a simple beast if considered as a CA for example. So are Maxwells equations, QED, QCD, geometrodynamics and the rest... for example, the solution of an elliptical pde can be a fearsome thing, Charpits notwithstanding. Yet said pde can cast into a ridiculously simple recurrence on a lattice of characteristics. Try it... ;) FlagShare LikeReply kosamatteo Oct 16, 2012 Two names. - Douglas Adams - Bhudda Shakyamuni
That's said still mind boggling. FlagShare 2LikeReply Gwyneth Llewelyn Oct 20, 2012 @kosamatteo You've summed it up perfectly :)
And yes, it's still mind boggling that scientists are actually asking The Question. That's more interesting than the actual answer! FlagShare 1LikeReply ILLINI Oct 15, 2012 Assuming this theory is true....Which came first, The Chicken or The Sim ? FlagShare LikeReply ILLINI Oct 15, 2012 This is extremely mind boggling. To think in the realm of infinity is almost impossible not to mention trying to scale it down. I have a few idea's of what "else" there is. Several people have stated this in the past, so I am in no way trying to promote this as soley my thoughts. So little is know about infinity that perhaps its possible that we are only on a molecular size in the grand scheme of it all, maybe simply just bactiria or a virus being grown in a petri dish. I think this is much more realistic than being a sim on a "Creator Program" although like anything else it would have to be proven with a formula. Maybe we are just part of a larger living being and that space is nothing more than what actually is going on inside our own body...We know for a fact that our bodies are a base for millions of living things and that viruses are supremely more adaptive and more intelligent than humans. So I think it's time to acknowledge that we are not the end all, be all in the big picture. We have to stop basing life, size, earthly physics, and limitations on everything else unknown to us. FlagShare 1LikeReply charleskane84 Oct 15, 2012 A computer program is simply a list of instructions that the computer follows. So an atom is in fact a computer and the laws of physics are it's program. Everything is made up of atoms... FlagShare 1LikeReply stuckincube Oct 16, 2012 @charleskane84 Incorrect, "everything" is NOT made up of atoms... only chemical molecules are made up of atoms. FlagShare LikeReply @tommykazuaki Oct 18, 2012 @charleskane84 I feel as almost same as you. I think we are living on a membrane like a computer screen and everything is made up of elementary particle as like dots. FlagShare LikeReply alizard Oct 15, 2012 Where to look for evidence of universe as computer simulation? Simulations break down on edge cases. That said, if universe is computer sim, this suggests possibility of hacking that computer to rewrite some of more inconvenient Laws of Nature (e.g. nothing can go faster than c) and finding a way to back up our universe. FlagShare 1LikeReply Jacque1234 Oct 14, 2012 Shakepeare said it....we are actors on a stage. We are Spiritual beings projecting human/material existence. It's all our own illusions. We are the Robot creating..... FlagShare 1LikeReply TruePath Oct 13, 2012 This is ridiculous.
It assumes that the lattice spacing has to be constant. Adaptively modifying the denseness of the lattice in simulations has been commonplace forever.
All one needs to do is observe when energies would be so high (or other conditions appear) that would cause the existence of the lattice to be detectable. When this occurs increase the lattice density in that area.
Hell, the very fact that physicists could in theory observe these differences from continuous conditions is proof that the simulation could simply employ the same procedure for noticing measurable (or even our observations of these events) deviations from the continuous case and simply substitute the value that we would expect in the continuous case.
A simulation could even decide to backtrack if discovered and up the accuracy of the simulation whenever simulated beings were able to realize they were being simulated FlagShare 2LikeReply emanuel43 Oct 14, 2012 @TruePath but that assumes the simulation having intelligence or that we are not just a byproduct of whatever the purpose of the simulation is FlagShare LikeReply ILLINI Oct 15, 2012 @TruePath Interesting reply and I think you hit it square on the head. Let me ask you a question, n regards to your energy displacement. To me I have always felt that when the human body dies that the energy that makes us who we are or the soul, if you will must go somewhere, but where? Your theory could lend credence to reincarnation or recycled energy. I also have never understood why so many thing death is permanent. Maybe it is, but that would not explain where the energy goes, unless it absorbed back into the universe....but then what ? FlagShare 1LikeReply Telanis Oct 16, 2012 @ILLINI Um. What "energy" are you speaking of? A being's energy consists of matter and heat, neither of which disappear upon death. No whacko spiritual theories please. FlagShare LikeReply sean85132 Oct 16, 2012 @Telanis @ILLINI what a close-minded and coercive thought FlagShare LikeReply ILLINI Oct 16, 2012 @sean85132 @Telanis Close minded...it is anything but..It opens up the possibility of infinity. There are no wall in infinity. FlagShare 1LikeReply ILLINI Oct 16, 2012 @Telanis its not spiritual at all...I don't do the bible thump.
FlagShare 1LikeReply stt Oct 16, 2012 @ILLINI @Telanis While being open to well constructed alternative views it seems pretty clear to me that "we" as individuals are a layered set of neural nets taking inputs and providing outputs, one layer feeding to the next (reptilian, limbic and neocortex.. or instincts, feelings and thoughts if you like). Our brain maintains these nets by producing up to 100 microvolts per cell through electrochemical means, which, once our bodies fail, is quite easily dissipated in to the surrounding environment. In other words, rather than electrical energy it's the structure of the neural net(s) defining the state of mind, or "personality", and that's compost.
If we were to theorize how is this process accounted for in the simulation, it'd seem unnecessary special case handling to somehow process resources from one organism over another. Even in our computers most garbage collection systems only differentiate between short lived and long lived objects to optimize re-allocation. FlagShare LikeReply sean85132 Oct 17, 2012 @ILLINI @Telanis not you Illini i appreciate the depth of your response i was talking to Telanis FlagShare LikeReply ILLINI Oct 17, 2012 @sean85132 @Telanis Thanks I appreciate the clarification.....T FlagShare