Você está na página 1de 24

The Measurement That Would Reveal

The Universe As A Computer


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

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

Você também pode gostar