Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by FREKI

A single value like a letter or number takes up 8 binary figures, meaning that even if we could make the smallest possible nano computer each value would still take up 8 atoms.. ( realistic dream technology would need at the very least 64 atoms, so I'm cutting your idea a LOT of slack ) and each subatomic particle simulated, each boson and string would need to have it's position and all data stored in in the huge multidimensional grid billions of lightyears wide with a scale under subatomic size - and it would need additional data such as velocity, influence on other particles as well as influence from others, time, field, gravitational pull etc etc etc.. so basically even the smallest particle would take up GBs of data ( a GB would at best take up 68,8 billion atoms ) thus you would need many many times 206,4 billion atoms for the data of 1 atom and thus many many times 206,4billion times the mass of the universe to even get a harddrive large enough to store the data of the universe!

( and that's just the data for the universe, not the physical structure to store and read the data, not to mention the computer processor that could juggle all the data at the same time in real time )

False Equivalency. According to your model the "synthesized universe" would require more matter than its original copy. You assume that they would both be made of the same "stuff". They can't be. The other universe in which this one resides, would have to be made of something else that as of yet is inconceivable to our minds. Think of it more like the the render of a sky scraper in a computer. A real sky scraper has a million times more atomic mass, while an equally "detailed" render, existing as a digital computer program, takes up only as much matter as the computer is made of.

The idea here is that if our universe is some kind of "virtual reality" than the "matter" or "substance" of which we are made(condensed energy which we call atoms) is different than the "other substance" in which our entire universe resides, the way a digital render of a skyscraper is different "substance" than that of the cpu in which it resides.

Let's take Sim City for instance. If the digital people in Sim City were to become self aware, they would believe themselves to be "real", in their Sim City environment, and would have no clue that it is a computer program. Over centuries(in their time) they would discover the laws that govern their world(the parameters of their program), and from their point of view these would be fundamental unbreakable laws.(because for them they would be) And then one day one of the Sims character's asks: "Hey what if we are nothing but virtual beings in some sort of big computer?" He would be right, but how would he go about proving that, since his very existence is limited by his world's fundamental laws? Sim City's program parameters. How could he escape from his "electrical mold" and "essence" to "see" the larger picture and see, that "Oh look, that is a computer made of this weird thing called physical matter, and I'm nothing more than an electric signal governed by programing parameters." His electrical mind could never comprehend "physical matter" because he would have never experienced the evolutionary pressure to develop a sense to interpret such a reality. So in his world the answer would be; "Ah, that is a metaphysical philosophical problem that has nothing to do with reality."=> Even thought "us" the Computer makers, and software programers, know that that is not really the case.

So like the Sim City 'guy', in this debate we can ask the question but we can never "see" the answer because our brains never evolved to a point to where we can perceive and comprehend the reality beyond the Big Bang, and the "edge" of our universe.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

False Equivalency. According to your model the "synthesized universe" would require more matter than its original copy.

You can't simulate an object without knowing the exact spot in at least 3 dimensions coordinate system..

And when we have a coordinate system the scale of the universe ( 93 billion light years x 93billion light years x 93 billion light years ) and you need the scale down to a subparticle level you each little particle will take up multiple GB's of data for it's location alone.. and even with a dream harddrive a bit can not be smaller than an atom, so to store the data for a single atom you would need at least 800 billion to a trillion atoms.. FACT!


And that means for the harddrive space alone you would need the matter of a trillion universes.. FACT!

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

You assume that they would both be made of the same "stuff". They can't be. The other universe in which this one resides, would have to be made of something else that as of yet is inconceivable to our minds.

There are 2 things in a universe, matter and energy - there are no way around that in reality - only in philosophy where dreams, religion and other magic can roam freely..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Think of it more like the the render of a sky scraper in a computer. A real sky scraper has a million times more atomic mass, while an equally "detailed" render, existing as a digital computer program, takes up only as much matter as the computer is made of.

No render, renders the skyscraper down to subatomic particle level - humanity can't even truly simulate an atom yet.. and in case you missed it humanity have discovered quite a bit in the realm of quantum mechanics, so if this was a simulation you would need a trillion times the mass of our universe to store it - just as you would need a many times more mass than the skyscraper to render it digitaly down to the subatomic particle level..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Let's take Sim City for instance. If the digital people in Sim City were to become self aware, they would believe themselves to be "real", in their Sim City environment, and would have no clue that it is a computer program.

Not possible in any way or from..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Over centuries(in their time) they would discover the laws that govern their world(the parameters of their program), and from their point of view these would be fundamental unbreakable laws.(because for them they would be) And then one day one of the Sims character's asks: "Hey what if we are nothing but virtual beings in some sort of big computer?" He would be right, but how would he go about proving that, since his very existence is limited by his world's fundamental laws? Sim City's program parameters. How could he escape from his "electrical mold" and "essence" to "see" the larger picture and see, that "Oh look, that is a computer made of this weird thing called physical matter, and I'm nothing more than an electric signal governed by programing parameters." His electrical mind could never comprehend "physical matter" because he would have never experienced the evolutionary pressure to develop a sense to interpret such a reality. So in his world the answer would be; "Ah, that is a metaphysical philosophical problem that has nothing to do with reality."=> Even thought "us" the Computer makers, and software programers, know that that is not really the case.

So like the Sim City 'guy', in this debate we can ask the question but we can never "see" the answer because our brains never evolved to a point to where we can perceive and comprehend the reality beyond the Big Bang, and the "edge" of our universe.

Mate it's clearly you have no idea about the real world - if you want to talk philosophy go ahead, but I can not take that nonsens serious in any type or form..

A human brain takes roughly 100 billion neurons - a few 100 lines of code for an AI in a computer game has NOTHING to do with inteligence what so ever!

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Ok, I get it you don't have an imagination. I think Einstein made some kind of comment about that. You completely misinterpreted everything I said. I'll leave it at that.

[BE0GRAD]

@FREKI

What about quantum computing and other ,even more advanced forms of computing that are yet to be discovered? You seem very much attached to silicon based transistors which will become obsolete relatively soon.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

@FREKI

What about quantum computing and other ,even more advanced forms of computing that are yet to be discovered? You seem very much attached to silicon based transistors which will become obsolete relatively soon.

We haven't even gotten to the type of computer yet - so far I have simply looked at the smallest possible mass needed for the data storage to run such a simulation..

And my argument is that since we can messure and document what we can it's very unlogical and virtually impossible that our universe is a simulation in another universe when the harddrive alone would have to have a trillion times the mass of our universe has.. ( and then comes the computer and RAM and powersupply needs )


In every simulation one cut as many corners as possible or it gets too comprihensive - there are no signs of that here, thus it's very unlikely a simulation..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Ok, I get it you don't have an imagination.

I'm a realist when it comes to reality - that doesn't mean I lack imagination, just that I leave the impossible out..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

I think Einstein made some kind of comment about that. You completely misinterpreted everything I said. I'll leave it at that.

Philosophy get's you nowhere in the real world - unless you make it into a religion, then you could get rich..

But the BS about lines of code regarding an AI routine getting conciousness is as silly as if you speculated about a smilie from this forum becomming concious..


Philosophy's limits are human imagination, reality's limits are the laws of physics.. It's not that our universe can't be a simulation, it's just that such a simulation is too comprihensive in the light of the laws of physics for it to make any sence..

[goschio]

LOL, as if we have understood the laws of physics yet. We are only at the very beginning to understand the universe and its real nature. And of course we need imagination and philosophy to extend the boundaries. That's the first step which is then properly put into solid science as a second step. Without imagination and philosophy we pretty much stay where we are. No extension of our horizon.

[FREKI]

^there's a great difference between scientific theory and philosophy..


A simple equation goes:

4+X=8

In scientific theory the logical answer is that X must be 4 as it solves the equation

In philosophy there is no logic X=parrot is just as right as any other thing the human mind can dream up..


Typically in philosophy X=god and for many that solves all equations - where people of science knows that X has to be a real value as that is what reality is based on..


In philosophy there are no wrongs and thus no rights..

[goschio]

^
Exactly, that's why philosophy paves the way to extend our boundary. Its not meant to replace science.

There was a time when we thought that physics is settled and there is no more to discover. And then a whole new world of mystery came up and we realized that we have juts scratched the tip of the iceberg and pretty much know nothing.

So please, don't pretend you can explain the world with schoolbook science. Nobody can.

[FREKI]

^Name 10 things where philosophy beats scientific theory!

[goschio]

^
Why should philosophy beat scientific theory?

They are two different things. Philosophy only provides new ideas and extends our imagination. Basically paves the why for science to progress and overcome old paradigms.

[BE0GRAD]

@goschio

+1

@FREKI

It is precisely the point that mass, volume or energy are just a temporary obstacle for simulations on the scale of the universe as our CURRENT technology cannot provide an efficient way to do it. You continuously make the same mistake by assuming our computers will always be based on binary code and that their transistors will always be silicon based. They won't , and just like humans didn't limit their transportation modes to their two feet but instead made progress through time by domesticating a horse, making a wheel, a car ,an airplane and spacecraft, they will also continue to develop their computation methods and in only 100 years we could do what many now consider science fiction.

Just like first computers were the size of many rooms, there were probably many sceptics just like you who taught computers could never enter into service of an average person. Just like the present proved them wrong, the (not so far away) future will proove you wrong.

[nezzybaby]

Firstly I should note I'm very much on Freki's side of this debate, his proof/argument would differ from mine, but the idea that this is testable is like using a telescope to find god.

More importantly though, the views on the subject of Philosophy on this thread are so wide of the mark I don't quite know where to start. Philosophy is not about fairy tales, it's not about making stuff up, it's not about "X=parrot". Philosophy is the study of knowledge, it's the origin of all science, the origin of the scientific method, and the process by which all knowledge has been created. There would be no universities without philosophy, no scientists, no PhDs (what do you think the Ph stands for?) etc. All we would have without philosophy is theology, do what god says because there is no need to question it.

Philosophy is the way to start any debate on this scale, and actually the only rational way to solve this debate. Freki's argument about the size of a universe required to contain a universe is a philosophical one. In fact it's a similar argument to many I would propose on the existance of god*. There is nothing wrong with adding values to philosophy, it's how all science works.


*The creationist argument is that everything has been created so we must have been created. I would suggest therefore god must've been created as must whatever created god, so we go to an infinite loop of creation, or reach a point where the most complex thing ever to exist just "popped" into existance. This to me is a logical phallacy. Evidence suggests that things become more complex over time rather than less.

[nezzybaby]

Originally Posted by FREKI

^Name 10 things where philosophy beats scientific theory!

An odd question as science is philosophy, but I suppose the obvious answer is any part of metaphysics; so what's outside the universe, what happened before the universe started, what will happen after the universe ends etc.

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by nezzybaby

Firstly I should note I'm very much on Freki's side of this debate, his proof/argument would differ from mine, but the idea that this is testable is like using a telescope to find god.

As I've understood him, his argument isn't that our universe is not a simulation but that simulating a universe is impossible. Whether the first claim may be true, the second one cannot be further from it. Since I quite liked your response, I'd like to hear your view of my explanation of why such simulation is possible.

[nezzybaby]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

As I've understood him, his argument isn't that our universe is not a simulation but that simulating a universe is impossible. Whether the first claim may be true, the second one cannot be further from it. Since I quite liked your response, I'd like to hear your view of my explanation of why such simulation is possible.

I disagree.

For it to be possible to simulate a universe, you would first have to redefine the term universe. The universe is the totality of existance, it is everything, there is nothing else.

To simulate it you would require something to contain it and somewhere to build it... and presumably something to monitor it in order to use any outcomes. Where does this all fit? All of this would be severaly orders of magnitude larger than the universe itself. The argument begins with the assumption that any civilisation would achieve that level of advancement in time, I disagree entirely.

In fact the argument, and the premise is not dissimilar to that of a god. Something created us yet doesn't interact with us. I think I'll use my same argument as before, if we have to be part of an experiment, then surely so does the universe that contains our universe, ad infinitum ad absurdum.

[BE0GRAD]

First of all, definition of the universe doesn't need to be completely accurate for a simulation of it to take place. If there's a real universe which properties we may never fully understand we still can create a simulation of it which approximates the real solution.

Second, if we start with an assumption that the universe is finite than the claim that a simulation of it would be impractical because of technical issues is quite pesimist. Please read again my analogy with first computers and today's computers.

Third, there doesn't nessecarily need to be a perpetual universe whithin universe loop. There can be a "real" universe within which other universes are being simulated. Those simulated universes don't even need to identical to the real universe. They may be its approximation or a completely different universe.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by goschio

^
Why should philosophy beat scientific theory?

If philosophy is never right over logic and reason, then what value does it hold in a serious debate..?


In philosophy the universe could be everything from a parrot dreaming it, to the creation of Odin to a subpart of a raindrop.. or in this case a digital simulation on a computer a trillion times larger than the visible universe


There are no boundries but the imagination of the human mind and never any wrongs - that makes it utter useless and a waste of time!


The universe could theoretically be simulated - you won't hear me deny that - but when looking at the details and logic then the scale becomes so absurd that it makes no sense..

[nezzybaby]

Originally Posted by FREKI

In philosophy the universe could be everything from a parrot dreaming it, to the creation of Odin to a subpart of a raindrop..

That is precisely what Philosophy isn't. Please do a little research before spouting horseshit. Don't confuse philosophy with fantasy, sci fi or religion.

[Fallout]

Originally Posted by FREKI

If philosophy is never right over logic and reason, then what value does it hold in a serious debate..?


In philosophy the universe could be everything from a parrot dreaming it, to the creation of Odin to a subpart of a raindrop.. or in this case a digital simulation on a computer a trillion times larger than the visible universe


There are no boundries but the imagination of the human mind and never any wrongs - that makes it utter useless and a waste of time!


The universe could theoretically be simulated - you won't hear me deny that - but when looking at the details and logic then the scale becomes so absurd that it makes no sense..

Freki, the problemis you want to measure that hypothetival computer that simulates our universe using our universe's physics law, while it can (and probably does) operate with very different laws. The constraints applying to our universe would not apply to it.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by Fallout

Freki, the problemis you want to measure that hypothetival computer that simulates our universe using our universe's physics law, while it can (and probably does) operate with very different laws. The constraints applying to our universe would not apply to it.

There's a very narrow "band" of where energy and matter can coexist in space time - so while the laws of physics could potentially differ, it's not greatly, especially not if we asume a simulation has been created by intelligent life, or even with differing laws of physics there are still limits and the matter needed for a simulation of this scale is emense to the point of absurdity..

Gravity will always pull matter together, so if anyone can tell me how it would be possible to have a harddrive covering Earth alone down to subparticle level that didn't crunch under it's own weight and become a star I will gladly hear it!

So please do present me with a scenario of differing laws of physics where life can exist and build huge computers of trillions of times more mass than our universe..



Making up excuses for this to be possible is just like making up excuses for religion.. if people want to believe in magic by all means, but they shouldn't expect others to take them serious.. reality has limits, only philosophy is limitless..

Originally Posted by nezzybaby

That is precisely what Philosophy isn't. Please do a little research before spouting horseshit. Don't confuse philosophy with fantasy, sci fi or religion.

Philosophy create isms and is used to make excuses ( X=god, X=magic, X=superpowers ) that is what philosophy is and does - it's esentially human imagination running wild without logic, reason or facts and that is not good for anything..