Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

[goschio]

^
Good we have you Freki then, who can explain us the world and knows everything best. LOL

[Birsen]

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.

Freki I still can't figure if you're the biggest troll on ssc or just stupid...

[FREKI]

^allow me to repeat myself:

"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.."


Philosophy is dependent on faith - I prefere facts - what that makes me in your eyes I couldn't care less about - but it's rather telling how resorting to namecalling shows you have nothing conscructive to ad...


If people only took a few hours to read up on the basics of the universe and computers we wouldn't have to go over this magic-bullshit again - I get that people like magic and uncertainty but we are adults here - fairy tales and 'what if's' are for kids..


Now can any one here explain a way a harddrive containing data and location for every subparticle in the universe could exist..

( if the dream is halted by reality right there we need not go any further )

[koolio]

What is this random distinction between philosophy and science? I would urge you to go to the University of Copenhagen and speak with a Physics professor there. Ask them whether they find the concept of a simulated universe as comical as you do. I am certain their answer will surprise you. Fact is that "thought experiments" are standard scientific procedure. They provide impetus for real experiments somewhere down the line.

Also, read "The Hidden Reality" by highly acclaimed physicist Brian Greene. He explores the multitude of ways through humanity has studied the universe in the past 100 years or so. There is an entire section dedicated to the Simulated Universe model that might enlighten you as to how many physicists treat the topic seriously and not as some sort of fun idea that they get kicks out of.

Not that I'm urging anyone to put 100% of their blind faith on Brian Greene or any individual or group of physicists but if one cares so much about what scientists think, it would be beneficial to actually familiarize yourself with their opinion on a subject matter rather than conjecture upon what their opinion might be. As always, the best way to form your own opinion would be to study a field in detail. However, since theoretical physics is not easy, it is probably best not to make any sort of definitive statement in general.

[FREKI]

^is reading a book by a priest the optimal way of familiarizing oneself with religion?


There is nothing wrong with "thought experiments" at all, but when you have to leave out reality by purpose then it loses the point and becomes a faith based ideology..


To get back to the harddrive needed we're going to need a coordinate systen for the entire universe on a subatomic level - we know there are ~100 million atoms per cm so if we divide each atom up in 10 parts that should do it

So 1.000.000.000 per cm

946.080.000.000.000.000cm per light year

93.000.000.000 lightyear wide universe


So 1.000.000.000x946.080.000.000.000.000x93.000.000.000 will give us 1 axis how ever the universe has at least 3 ( many more with string theory ) So the result has to be cubed.. and then we need to multiply that figure with the least amount of binary needed for a byte of data and that figure show us how many atoms are needed to store the location using the tiniest posible nanotecnology storage solution, not value or property or anything else yet just the location of a particle in the universe.

I'm on my phone right no so way too large numbers to calculate on it - but it's very clear that my initial estimate of a trillion times more atoms per atom was waaaayyy too optimistic.. it would have to be much much more and that's just the optimal storage in the universe that simulate ours

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by FREKI

^is reading a book by a priest the optimal way of familiarizing oneself with religion?

Are you really equating a physicist to a priest?

Now you are just defending your stance for the sake of defense itself. Your ego is so HUGE you can't possibly accept that you might have misunderstood something, which you did. Humility is the source of wisdom. You are a very smart guy, but clearly not wise.

[nezzybaby]

Originally Posted by FREKI

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..

Are you being deliberately stubborn or do you believe this tripe? Please spend 5 minutes reading up on what Philosophy actually is before spouting this horseshit. You realise logic is a branch of Philosophy right? You realise PhD stands for Doctorate in Philosophy right?

[FREKI]

I take it that all you trying to derail tbe topic from simulation to personal diffinition of philosophy has no dissagreement with the math presented...

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by FREKI

^is reading a book by a priest the optimal way of familiarizing oneself with religion?


There is nothing wrong with "thought experiments" at all, but when you have to leave out reality by purpose then it loses the point and becomes a faith based ideology..


To get back to the harddrive needed we're going to need a coordinate systen for the entire universe on a subatomic level - we know there are ~100 million atoms per cm so if we divide each atom up in 10 parts that should do it

So 1.000.000.000 per cm

946.080.000.000.000.000cm per light year

93.000.000.000 lightyear wide universe


So 1.000.000.000x946.080.000.000.000.000x93.000.000.000 will give us 1 axis how ever the universe has at least 3 ( many more with string theory ) So the result has to be cubed.. and then we need to multiply that figure with the least amount of binary needed for a byte of data and that figure show us how many atoms are needed to store the location using the tiniest posible nanotecnology storage solution, not value or property or anything else yet just the location of a particle in the universe.

I'm on my phone right no so way too large numbers to calculate on it - but it's very clear that my initial estimate of a trillion times more atoms per atom was waaaayyy too optimistic.. it would have to be much much more and that's just the optimal storage in the universe that simulate ours

in a nutshell, the storage media for the simulation would need to be far bigger than the known universe.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by FREKI

I take it that all you trying to derail tbe topic from simulation to personal diffinition of philosophy has no dissagreement with the math presented...

Either ALL of us are in a "conspiracy" (against you) to derail the topic, or possibly you misunderstood the topic. According to Occam's Razor which probability is most likely true? (Or is Occam's Razor just more philosopho-religious nonsense?)


Now back on topic;
Freki you are making two terrible assumptions.

1st; That we understand reality in the absolute.

2nd; That the human mind has reached the apogee of evolution and is capable of understanding absolute reality.

I absolutely doubt both of those things, but our problem is that there is no way to prove the unknown, so by default we are forced to ONLY UNDERSTAND what we know. What you are describing is all that is known, but all things known were at one time UNKNOWN=> which is the purpose of science, to reveal the facts that will unveil what is unknown until it becomes the known, but how can that be achieved if we don't have the COURAGE to hypothesize/speculate about the unknown? And when you do that, BY DEFAULT, you enter philosophy and metaphysics until the new hypothesis can be quantified. But how can we quantify new knowledge if we don't dare push the bounds and question what new possibilities can potentially exist?

You insisting that the only way to simulate this is by using the parameters of the KNOWN universe itself--misses the whole point of the hypothetical thought experiment, since the whole purpose of it is to "discover" the other part of the universe, the UNKNOWN=> the part before the big bang, the part outside the edges of the KNOW universe(our known universe should have an edge, if had a beginning).

That is all this is, a hypothetical thought experiment into a "potential reality" OTHER than what we actually KNOW of today. The odds are that it is 99% wrong, but that is irrelevant, because it is the exercise itself, not the destination that is important. Two and a half thousand yeas ago The Greeks hypothesized that matter might be made of "atoms". They had no way to quantify and back up or prove their hypothesis. They had no idea what these "atoms" could be, in their world view, they were nothing more than tiny little bricks of the four elements; fire, air, water, and earth. Where they right or wrong? They were ABSOLUTELY WRONG, BUT the fact that they asked the question, set their culture, and eventually ours, on a sequence of inquiries and experiments that led to the actual atom being discovered and now we know it really exists.

That is the point of asking this question even though it is "un-real". It is because most us understand that we DON"T have ALL reality completely figured out. We also understand that our brain itself is limited, both biologically, but also by the current amount of knowledge accumulated so far(like the ancient Greeks).

Because reality to us humans can be no more than what we know, it breaks down into three levels. The Unknowable, the Unknown, and the Known. The atom today is finally Known, but quantum mechanics is still unknown; we are aware of it, but we don't get it. And than there is the Unknowable. What happened before the Big Bang. What lies "beneath", at an even smaller level than quantum mechanics? These are things that are in the realm of the Unknowable for us today. It might be because we are BIOLOGICALLY not capable of knowing such things(like your dog that doesn't understands your TV, but still watches it, but could not comprehend what lies beyond the screen), or maybe like the Greeks, we just have not yet accumulated enough of the right knowledge to know such things. And it is by "playing" with these types of hypothetical "non-real" thought experiments that our minds push the boundaries, and slowly bring things out of the Unknowable, and into the Unknown. And then with quantifiable research we turn the Unknown, into the Known.

Beyond this I don't know how to better explain it.

PS. You are not wrong in your mathematical breakdown. What makes your statement wrong is that you are ignoring/assuming the purpose of this question. If this universe is a simulation it was not simulate by beings like us, with computers like ours, made of the same matter we are made of. The hypothesis requires that the "simulators" exist outside of our universe, outside of our material existence. Thus they exist somewhere in in the "space" beyond the Big Bang, beyond where our universe initiated. This hypothesis relies on the idea of multilayerd ultimate reality, and that our entire material universe is just one layer, amongst many more, because wherever there is "existence" it must be infinite, or there can be no existence AT ALL. Even infinite nothingness is still something. Like Descartes said, I think therefore I am, so it also applies that, we find ourselfs in existence, thus existence is. And since ultimate reality can not have and "edge", because an edge only delineates a separation. So beyond any "edge" there's more, and it doesn't matter whether "we" are capable of "seeing/understanding" it or not. WE are not the measure of the universe, but a small speck in it.

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by FREKI

... 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!

I actually did, but you chose to ignore my comment and continue to write inaccurate claims that our computers will always be silicon based and our software will always be binary based. I guess you really are stubborn.

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

in a nutshell, the storage media for the simulation would need to be far bigger than the known universe.

With current technology yes. With future technologies probably not.

[BE0GRAD]

@OldBlackMarble

I agree with you. The point is that whatever entity created this eventual simulation of this universe has inteligence, knowledge and potentials which far excede our own. They might be to us as we are to ants or even bacteria. Not to mention we are basically three-dimentional creatures. Their existence may be spread in more dimentions.

But still, I stand with my belief that the time will come where human inteligence, knowledge and potential will reach a point where we will be able to make a simulation of a universe just like ours. As the singularity approaches ,humanity will have to decide whether it will let AI to overtake it or it will "upgrade" itself by artificially increasing human inteligence and other capabilities. After decades of "augmentation" trans-humans will be so superior to today's humans that the inteligence of a non-augmented humans will be on a level of a ant compared to augmented one's.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

I actually did, but you chose to ignore my comment and continue to write inaccurate claims that our computers will always be silicon based and our software will always be binary based. I guess you really are stubborn.

I've never mentioned silicon and as I have already told you we haven't even gotten to computers yet - we're still stuck with the location data alone..

As for binary that is as basic as it gets, there are no alternatives that makes sense but on or off, 1 or 0, value or no value... it's universal math in it's most basic and simple form..

What I have given you is so perfect tech that each bit only counts for a single atom ( even with our best technology a bit still takes up 100.000s atoms ) so if the perfect storage size of an atom per bit isn't satisfactory to you I will gladly hear of a technology that is better than that..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

Freki you are making two terrible assumptions.

1st; That we understand reality in the absolute.

We don't, but the deeper we dig into quantum mechanics the more data the storage wil take, the more processes will have to be rendered and the harder everything gets to simulate.. so this is a case where ignorence is bliss.. not that it's realistic with our current understanding but the more detail we find the more exponencial growth is data size will be the out come thus even more unrealistic..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

2nd; That the human mind has reached the apogee of evolution and is capable of understanding absolute reality.

What humanity understands is irrelevant as the laws of physics are there regardless of us or our understanding..

It's not like time or technological advances changes the fabric of space or the laws the rules it - the sooner people gets to terms with that the sooner we can get over human silliness such as religion, magic and other unrealistic stuff..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

I absolutely doubt both of those things, but our problem is that there is no way to prove the unknown

There are limits for where things can happen or not - why we know there is no Santa flying around and giving presents and how we know there are no ghosts flying around in your basement and how we know there is no god that created the planet 6000 years ago...

What we do not know is if it is a simulation, but we can look at the factors needed to create such a simulation and that makes ours extremely unlikely..

So what we are left with is a personal question where people have to deside if they think there's a computer trillions of times larger than our universe build by intelligent beings that is simulating our universe or that our universe is a real one..

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

so by default we are forced to ONLY UNDERSTAND what we know.

And what we know is that it's not possible to build a computer that can simulate the universe unless you have a computer with trillions and trillions times more mass than our universe and greatly differing laws of physics that somehow still allows planets, suns and life..

[AltinD]

Originally Posted by FREKI

What humanity understands is irrelevant as the laws of physics are there regardless of us or our understanding..

It's not like time or technological advances changes the fabric of space or the laws the rules it - the sooner people gets to terms with that the sooner we can get over human silliness such as religion, magic and other unrealistic stuff..

Here you go again, with 'We've learned everything, we know everything'

Igot news for you: WE DONT! .... and while of course the laws of physics don't change, our level of comprehension, understanding and knowledge of them, does.

And for fcuk sake, stop bringing religion on every post. No one but you is talking about or even hinting at religion. We get it, you're atheist ..... Wow, great body .... here's a cookie .... and join the club!

[FREKI]

^the hole thread is about whether or not the universe was created by a creator... religion is the core topic of the thread!

Some members have faith and don't need proof, some pick the agnostic way and say maybe and some like me want's proof as it's so unlikely based on scale and scientific discovery..


As for the laws of physics, as you said yourself, they don't change - humanity is as I've said many times completely irrelevant as the limits to what is possible and what isn't possible was here billions of years before us and will be here billion of years after us..


The universe is as it is because that was the only possible outcome with the laws as they are..

Is there a universe a tredecillion times larger than ours with a computer many trillion times larger than our universe running a simulation of our universe right down to every quark I do not think so..

And my reason for not thinking so ( other than the logic ones such as scale and physics ) is how advanced the universe is - a simulation could have stopped at atoms, but ours are basically just starting with them.. A simulation could have left space a empty vacuum, but it's anything but that, a simulation could have left out anti matter, but it didn't, a simulation could have left out the Dark Flow gravitational tugging but it didn't and so on and so on..

So in the end everywhere we look we see the opposit of simulation - that doesn't mean we can know for certain, but like with Santa the numbers just doesn't add op..

[nezzybaby]

Originally Posted by FREKI

As for binary that is as basic as it gets, there are no alternatives that makes sense but on or off, 1 or 0, value or no value... it's universal math in it's most basic and simple form..

Again, I agree with everything but this. Binary is used as transistors have two states. There is nothing universal about it, converting from one base to another is child's play.

If for example the system was encoded on the spin of delta bayrons, then a base 4 system would be used. You could encode more than 2 bits into an atom... now encoding the required multi billion bits into one atom is a bit more of a stretch.

[Mesch]

[FREKI]

^awesome episode

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by nezzybaby

Again, I agree with everything but this. Binary is used as transistors have two states. There is nothing universal about it, converting from one base to another is child's play.

If for example the system was encoded on the spin of delta bayrons, then a base 4 system would be used. You could encode more than 2 bits into an atom... now encoding the required multi billion bits into one atom is a bit more of a stretch.

The smaller scale we get the more gear is needed to aquire the info ( so I doubt it would leave to a decrease in mass needed) but you are right that subatomic particles are potential useful too though the decay would be a major problem ( a selfcorrupting harddrive os not a good idea ) why I stopped at atoms..

Technically atoms wouldn't have to be bits but could trough variations be bytes by themselves, though sizes and weight differences would complicate it quite a bit, but even then tbe numbers are staggering for even the smallest parts..

Regardless of scale the data amount for even the smallest particle or boson for that matter willl still be emense in the universal coordinate system ( trillions of times universal mass needed for the harddrive alone ) why it simply doesn't make sense to me.. and when humanity goes deeperinto quantum mechanics we will see an exponensial growth in data making it even more unlikely..


A simulation just doesn't make any sense at that scale.. it's like if humans build a computer the size of Asia to simulate a single molocule - there are endlessly better ways to aquire data and test outcomes..

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

With current technology yes. With future technologies probably not.

So you think in the future, the media required to store the simulation info of the smallest particle in the universe will be smaller than the smallest particle in the universe?

Sadly this is where the idea becomes pure philosophy and ignores practicality.

I mean, yes, if in the future we have the technology to be able to perfectly simulate the universe, then we'll be able to simulate the universe, but that's hardly a convincing argument for saying it's likely to happen.

It like saying the only reason we can't travel at warp speed like in star trek is because we haven't worked out how to do it yet. You can't just assume we will find out a way to do it.