Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

[AltinD]

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

A long time ago, but I don't remember it well. I'm sure you're hinting at some link there but I can't think of what it might be right now.

http://www.mnight.com/resize/phpThum...6817.jpg&w=840

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

If you ask me if I have any proofs we'll have such possibilities ,I assure you ... I don't. My reasoning is based on statistics and throughout the history they usually say that whatever humanity once considered impossible or couldn't even imagine became reality sooner or later thanks to the improvement of our knowledge. Once it was considered impossible to go to the Moon, fly or even cure some very curable diseases today. Things like internet, atomic bomb or quantum computing couldn't even be imagined just 100 years ago. With exponential increase of human knowledge, who knows what wonders we will be able to do in just 100 years , not to mention even further future.

Today it is a normal fact that you can go to the other end of the world in less than one day. Say that to someone from 13th century or even Neolithic period and you'll be laugh at just like FREKI is somehow laughing at a possibility of simulations on the scale of a universe.

He's not though. He's saying that to simulate the universe - or for this universe to be a simulation to be exact - then the storage of that simulation would be impossible due to the scale of it.

In short, if you are simulating an atom, accurately, then you need to also simulate all the component parts of that atom, including the smallest particles of it. The simulation would need, as a minimum, to be the same size as that atom.

Theoretically you could build something which doesn't require all the space that exists between the component parts of the atoms, creating the universe in ZIP format, but that would create a giant black hole due to its density.

[Dhakaiya]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

He's not though. He's saying that to simulate the universe - or for this universe to be a simulation to be exact - then the storage of that simulation would be impossible due to the scale of it.

In short, if you are simulating an atom, accurately, then you need to also simulate all the component parts of that atom, including the smallest particles of it. The simulation would need, as a minimum, to be the same size as that atom.

Theoretically you could build something which doesn't require all the space that exists between the component parts of the atoms, creating the universe in ZIP format, but that would create a giant black hole due to its density.

We are seeing it wrong- if they are simulating it, they don't have to "create" the world, they just need to create "our perception" of the world. So maybe the only thing they are simulating is our minds.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

No. You don't only proove that things exist. You proove what you claim. So if you claim God doesn't exist you have to proove it ,otherwise your words are just meaningless religious rant. And yes, of course you can proove something doesn't exist:

Yup, that is what I said. And I also said be careful don't get lost in syntax. Words sometimes confuse us more than they clarify. The burden is not to prove the words, or even the claim, but the reality.

1. Define the atributes of that "something".
2. Discover all the ways those atributes can be percieved by your senses.
3. See if your senses percieve any of the defined atributes in the area where the non-existence must be prooven.

So if I want to proove ,per example if there's an apple on my desk:

1. I would define that an apple has a certain shape, color, texture, smell and taste.
2. I'd assume I could percieve it directly with all my senses.
3. I could just look to see if there's an apple but if it is ,per example, covered with some meta-material making it invisible ,someone like you would immediatelly jump to conclusion it doesn't exist but if you tried with all your senses, after some time you'll fell it's shape and texture under your fingers, it's smell under your nose, it's taste in yur mouth and if you somehow took off that meta-material off it you'll even see it's color.

So if I claimed that there is no apple on my desk I'd have to proove it just like all you, religious people, have to proove your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

Again that is exactly what I said. You can prove "existence" but not "non-existence". So you can prove that an apple IS on a desk, but you CAN"T prove that an apple ISN"T on a desk, because that is self evident. There is no need for further proof of nothingness. Nothing exists to us until we can observe it. But usually when we first observe things we misinterpret them, until we have enough cumulative observations that we can attain a causal-sting, of cause and effects, that finally let us see a clear picture.

For instance, the galaxy did not exist(to us humans) until Dr. Edwin Hubble observed it. (Before that people thought of the Milky Way as the whole universe.) And at first he misinterpreted it. But he never made a "claim" of anything. He simply quantified the observed data, and after many years of observation the conclusion was that we are in a Galaxy. He did not prove a "claim", rather he "claimed" what his observations proved. This is NOT just a play on words. It is an important distinction, so please DON"T let syntax confuse the issue. When I say God does not exit, I don't need to prove my "claim", because I am only "claiming" what scientific research has observed and proven over the last 2000 years. I, myself, did not "discover" that God does NOT exist. Instead, it was the bible that has been proven to be a mythical old text, yet it is the only source of "observation" about God, and that adds evidence that god may not be real. On top of that there are thousands of sources of observation for evolution, in physics, biology, math, psychology, etc. All of these are observable and quantifiable proofs of our reality, yet non of them show "positive" evidence for a "supreme creator". And when it comes to things that we still don't understand, the "absence of knowledge" in science, is not "proof of existence" for God. Just because some things are not yet understood, that in it of itself is NOT proof of God.

Like I said, proof is like time, it only goes in one direction, from nonexistence to first observation, then quantification leading to proved existence. So I don't need to NOT prove God, because the sheer lack of proof for his existence, is by default "proof" of his non-existence. And I base my non acceptance of God, on 2000, actually on 2500 years, of philosophic and scientific evidence. So I'm not making a "claim", rather, I am "claiming" an already millenia old proven set of observations. Again, I'm using syntax as accurately as possible, so please understand it as accurately as possible.

[BE0GRAD]

@OldBlackMarble

Of course you CAN proove the apple isn't on desk. If you can't observe most or any of its atributes by your senses it is a proof it doesn't exist there. But my point goes beyond that. I tried to say that if we can't observe the atributes of a God it may be simply because our inteligence, capabilities, senses or our existence all together is not developed enough to allow us to see them and just like the meta-material on the apple would fool you into believing apple doesn't exist ,maybe our primitive existence fools us into believing entity with God-like atributes doesn't exist. We can't know really.

As for scientific discoveries, they may only proove that there is no God in a barrow Biblical sense, but definitelly not in a wider ,theoretical sense. It may even not proove the Bible is wrong. If we define a God as an entity with such capabilities to create an entire universe then surelly it could create it exactly in a way the Bible describes it and then, for some reason, also create "proofs" that the universe was created in a completely different way, observed by our sciense.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

@OldBlackMarble

Of course you CAN proove the apple isn't on desk. If you can't observe most or any of its atributes by your senses it is a proof it doesn't exist there. But my point goes beyond that. I tried to say that if we can't observe the atributes of a God it may be simply because our inteligence, capabilities, senses or our existence all together is not developed enough to allow us to see them and just like the meta-material on the apple would fool you into believing apple doesn't exist ,maybe our primitive existence fools us into believing entity with God-like atributes doesn't exist. We can't know really.

With that I agree one hundred percent, and it is what we have been discussing about the Computer Simulation. But if this is the case, then it becomes pointless to "believe" in God, unless it is some sort of "death" insurance policy "just in case" he exists. Personally I have no need for such an "insurance" policy. And even if God was PROVEN to exist I still would not "believe" and worship him, unless he could prove to me why he created such a messed up flawed world. God is like a parent who abandons his children and lets them fend for themselves, and learn about life trough the suffering of previous generations without any real guidance and instruction. This is another reason why I can NOT accept a biblical god, because he is a bipolar needy bastard, who loves us one day, destroys us all on the next, and requires blind obedience and worship. Fuck him.

And if the bible is wrong and he is not like that, than what's the point. Then we don't know anything of what he is about. The fact is had you been raised without ever being told of a god, you would have never known one exits. Most people today believe in God because it is so ingrained in our culture, and he rules through fear and guilt, with the threat of eternal damnation. Fear is all lifes most powerful motivator. So breaking from our culture feels... blasphemous. No one wants to suffer.

As for scientific discoveries, they may only proove that there is no God in a barrow Biblical sense, but definitelly not in a wider ,theoretical sense. It may even not proove the Bible is wrong. If we define a God as an entity with such capabilities to create an entire universe then surelly it could create it exactly in a way the Bible describes it and then, for some reason, also create "proofs" that the universe was created in a completely different way, observed by our sciense.

But why would he do that, unless like I said before, he is total bastard. Either that, or God is Ashton Kutcher and our entire reality is noting more then a galactic "Punk'd" episode. God, you are not funny man.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

So if you claim God doesn't exist you have to proove it ,otherwise your words are just meaningless religious rant. And yes, of course you can proove something doesn't exist:

What doesn't exist cannot as such be disproved.. of course we can look at the laws of physics and disprove abrahamic religion, ghosts and the Easter Bunny on those grounds, but human imagination comes in many forms and some claims does fall within the laws of physics such as alien crafts in our atmosphere..


It's always the claimer who has to prove his or her claim - if you say there is a god YOU have to prove it, just as if you say the universe is simulated YOU have to prove it.. and if you say it may be simulated then you need to prove it possible..


Those who makes claims they can't back up with proofs are pure and simply liying fools and it doesn't fall on anybody else to prove their crazy imagination wrong as it's all in the claimers head!
I often get a kick out of it as it's very easy and it's healthy for false claimers to be exposed - if for nothing else then to make them think twice about the faith they have chosen.. but I don't have to do it as by default all claims without proof are false be it winning the lottery or a ghost in the basement..



Creationists have been proven wrong as a byproduct of scientific discovery for centuries - they never had as much as a single right EVER - and the dark covers they can hide in that have not yet been illuminated by science is getting very few and far between so it's pretty clear how much naivity or ignorence is needed in this to hold a faith and when dealing with suchpeople there is little point in trying to reason as they have actively ignored reality for most of their life to this point..

The simulation theory is most certainly a better creationist claim one than the magical bearded being, but numbers simply do not add up.. even the most perfect hardrive with the data of our solar system would break down under it's own gravitational pressure and become a star and we're talking the entire universe ( more than 10 sextillion stars )


So BE0GRAD if you have a claim prove it - if you can't then you automatically prove yourself to be a simple lier!

[VelesHomais]

BEOGRAD, is a magician that doesn't do magic still a magician?

[ramanujann]

If our world is a computer simulation than who is behind this simulation? Why is he simulating us and our world? And who is simulating him?
I think that this theory is meaningless and cannot answer the questions about the creation of the universe, intelligent beings etc. but conversely it adds more questions like these I asked. I also like the Matrix but it's only a nice science fiction and nothing more.

[BE0GRAD]

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

With that I agree one hundred percent, and it is what we have been discussing about the Computer Simulation. But if this is the case, then it becomes pointless to "believe" in God, unless it is some sort of "death" insurance policy "just in case" he exists. Personally I have no need for such an "insurance" policy. And even if God was PROVEN to exist I still would not "believe" and worship him, unless he could prove to me why he created such a messed up flawed world. God is like a parent who abandons his children and lets them fend for themselves, and learn about life trough the suffering of previous generations without any real guidance and instruction. This is another reason why I can NOT accept a biblical god, because he is a bipolar needy bastard, who loves us one day, destroys us all on the next, and requires blind obedience and worship. Fuck him.

And if the bible is wrong and he is not like that, than what's the point. Then we don't know anything of what he is about. The fact is had you been raised without ever being told of a god, you would have never known one exits. Most people today believe in God because it is so ingrained in our culture, and he rules through fear and guilt, with the threat of eternal damnation. Fear is all lifes most powerful motivator. So breaking from our culture feels... blasphemous. No one wants to suffer.

I agree with you that it is meaningless to believe that something which is so abstract and incomprehensible to us such as God exists , but isn't it equally meaningless to believe that something so abstract and incomprehensible doesn't exist? Truth is, neither theists nor atheists can prove their claims as they should so their reasoning can be described as nothing more than religious ranting.

Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble

But why would he do that, unless like I said before, he is total bastard. Either that, or God is Ashton Kutcher and our entire reality is noting more then a galactic "Punk'd" episode. God, you are not funny man.

Who knows. Maybe there is some logical reason which is so incomprehensible to our primitive minds that we may never find out. If there is something so powerful as a God, it would have an intelligence so superior to ours that we would be to it as flies are to us. In other words, us understanding the reasons universe is as it is is like if a fly that constantly hits its head on a window glass understands why that window is there.

Originally Posted by FREKI

The simulation theory is most certainly a better creationist claim one than the magical bearded being, but numbers simply do not add up.. even the most perfect hardrive with the data of our solar system would break down under it's own gravitational pressure and become a star and we're talking the entire universe ( more than 10 sextillion stars )

They don't add up today. They will probably add up in some point in the future. I don't know why do you keep ignoring that fact.

Originally Posted by FREKI

So BE0GRAD if you have a claim prove it - if you can't then you automatically prove yourself to be a simple lier!

I, as an agnostic, don't claim anything so it is not up to me to prove anything. You, religious people, are the ones that make unprovable claims.

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

He's not though. He's saying that to simulate the universe - or for this universe to be a simulation to be exact - then the storage of that simulation would be impossible due to the scale of it.

In short, if you are simulating an atom, accurately, then you need to also simulate all the component parts of that atom, including the smallest particles of it. The simulation would need, as a minimum, to be the same size as that atom.

Theoretically you could build something which doesn't require all the space that exists between the component parts of the atoms, creating the universe in ZIP format, but that would create a giant black hole due to its density.

I answered to your claim couple of times before. Earlier even the most powerful computers ,filling up entire buildings, couldn't run even the simplest programs of today yet today's computers are not only vastly more powerful and faster but also vastly less demanding on space, energy, maintenance, price and other. This trend is likely to continue far into the future until simulations of a universe and even more can be feasible.

Originally Posted by VelesHomais

BEOGRAD, is a magician that doesn't do magic still a magician?

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

I agree with you that it is meaningless to believe that something which is so abstract and incomprehensible to us such as God exists , but isn't it equally meaningless to believe that something so abstract and incomprehensible doesn't exist? Truth is, neither theists nor atheists can prove their claims as they should so their reasoning can be described as nothing more than religious ranting.

So then it becomes just a personal choice, like what tastes better, pizza or burgers. I'm OK with that but how do you convince all those other believers out there who see God as a real entity who has ordained that all infidels must suffer death. This is my main problem with God. As a philosophy I have no issue with it, but the average person takes it literally, and even kills in its name. So I would rather not even give the concept a chance.

Who knows. Maybe there is some logical reason which is so incomprehensible to our primitive minds that we may never find out. If there is something so powerful as a God, it would have an intelligence so superior to ours that we would be to it as flies are to us. In other words, us understanding the reasons universe is as it is is like if a fly that constantly hits its head on a window glass understands why that window is there.

That is true, but I don't want to abandon myself and say, God did it, I'd rather keep bumping into the glass until I "discover" it, or at least leave something behind to help future generations "discover" it.

Words do not define men, men define words. Don't give syntax priority over what it describes... but I don't mean to cut in on Vales, I'm sure he can better explain it himself.

[AnOldBlackMarble]

Originally Posted by ramanujann

If our world is a computer simulation than who is behind this simulation? Why is he simulating us and our world? And who is simulating him?
I think that this theory is meaningless and cannot answer the questions about the creation of the universe, intelligent beings etc. but conversely it adds more questions like these I asked. I also like the Matrix but it's only a nice science fiction and nothing more.

The original article was about the idea that theoretically, a civilization, like ours, could become so advanced that they would be able to create a holographic simulation of their entire history, thus we are the simulation, and our descendants are the observers.

[tykho]

The hypothetical existence of a God won't necessarily mean that we are given all the answers - Where did God come from? What was he doing before he decided to become God? When did he decided to become God? Did he made himself? If yes, then he made himself out of what? And where did that "matter" came from, etc, etc??

The answers for all these questions MAY BE given to us in a hypothetical afterlife but that's a HUGE IF. Even one as powerful as God may not have them and it could be the case that our limited intellect won't be able to understand it...But, if it's like this, then I personally would prefer that there were no afterlife AT ALL; I mean, I can deal with a infinity (probably the biggest mind fuck of them all) of nothingness, because I wouldn't be there to ponder over things I don't completely understand. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would want to be trapped in another reality, for all the eternity, doing god knows what ..Unless the notion we have of time was completely transfigured, but even in such scenario I would prefer to "disappear" in to a infinity of nothingness rather than be God's slave for all the eternity, this of course if I had the opportunity to choose.


the existence or non existence of a God may not be so important after all, because even God may not have all the answers.

[VelesHomais]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

Since there is no evidence of magic, then is the God that you want Atheists to disprove, really a God? Or do you just subscribe this term to some amorphous idea that doesn't include the supernatural?

FREKI is right that those who make claims of the existence of something have the responsibility to prove it, nobody has to take your word for it and disprove your ideas. However, even if we take your route, then it is possible to disprove any supernatural claims if they are specific. Therefore, I ask, what magic is there, that could, theoretically, be assigned to a hypothetical God? In other words, you need to finish your claim by assigning specific properties to whatever you call God, if you want others to bother disproving it.

For instance, you could finish your claim by saying that "a magical entity may have created the stars," without finishing the claim to your idea, it is not even a claim nor an idea.

[FREKI]

A cell - why simulate all that?

[SkyScraperRaper]

Ummm, I don't think they will find any truth in this. Sorry but I can't really give this theory any credit.

Eff knows how we are here.....but that aint the answer.

I really wish I could know the answer to:

1. How did the Universe begin, what was before it, etc etc.
2. How did life - humans get here, how many planets in the universe contain intelligent life.

But annoyingly we probably won't ever know.

For now...it's just the big bang...loads of matter, badda bing badda boom we are here. A miniscule spec in a MAHUSSSIVE universe. There is a hell of a lot more to the universe than us. We are not even a spec of dust.

[Hanyuu222]

I don't think I know enough, but IMO the universe is a simulation; I'm pretty sure everything can be put into 0s and 1s and 1and0s at the same time. I watched videos of people back when they had like 1MB of RAM and they thought it was excessive and that all of that power could never be used. Shit happens, and pretty fast most of the time. It might seem impossible to simulate a universe right now, but future computers are going to be nothing like our current computers. They will be so many times more powerful that to express such a number I could cover this whole page with a 1 and millions of zeros after it and still that would fail to express how big such a number it would be. If you're in your twenties, by the times you are 90 you'll likely have a personal PC more powerful than the brain of every human and living thing on Earth. People always think there will be limits, but I think limits are bullshit and for naysayers. Obviously there are currently limits right now, but if you think these limits will be with us forever you should just kill yourself because you're holding us all back. There's always going to be a way to manipulate the world around us more and more. I get the feeling that some scientists are saying advanced AI will never be possible because modern hardware cant get small enough or fast enough, but really there's always going to be many more options when you consider the whole of science - photon-based computers, chemical based PCs, biological based PCs, quantum PCs, ect, ect. I would bet my life that humanity will in the future simulate universes. If we are simulated or not, we may never know, but it really doesn't matter that much.

[FREKI]

^I urge you to read my earlier posts - it's not the computing-power that is the problem, it's the scale as it takes significantly more than an atom to store the data of an atom and thus more mass to simulate our universe than the universe have. ( trilliosn and trillions of times for just the harddrive alone )

Without getting into anything deeper than quarks it would take more mass than Earth'smass to catalouge a grain of sand in the universal coordinate system - that harddrive would cave in on itself due to the mass and become a planet..

Originally Posted by SkyScraperRaper

I really wish I could know the answer to:

1. How did the Universe begin, what was before it, etc etc.

Mass is condensed energy, so the universe started when a huge amount of energy was converted to a huge amount of matter ( most likely a P-brane collision )..
Most of the matter was cancelled out very fast ( matter vs anti matter ) but luckily enough matter outnumbered antimatter and matter expanded and became our universe..

Originally Posted by SkyScraperRaper

2. How did life - humans get here

Chemicals combined using primeordial mud as catalyst forming the first Polyneuclotides chains and among those were was RNA molocules that pass on traits trough replication - these were favorable for lipid molocules to attach to and thus the first cell membranes came to be and the increased protection of the RNA allowed RNA to become more complex and eventually go a single to a double strand and when that combined with aminoacids you got the first DNA..

Cells replicated and slowly evolved into more complex life that adapted to it's surroundings and became increasinly more advanced..

Humans comes from small apes who's long fingers turned out to be great tools - this resulted in more advanced thinking that again resulted in a bigger brain that allowed them to use tools - however tool use is hard in the trees so that took to the ground where tools could be used easier and even as weapons and when they finally got large enough brains to communicate efficiantly they could kill large pray and cook it with fire greatly increasing the protein intake allowing even larger brains and the modern man came to be..

Originally Posted by SkyScraperRaper

how many planets in the universe contain intelligent life.

That's a very good question I cannot give you a precise answer to.. but we can look at the numbers..

In our solar system we have had at least 5 planets in the goldielock zone - but by the time early chaotic mess was over we were left with 3 - Venus, Earth and Mars.. the primeodial conditions that allowed life on Earth could be found on all 3 in the past..

Mars was too small and become too cold, geological activity was reduced and thus the renewal of the heavy elements in it's atmosphere, stock with only light gasses and a low gravity the solar wind started eating away the atmosphere to the point it is today, it's vast oceans evaporated or was locked in ice and it died - life can still exist naturally in the soil but sadly not advanced intelligent life.. ( methane in the atmosphere indicates that there are likely life, but nothing living has been found yet )

Venus while also small kept it's geological activity longer due to proximity to the sun and ended up with an extremely dense atmosphere that is too hot for advanced life today it's also veryhard to do any research under those conditions so we have not seen any signs of life there yet either..

Earth was "just right" and life evolved ( see post above ) and for intelligent life in other systems to exists they will need a similar success story, so it takes some luck, but as stars form in the same way and the ignition creates the forcewave that causes matter to beforced outwards and laysthe groundforplanets to form it's very likely that most suns have multiple planets in the goldilock zone and that many of them at some point are very favorable for life..

Of course stars doesn't start at the same time and planets typically loses their life surstainability early on, so life right now is hard to predict, but if we look at our galaxy we have ~300 billion stars so around 500 billion to 1,1 trillionplanets in the goldielock zones..

Life here took 3,5 billion years to get advanced and that was thanks to a number of mass extinction events that clearned up and allowed new aminals to spread out and become successful, so a good chance is that intelligent life happens once every 2 and 6 billion years span after the first cells - this means that most goldielock planets will never see advanced life - but as Earth shows some will, so lets be pessimistic and say once per 1 million solar systems in the first 6 billion years of heavy element stars ( 3rd gen or later )

This gives us very roughly 900.000 advanced civilizations in the Milkyway galaxy lifespan - most of these civilizations will be brief as nature tends to illiminate rapid expanding and densely living animals trough deseace, virus, events etc not to mention since it's most likely hunters evolving agression (war, ecosystem faliures, tech gone wrong etc ) will also be a problem, so a rough estimate is that advanced civilizatons has an average lifespand of a million years..

So the math is 900.000 civilizations of 1 million years in a 10 billion year time frame..

This gives us a very rough estimated number of 90 advanced civilizations in existance in our galaxy right now ( one for every 33,3 million stars or roughly one per every 26,3million cubic light year )

On a universal scale that gives us a rough estimate of 18 trillion planets with intelligent life at this moment across the entire 200billion galaxy universe..

So statistically quite a lot even with pessimistic numbers like mine, but it's a very big place, so chances of anyone within communication range is extremely slim - but who knows.. we might be lucky..

[bnk]

Originally Posted by FREKI

A cell - why simulate all that?

Thats a nice video but it did not even get into the complexity of how it works and little attention to DNA and protein production.

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by BE0GRAD

I answered to your claim couple of times before. Earlier even the most powerful computers ,filling up entire buildings, couldn't run even the simplest programs of today yet today's computers are not only vastly more powerful and faster but also vastly less demanding on space, energy, maintenance, price and other. This trend is likely to continue far into the future until simulations of a universe and even more can be feasible.

So you really believe the smallest particle in the universe can be simulated by something smaller than the smallest particle in the universe?

I don't think you are really grasping the question.

I'll make it simpler - it doesn't matter how technologically advanced we get, we'll never able to make something smaller than the smallest particle there is for the simple reason that there is nothing smaller than the smallest particle there is.

The only alternative (other than the condensed universe which pretty much would result in creating a black hole) in that case is to make the simulation cruder than reality, at which point it ceases to be a replica of reality