Page 1 of 2

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:07 am
by smeggypants
Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation

I've always wondered if our universe was indeed just a computer algorithm. but then if it is the species that created the algorithm and hardware for it to run on could themselves be part of a computer Algorithm.


Image
Could this be a computer simulation?

Will you take the red pill or the blue pill?

Some physicists and university researchers say it's possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film "The Matrix."

In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, "The Simulation Argument," which argued that, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we're all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization's computer game.

Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.

So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.

"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."

The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: "Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."

To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there's a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.

Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?

University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should "simply" attempt to communicate with those. "The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'" she asked.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:19 am
by Docteur Qui
:marty:

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:24 am
by Stanley Tweedle
I feel like I'm stoned. :splif:
Far out man. :)

Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?


Science is sounding quite religious here. :chin:

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:03 am
by smeggypants
The universe has crashed. reboot!

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:22 pm
by phild05
Freaky :splif: To find out we're a Life Sim :eek: and part of the sim is that we discover that we're in a sim as part of the sim :eek:

I shall go no further on this. Fuck that :rofl:

This is where God vs Science comes in.........

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:51 pm
by wotsit2
phild05 wrote:Freaky :splif: To find out we're a Life Sim :eek: and part of the sim is that we discover that we're in a sim as part of the sim :eek:

I shall go no further on this. Fuck that :rofl:

This is where God vs Science comes in.........

:confused: :confused: :spike: :spike: :spike: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:37 pm
by smeggypants
If the Human Race isn't destroyed by the Religious Cults, Capitalists or Masonic-Zionists, it will eventually develop enough computer technology to simulate a universe. By that logic there's no reason why a species in a parent universe couldn't not have done the same. :)

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:50 pm
by Stanley Tweedle
Wonder if you're in a coma you see 'Your username or Password is invalid. Try Logging in again' :D

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:29 pm
by smeggypants
hehe :)

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:06 am
by hackenslash
Here's the problem, and it details irresponsible reporting of this issue.

In reality, there is no means by which we can actually demonstrate that our universe is a computer simulation. The best we can do is to demonstrate that a computer simulation is compatible with what we observe. The problem is, of course, that even were we to demonstrate that our observations are compatible with the idea that our universe is simulated, it cannot rule out all the alternatives.

Here's the issue:

There is no means, even in principle, that what we observe is, in any way, real. This is the deepest problem of philosophy. It's known as the 'ontological problem', and it's inescapable.

What this research deals with, for the most part, is the quantisation of spacetime. It's a difficult concept to deal with in the context of our middle-world, because we see things as a continuum. What we're talking about here, though, is the idea that spacetime is discrete, or granular.

The research in question doesn't tell us that we're living in a simulation, but that a simulation is not ruled out.

I need to be more sober when dealing with this, but the point is that this research does not tell us that we live in a simulation, but that we can't say that we don't. There are many ontologies with which this is consistent, and none of them can be ruled out on the basis of this research.

In reality, there is no means, even in principle, by which our ontological status might be ascertained. There is no observation we can make that can demonstrate that what we experience is, or is not, real.

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:18 am
by ghostgirl
hackenslash wrote:Here's the problem, and it details irresponsible reporting of this issue.

In reality, there is no means by which we can actually demonstrate that our universe is a computer simulation. The best we can do is to demonstrate that a computer simulation is compatible with what we observe. The problem is, of course, that even were we to demonstrate that our observations are compatible with the idea that our universe is simulated, it cannot rule out all the alternatives.

Here's the issue:

There is no means, even in principle, that what we observe is, in any way, real. This is the deepest problem of philosophy. It's known as the 'ontological problem', and it's inescapable.

What this research deals with, for the most part, is the quantisation of spacetime. It's a difficult concept to deal with in the context of our middle-world, because we see things as a continuum. What we're talking about here, though, is the idea that spacetime is discrete, or granular.

The research in question doesn't tell us that we're living in a simulation, but that a simulation is not ruled out.

I need to be more sober when dealing with this, but the point is that this research does not tell us that we live in a simulation, but that we can't say that we don't. There are many ontologies with which this is consistent, and none of them can be ruled out on the basis of this research.

In reality, there is no means, even in principle, by which our ontological status might be ascertained. There is no observation we can make that can demonstrate that what we experience is, or is not, real.


Agreed. :)

I'm wondering if you've read "The End Of Time" by Julian Barbour?
The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics



From a recent article on his work:
“If you try to get your hands on time, it’s always slipping through your fingers,” says Barbour. “People are sure time is there, but they can’t get hold of it. My feeling is that they can’t get hold of it because it isn’t there at all.” Barbour speaks with a disarming English charm that belies an iron resolve and confidence in his science. His extreme perspective comes from years of looking into the heart of both classical and quantum physics. Isaac Newton thought of time as a river flowing at the same rate everywhere. Einstein changed this picture by unifying space and time into a single 4-D entity. But even Einstein failed to challenge the concept of time as a measure of change. In Barbour’s view, the question must be turned on its head. It is change that provides the illusion of time. Channeling the ghost of Parmenides, Barbour sees each individual moment as a whole, complete and existing in its own right. He calls these moments “Nows.”
“As we live, we seem to move through a succession of Nows,” says Barbour, “and the question is, what are they?” For Barbour each Now is an arrangement of everything in the universe. “We have the strong impression that things have definite positions relative to each other. I aim to abstract away everything we cannot see (directly or indirectly) and simply keep this idea of many different things coexisting at once. There are simply the Nows, nothing more, nothing less.”

Article continues here ...

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:43 am
by smeggypants
I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:37 pm
by ghostgirl
smeggypants wrote:I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe



Sorry, WHAT?? :shrug:

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:27 am
by smeggypants
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe



Sorry, WHAT?? :shrug:


Whoops: Fixing the sentence:

I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to the possibility of a granular universe.

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:45 am
by ghostgirl
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe



Sorry, WHAT?? :shrug:


Whoops: Fixing the sentence:

I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to the possibility of a granular universe.

Lol, gotcha. So how many frames per second does the universal light-show progress at do you think? Is there such a thing as constant motion? Or does absolutely everything progress in discrete intervals?

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:57 am
by smeggypants
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe



Sorry, WHAT?? :shrug:


Whoops: Fixing the sentence:

I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to the possibility of a granular universe.

Lol, gotcha. So how many frames per second does the universal light-show progress at do you think? Is there such a thing as constant motion? Or does absolutely everything progress in discrete intervals?


I'm not sure. I do remember hearing about some theory that the Universe could be granular. How you would test it while being stuck within the quantisation itself I Dunno :)

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:08 am
by ghostgirl
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe



Sorry, WHAT?? :shrug:


Whoops: Fixing the sentence:

I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to the possibility of a granular universe.

Lol, gotcha. So how many frames per second does the universal light-show progress at do you think? Is there such a thing as constant motion? Or does absolutely everything progress in discrete intervals?


I'm not sure. I do remember hearing about some theory that the Universe could be granular. How you would test it while being stuck within the quantisation itself I Dunno :)

I'm pretty sure the idea originated with Heisenberg.

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:18 pm
by Docteur Qui
Reminds me of this scene from Animal House!

Wizz to 4:54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNJAauwWvpo

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:48 pm
by Stanley Tweedle
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to possible analogy of a granular universe



Sorry, WHAT?? :shrug:


Whoops: Fixing the sentence:

I did note the granularity of digital systems as a possible analogy to the possibility of a granular universe.

Lol, gotcha. So how many frames per second does the universal light-show progress at do you think? Is there such a thing as constant motion? Or does absolutely everything progress in discrete intervals?


I'm not sure. I do remember hearing about some theory that the Universe could be granular. How you would test it while being stuck within the quantisation itself I Dunno :)

I'm pretty sure the idea originated with Heisenberg.


I remember seeing an episode of How2 as a kid where the question was, 'Can a fly stop a speeding train?'
The answer was yes, but simplified for kids.

Basically, everything moves in intervals, so at one specific point the train has stopped and so has the fly.
Not really remembering the explanation properly I'm struggling to explain further but that was my gist of it. :shrug:
I was about 9 at the time. :)

Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulati

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:44 pm
by Channel Hopper
ghostgirl wrote: Is there such a thing as constant motion? Or does absolutely everything progress in discrete intervals?


If it were the case, interlacing might explain how other world inhabitants are able to move around this planet unnoticed.