Physicists Find We're Not Inside Computer Simulator

monkeymagick

[H]News
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
480
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news for Matrix fans. Theoretical physicists from Oxford University have found that the reality we live in cannot be generated due to the sheer volume it would take to create. The findings suggest that the "the complexity of the simulation increased exponentially with the number of particles being simulated." Merely storing the information of a couple of hundreds of electrons would require more atoms than what exist within the entire universe the calculations show.

The pair initially set out to see whether it was possible to use a technique known as quantum Monte Carlo to study the quantum Hall effect - a phenomenon in physical systems that exhibit strong magnetic fields and very low temperatures, and manifests as an energy current that runs across the temperature gradient. The phenomenon indicates an anomaly in the underlying space-time geometry.
 
monkeymagick doesn't get enough cred for his threads, +1 for [H]wildlife.

A simulation can't exceed the computational power of the simulation, and by design your resources can't exceed your assigned quota, therefore you can never prove or disprove your reality.
 
At a bare minimum, we're all participating in unique simulations with external guiding forces.
 
Well even though the man never really said it....

" "When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory." "

As SYM already stated, any computer simulating the universe wouldn't live within its rule set. It would be like a bot in the game The Sims stating the real world can't be as there isn't enough processing power in every computer currently running The Sims to generate the polygon count required to simulate it.
 
Any simulation must be run on a computer at least more complex than the simulation, IE, to simulate a single second of a single electron completely accurately, you need a computer more complex than that, so either a single electron for longer than one second, or something more complex than an electron for a single second.

In other words, in order to simulate the observable universe, you need a computer more complex than the observable universe.

Higher dimensions make this much easier, but it's still a topic irrelevant to science.
 
Higher dimensions make this much easier, but it's still a topic irrelevant to science.

All ideas exist within the realm of science. Some ideas are testable, some are waiting to become testable. All we can honestly say is that we don't know if there is a boundary where we wont be able to learn anything else.
 
All ideas exist within the realm of science. Some ideas are testable, some are waiting to become testable. All we can honestly say is that we don't know if there is a boundary where we wont be able to learn anything else.

To assume that all ideas are within the realm of science is unscientific, as such a claim requires evidence and testing.
 
To assume that all ideas are within the realm of science is unscientific, as such a claim requires evidence and testing.

All we can honestly say is that we don't know if there is a boundary where we wont be able to learn anything else.

KazeoHin, you're effectively arguing that you know some things can never be tested, which you don't.

Science is more than a procedure or classification system or a body of knowledge, it's a way of thinking. I'm not trying to imply that we should assume all ideas are true or anything like that, I'm simply arguing that nothing is outside the realm of scientific discussion.
 
You could achieve the same results as a simulation by just having nanobots pervasively spread throughout our environment. You could control everything, watch everything, etc. and they could hide themselves from any of our testing equipment I figure.
 
Maybe they have quantum computers...which you know solve everything.
 
Would this not assume computational power and systems like our own? Who is to say the "computer" is anything like we have or even bound by the same space/time/physics we are?
 
The concept of the Ancestor Simulation or Boltzman Brain is really cool, but you cannot disprove the theories or concepts if you live in this time and age, simply because our current levels of reasoning cannot grasp what would be required to produce such results, so we can't postulate it away in the same way that 1000 years ago someone showing off flash paper would be seen as a devil or wizard. No honey, it's not magic, it's science. Maybe the entire universe is a simulation for an advanced race, or possibly us....from the distant, distant future, seeing how ancient peoples (us, today) lived, because 10,000 or 100,000 years from now our concepts of dimensions, time, etc...have all evolved.....for Gods sake didn't you people see Interstellar!?!?!?! :D ..maybe we don't look like shaved apes anymore..
ade.jpg
 
KazeoHin, you're effectively arguing that you know some things can never be tested, which you don't.

Science is more than a procedure or classification system or a body of knowledge, it's a way of thinking. I'm not trying to imply that we should assume all ideas are true or anything like that, I'm simply arguing that nothing is outside the realm of scientific discussion.
This is a cosmological issue. It would incorporate "Science" but also Reason/Math and Philosophy.

The big question is like video games, can they practice an economy of data storage? Video games don't render all potentially visible object all the time. Only the stuff a player sees and only to the resolution to trick the naked eye.
 
This is so dumb if we were in a simulation the problem is there would be no way of telling from "inside" as everything down to the how physics in our universe would be part of the simulation...and because we cant store the data of every particle in our conception of a system does not mean the actual system cant in a programming language we have no concept of and on a system that does not resemble a computer as we know it... Ffs it could be some semi demensional quasi computational thing that uses fractal bits which have infinite states....
 
The concept of the Ancestor Simulation or Boltzman Brain is really cool, but you cannot disprove the theories or concepts if you live in this time and age, simply because our current levels of reasoning cannot grasp what would be required to produce such results, so we can't postulate it away in the same way that 1000 years ago someone showing off flash paper would be seen as a devil or wizard. No honey, it's not magic, it's science. Maybe the entire universe is a simulation for an advanced race, or possibly us....from the distant, distant future, seeing how ancient peoples (us, today) lived, because 10,000 or 100,000 years from now our concepts of dimensions, time, etc...have all evolved.....for Gods sake didn't you people see Interstellar!?!?!?! :D ..maybe we don't look like shaved apes anymore..

Thanks dude I cant unsee that.

We may never really know if we are in a simulation or not. Matrix fantasies aside the simulation creators would have to program in the ability for us to gain that level of cognizance. So unless they did that we just have to assume the world is real and stop wasting our time with this bullshit and focus on the hard problems.
 
This is a cosmological issue. It would incorporate "Science" but also Reason/Math and Philosophy.

The big question is like video games, can they practice an economy of data storage? Video games don't render all potentially visible object all the time. Only the stuff a player sees and only to the resolution to trick the naked eye.

Cosmology is science, math is science. To a lesser degree reason and philosophy are as well, but at the end of the day they are too subjective to produce reliable results.

Assuming this universe was a similation, If there was a 'player' object it would likely not be anything on earth.
 
If this world is not a sham, how do you explain Lady Gaga?

The world is simulation, monitored in real-time, and someone is fucking with us.
 
Well, of course. If we are in a simulation we could not possibly break the limits of the computer and simulation parameters, and we would not know anything of the universe that computer would be in... So, it actually proves nothing. Just that we can comprehend the limits within our simulation and that we imagine it to be absolute for our universe.
 
Thanks dude I cant unsee that.

We may never really know if we are in a simulation or not. Matrix fantasies aside the simulation creators would have to program in the ability for us to gain that level of cognizance. So unless they did that we just have to assume the world is real and stop wasting our time with this bullshit and focus on the hard problems.

Agreed. Our biggest problem today, IMHO, is the loss of critical thinking.......group think and manipulation of easily-influenced people is, frankly, destroying us...because nobody wants to believe they're being controlled, you challenge someones thinking and suddenly a mob shows up to shout you down. You have to base decisions on analysis, not feels...some people don't know the difference.
 
Of course the simulation wouldn't let the participants know they are in a simulation so that is why the physicists say it can't be done.

This.

If you could tell you where in a simulation, then it's a poor quality simulation.
 
Well, of course. If we are in a simulation we could not possibly break the limits of the computer and simulation parameters, and we would not know anything of the universe that computer would be in... So, it actually proves nothing. Just that we can comprehend the limits within our simulation and that we imagine it to be absolute for our universe.

I thought you were being sarcastic for a moment. "If we are in a simulation we could not possibly break the limits of the computer and simulation parameters." Hackers gonna hack. We would see people ghosting through walls, getting extra lives, all that stuff if this was a program!

I think anyone that has programmed for even a few weeks will agree it is more mentally difficult to debug a program than to write it. If you write the best and most bug free program you can, then by definition you are not smart enough to 100% debug it. A simulation this big and complicated would have to be imperfect... hrm maybe the many worlds theory and there is a perfect universe simulator out there somewhere. I still think I know people that would somehow crash it...

I wonder how we could trigger a buffer overflow? A black hole might be the answer ha.

Quick, someone calculate TREE (G64) on that new speedy iPhone cpu, let's see what happens!
 
If this world is not a sham, how do you explain Lady Gaga?

The world is simulation, monitored in real-time, and someone is fucking with us.

Maybe some want to be told that Lady Gaga is an amazing singer and is enjoyable to listen to where in reality she doesn't exist. Ignorance is bliss.
 
Cosmology is science, math is science. To a lesser degree reason and philosophy are as well, but at the end of the day they are too subjective to produce reliable results.

Assuming this universe was a similation, If there was a 'player' object it would likely not be anything on earth.

"At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics."

I thought you were being sarcastic for a moment. "If we are in a simulation we could not possibly break the limits of the computer and simulation parameters." Hackers gonna hack. We would see people ghosting through walls, getting extra lives, all that stuff if this was a program!

I think anyone that has programmed for even a few weeks will agree it is more mentally difficult to debug a program than to write it. If you write the best and most bug free program you can, then by definition you are not smart enough to 100% debug it. A simulation this big and complicated would have to be imperfect... hrm maybe the many worlds theory and there is a perfect universe simulator out there somewhere. I still think I know people that would somehow crash it...

I wonder how we could trigger a buffer overflow? A black hole might be the answer ha.

Quick, someone calculate TREE (G64) on that new speedy iPhone cpu, let's see what happens!

Hackers gonna hack? Have you seen a piece of a program hack itself from the inside without outside direction or changes? Because that is literally what you are talking about happening here. WE cant write bug free programs, maybe because we were programmed to not be able to, or maybe because we just suck. You shouldn't anthropomorphize; the simulation creators, if we are in a simulation, may not have any of the same thought patterns we do. We might be babbling idiots to them and are TRVIAL for them to simulate. Hell we could be frustrating them to no end with them pulling their hair out going "why the hell cant they fix these simple issues? wtf? Is the code shitty?"
 
"At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics."



Hackers gonna hack? Have you seen a piece of a program hack itself from the inside without outside direction or changes? Because that is literally what you are talking about happening here. WE cant write bug free programs, maybe because we were programmed to not be able to, or maybe because we just suck. You shouldn't anthropomorphize; the simulation creators, if we are in a simulation, may not have any of the same thought patterns we do. We might be babbling idiots to them and are TRVIAL for them to simulate. Hell we could be frustrating them to no end with them pulling their hair out going "why the hell cant they fix these simple issues? wtf? Is the code shitty?"

Who is to say we don't see and experience hacks also? Ghosts? Unexplained? Malfunctioned applications err I mean humans...
 
Cosmology is science, math is science. To a lesser degree reason and philosophy are as well, but at the end of the day they are too subjective to produce reliable results.

Assuming this universe was a similation, If there was a 'player' object it would likely not be anything on earth.
There are two definitions of Cosmology. One is just another name for Astronomy except it includes non-shiny objects too. That is a science. The Nature of the Universe type Cosmology is not Science alone at all.

Math is not a science. Science is the process of understanding physical phenomena and validating that understanding. In Math I can have phenomena that exist nowhere in reality. I can do countless what if scenarios that mean nothing.

As for the Player, too many 3rd Person games, I see.
 
Last edited:
"Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented.""

To say that it is impossible is to limit your horizon.
 
"At the quantum level, there is no difference between biology and physics."



Hackers gonna hack? Have you seen a piece of a program hack itself from the inside without outside direction or changes? Because that is literally what you are talking about happening here. WE cant write bug free programs, maybe because we were programmed to not be able to, or maybe because we just suck. You shouldn't anthropomorphize; the simulation creators, if we are in a simulation, may not have any of the same thought patterns we do. We might be babbling idiots to them and are TRVIAL for them to simulate. Hell we could be frustrating them to no end with them pulling their hair out going "why the hell cant they fix these simple issues? wtf? Is the code shitty?"

Haha, I was being light hearted when I said "hackers gonna hack". Given the people I have worked with through the years I would more expect people to accidently break it than figure out a way to "cheat".

I think of it this way. A simulation isn't a movie, it isn't prescripted. That's just by definition. Either you simulate something you underatand, or something you dont.

If they used thier laws of physics, or some subset of laws, then we can learn about them from how our universe works.

If they made up some wild ass unrealistic, to them, like our SIMS world, than we may still be able to learn something about them because they can't imagine something they can't imagine. What I mean is, they can conceive of anything in our universe. Maybe more, but not less.
 
"Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."
 
Wait, Isn't this the same as the "It's soooo complex it has to be made by God" argument?

I believe both assume facts not in evidence.
 
Back
Top