Physicists Testing To See If Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Anything can be simulated to any level of detail. It just depends on how long you want to wait. But regardless of whether it take 10 years to simulate 1 second or 100, the simulated occupants would only perceive the amount of time that was simulated. So if we are in a simulation, and it slowed to a crawl to render something complex, it would not make any difference to us.
 
This could prove to be good news for religious people as it would prove the existence of god/gods. The downside is your god/gods would be a software developer. I see this as just another attempt of man trying to explain his existence. For a lot of educated people religion is seen as a political/social formation rather than an explanation for how we came about. So, how is this idea any more strange than the hundreds of creations myths we have? At least they have come up with a logical test to validate its possibility.
 
This concept is interesting, and I really don't understand why people are against it.

While it may not be the "best" use of grant money, I fully support the research.

Yes, it is an extreme mathematical probability that we exist; in all the Goldilocks bands, the possibility that we exist is so minute, that it is difficult to imagine. I would highly suggest you guys read into Michio Kaku's Einstein's Cosmos as well as Parallel Worlds to grasp the motivation behind this research.

People originally thought that researching quantum theory and relativity were also useless, but those yielded nuclear energy and microprocessors... so think twice before criticizing research in a new domain
 
So... some dude in the year 10 million or so is playing SimCity 853,952,001 and we are the little people walking around in his game...
 
Geef said:
So... some dude in the year 10 million or so is playing SimCity 853,952,001 and we are the little people walking around in his game...
Click to expand...

Whilst hypothetically possible, that's not the situation we're looking at. Stop degrading others' ideas
 
I'm not sure where they got this idea from, but its interesting to note that during the 2011 Issac Asimov debate which was on the theory of everything topic, one of the physicist talked about his line of research where they discover what appears to be "computer codes" hidden within the equations of physics. It is said to be a type of error correction code similar to those used in data transmissions for error checking and correction. This new idea may suggest that we're living in "The Matrix" if its true :eek:, which is just what these people are testing.

Of course II'm not convince of this whole idea that we are a computer simulation, but I have nothing against people trying to test it. Physics is all about pushing the boundaries, and sometimes its nice to have some people taking other less common approach rather than having everyone focusing the more common ones like string theory.
 
So God was just one big programmer/engineer, who would have thought it?! :D
 
Well technically everything is a delusion. Your mind creates everything and even "you" don't exist. Everything is based around the 5 (some say 6) senses which are all chemical based around the brain. Even if we were a simulation the simulators would be a simulation too.
 
Hornet said:
I'm not sure where they got this idea from, but its interesting to note that during the 2011 Issac Asimov debate which was on the theory of everything topic, one of the physicist talked about his line of research where they discover what appears to be "computer codes" hidden within the equations of physics. It is said to be a type of error correction code similar to those used in data transmissions for error checking and correction. This new idea may suggest that we're living in "The Matrix" if its true :eek:, which is just what these people are testing.

Of course II'm not convince of this whole idea that we are a computer simulation, but I have nothing against people trying to test it. Physics is all about pushing the boundaries, and sometimes its nice to have some people taking other less common approach rather than having everyone focusing the more common ones like string theory.
Click to expand...

Those are two different things :) String theory only seeks to establish a relationship between all four forces [including gravity], something which all other theories have failed to do.

The computer simulation idea on the other hand, is merely a possible explanation for the existence of our universe, not how it works

Although its completely possible that we live in a simulation, I think that in order to simulate an entire Universe - something that our civilization considers infinitely complex, yet may be the equivalent of Pong for an advanced intelligence- the technology used would be exponentially more advanced than our strongest hardware, and the code needed to predict the position of every atom in the Universe would have to be incredibly complex ; one of the main counter-arguments against the idea of a simulated universe, is that the complexity of technology and the power of said technology, is impossible. The smallest possible model that could simulate the Universe, is the Universe itself.

Although it is kind of funny to think that laws mysteriously work on their own, without any governing figure doing the math and such. They're just ... so arbitrary
 
Since it appears I can't edit my previous post...

Sovern said:
Well technically everything is a delusion. Your mind creates everything and even "you" don't exist. Everything is based around the 5 (some say 6) senses which are all chemical based around the brain. Even if we were a simulation the simulators would be a simulation too.
Click to expand...


Congratulations, you've discovered solipsism
 
dmanstasiu said:
Since it appears I can't edit my previous post...




Congratulations, you've discovered solipsism
Click to expand...

Incorrect, it is not solipsism it's called reality. Solipsism is just another ideology but I'm not talking about that here.

Everything is chemical based and everything is impermanent meaning that there being a "you" does not exit as you are in a constant flux of change.

Suggesting that a "you" or "I" exists means that we would have to be fixed in a permanent unchanged state which is impossible as everything is impermanent. You are neither the same nor different than you were at age 7. This is proof that a "you" does not exist and is just a delusion.

Everything is chemical based around the mind which are actually waves the last time that I read (according to the theory that I read everything is based around waves) and the mind creates everything and through the 6th sense (this sense of "I") we interpret the 5 senses which include smell, feel including bodily sensations, hearing, sight, and taste.

Experience will never be more than those 5 senses and the 6th sense is experience also known as what people call the "I" in your brain.

As for whether this would confirm a God exists I don;t think that it would, it would just prove that there are other advance society's out there.

In my opinion nature itself is God and this can be shown by how me and everyone on here is so complicated yet we exist and mother nature was intelligent enough to create life and things such as humans and the third eye, dreams, and all of these other wonderful things.

I don't think that nature being called God can really even be explained as a human as it's every where but this is treading thing water as you can call mother nature God or w/e else you want to but even Albert Einstein held this thought.
 
Sovern said:
Incorrect, it is not solipsism it's called reality. Solipsism is just another ideology but I'm not talking about that here.

Everything is chemical based and everything is impermanent meaning that there being a "you" does not exit as you are in a constant flux of change.

Suggesting that a "you" or "I" exists means that we would have to be fixed in a permanent unchanged state which is impossible as everything is impermanent. You are neither the same nor different than you were at age 7. This is proof that a "you" does not exist and is just a delusion.

Everything is chemical based around the mind which are actually waves the last time that I read (according to the theory that I read everything is based around waves) and the mind creates everything and through the 6th sense (this sense of "I") we interpret the 5 senses which include smell, feel including bodily sensations, hearing, sight, and taste.

Experience will never be more than those 5 senses and the 6th sense is experience also known as what people call the "I" in your brain.

As for whether this would confirm a God exists I don;t think that it would, it would just prove that there are other advance society's out there.

In my opinion nature itself is God and this can be shown by how me and everyone on here is so complicated yet we exist and mother nature was intelligent enough to create life and things such as humans and the third eye, dreams, and all of these other wonderful things.

I don't think that nature being called God can really even be explained as a human as it's every where but this is treading thing water as you can call mother nature God or w/e else you want to but even Albert Einstein held this thought.
Click to expand...

Ah that's what you were talking about, my apologies: I misinterpreted your post. I completely agree that an "I" never exists as we are in a constant state of change, from yesterday to tomorrow.

I also agree with you on the topic of Einstein's [Spinoza's] God; that is, a supernatural being that is not a personal God, that does not hear out our prayers and that did not create humans.

It's really wonderful to just spend entire nights awake thinking of the immensity and the sheer mathematical [im]possibility of our existence.
 
Who ever is playing this little computer game with our lives better not hit the "crash on an atv" button again for a long time. Don't even think of hitting the "stumbles and falls while using crutches" button.
 
The least "They" could do, is to run a few quick billion WU´s for the [H]orde, now that we know what "they" are up to.

Intriguing theory, nothing new, not buying it. Many variations and interpretations of this idea has been believed by humans through time. Hindu´s have been saying for thousands of years that the universe we perceive is all an illusion (Maya) projected from ourselves.

It surely is different from what modern theories are saying. To me it is analogue to how aliens in modern time have replaced medieval demons in peoples night visitations. We project with what is available and current. Right now humanity finds itself in a computer age, so we see binary code in DNA and suggest a computer is simulating all this. I agree very much with the person who referred to this as basically just being another iteration of "brains in vats".
 
Sovern said:
Everything is chemical based
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Electrical signals are part of neural function. It's also been scientifically proven that magnetic fields affect the brain's operation. The brain is EM sensitive, so the brain, and thus mental perception, can be affected by forces outside of the normal sensory inputs.
 
nakedhand said:
The least "They" could do, is to run a few quick billion WU´s for the [H]orde, now that we know what "they" are up to.

Intriguing theory, nothing new, not buying it. Many variations and interpretations of this idea has been believed by humans through time. Hindu´s have been saying for thousands of years that the universe we perceive is all an illusion (Maya) projected from ourselves.

It surely is different from what modern theories are saying. To me it is analogue to how aliens in modern time have replaced medieval demons in peoples night visitations. We project with what is available and current. Right now humanity finds itself in a computer age, so we see binary code in DNA and suggest a computer is simulating all this. I agree very much with the person who referred to this as basically just being another iteration of "brains in vats".
Click to expand...

Ya kinda sounds like a rehash of Hume to me, but rather than taking Hume's stance of more or less "Let's ignore this because it isn't a useful argument," it takes it seriously.

The funny thing to me is the claim that we must be living in a simulation because we don't make our own simulated universes. Ummm... no. I think it comes from fundamentally misunderstanding how simulations work, particularly their aspects of simplification.

More or less, you can't simulate something completely accurately with something any less complex than the original. Whatever level of fidelity you require in the simulation, the device you use to simulate it will be more complex. So the least complex thing that could simulate the universe is, well, the universe. We can't build our own complete simulation of one being in it.

Could it be something that exists as a simulation in a more complex device? Sure, but then again it could also be stand alone. In the absence of any reason to suspect there is this thing doing the simulation, the best hypothesis is that there isn't.

Really it is just another kind of god argument, just taking out god. The basic god argument is "Everything that exists had a creator, the universe exists, so it had a creator and that is god." Of course you then get in to who created god, and that god was always there,or self creating which leads to the argument that the same can be said for the universe, god is an unnecessary hypothesis.

Same kind of shit here, and I remain rather unconvinced that their experiment could potentially falsify anything which means it isn't of any scientific value.
 
when i first read this article i was sure it had to be a joke

you have got


to be kidding me....
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Well if proven that would at least explain religion.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. There are multiple religions, and most contradict each other in some way. The only way you could use this scenario as a test of religion would be if certain specific criteria were met. First, there would have to be intent on the part of the "User(s)" running the simulation to communicate with the programs. Second, there would have to be intent on the part of the "User(s)" to allow the programs to discover their existence. Third, there would have to be some mechanism by which the "User(s)" could make known to the programs convincingly and consistently that they exist and without doing irreparable harm to the simulation in the process. Lastly, there would need to be some way to make known which "religion" was correct without corrupting the simulation. That puts people right back in the same boat as before - not knowing for certain, but having to choose what to believe. One could view the nature of a creator God and the universe in the same way a programmer and its programs function, and indeed I have seen this parallel in my own programming, but that's simply a metaphor - just as Christianity calls the Lord a "shepherd" and the people his "sheep".

There's also a flip side to the testing these scientists are wanting to do. If the results of the simulation that they are proposing mirror the observed laws of physics it may not prove anything. Instead of proving the universe is a simulation it may only prove that their simulation follows the same existing patterns already present in the universe. Logically this would make sense as there is consistency in the structure of the universe. A part of something tends to have patterns that exist in the whole. A pebble has the same crystal structure as the mountain rock it came from. Electrons orbit atomic nuclei, and planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies... etc, etc. Fractals are a great place to observe this principle. One would expect math to work the same wherever you go, so if the simulation works just like the universe it shouldn't be a surprise because it exists within the universe and is subject to the same laws.
 
I'm not agree, we're not a computer simulation or it cannot be said like this.

I'm agree that it work here just like a computer, this said, it must be a program. But not a computer program something else.
 
Kitebasher said:
The "Thirteenth Floor" is coming true.
Click to expand...

Never heard of it, just watched it though after seeing it mentioned here, good movie. Know anymore like this that aren't well known?

Now....how do I glitch/hack the system...lol. I want unlimited currency. :p
 
MasonD said:
Never heard of it, just watched it though after seeing it mentioned here, good movie. Know anymore like this that aren't well known?

Now....how do I glitch/hack the system...lol. I want unlimited currency. :p
Click to expand...

I thought that was a great movie.
 
ryan_975 said:
Anything can be simulated to any level of detail. It just depends on how long you want to wait. But regardless of whether it take 10 years to simulate 1 second or 100, the simulated occupants would only perceive the amount of time that was simulated. So if we are in a simulation, and it slowed to a crawl to render something complex, it would not make any difference to us.
Click to expand...

this. all the talk about the impossibility of detail and the experience of "frame drops"...it's irrelevant. if the hypothesis were true, we would be part of the simulation, and not using it. even if it took 1.000 earth-years to render one frame of 'humanity 1.0' - we would not experience any hiccups.
 
Phoenix333 said:
That is incorrect. Electrical signals are part of neural function. It's also been scientifically proven that magnetic fields affect the brain's operation. The brain is EM sensitive, so the brain, and thus mental perception, can be affected by forces outside of the normal sensory inputs.
Click to expand...

Well actually everything is wave based including chemicals so forget about that post where I said everything is chemical based because in actuality everything is wave length based. But still everything is created by the mind.

Also in your last sentence you contradicted yourself. How could we interpret something outside of our sensory inputs.

That would mean that we don't know whatever effecting us exists thus making us not know about it no manner what technology that we use to find what's effecting us because it has to enter one of the 5 senses for us to interpret it and thus say it exists.
 
An example of this x rays, sure we don;t see the xrays with our own eyes but we have a machine that shows the xrays to our own eyes thus it enters the sense of sight.
 
Hypothetically speaking; this will be a complete blow to atheist and their ilk, because if it were found that we were a simulation in someone's computer, then that person would in essence be God. Therefore their fight to disprove the existence of God would only serve to prove the very existence of that which they were trying to disprove.
 
while really high on psychedelics and hallucinogens i experienced what can only be described as "hiccups" in my programming.
 
mynamehere said:
Hypothetically speaking; this will be a complete blow to atheist and their ilk, because if it were found that we were a simulation in someone's computer, then that person would in essence be God. Therefore their fight to disprove the existence of God would only serve to prove the very existence of that which they were trying to disprove.
Click to expand...

Depends if the programmer is still around or not. Could be proof that the agnostic are right. You also then have to ask the question who made the other universe. Only to find they are a simulation. Rinse and repeat so it does nothing either way.
 
Ponder said:
Depends if the programmer is still around or not. Could be proof that the agnostic are right. You also then have to ask the question who made the other universe. Only to find they are a simulation. Rinse and repeat so it does nothing either way.
Click to expand...
But that wouldn't change that someone had created and overseen each of those universes, and they hadn't come into being by some happy little accident.
 
mynamehere said:
Hypothetically speaking; this will be a complete blow to atheist and their ilk, because if it were found that we were a simulation in someone's computer, then that person would in essence be God. Therefore their fight to disprove the existence of God would only serve to prove the very existence of that which they were trying to disprove.
Click to expand...
It could just as easily be a blow to manned religion as it could be to atheism.

Atheists could find out there actually was design, not just chance/probabilities, like previously thought.

Religions could find out although something created it all/set things into motion, it was nothing like they told everyone it was, and everything they've ever preached was a blatant lie (because guessing you know what happened is not the same thing as knowing you know what happened). I mean, we may just be one of many side effects in this universe of an experiment some being performed/is performing. The being running the simulator/experiment (if not dead) might be saying this right now - "Look how that human fungus on orb-32 (what they might call Earth) are totally destabilizing it by moving all the (chemical) elements into the wrong places. Should we stop now or let them kill themselves off naturally?".

Agnostics could be proven right. In that religion was making stuff up off the top of their heads to control people with fear of the unknown and that atheists just took it too far in the whole other direction. AKA proving no one actually knew anything until actual evidence was found proving something, either way!

Either way, nice time to be a live.
 
mynamehere said:
But that wouldn't change that someone had created and overseen each of those universes, and they hadn't come into being by some happy little accident.
Click to expand...

What if something else was the purpose of some experiment and the universe/humans/everything we know was just an unforeseen side effect to it all? So us being so utterly unimportant on a grand scale would still make (religious) people happy? Even if we're just a disease to a planet? lol

Just saying.... :)
 
MasonD said:

​
It could just as easily be a blow to manned religion as it could be to atheism.

Atheists could find out there actually was design, not just chance/probabilities, like previously thought.

Religions could find out although something created it all/set things into motion, it was nothing like they told everyone it was, and everything they've ever preached was a blatant lie (because guessing you know what happened is not the same thing as knowing you know what happened). I mean, we may just be one of many side effects in this universe of an experiment some being performed/is performing. The being running the simulator/experiment (if not dead) might be saying this right now - "Look how that human fungus on orb-32 (what they might call Earth) are totally destabilizing it by moving all the (chemical) elements into the wrong places. Should we stop now or let them kill themselves off naturally?".

Agnostics could be proven right. In that religion was making stuff up off the top of their heads to control people with fear of the unknown and that atheists just took it too far in the whole other direction. AKA proving no one actually knew anything until actual evidence was found proving something, either way!

Either way, nice time to be a live.
Click to expand...
This programmed universe theory is just a different version of creation mythology. Instead of making the universe being made the way it was imagined 10,000 years ago with their understanding of the universe, this is a modern day person's version of literal creationism.

Crom: Look. This... is all a mistake. I'm just a compound interest program. I work at a savings and loan! I can't play these video games!
Guard: Sure you can, pal. Look like a natural athlete if I ever saw one.
Crom: Who, me? Are you kidding? No, I run out to check on T-bill rates, I get outta breath. Hey, look, you guys are gonna make my user, Mr. Henderson, very angry. He's a full-branch manager.
Guard: Great. Another religious nut.
Click to expand...
 
TechLarry said:
I guess there is a Stack Overflow error on Dec 21st.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the patch gets put through before the deadline. Need to install Mayanlibc-2.0.0.lib and recompile the date/time interface. It adds thousands more years. It's like going from ipv4 to ipv6. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top