Physics Study uncovers evidence of holographic universe, scientists say

[Total Power]

Tom Campbell supports sim theory as does James Gates as does Hans Moravec,it isn't just the dudes you mentioned. There's many more but I don't think this should be a contest about who can name the most believers vs non believers.
I think to many assumptions are being made as to the sim being made for humans or about humans or even directly by humans. My belief would be humans created SI that then went on to create the sim though,their purpose who knows.
I do think it would be fair for someone to be unsure about us living in a sim, but any flaws in the theory are comparable to all the flaws in any other theory regarding our creation,it certainly makes total sense though. I think once it's proven we live in a simulation we will still need to know about base reality and proving we are in a sim won't necessarily tell us anything about that at all,it doesn't answer any God question at a deeper level. It will answer a creator question for this reality,and if people want to call that a God,good for them. People could still logically be atheists inside the sim so there's no need to get upset about that.

It's certainly science,to suggest otherwise is a bit rude. Even if it isn't proven to be correct it's not even remotely a conspiracy. If someone said the government has proof we live in a sim but is keeping it hush,that's a conspiracy, but I havnt heard anyone mention that. I just hear people who are interested in this area of science. I think that's great. It might not be falsifiable yet but people are working on these things just as they're working on a greater understanding of consciousness,via legitimate scientific research. That to is great.

Good grief... most of us went through this when stoned with our friends, had a "deep" discussion about the nature of reality, then grew up... these people have too much money so decide to hold public talks about it? I'd be embarrassed if I were them.

Why don't they just say "God" and be done with it? They're no different from the stone-age men who came up with that idea in order to satisfy their inability to accept that they don't know everything, so have to come up with an "answer". More to the point, they want to satisfy ewveryone else's inablity to accept this - and by providing an answer claim poewr over them. They called themselves priests then - and they've lived off our fears for centuries. Now they want to call themselves - I dont know whatever the * these twats call themseleves. SIlicon Valley Twats, or something. I'm sure they're all Very Clever And Important people. With big boats to prove it.

A couple of physicists "claiming" we live in a simulation proves what exactly? this is the same as string theory. Actually string theory has more to it cause its a prediction based on observation but this hypothesis is a prediction based on prediction. Its ******* bullshit Do tell what are the testifiable and verifiable conditions here and whats the falsifiability? oh wait, this theory has neither cause its a religion. You are a flat earther, since when do you actually care about science? and falsifiability? oh wait, that can't be, cause its religion too. It must be the truth and the only truth

You are not adding any value to the discussion, just the same old Elon Musk said it. Do you know how many scientists believe in aliens? do you think many alien theories are out there? does it make it true? there is no possible scientific reason for simulation, period. If there is a simulation then you have to answer all the questions i posed above, not just claim its a simulation.

Sounds like more fantasy, taken seriously because someone "important" takes it seriously. The theory isn't even scientific in that it cannot be disproved or falsified. It doesn't sound much different to the idea that we are "thoughts in the mind of God" - I think that was how Descartes put it but I haven't been over that ground for a long time.

Even if i admit there is some possibility we live in a simulation, but billion to one odds? that is not science, its religion. No mainstream scientist would say anything about "certainty" even with proven theories. We are dealing with philosophers not scientists.

 

[Total Power]

And for what its worth ,heres Tom Campbell. The bloke has a theory of everything already. No wonder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_W._Campbell

Upon completion of My Big TOE, Campbell sent copies of the book to leading physicists, and fellow scientists, but received little response.

 

[darthbards]

Good grief... most of us went through this when stoned with our friends, had a "deep" discussion about the nature of reality, then grew up... these people have too much money so decide to hold public talks about it? I'd be embarrassed if I were them.

Why don't they just say "God" and be done with it? They're no different from the stone-age men who came up with that idea in order to satisfy their inability to accept that they don't know everything, so have to come up with an "answer". More to the point, they want to satisfy ewveryone else's inablity to accept this - and by providing an answer claim poewr over them. They called themselves priests then - and they've lived off our fears for centuries. Now they want to call themselves - I dont know whatever the **** these twats call themseleves. SIlicon Valley Twats, or something. I'm sure they're all Very Clever And Important people. With big boats to prove it.

A couple of physicists "claiming" we live in a simulation proves what exactly? this is the same as string theory. Actually string theory has more to it cause its a prediction based on observation but this hypothesis is a prediction based on prediction. Its ******* bullshit Do tell what are the testifiable and verifiable conditions here and whats the falsifiability? oh wait, this theory has neither cause its a religion. You are a flat earther, since when do you actually care about science? and falsifiability? oh wait, that can't be, cause its religion too. It must be the truth and the only truth

You are not adding any value to the discussion, just the same old Elon Musk said it. Do you know how many scientists believe in aliens? do you think many alien theories are out there? does it make it true? there is no possible scientific reason for simulation, period. If there is a simulation then you have to answer all the questions i posed above, not just claim its a simulation.

Sounds like more fantasy, taken seriously because someone "important" takes it seriously. The theory isn't even scientific in that it cannot be disproved or falsified. It doesn't sound much different to the idea that we are "thoughts in the mind of God" - I think that was how Descartes put it but I haven't been over that ground for a long time.

Even if i admit there is some possibility we live in a simulation, but billion to one odds? that is not science, its religion. No mainstream scientist would say anything about "certainty" even with proven theories. We are dealing with philosophers not scientists.

I do think you mention God to much,personally I don't think living in a sim proves much about that one way or the other.

I definitely don't understand why the fact we are living in a simulated universe would make someone angry. It's kinda cool if you think about it.
Things are moving extremely quickly,I wouldn't be surprised if we create our own sim within the next 30 years via SI.

I'm not sure odds are religious by the way,gambling might even be a sin, but like I said I don't think God should be getting such a run on this board,it's hardly scientific.

 

[Total Power]

I do think you mention God to much,personally I don't think living in a sim proves much about that one way or the other.

I definitely don't understand why the fact we are living in a simulated universe would make someone angry. It's kinda cool if you think about it.
Things are moving extremely quickly,I wouldn't be surprised if we create our own sim within the next 30 years via SI.

I'm not sure odds are religious by the way,gambling might even be a sin, but like I said I don't think God should be getting such a run on this board,it's hardly scientific.

Living in a simulation doesn't make me angry, however people like you and the so called "physicists" claiming its science does. I dont think you have read any of the people you quoted above including Gates. They are all talking about possibility.

Heres Gates himself

“If the simulation hypothesis is valid then we open the door to eternal life and resurrection and things that formally have been discussed in the realm of religion,” Gates suggested.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

First thing to note: hypothesis, not theory.

Now going back to your billion to one odds, what are the maths behind it?

How is this different to the alien hypothesis we have? and if we are simulated what does it prove actually? some advanced civlisation exists that are bored out of their mind and playing video games? if so, who is simulating them and so on?? it doesnt answer any questions, at all. It poses more questions than answers.

 

[darthbards]

Living in a simulation doesn't make me angry, however people like you and the so called "physicists" claiming its science does. I dont think you have read any of the people you quoted above including Gates. They are all talking about possibility.

Heres Gates himself


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

First thing to note: hypothesis, not theory.

Now going back to your billion to one odds, what are the maths behind it?

How is this different to the alien hypothesis we have? and if we are simulated what does it prove actually? some advanced civlisation exists that are bored out of their mind and playing video games? if so, who is simulating them and so on?? it doesnt answer any questions, at all. It poses more questions than answers.

Aliens don't really interest me so I don't tend to think about them or care that much inside or outside the simulation.
If people wish to have an alien hypothesis good for them though. Naturally it's possible the sim was created by aliens but I'm still going with the SI. The reason I believe it was created by SI is I think this development is only just around the corner.

Also,I did say it doesn't answer all the questions,the question of base reality will still obviously need to be addressed.

I'm not sure the math Elon Musk used for his one in a billion calculations. You'd think they'd be complex and possibly available somewhere via the internet. I'll do some further research and see if I can find the math.

The Simulation Theory is certainly science though,there's no escaping that.

And I do agree there is an ever so slight chance we are not living in a simulation, which does make it only a possibility,and yes everyone does agree with that.

 

[Total Power]

Aliens don't really interest me so I don't tend to think about them or care that much inside or outside the simulation.

How doesnt it interest you? why do you rule out a possibility of an alien advanced civilisation simulating us? which would then pose questions about computing power and infinite source of energy. Again you are not answering any questions, all you are doing is proving your confirmation bias by refusing to answer the questions here. Who is simulating us and why? God? advanced civilisations? and for what exactly?

If people wish to have an alien hypothesis good for them though. Naturally it's possible the sim was created by aliens but I'm still going with the SI. The reason I believe it was created by SI is I think this development is only just around the corner.

What a bogus argument. Why would we simulate billions of useless creatures in the world and waste processing power? why create dinosaurs and destroy them and waste power? why create neanderthals and millions of intermediate species and waste processing power? Why wait for 3.9 billion years for humans. What were they similation for all these 4 billion years,, just ******* bacteria and crocodiles? The world has made a natural progression, not a simulated one. I cannnot believe a programmer would be so dumb enough to create a program that wastes so much processing power, just to "fool us". What does "fooling us" achieve? if they have created us as a simulation, we cannot be outside a simulation, so whats the point with all the fossil records which suggests we evolved for 4 billion years?

Your making countless speculative assumptions.Remember Occam's razor. Essentially Occam's razor says that the hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions, is the one most likely to be true. It is not a rule of logic, but a very successful heuristic method of getting at the most likely explanation for something. Most scientific success has been achieved through the successful application of Occam's razor to pursue the most likely models.
Also,I did say it doesn't answer all the questions,the question of base reality will still obviously need to be addressed.

I'm not sure the math Elon Musk used for his one in a billion calculations. You'd think they'd be complex and possibly available somewhere via the internet. I'll do some further research and see if I can find the math.

There is no math behind it. A billionaire said something you agree with and you take it as a gospel. What you think about aliens visiting us in 10 years like he said? you don't agree right? so why do you agree with some things he say like a gospel and disagree with others?

The Simulation Theory is certainly science though,there's no escaping that.

Ok, so how do we test, verify the "theory"? scientific theory can be proven , test and verifiable easily. And what are the falsifiable conditions? you claimed its science now its time for you to prove your point orelse i will hold you in for lying (not the first time you have done it, but still)

And I do agree there is an ever so slight chance we are not living in a simulation, which does make it only a possibility,and yes everyone does agree with that.

Everyone? like one of two people and that even they say its more religion and less science? Stop lying, there is no scientist out there that claims it to be a certainty, including the ones you quoted.

It's not possible to simulate the universe in full detail unless your computer is either bigger than the universe, or operating under entirely different laws of physics. Both seem unlikely and unknowable. Certainly it means we aren't a proper simulation of anybody's history.
If you start down the road of 'well they're not really simulating everything', then you rapidly get back to the idea that only your mind exists (is being simulated) and nothing else is real, which is the most boring and pointless philosophical cul-de-sac.

 

[darthbards]

The theory might not be falsifiable yet but it will be. I've already said they are looking into this just like they are looking further into consciousness.
Would you be happy if I just call it theoretical science?

I find your approach far to aggressive for my liking,sorry.

 

[Total Power]

The theory might not be falsifiable yet but it will be. I've already said they are looking into this just like they are looking further into consciousness.
Would you be happy if I just call it theoretical science?

I find your approach far to aggressive for my liking,sorry.

Empty vessel lol

How do we test and verify the theory then?

My approach is aggressive towards to you pseudo scientists coming onto science board and claiming something as science when its not.

This belongs to the conspiracy and mystery board, not in the science.

Thanks for atleast admitting its not testifiable or falsifiable. By definition, its not science.

Back to the conspiracy board you go. The questions i posed are genuine questions and you claiming it as a science has no basis in reality. Even the people you quoted admitted it.

 

[darth_timon]

We are far, far away, from being able to show we live in a simulation, and it's something we can't influence anyway. It has no significant bearing on the day-to-day activities of human beings. We might as well not worry about it.

 

[Total Power]

We are far, far away, from being able to show we live in a simulation, and it's something we can't influence anyway. It has no significant bearing on the day-to-day activities of human beings. We might as well not worry about it.

It seems like a ridiculous theory due to the great inequality of information density involved.

People have this idea like you can collapse a vast simulated reality into a tiny space inside a computer, but in truth the simulated reality is very sparse compared to the density of information contained in the matter that forms the computer. A video game's fake reality is a long way from a full atomic-level simulation of the entire solar system and billions of light years of expanding giant universe with trillions of galaxies and quadrillion solar systems, which is essentially what is being proposed here.

As for space being quantized... well, it seems like it would be far stranger if it wasn't, really. That something could be located in space with infinite precision? That it could move an infinitesimally small amount?

As Max Tegmark suggests, logical possibility is quite a bit different from the physical kind, and neither Bostrom nor Musk nor any of their fellow pseudo-intellectuals are arguing that we are only mental stuff, that there is no physical realm at all.

Elon Musk's motivation is understandable — generating buzz can help to generate business. It's the Donald Trump School of Business. (Also the Harvard Business School approach.) And if, like Nick Bostrom, your actual philosophical work is thin, why not switch to Ted talks and the Wizard of Oz approach — just make sure nobody looks behind the curtain. If you do, you'll find it's not a simulation... just a con job that's turning a nice profit for the con artists.

I admire the arorogance of darthbards and certainty that you fully understand what our existence is (or at least, what it is not). Humans were equally convinced that the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe.

 

[darth_timon]

It seems like a ridiculous theory due to the great inequality of information density involved.

People have this idea like you can collapse a vast simulated reality into a tiny space inside a computer, but in truth the simulated reality is very sparse compared to the density of information contained in the matter that forms the computer. A video game's fake reality is a long way from a full atomic-level simulation of the entire solar system and billions of light years of expanding giant universe with trillions of galaxies and quadrillion solar systems, which is essentially what is being proposed here.

As for space being quantized... well, it seems like it would be far stranger if it wasn't, really. That something could be located in space with infinite precision? That it could move an infinitesimally small amount?

As Max Tegmark suggests, logical possibility is quite a bit different from the physical kind, and neither Bostrom nor Musk nor any of their fellow pseudo-intellectuals are arguing that we are only mental stuff, that there is no physical realm at all.

Elon Musk's motivation is understandable — generating buzz can help to generate business. It's the Donald Trump School of Business. (Also the Harvard Business School approach.) And if, like Nick Bostrom, your actual philosophical work is thin, why not switch to Ted talks and the Wizard of Oz approach — just make sure nobody looks behind the curtain. If you do, you'll find it's not a simulation... just a con job that's turning a nice profit for the con artists.

I admire the arorogance of darthbards and certainty that you fully understand what our existence is (or at least, what it is not). Humans were equally convinced that the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe.

The computational power required to run a simulation of the entire universe is so staggering that it gives rise to what we've seen in this thread - vague allusions. It's a fascinating idea but is it one that's worth expending a great deal of time and effort on? Not really. It won't affect how I live my life.

 

[Total Power]

The computational power required to run a simulation of the entire universe is so staggering that it gives rise to what we've seen in this thread - vague allusions. It's a fascinating idea but is it one that's worth expending a great deal of time and effort on? Not really. It won't affect how I live my life.

Well said. A lot of the so called scientists have forgotten what "Science" seems to stand for.

The problem with Musk's logic is that this would also be true of whatever reality is simulating ours, they clearly have supercomputers too so by their logic that reality would likely be within a simulation too. And whatever reality was running that simulation would have to itself be in yet another simulation, like Russian dolls. Their logic creates an infinite regress, because you'll never reach a reality which doesn't have supercomputers - or else that reality wouldn't be able to be running the simulation(s). On the other hand, if it's possible to have a reality with supercomputers that is not within a simulation then there's no reason to assume that isn't our reality, rather than the one supposedly simulating ours. It's flawed logic.

if we are, essentially, software or just information, it does rather neatly get round the problem of what's outside the universe. software doesnt have an inside or an outside, so you don't have to worry about pesky details like what's beyond the edge of the universe or whether it just goes on forever.

however, everything is possible, but the very fact that billions of years of evolution has produced us is extraordinarily extraordinarily unlikely. These cats should read a bit of Carl Sagan, and do a bit of geology and palaeontology. It looks like they haven't moved on from humans being the centre of the universe.

So the creationists were right. They just got the wrong creator.

However, I will sleep better now that I know that Trump is not real or Adelaide Football club is not real

 

[Frank Bunn]

We are far, far away, from being able to show we live in a simulation, and it's something we can't influence anyway. It has no significant bearing on the day-to-day activities of human beings. We might as well not worry about it.

I responded to that already. There are many things that science considers and investigates that do not have a bearing on our day to day lives.

But what we should 'worry about' is outside the realm of science. The absurdity of the human condition is a philosophical question.

 

[Long Live HFC]

most of the improvements in computation in recent years has come via an ever-shrinking die size, to fit more transistors on chips. but we're approaching a point where further reductions in nm will pose serious obstacles. absent an immediate chipset revolution what we'll most likely see in the near future is the smallest components available being stacked together, in the same way CPU cores have evolved. so while im certainly not saying we've reached "maximum capability" re video resolution, it's still so far from actual reality (or even other virtual options) that the comparison is ludicrous.

As previously noted,the probability calculations are not my calculations.

I'm happy enough to go with the one in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation. If you dislike those calculations that's fine,but once more,the calculations are not mine.
If you believe these calculations have been formulated by me I'd suggest you need to do far more research on the topic. The announcement of these calculations gave the simulation theory a lot of new and widespread interest amongst the greater community.

and at full time, let's see how our teams finished.

hardcore gamers: 1024
pretentious dabblers who conflate ignorance with intellectual depth: 0

Researchers from Nvidia, Arizona State University, the University of Texas, and the Barcelona Supercomputing Center have published a paper outlining the benefits of multi-chip module GPUs...

Nvidia is fast approaching a technical wall in GPU design where it will no longer be able to shove more transistors into a GPU die to increase performance at the same rate customers have grown accustomed to. Simply put, as Moore's Law slows down, the number of transistors per die no longer grows at historical rates, Nvidia notes. The solution to this problem could like in switching to a multi-chip module GPU design...

Without either switching to a multi-chip module design or coming up with an alternative solution, Nvidia warns that the performance curve of single monolithic GPUs as currently constructed will ultimately plateau. Beyond the technical challenge of cramming more transistors into smaller spaces, there is also the cost to consider, both in terms of technical research and reduced die yields.

http://www.pcgamer.com/here-is-how-nvidia-can-sidestep-moores-law-in-gpu-design/

it's OK to be petty, if you're totally ok with it.

 

[Present Not Past]

The computational power required to run a simulation of the entire universe is so staggering that it gives rise to what we've seen in this thread - vague allusions. It's a fascinating idea but is it one that's worth expending a great deal of time and effort on? Not really. It won't affect how I live my life.

Well that's been done for Harry Potter.