Physics Study uncovers evidence of holographic universe, scientists say

[CD Xbow]

His view is basically that we're going to be capable of creating such a simulation ourselves in future, so it's possible that we're living in one created by someone else. Maybe he's right, but at some point there must be an original non-simulation civilisation

GOD, perhaps. Gifted Original Developers. Seriously though, if the simulations was of such high fidelity we would probably be unable to tell, barring things like the cat glitch in the matrix, that we were ever in a simulation. If the simulated actors had a similar level complexity to ourselves can they be considered alive and sentient. Do they have rights? A few SF stories have covered the morality of turning off such a world and killing billions of simulated beings. Religions often have the 'world as illusion memes' (gnostic Christianity, Sufism in Islam, just about all of Buddhism), perhaps the great Bard said it best.

"All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts"

 

[darthbards]

perhaps the great Bard said it best.

"All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts"

I never said that

Seriously though,Who's to say that the sim can be turned off,or even if we are destroyed if it is? It's possible we could be put into some sort of 'sleep' mode,and when restarted we just carry on from the point it was shut down. Like a virtual game we have now,it's not destroyed when it's shut down,and restarts perfectly fine when re commenced.

 

[M Malice]

i think we need a "Philosophy and incredible scientific conjecture." or "Where do science and philosophy meet, the Matrix?" board.

 

[darthbards]

i think we need a "Philosophy and incredible scientific conjecture." or "Where do science and philosophy meet, the Matrix?" board.

I don't really see the need.
This board is for general scientific developments,and discussions about some of the universes biggest specific questions.
I feel this board needs to build and interested scientific community,where people feel free to have input in scientific developments they are interested in.

As we move forward into an era that could be the most fascinating in the history of mankind,here is the perfect place to discuss some of the amazing developments that are currently being undertaken in scientific research.

I think if your interested in those questions you just asked,a thread on this board would be perfectly fine.

 

[M Malice]

I don't really see the need.
This board is for general scientific developments,and discussions about some of the universes biggest specific questions.
I feel this board needs to build and interested scientific community,where people feel free to have input in scientific developments they are interested in.

As we move forward into an era that could be the most fascinating in the history of mankind,here is the perfect place to discuss some of the amazing developments that are currently being undertaken in scientific research.

I think if your interested in those questions you just asked,a thread on this board would be perfectly fine.

my quote was half jest half serious, i find these sort of discussions fascinating but mostly from an observer viewpoint as i am not knowledgeable enough to contribute when it comes to most scientific discussions eg. string theory, quantum entanglement etc...>

 

[darthbards]

my quote was half jest half serious, i find these sort of discussions fascinating but mostly from an observer viewpoint as i am not knowledgeable enough to contribute when it comes to most scientific discussions eg. string theory, quantum entanglement etc...>

You should feel free to comment. My understanding is this board is to create a community where you are free to discuss irrespective of how experienced or knowledgeable you are.
Knowledge and learning are obtained from both study and discussion. Often discussion can enhance or weaken your own personal viewpoint in your own mind. Both are extremely healthy.

I'm not sure what you mean as in not knowledgeable enough (ie beginner,intermediate),but if a beginner there are some excellent documentaries regarding string theory,entanglement and sims. If your a beginner I'd recommend some of the documentaries by Brian Greene. If you have already seen these,take individual points from these documentaries and research further,taking an interest and learning more as you go along.

You tube has the airing of a debate regarding sims from the 2016 Isaac Asimov memorial debate. I'd recommend this highly.

We all have to start somewhere,and knowledge is then never ending. If you feel fascinated in a topic,you should feel free to discuss,it's your right and a part of your journey through life.

 

[cannot]

 

[grumbleguts]

Is it possible that these two numpties are one and the same person?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Is it possible that these two numpties are one and the same person?

negative. cannot is aka country race (banned) aka subutai. possibly others.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Is it possible that these two numpties are one and the same person?

darthbards is knightskeeper

negative. cannot is aka country race (banned) aka subutai. possibly others.

Aka baphomet aka Funky Earth (banned and deleted) aka Gracchi.

 

[BlueBerryPrince]

I enjoyed this discussion on simulation theory.

 

[Present Not Past]

While one question will be in regards to a 'creator',others will arise as to why or even when. I was discussing with someone yesterday that our beliefs in our own history could be turned on its ear. We can't even really be sure exactly when the Sim started. There's every chance it could have started at a certain point and everything previous is just encoded into our universe and our own minds and memories. Who's to say whether the universe wasn't started in 1930 or in fact even yesterday.?
It's fascinating stuff that will obviously draw its critics and some objections. Like I've said though,we can't dismiss it as possible or ignore its being taken very very seriously in quite a few quarters.

That's just absurd. I for one have living memory of my grandfather who was born in the 19th century. He held living memory of his own descendants and so forth. This idea is just folly. It's just about stripping away what makes us human - our relationships with each other. It is an attempt at alienation.

 

[Total Power]

His view is basically that we're going to be capable of creating such a simulation ourselves in future, so it's possible that we're living in one created by someone else. Maybe he's right, but at some point there must be an original non-simulation civilisation

The "hologram" analogy has holes AND actually several ones. Theres a few i listed on the conspiracy board. In a standard hologram you need an observer outside the hologram to view it. The observer is not inside the hologram. There is also needed a laser projector. i have never seen a description of the hologram model explain how this can be reconciled. how can we both view the hologram and be within or a part of it. Also a hologram is something that can be seen but not felt. It is not made of matter. Nature is intrinsically fractal and most likely cannot be observed instrumentally...... so if the hologram is infinitely layered, we will never be able to observe what we are already a part of.

universe is a hologram is another attempt at "god of gaps". I believe more advanced life forms in our universe are multi-dimensional... some scientists have apparently discovered certain kinds of waves called Torsion waves that have no upper limit to their speed. they travel across the entire universe instantaniously. There is space/time and time/space, matter and anti-matter. being able to access time/space makes it possible to travel without the restrictions of the laws of physics in our three dimentional world.

 

[bontshow]

The "hologram" analogy has holes AND actually several ones. Theres a few i listed on the conspiracy board. In a standard hologram you need an observer outside the hologram to view it. The observer is not inside the hologram. There is also needed a laser projector. i have never seen a description of the hologram model explain how this can be reconciled. how can we both view the hologram and be within or a part of it. Also a hologram is something that can be seen but not felt. It is not made of matter. Nature is intrinsically fractal and most likely cannot be observed instrumentally...... so if the hologram is infinitely layered, we will never be able to observe what we are already a part of.

I'm with you on holograms, the article I linked was on simulations which is quite different. Simulation theory basically suggests the properties of the universe were defined by a creator at some point

 

[Total Power]

I'm with you on holograms, the article I linked was on simulations which is quite different. Simulation theory basically suggests the properties of the universe were defined by a creator at some point

Without commenting on the metaphysical aspects of this, I'll just go ahead and say that anyone who believes we're living in a simulation is clearly a theist by any reasonable definition of the term.

Virtual Reality is really off base, since simulating experiences for other people does not necessarily mean that the "people" inside our hypothetical future simulations will experience consciousness. Since according to QM nothing can exist without an observer, does the simulation exist without consciousness?

Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis is pretty interesting but it seems really reductive and it's holes have been exposed on numerous grounds.

 

[darthbards]

Without commenting on the metaphysical aspects of this, I'll just go ahead and say that anyone who believes we're living in a simulation is clearly a theist by any reasonable definition of the term.

Virtual Reality is really off base, since simulating experiences for other people does not necessarily mean that the "people" inside our hypothetical future simulations will experience consciousness. Since according to QM nothing can exist without an observer, does the simulation exist without consciousness?

Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis is pretty interesting but it seems really reductive and it's holes have been exposed on numerous grounds.

One in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation,pretty straight forward odds in my book.
VR has already reached the point that is starting to show there is a higher chance we are simulated than not.

 

[Total Power]

One in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation,pretty straight forward odds in my book.
VR has already reached the point that is starting to show there is a higher chance we are simulated than not.

How on Earth can you possibly calculate odds on something like that?

In any case, no finite programmer could make a simulation this large, which runs for this long and this massive simulation without crashing. And if the designer is not finite, then He wouldn't need to rely on a computer to create.

Please show your math and probability calculation. How did you reach one in a billion chance of a simulation and how do you know it? provide evidence of it and this is not your "make up s**t" forum, so go ahead.

Why does a simulation exist without an observer? what does QM state?

We're not living in a simulation because some numbers like pi or square root of 2 are irrational and can't be described with infinite precision by a computer.

 

[darthbards]

How on Earth can you possibly calculate odds on something like that?

In any case, no finite programmer could make a simulation this large, which runs for this long and this massive simulation without crashing. And if the designer is not finite, then He wouldn't need to rely on a computer to create.

Please show your math and probability calculation. How did you reach one in a billion chance of a simulation and how do you know it? provide evidence of it and this is not your "make up s**t" forum, so go ahead.

Why does a simulation exist without an observer? what does QM state?

We're not living in a simulation because some numbers like pi or square root of 2 are irrational and can't be described with infinite precision by a computer.

Don't blame me,they're not my odds.
One in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation. I tend to agree with that prediction,sounds about right from what we have seen in the past 30 years and what we will see in the next 30.

 

[Total Power]

Don't blame me,they're not my odds.

Whose odds are those? Even scientists like Tyson said its a mere speculation at this point and the said there is a good "chance" we are in simulation and you turned this into billion to one odds?? which mainstream physicist said this? and how did he reach this conclusion?

One in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation. I tend to agree with that prediction,sounds about right from what we have seen in the past 30 years and what we will see in the next 30.

You avoided all my question above. Why does a creator who is not "finite" need a computer to create us? and how does someone "finite" (lets say aliens), create a computer this big which doesnt crash?

 

[cannot]

Whose odds are those? Even scientists like Tyson said its a mere speculation at this point and the said there is a good "chance" we are in simulation and you turned this into billion to one odds?? which mainstream physicist said this? and how did he reach this conclusion?


You avoided all my question above. Why does a creator who is not "finite" need a computer to create us? and how does someone "finite" (lets say aliens), create a computer this big which doesnt crash?

thats an interesting point TP,

to give your thoughts some context, can you please explain to us how valid you believe quantum physics and specifically string theory to be? im still trying to wrap my head around speculation and mainstream physics and where the line is drawn

perhaps pondering how and why aliens do things is just outside our knowledge currently?

thank for your time, hope your day is going well

 

[Total Power]

thats an interesting point TP,

to give your thoughts some context, can you please explain to us how valid you believe quantum physics and specifically string theory to be? im still trying to wrap my head around speculation and mainstream physics and where the line is drawn

perhaps pondering how and why aliens do things is just outside our knowledge currently?

thank for your time, hope your day is going well

I have answered your question about string theory many times before. Why are you asking the same questions time and time again? do you know the difference between Particle physics and quantum physics? if so, what are they?

How can something be "mainstream" science if you cannot "observe" it or test it? which is why i made my point regarding the simulation hypothesis. How would you know its a simulation if you are living inside one? to be an observer you need to be outside the system. This is not science, its just speculation.

 

[Total Power]

Too add to what i just said above i will say that the computers aint magic Platonic entities free from the laws of physics, even if its often very convenient to pretend that they are. The computer is still going to be subject to thermodynamic limits, still going to need energy to do its bit, still subject to wear and tear, and so on. It might be superbly efficient, but its efficiency is still less than perfect.

the processing power is not infinite, which means why would someone need to create billions of galaxies, stars, planets, suns, moons, solar systems, asteroids and billions of useless flying objects in space?????

physics as we observe it is of a radically higher resolution and complexity. As best we know, weve got access to everything from Planck scales out to an hundred billion light years and a span of at least a dozen billion years of history.

nno simulation will ever be created in this universe that comes even close to that size. even simulating that level of detail at continental scales would likely require so much hardware in such close proximity that it would long since collapse into a black hole and / or explode like a supernova from the energy input.
wheres the hadware to run all these simulations — let alone the energy to run them?????

i keep thinking people arennt understanding that computation isnt some sort of Platonic ideal that doesn’t require any sort of physical resources. The exact opposite is the case; simulations need even more resources than whatever they’re simulating.

To suggest a creator switched on his computer giving birth to the universe/multiverse is extremely naive. Billion to one you say? more like "improbability"

 

[darthbards]

Whose odds are those? Even scientists like Tyson said its a mere speculation at this point and the said there is a good "chance" we are in simulation and you turned this into billion to one odds?? which mainstream physicist said this? and how did he reach this conclusion?


You avoided all my question above. Why does a creator who is not "finite" need a computer to create us? and how does someone "finite" (lets say aliens), create a computer this big which doesnt crash?

Surely you have heard the one in a billion chance observation we are not living in a simulation made by Elon Musk?

I think you might need to do some basic research on this fascinating topic.

Also,I have no idea why our creator created the simulation. It's a fascinating question though. It could be for knowledge,it could be for fun.
It could be that SI overtook and destroyed man and is trying to understand how it was created or trying to find the best way to go about creating the next sim.

 

[Total Power]

Surely you have heard the one in a billion chance observation we are not living in a simulation made by Elon Musk?

I think you might need to do some basic research on this fascinating topic.

Also,I have no idea why our creator created the simulation. It's a fascinating question though. It could be for knowledge,it could be for fun.
It could be that SI overtook and destroyed man and is trying to understand how it was created or trying to find the best way to go about creating the next sim.

I already explained why simulation could be impossible. The sum total of all energy in the universe = 0. You cannot have an infinite amount of something from another infinite being. A computer is made of energy and matter. It's "finite" and less than perfect.

Now as soon as you explain to me how a "finite" "hardware" is able to hold a perfect simulation for 13 billion years without crashing and the size consisting of universes/multiverses and billions of galaxies and stars, 99% of them are pretty much "there" without purpose?

 

[darthbards]

I already explained why simulation could be impossible. The sum total of all energy in the universe = 0. You cannot have an infinite amount of something from another infinite being. A computer is made of energy and matter. It's "finite" and less than perfect.

Now as soon as you explain to me how a "finite" "hardware" is able to hold a perfect simulation for 13 billion years without crashing and the size consisting of universes/multiverses and billions of galaxies and stars, 99% of them are pretty much "there" without purpose?

Maybe we are an Artificial Intelligence ourselves and were placed inside a sim as a way for our creator to confine us?
That would be a clever ploy as I'm sure you would agree you wouldn't want AI out there running wild,it could cause damage to the base reality.
Maybe the AI that was created sometimes gets angry, or does things the base reality considers dangerous or doesn't do itself.
I believe people sometimes get angry,so this idea I could understand.