simulation theory

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by fdeck

It's a living language, get over it. The use of "data" as a singular noun is now widely accepted.

In certain areas, "ain't" is considered a legitimate word. Just some food for thought.

Originally Posted by Munji

(I know - I began a sentence with a conjunction.)

Don't feel bad. Anytime I end a sentence on here with a preposition, I think that you're sitting behind your screen, shaking your head in disapproval.

Originally Posted by 12bass

Oddly, the vast majority of the world appears to be epistemically committed to a set of unfalsifiable convictions.

You are totally correct! We also rely heavily on metanarratives to explain our social worlds.

I do agree that there are things in this world that exist that we will probably never be able to measure or otherwise empirically verify. Would we know that infrared light exists if we didn't have technological tools to measure it?

[AaronMB]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

That really disproves nothing.
You are programmed to think that you are thinking (simulation or otherwise).

Right.
And if that's the case, there is no escape from this simulation - except, perhaps, into yet another, different program. But, of course, it wouldn't be the kind of 'physical' escape that we're programmed to 'think' of now.

[placedesjardins]

Originally Posted by tastybasslines

In this simulated world, the space elevator might actually work.

Or getting enough suckers to donate to build the said space elevator.

[jeffbonny]

Originally Posted by UncleFluffy

I see no mention of "physics" here.

Wow, you just redlined the hypocrisy meter. Lack of a Ph.D. in physics didn't stifle your impulse to comment. His credentials strongly support a firm grasp of the mathematics involved. The list was from Whitworth's paper Exploring the virtual reality conjecture which I should have linked its context. His understanding of the physics is quite adequate to warrant educated comment.


If only the thoughts of guys with degrees in physics are legit to your way of thinking then chew on this:

"The only thing that can accurately describe an elementary particle is a probability function that, in itself, contains nothing about the quality of being or the physical existence of that particle."
-Werner Heisenberg

"The common sense view that objects really exist "out there" independently of our observations totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor."
-Niels Bohr

"Quantum mechanics represents a phenomena that is impossible to explain in any classical way."
-Richard Feynman

"Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."
-Niels Bohr

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by UncleFluffy

To be picky, it's a collective noun (per the OED, though maybe a mass noun per other dictionaries). Singular is still "datum" but "data is" is correct.

Irregardless, "data is" is a widespread phenomena.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

"The only thing that can accurately describe an elementary particle is a probability function that, in itself, contains nothing about the quality of being or the physical existence of that particle."
-Werner Heisenberg

"The common sense view that objects really exist "out there" independently of our observations totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor."
-Niels Bohr

"Quantum mechanics represents a phenomena that is impossible to explain in any classical way."
-Richard Feynman

"Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."
-Niels Bohr

Heisenberg discusses the issues with particles so small we can barely detect them.

Bohr is discussing the problems with getting to grips with multiple schools of thought.

Feynman is also discussing what is still a problem. A lack of unification in some ways. The boundary between Classical (Newtonian) and Quantum physics. However, if you had enough data and the power to process everything, you should be able to apply our knowledge of the quantum world on macro environments.

None of them are discussing simulated realities. They are discussing the difficulties in understanding what lies in scales we cannot yet comprehend. I'll also add that, while quantum mechanics is still mind boggling, it would have been even more startling during their careers with the ways in which it changed our perspective of the nanoscale world and beyond, particularly during the first half of the 20th century.


It also isn't all about pure mathematics. A beautiful mathematical theory which may be believed to explain X, Y or Z about the physical world can very easily fall on its ass. The numbers being right doesn't mean they are factual descriptions of the world. While a theoretical physicist and a mathematician may hold a very similar skill set and competency, the approach will be very different.

[Ziltoid]

I don't really understand the point of discussing theories that are not falsifiable. Sure it's fun and all that, but it's not science... more like literature or "philosophy".

Even if I'm in social science (political science) and have had numerous philosphy and political thought classes you can be damn sure I won't do nothing but positive political science.

[skychief]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Heisenberg discusses the issues with particles so small we can barely detect them.

Okay,, lets discuss issues with space in relations to particles a billion times smaller than "barely detectable".

Can a "supercomputer" fabricate these?

If so, how about a particles a trillionth of these. And so on, and so on,,...

Computers are finite by construct, by nature, no matter how complex they might be.

The reality of infinite flies in the face of a simulation.

Any "simulation" could not possibly deal with the reality of infinite.

[oniman7]

Here's why I think this is a ridiculous theory:

It assumes that there is a group of beings like us who use computers like us to simulate things like us. There are different types of computers. Solid state drives, bio computing, and quantum computing all exist. Why would we assume that any race would use the same type of computing as us and it would be subject to the same laws? Even a much more highly advanced race may not even have computing as we know it. The assumption that others with our computers exist in a different reality only makes sense if you start with that assumption.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by skychief

Okay,, lets discuss issues with space in relations to particles a billion times smaller than "barely detectable".

Can a "supercomputer" fabricate these?

If so, how about a particles a trillionth of these. And so on, and so on,,...

Computers are finite by construct, by nature, no matter how complex they might be.

The reality of infinite flies in the face of a simulation.

Any "simulation" could not possibly deal with the reality of infinite.

The issue is that our perception will always be finite. While a simulation couldn't simulate an infinity, our brains cannot comprehend an infinite either. Though that doesn't mean that we must therefor be in a simulation :-P

I'll also say that to understand some finite limits, like speed, requires a deeper understanding, beyond the simple Newtonian descriptions. With the speed of light analogy, we understand the importance of time when discussing such velocities and how it fits as a dimension, not a purely linear construct.

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

Wow, you just redlined the hypocrisy meter. Lack of a Ph.D. in physics didn't stifle your impulse to comment.

But I wasn't attempting to build a hypothesis and have it supported by my credentials, I was pointing out the logical inconsistencies in someone else's hypothesis. That needs no formal qualification*.

To make the Emperor's New Clothes takes a tailor, but to point out that the Emperor is naked only takes a child.

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

His credentials strongly support a firm grasp of the mathematics involved.

Sure, but mathematics is the study of the behavior of formal systems, not about definition of "objective reality". He makes claims about what the properties of "objective reality" should or should not be without any justification. The argument seems to be "I believe that objective reality has properties X, Y, and Z. Observed reality does not exhibit these properties. Therefore observed reality is not objective reality."

He needs to justify his initial assumptions first.

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

The list was from Whitworth's paper Exploring the virtual reality conjecture which I should have linked its context. His understanding of the physics is quite adequate to warrant educated comment.

Originally Posted by Whitworth

Entangled entities ignore speed of light limits on physical movement

That's a philosophical interpretation, not a statement of a proven fact and there are a bunch of similar statements all through the paper.

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

If only the thoughts of guys with degrees in physics are legit to your way of thinking then chew on this:

"The only thing that can accurately describe an elementary particle is a probability function that, in itself, contains nothing about the quality of being or the physical existence of that particle."
-Werner Heisenberg

Nothing wrong with that. It's a good response to item #10 on the list, though.

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

"The common sense view that objects really exist "out there" independently of our observations totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor."
-Niels Bohr

This doesn't mean that objects don't exist, it's talking about wave function collapse, and possibly a reminder that our brains are involved in interpretation and simplification of the universe around us.

Originally Posted by jeffbonny

"Quantum mechanics represents a phenomena that is impossible to explain in any classical way."
-Richard Feynman

"Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it."
-Niels Bohr

Yes and yes. But hardly proof of anything.

(* Though, for what it's worth, I have formal qualifications and experience in the field of semiconductor physics which is pretty much next-door to the quantum folks)

[skychief]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

The issue is that our perception will always be finite.

Always?

Mines not. I totally subscribe to the infinite. That's why I can can easily dismiss the "simulation" hypothesis.

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by skychief

Always?

Mines not.

Cool. What color is a radio wave?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by skychief

Always?

Mines not. I totally subscribe to the infinite. That's why I can can easily dismiss the "simulation" hypothesis.

Id say always, but it'll be arbitrary in this discussion and ends up in a Monty Python esque argument*

We can say something is infinite, we can believe something is infinite, but the true understanding of the value you are interested in, and why it could infinite, will always be outwith our grasp. Much like a full comprehension of over 3 spatial dimensions. We view it from the world we know. Hard to break the programming yo (no, I don't believe in this Simulation stuff either).


*10 points for correctly responding to this.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by UncleFluffy

I see no mention of "physics" here.

This is a valid point to make, but I would go even further. To be sure, the author's credentials don't include physics. But there's no mention of physics in his 10 points either.

What do I mean? Surely the author has strung together a bunch of physics words and phrases. But is that physics? Science fiction and pseudoscience do the same thing, and neither is science. There's also a lot of "physics" out there that consists of simplified explanations of modern physics concepts directed towards laypeople. It's fun, and I'm glad that people write that stuff, but I wouldn't draw any deep conclusions from it, or use it to launch a serious research program.

My impression is that the author has read a bunch of that stuff, extracted 10 interesting points, and declared them to be impossible while stretching them to fit his notion of virtual reality.

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by fdeck

My impression is that the author has read a bunch of that stuff, extracted 10 interesting points, and declared them to be impossible while stretching them to fit his notion of virtual reality.

Try reading the pdf and playing the "guess where he paused and took another bong hit" game

[skychief]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Id say always, but it'll be arbitrary in this discussion and ends up in a Monty Python esque argument*

This always invokes that carnal image of that dang killer rabbit.

[skychief]

Heres a simple task for the "supercomputer" who created our universe/reality:


define pi to the last decimal point.



case closed.

[fdeck]

1.0 base pi

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by skychief

Heres a simple task for the "supercomputer" who created our universe/reality:


define pi to the last decimal point.



case closed.

That's not an impossible task, it's a meaningless request.