• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Paging Science-GAF: Are we living in the Matrix? (Read OP before you answer that)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Malyse

Member
It was either that or a Sims reference. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation said:
Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the universe is a computer.

A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it is more likely than not that we're living inside a machine.

The theory basically goes that any civilisation which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened.

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.

And it's not just theory. We previously reported that researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had found evidence the Matrix was less than fiction. That story was by far our most popular of the year - indicating it's something about which you lot have wondered too.

Now another team have devised an actual test to see if this theory holds any hope of being proven.

Professor Martin Savage at the University of Washington says while our own computer simulations can only model a universe on the scale of an atom's nucleus, there are already "signatures of resource constraints" which could tell us if larger models are possible.

This is where it gets complex.

Essentially, Savage said that computers used to build simulations perform "lattice quantum chromodynamics calculations" - dividing space into a four-dimensional grid. Doing so allows researchers to examine the force which binds subatomic particles together into neutrons and protons - but it also allows things to happen in the simulation, including the development of complex physical "signatures", that researchers don't program directly into the computer. In looking for these signatures, such as limitations on the energy held by cosmic rays, they hope to find similarities within our own universe.

And if such signatures do appear in both? Boot up, baby. We're inside a computer. (Maybe).

"If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge," Savage told the University of Washington news service.

Zohreh Davoudi, one of Savage's students, goes further:

"The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?," she said.

Now that would be a long-distance phone call.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...niversity-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html

Which leads to:

Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation said:
Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation.

How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us.

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true.

In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws.

Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time."

What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program.

These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.

Naturally, at this point the science becomes pretty tricky to wade through - and we would advise you read the paper itself to try and get the full detail of the idea.

But the basic impression is an intriguing one.

Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison -- but through physics we may be able to reach out and touch them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

And

Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram said:
A ten-dimensional theory of gravity makes the same predictions as standard quantum physics in fewer dimensions.

A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.

Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa (see 'Collaborative physics: String theory finds a bench mate'). But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.

In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

In one paper2, Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole, the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the Hole!'). In the other3, he and his collaborators calculate the internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. The two computer calculations match.

“It seems to be a correct computation,” says Maldacena, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey and who did not contribute to the team's work.

Regime change

The findings “are an interesting way to test many ideas in quantum gravity and string theory”, Maldacena adds. The two papers, he notes, are the culmination of a series of articles contributed by the Japanese team over the past few years. “The whole sequence of papers is very nice because it tests the dual [nature of the universes] in regimes where there are no analytic tests.”

“They have numerically confirmed, perhaps for the first time, something we were fairly sure had to be true, but was still a conjecture — namely that the thermodynamics of certain black holes can be reproduced from a lower-dimensional universe,” says Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University in California who was among the first theoreticians to explore the idea of holographic universes.

Neither of the model universes explored by the Japanese team resembles our own, Maldacena notes. The cosmos with a black hole has ten dimensions, with eight of them forming an eight-dimensional sphere. The lower-dimensional, gravity-free one has but a single dimension, and its menagerie of quantum particles resembles a group of idealized springs, or harmonic oscillators, attached to one another.

Nevertheless, says Maldacena, the numerical proof that these two seemingly disparate worlds are actually identical gives hope that the gravitational properties of our Universe can one day be explained by a simpler cosmos purely in terms of quantum theory.

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

So. How bout that?

There's also this
http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...e-universe-as-a-computer-simulation/#comments
 
You know how in a video game, when you make the game render tons of tons of objects really fast, it makes every thing chug and slow down because the computer can't handle it all.

Now consider why it is that time in our universe slows down when you're near a large mass or moving really, really fast...
 

Malyse

Member
You know how in a video game, when you make the game render tons of tons of objects really fast, it makes every thing chug and slow down because the computer can't handle it all.

Now consider why it is that time in our universe slows down when you're near a large mass or moving really, really fast...

Also why heavy things (people, vehicles) move slowly.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Maybe? Its going to be damn near impossible to "prove" it beyond simply being able to find things that might be artifacts of a simulation like the OP outlines
 

J10

Banned
You know how in a video game, when you make the game render tons of tons of objects really fast, it makes every thing chug and slow down because the computer can't handle it all.

Now consider why it is that time in our universe slows down when you're near a large mass or moving really, really fast...

The universe is low on RAM.
 

Timeaisis

Member
These guys have obviously never heard of Occam's Razor.

Also, this
And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.
is a completely preposterous statement. It's not absurd at all. They're applying our notion of probability and statistics to a model of the universe where all our knowledge of everything (including our understanding of statistics) means practically nothing. It's, in effect, the probabilistic version of circular reasoning.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.
Why are those the only two options? Simulation or first civilization ever?

Why wouldn't there be multiple real civilizations, some of which are running simulations and some of them not?
 

gaugebozo

Member
The third OP quote doesn't really have anything to do with the possibility that WE are in a simulation, but that general relativity in higher number of dimensions can be described by a quantum field theory in less dimensions. A simulation seemed to support that.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Humungous assumption. How do you know how many Universes there are? Even then, almost no possible Universes lead to intelligent life. Almost any slight change in the fundamental constants of nature leads to things like stars not being able to form or instant black hole collapses.
 

Falk

that puzzling face
Why are those the only two options? Simulation or first civilization ever?

Why wouldn't there be multiple real civilizations, some of which are running simulations and some of them not?

What if there are two co-dependent civilizations that are running simulations of each other?

Huh?

HUHH?
 

Toxi

Banned
And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.
tumblr_mc3ov8s5ug1qk8ni7.gif
 

DeadTsar

Member
So because we can render lower level 'universes' which follow the same general script as our own its possible that we're living in a simulation? Am I interpreting this correctly?

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.

And this is absolute nonsense.
 

JBuccCP

Member
I hope we are in a simulation. That would make the decision to upload my brain to a computer way easier if I'm already a computer.

edit: If we are in a simulation I guess instead of big freeze or big crunch, bsod is another possible end to the universe.
 

ibyea

Banned
This goes into epistemology and the skeptical interpretation of reality. I would honestly not worry about it as pondering whether we are in the Matrix or not is kind of useless.
 

hachi

Banned
A lot of pseudo-philosophy wrapped up in needlessly complicated simulations and terminology.

Precisely. Unfortunately, scientists in particular disciplines have a tendency to overstep their intellectual boundaries on a regular basis. I can't count how many times "top physicists" make mistakes that show basic ignorance of even elementary epistemology, or the history and development of philosophy of science. This includes anyone who suggests that we can understand the origin of time and the laws of physics itself from within the bounds of scientific research, thereby entering into a kind of reasoning that isn't even capable of refuting Kant's antinomies.
 

Khaz

Member
Emulating something is more taxing than using the real thing. I need more energy and resources to use DOSBox than to use the Real Microsoft DOS. I would need more energy to simulate in real time every subatomic particle in our Sun than what our Sun itself contains. Thermodynamics, entropy, etc. To accurately simulate an infinite universe, you need an infinitely bigger universe to fuel the simulation. And if the original universe isn't infinite, you can only do so many recursions of smaller universes.

I also doubt the idea that an intelligent enough species would try to simulate the universe. We need simulations accurate to the subatomic level when trying to understand the subatomic level, so we won't simulate more than a few particles. And when we need to simulate the bigger universe, we only need to get Newton and Einstein right, Subatomic forces are not relevant when modeling Gravitation.

However, living in a binary computer would explain stuff, like the Plank limit and a discrete universe.
 

injurai

Banned
You know how in a video game, when you make the game render tons of tons of objects really fast, it makes every thing chug and slow down because the computer can't handle it all.

Now consider why it is that time in our universe slows down when you're near a large mass or moving really, really fast...

If the simulation itself has a sequential states that can be described in relation to a differential of time. Then time(external) it takes to simulate the universe would have no bearing on the time(simulated) experienced by those internal to the simulated universe.
 
And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.

That is a pretty big assumption to base an entire field of research on.

Reads like philosophical wankery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom