It still isn't infinite if we aren't simulating a Universe ourselves. It ends with us, and that isn't infinite. Also, it's a guess which you are treating as fact. You are also talking about Hard Drives which is not exactly Quantum Physics either.
Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
It still isn't infinite if we aren't simulating a Universe ourselves. It ends with us, and that isn't infinite. Also, it's a guess which you are treating as fact. You are also talking about Hard Drives which is not exactly Quantum Physics either.
But we're also simulation and the entire universe as well, that's the hypothesis, so it continues to infinity.
Not if it stops with whoever's simulating us.
Not if it stops with whoever's simulating us.
Look at my response above, it doesn't stop at all, because if this entire universe is simulation, everything else is as well. It simply doesn't stop, because you always have another simulation universe going.
Why?
Supposition.
WE may be a simulation by a "real" universe. There is nothing to state that our simulators are themselves a simulation.
Ok.. what about the age of each Universe? The Universe simulating us must be older than ours, it has reached a very high technological stage. So the Universe simulating them is even older, and quite quickly you get to a Dead Planet. If you get to a dead planet, all of the simulations die with it.
Well if everything is a simulation than this dead planet is simulation as all other things, life and death are simulations as well, again it's pointless.
If this is not real universe what exactly is? The word "universe" means "everything". And that everything is suppose to be simulation? Astrophysics says there is no outside the universe, if there is no outside the universe, than this universe is real. Because, simulation can't run itself without some hardware where this universe put.
(Although I disagree that there is no outside the universe, but only if the big bang theory is correct).
What if you are just wearing something on your head? You don't have to suppose that this Universe has real physics. We have created virtual helmets on Earth.
In 2009. physicists believed that Our Universe Is One Big Hologram, And They May Have Spotted the Pixels:
http://gizmodo.com/5131839/physicis...hologram-and-they-may-have-spotted-the-pixels
However, this year they have proved that universe Most Likely is Not Made Out of Quantum Pixels, which disproves universe being a quantum computer simulation:
http://www.mytechvoice.com/universe-most-likely-not-a-hologram-research-claims-1683.html
And when how did they concluded that quanta are like pixels, I realized they didn't actually see this, but rather they gave their own bold conclusions without any proof.
http://gizmodo.com/5131839/physicis...hologram-and-they-may-have-spotted-the-pixels
However, this year they have proved that universe Most Likely is Not Made Out of Quantum Pixels, which disproves universe being a quantum computer simulation:
http://www.mytechvoice.com/universe-most-likely-not-a-hologram-research-claims-1683.html
And when how did they concluded that quanta are like pixels, I realized they didn't actually see this, but rather they gave their own bold conclusions without any proof.
There is proof.. strawberries taste like bananas, and bananas taste like strawberries.
You seem determined to find proof that this is a simulator. My sci-fi story is the closest you can get to proof. It suggests mathematically that it is 46 million to 1 that we are in a real Universe. So that means it is unlikely that we are in a real universe.
The problem here is these write ups are based upon other peoples own hypothetical conclusions, in this instance that a posed Planck unit is a Quantum Pixel.
A model I've been posing doesn't attempt to work with a particle as being the building block of the universe, in fact it concentrates on the notion of a very uniform suggestion:
1cm[sup]3[/sup] of Vacuum space.
Why 1 cm[sup]3[/sup]?
It's a defined measurement using an industry standard measurement. It doesn't deal with one composite, in fact, it's intentionally a construct of that volume that can support many particles and elementary bodies.
The posed reasoning is that 1cm[sup]3[/sup] has an upper limit to how much energy can ever be contained within that volume, it's similar to how water isn't compressible but the notion is you can't compress energy any further than a set level.
The reason for this I imply is down to "non-volatility", in essence if you could keep compressing energy into a volume without ever reaching a limit, however some part of that energy is "violating" the principles of other parts to reach that compression threshold (I'm pretty sure this would upset some Newtonian laws).
Non-volatility is also important in "data integrity", after all you wouldn't want important data being over-written because there wasn't enough space, so a similarity is assume between the two.
Also 1cm[sup]3[/sup] is just a reference of "Scaling", for instance you can create a virtual space in some CAD software that has 1cm[sup]3[/sup] as your model space. This doesn't mean that it's really 1cm[sup]3[/sup] in size, after all it's a representation in a virtual space, in fact you can subdivide the measurement as many times as you like, you can still call it 1cm[sup]3[/sup] but you could scale objects that are far large into the volume, like the model of a car etc.
The other point about this volume is that it doesn't have to be run in one computer, it can be a cluster of computers running that one volume and even then there can be "mirrors" (parallel copies) of that volume run on other clusters, with all clusters "compositing" their output to generate a "multiworlds view" of that volume. (such compositing would explain Quantum String Theory, Particle-Waveform Duality along with many other subatomic artefacts that currently people don't have a full working model for.)
Incidentally current computers use Binary (0/1), Q-bit Computers hypothetically use a far greater base because of identifying polar orientation.
There is proof.. strawberries taste like bananas, and bananas taste like strawberries.
You seem determined to find proof that this is a simulator. My sci-fi story is the closest you can get to proof. It suggests mathematically that it is 46 million to 1 that we are in a real Universe. So that means it is unlikely that we are in a real universe.
And you don't exist, prove that you do exist, I'm just joking.
There is something in the real, physical universe that no computer simulation has: 4 fundamental forces of the universe.
you can simulate just about everything, but the main difference is there are no 4 fundamental forces of the universe in any computer simulation.
After all the picture in the computer is pretty much a hologram.
Big thanks for that thorough explanation. This is why visiting these forums is always the smart thing.
There is something in the real, physical universe that no computer simulation has: 4 fundamental forces of the universe.
You can simulate just about everything, but the main difference is there are no 4 fundamental forces of the universe in any computer simulation.
After all the picture in the computer is pretty much a hologram.
Plus, electromagnetic force is the thing that separates the real, physical world of computer simulation. No computer simulation needs or has 4 fundamental forces in their simulations, it doesn't need to simulate even the effects of these 4 fundamental forces. This proves, laws of physics in computer simulation are not needed to simulate entire universe.
You can simulate everything just by throwing data in the computer and with programming.
Also, characters and the world in computer simulation is simulated very realistic since you can get killed by a bullet, or accident, or with a brick.
However, in the real, physical world the essential thing is electromagnetic force to actually pull these actions. Without EM force we would walk through entire universe like ghosts/holograms.
There is no EM force in any computer simulation.
That's enough proof to know and measure the difference between the real, physical universe and the classic/quantum computer simulation.
Cheers.
You can simulate just about everything, but the main difference is there are no 4 fundamental forces of the universe in any computer simulation.
After all the picture in the computer is pretty much a hologram.
Plus, electromagnetic force is the thing that separates the real, physical world of computer simulation. No computer simulation needs or has 4 fundamental forces in their simulations, it doesn't need to simulate even the effects of these 4 fundamental forces. This proves, laws of physics in computer simulation are not needed to simulate entire universe.
You can simulate everything just by throwing data in the computer and with programming.
Also, characters and the world in computer simulation is simulated very realistic since you can get killed by a bullet, or accident, or with a brick.
However, in the real, physical world the essential thing is electromagnetic force to actually pull these actions. Without EM force we would walk through entire universe like ghosts/holograms.
There is no EM force in any computer simulation.
That's enough proof to know and measure the difference between the real, physical universe and the classic/quantum computer simulation.
Cheers.
what if on the smallest level we are just a bunch of different size vibrating strings . Little loops of vibrating filaments. And the filaments vibration rules the day . I think I am living in a simulation . Don't know if it is a computer or not . It sure feels right this minute like a simulation .
To know that we would need really hard evidences for strings. It's useless to make new hypothesis about something we don't know it's true or not. The truth is everything has vibration, true. But vibrations can't really make solid objects.
You need matter for that.
However, string hypothesis is very nice, nonetheless. My very own problem is/was I always seek for really hard/concrete evidences.
That's my weakness.
I forgot: You need both matter and 4 fundamental forces of the universe to make solid/physical/real objects, it needs to be determine how exactly these 4 fundamental forces of the universe (electromagnetic force, strong/weak nuclear force and gravity) are created in the first place.
Cheers.
I know how everything is created, so I don't need to think about the same problems that you do.
I am more interested in "Water cannot be compressed." It must have a compression effect if you apply enough pressure.