Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation

[Magical Realist]

Just don't tell me. I'd rather live my life thinking this is as real as it gets!

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

 

[C C]

I guess the motto might be to "beware declaring dogmatically in advance that certain hypotheses / theories are untestable". Certainly that kind of road-block has been attempted before in other areas.

Lee Smolin: The idea that you could do experiments to test the quantum theory of gravity was mentioned from time to time by a few people through the 1990s, but to our shame we ignored them. One person who proposed the idea forcefully is a young man in Rome called Giovanni Amelino-Camelia. He just ignored everybody who said, "You'll never probe scales that small. You'll never test these theories." He told himself that there must be a way, and he examined many different possible experiments, looking for ways that effects of quantum gravity could appear. And he found them. Now we know more than half a dozen different experiments we can do to test different hypotheses about physics at the Planck scale. Indeed, in the last year, several proposals about Planck scale physics have been ruled out by experiment. --Loop Quantum Gravity

http://edge.org/conversation/loop-quantum-gravity-lee-smolin

 

[wellwisher]

We create our own reality through the filters and prisms of the mind. Someone whose life is connected to computers and simulation will view the universe through that prism. In this case, it may be like saying humans act like robots, when in reality robots were created in the image of humans to reflect what inside-outside us.

Computers have not been able to create consciousness. However, they can create simulations. Based on the state of the art, simulation is about as good as it gets so we would need to limit the universe to this. The author uses this state of the art to explain the universe; man is like robot. When we finally create conscious computers, then others will say the universe is like a huge consciousness.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm facinated with the potential of computer simulations for helping us better understand our world. Imagine a computer simulation so advanced you can play with various real physical parameters and see the effects this would have on reality. Take say a simulation of an apple. Shift the parameter of atomic distance (how far one atom is from another) by a factor of ten. What would the apple look like then? Would it even be visible? Now say enlarge the molecules 10%. Now what does the apple look like? Humans playing with various parameters would quickly get a visceral feel for why things present themselves to us the way they do. Call it a new field of experimental metaphysics: virtual parameter shifting?

 

[wellwisher]

An interesting simulation is varying hydrogen bonding strength, which is the secondary bond which holds many of life's structures together. The DNA, RNA, protein, and water all make use of hydrogen bonding. The DNA double helix used hydrogen bonding. If we increased or decreased the strength of hydrogen bonding, life changes and/or is not possible. If hydrogen bonding strength was lower, life could only occur at lower temperature. If it was higher it would only occur at higher temperature.

One of the most interesting ones is with just 5% increase in hydrogen bonding strength, oxygen would become 270% more soluble in water and CO2 would be 440% more soluble. That means life would become much more vigorous. Trees would grow like weeds due to high CO2 absorption and animals would be on turbo most of the time due to higher oxygen absorption. Maybe dinosaurs were in a different hydrogen bonding era due to solar connections.

Effect of H-bond strength on water's physical properties
% Change in H-bond strength

Effect at 37 °C

Decrease 29%
Water boils
Decrease 18%
Most proteins heat denature
Decrease 11%
K+ becomes kosmotropic
Decrease 7%
pKw up 3
Decrease 5%
CO2 70% less soluble
Decrease 5%
O2 27% less soluble
Decrease 2%
No density maximum
Increase 2%
Significant metabolic effects
Increase 3%
Viscosity increase 23%
Increase 3%
Diffusivity reduced by 19%
Increase 5%
O2 270% more soluble
Increase 5%
CO2 440% more soluble
Increase 7%
pKw down 1.7
Increase 11%
Na+ becomes chaotropic
Increase 18%
Water freezes
Increase 51%
Most proteins cold denature

 

[andy1033]

Its why i am an absurdist. There is no way of ever learning the real truths. Humans no matter what will only be within the confides of what ever reality is.

So why do people claim they will answer this question?

Human beings will never really answer any questions, and thats true. Human beings do not ever really find any answers to anything. You know this is true.

 

[river]

Its why i am an absurdist. There is no way of ever learning the real truths. Humans no matter what will only be within the confides of what ever reality is.

So why do people claim they will answer this question?

Human beings will never really answer any questions, and thats true. Human beings do not ever really find any answers to anything. You know this is true.

This an absurd response really

 

[pljames]

Simulation vs illusion,
Let me bang your head against a stone wall of reality and call it a illusion? Reluctant you say? But it's only a illusion...right? Paul

 

[rr6]

2D Illusion = Holographic Scenarios?

Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics led to some holographic scenarios and Jacobs comment, that, " we appear to be 2D creatures, having an illusion of 3D".

Metaphysical patterns/shape that complement any physical/energy mediums, affects air-flow around and auto.

Computers have a degree of consciousness--- barring those ideas that only biologicals with a nervous system have a degree of consciousness ---and yes it is simplistic/crude form of consciousness that is becoming more complex physically( technologically ) and metaphysically( software coding/language ).

A virus--- RNA or DNA not both ---blurs the line( twilight ) between is animate biological or inanimate mineral.

Simulations < pixels < moleucles < atoms( occupied space )

Biologicals < molecules < atoms( occupied space )

Illusion < mind/intelligence( abstract concepts ) via biological and simulatory experiences(sensorial ) aka occupied space.


Mind/intelligence i,e, abstract concepts( meta-1 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-occupied space...outside of ergo beyond( meta-2 )

Gravitationnal occupation of space as spacetime.....outside of ergo beyond( meta-3 )

Occupied space...fermions, bosons and collective aggregates thereof

Gravitational occupation of space as spacetime....outside of ergo beyond( meta-3 )

Non-occupied space......outside of ergo beyond( meta-2 )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mind/intelligence i.e. abstract concepts( meta-1 )


If there exists a physical/energetic-like aspect of time. does it put the squeeze( contraction ) on the space it occupies?

Do fermions and bosons pop out of a space being squeezed by time?

If the physical aspect of time/motion occupies a space, and contracts inward upon itself ex ><, is there a subsequent and finite set of possible resultants?

Why would time contract?

Why a geodesic instead of flatlinning( non-dynamic, non geodesic ) Universe?

Suffice it to say, that, if a certain set of speculated upon conditions did not exist, Universe, as we know it, would not exist.

Some will say, it is this way, because it cannot be any other way.

Others will say, it could be other ways, and in some other part of the one finite inter-connected/inter-related Universe--- or in multi-verse, bubble verse/parallel-verse ---it is some otherway.

These latter appear to be derived from, and or lead to, splitting/branching etc.....

Then new questions arise. If macro-finite is there a micro-infinite-- ergo eternal -splitting/branching?

Fuller left open this idea and/or even suggests that is the case. Micro-infinite multiplication via micro-infinite subdivision of macro-finite whole.

I don't think so.

r6

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

This theory was one of mine in 1990, years before The Matrix. I remember watching The Matrix and thinking that it was similar to my theory. The reason that I believe that this is a simulation is that it includes the best of History. The first computers, the first computer games, the first colour TV... you can go on, and on, so many firsts.

If you were to choose the best time to place a human so that his mind could be wiped, and then rebuilt, it would be at the beginning of the computer revolution. So it would be our lives that we would re-live.

So to live the exact time-frame that is the best time-frame to set a computer simulation in is divided into the whole of existence. From the past to the total existence of the Human race. Then you have to figure out your existence compared to population, and time-frame.

If the human race could be infinite, and travel out into space, and inhabit other worlds, the odds for living in this exact time-frame is very small. You live about 80 perfect years of infinity. This means that a simulation is far more likely than a real life.

And this is the perfect time-frame. You can imagine new firsts... but you will not be able to compare new firsts to the first computers, and old films. The human imagination is limited to its tools, and the story, and the game are limited tools. You spoon feed entertainment to appreciate it. If you are born with all games, and all movies, and all forms of entertainment you have no ability left to create original ideas. This is like brain death. So to start with B/W films, and end with Virtual reality is another perfect time-line.

This is either a simulation, or an uncannily perfect time-line. The odds are in favour of the simulation, because the simulation can be repeated for infinity.. so you will always live the simulation. Odds of simulation ... we create perfect Virtual Reality.. very likely.

Odds of real life... your 80 years into infinity.

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

I was just looking at the proof that this is a simulation. Basically the idea is that at a very small scale the Universe will have a digital limit in resolution. It means that you cannot move smoothly in any direction, but have to move in planck gaps of distance. That isn't proof to me though, because I already believe that is the case.

If this is a simulation you would not be able to distinguish it from a real Universe, there would never be a proof unless it was deliberately put into the simulation.

Instead of looking for a physical proof, I just look at a statistical proof.

 

[Stryder]

I was just looking at the proof that this is a simulation. Basically the idea is that at a very small scale the Universe will have a digital limit in resolution. It means that you cannot move smoothly in any direction, but have to move in planck gaps of distance. That isn't proof to me though, because I already believe that is the case.

If this is a simulation you would not be able to distinguish it from a real Universe, there would never be a proof unless it was deliberately put into the simulation.

Instead of looking for a physical proof, I just look at a statistical proof.

Hardly, just take into consideration simple vector imaging methods. "reiterations" of the perception of depth can be applied many times over to generate an appearance of limitlessness. This is especially possible when considering the Emulator build that would be used to run such a simulator, if the emulator itself is a "cloudlike" process ("Ether"), then continued addition of adding more processing systems and increasing the network size (per Moore's Law) wouldn't increase it's overall emulation volume upper-bound but concentrate on increasing it's definition.

In essence the only time you'd have a digital bottom to a universe is when the universe we are in loses understanding what part it plays in the project to increase the level of definition.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from OUTSIDE of such simulation.

 

[Stryder]

Scientists will never be able to prove that we are ( currently, in this reality ) living in a simulation. Absolute proof could only be manifested from OUTSIDE of such simulation.

Hardly, you just have to take the Watchmaker Analogy into consideration where the universe is something we build, something we intend to make with the intention of enabling ourselves to be apart of continued development. This means both learning how to build a framework and how to use an already existent framework at the same time. (I guess you could consider it a Singularity of sorts)

 

[rr6]

Illusion = 2D Holgraphic Projection--Simulations = 2D Projection

Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics led to some holographic scenarios and Jacobs comment, that, " we appear to be 2D creatures, having an illusion of 3D".Fuller left open this idea and/or even suggests that is the case. Micro-infinite multiplication via micro-infinite subdivision of macro-finite whole.r6

Infinity is to finite space, as,

eternity is to a finite time.
-----------------------
Illusion = 2D Holographic projection--see 4 great/equaltorial planes of cub(6)o-octa(8)hedron and 4 surface planes of tetra(4)0hedron

Simulation = 2D projection---see pixels on 3D screen
-------------------------

2D projection = 3D siluohette/profile

3D projection = triangulation

https://www.google.com/search?q=3D+...9J4mMqwGi3IDwBA&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1199&bih=593

Triangulation = XYZ aka integral set of 3 right angles defining one corner of a right-angle 4D( ABCD ) tetra(4)hedron
--------------------

4D( spatial ) = 60 degrees + 90 degrees--4 triangles( ABCD ) + 3 bisecting squares( octa(8)hedron---

4D( spatial ) = extra degrees of internalized freedoms

..."In 4 dimensions there are 6 convex regular polychora, the analogues of the[ 5 ] Platonic solids. Relaxing the conditions for regularity generates a further 58 convex uniform polychora, analogous to, the 13 semi-regular Archimedean solids in three dimensions."....

r6

 

[absols]

Infinity is to finite space, as,

eternity is to a finite time.
-----------------------

ur ways of reasonnings in opposites abstractions show how u mean creations and nothing, while it isnt like that even

infinity is to superiority, which by definition cant b identified

existence is true not a creation moron

eternity is the always element that confirm existence being true, which is freedom

that is how freedom is the same indivis no matter the condition forced on or time, freedom never change

eternity prove infinite being superiority, ending in positive constant same eternal objective

so infinity is to no space

and eternity is to no time

free realisations are infinite existence out of space and out of selves

conscious stands are the still space out of time as the eternal fact always anywhere

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Hardly, you just have to take the Watchmaker Analogy into consideration where the universe is something we build, something we intend to make with the intention of enabling ourselves to be apart of continued development. This means both learning how to build a framework and how to use an already existent framework at the same time. (I guess you could consider it a Singularity of sorts)

Need clarification - when you stated ; "...enabling ourselves to be apart of continued development..." - should I take that as "a part" or "apart" ?
And the Watchmaker Analogy - wouldn't anything we produce or create in this hypothetical simulation still remain part of said simulation ?
I still contend that absolute proof could only exist outside of and away from the simulation. I have heard of a theory that our whole universe might completely be confined inside of a Black Hole - (I guess you could consider THAT a Singularity of sorts) - could that be absolutely proven without ever being able to be outside of the Black Hole ?

 

[rr6]

Triangulation = XYZ aka integral set of 3 right angles defining one corner of a right-angle 4D( ABCD ) tetra(4)hedron
--------------------
4D( spatial ) = 60 degrees + 90 degrees--4 triangles( ABCD ) + 3 bisecting squares( octa(8)hedron---
4D( spatial ) = extra degrees of internalized freedoms
..."In 4 dimensions there are 6 convex regular polychora, the analogues of the[ 5 ] Platonic solids. Relaxing the conditions for regularity generates a further 58 convex uniform polychora, analogous to, the 13 semi-regular Archimedean solids in three dimensions."....
r6

"internalized freedoms" refers to higher spatial dimensions being within our observed 3 spatial dimensions.

Ex Miko Kaku explains it this way, we have the XYZ right-angle set, that is relabled as a, b and c for 3D.

The 4th D being a 4th line diagonal 45 degrees between the other three(abc) lines i.e. this 4th D line is inside/inner/within the 3D.

This is sort of counter intuitive. Hyper-dimension = cells with cells = polyhedra within polyhedra etc...as expressed via 3D.

r6

 

[Pincho_Paxton]

"internalized freedoms" refers to higher spatial dimensions being within our observed 3 spatial dimensions.

Ex Miko Kaku explains it this way, we have the XYZ right-angle set, that is relabled as a, b and c for 3D.

The 4th D being a 4th line diagonal 45 degrees between the other three(abc) lines i.e. this 4th D line is inside/inner/within the 3D.

This is sort of counter intuitive. Hyper-dimension = cells with cells = polyhedra within polyhedra etc...as expressed via 3D.

r6

I also use time like that. I came up with it first though.

 

[Stryder]

Need clarification - when you stated ; "...enabling ourselves to be apart of continued development..." - should I take that as "a part" or "apart" ?
And the Watchmaker Analogy - wouldn't anything we produce or create in this hypothetical simulation still remain part of said simulation ?
I still contend that absolute proof could only exist outside of and away from the simulation. I have heard of a theory that our whole universe might completely be confined inside of a Black Hole - (I guess you could consider THAT a Singularity of sorts) - could that be absolutely proven without ever being able to be outside of the Black Hole ?

That should of been "a part" (is in being a part of).

Analogy:
Building a Bridge usually means building from both ends into the middle, whereby a "keystone" is laid.
Rather than looking for a keystone we should be focusing on the design of the bridge, otherwise how would we know what a keystone looks like if we don't know how it functions in the design?

As for blackholes, that's Oranges to Apples, they might both be fruit but they are quite different.