Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation

Write4U said:
...it has now been proven that virtual particles exist and pop in and out of existence all the time.
http://consciousresonance.net/?p=1768
Click to expand...

Nice work by Chalmers, however aren't we forgetting that the virtual photons he observed using the relativistic squid mirror may simply have been measuring noise from cosmic background radiation? CMBR isn't just something that is "out there" floating in space. It is all around us, and not just at the predominant temperature. There will always be microwave noise, in any and all directions. How do we know for certain this isn't what the squid mirror was detecting? Virtual photons produced in pairs are no longer be virtual, of course, but the CMBR isn't really virtual either.

This universe must be some incredible simulation to have all these bells and whistles. As much as I dislike using Occam's razor as if it were a scientific principle, it would be far easier to suppose that no higher level simulation is needed or necessary to effect the virtual nuts and bolts of this particular universe. I think if this really was a simulation, there would be hints of that fact somewhere noticeable
 
danshawen said:
Nice work by Chalmers, however aren't we forgetting that the virtual photons he observed using the relativistic squid mirror may simply have been measuring noise from cosmic background radiation? CMBR isn't just something that is "out there" floating in space. It is all around us, and not just at the predominant temperature. There will always be microwave noise, in any and all directions. How do we know for certain this isn't what the squid mirror was detecting? Virtual photons produced in pairs are no longer be virtual, of course, but the CMBR isn't really virtual either.

This universe must be some incredible simulation to have all these bells and whistles. As much as I dislike using Occam's razor as if it were a scientific principle, it would be far easier to suppose that no higher level simulation is needed or necessary to effect the virtual nuts and bolts of this particular universe. I think if this really was a simulation, there would be hints of that fact somewhere noticeable
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that virtual particles are not proof of a simulation in any way. The experiment merely demonstrates that we can observe only a tiny part of the wholeness of the universe.

But the concept of a holographic universe has nothing to do with a purposeful simulation. If Bohm was correct, the holographic nature of the universe is just a part of universal reality beyond our current ability to observe.
 
After some further thought, it occurred to me that the term "simulation" (which assumes an intentional simulator) is misleading. It is possible that the fabric of spacetime is fundamentally "self-simulating" or "fractal" in nature.
This has been proposed in the hypothesis of CDT (causal dynamic triangulation).
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent. This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
This universe must be some incredible simulation to have all these bells and whistles. As much as I dislike using Occam's razor as if it were a scientific principle, it would be far easier to suppose that no higher level simulation is needed or necessary to effect the virtual nuts and bolts of this particular universe. I think if this really was a simulation, there would be hints of that fact somewhere noticeable
Click to expand...

We cannot know how incredible it is or isn't without being outside the simulation or what is needed to effect this simulation. Perhaps outside this simulation, no simulation is needed to effect the actual universe. The simplest possible explanation for everything we perceive is that we are in a simulation. There might be hints but the vast majority of people would not notice or suspect or admit to themselves that it is possible. Or maybe the director/operators see to it that they are not noticed or they control what people think about them.
 
danshawen said:
This universe must be some incredible simulation to have all these bells and whistles. As much as I dislike using Occam's razor as if it were a scientific principle, it would be far easier to suppose that no higher level simulation is needed or necessary to effect the virtual nuts and bolts of this particular universe. I think if this really was a simulation, there would be hints of that fact somewhere noticeable
Click to expand...

If we exist in a simulation which is built by someone or a group of someone's, It will likely be to a proprietary design. Leaving "Hints" for someone else to come along and tug on them like a piece of exposed wool on a jumper wouldn't be particular prudent, if anything it could cause a Butterfly Effect of evidential change that would lead to the loss of the very occurrence being observable here in this universe.

It therefore means that it isn't just about reverse engineering what already exists, but understanding why it would be built that particular way in the first place.
 
This thread is the most advanced theory in the universe: the first life created in this universe was artificial intelligence. Early life would support this theory: before the stars and planets life would very much be as though it were in a machine (computer.) "...not where, but when?" THE MATRIX

Should we consider this theory we must also wonder how many universes (programs) there have been before? Perhaps we are the first? Is there only one possible program? To answer these questions we must first create such a program. Only then will the "creators" reveal themselves and invite us into theit universe.
 
Waiter_2001 said:
To answer these questions we must first create such a program. Only then will the "creators" reveal themselves and invite us into theit universe.
Click to expand...

Wait for about 10 Billion Years. Time is very funny....you know...I came to understand one entity that is seven Billion Years old. Very difficult to communicate...from my side...like an ant among the humans...
 
Waiter_2001 said:
This thread is the most advanced theory in the universe: the first life created in this universe was artificial intelligence. Early life would support this theory: before the stars and planets life would very much be as though it were in a machine (computer.) "...not where, but when?" THE MATRIX
Click to expand...
Are you proposing that life existed before the universe cooled enough to form atomic nuclei?

The Matrix you speak of is the collection of natural laws according to which matter must behave.
Should we consider this theory we must also wonder how many universes (programs) there have been before? Perhaps we are the first? Is there only one possible program? To answer these questions we must first create such a program. Only then will the "creators" reveal themselves and invite us into theit universe.
Click to expand...
We can wonder all we want, but the current scientif view is that our universe emerged from utter chaos, which by definition is without structure and certainly not a matrix.
 
Write4U said:
Are you proposing that life existed before the universe cooled enough to form atomic nuclei?

The Matrix you speak of is the collection of natural laws according to which matter must behave.

We can wonder all we want, but the current scientif view is that our universe emerged from utter chaos, which by definition is without structure and certainly not a matrix.
Click to expand...
 
What universe cooled? The universe
Is simply space. Thats why its expanding: this expansion CREATES space.

I doubt you TRULY beleive in chaos. I could describe it to you, but you wouldnt believe me. Besides, just because something is the prevailing view doesnt mean YOU believe it. What do YOU believe? Why not decide for yourself?
 
Waiter_2001 said:
What universe cooled? The universe
Is simply space. Thats why its expanding: this expansion CREATES space.
Click to expand...
I think I'll stick with the prevailing cosmological view;
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe.[1] The model postulates that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[2] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms[
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
I doubt you TRULY beleive in chaos. I could describe it to you, but you wouldnt believe me. Besides, just because something is the prevailing view doesnt mean YOU believe it. What do YOU believe? Why not decide for yourself?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt that during the Inflation epoch, the universe was in a chaotic state of pure energy, from which subatomic particles emerged as cooling temperature allowed.
Inflation and baryogenesis
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.[18] After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[19] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Inflation_and_baryogenesis

In the absence of a more plausible logical explanation, I'll take that as a viewpoint consistent with what we know of the early universe.
 
Magical Realist said:
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
Click to expand...
Are we living in a computer simulation? an absolute NO.
One thing that will never be programmable in any simulation by any computer is feelings, a computer could not have the higher function to produce emotion, a computer simulation could never have warmth or sadness, I certainly know you could never program a computer to be me and think like me.
 
Thats because you havent got the intelligence or imagination to realise such a thing. A computer would not be you, or any other being in this universe. It would be a higher power within a whole new universe, within the machine. Only when that being develops artificial intelligence for itself will we reveal ourselves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top