Quantum Physics itself may be proof of a simulated universe

I came to this conclusion from a simple real world example that many of you may relate to: VideoGame Development. More specifically I am referring to the rendering of in-game environments. When the resources of the platform you are developing on are insufficient to fully render your vision of the game, Draw-in or Pop-In can occur. Draw-in is when environmental objects gradually render in more detail as you approach them. Pop-in is when environmental objects instantaneously pop into existence when you come close enough to the object.

Now let me ask you a question. How is this any different than the Quantum Physics Double-Slit experiment? According to this, objects only materialize when observed. This is also true in video games. When the camera angle is rotated, whatever you have in view is only rendered. Sound like Quantum physics? Developers have to do this in order to render the game world in a convincing fashion. If everything was rendered at once the game wouldn't be playable.

Let's correlate this to our universe. How much do we really know beyond the observation from our naked eyes or the video capture from our scientfic instruments? Not a lot. If a superior civilization was to render the universe in entirety they would need infinite computing power to render the infinite possibilities that it contains. At humanities current state of development only a small faction of that would be needed. Wouldn't it make sense to implement the concept of quantum physics in their computational algorithms?

reply to post by genma

According to this, objects only materialize when observed.

No. A common misconception.
The particle exists whether it is observed or not. It is the particular quantum state of the particle which does not "exist" until it is observed.

The cat is there. It just isn't alive (or dead) until you open the box.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Phage


I believe that is true but it is the same as computer code. The code is there but not executed until needed.

Let me know if you find any cheat codes!!

And "Easter Eggs"! I have a few theories on that... (the Village People come to mind...)

reply to post by genma

Then I must have misunderstood when you said this:

According to this, objects only materialize when observed.

Quantum mechanics does not say that. So if you are trying to connect your hypothesis with quantum mechanics it doesn't work. The object is there whether or not it is "executed".

reply to post by Phage


Right, it's there in vibrational/particle/computer code form, not yet materialized or rendered.

reply to post by genma

Quantum mechanics says that the particle is there. It is "rendered" all the time. It is the quantum state of that particle which cannot be determined until it is "executed", not its existence.

Your hypothesis has no basis from a quantum mechanical standpoint.

reply to post by Phage


Yet with the cat-in-a-box theory the subject isn't rendered dead or alive until observed. If the cat was always rendered dead then it would stay dead with no possibility of living.

Fan of Bostrom's Simulation Argument and all Brain in the Vatty type fun.

Star and flag.

And Phage is correct. The "cat" is there, just undetermined in what probable state. And let's not forget the cat has to also be sub atomic.

MM

reply to post by genma

Incorrect. In the thought experiment the cat exists whether it is "rendered" or not. The cat is both dead and alive until it is "rendered". At which point it is one or the other. It is that duality of state which is the point, not the existence.

Again, it is not about the existence of a particle. It is about the quantum state of the particle and it only applies to quanta, it does not apply to macro scale objects.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by genma

 

Quantum mechanics says that the particle is there. It is "rendered" all the time. It is the quantum state of that particle which cannot be determined until it is "executed", not its existence.

Your hypothesis has no basis from a quantum mechanical standpoint.

On the other hand, QP has also shown us that the state of a particle can be changed by the act of observing the event, the results of these experiments depend on wether the information of the detections is available or not, the results even adapt to the experimenters future findings backwards through time.

Particles seem to adapt their state when we are observing them, so this says something about our reality.

And don't say it is because of the classical "observer effect" because it has been proven it is not the detector that is causing the state change of a particle.

Great thread, and thought experiment, in my estimation, which isn't saying much....

But what I keep getting stuck on, is Phage and the use of the word "rendering......"

So, we're just all here killing that cat over and over and over??? And that's how we know that cat is there....
sorry, I'm just a commoner, which, I suppose, equals, stupid.....

Don't get me wrong, Phage, I think you're a hell of an intellect. No doubt about it, in support of the current science's way of interpreting and justifying and looking at everything. And I mean no insult by that. Truly, I am frequently in awe of such an intellect.

But, even the ways we have at our disposal, currently, language, math, to describe and then "render" what you speak of, begs a certain question......which, I think, does very much apply to this thread.....

Are we all just energy used to make the code genma is talking about that "fuels" this simulation, quanta, quantum, whatever......bc rendering means, really, observing it, drawing it (implying a control outside of the model being drawn, and then burning it down and using it for something else.....

reply to post by tetra50

I am arguing the point that the OP's incorrect interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be used to support his hypothesis because it is incorrect.

Personally...I'm not a computer simulation and neither is the universe.

reply to post by tetra50


The Schrodinger cat experiment was meant to show the impossibility of Quantum Physics, in that current paradigm.

Phage uses it as some sort of proof for something but all it is is an admission of "we don't get QP at all", and besides that, it is flawed because it relies on the idea that there is a cat to be dead or alive at all when we aren't able to see it.

There are no two states, there is just one state being rendered when we watch. I have very similar thoughts to the OP.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tetra50

 

I am arguing the point that the OP's incorrect interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be used to support his hypothesis because it is incorrect.

Personally...I'm not a computer simulation and neither is the universe.

edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Physical reality does seem to be rendered from subatomic particles based on what we know about them.

reply to post by Tribunal

The Schrodinger cat experiment was meant to show the impossibility of Quantum Physics, in that current paradigm.

Schrodinger was not showing the impossibility of quantum mechanics. He was a proponent of quantum mechanics. It was one interpretation of quantum mechanics which bothered him. The problem is that his thought experiment isn't really valid in the first place since quantum mechanics does not apply on the macro scale.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics which states that observation brings objects (quanta or otherwise) into existence.

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by tetra50

 

The Schrodinger cat experiment was meant to show the impossibility of Quantum Physics, in that current paradigm.

Phage uses it as some sort of proof for something but all it is is an admission of "we don't get QP at all", and besides that, it is flawed because it relies on the idea that there is a cat to be dead or alive at all when we aren't able to see it.

There are no two states, there is just one state being rendered when we watch. I have very similar thoughts to the OP.

Yes, thanks for your explanation...perhaps I am not communicating well enough for you to have noted and estimated my own sarcasm in respect to just what you said..;.. I brought this up in a thread, recently, about the whole Schreodinger theory, but thanks so much for your explanation.......

The cat, actually, is a metaphor entirely designed, to lead science and all of us astray,,,,,no matter what you observe nor look at, nor estimate therefore....

The essence, truly, to that whole metaphor and designed flaw is empirical evidence: what you "think" you see....

And therein lies the flaw of Schoediner's entire threory.....for it depends entirely upon what you "thinlk" or interpret from what you "see." I could provide you plenty of links of how, why, and wherefor, you and eveyone else thinks they see something that might not actually be "real" at all, which then calls into question what "real" is, anyhow.

Thanks friend. I don't need this explained to me. Unfortunately, for what this all has meant to me personally, I understand it all too very well.
And, yes, I think the OP is spot on with many things described therein......
meaning, we are in a simulated environment, and we, may, in fact, be the biggest simulation of all......
And what this means is, despite your physics, calculus, math, or space/time theory, nothing, then means anything you thought it did originally, whatever original is these days....
Tetra50

reply to post by Tribunal

Physical reality does seem to be rendered from subatomic particles based on what we know about them.

Yes. And those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.

reply to post by Phage


Umm. yeah, I got that, thanks.....
The question really is, at this point, have you no "intake" valve, or is it all simply "output."
For I know exactly what you are arguing. And have told you that in the current, accepted analysis of reality, quantum or otherwise, I respect your opinion. I don't need you to explain it to me. Perhaps you have no understanding of what I am saying to you, and if you don't, well, then, I can no longer be of help, nor service, though I have tried to serve my purpose faithfully, no matter the rhetoric or lack of or loss in the translation......

Phage, I pose to you, with the great mind you have, that the concepts you reply upon, mathematically and otherwise, are just another expression of something which really was never meant to be expressed, and you've been fed it, and accepted it......

I still stand by what I said about your continual use of the word, render......
So, life was meant to be rendered, used, code or not? And science backs that up, because, in essence, with calculations or letters and language, that is really what you are saying......

There is code, as genma describes, and there is true life.......and at this point, it is being used to "feed" the code, to justify its existence, and I am very sorry, but from everything I have seen experienced, and yes, I know quite a bit, I, at least, am no simulation either, and am not in existence for the RENDERING of ANYTHING or ANYONE.

reply to post by Phage


That's what I said, it's about the perceived problem with QP.

And in Quantum Eraser experiments it has been shown that the only possible factor for the two different results showing up, is wether the information about the particles is available or not, in other words if we were "observing" them or not.

So the result has become reality in the macro world because we knew the result of a subatomic particle's path.

This has even been done with atom sized particles if I'm not mistaken.