Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Proof" that the universe is a simulation

page: 1
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Neoholographic started a thread outlining the basis for the theory by Bostrom, Terrile and others that our universe is a merely a simulation running inside of a computer. I have been following Bostrom's work for years and find his "three possibilities" particularly persuasive.

However, science needs theories that are testable and falsifiable. In fact, most of the complaints in the original thread were the lack of a testable and falsifiable theory that could be tested to determine if in fact we are living in a simulated universe.

Dr. James Gates, Jr. of the University of Maryland was awarded the first PhD in supersymmetry by MIT. In 1994 he received the American Physical Society's Edward A. Bouchet Award for significant contributions to the field of physics. In his later career, he became fascinated by the mathematical underpinnings of reality and couldn't believe what he found. He discovered at the universe's most basic level, reality itself is composed of..., well I will let him explain it.



Yes, he found that the universe itself contains error correcting code that is almost identical to the same error correcting code we use in our modern applications.

Scientists from the University of Bonn have gone a step further and made a proposal on how to devise a test to determine if the universe is a computer construct. The simple explanation is that even a simulated universe will have constraints. Further, simulated observers inside the simulation could look for and find these constraints which would manifest themselves as constraints on physical processes.

How do you do that?

By building a simulated universe yourself. Of course, this simulated universe would have to be very small (femto-scale), but it is not only possible, but they are currently in the process of doing just that. Here is the link to their paper. The hope is that by accurately simulating physical processes of the universe inside a computer, they will discover limits to the simulation that match physical limits in the universe.

Which would reveal there is a man behind the curtain.

I don't pretend to be an expert in this field (far from it) but people complained that the simulated universe theory doesn't provided a method of being testable or falsifiable, so I thought I would share that science is quickly moving toward finding the answer to this question.
edit on 2-12-2013 by LordOfArcadia because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-12-2013 by LordOfArcadia because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I have no idea what the paper is trying to say but I am far from convinced of any of this and find the entire plausibility of it utterly humanistic and ridiculous.

We're programs. Right. The matrx is real, there is a Wizard of Oz. Right.

Just because we worked out efficient error correction that also applies to dna does not mean dna was created by humans or other beings. Efficiency is natural. It is the result of inefficient things failing over a long time.

Show me this computer. Or it's all 'heaven' and 'god' as the programmer and as such, utter bollocks.

Humans love things that they cannot prove or show to be true when it makes them the point of something special.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

winofiend
Humans love things that they cannot prove or show to be true when it makes them the point of something special.


That's the point. None of these scientists are saying with certainty that we are living in a simulation but looking for evidence and devising experiments to test the theory. It is the opposite of "loving something that cannot be proven or shown to be true."

Whether the theory is right or wrong, it is fascinating.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 


So no proof? Yet anyways.
Interesting theory, but I don't buy into it.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
What if we changed our definition of computer? What if the "simulation" is just the imagination of a "computer" or a consciousness? just a thought.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 


Here are some other threads on this that you may find interesting.

S+F

edit on 2-12-2013 by HoboHumpinSloboBabe because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I''ve recently came to the conclusion after numerous years of studying the subject of the "simulated or holographic universe" that their is a paradox to the entire theory which in a way contradicts itself. If the universe is a simulation, it's impossible in a sense to reach this answer because the testing of whether or not it is a simulation lies within the simulation your testing it in. If I simulated a universe, I would simply make it to where everytime you reached a conclusion, I'd complexify it to even deeper levels.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Vandettas
I''ve recently came to the conclusion after numerous years of studying the subject of the "simulated or holographic universe" that their is a paradox to the entire theory which in a way contradicts itself. If the universe is a simulation, it's impossible in a sense to reach this answer because the testing of whether or not it is a simulation lies within the simulation your testing it in. If I simulated a universe, I would simply make it to where everytime you reached a conclusion, I'd complexify it to even deeper levels.


Ding Ding Ding

That is exactly what the scientists at the University of Bonn are proposing. They have found limits (they think) on which a simulation could not be extended further into deeper complexity. So by creating this simulated universe and testing those limits, they hope to discover if said limits also exist in our universe.

They don't know if they are correct. That is why they will run the experiment.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
"I have no idea what the paper is trying to say but I am far from convinced of any of this and find the entire plausibility of it utterly humanistic and ridiculous."

If you have know idea what the paper is saying then how do you arrive at it being "humanistic and ridiculous?" This is an issue with YOUR presumption, not the article. I suggest you try to understand the paper THEN comment.


"We're programs. Right. The matrx is real, there is a Wizard of Oz. Right."

This is YOUR straw man. YOUR presumption.

"Just because we worked out efficient error correction that also applies to dna does not mean dna was created by humans or other beings. Efficiency is natural. It is the result of inefficient things failing over a long time."

This is your only somewhat productive statement on this that I can see. You do point to an interesting parallel. 'Error correction' in DNA is an apodictic corollary to the evolutionary process where information is conserved via pattern redundancies that are conserved, DNA polymarase also acts to conserve certain structures AND certain enzymes take care of SOME of the remaining mismatches by recognizing particular deformities. These 'error corrections' are evolved redundant conserving structures that keep cells' information carriers in a type of homeostasis. Those evolving entities that use this type of information redundancy preservation are, of course, selected for in the long run. It is NOT an error correcting heuristic or algorithm similar to what is described in the arXiv paper which is inherent in symmetry breaking at high levels, a possible function of a n-dimensional Grassmanian manifold at the energy states being discussed. Having said that, an interesting line of inquiry may be to look at this in terms of M-theory or some other conjecture, hypothesis or theory (and their corollaries) where certain types of universes are selected for and are apt to somehow successfully reproduce. All speculation, but as I said you draw a certain productive parallel.

"Show me this computer. Or it's all 'heaven' and 'god' as the programmer and as such, utter bollocks."

This is begging a question not raised in the paper, the OP or his linked video.

"Humans love things that they cannot prove or show to be true when it makes them the point of something special."

Possibly, but that does not follow. Better examination of the paper will detail the experiments that will be used to falsify the premise.
edit on 2-12-2013 by thomowen20 because: Strucutre changes.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by turboneon
 


Now we are courting the breadth and depth of thought that this subject deserves. Excellent bit of a comment, Turboneon!



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
It would be better to remove the word, 'proof' from your thread title. At best, this is evidence which may support simulation theory.

3 Possibilities (only one is true):

1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.

Nick Bostrom argues that the statistical probability that 3 is true is overwhelming. The problem with this is that any form of intelligent life could propose Bostrom's argument, and it would still be sound - even if this intelligent life was not living in a simulation.

For example, let's say Adam and Eve proposed this argument, and let's say that (for the sake of the argument) that it was true that Adam and Eve were the only intelligent life in the Universe, and they nonetheless achieved said 'technological maturity' - the likelyhood of 3 being true wouldn't change - they could still flip-out over the statistical probability that their lives were being simulated on a hard-drive somewhere, even though in fact, the converse is the case (i.e. they are the only intelligent beings in the universe, and thus, the only beings capable of producing simulated realities).

Aside, I love stuff like this. Cool video (& you just gotta love Neil deGrasse Tyson!)
edit on 2-12-2013 by kissy princess because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 

With all the mysterious things that make up our universe and still so much we do not know and may never know, I still think anything is possible. My one question would be - If it's true, did Satan and the other fallen angels develop a virus? And is that maybe the reason for their insanity? Or maybe they were drugged or poisoned by something from outer space that drove them to become like drug addicts or zombie like beings. This is a legit question, no pun intended. Possible computer glitch, virus or they were hacked?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
so could this also mean there is no reality to infinity? Is there also any chance of outside influence? What if we find out that a very advanced computer is simulating our entire universe, could that make our becoming aware of such the dawn of artificial intelligence?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Numbers are the underpinning of our known Universe, and the placement of said numbers weren't hard to come by because they're fundamental to nature - including how we evolve.

System of Truth



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 

Theories are not proof....


WTF & Really?

Thank you for the post.

Edit- Another theory. God created man...BAM, 'proof' that their is a God....
edit on 2-12-2013 by ChuckNasty because: as above



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
¿What if our computing skills are extrapolated from the way we observe the universe?
¿Wont they seem to be the ultimate reality of the universe?

I mean, come on, just because we do the same things the universe do to handle matter in our computers may very well be because we learned that it mathematically worked from observations of the real deal.

And how are they going to simulate the entire universe if they don't even know the rules of it?

Is like saying "i made this painting with the colors of the universe, therefore the universe is a painting"



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 


Yes, he found that the universe itself contains error correcting code that is almost identical to the same error correcting code we use in our modern applications.

Oh its real enough. And the error correction is right in plain sight.

The Genome…



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 



....it's impossible in a sense to reach this answer because the testing of whether or not it is a simulation lies within the simulation your testing it in.


good job.

...your post is the most easily digestible version of the Measurement problem I have seen in a while.

the fact of a measurement interfering with itself (as is the case with a quantum wavefunction at the Planck length) is the very reason that the quantization occurs.

however, measurements from outside the system (aka "observation") can "solve" the riddle of quantization occurring on the inside of the system. this is a very good reasoning of how and why the universe has the appearance of a nested russian doll.

perhaps, then, each upper-meta-level of the cosmos is creating the simulated conditions of its directly adjacent lower-meta-level. thus, reality is projected directly upward from the simulated level as a system-wide quantum coherence of the decoherent sub-system simulation. or, in other words, YOU are a simulation within society... and you (as a reality) contain societies of simulations within you.


quantized simulations inside of realities which are quantized simulations inside of higher realities.


makes sense to me.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Flat landers discussing the possibility of up. The Russian doll is right there on my shelf. Its real and I have explored every nuance it offers. Its made of wood.

Science sees things in three layers. Our eyes, the telescope and the microscope.

I prefer dimensions. Nobody sees but one.

What we think we know about others we can only diagram.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LordOfArcadia
 


If we are in a simulation, it is even more likely that those who programmed our universe are also in a simulation, and so on to infinity.

Anyways, he says he didn't find the equations in the actual fabric of the universe, only in the equations we use to describe the universe. Big difference.

Finding such code in our interpretation of the universe, and not in the universe itself, proves that it is our interpretations that are the simulations.
edit on 3-12-2013 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
31
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join