Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation
Ron Czapala
Posts: 2,418
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html
Some physicists and university researchers say it's possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film "The Matrix."
In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, "The Simulation Argument," which argued that, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we're all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization's computer game.
Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.
So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.
"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."
The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: "Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."
To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there's a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.
Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?
University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should "simply" attempt to communicate with those. "The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'" she asked.
Some physicists and university researchers say it's possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film "The Matrix."
In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, "The Simulation Argument," which argued that, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we're all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization's computer game.
Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.
So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.
"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."
The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: "Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."
To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there's a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.
Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?
University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should "simply" attempt to communicate with those. "The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'" she asked.
Comments
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
I'm going to have to watch that one again......
Robert
If we're in a simulation, then can't the source code simply disallow anyone formed from the code (us) from ever discerning anything beyond the products of that code? Can't the creators outside our simulation merely "disallow discovery of true nature" or some such thing? Heck, if this is all just a game, then why can't the rules of the game be set up to prevent us from ever peeking off the edge of the board?
But that is just my humble belief.
-John Board
-Phil
The true universe is a stack of turtles, a smaller one on the back of a larger one... all the way to infinity.
It is turtles.... just turtles all the way up. Or down. or whatever. Why turtles? The hold up the sky of course.
On the other hand, Visa says the world will end 90 days after I ignore them.
Physicist used to restrict themselves to science rather than speculating on the unknown.
Well money isn't real either, it's just a consensual hallucination that it has value.
I am not so sure that a fiat currency is consensual, but it is condoned. As for the hallucination... are you inferring that everything is a hallucination or is there an alternative situation where one sees what truly is?
I am having a great deal of difficulty grasping the concept of a consensual hallucination.
You are all a fig newton of my imagination.
It is consensual in the manner Heater pointed out. All of us agree to use green pieces of paper as a store of value. It is a hallucination because most of the green pieces of paper don't actually exist. The vast majority are willed into existence through the creation of debt and only exist on a bank's balance sheet. The most expensive item I ever bought was a house and I paid for it with money that was created when my wife and I signed a mortgage.
However, I'm not a gold bug. Gold as a basis of money really isn't any different from rai stones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones and fractional reserve lending is probably the only game in town for the foreseeable future.
Something tells me if the economy collapses and the end of the world starts, ( like some people believe ) I would imagine food, and water would become more valuable then all the green paper, and precious metals and stones you can find.
Those green pieces of paper are not the point. The agreement they represent is the point. They are like writing out an IOU when you don't have something you have promised someone else. That IOU may as well be recorded in a ledger somewhere else by a third party instead of floating around as paper. And that third party is called a bank.
That can't be right. If it was then the bank would not take your house back when yo default on the loan. They would not have lost anything.
As it is they have someone else chasing then for that money back again. And around and around until no one knows how any of this works or where it all comes from. Or perhaps more importantly goes to:)
Yes, you mean like Germany in 1923 http://surfingthenewnormal.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/hyperinflation-case-study-1-weimar-republic/
There's a great book called "The Power of Gold" by Peter L. Bernstein which chronicles Western civilization's obsession with gold and serves as a history of money. Barter of concrete goods is always the primary medium of exchange in times of uncertainty. Money only gets created and used when people are confident in the future and gold is a form of commodity money.
Another great book is "Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky. Besides gold and wheat, salt is the other commodity that was often used as money. The word salary and expressions like "being worth one's salt" derive from its use as a form of money.
Securing the note with the threat of foreclosure was part of the terms when that credit money was created, but that's only true that for small fish like me. Big fish get to create credit money almost entirely* out of thin air. This is why events like the 2008 financial crisis can happen. Eventually one of the big fish creates a debt they can't repay, financial contagion starts as debts secured by that debt go bad, and the whole thing begin to fall like a house of cards.
Here's something even weirder. Where did the money come from that I used to pay back the principal and interest I owed the back? It was primary credit money created from someone else's debt! So the total debt in the world had to go up for me to pay off my mortgage.
* To find out how deep the rabbit hole goes find out the answer to why I used the qualifier "almost entirely".
Think of it like this:
One day I was teaching my young son how to count with the help a typical children's book. On one page there is picture of one duck and the number 1. On another page two ducks and the number 2. And so on...
So I start reading and pointing at ducks "one duck, two ducks, three ducks" At this point my son interrupts me and says "No daddy, that's wrong, it's not three ducks, its just another duck, silly". Well, I could not argue with that and had to give up for the day.
That is true story and the thing is he was right. There is no such thing as three or any other number for that matter. It's just that consensual hallucination that I was passing on to my son. We learn this so young that by the time we are adults numbers have taken on a reality in our mind as firmly as anything you can physically touch "out there".
Taking this further, you either have ducks or you do not. You cannot have less than one Duck. However we have added zero to our "consensual hallucination". It took humans a long time to do that and there was great resistance to the notion of zero, but there it is.
Moving on, clearly you can't have a negative number of Ducks. Once you have run out of Ducks there is none left. However if I give you a Duck on the basis that you will give me one back one day then we count that you have one duck in hand plus a negative duck that you owe me, sum zero. On the other end I have zero Ducks in hand plus one you owe me, sum one, as it should be.
And so this consensual hallucination grows and grows. Soon we have floating point Ducks, rational Ducks, irrational Ducks, infinite Ducks, imaginary Ducks, Duck inflation and Martin_H saying we are creating Ducks out of thin air:)
I'd say "+1", but that really falls short of the sentiment, and might confuse the issue of numbers, so let's just say that really needs to be on a poster.
C.W.
I suspect that knives would be a very useful form of currency. Everyone would want to have lots of knives. Guns and ammunition would be handy as well. Gold and gems are more difficult to bargain with.
We're part of the simulation, so we won't notice if it reboots. If the universe has checkpoint and restart capabilities, then you could reboot the universe an infinite number of times until someone chooses the action that doesn't lead to the fault condition. So the laws of nature would seem to us to be inviolate, buy not from the point of view of someone outside the simulation.
Wasn't that last Wednesday? Damn, I keep missing the end of the world. This is probably the 28th time that I'm aware of. I really should check my schedule more often.
I'm channeling the philosopher John Searle for a moment. An analog computer is just a pile of circuits. The fact that it is computing is meaning imposed on it by the observer who's measuring the output voltage. The same thing is true for digital computers, as their +5 v isn't truth, but the meaning the observer has placed upon that voltage value. You can't take the human mind out of the mix.
So our universe could be an analog or digital computer, but only from the perspective of someone or something outside it. They would apply meaning to it and call it a computation.
I believe there is still debate about this, But given the definition of the Planck Length and Planck Time it seems that if we try to make small enough steps in space or time it becomes impossible to do it or impossible to know we have done it.
One way to determine if we live in a digital or analogue world might be to create a square of known dimensions say, 10 Plank lengths each side. Then measure the diagonal by travelling along it, or at least moving something along it.
If we get a result of 14.1...I would be amazed and say the world is analogue.
If we get 20. That's the Manhattan distance. A sure sign we have been digitized.
Being reality of course we would probably get some other weird answer like 42 and be in a bigger puzzle. As Physicist's often are when they get round to actually doing an experiment.
(works for me)
It would be a quantum computer system because one thing can be in two places at the same time (for birthing, control and emulation), programmed elements could be tied together - Einstein's labeling of "Spooky action at a distance" could be called into action (to simulate gravity and orbiting bodies), quantum teleportation could act as a front end interface to a quantum computer controlling and tweaking a universe simulation (the simulated universe could effectualize in two places at one time), and the laws of quantum effects on biological entities would be a plus (life could be created and run its course). The masked scientists running our universe simulation could also induce quantum EIT (i.e. "let there be light") to simulate energy, stars and other sources of light.
http://www.livescience.com/20753-quantum-physics-biology-life.html
http://www.livescience.com/17264-quantum-entanglement-macroscopic-diamonds.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/65091/title/Quantum_weirdness
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/electromagnetic-induced-transparency/