UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, August 01, 2015

The Universe is a computer game?

http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html

10 Comments:

  • It seems that there are some scientists that are seeking to prove whether or not the universe is a hologram and we and everything around us are just "projections" from that hologram which would imply our universe is a "simulation" see: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

    And of course there are others that present the case for our living in a simulation Nobel Prize winner George Smoot gave a TEDx talk entitled "You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It" https://youtu.be/Chfoo9NBEow

    By Blogger gishzida, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • This is intriguing, and may be a simple unfalsifiable puzzlement. But it seems to my perspective in philosophy and computer science that such a simulation would likely have some finite maximum resolution. And when one starts investigating the nature of the universe at the smallest of scales -- the so-called Planck Length -- it looks as though there is a maximum resolution. Is this not what we'd expect? And does it not lend some tippage to the balance of thinking? Why can't we zoom in smaller than that Planck Length? Is that a mere 'pixel' of our reality? Or will we someday learn that the Planck Length limitation was but a limitation in our own imaginations?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • But the Planck Length is theoretical, not real or actual.

    Does it exist because it was thought? Or is it an imagined construct without existent reality?

    And because we can't "zoom in smaller than that Planck Length" presently, does that mean we won't be able to "zoom in" some time in the technological future?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • A pixel doesn't exist. It's just a boundary that is built into the system. An analogy would be your computer screen resolution. You may be set to 1024x768 right now. And that might be the best your hardware can EVER hope to do. You can entertain yourself with musings about what it might be like in 1920x1080, but such musings will do you no good with the hardware you have. And likewise, we can certainly entertain musings about a universe that scales to below the Planck Length, but what good can come from that if such resolutions aren't supported by the actual hardware of the universe?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • But the Planck Length is a musing, isn't it, Parakletos?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • That's the whole point, RR. You're begging the question. We don't know for certain. Our model breaks down completely at that point. And that really is what we're talking about -- points. And more specifically, the smallest possible MEANINGFUL dimension of a point in our universe.

    Here's a good thread, IMHO:

    Is the Planck Length real? How do we know?

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-planck-length-real-how-do-we-know.429385/

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • You know my feeling(s) about physicists, P...

    They are maliced philosophers, replacing arcane theoretical musings -- like God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived -- with their own "theological ruminations" of which the Planck Length is one.

    You intuit the theological similarities, which is why you like physicists and their convoluted nonsense, exacerbated by mathematics -- that human contrivance making no sense in the real world.....and I'm not talking about geometry or algebra.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • There are theological implications, obviously. And one should question anyone who claims to be an expert on nothing (or nothingness).

    And why stop at just one simulation deep? If this could be a simulation, then it seems just as possible for it to be a simulation running inside a simulation nested who knows how many layers deep.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • Yes, the idea of "infinite regression."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

  • It wouldn't have to be an infinite regression. It could be finite.

    The question then becomes whether or not an universe with a higher degree of complexity could be simulated inside a lesser complex universe. Because if it cannot, because of mapping issues, then the best we could hope for is to create an artificial reality some magnitude smaller than the one we find ourselves in.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, August 03, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home