News Is the universe really just a computer simulation?

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
If recent measurements of cosmic ray particles are correct, then we may have the first evidence that the universe as we know it is really a giant computer simulation.

Humans have explored the laws of our universe for many years now, and it's not uncommon to hear people talk about how amazing it is that certain fundamental values are just right for life to exist. Some people have wondered if that's because the whole universe is actually some kind of sandbox simulation, and we're merely characters in some cosmic game of The Sims. If that's true, then there should be a point where we start to bump up against the edges of the simulator, like Jim Carrey's character escaping from The Truman Show -- and now a team of physicists think that a particular measurement of some cosmic ray particles might be the first such indication of one of those edges.

The idea that we might be living in an artificial reality constructed by something higher than ourselves has been a recurring philosophical hypothesis for centuries. Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Descartes' evil demon, Putnam's brain in a vat -- these are all variants of justifications for solipsism, a philosophical idea that says it's impossible to know with any certainty whether the world as we experience it is "real" or a simulation projected by some external entity. Keanu Reeves' character Neo in The Matrix opts for a dose of reality when he chooses to take the red pill, but figuring out whether our universe is "real" or not is a touch more complicated than that.

It shouldn't be surprising that simulating the universe would take up a lot of processing power, since the universe is exceedingly large (and then some). Currently, if we wanted to simulate quantum chromodynamics -- the rules which give rise to the strong nuclear force, which binds protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei -- we can only manage it on the scale of femtometres (millionths of a nanometre). That's not even close to the level of detail needed for even the smallest microorganisms, let alone planets, stars and galaxies.

What we do know, though, is that when we create such a simulator, there's some kind of underlying lattice that holds everything together like a kind of framework. Think of it as the smallest scale at which a simulator runs -- like the way a grid divides up the playable space in a chess game. You can't move a piece less than one grid space.

If we were living in a simulator, we'd expect to find evidence of that lattice if we looked close enough to the edges of the observable universe -- and that's what Silas Beane from the University of Bonn and colleagues have calculated, in a paper published in arXiv. As cosmic particles fly through the universe, they lose energy and change direction and spread out across a spectrum of energy values. There's a known limit to how much energy those particles have, though, and Beane and his colleagues have calculated that this seemingly arbitrary cliff in the spectrum is consistent with the kind of boundary that you'd find if there was an underlying lattice governing the limits of a simulator. It should also, if present, scatter the particles in a certain way as they come up against it, and we should be able to investigate whether that's the case.

If such an investigation does look consistent with a simulator lattice, then that could mean several things. It could show us that there's a boundary out there consistent with Beane et al's hypothesis, and it works a bit like the one we'd expect if we were living inside a simulator based on the same principles as one we would also build. It could be, though, that we're incorrectly interpreting evidence of certain fundamental laws we are as yet unfamiliar with. It could even be that this isn't evidence at all for a simulator, as a real lattice might work in a different way to how we would envision it.

Frankly, we don't know yet. It's a bit like sitting really close to the TV when you're a kid and being able to pick out all the pixels -- we just have to hope the universe doesn't have a retina display.

Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/11/universe-computer-simulation
 

Krikkit

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Orbiter Universe is a computer simulation.

And all the UMmu people are in there now on their message boards having metaphysical conversations about the possibility that they are living in a computer simulation.
 

Artlav

Aperiodic traveller
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
780
Points
203
Location
Earth
Website
orbides.org
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
So?
Either the external universe is interacting with the simulation, and thus is a part of the universe, or it's not, and thus is absolutely irrelevant.

In the first case, what's the point of knowing about it?
You're not going to try hacking out of the universe, right? Right?

Hint: Background microwave radiation is the login prompt, and the credential are in hebrew. ;)

wired.co.uk said:
how amazing it is that certain fundamental values are just right for life to exist.
Please, isn't it obvious that life formed exactly the way it could have happened under the given rules, not the other way around?
 

Quick_Nick

Passed the Turing Test
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
204
Points
103
Location
Tucson, AZ
Is the universe like a simulation or are computer simulations like the universe? Computer simulations are a human idea. Really the comparison is just about finite numbers, quantum-ness. It doesn't mean that the universe is in a different or larger universe (it must be larger or operate on different rules) which you could just say is in another universe, and so on. I don't have a problem believing the universe is based on finite states. Occam's Razor? I'm not sure that anyone is arguing any different though, except the news reporters interpreting science in their own way.

As was mentioned, people have always wondered about something creating the universe from a higher level. It's no more or less possible from this "evidence".
 
Last edited:

statickid

CatDog from Deimos
Donator
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
1,683
Reaction score
4
Points
38
...AND... simulating a whole universe seems a little far fetched...wouldn't it be MORE possible that YOUR brain is merely a simulator? How do you know that all of us here on this forum aren't just programs to distract you from finding out that the "universe" you live in is just a simulation for your "brain" and that your "existence" is just a program running?
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,034
Reaction score
1,273
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
So?
Either the external universe is interacting with the simulation, and thus is a part of the universe, or it's not, and thus is absolutely irrelevant.

Well, it could be *selectively* interacting with the simulation, to where interactions only happen at the behest of whoever's running the simulation, and thus, while the outside universe does exist and affect the simulation, no empirical data can be gathered on it from within the simulation.

Please, isn't it obvious that life formed exactly the way it could have happened under the given rules, not the other way around?

The big unanswerable question here is whether any other sets of rules exist under which life can exist at all, and, if so, what percentage of the group of different possible sets of rules allow for life.
 
Last edited:

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,034
Reaction score
1,273
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
It's no more or less possible from this "evidence".

Especially given that a simulated, created, or otherwise "artificial" universe need not be a finite state machine.

For example, if the external universe has a nonfinite number of states, then the simulated universe could be simulated on an analog computer in that universe and also have a nonfinite number of states.

So createdness/artificiality is completely orthogonal to discreteness/finite stateness/etc.

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:43 ----------

Very appropriate:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2535

"We'd just have to find signs that we're optimized for good computation. Like...a minimum temperature or a maximum speed or a rule that position and momentum are only knowable to certain tolerances..."

Nitpick on the last panel: If the universe is a program, we're not even subroutines, we're patterns in the data. :lol:

(Which is not to say that I believe the universe is a program)
 

Quick_Nick

Passed the Turing Test
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
204
Points
103
Location
Tucson, AZ
Obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/505/
How would I know if I am or am not a bunch of rocks? :shifty:
I don't FEEL like a collection of subatomic particles (or even cells!) acting independently, being totally replaced regularly. My vision doesn't FEEL like millions of photons bouncing around the room and causing electrons to travel through my brain. :p
 
Last edited:

dbeachy1

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,217
Reaction score
1,563
Points
203
Location
VA
Website
alteaaerospace.com
Preferred Pronouns
he/him
I guess the real question is, "What is consciousness?" Is our consciousness the result of our perceived reality, or is our perceived reality the result of our consciousness? We're getting into existentialism and spirituality, but personally the latter is what I feel (i.e., that which exists cannot cease to exist). Of course, that is just my perspective -- your perspective may vary. :)
 

Ark

New member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
2,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So?

Please, isn't it obvious that life formed exactly the way it could have happened under the given rules, not the other way around?

This. The universe didn't develop into perfect conditions for life, life developed to fit the conditions of the universe.
 

Cras

Spring of Life!
Donator
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
2,215
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Los Angeles
Website
www.youtube.com
to paraphrase Brian Greene, we could ponder all sorts of goofy retaliates of the universe, on one of which is that we live in a computer simulation, but what would be the point? Best worry about other things.

---------- Post added at 12:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 AM ----------

This. The universe didn't develop into perfect conditions for life, life developed to fit the conditions of the universe.

The anthropic principle is an interesting thing to consider on this question.
 

Artlav

Aperiodic traveller
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
5,790
Reaction score
780
Points
203
Location
Earth
Website
orbides.org
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
I guess the real question is, "What is consciousness?"
It's a word people made up to mean that one thing they fancy is there. Like gremlins or santa clause.
Of course, that is just my perspective. :)

Well, it could be *selectively* interacting with the simulation, to where interactions only happen at the behest of whoever's running the simulation, and thus, while the outside universe does exist and affect the simulation, no empirical data can be gathered on it from within the simulation.
Now that is spooky.
The result would be law of nature not being constant all the time.

And it would be pretty much beyond science to detect, since it's not repeatable. And with troll enough "god", unobservable in any non-anekdotal moment.
 

Quick_Nick

Passed the Turing Test
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
204
Points
103
Location
Tucson, AZ
Maybe the expansion of the universe is like Moore's law in the programmer's universe and it happens more than every planck length for us. :lol:
I do hope (s)he keeps backups. :hmm:
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,877
Reaction score
2,131
Points
203
Location
between the planets
Now that is spooky.
The result would be law of nature not being constant all the time.

And it would be pretty much beyond science to detect, since it's not repeatable. And with troll enough "god", unobservable in any non-anekdotal moment.

It would be pretty much exactly like if God is messing with the universe. The two sources, if detectable, would be undistinguishable.
 

Mojave

60% Ethanol
Moderator
Addon Developer
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,647
Reaction score
132
Points
78
Location
Somewhere, but not here.
If life is a computer simulation, and I'm just a computer program myself. I'm gonna find and kick in the shin of the person who thought that giving the computer program a "headache program" was a good idea.

Seriously though, life seems a bit too complex to be a simulation. There are too many variables in life that it just seems impractical that someone created (multiple) computer programs that interact with eachother in so many different ways.

Although, what if we live in sort of an aquarium on an alien's bookshelf? That would be weird. :hmm:
 
Top