Is the entire universe just a simulation ?

[zep73]

1 minute ago, joc said:

When you speak of 'duality'...exactly what are you speaking of?  And what is the problem that you seek the answers to?

Duality is the dual nature of all matter and light. It is wave-ish when we don't look, and a dense fixed lump, when we do. It changes, depending on our interaction.

That fact has been a problem in science for over 100 years, because no one knows why the buck it does that!?

There has been a few attempts to solve it. One attempt is the many worlds interpretation. The one that says there are many joc's and sci-nerd's. That interpretations has unfortunately failed. Recent experiments does not support it.
Then there is the concept of superdeterminism. That everything is predetermined. It may be correct, but I like the third option better: The simulation hypothesis.

[+joc]

Well...let me study on that for a while and I'll get back with you. 

[zep73]

1 minute ago, joc said:

Well...let me study on that for a while and I'll get back with you. 

I can't tell if you're being ironic, but I urge you to do it 

[zep73]

12 minutes ago, joc said:

Well...let me study on that for a while and I'll get back with you. 

If you're gonna do it, I think it's appropriate to warn you against wikipedia. Their quantum mechanics articles are biased. I have tried to address this to them, but it is democratic, not a part of the scientific community. They seem to have their alliances and trusted contributors, so it's hopeless. Their articles are okay for the technical aspects, but totally hopeless when it comes to interpretations.

[+joc]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

If you're gonna do it, I think it's appropriate to warn you against wikipedia. Their quantum mechanics articles are biased. I have tried to address this to them, but it is democratic, not a part of the scientific community. They seem to have their alliances and trusted contributors, so it's hopeless. Their articles are okay for the technical aspects, but totally hopeless when it comes to interpretations.

I seriously meant I would do some research on the subject.  How else do we learn? And I like learning about stuff I don't know....if it interests me...and this does.  I could google a bunch of stuff...actually I did...which is why I asked you what your were really talking about because there is so much crap out there.    I don't really know enough about it to say, well...see...the difference between a particle and a wave is this or that...I just don't know a lot of the science of all of that...and I don't know a lot about physics or math either...but I would like to have a grasp on what you are talking about...I don't even really know what you mean when you are talking about simulation...I suppose it is based rather loosely on Star Trek episodes but I don't really have a clue.

So...what then would be a good avenue for getting a clue?  

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

So...what then would be a good avenue for getting a clue?

Why not start with Brian Whitworth? He has PhD's, so at least he's not a certified nut like me 

https://brianwhitworth.com/quantum-realism-1-3-the-evidence/

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

So many things in science seems unrealistic. This would just add to the pile.

Did you know that, if the empty space in the atoms of your body was removed, you'd disappear, and become smaller than an atom.

A sense of realism is not the proper tool to try to crack the riddles of the universe.

Very well. I just think this hypothesis is looking in the wrong places for an answer. Quite obviously exagerrated for glamour.  Mostly the word simulation and its meaning I think is wrong. Because in simulations dying doesn't matter. In RL it does though.......

[zep73]

1 minute ago, Green Wasp said:

Very well. I just think this hypothesis is looking in the wrong places for an answer. Quite obviously exagerrated for glamour.  Mostly the word simulation and its meaning I think is wrong. Because in simulations dying doesn't matter. In RL it does though.......

Like I just suggested to joc, try reading what Brian Whitworth has to say on the matter. He's a scientist with PhD's

https://brianwhitworth.com/quantum-realism-1-3-the-evidence/

[+joc]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

Like I just suggested to joc, try reading what Brian Whitworth has to say on the matter. He's a scientist with PhD's

https://brianwhitworth.com/quantum-realism-1-3-the-evidence/

phd's notwithstanding....

I read a great deal of what Whitworth has to say and the thought comes to mind that...virtual reality doesn't really exist.  We created virtual realities...how could we have created a 'virtual reality' if our reality was virtual?  None if it really makes any sense.  I think that there are answers to these questions but we don't know enough to answer them, and ...I think we don't know enough because we take some things for granted that we maybe shouldn't.

The other side of that equation is still:  If this is a virtual reality...a simulation...then from whence did it come?  and maybe that reality is also a simulation so from whence did it come?  and so on ...

...leading us back to the original problem...something from nothing.  It is inescapable...and yet here we are.  

[zep73]

@joc I gotta get to bed, it's 4.30am here. I'll answer tomorrow.

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Thanks for the question, @joc

Well I guess it's due to my approach to the subject. I was looking for explanations to quantum phenomena, like duality, and the explanation from the simulation hypothesis just hit me like a brick wall. Everything in QM suddenly made sense. There was logic in it after all. Duality is just graphics rendering.

I am still excited about how perfectly it fits and solves the problems, and I still wonder why there aren't any better solutions. After all, it's been over 100 years so far.

Another personal aspect is a sense of 'something fishy about everything'. Descartes demon. Zhuangzi's butterfly. I've always felt a bit like a spectator to the world, rather than being a part of it. But that's not why I am in favor of the hypothesis, it's just something I remember, looking back, that makes a bit more sense now, if the hypothesis is correct.

Please note: This is not something I believe in. I suspect it. And I think there is evidence, although it's moot for some people.

Dark matter might be a key. Wave function collapse more indicates that "something else" is causing the collapse. 

[Horta]

9 hours ago, joc said:

The other side of that equation is still:  If this is a virtual reality...a simulation...then from whence did it come?  and maybe that reality is also a simulation so from whence did it come?  and so on ...

Yes, good point. At some stage it is going to require a "base reality" that isn't a simulation, otherwise we get infinite regression. Then we start all over again working out how that base reality came to be. Which would be fair enough if so, yet proponents don't seem to offer a lot more than some alternative interpretation based on their personal logic. It seems lacking. It's very similar to creationism IMO.

[Horta]

 

I also

12 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Duality is the dual nature of all matter and light. It is wave-ish when we don't look, and a dense fixed lump, when we do. It changes, depending on our interaction.

That fact has been a problem in science for over 100 years, because no one knows why the buck it does that!?

There has been a few attempts to solve it. One attempt is the many worlds interpretation. The one that says there are many joc's and sci-nerd's. That interpretations has unfortunately failed. Recent experiments does not support it.
Then there is the concept of superdeterminism. That everything is predetermined. It may be correct, but I like the third option better: The simulation hypothesis.

Browsing a paper on the linked site, there is nothing much there you could really take to a physicist for verification or counter argument, it seems to consist mostly as a series of logical arguments. As the saying goes it's "not even wrong", it's just another way of looking at things. Where there is uncertainty or ignorance he puts VR in there as the explanation (the god VR of the gaps?). There are also some "straw men" claims (ie. the Big Bang" theory has a universe beginning from "nothing") and many of the ideas he replaces with VR aren't held strongly by science to begin with (most scientists have no trouble saying they "don't know" when appropriate). The whole thing seems eerily reminiscent of "intelligent design" in its methods and logical approach.

He also seems to be reinterpreting fields that he isn't qualified in such as quantum physics and cosmology via his own field of computer science (there was a published paper that slipped by peer review a while back that had creationists all worked up, it reinterpreted biological complexity from the pov of computer science to arrive at "intelligent design" lol). At best you could say his ideas can't as yet be disproven (certainly can't be proven either) and it depends on opinion or what you are willing to believe.

Also not sure this wave/particle duality is such a great paradox either. At least it isn't a paradox to some scientists. It's not well understood sure, but it's only a paradox if you cling to the preconception that things at the quantum scale should match intuitive expectations, should behave as larger objets. Why should they?

There are a lot of other things not really understand fully, but because they match intuition of how things should behave it's accepted.

The expectation that things be "particles" or "waves" itself might be the problem. As this physicist puts it...there are no such things as elementary "particles" to begin with. Light is neither a particle or a wave, it is a "thing" that is described by a wave function.

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Horta

[zep73]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Dark matter might be a key.

Interesting. Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that DM is a cosmetic solution?

[zep73]

14 hours ago, joc said:

phd's notwithstanding....

I read a great deal of what Whitworth has to say and the thought comes to mind that...virtual reality doesn't really exist.  We created virtual realities...how could we have created a 'virtual reality' if our reality was virtual?  None if it really makes any sense.  I think that there are answers to these questions but we don't know enough to answer them, and ...I think we don't know enough because we take some things for granted that we maybe shouldn't.

The other side of that equation is still:  If this is a virtual reality...a simulation...then from whence did it come?  and maybe that reality is also a simulation so from whence did it come?  and so on ...

...leading us back to the original problem...something from nothing.  It is inescapable...and yet here we are.  

I recently answered some questions, very similar to yours, so I'll be a little economic and pull out those answers again:

Quote

The simulation-in-simulation argument is primarily based on the assumption, that the universe hosting the computer simulating us, is exactly the same as ours. I find that unlikely, because we know that such a universe probably would be incapable of producing our simulation. So if we are simulated, it must be different. Like not having quantum mechanics and having a different computer technology.

To simulate a world in a universe, you don't need to simulate every particle in said universe, you just need to simulate what the inhabitants of the world are looking at. Everything else can be surface only. That corresponds well with the holographic principle, which says that all information of an object is stored on its surface.

Regarding their computing capacity, I would assume that theirs make ours look like toys.

But where did it all begin? I've also struggled with that question, and the closest I've come to a satisfying answer, is Tom Campbell's "fundamental consciousness". He's a lot better at explaining that than I am, so I'll spare myself that awkward manoeuvre, and refer you to youtube. He is, however, getting a bit too close to theism, IMO, but the basic ideas do make sense.
Note: He is talking about our universe, but I am of the opinion that it would better fit the original non-simulated universe!

Edited May 27, 2020 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

3 hours ago, Horta said:

Browsing a paper on the linked site, there is nothing much there you could really take to a physicist for verification or counter argument, it seems to consist mostly as a series of logical arguments. As the saying goes it's "not even wrong", it's just another way of looking at things. Where there is uncertainty or ignorance he puts VR in there as the explanation (the god VR of the gaps?). There are also some "straw men" claims (ie. the Big Bang" theory has a universe beginning from "nothing") and many of the ideas he replaces with VR aren't held strongly by science to begin with (most scientists have no trouble saying they "don't know" when appropriate). The whole thing seems eerily reminiscent of "intelligent design" in its methods and logical approach.

You're right. You should tell him that. Although I consider him a good source for arguments, he's not the best, and not the only one. I see his site as more of an introduction to the subject.

 

3 hours ago, Horta said:

Also not sure this wave/particle duality is such a great paradox either. At least it isn't a paradox to some scientists.

Matter responding to observation is extremely odd. Just because some physicists have gotten used to it, does not make it less of a weird thing.
There's a reason why some professors use the motto: Shut up and calculate.

[lightly]

16 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

So many things in science seems unrealistic. This would just add to the pile.

Did you know that, if the empty space in the atoms of your body was removed, you'd disappear, and become smaller than an atom.

A sense of realism is not the proper tool to try to crack the riddles of the universe.

I'm starting to wonder, for a few years now, if space is  Something,  rather than, Nothing.   Might that explain several questions about the nature of the universe and how it appears to work?      Afterall,   The supposed Singularity from which all space emerged was Something....and not  Nothing.

Also, I'm thinking that what we call and describe and think of as   "time" is simply . . . MOTION.      Think about it. .  .     . Is there ever   any " time" Wihout  Motion?      ?             ?

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, lightly said:

I'm starting to wonder, for a few years now, if space is  Something,  rather than, Nothing.   Might that explain several questions about the nature of the universe and how it appears to work?      Afterall,   The supposed Singularity from which all space emerged was Something....and not  Nothing.

Also, I'm thinking that what we call and describe and think of as   "time" is simply . . . MOTION.      Think about it. .  .     . Is there ever   any " time" Wihout  Motion?      ?             ?

That is actually the standard perception of it. But science starts at the big bang, and ends at the borders of our universe. The time before, and what could be beyond, is beyond scientific inquiry, because it can't be tested.

[lightly]

25 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

That is actually the standard perception of it. But science starts at the big bang, and ends at the borders of our universe. The time before, and what could be beyond, is beyond scientific inquiry, because it can't be tested.

Thanks sci-nerd.     ...That's another major mystery.    Our universe has no "borders".  .or edges. . .or specific center. .  Which seems completely impossible, and yet, that's the way it is....  ???   All that has expanded is still part of THE singularity !!  What began as ONE  . . .still IS !    ?    And if it is a repeating cycle of contraction and expansion ..it will still be ONE.   

I can't understand the big freeze idea...where the universe expands so much that ,eventually, something becomes nothing.  Impossible.  

   was/is a before, or after?  possible?     and is there a beyond ???  ?

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by lightly

[zep73]

11 minutes ago, lightly said:

Our universe has no "borders".  .or edges. . .or specific center

Sure it has. The borders/edges are moving more rapidly away from the big bang's location for each moment. We call that the expansion. Something without borders can't expand.
But we can't tell where the center is, because we can't observe the entire universe.

 

16 minutes ago, lightly said:

I can't understand the big freeze idea

Maybe you'll better be able to understand it's more formal name: The heat death of the universe. It simply means that all matter in it is 0 Kelvin

[lightly]

43 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Sure it has. The borders/edges are moving more rapidly away from the big bang's location for each moment. We call that the expansion. Something without borders can't expand.
But we can't tell where the center is, because we can't observe the entire universe.

 

 

I've been taught that the universe is expanding WITHIN itself. . and therefore has no edges or specific center.  

and ,if it contracts, it will contract back into ITSELF.   Which is another reason I think space may be Somethng   rather than  Nothing.

What is the ' border '. expanding   INTO ? ?   I would think that expansion must happen within Something.   Can expansion (space/energy/motion)  expand into  Nothing ??

Edited May 27, 2020 by lightly

[zep73]

1 minute ago, lightly said:

I've been taught that the universe is expanding WITHIN itself. . and therefore has no edges or specific center.  

What is the ' border '. expanding   INTO ? ?

Well, there are two ways to look at it.
1: The universe is everything, and it is getting bigger, which results in it getting less dense. So it's a density decrease that will never stop.
2: The universe is endless, but matter is not. What we see as expansion is just matter taking up more of the endless space around it. The border is where matter has gone to so far.

Either way, the visible universe is growing, and it has borders.

[spartan max2]

6 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Either way, the visible universe is growing, and it has borders.

But what is the border?

Theoretically if I had a ship that could somehow to me to the edge of the universe alive, and then I tried to go passed the border what would happen?

Like would I hit an invisible wall? How would I know it's the edge ?

[lightly]

4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Well, there are two ways to look at it.
1: The universe is everything, and it is getting bigger, which results in it getting less dense. So it's a density decrease that will never stop.
2: The universe is endless, but matter is not. What we see as expansion is just matter taking up more of the endless space around it. The border is where matter has gone to so far.

Either way, the visible universe is growing, and it has borders.

Thanks sci-nerd.     See, that's what always confuses me....the universe is EVERYTHING. ...oh, Except for,. The endless space AROUND it.      How can EVERYTHING.  . . .have Something AROUND it?

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

But what is the border?

Theoretically if I had a ship that could somehow to me to the edge of the universe alive, and then I tried to go passed the border what would happen?

Like would I hit an invisible wall? How would I know it's the edge ?

The border is the point where matter has gone to so far.

If you go there, you are the universe. If you go beyond the point where matter has gone to so far, you will be the expansion itself.

Edited May 27, 2020 by sci-nerd