Is the entire universe just a simulation ?

[zep73 8,357]

@Horta I admit I got the "pilots perspective" wrong. But that does not mean that the pilots perspective it correct. It's just how he perceives it.

Let's pretend that the pilot is Clark Kent, and he decides to leave the ship and fly ahead of it at 40,000 km/s. He would then not see the light, looking back, because he himself is flying above lightspeed in total.

I'm really trying hard to make myself understandable with a very difficult subject, that has no parallels we can use. But the main point is that ~300,000 km/s is as fast as anything goes. No matter what. Light does not go faster, because it's on a moving object.

[Horta 3,447]

17 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

@Horta I admit I got the "pilots perspective" wrong. But that does not mean that the pilots perspective it correct. It's just how he perceives it.

Assuming you were going to create a VR from scratch. Why would you program light to behave the way it does? I can think of a lot easier ways that would use less resources. It's completely counter intuitive and seems unnecessary. 

[zep73 8,357]

14 minutes ago, Horta said:

Assuming you were going to create a VR from scratch. Why would you program light to behave the way it does? I can think of a lot easier ways that would use less resources. It's completely counter intuitive and seems unnecessary. 

It only gets messy in thought experiments, like we just attempted. Nothing humanity will ever achieve, will come close to them.

As for our daily lives, it works perfectly. We can even use it to determine the movements of deep space objects. Bluish means approaching, reddish means moving away.

But, if I were them, and didn't want my sims to know they were sims, I'd not set a speed limit. Maybe they don't mind us knowing, or maybe they don't care.

 

Edit: It could also be a resource issue. Limiting the speed of light might reduce processing power.

Edited June 14, 2020 by sci-nerd

[Horta 3,447]

8 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

It only gets messy in thought experiments, like we just attempted. Nothing humanity will ever achieve, will come close to them.

As for our daily lives, it works perfectly. We can even use it to determine the movements of deep space objects. Bluish means approaching, reddish means moving away.

But, if I were them, and didn't want my sims to know they were sims, I'd not set a speed limit. Maybe they don't mind us knowing, or maybe they don't care.

 

Edit: It could also be a resource issue. Limiting the speed of light might reduce processing power.

I don't mean the limit on its own, I can understand why that might be a necessity. I mean the limit re relativity. The way it always travels at the speed of light from any particular "inertial frame". As in the previous example. Why wouldn't the light from the ships headlights be measured only 10% faster by those travelling in the spaceship, as well as those observing from earth? That would seem more intuitive and straight forward.

I still think the best argument for VR is based on logic. Somehow inferring it from physics doesn't seem satisfying and gets bogged down in discussing minutia with a lot of it simply depending on what pov you hold. It is very likely that in the (probably not too distant) future we will produce VR that appears indistinguishable from reality. The social implications of that will be immense, but that's another thread. If that happens there would be no reason in principle that given enough processing and power resources that someone couldn't make a virtual universe by setting the initial conditions and letting it evolve. Or perhaps crating a fake universe that only appears to have evolved and work a certain way.

[Horta 3,447]

I have often wondered/ mused about light, which can can lead to some weird ideas. Though I'm not pretending any of them are right (I don't think they are) but it's still fun.

Presumably/theoretically if distance shrinks to 0 at the speed of light and time stops...from the pov of light wouldn't it be everywhere all at once? Or better said, nowhere...ever. If there is no time and space for it to exist in (from its pov)?

Or perhaps there is only one quanta of light that is everywhere in the universe all of the time? Yet because of our limiting concepts of time and space we get an imperfect partial view of it lol? That would make things like retro-causality and any number of seemingly weird effects perhaps more understandable. It might also help explain the double split experiment and quantum eraser experiments. Things like time and space would be irrelevant to light under closer observation, but relevant to us. Hence lots of mystery and paradoxes.

[Cookie Monster 8,545]

On 4/14/2016 at 5:28 PM, OverSword said:

The mathematical probability that the universe and all of it's intelligent occupants are a simulation is extremely high. Most people are so self important that when this subject comes up they assume that it means the universe is simulated but the people are real like in the matrix.

Every time mankind develops a new technology he attempts to frame reality using it.

We arent in a simulation, come tomorrow it will be replaced with a new theory.

[lightly 8,810]

5 hours ago, Horta said:

I have often wondered/ mused about light, which can can lead to some weird ideas. Though I'm not pretending any of them are right (I don't think they are) but it's still fun.

Presumably/theoretically if distance shrinks to 0 at the speed of light and time stops...from the pov of light wouldn't it be everywhere all at once? Or better said, nowhere...ever. If there is no time and space for it to exist in (from its pov)?

Or perhaps there is only one quanta of light that is everywhere in the universe all of the time? Yet because of our limiting concepts of time and space we get an imperfect partial view of it lol? That would make things like retro-causality and any number of seemingly weird effects perhaps more understandable. It might also help explain the double split experiment and quantum eraser experiments. Things like time and space would be irrelevant to light under closer observation, but relevant to us. Hence lots of mystery and paradoxes.

As usual...always?   Great thoughts Horta !      Reminds  me of an old saying...Nothing is Impossible.    As in ,there can't possibly be NOTHING.   I'm sure some might disagree with that assessment...but I'm absolutely convinced.   

[OverSword 58,937]

5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Every time mankind develops a new technology he attempts to frame reality using it.

We arent in a simulation, come tomorrow it will be replaced with a new theory.

It’s not we are in a simulation it’s we are a simulation and you mean you don’t believe we are a simulation 

Edited June 14, 2020 by OverSword

[lightly 8,810]

The true test of a simulation must be that's it's so good...the simulated think that they themselves,,,and the rest of the simulation ...is real.     ?        I was just thinking though...what is a movie?  But a simulation of reality...but of course ,the makers of the movie know it's a movie...a simulation of reality...which was ,in reality,   reality only while they were making the movie.   I think.

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by lightly