- #1
alexsok
- 123
- 0
Came upon the following article:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Granted, there are some other approaches to the these metaphysical questions (string theory for instance) but... will it actually reveal the meaning of life or maybe finally discover GOD or refute his existence altogether?
Exciting times are ahead, too bad we won't be here to observe them :)
Also, Take note of the following article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...lytech_pr.html
There are many arguements against it:
The last paper on string theory also proposed somthing similar (as a way of solving the unsolvable)
Also:
On the other hand, it can also be argued for it:
So what do you guys think?
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Granted, there are some other approaches to the these metaphysical questions (string theory for instance) but... will it actually reveal the meaning of life or maybe finally discover GOD or refute his existence altogether?
Exciting times are ahead, too bad we won't be here to observe them :)
Also, Take note of the following article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...lytech_pr.html
An ultimate simulation needs an ultimate computer, and the new science of digitalism says that the universe itself is the ultimate computer — actually the only computer. Further, it says, all the computation of the human world, especially our puny little PCs, merely piggybacks on cycles of the great computer. Weaving together the esoteric teachings of quantum physics with the latest theories in computer science, pioneering digital thinkers are outlining a way of understanding all of physics as a form of computation.
From this perspective, computation seems almost a theological process. It takes as its fodder the primeval choice between yes or no, the fundamental state of 1 or 0. After stripping away all externalities, all material embellishments, what remains is the purest state of existence: here/not here. Am/not am. In the Old Testament, when Moses asks the Creator, "Who are you?" the being says, in effect, "Am." One bit. One almighty bit. Yes. One. Exist. It is the simplest statement possible.
There are many arguements against it:
Statistical mechanics cannot be broken, by any means. It governs the behavior of large numbers of particles without any direct ties to the underlying physics. That is to say, you could change the underlying physics all you want, but the general principles of thermodynamics would remain, as they are nothing more than a mathematical fact.
As for "too tremendous," what I mean is that there's no reasonable way for there to be any computer which has sufficient resources.
For example, there is currently reason to believe that space is quantized on the order of the Planck scale, which is about 10^-35 meters. Now, the dark matter density of the universe is about 1e-27 kg/m^3. If the dark matter particles are 1TeV in mass (a fairly high value), then that makes for about 0.001 particles per cubic meter.
Now, the size of the observable universe is about 15 billion light years, or 10^26 meters (spherical volume: 10^79). So in each direction, to store a proper position we need to store said position to an accuracy of 10^61. If we use trinary storage (the most efficient), this requires about 127 trinary bits. For each particle we would need six such numbers just for position and momentum data, or 762 trinary bits.
Now, if we have 0.001 particles per cubic meter, that's roughly 10^77 dark matter particles in the observable universe. So just to store the dark matter particles we can see, we would need roughly 10^80 trinary bits. And that's just storage. The gravitational potential between the dark matter particles inherently takes N(N+1) time to calculate. So your computer would need to be capable of performing 10^160 calculations within a Planck time (About 10^-44 seconds) in order to do the calculations properly. And that's just what we can see (let alone the nearly infinite universe we can't see), and only the gravitational attraction, only dark matter, etc.
Not happening.
The last paper on string theory also proposed somthing similar (as a way of solving the unsolvable)
"There are only three options to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe: It could be an unexplainable cosmic coincidence. With this option every scientific ambition to explain the finetuning ends. If we do not accept the fine-tuning of the universe as the result of pure coincidence, the question remains: How did we get our made-to-measure universe? - It could be a designer-universe, especially and deliberately made for us (or made for other reasons leading to conditions compatible with our existence). This assumption is, if supposing good intentions, the traditional subject of theological considerations and religious belief. If there is no clarity with regard to the intentions, it can also find its place in the context of gnostic scenarios or the recently much discussed "simulation argument" as well as the labyrinthic conceptions of science fiction.
If there remains anything at all for scientific endeavors, it is the third alternative. That our universe is made-to-measure for our existence would be no miracle, if there exists a sufficiently large ensemble of physically real universes. We would find ourselves necessarily in a universe compatible with our existence. The fine-tuning of the universe would be an anthropic selection effect."
Also:
"[...] vacuum tunneling between solutions with different values of the cosmological constant [...] is often assumed to be the mechanism which dynamically implements the anthropic principle. The universe jumps around between vacua until it finds itself in an anthropically allowed one, at which time we observe it."
On the other hand, it can also be argued for it:
We live within a simulation of reality that our conscious minds generate at real-time data rates. The human mind has the ability to compute much faster than any computer; even a quantum computer, on the scale of the universe that we now inhabit. Because of the chemical to electrical conversion that occurs as any signal is passed from one neuron to the next, there exists a period of time in which the signal travels @ the speed of light (i.e. when the signal is in an electrical format). But at the moment that the signal is generated there is no time component involved; it could take a trillion years for the thought to form, yet only moments for it to propogate across the brain. Also the fact that there is such a large gulf between the two systems must be considered; at some point there exists a separation of signals of the infinite variety (the infinite Ohm value as the signal is in chemical format). This allows again for the removal of any vestiges of the time vs. rate debate that thrives on the fact that there has to be a set "speed limit" to the universe; there is no limit to the rate at which a thought can be either created or stored. Think on this basic idea for a moment: imagine a pair of scissors the size of the solar system in length, yet only two inches wide at each end, when these solar scissors are closed the rate at which they cut the very vacuum is at a much higher velocity than the speed of light - actually thousands of times faster! So it is easy to see that, yes, in fact, we do live in a simulation of reality that we ourselves create. Oh, wait a moment - think on this: when one photon of a quantum entangled photon pair is forced to be observed, thusly causing the other photon to be similarly present, does not this occur instantaneously? As a matter of fact it does, and since this effect can be made to occur over almost any distance using standard techniques, it can be seen that even the speed of light is in question; as being a limiting factor on our universe.
So what do you guys think?
Last edited by a moderator: