Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe things,


by silvercats
Tags: living, observe, realityis, simulatedcomputer, things
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#1
Jul3-12, 08:57 PM
P: 54
Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe things,they are not there?
if so,any proof?

what do you think
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Mapping the road to quantum gravity
Chameleon crystals could enable active camouflage (w/ video)
jedishrfu
jedishrfu is offline
#2
Jul3-12, 09:21 PM
P: 2,491
In favor of this is the pixelated nature of the universe at the Planck length or the encoding of information limit on the surface of a black hole.

I took a computer simulation course a few years ago where we learned that simulation error manifested itself in our model as energy being added or removed from the system. Simulation error was due to rounding error or the choice of ODE solver (ie euler is bad too much error introduced vs rungekutta is good)
JPBenowitz
JPBenowitz is offline
#3
Jul3-12, 09:36 PM
P: 121
Quote Quote by jedishrfu View Post
In favor of this is the pixelated nature of the universe at the Planck length or the encoding of information limit on the surface of a black hole.
Also the discovery of error correcting codes in adinkras from supersymmetry.
http://www.onbeing.org/program/uncov...e-reality/1460

But, then again are we looking at this in the wrong manner? There are many aspects of the universe that we see in every day objects from computers to sea shells. Yes, the universe appears pixelated at very small levels, and yes there have been mathematical discoveries of error correcting codes in theoretical physics but does this mean we are living in the matrix? No, indeed it does not. What this means is that the universe has an aesthetically incredible mathematical structure permeating throughout itself generating patterns in a variety of natural phenomenon. Consider this picture of the structure of the human brain and the universe http://www.google.com/imgres?num=10&...wfW9Aw&zoom=1& are we inside of a brain? No we are not.

silvercats
silvercats is offline
#4
Jul3-12, 10:10 PM
P: 54

Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe things,


..........................is that true until we observe things,they are not there?
ex: if everybody is sleeping and no one is looking at the moon. moons doesn't exist there unless somebody actually aware of it ? is this true?proof?
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#5
Jul3-12, 10:12 PM
P: 54
are you telling me that nature/universe being similar to a computer simulation/mathematical pattern, doesn't means that IT IS a computer simulation.right? some people would argue IT IS though but nobody really knows?
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#6
Jul3-12, 10:19 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
..........................is that true until we observe things,they are not there?
ex: if everybody is sleeping and no one is looking at the moon. moons doesn't exist there unless somebody actually aware of it ? is this true?proof?
No. Very simplistically, it was a thought experiment, based on QM and wave function collapse. The implication is simply that, in principal, particles have a non-zero chance (like one in a zillion) of being "elsewhere" if they're not being observed. You can extrapolate that to the bajillion particles that make up the Moon.

Problem is, that it applies to single particle systems at the basis, and every time you add a particle, the odds that all the particles in the system are "elsewhere" drops. So, multiply that by one bajillion, and you have a one-in-a-zillion-bajillion chance of it happening.

For objects even as large as a microbe, this works out that you could wait for the life of the universe till it dies without it happening.

But it's not a zero chance...
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#7
Jul3-12, 10:27 PM
P: 54
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
No. Very simplistically, it was a thought experiment, based on QM and wave function collapse. The implication is simply that, in principal, particles have a non-zero chance (like one in a zillion) of being "elsewhere" if they're not being observed. You can extrapolate that to the bajillion particles that make up the Moon.

Problem is, that it applies to single particle systems at the basis, and every time you add a particle, the odds that all the particles in the system are "elsewhere" drops. So, multiply that by one bajillion, and you have a one-in-a-zillion-bajillion chance of it happening.

For objects even as large as a microbe, this works out that you could wait for the life of the universe till it dies without it happening.

But it's not a zero chance...
does this mean, superposition doesn't exist when it comes to objects bigger than a single particle?
AnTiFreeze3
AnTiFreeze3 is offline
#8
Jul3-12, 10:53 PM
AnTiFreeze3's Avatar
P: 245
In the 2010 Isaac Asimov Debate, one of the participating theoretical physicists concluded that it is possible that we are living in a simulation.

Rene Descartes actually pondered this very concept, and concluded that it doesn't matter either way. This world is real enough to us.
San K
San K is offline
#9
Jul4-12, 12:02 AM
P: 915
Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
does this mean, superposition doesn't exist when it comes to objects bigger than a single particle?
scientists have gone beyond a single particle......upto buckyballs and microscopic diamonds

note: even a macroscopic object has a wave-function but its way too small for its effect to be noticed
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#10
Jul4-12, 12:43 AM
P: 54
my problem is that, Do normal objects in our day to day life behave like this?simple yes or no answer please.

ex: there is a computer program to generate random number after 20 secs. let's say it generated "2". and we still don't know that it generated "2" BUT it has been more than 20 seconds now. so it must have generated "2" by now.

so,let's say I turn by head after a 60 seconds (so the 20 secs number,"2" is already generated but I haven't observed it yet), and see it is number "2" . does this mean , at the 59th second(between 20-59 secs,after the generation of number ,but didn't see it yet) before I turn my head and see the number,the number "2" hasn't been generated yet even thought it should output a number after 20 secs?
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#11
Jul4-12, 12:52 AM
P: 54
here is a simple example. Let's say I told my little brother to close the window in the other room that is far(sometimes he obey me sometimes doesn't). So I don't know if he did or not. but he did something. even thought he did something; until I observe it, is the window at a neither shut or open(in superposition) state?

or it is either shut or open ,not in the superposition, regardless of my observation of it.it is just I do not know the state but it is in one state BECAUSE it is a big object. so it doesn't have the superposition mysterious behavior. Case 1(it is in superposition until i observe) or case 2 (it is either open or closed ,my observation doesn't matter coz it is a big item) . OR neither?

the time has passed. so something must have happened.

is my question clear?
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#12
Jul4-12, 12:53 AM
P: 54
please try to answer to the point . don't fill my head with too much stuff :)
JPBenowitz
JPBenowitz is offline
#13
Jul4-12, 01:28 AM
P: 121
Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
are you telling me that nature/universe being similar to a computer simulation/mathematical pattern, doesn't means that IT IS a computer simulation.right? some people would argue IT IS though but nobody really knows?
Just because mathematical patterns are present in both computer programs and the universe DOES NOT mean we are living in the matrix. Pi is present in population distributions, does this mean populations distributions are related to circles, no.
JPBenowitz
JPBenowitz is offline
#14
Jul4-12, 01:37 AM
P: 121
Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
here is a simple example. Let's say I told my little brother to close the window in the other room that is far(sometimes he obey me sometimes doesn't). So I don't know if he did or not. but he did something. even thought he did something; until I observe it, is the window at a neither shut or open(in superposition) state?

or it is either shut or open ,not in the superposition, regardless of my observation of it.it is just I do not know the state but it is in one state BECAUSE it is a big object. so it doesn't have the superposition mysterious behavior. Case 1(it is in superposition until i observe) or case 2 (it is either open or closed ,my observation doesn't matter coz it is a big item) . OR neither?

the time has passed. so something must have happened.

is my question clear?
Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.
San K
San K is offline
#15
Jul4-12, 01:40 AM
P: 915
Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
here is a simple example. Let's say I told my little brother to close the window in the other room that is far(sometimes he obey me sometimes doesn't). So I don't know if he did or not. but he did something. even thought he did something; until I observe it, is the window at a neither shut or open(in superposition) state?
No.

the window is either shut or open. its never in superposition.

it just that you don't know but your lil bro does and even if he did not know it still would not be in superposition.


Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
it is either shut or open ,not in the superposition, regardless of my observation of it.
the above is the correct one.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#16
Jul4-12, 07:11 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by silvercats View Post
my problem is that, Do normal objects in our day to day life behave like this?simple yes or no answer please.
Yes.

However, as noted, the effect is inversely correlated with the complexity of the object. If you have to wait 10^80 years for a microbe to spontaneously exhibit QM phenomena, the chances are as good as zero.

The point being made is simply that 'as good as zero' is not 'zero'.
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#17
Jul4-12, 07:27 AM
P: 54
thanks people!
So as some people say,things are not actually there until we really observe the 'thing' is not true,right?

explanation : computer simulations don't create an object unless a character interacts with it because it is a waste of resources. We we turn really fast in a game ,and our VGA is slow we can see trees and stuff are forming as we look real time.but they were not there before (not generated) .

Is that the same case for our actual reality too?any proof? is that why they say that we are living in a computer simulation?
silvercats
silvercats is offline
#18
Jul4-12, 07:34 AM
P: 54
Quote Quote by JPBenowitz View Post
Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.
Quote Quote by San K View Post
No.

the window is either shut or open. its never in superposition.

it just that you don't know but your lil bro does and even if he did not know it still would not be in superposition.




the above is the correct one.
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Yes.

However, as noted, the effect is inversely correlated with the complexity of the object. If you have to wait 10^80 years for a microbe to spontaneously exhibit QM phenomena, the chances are as good as zero.

The point being made is simply that 'as good as zero' is not 'zero'.
Normal objects means big thins that we interact daily. like that windows talk.
san, told that the windows is not in superposition.
JPBenowitz , told that it is not valid for macroscopic things.

but
DaveC426913, told me that day to day objects DO behave like this. I am confused. did ya mean, day to day(big) objects/macroscopic stuff do actually behave like how small particles behave(superposition) , or their particles behave like that ,but not the object? :O


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How is a quantum computer simulated? Quantum Physics 0
Simulated reality within another General Discussion 1
Mythical living things General Discussion 14
living things and cells? Biology 5