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

  1. 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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. jedishrfu

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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)
     
  4. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    Also the discovery of error correcting codes in adinkras from supersymmetry.
    http://www.onbeing.org/program/unco...ymbols-power-adinkras-and-nature-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...=1008&h=633&ei=wqrzT-rcC8SkrQHDwfW9Aw&zoom=1& are we inside of a brain? No we are not.
     
  5. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    ..........................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?
     
  6. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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?
     
  7. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,222
    Gold Member

    Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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...
     
  8. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    does this mean, superposition doesn't exist when it comes to objects bigger than a single particle?
     
  9. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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.
     
  10. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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
     
  11. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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?
     
  12. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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?
     
  13. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    please try to answer to the point . don't fill my head with too much stuff :)
     
  14. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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.
     
  15. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.
     
  16. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2012
  17. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,222
    Gold Member

    Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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'.
     
  18. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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?
     
  19. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    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
     
  20. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin

    This is indeed very convincing, but I believe the opposite: computers are derived from universe.

    Please understand me right: it's not the universe that is programmed into some computer, but it's our computers that are modelled after the universe.
     
  21. Re: Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe thin



    http://fqxi.org/data/articles/Schwab_Asp_Zeil.pdf
    "Mirror, mirror on the wall, what is the largest quantum object of
    them all? Aspelmeyer, Schwab, and Zeilinger have teamed up to
    find out"



    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1236v2.pdf
    ...It is a basic unresolved question of quantum mechanics
    whether the Schrodinger equation holds for truly macroscopic systems...
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2012
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?