Is Our Reality a Simulation?

[silvercats]

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

 

[jedishrfu]

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]

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/uncovering-codes-reality/feature/symbols-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.

 

[silvercats]

......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]

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]

......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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

please try to answer to the point . don't fill my head with too much stuff :)

 

[JPBenowitz]

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]

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]

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.

it is either shut or open ,not in the superposition, regardless of my observation of it.

the above is the correct one.

 

[DaveC426913]

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]

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]

Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.

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.

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 you 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

 

[haael]

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) .

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 modeled after the universe.

 

[audioloop]

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 for macroscopic things.

but
DaveC426913, told me that day to day objects DO behave like this. I am . did you 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

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 Schrödinger equation holds for truly macroscopic systems...

 

[JPBenowitz]

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 you 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

When a Particle Physicist says macroscopic objects can exhibit quantum behaviors like superposition they mean something on the scale of an entire atom not something as large as a window.

 

[DaveC426913]

When a Particle Physicist says macroscopic objects can exhibit quantum behaviors like superposition they mean something on the scale of an entire atom

Macroscopic objects by definition are larger than atoms. Heck, microscopic objects are larger than atoms.

They are well beyond single atoms now. They're superposing buckyballs.

 

[Petyab]

There's a part of me that agrees with my face to tree analysis that before I look at the tree a particular view isn't there. That doesn't mean that for another observer its not there. Two people viewing the same object are likely to see it slightly different. If you saw the exact thing as I did you would have to be me because I see parts of my body as I look at the tree differently than you see the parts of my body as you look at the tree. However...just because something isn't visible in an inertial reference frame does not mean that essence isn't being radiated by the object.

As for the window closed and open thing but never in superposition; think about right before the window cracks open. At some point the window frame leaves the border of the holding frame and so is there a superposition of the window still closed on its way to you or from you as the window opens that is perhaps weaker than the radiant energy you perceive as the window open? Could be. You'd need high speed cameras to do that...or be really visually accute to be able to see the light escaping at a certain speed being the window closed as you observe the new forming macroemission of the window being open. That's not off topic but is kinda off topic for the main question.

In a way you can think of life as a computer iteration; not a simulation. The brain is a very powerful computer. When you move your body you have to move electrical charge to facilitate muscle movement. Consider that what was once tar, let say, is now your foot. Obviously there is a lattice network seperating the two occasions with time as an index of that change. Dimensional change can be an index of change in of itself. Consider a flip book. The pages can turn to occupy the same space but show a different image. Because you are moving around the Earth it would seem reasonable that there is a scattering of what you experience somewhere out there although the superposition of other surfaces and structures within freespace may alter that event from fully being perceivable visually as a sort of video of you flipping the pages of the flip book. Life really happens so it's not a simulation. Whether you're opening or closing the windows, writing what may seem like weird stuff like I am, or eating a banana...it's really happening. Hope that helps.

 

[scijeebus]

Strictly speaking, you don't ever observe objects in reality, you observe electrical impulses sent to your brain. But, it doesn't really makes sense how we got here in the first place without a universe before our existence, and this "computer" may somehow need infinite processing power since we can't observe a boundary to the universe. I think in order to have a chance of saying "reality is a computer", we need to first recreate reality in one of our own.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Strictly speaking, you don't ever observe objects in reality, you observe electrical impulses sent to your brain. But, it doesn't really makes sense how we got here in the first place without a universe before our existence, and this "computer" may somehow need infinite processing power since we can't observe a boundary to the universe. I think in order to have a chance of saying "reality is a computer", we need to first recreate reality in one of our own.

What exactly do we need to recreate reality in? It doesn't really make sense to make assumptions about this hypothetical computer's abilities if we don't even know if it's there. That's almost like describing the attributes of god.

 

[silvercats]

1. Does superposition thing also valid for macroscopic things? (except buckyballs) .

2. When we are not looking at the objects, are they really there or not? (if yes,are there proof?)

one line answers are expected. yes or no answers are good. (except for the examples )
thanks !
you guys have been really helpful with answers.thanks all!

 

[DaveC426913]

1. Does superposition thing also valid for macroscopic things? (except buckyballs) .

It is valid in principle, yes. There is no boundary between atomic-scale object behavior and macro-scale object behavior. In reality, the effect is essentially zero, as mentioned.*

2. When we are not looking at the objects, are they really there or not? (if yes,are there proof?)

They are there.

There is no proof in science, only predictive models and evidence.

* here is an analogy, so you understand why I keep saying 'in principle but not in practice':

We are talking about probabilities. There is a non-zero probability that all the air in the room you are currently sitting in in will suddenly but temporarily move to the left, leaving you gasping in vacuum. The laws of thermodynamics do not preclude this happening (temporarily).

However, it is a low probability. One particle can do this easily. A hundred particles all doing it simultaneously is less likely but not improbable. 10¹⁰ particles all doing it simultaneously is extremely unlikely. Every time you increase the number of atoms you are considering, the chance that those new atoms will do the same thing is exponentially less. A whole room of atoms contains somewhere around 10²⁵ .

So, It could happen tomorrow or it could happen in a billion years. The median probability is somewhere upwards of trillions of trillions of years - longer than the life of the universe.

So I ask you to define for yourself: Can it be said than the air in the room obeys laws that allow it to leap to one side? Is it a non-zero probability that it will happen?Same thing goes for superposition.

 

[Fiziqs]

Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.

Everyone has their own opinion about whether or not macro-scale objects can be in a state of superposition, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure. On this point science and religion have a lot in common, everyone has a definite opinion, but that opinion is based purely on faith.

Here's what we do know. Every particle that is not presently being "measured", is in a state of superposition. It's position can only be defined as a state of probabilities. It might be here, or it might be there, or it might be somewhere in between, but until we look, it's all of the above. That means that every particle in your body, and every particle that makes up everything that you see around you, is in a state of superposition. But obviously it doesn't look like that to you. You and everything around you appear to be in one well defined state. So that means that although every particle in your body is in a state of superposition, you as a whole, you as a macro-scale object, are not. Well at least you're not in a superposition relative to you.

It may well be that relative to someone else, you are in state of superposition. There simply is no evidence, one way or the other, to prove whether macro-scale objects can be in a state of superposition, but every physicist has their own opinion, and will defend that opinion by whatever logic they find convincing.

But the bottom line is...nobody knows.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Non-falsifiable theories are pointless to discuss, furthermore when threads are closed do not reopen them elsewhere.