I Can a simulation hypothesis simulate quantum physics?

[Endypanzer]

From the point of view of science and physics, is the simulation hypothesis true? What is the scientific refutation of this hypothesis? What do physicists say about this?

 

[EPR]

You can't refute negatives(e.g. that there is no demon deceiving us or brain in a vat scenarios or God or some other noise). It is the arguments that count in the discussions. These are the reasons why this hypothesis is too far fetched and this thread will likely be locked if you don't lay out arguments which can be tested. Even from the point of view of 19th century physics this hypothesis could not be refuted for the reasons stated above.

 

[Endypanzer]

You can't refute negatives(e.g. that there is no demon deceiving us or brain in a vat scenarios or God or some other noise). It is the arguments that count in the discussions. These are the reasons why this hypothesis is too far fetched and this thread will likely be locked if you don't lay out arguments which can be tested. Even from the point of view of 19th century physics this hypothesis could not be refuted for the reasons stated above.

But what about the lack of atoms and energy for such a simulation?

 

[EPR]

But what about the lack of atoms and energy for such a simulation?

No reputable source will say this.

 

[Endypanzer]

No reputable source will say this.

It said at the University of Oxford:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...scientists-prove-elon-musk-wrong-677251?amp=1

 

[EPR]

It said at the University of Oxford:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...scientists-prove-elon-musk-wrong-677251?amp=1

Nowhere in that article is it said or implied that

what about the lack of atoms and energy for such a simulation?

In fact it says the opposite - a simulated universe will not simulate all aspects of our reality.

 

[DrChinese]

From the point of view of science and physics, is the simulation hypothesis true? What is the scientific refutation of this hypothesis? What do physicists say about this?

From the perspective of science, this is a philosophical or religious question and there are no scientific issues. In other words: If you don't know the difference between you being a conscious person, or being a computer program emulating you, I don't think any scientific experiment or theory will help you to decide.

See also this idea, which is just as "reasonable" as any simulation hypothesis: Last Thursdayism

 

[Heidi]

If we do not ask too much to computers they are able to simulate quantum mechanics. (i am not sure for QFT).

 

[Johnny5454]

You can't refute negatives(e.g. that there is no demon deceiving us or brain in a vat scenarios or God or some other noise). It is the arguments that count in the discussions. These are the reasons why this hypothesis is too far fetched and this thread will likely be locked if you don't lay out arguments which can be tested. Even from the point of view of 19th century physics this hypothesis could not be refuted for the reasons stated above.

According to our laws of physics, is such a simulation possible?

 

[PeroK]

According to our laws of physics, is such a simulation possible?

According to the hypothesis our laws of physics are simulated and count for nothing.

You could, for example, create a simulation where the laws of physics in the simulation made such a simulation impossible.

 

[fresh_42]

We are far from any sound models in this thread. It's far too speculative. Hence I close this thread.

As always: If someone has a peer reviewed related paper from a serious scientific journal, please contact a mentor to possibly re-open the thread. Thank you for participation.