Cosmic Rays could reveal if we're actually living in a simulation?

[Endypanzer]

https://www.businessinsider.com/we-may-be-living-in-the-matrix-2013-11
can an experiment with cosmic rays prove or disprove the hypothesis of simulation?

 

[phinds]

https://www.businessinsider.com/we-may-be-living-in-the-matrix-2013-11
can an experiment with cosmic rays prove or disprove the hypothesis of simulation?

How could ANYTHING disprove that? What ever you come up with, it's just part of the simulation.

 

[Endypanzer]

How could ANYTHING disprove that? What ever you come up with, it's just part of the simulation.

then why do scientists come up with these tests and rebuttal?

 

[ZapperZ]

then why do scientists come up with these tests and rebuttal?

because this is all part of a simulation to annoy people.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did anyone actually read the paper? (This is rhetorical)

It doesn't say we don't live in a simulation. It says we don't live in a bad simulation.

 

[Endypanzer]

because this is all part of a simulation to annoy people.

Zz.

Did anyone actually read the paper? (This is rhetorical)

It doesn't say we don't live in a simulation. It says we don't live in a bad simulation.

is there any scientific evidence for this hypothesis?

 

[EPR]

There is some heavy-duty coding in Nature(the human genome in the DNA molecule is roughly 3.3GB long but there are other versions of the code for other beings and plants):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coding_regionSo coding must be something nature is familiar with. Error correcting coding as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22771982

While this does not say the world is simulated, the existence of codes and error correcting codes says that coding is not unheard of in nature and may even suggest coding may have wider applications, e.g. in physics(are we retreaving the fundamental code of Nature by writing down equations?). Who knows

 

[DrChinese]

is there any scientific evidence for this hypothesis?

There is no known evidence for the hypothesis that we live in a simulation. Furthermore, it's a useless hypothesis as it answers no questions and makes no useful predictions.

AFAIK there are no physicists losing sleep over this concept, despite what you might conclude from the article from Business Insider. Logically, any scientific experiment's outcome could be "fudged" in a suitable simulation.

Please note that many people believe we live on a flat Earth despite all the evidence to the contrary. So if you believe we live in a simulation, I would say that is more of a religious hypothesis than a scientific one.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where we live in a perfect simulation is of course undecidable, just as one cannot prove or disprove we are all brains in vats or the universe was created last Thursday with a perfect history, or anyone of a number of equally dopey ideas.

But that's not what this paper (has anyone read it? That's rhetorical as well) says. It says that if we are living in a bad simulation, we would notice. Since we don't, we are not.

 

[DennisN]

It says that if we are living in a bad simulation, we would notice.

If the operating system of nature would be macOS/OS X, nature would be cute everywhere. It isn't.
If it would be Windows, nature would be annoying with occasional blue screens or bootups into BIOS. We don't see this in nature.
The Universe is hard to understand, expanding and seems to never get quite finished. This tells us that if there is an OS, it's likely some sort of Linux.