🔒 Human? Slide comment captcha below and wait for the unlock button. (Cookies required)
4 thoughts on “Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation”
Or how about: “computer simulations must by definition conform to mathematical laws which underlie the laws of physics which govern our reality.” Doh! Their clever arguments will get them 15 minutes of fame, but it’s a chicken/egg thing. We write computer simulations that, by definition, cannot simulate situations which cannot exist in reality. Even “impossible” things are simply improbable and therefore remotely possible. It’s sad when scientists are so infused with bias and cannot recognize it.
There is a difference between what laws of physics I program into my virtual reality and the computable consequences. If I give you antigravity boots, for example, I could slip up and program them to be stronger than all the gravity of all the mass in the virtual universe. When you turn them on, they might repel all mass in the universe, causing a Big Bang, but the speed at which everything would fly away from your boots would be limited by the processing power of the simulation. I don’t see how it could it not be. Still, I’d agree that finding limits, such as the speed of light, may or may not be evidence of a simulation. I may be misunderstanding their argument, but just because a program has a limit and a universe has a limit doesn’t make a universe a program.
I agree regarding two limited things not necessarily being equal. There are, however, theories in physics which state that a situation, real, computer simulated or simulated in written equations cannot exist if those states are not *possibilities* in the universe. In other words, we cannot conceive of or create anything which does not already exist or conform to physical laws, despite the fact that those bizzare states may not be observable or exist in our area of the universe. If we were to create a state which cannot exist within the universe, whether a tangible reality or an equation describing such state, we would by definition be in violation of the laws of physics. To date, there have been no violations of the laws of physics because if we can make it, it is therefore possible. Kinda blows your mind, but we are locked in a very big box and anything we conceive is constrained by the parameters of that box.
I don’t really get why this would be true. If it is my simulation, I could program it to allow things not allowed in the universe in which the program exists, at least from the point of view of the sims inside. We can fly unassisted in dreams, for example.
Or how about: “computer simulations must by definition conform to mathematical laws which underlie the laws of physics which govern our reality.” Doh! Their clever arguments will get them 15 minutes of fame, but it’s a chicken/egg thing. We write computer simulations that, by definition, cannot simulate situations which cannot exist in reality. Even “impossible” things are simply improbable and therefore remotely possible. It’s sad when scientists are so infused with bias and cannot recognize it.
There is a difference between what laws of physics I program into my virtual reality and the computable consequences. If I give you antigravity boots, for example, I could slip up and program them to be stronger than all the gravity of all the mass in the virtual universe. When you turn them on, they might repel all mass in the universe, causing a Big Bang, but the speed at which everything would fly away from your boots would be limited by the processing power of the simulation. I don’t see how it could it not be. Still, I’d agree that finding limits, such as the speed of light, may or may not be evidence of a simulation. I may be misunderstanding their argument, but just because a program has a limit and a universe has a limit doesn’t make a universe a program.
I agree regarding two limited things not necessarily being equal. There are, however, theories in physics which state that a situation, real, computer simulated or simulated in written equations cannot exist if those states are not *possibilities* in the universe. In other words, we cannot conceive of or create anything which does not already exist or conform to physical laws, despite the fact that those bizzare states may not be observable or exist in our area of the universe. If we were to create a state which cannot exist within the universe, whether a tangible reality or an equation describing such state, we would by definition be in violation of the laws of physics. To date, there have been no violations of the laws of physics because if we can make it, it is therefore possible. Kinda blows your mind, but we are locked in a very big box and anything we conceive is constrained by the parameters of that box.
I don’t really get why this would be true. If it is my simulation, I could program it to allow things not allowed in the universe in which the program exists, at least from the point of view of the sims inside. We can fly unassisted in dreams, for example.