does it make even sense talking about whether we live in computer simulation or not, how could we ever know ?

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If you and I are simulations who is to say MACS0647 (furthest known Galaxy) isn't just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a distance Galaxy which isn't actually there? 

You can't ever know. Which is why it is a totally stupid and unscientific idea. I suppose it has some value as an example for philosophy students in the first week of their course. After that, it is no more valuable than "if a tree falls in a forest ..."

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can't ever know. Which is why it is a totally stupid and unscientific idea. I suppose it has some value as an example for philosophy students in the first week of their course. After that, it is no more valuable than "if a tree falls in a forest ..."

If "you" references us here today than sure. In a billion years why not? At some point provided Humans don't go extinct first there is a chance we will travel to other galaxies. Doing so will prove they are there and provide new opportunities for study. 

12 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

This is a straw-man argument.  If we live in a simulation then I could be giving you a back-rub and still could be "just a signal within the simulations program mimicking a polar bear"

Also if you would go to MACS0647 and send me a tweet it would make no difference in your argument. We detected it that means we know where it was billions of years ago. In relation to how long ago the photons we receive were emitted and the expansion of the universe and other different factors. But we are aware of these factors.
So explain please how would we better measure c if you were in MACS0647.

Isn't that what this thread is about though? Keep in mind in my first post I mentioned that limits as a "clue". I made no claim anything would be proved. If this were a simulated universe a lot of bets are off. You and eye could both be programmed mimicking debate for the sake of entertaining some god like alien's pet gold fish. There are not known hard and fast rules to a simulated universe as its design would be serving a purpose beyond our observation. 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If "you" references us here today than sure. In a billion years why not? At some point provided Humans don't go extinct first there is a chance we will travel to other galaxies. Doing so will prove they are there and provide new opportunities for study. 

Doesn’t tell you anything about whether it is a simulation or not.

You can’t know. By definition. 

[Ten oz]

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

You said you can't simulate something larger than X inside an X.

I gave you an example of simulating something larger than X in an X.

I can't make it any clearer.

Quote

 

The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

 

Our Universe cannot be simulated by computers we are capable of creating. It would take more computing power than exists in the Universe. That article goes into a bit. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Doesn’t tell you anything about whether it is a simulation or not.

You can’t know. By definition. 

I never said it could. Rather I referenced the limits of the Universe as a clue. I have no idea if we are living in a simulated Universe nor do I have any idea have to prove it one way or another. 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Rather I referenced the limits of the Universe as a clue.

But any such limits don't give you any sort of clue. They can't. Nothing can. 

For example, the universe is quantised in certain ways. It may turn out that space and time are quantised (pixellated) as well. Does this tell us that it might be a simulation? No. Because that can be just the way the universe is. And, if space and time are not quantised, that could imply it is an analogue computer. 

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That article goes into a bit. 

That may be an argument against. On the other hand, you can use very simple rules to create something that cannot be predicted for exactly the same reasons. So I don't find it a compelling counter-argument.

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

But any such limits don't give you any sort of clue. They can't. Nothing can. 

I can neither confirm or deny this. 

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That may be an argument against. On the other hand, you can use very simple rules to create something that cannot be predicted for exactly the same reasons. So I don't find it a compelling counter-argument

Which is perfectly fine. I am not sure I wouldn't say it is compelling. It just makes sense to me that anything built within this universe would be limited by this universe. For that to apply to simulation theory the Universe where the processor we are in exists would need to follow similar rules and who's to say it does, not me.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It just makes sense to me that

That is a terrible argument. Especially in science but even in philosophy. 

[geordief]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

For example, the universe is quantised in certain ways. It may turn out that space and time are quantised (pixellated) as well. 

If mass-energy curves spacetime and mass  and energy are quantized (are they?)  does it follow that spacetime curvature is also quantized?

From that would spacetime be quantized?

 

 

 

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a terrible argument. Especially in science but even in philosophy. 

Am I making an argument? I am sharing my thoughts on a theoretical matter. No where have I argued I am right or anyone else is wrong. 

As for my view of a computer in this universe being able to simulate the universe, process power aside, the matter of infinite recursion comes into play as an infinite loop would be created. So if this universe is a simulation it would have to exist is a another universe. 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Am I making an argument?

Yes. Your argument is: "anything built within this universe would be limited by this universe"

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No where have I argued I am right

Not relevant.

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So if this universe is a simulation it would have to exist is a another universe. 

Well, obviously.

13 minutes ago, geordief said:

If mass-energy curves spacetime and mass  and energy are quantized (are they?)  does it follow that spacetime curvature is also quantized?

Energy is only quantised in specific conditions (for example, the energy levels in an atom). But there is no quantisation in general. A single photon is quantised in the sense that it is indivisible. But a photon can have any energy - the possible energies are not quantised.

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes. Your argument is: "anything built within this universe would be limited by this universe"

 

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, obviously.

If you disagree that a computer cannot simulate the universe it is in why would it be obvious? 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Ten oz

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If you disagree that a computer cannot simulate the universe it is in why would it be obvious? 

You have moved the goalposts again. Obviously, a simulation of a universe is not the same as the universe that it is in. It is a different, simulated universe.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have moved the goalposts again. Obviously, a simulation of a universe is not the same as the universe that it is in. It is a different, simulated universe.

I am not moving the goal post. I think there are computing limits within the universe. I already referenced such, Here. If you disagree than that is your prerogative. It seems we both agree a simulation of a specific universe can't take place within that universe so what's the crux of our continued exchange? 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It seems we both agree a simulation of a specific universe can't take place within that universe so what's the crux of our continued exchange?

We don't agree that. I don't see why a universe could not be simulated in that same universe. But, obviously, that simulated universe would not be the universe it was simulated in. So if we were to simulate our universe, for example, it would not necessarily have a planet exactly the same as Earth with people called Ten oz and Strange.

Your original argument was different:

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

A simulated universe wouldn't be able to exist equal to or larger than the universe it was created within. 

Which is about the size of the universe being simulated.

 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

But, obviously, that simulated universe would not be the universe it was simulated in.

If you were to run a perfect simulation of this Universe the computer you were running such a simulation on would have to exist within the simulation or else your simulation would not be accurate. 

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

So if we were to simulate our universe, for example, it would not necessarily have a planet exactly the same as Earth with people called Ten oz and Strange.

Earth is a planet and exists in the Universe. If you ran a simulation of this Universe and replaced Earth with something else the simulation would not be of this Universe. You would be changing endless bits of data associated with the creation and existence of Earth which would change data associated with solar system and etc. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by Ten oz

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If you were to run a perfect simulation of this Universe the computer you were running such a simulation on would have to exist within the simulation or else your simulation would not be accurate. 

So that sort of simulation cannot exist. 

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Earth is a planet and exists in the Universe. If you ran a simulation of this Universe and replaced Earth with something else the simulation would not be of this Universe.

I don't agree. So, for example, there are simulations of the way the large scale structure of the universe forms. This produces realistic results: the structures look like what we observe. None the galaxies are our galaxy, though. But it is still a simulation of our universe, rather than a different universe with, for example, different amounts of dark matter or different laws of physics. Similarly, if you could restart our universe and run it again, you would not end up with our galaxy and the Earth.

[et pet]

On 10/26/2018 at 2:29 PM, Strange said:

Similarly, if you could restart our universe and run it again, you would not end up with our galaxy and the Earth.

   With all due respect, Strange, that may not be a given.

   Any entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again", obviously would not be restrained by the physical rules or laws of our/this Universe.

    That being the case, we honestly could not conceive of or even imagine what the total all encompassing extent of those abilities might allow that entity to effect upon our/this Universe.

    I am fairly certain that it was Arthur C. Clarke that stated : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 

   So, no Strange, that need not necessarily be a given.

   An entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again" might just also have the ability to make it run exactly the same. Maybe even over and over, repeatedly...

Edited October 28, 2018 by et pet