Quantum interpretation discrepancies

[QuantumT]

Why is there discrimination between the many worlds quantum interpretation and the simulation "hypothesis"?

They are both conjectures, but it seems more valid to think, that there are many similar realities, than to think reality is simulated.

Is it because one of them multiplies existentialism, while the other one diminishes it?
And if so, it it not cowardice to discriminate between them?

Just because we dislike one answer, does not make it less valid. But still people smile or chuckle at one, and not the other.

 

Note: Yes I know these are the fringe interpretations, but they are also the most interesting and thorough. But this is a philosophical thread, so please indulge me 

Edited March 12, 2019 by QuantumT

[swansont]

That's the thing about interpretations — they depend on the person's preference. They are a tool to help understand the science, but are not actually part of the science. You use the one that best suits your needs.

If you don't like an interpretation, it doesn't make it less valid, since validity isn't the issue. It's less useful to you, and therefore not preferred. 

[QuantumT]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That's the thing about interpretations — they depend on the person's preference. They are a tool to help understand the science, but are not actually part of the science. You use the one that best suits your needs.

If you don't like an interpretation, it doesn't make it less valid, since validity isn't the issue. It's less useful to you, and therefore not preferred. 

True dat. But if you ask me, it's an emotional, and not a rational preference.

[Strange]

47 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

True dat. But if you ask me, it's an emotional, and not a rational preference.

Exactly. (I don't really like any of them. )

But is the simulation hypothesis an interpretation of QM? If thought it was just a bit of pseudo-philosophical waffle indistinguishable from solipsism or  "what if the universe was created 15 seconds ago but made to look 14 billion years old".

Wikipedia has a longish list of interpretations. Simulation doesn't appear there.

[QuantumT]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Wikipedia has a longish list of interpretations. Simulation doesn't appear there.

On wikipedia science is strictly physics. No philosophy or existentialism is included.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

But is the simulation hypothesis an interpretation of QM? If thought it was just a bit of pseudo-philosophical waffle indistinguishable from solipsism or  "what if the universe was created 15 seconds ago but made to look 14 billion years old".

Yes, it explains matter (particles) as holographic voxels. When the GPU is handling data, and sending it to the "screen" (our mind), the wave function collapses. Technically it means that when matter "knows" it will be seen/measured, it becomes "real" and tangible.
Does that mean everything not seen is halted? No. But it only happens in the processor, not on the holographic screen. Like a movie running on a DVD player, but with the screen turned off. 

Although I find solipsism silly, I do think that they (whoever made the simulation) did fast forward most of the universes span, to get to the interesting stuff, here on Earth.

 

Note: This is not my conviction. But I favor the concept a lot. It makes so much sense to me.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Yes, it explains matter (particles) as holographic voxels. When the GPU is handling data, and sending it to the "screen" (our mind), the wave function collapses. Technically it means that when matter "knows" it will be seen/measured, it becomes "real" and tangible.
Does that mean everything not seen is halted? No. But it only happens in the processor, not on the holographic screen. Like a movie running on a DVD player, but with the screen turned off. 

But it doesn't really explain QM (or anything). It just says, "things behave that way because the programmers want them to". It is like using gods as an "explanation"; it doesn't explain anything.

[QuantumT]

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

But it doesn't really explain QM (or anything). It just says, "things behave that way because the programmers want them to". It is like using gods as an "explanation"; it doesn't explain anything.

Yes, it explains why the wave collapses, and why there even is a wave.

A quantum computer could be explained by it actually tapping directly into the CPU that runs our universe. That is how it becomes crazy fast.

I also have a theory about entanglement, and what relevans it has in the simulation.

Edited March 13, 2019 by QuantumT

[Phi for All]

34 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

A quantum computer will actually tap directly into the CPU that runs our universe. That is why it becomes crazy fast.

!

Moderator Note

You don't get a pass pushing unsupported speculation just because you put this in Philosophy. If you want to make assertions like this, you're going to have to defend them in the right setting, Speculations.

 

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You don't get a pass pushing unsupported speculation just because you put this in Philosophy. If you want to make assertions like this, you're going to have to defend them in the right setting, Speculations.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like a fact. I have just been thinking a lot about how quantum phenomena and the simulation conjecture can fit each other, and wanted to explain some of those thoughts.

I have edited the mentioned statement.

If however you choose to move this thread to speculation (not that I agree!), I am ready to defend it.

[Endy0816]

Simulations are in some fashion physically present in the 'larger' Universe. The underlying physics of our reality would ultimately be the same as theirs.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Endy0816

[QuantumT]

9 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

The underlying physics of our reality would ultimately be the same as theirs.

Are you saying that the hypothetical makers of this simulation also have quantum mechanics?

If so, research has determined that you can't simulate a quantum based universe from a quantum based universe.

They attempted to make their finding disprove us being simulated, but all it proves is that they (the makers) do not themselves have QM.

[Endy0816]

36 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Are you saying that the hypothetical makers of this simulation also have quantum mechanics?

If so, research has determined that you can't simulate a quantum based universe from a quantum based universe.

They attempted to make their finding disprove us being simulated, but all it proves is that they (the makers) do not themselves have QM.

Yes, they do mention further down how the physics might be entirely different than what we see at our level.

It is impossible to disprove, though you can set some limits on what might be possible based on various assumptions.

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.

In this case they're assuming that the next level up doesn't have an arbitrarily large number of atoms with physical laws to support that.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by Endy0816

[QuantumT]

9 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

It is impossible to disprove, though you can set some limits on what might be possible based on various assumptions.

We can't assume anything really. But I consider black holes as a possible sign of limitations to their technological capacity.
From our perspective, they (BH's) take a lot of matter out of the equation. Almost like deleting it.

But that's speculation of course.

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

We can't assume anything really. But I consider black holes as a possible sign of limitations to their technological capacity.
From our perspective, they (BH's) take a lot of matter out of the equation. Almost like deleting it.

But that's speculation of course. 

Strictly speaking it is gone, but will effectively come back in the form of Hawking radiation as the Universe further cools/becomes less dense.

Conceivably with expansion though one could get away with not simulating everything all at once. There is that.

 

[QuantumT]

59 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Strictly speaking it is gone, but will effectively come back in the form of Hawking radiation as the Universe further cools/becomes less dense.

Conceivably with expansion though one could get away with not simulating everything all at once. There is that.

Theoretically.
It's just math and presumptions.
What we really see is just a dark circle with stars disappearing into it.

And to make it all even more obvious, the massive BH in the center of our own galaxy sends out a signal, a narrow one, that only a very small part of the galaxy can receive. And we just happen to be among the very few to be receiving it? C'mon. "They" are grooming us to think we are real!

Mods, please don't move this to speculation. We are just exploring the philosophical prospects.

Edited March 14, 2019 by QuantumT

[Endy0816]

Just now, QuantumT said:

Theoretically. It's just math and presumptions.

Most of the study of black holes has been like that.

The mass they take in contributes to the size of their horizon, so you'd still need to account for it in some sense.

Incidentally hawking radiation / present temperature of the Universe, also limits us in terms of using smaller black holes for power generation.

Quote

What we really see is just a dark circle with stars disappearing into it.

Not sure that wasn't an artist rendering. They're trying though.

https://www.sciencealert.com/black-hole-event-horizon-accretion-disc-jean-pierre-luminet-event-horizon-telescope

 

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, QuantumT said:

 And to make it all even more obvious, the massive BH in the center of our own galaxy sends out a signal, a narrow one, that only a very small part of the galaxy can receive. 

Citation needed.

[QuantumT]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Citation needed.

https://news.sky.com/story/black-hole-radio-jet-pointed-almost-directly-at-earth-11614684

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

https://news.sky.com/story/black-hole-radio-jet-pointed-almost-directly-at-earth-11614684

That says that IF a certain class of model is true (jet), then the jet is pointed at us. It would not be the case if a competing class of model (accretion disk emission) is true

"We show that multiple disk-dominated models of SgrA∗ match our observational constraints, while the two jet-dominated models considered are con- strained to small viewing angles."

"both the disk and jet emission dominated models can be realized within a single simulation by adopting a specific distri- bution for electron heating/acceleration in magnetized plasma"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.06226.pdf

 

[QuantumT]

On 3/14/2019 at 2:17 AM, QuantumT said:

And to make it all even more obvious, the massive BH in the center of our own galaxy sends out a signal, a narrow one, that only a very small part of the galaxy can receive. And we just happen to be among the very few to be receiving it? C'mon. "They" are grooming us to think we are real!

I hereby withdraw the above statement. It implies a notion that I regret. Besides that, "grooming" is an awfully poor choice of words.

Edited March 15, 2019 by QuantumT