What is the universe?

[PrimalMinister]

I have come to believe the universe is effectivily a virtual reality machine, but the administrators say its pie in the sky without explaining why, the thread is always closed just as we are getting to the critical juncture.

Anyway, if you think I what I am suggesting is fairy tales, fine you are entitled to your own beliefs, but what does science say the universe *is* exactly?

 

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

but what does science say the universe *is* exactly?

Science (physics) describes physical phenomenons. i.e. gives mathematical equations to what you observe directly by your eyes, or using devices. After applying equation in similar circumstances, you can predict outcome in advance (extrapolation), or predict missing values between existing data (interpolation).

Your question is philosophical, not scientific.

[PrimalMinister]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Your question is philosophical, not scientific.

But is that just because we don't have the science to answer it?

 

[Ghideon]

Here is my attempt: The universe is all existing matter and space considered as a whole. In mainstream science there are models and theories, supported by observations, describing various aspects of the universe. One example is big bang, describing the universe’s evolution from an early dense hot state.

Edited May 23, 2019 by Ghideon
spelling, grammar

[Prometheus]

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have come to believe the universe is effectivily a virtual reality machine,

People have always seen existence through the lense of contemporary understanding. In the ancient world it was a drama played out amongst the stars, with the rise of monotheism it was a monarchy, with Newtonian science it was clockwork, and in our age it is a computation, a simulation. It tells us far more about the people thinking such thoughts than it does the  actual universe.

I wonder what people will think in the next age.

[Sensei]

Just now, PrimalMinister said:

But is that just because we don't have the science to answer it? 

It's because you don't understand what science does and how it works.. observation of phenomena -> hypothesis -> theory (mathematical equation, mathematical model of phenomena) -> verification of mathematical model with new set of data. There is no place here for philosophical questions.

Philosophical questions are not scientifically verifiable.

[PrimalMinister]

 

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Philosophical questions are not scientifically verifiable.

You are right. But for instance if I am right, then science (as you explained it) would say the universe is a virtual reality machine. So while science currently isnt able to explain what the universe is, it maybe able to in the future. So philosophical questions are useful, because they probe what we don't understand. They try to make sense of the mystery and turn it into knowledge.

And there is a mystery, it is what drives scientists, I have heard them talk about it.

 

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But for instance if I am right, then science (as you explained it) would say the universe is a virtual reality machine. So while science currently isnt able to explain what the universe is, it maybe able to in the future. So philosophical questions are useful, because they probe what we don't understand. They try to make sense of the mystery and turn it into knowledge.

I believe curious philosophical questions and discussions in a relevant part of the forum is a good thing. I also believe stubborn soap boxing in mainstream section is not so good.

 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But is that just because we don't have the science to answer it?

No its because we can't have the science to answer it. 

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

But for instance if I am right, then science (as you explained it) would say the universe is a virtual reality machine. So while science currently isnt able to explain what the universe is, it maybe able to in the future.

How?

Besides why do you care?

[StringJunky]

It's space full of stuff.

[Sensei]

@PrimalMinister

I was going to write post in that thread, but you get into senseless discussion, and downgraded quality of the thread, which resulted in closure.

I wanted to say that what you described in OP, sounded to me like you were talking about what 3D computer programmers call voxels. Voxel is 3 dimensional pixel (VOlume-X-ELement). It's set of properties attached at fixed location, and instead of moving particle from place to place, there is exchange of properties between cells ("voxels").

f.e. voxels are exchanging/splitting momentum to their neighbors voxels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

Voxels are used to simulate particle interactions. i.e. fluids, clouds, gases etc.

Here is example from YouTube:

Voxels are easy to program, easily computed in parallel, and they are easily scalable (i.e. system administrators can add new machines in the middle of simulation, to make bigger space).

But they're extremely memory hungry in comparison to other methods. e.g. if you have voxels array 1000 cells wide in each 3D axis, there is 1000 ^ 3 = 1000,000,000 voxels total (each with basic properties). But there can be absolute or nearly absolute nothing there (like vacuum between planets or stars).

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Sensei

[studiot]

35 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

People have always seen existence through the lense of contemporary understanding. In the ancient world it was a drama played out amongst the stars, with the rise of monotheism it was a monarchy, with Newtonian science it was clockwork, and in our age it is a computation, a simulation. It tells us far more about the people thinking such thoughts than it does the  actual universe.

I wonder what people will think in the next age.

What a lovely piece of Philosophy. +1

 

I think the best Science has to offer on thw question is the mathematical idea of the universal set,
This concurs with english language usage as well, meaning colloquially "everything to do with the job in hand".

[Dagl1]

43 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

You are right. But for instance if I am right, then science (as you explained it) would say the universe is a virtual reality machine. So while science currently isnt able to explain what the universe is, it maybe able to in the future. So philosophical questions are useful, because they probe what we don't understand. They try to make sense of the mystery and turn it into knowledge.

And there is a mystery, it is what drives scientists, I have heard them talk about it.

 

So first off, either science can answer it or it can't. But if science (so... evidence) cannot right now answer it, then you believing your idea makes no sense, as we just said that science (evidence) can't answer it. 

Sure maybe it turns out that what you believe is correct, but since right now there is no evidence to support your idea, you believing it is equally valid as believing ANY other random thought. 

Do you see what I am trying to say; either there is a logical (evidence based) reason why you think it is that way, thus it is something science can support. Or science can't/doesn't support it right now, and thus you shouldn't be believing it as there is reason to believe it.

-Dagl

[Strange]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have come to believe the universe is effectivily a virtual reality machine, but the administrators say its pie in the sky without explaining why, the thread is always closed just as we are getting to the critical juncture

The “critical juncture” would be where you provide some evidence. Which you have failed to do. But don’t feel too bad; I don’t think it is possible. 

What measurements could we make to test your idea? What measurements would prove you wrong?

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

 

Do you see what I am trying to say; either there is a logical (evidence based) reason why you think it is that way, thus it is something science can support. Or science can't/doesn't support it right now, and thus you shouldn't be believing it as there is reason to believe it.

Yes I see what you are saying, but this could also be interpreted as meaning that Science cannot progress because you should never consider anything the Science 'does not support' and so will never test it.

The history of the periodic table provides a fine case in point.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

But is that just because we don't have the science to answer it?

 

No. It is because it is not testable/falsifiable. 

[Dagl1]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes I see what you are saying, but this could also be interpreted as meaning that Science cannot progress because you should never consider anything the Science 'does not support' and so will never test it.

The history of the periodic table provides a fine case in point.

Could you elaborate? From my (possibly limited) knowledge, the periodic table is based on arranging the elements in particular groupings based on common or similar characteristics? 
If this was somewhat was the case, isn't that just science?

Apologies if I misunderstand you, not trying to strawman;p

[studiot]

41 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

Could you elaborate? From my (possibly limited) knowledge, the periodic table is based on arranging the elements in particular groupings based on common or similar characteristics? 
If this was somewhat was the case, isn't that just science?

Apologies if I misunderstand you, not trying to strawman;p

No apology needed.

Beguyer (1862) and Newlands (1864) published idea of aranging the then known 50 or so elements in order of atomic weight, based on Hydrogen = 1 and Newlands floated the idea that heavier elements were built up from Hydrogen.

This was ridiculed by chemistry peers as being no better than arranging them in "alphabetical order".

Meanwhile Meyer published a 'periodic' grouping of these lists in the second edition (1970)  (1870) of his book, and   (My thanks to the member who pointed my slip out)

Mendeleyev made the bold leap by swapping iodine and tellurium in the list, making it a table not a list, and leaving spaces for three elements that were discovered in short order as a result, published in 1869.

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by studiot

[Dagl1]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

No apology needed.

Beguyer (1862) and Newlands (1864) published idea of aranging the then known 50 or so elements in order of atomic weight, based on Hydrogen = 1 and Newlands floated the idea that heavier elements were built up from Hydrogen.

This was ridiculed by chemistry peers as being no better than arranging them in "alphabetical order".

Meanwhile Meyer published a 'periodic' grouping of these lists in the second edition (1970) of his book, and

Mendeleyev made the bold leap by swapping iodine and tellurium in the list, making it a table not a list, and leaving spaces for three elements that were discovered in short order as a result.

 

So maybe i'm a bit biased here but this seems to be: Observations > trying out some ideas (based on both observations and possibly a bit intuition) > idea contained undiscovered but predicted elements > elements are discovered > idea seems to hold true

This is science no? I am not saying people shouldn't speculate, or everything has to be based on evidence, but as far as I understand, the OP's idea is based on... well.. not a lot, nor does it predict things that can be tested.

-Dagl

[studiot]

It's sometimes difficult to draw the line between trying out new ideas and flights of fancy.

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes I see what you are saying, but this could also be interpreted as meaning that Science cannot progress because you should never consider anything the Science 'does not support' and so will never test it.

I didn't interpret it that way.

There is a difference between saying that there is "no reason to believe something" (because there is no evidence) and saying "that thing should not be considered". In future, people may be able to come up with a way to test it and find evidence for in it, at which point the belief will no longer be irrational.

There is a class of things that can never be proved or disproved (solipsism, the universe is a simulation, Last Thursday-ism, etc). One can believe in such things, even though there is no evidence for them. And no one can ever prove you wrong.

I suspect the OP's idea is of that form. But as they are unwilling/unable to provide a model or testable predictions, we cannot really know.

[Sensei]

18 hours ago, studiot said:

The history of the periodic table provides a fine case in point.

Periodic table history is example of interpolation, and extrapolation, of existing data set. They had knowledge about some elements. Sorted them out by their properties. And it revealed there is gap in their data set. So made conjecture 3 elements are missing. So started searching for them knowing what they are searching for in advance.

18 hours ago, studiot said:

It's sometimes difficult to draw the line between trying out new ideas and flights of fancy.

..that would be the case if in the XIX somebody would came up with idea of meson (obviously using different name!) i.e. particle that has smaller rest-mass than Hydrogen nucleus.

 

[The Shadow]

I have always pondered the universe to have some master entity (not talking mankind theism here) in full control of everything (or at least locally to us, cluster perhaps) As chaotic as the cosmos seem, I usually end up (mental exercises) believing it is by design. That design could mean virtual reality for sure. Point is though, an entity is either discretely observing us or exists way out there doing other things. 

It makes my mind tired just pondering it sometimes. I get even deeper sometimes. Like, possibly a Kardashev type civilization (expanded scale, perhaps level IV) was in the same boat we are. Confused, feeling alone and lacking answers. Over time they advanced and were able to seed elswhere in the cosmos and actually create what we call, "reality". At least on some scale. Is that us? 

Again, mind tired just pondering it:(