Simulations- String Theory and other things. Split from: Are the weirdnesses of QM still regarded as mysteries to be resolved?

[QuantumT]

19 hours ago, Strange said:

What is a "GPU response"?

It is when the player (or game character) looks at something. The GPU then instantly responds by loading the object / surroundings in question.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Not sure how you can use common sense to explain something that is counter-intuitive

Well, if we assume that reality is virtual, there is nothing counter intuitive about the observer effect. It's actually the only scenario in which it makes perfect sense.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We physicists do tend to want experimental evidence as confirmation, and "commonsense reasoning" doesn't qualify.

I guess it's all about how the evidence is interpreted. To me the collapse of the wave function is valid evidence of a virtual universe, just like Brownian motion is evidence of molecules.

I should also mention that I used "commonsense reasoning" as a pun, because it is a strong AI term 😁

[Strange]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

It is when the player (or game character) looks at something. The GPU then instantly responds by loading the object / surroundings in question.

Well, if we assume that reality is virtual, there is nothing counter intuitive about the observer effect. It's actually the only scenario in which it makes perfect sense.

 

I guess it's all about how the evidence is interpreted. To me the collapse of the wave function is valid evidence of a virtual universe, just like Brownian motion is evidence of molecules.

I should also mention that I used "commonsense reasoning" as a pun, because it is a strong AI term 😁

If this is the "simulation hypothesis" then it is not science but it is an off-topic hijack.

[QuantumT]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

If this is the "simulation hypothesis" then it is not science

With all respect, that's not for you to decide.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

it is an off-topic hijack

I did try to avoid getting deeper into it

22 hours ago, QuantumT said:

But guys, don't mind me. I know you don't agree with me, and I'm not trying to convince you. The subject of this thread was begging me to throw it in. I'll hush now

So, end of discussion from here.

Edited March 6, 2020 by QuantumT

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

With all respect, that's not for you to decide.

It is just a matter of fact. For example, what could disprove the hypothesis?

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is just a matter of fact. For example, what could disprove the hypothesis?

The same could be said about string "theory", but as long as people with PhD's are researching it, it's science.
But, as you pointed out earlier, we should respect the premise of the thread and stop. Or at least move this to a new thread.

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The same could be said about string "theory", but as long as people with PhD's are researching it, it's science.
But, as you pointed out earlier, we should respect the premise of the thread and stop. Or at least move this to a new thread.

ST is extending from sound foundations, otherwise so many scientists wouldn't be working on it.

Edited March 6, 2020 by StringJunky

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The same could be said about string "theory", but as long as people with PhD's are researching it, it's science.

It is possible to propose tests for string theory, even if they are not practical with todays technology.

It is not (by definition) possible to come up with a test to either confirm or refute the simulation hypothesis.

49 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Or at least move this to a new thread.

I will ask a mod to do that.

[QuantumT]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not (by definition) possible to come up with a test to either confirm or refute the simulation hypothesis.

Not entirely true. Nothing has been found yet, but they are looking for evidence in deep space: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf

and other tests are on the way:
https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/Edge20171230
http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IJQF-3888.pdf

Maybe you've been too fast deeming it untestable and unworthy?

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Not entirely true. Nothing has been found yet, but they are looking for evidence in deep space: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf

But if that were to rule out a simulation on a grid, it would not rule out a simulation. And if it were to show a lattice structure to the universe, it would not rule out that being completely natural. Either result could be either a simulation or natural.

14 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

and other tests are on the way:
https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/Edge20171230
http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/IJQF-3888.pdf

But even if those were to find the results they claim would support a particular type of hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to not just assume that "that is the way the universe works". Whatever results they get could be either a simulation or natural.

Evidence that space is quantized on a lattice, or that things only come into existence when observed (or any other claimed evidence for simulation) may be consistent with the simulation hypothesis. But it can't rule out the alternative that we just live in a world that behaves like our idea of a simulation. Nothing can. 

There is nothing you can come up with that could only happen if the universe were a simulation. And nothing you can come up with that would be impossible if the universe were a simulation.

Quote

Maybe you've been too fast deeming it untestable and unworthy?

Nope. It is the philosophical equivalent of solipsism or Last Thursdayism. Completely unfalsifiable by its very definition.

[QuantumT]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

But if that were to rule out a simulation on a grid, it would not rule out a simulation. And if it were to show a lattice structure to the universe, it would not rule out that being completely natural. Either result could be either a simulation or natural.

But even if those were to find the results they claim would support a particular type of hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to not just assume that "that is the way the universe works". Whatever results they get could be either a simulation or natural.

Evidence that space is quantized on a lattice, or that things only come into existence when observed (or any other claimed evidence for simulation) may be consistent with the simulation hypothesis. But it can't rule out the alternative that we just live in a world that behaves like our idea of a simulation. Nothing can. 

There is nothing you can come up with that could only happen if the universe were a simulation. And nothing you can come up with that would be impossible if the universe were a simulation.

Nope. It is the philosophical equivalent of solipsism or Last Thursdayism. Completely unfalsifiable by its very definition.

All scientific theories have a degree of uncertainty, some more than others. So in that sense it's not standing out. Like Feynman said

Quote

Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

I think your faith in science is poor (or you are simply biased against it). I am sure they will concoct a test one day, that will satisfy even you, but I'm not sure it will be in our lifetime.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

All scientific theories have a degree of uncertainty, some more than others.

It is not about uncertainty, it is about testability.

How would you test if the universe is actually 13.8 billion years old or it was created last Thursday but made to look as if it were 13.8 billion years old?

It is impossible.

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

I think your faith in science is poor (or you are simply biased against it). I am sure they will concoct a test one day, that will satisfy even you, but I'm not sure it will be in our lifetime.

I have great faith in science as the best way of understanding and describing the world. But what you are suggesting is simply not possible.

You can think of all sorts of tests based on guesses about the way we might create such a simulation. Then you can show that the universe is or is not consistent with that type of simulation. But what you can never do is show that the universe is not consistent with itself.

[QuantumT]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

It is not about uncertainty, it is about testability.

How would you test if the universe is actually 13.8 billion years old or it was created last Thursday but made to look as if it were 13.8 billion years old?

It is impossible.

As I said, they will one day concoct a test we can't even imagine today. That's my faith in science.
I even have one in mind, but it will require a powerful quantum computer.
Btw, I reject and despise last-thursdayism. I find it to be extremely naive and a direct insult to an otherwise valid hypothesis.

Nothing is impossible, given enough time and technological advancement.

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Nothing is impossible, given enough time and technological advancement.

Like perhaps a test for God? Unless we KNOW the testable characteristics of a simulation, the only thing you can test for is what you IMAGINE a simulation to look like.

Similarly I can test for God only if I KNOW a physical characteristic unique to God that I can test for. Otherwise I'm testing for God by seeing the beauty in a child's face or the miracle of living through a horrendous car crash. It may be that a lattice structure is evidence of God, not a simulation.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

 

Nothing is impossible, given enough time and technological advancement.

I can name several things impossible regardless of technology under physics.

 For starters it is impossible to measure below a quanta of action even with the most idealized detector. You might believe otherwise but belief has absolutely zero scientific bearing.

It is equally impossible to measure beyond the particle horizon. So one cannot discern a finite universe which the simulation universe stipulates in the above paper.

No matter what we can measure you cannot claim that measurement is a result of a simulation or not. 

However this is off topic of the OP which specified quantum weirdness and not the simulation hypothesis.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Mordred

[zapatos]

56 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Btw, I reject and despise last-thursdayism. I find it to be extremely naive and a direct insult to an otherwise valid hypothesis.

 

If this is indeed a simulation why is it ridiculous to think it may have begun last Thursday? When do you propose the simulation actually began?

[Strange]

7 hours ago, QuantumT said:

As I said, they will one day concoct a test we can't even imagine today. That's my faith in science.

That is not faith in science. It is just faith. Based on ignoring simple logic.

7 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Btw, I reject and despise last-thursdayism.

It is useful lesson in analysis and logical thinking. 

Despising it is pointless. Think about how you would disprove it. 

7 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Nothing is impossible, given enough time and technological advancement.

Nonsense

[QuantumT]

On 3/8/2020 at 2:20 AM, zapatos said:

If this is indeed a simulation why is it ridiculous to think it may have begun last Thursday? When do you propose the simulation actually began?

Because it's too much work. If the simulation began last thursday, they would have had to fabricate 7.5 billion narratives and countless interactions. The easy way to do it, is just to let it all unfold on its own, from the big bang and till now. They might have adjusted a monkey to fit their idea of how we should look, but other than that, I think they avoided mingling too much.

I actually dread having this discussion, because, although I might be a proponent, I'm not a believer, and some people here dislike it so much, that they push the red button on my posts. And I don't think it's worth the little good reputation that I have left. So I'd prefer if we discontinued this.

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Because it's too much work. If the simulation began last thursday, they would have had to fabricate 7.5 billion narratives and countless interactions. The easy way to do it, is just to let it all unfold on its own, from the big bang and till now. They might have adjusted a monkey to fit their idea of how we should look, but other than that, I think they avoided mingling too much.

You are making gigantic assumptions. Maybe this is Simulation v8.6 and the 'simulation time' prior to last Thursday was just cut/pasted into this version of the simulation. Maybe the "7.5 billion narratives and countless iterations" are just part of an infinite loop in the program and that portion was written by the interns over a weekend. Why would they want to wait almost 14 billion years to find out what they are really looking for, which is the state of the universe in the year 2021? Maybe the simulation has a series of Big Bangs going back in time and we just haven't uncovered them yet, which is a key point of the simulation. Maybe the point of this particular simulation is to test their ability to launch on a Thursday while making it look like the universe is almost 14 billion years old.

Thinking you know the mind of the simulators (who you don't even have any evidence exist) has got to be the biggest wild ass guess since Nostradamus predicted 9/11 would actually happen on September 12.

[QuantumT]

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why would they want to wait almost 14 billion years to find out what they are really looking for, which is the state of the universe in the year 2021?

Their processing power decides their speed limit, so 13 billion years could be done in a few hours or days.

But you are absolutely right, I don't know anything. I just enjoy speculating about it. Some people enjoy chess or sudoku, I prefer to imagine how our universe/world could be simulated.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

But you are absolutely right, I don't know anything. I just enjoy speculating about it. Some people enjoy chess or sudoku, I prefer to imagine how our universe/world could be simulated.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that it is an unscientific (but philosophically useful) idea.

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that it is an unscientific (but philosophically useful) idea.

I agree that it's unfalsifiable, but my hope is that that will change in the future, however unlikely that is.

Imagine a test that could only fail if we are simulated? Sounds improbable, but what if.... 😉

[Strange]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

Because it's too much work.

In your opinion. In the opinion of the simulators, you might be crazy to do it any other way.

(This is why this is not a scientific hypothesis. Like solipsism, Last Thursdayism, or god-did-it,  absolutely any fact can be considered evidence for or against it. Any opinion about the model can be equally well countered by another opinion. Neither can be supported by testable evidence.)

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Their processing power decides their speed limit, so 13 billion years could be done in a few hours or days.

So, like, maybe last Thursday? 😝

[Strange]

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

Imagine a test that could only fail if we are simulated?

Nope. There is no such thing.

Even you can't imagine one, and you believe anything is possible.  

Just now, zapatos said:

So, like, maybe last Thursday? 😝

🥁bdum-tish

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

So, like, maybe last Thursday? 😝

HAHA! 🤣

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nope. There is no such thing.

Even you can't imagine one, and you believe anything is possible.  

"Anything" is only possible with deep future technology. There are things I consider impossible, like backwards time travel, and the existence of a divine creator.