Is reality like a computer?

[bennyboy]

We already know of naturally occurring patterns such as the fibonacci sequence. It is not unreasonable to say that there are numerical patterns in nature. But you then cannot make the leap to some sort of virtual reality on a computer. You need a sound argument backed up by solid proof for that.

It's not a leap. Everything in the universe that we know about is described by mathematics. That's what physics is. So the question is whether the math represents something objectively real, or whether what we perceive really is nothing more than the math itself. I think if you look at QM, the "reality" of particles as entities seems to break down, but the math holds strong.

[Brian37]

We already know of naturally occurring patterns such as the fibonacci sequence. It is not unreasonable to say that there are numerical patterns in nature. But you then cannot make the leap to some sort of virtual reality on a computer. You need a sound argument backed up by solid proof for that.

Yeah, but this is one of those ideas where we don't really need proof. Even if true, no one will try to get you into a religion of computer simulation, and no one's going to kill in the name of...?..User1?

This is how superstition starts. You assume that no one will kill in the name of it, RIGHT NOW. Get enough masses to buy crap, you have enough lemmings to do your bidding.

I warn even atheist not to go around claiming moral superiority. "Atheist" is a POSITION, not a moral code.

Now again, "computer simulation" is nothing but si fi woo and just as much snake oil crap as religion is.

[max-greece]

Yeah, but this is one of those ideas where we don't really need proof. Even if true, no one will try to get you into a religion of computer simulation, and no one's going to kill in the name of...?..User1?

This is how superstition starts. You assume that no one will kill in the name of it, RIGHT NOW. Get enough masses to buy crap, you have enough lemmings to do your bidding.

I warn even atheist not to go around claiming moral superiority. "Atheist" is a POSITION, not a moral code.

Now again, "computer simulation" is nothing but si fi woo and just as much snake oil crap as religion is.

Actually no. This is a mere hypethesis but there is quite a bit of serious science behind it (serious enough to be reported in Scientific American - http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...ce-digital).

This could turn out to be one of the most important questions ever addressed - if it does turn out to be the case.

No-one is yet saying the universe is digital - we are awaiting results from various experiments and tests - all we are saying is it could be and that's not woo.

[bennyboy]

If all aspects of the universe have discrete parts (pixels, atoms, whatever), then you could call it digital. Maybe space itself has a resolution. Why not? The speed of light is limited in a very specific way. Why would it be impossible for everything else to be limited-- maybe there's an atomic time measure, between two ticks of which absolutely nothing can change. Maybe space is composed of a seemingly infinite, but actually finite, number of cells, rather than a contiguous space.

These are perfectly reasonable possibilities.

[Jiggerj]

I warn even atheist not to go around claiming moral superiority. "Atheist" is a POSITION, not a moral code.

I can't argue with that. Atheists may not kill in the name of a god, but they will kill over money and all matter of self-serving interests. And that's nothing for an atheist to be proud of.

[genkaus]

[gilbertc06]

We already know of naturally occurring patterns such as the fibonacci sequence. It is not unreasonable to say that there are numerical patterns in nature. But you then cannot make the leap to some sort of virtual reality on a computer. You need a sound argument backed up by solid proof for that.

Yeah, but this is one of those ideas where we don't really need proof. Even if true, no one will try to get you into a religion of computer simulation, and no one's going to kill in the name of...?..User1?

Ummm

You do still need proof. You never accept anything as true unless proved to a certain degree. You can think about this idea, but I would never believe unless given ample evidence.

[Whateverist]

@ the OP: No.

[Jiggerj]

Yeah, but this is one of those ideas where we don't really need proof. Even if true, no one will try to get you into a religion of computer simulation, and no one's going to kill in the name of...?..User1?

Ummm

You do still need proof. You never accept anything as true unless proved to a certain degree. You can think about this idea, but I would never believe unless given ample evidence.

Oh absolutely. What I'm saying is if science actually proved the simulation theory we'd all say, "Okay," and then go on with our lives. It wouldn't change the world in the slightest. No commandments. No moral dilemmas. No cult of WindowsXP flying planes into the Macintosh building.

[Nightfoot92]

Oh absolutely. What I'm saying is if science actually proved the simulation theory we'd all say, "Okay," and then go on with our lives. It wouldn't change the world in the slightest. No commandments. No moral dilemmas. No cult of WindowsXP flying planes into the Macintosh building.
[/quote]

Well, the Cult of WindowsXP is already at war with Apple. We will just have to see how long until the war goes from cold to hot