Are we all just part of a computer simulation? Scientists are trying to find that out.

[Brian37]

BULLSHIT, please do not step into any lab with that attitude.

I can't rule out pink unicorns existing on the other side of the universe either. But I am not going to waste my time postulating it because I cant disprove it.

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

Your cognition is inadequate for your pronouncements to be worth the bandwidth they squat upon.

Please farmilarize yourself with the difference between theory and "ifs" and "butts" before posturing didactically again.

It is utter bullshit when theists employ "prove it isn't true", and it wont work as a tactic just because you pull it.

You are attempting to shift the burden of proof and I don't give one fuck what the topic is.

You are the one claiming or implying or suggesting we are a simulation. FINE but it is up to you, not me, to prove it. All you have is speculation and conjecture, otherwise you'd have a Nobel Prize and beat everyone to the patient office by now.

I think it is an absurd claim and no fucking different than suggesting a god exists. But if you want to work on proving it, have at it, but do not ask me to do your homework for you.

[Rhizomorph13]

...You are attempting to shift the burden of proof and I don't give one fuck what the topic is.

Brian,

I don't think anyone is trying to unfairly shift the burden of proof. People are just bringing up the old "head in a jar" aka solipsistic philosophical problem. The fact is that you can't proove that this reality is real because to do so would require reference to something outside this reality which, I believe, is not possible because "this" is the only reality that "is".

BTW you shoulder the burden of proof when you say things like this:

...A COGNITION IS NOT REQUIRED for the universe to exist therefore IT CANNOT BE A SIMULATION, anymore than a hurricane is a "simulation"...

To break that down into a syllogism:

Proposition: A cognition is not required for a universe to exist
Conclusion: Therefore it cannot be a simulation
As infered by the similarities to: A hurricane

The problem I see is that the proposition falls on its ear because it is just an assumption. Therefore the conclusion is not sound. Your proposition seems to be predicated from your epistemology which starts with the assumption that reality is real. I share that epistemology but have come to the conclusion that it is a basic belief rather than a scientifically supportable fact.

[Lion IRC]

...If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

Thats a good one. Thanks for the smile. :-)

All the best for Christmas and the New Year.

[Shell B]

http://www.inquisitr.com/437451/our-univ...ew-theory/

Erm... I think I'm reading it wrong. Did they really say that 'if we can simulate our universe then our universe must be a simulation, itself'?

Oh, dear. That is a terrible argument.

[Rayaan]

"The universe is made of bits. Every molecule, atom, and elementary particle registers bits of information. Every interaction between those pieces of the universe processes that information by altering those bits. That is, the universe computes, and because the universe is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, it computes in an intrinsically quantum-mechanical fashion; its bits are quantum bits. The history of the universe is, in effect, a huge and ongoing quantum computation. The universe is analogous to a quantum computer." (Lloyd, 3)

There. Fixed that for him.

Lol ... but see, the author wrote that because he believes that the universe being a computer is not just an analogy, but it is a computer ... a really big one.

He also argues that it is impossible to simulate the universe. Why?

Because in order to simulate the universe, the simulation would require the computational capacity of the entire universe itself, and it would have to be the size of the universe itself, which is impossible.

I've posted below a video of an interesting panel discussion where four scientists along with Seth Lloyd, the author of the passage quoted above, talk about this whole "universe is a computer" idea, and why it could be true.


"Rebooting the Cosmos: Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkiy24LqBQ

[Rayaan]

I have wondered whether quantum effects are in fact the manifestation of flaws in a simulation program.

I've read that quantum effects might be manifested in our DNA mutations, in things like DNA copying errors and ionizing radiation, for example.

A passage on this from a book titled, "Meta Math!: The Quest for Omega," by Gregory Chaitin:

Jacob Schwartz once surprised a computer science class by calculating the bandwidth of human sexual intercourse, the rate of information transmission achieved in human love-making. I’m too much of a theoretician to care about the exact answer, which anyway depends on details like how you measure the amount of time that’s involved, but his class was impressed that the bandwidth that’s achieved is quite respectable!

What is this software like? It isn’t written in 0/1 binary like computer software. Instead DNA is written in a 4-letter alphabet, the 4 bases that can be each rung of the twisted double-helix ladder that is a DNA molecule.Adenine, A, thymine, T, guanine, G, and cytosine, C, are those four letters. Individual genes, which code for a single protein, are kilobases of information. And an entire human genome is measured in gigabases, so that’s sort of like gigabytes of computer software.

Each cell in the body has the same DNA software, the complete genome, but depending on the kind of tissue or the organ that it’s in, it runs different portions of this software, while using many basic subroutines that are common to all cells.

And this software is highly conservative, much of it is quite ancient: Many common subroutines are shared among fruitflies, invertebrates, mice and humans, so they have to have originated in an ancient common ancestor. In fact, there is surprisingly little difference between a chimp and a human, or even between a mouse and human.

We are not that unique; Nature likes to re-use good ideas. Instead of starting afresh each time, Nature “solves” new problems by patching—that is, slightly modifying or mutating—the solutions to old problems, as the need arises. Nature is a cobbler, a tinkerer. It’s much too much work, it’s much too expensive, to start over again each time. Our DNA software accumulates by accretion, it’s a beautiful patch-work quilt! And our DNA software also includes all those frozen accidents, those mutations due to DNA copying errors or ionizing radiation, which is a possible pathway for quantum uncertainty to be incorporated in the evolutionary record. In a sense this is an amplification mechanism, one that magnifies quantum uncertainty into an effect that is macroscopically visible.

- Chaitin, Meta Math: The Quest for Omega, pp. 67-68

[Angrboda]

Crap. My browser crashed and I don't feel like retyping it. With all due respect to Chaitin, I think he's abusing the sense of the concept of quantum indeterminacy here and using it in a sense that is essentially pseudoscientific.

(Checking, Chaitin appears credentialed in philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Not physics. Apparently he's been focusing on computational analogs to biological evolution of late.)

[Rayaan]

How is he abusing the concept of quantum indeterminacy?

But, yes, Chaitin is mainly credentialed in philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Not physics.

He has also worked on some key ideas and problems in the field of biology - especially on complexity and evolution - to basically understand how they relate to algorithmic information theory (a subfield in computer science) and mathematics. And he calls this new field that he proposed "metabiology."

http://theoreticalatlas.wordpress.com/20...tabiology/


Plus, here's a lecture where he talks about the connections between biology, mathematics, and computer science:

---

---

[Mister Agenda]

Because in order to simulate the universe, the simulation would require the computational capacity of the entire universe itself, and it would have to be the size of the universe itself, which is impossible.

Hm. To simulate the entire universe, I can see that. But what if all that is being simulated is us and our perception of the universe. Then all you need is enough computing power to simulate billions of human brains, including their sensory input. Assuming they're all being fully simulated and aren't mostly extras.

I find it hard to believe, but can't think of a way to falsify it.

[Brian37]

...You are attempting to shift the burden of proof and I don't give one fuck what the topic is.

Brian,

I don't think anyone is trying to unfairly shift the burden of proof. People are just bringing up the old "head in a jar" aka solipsistic philosophical problem. The fact is that you can't proove that this reality is real because to do so would require reference to something outside this reality which, I believe, is not possible because "this" is the only reality that "is".

BTW you shoulder the burden of proof when you say things like this:

...A COGNITION IS NOT REQUIRED for the universe to exist therefore IT CANNOT BE A SIMULATION, anymore than a hurricane is a "simulation"...

To break that down into a syllogism:

Proposition: A cognition is not required for a universe to exist
Conclusion: Therefore it cannot be a simulation
As infered by the similarities to: A hurricane

The problem I see is that the proposition falls on its ear because it is just an assumption. Therefore the conclusion is not sound. Your proposition seems to be predicated from your epistemology which starts with the assumption that reality is real. I share that epistemology but have come to the conclusion that it is a basic belief rather than a scientifically supportable fact.

Tell me what problem you avoid with a "simulation" that a standard invisible sky daddy has?

I think maybe you forgot about "infinite regress". If we are a simulation, then what caused that simulation, then the simulation that caused that simulation has to be even more complex than the one prior.

HOWEVER if something that is merely a process and not caused, like seasons changing it has no problem with needing something even more complex to cause it.

"Simulation" has the same stupid problem as god belief does. Things simply being allows something to be either finite or infinite without causing a bigger complexity YOU cant explain.

Complexity is an emergent property, not a starting point. A "simulation" would require that same gap jump assuming a complexity and would need something even more complex to cause that complexity. How far back are you willing to take this "simulation" before you realize it has the same baggage?

"Hawkins has said a god is not required" and I would guess he'd shit all over this si fi woo too.