Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
7 views
Skip to first unread message
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Apr 18, 2013, 1:21:42 AM4/18/13
to
Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
By Michael Rundle
Huffington Post, UK
December 12, 2013
Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
universe is a computer.
A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it
is more likely than not that we're living inside a
machine.
The theory basically goes that any civilisation which
could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost
certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a
universe. And that given the size of reality - billions
of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely
that if this is possible, it has already happened.
And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is
that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations
within simulations. The alternative - that we're the
first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually
(no pun intended) absurd.
And it's not just theory. We previously reported that
researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had
found evidence the Matrix was less than fiction. That
story was by far our most popular of the year -
indicating it's something about which you lot have
wondered too.
Continues at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simulation-test-university-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
By Michael Rundle
Huffington Post, UK
December 12, 2013
Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
universe is a computer.
A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it
is more likely than not that we're living inside a
machine.
The theory basically goes that any civilisation which
could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost
certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a
universe. And that given the size of reality - billions
of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely
that if this is possible, it has already happened.
And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is
that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations
within simulations. The alternative - that we're the
first civilisation, in the first universe - is virtually
(no pun intended) absurd.
And it's not just theory. We previously reported that
researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany had
found evidence the Matrix was less than fiction. That
story was by far our most popular of the year -
indicating it's something about which you lot have
wondered too.
Continues at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simulation-test-university-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
Sir Fred M. McNeill
Apr 18, 2013, 2:21:08 AM4/18/13
to
The existence of any higher information structures(including
hyper computers) cannot increase that mystery.
Why is there anything at all?
What a weird, strange, and spooky place this is, including
'our' stories(like qualia(sensor, self, and situation) and ...).
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 18, 2013, 9:30:52 AM4/18/13
to
On Apr 18, 3:21 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simula...
Why call these guys physicists - they are unsuccessful sci-fi wallahs.
Why call these guys physicists - they are unsuccessful sci-fi wallahs.
Dare
Apr 18, 2013, 9:52:41 AM4/18/13
to
"Sir Fred M. McNeill" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message news:ce3vm8d5np1bfmcfr...@4ax.com...
seems sort of like a version of a "God(s)" story,
with these higher order "programmers" creating the
simulation "ex-nihilo"..."in the beginning was the code"...
Still doesn't explain "why"...or any "before."
Seems to still be a story glossing over "our" ignorance.
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 05:21:42 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai
> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>>Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
>>
>>By Michael Rundle
>>Huffington Post, UK
>>December 12, 2013
>>
>>Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
>>universe is a computer.
>>
>>A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it
>>is more likely than not that we're living inside a
>>machine.
>>
>>The theory basically goes that any civilisation which
>>could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost
>>certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a
>>universe. And that given the size of reality - billions
>>of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely
>>that if this is possible, it has already happened.
>>
>
> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>>Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
>>
>>By Michael Rundle
>>Huffington Post, UK
>>December 12, 2013
>>
>>Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
>>universe is a computer.
>>
>>A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it
>>is more likely than not that we're living inside a
>>machine.
>>
>>The theory basically goes that any civilisation which
>>could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost
>>certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a
>>universe. And that given the size of reality - billions
>>of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely
>>that if this is possible, it has already happened.
>>
>
> The situation is mysterious and 'humans' are so constrained.
> The existence of any higher information structures(including
> hyper computers) cannot increase that mystery.
> Why is there anything at all?
>
> What a weird, strange, and spooky place this is, including
> 'our' stories(like qualia(sensor, self, and situation) and ...).
Yes...There is still the question of the "first" universe.
> The existence of any higher information structures(including
> hyper computers) cannot increase that mystery.
> Why is there anything at all?
>
> What a weird, strange, and spooky place this is, including
> 'our' stories(like qualia(sensor, self, and situation) and ...).
seems sort of like a version of a "God(s)" story,
with these higher order "programmers" creating the
simulation "ex-nihilo"..."in the beginning was the code"...
Still doesn't explain "why"...or any "before."
Seems to still be a story glossing over "our" ignorance.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Apr 18, 2013, 1:39:29 PM4/18/13
to
In article <40ccfef0-fd1d-4143...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
nothing achieved.
Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> Why call these guys physicists - they are unsuccessful sci-fi wallahs.
You do have a point there. However, nothing dreamed,
nothing achieved.
bil...@microsoft.com
Apr 18, 2013, 2:41:26 PM4/18/13
to
>> > Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
>> >
>> > By Michael Rundle
>> > Huffington Post, UK
>> > December 12, 2013
>> >
>> > Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
>> > universe is a computer.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Apr 18, 2013, 3:33:01 PM4/18/13
to
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Forwarded post:
This is not all that far fetched as people imagine. If
you break down particles into molecular levels, you will
see atoms, protons and neutrons etc. rotating, crashing
and some even being uniform, all in all replicating the
universe as we have come to know it. So don't dismiss it
as ridiculous.
- SylviaHaik
End of forwarded post.
This is not all that far fetched as people imagine. If
you break down particles into molecular levels, you will
see atoms, protons and neutrons etc. rotating, crashing
and some even being uniform, all in all replicating the
universe as we have come to know it. So don't dismiss it
as ridiculous.
- SylviaHaik
End of forwarded post.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Apr 18, 2013, 3:36:11 PM4/18/13
to
This is the equivalent of a microbe trying to evaluate
planet earth. I don't think you can "know" the entire
truth about something you are a very small part of,
because there is so much that is simply outside your
comprehension, just impossible to even occur to a human
being. I suppose there is no harm in thinking but
thinking up ideas has and still does cause a lot of
misery and death.
- cantabria
Mr. B1ack
Apr 18, 2013, 5:36:55 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 05:21:42 GMT, use...@mantra.com and/or
www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
very high detail someday - good enough to spawn
e-life - and the inhabitants may never be able
to prove they are 'fake'. Of course these sims
may not be done using 'computers' per-se, but
be implemented in fabricated spacetime pockets,
making them not *really* what you'd call 'fake'.
Being human, we'll do it because we can, not
for any wonderful 'higher' purpose.
And sims within sims within sims - no problem.
Now a 'ring' of sims, where the last is the first,
would be pretty cool ..... :-)
As for THIS universe ... yea, it COULD theoretically
be a good sim running on a Pentium-99000 on some
alien grad-students PC while he's off partying at
spring break. It would be VERY hard to prove otherwise
if his software is good. The nearest hint lies in the
quantum nature of things ... that there are 'resolution
limits' to events/time/space/energy ... 'aliasing'.
HOWEVER ... it is quite possible that 'reality' is
a 'simulation' without the need of a programmer, any
formal software or a Pentium-99000.
In his overpriced tome "A New Kind of Science", boy
genius Stephen Wolfram posited (and elaborated upon
in brain-wilting detail) that the stuff of the
universe behaves just like cute little computer
programs called "cellular automata" (the old 'Game
Of Life' being the first popular vision of this
principle in action).
With cellular automata, large quantities of calculating
'cells' are created which don't really DO much beyond
interact in a few simple ways with neighboring 'cells'
according to a few simple rules. The interesting bits
aren't the 'cells', but the EMERGENT BEHAVIORS that
appear on the larger scale as a result of all the
'cells' doing their simple jobs.
Wolfram showed how many of the laws of physics and
matter/energy/time could emerge from lots of 'cells'
doing their little rule-based thing with each other.
Simple emergent properties combine to create far
more complex properties and so forth - until you
have protons and neutrons and all the stuff you
can make out of those.
One interpretation is that he kinda re-invented
'string theory' ... which posits that reality is
an emergent property of zillions of little
11-dimensional string-like energy squiggles. What
you get depends on which strings in what vibration
modes getting together in whatever way.
Nobody needs to create or program these kinds of
'simulations'. They are 'nature', how the raw
stuff of nature bahaves at its most basic level
and what that ultimately causes at larger scales.
And you don't need a Pentium-99000 either. Instead
every 11-D hypercubic Planck unit of the real universe
is a small, rather dumb, little 'computer' that inter-
acts with all the others according to a small number
of rules. Each 'string' is a 'cell' more or less and
does its own little 'calculations'.
It's parallel-processing literally on the universal
scale ... the universe IS "computers" and "reality"
is the emergent behavior. Tweak the rules and you
get a totally different sort of "reality" which may
or may not allow for our kind of physics.
This means our 'reality' IS a "simulation" and
we may, eventually, be able to get a glimpse of
the individual 'cells' that make it work and
how the chains of interactions combine to
generate the larger emergent bits like particles
and fields and energy, space and time. Let's
hope nobody tries to 'hack' this machine :-)
(but someone will, of course)
Theists and philosophers hoping that a 'sim-like'
reality necessarily implies a 'god' or intelligent
'programmer' will find no traction here however.
Blind nature can indeed produce complex emergent
features without any direction/intent whatsoever.
That THIS chain of emergences produced wonderful
US is evidence of nothing ... we could be the
10^999999999-th variation on this cozmic harmony
and fade away as some new patterns emerge - which
may or may not support 'protons' or 'time' or
things in any way like ourselves.
Robert Miles
Apr 19, 2013, 5:28:48 PM4/19/13
to
On 4/18/2013 12:21 AM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
>
> By Michael Rundle
> Huffington Post, UK
> December 12, 2013
>
> Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
> universe is a computer.
>
> A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it
> is more likely than not that we're living inside a
> machine.
If such a simulation is accurate enough, how could we tell it
> Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
>
> By Michael Rundle
> Huffington Post, UK
> December 12, 2013
>
> Physicists have devised a new experiment to test if the
> universe is a computer.
>
> A philosophical thought experiment has long held that it
> is more likely than not that we're living inside a
> machine.
from reality?
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 20, 2013, 10:10:37 AM4/20/13
to
On Apr 19, 3:39 am, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <40ccfef0-fd1d-4143-91f4-ea0636636...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
That is true. But there was a time when scientists like Asimov wrote
sci-fi, of a quality far superior to the present matrix-class rubbish.
And they never confused science with non-science. Though I must say,
with great regret, that even Dr Isaac Asimov could not find the
supreme bungle underlying the nonsensical non-science of special
relativity.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
c(V)=c+V
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> In article <40ccfef0-fd1d-4143-91f4-ea0636636...@af5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> posted:
sci-fi, of a quality far superior to the present matrix-class rubbish.
And they never confused science with non-science. Though I must say,
with great regret, that even Dr Isaac Asimov could not find the
supreme bungle underlying the nonsensical non-science of special
relativity.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
c(V)=c+V
e=0.5mVVN(N-k)
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj- Hide quoted text -
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
zardoz
Jun 2, 2013, 8:06:34 AM6/2/13
to
zardoz
Jun 2, 2013, 8:09:16 AM6/2/13
to
if humanity could really handle the idea if it turns out to be true?
Would it lead to mass depression, chaos, insanity?
Mahipal
Jun 2, 2013, 9:56:17 AM6/2/13
to
wait?!
From computer to machine to reality to "zardoz". More word games
please!
-- Mahipal
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet.
The following usenet groups are archived and cannot be posted to:
"sci.space"
zardoz
Jun 2, 2013, 10:02:42 PM6/2/13
to
Albert Einstein -
"if we think of the field as being removed, there is no 'space' which
remains, since space does not have an independent existence."
"reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last
analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It
is a function of our conceptual scheme [mind]."
"One has to find a possibility to avoid the continuum (tongether with
space and time) altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what
kind of elementary concepts could be used in such as theory."
Eugene P. Wigner -
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may
develop, that the very study of the external world led to the
scientific conclusion that the content of consciousness is the
ultimate universal reality."
Max Planck -
"Science cannot solve the ulitmate mystery of nature because, in the
last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are
trying to solve."
Neils Bohr -
"The common sense view of the world in terms of objects that really
exist "out there" independenltly of our observations [objective
reality], totally collapses in the face of the quantum factor."
If quantum mechancis hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't
understood it yet."
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Jun 2, 2013, 10:19:57 PM6/2/13
to
I sim, therefore I im. seriously;
I just found a whole box full of 3d glasses!
I just found a whole box full of 3d glasses!
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Aug 19, 2013, 8:35:55 PM8/19/13
to
> On Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:09:16 PM UTC+10, zardoz wrote:
> wrong ideas at the expense of right ones, confusing
> imagination with reality, etc. are more disagreeable to
> me than the notion that we are all in a simulation.
>
> I should know more about computer simulation than most,
> for I have spent most of my professional life earning
> money and doing good with complex simulations, most
> notable, complete call centre networks starting with
> Australia's centrelink.
>
> So PACT, our showpiece simulation tool, simulated the
> performance of the entire Centrelink call centre network.
> The idea was to improve upon customer waiting times, find
> out the reasons for peak delays, improve upon strategies
> to route traffic better, etc. It was part of an annual
> 60+ million dollar contract Telstra had with Centrelink.
> I am happy to say, that it all worked.
>
> Having written the simulation software from scratch, I do
> have a feel for complex simulation, and the very
> interesting non-linear results generated. One could see
> so many dramas happening with each call - how long they
> waited, what they did... The core of it was a random
> number generator, which generated events as per given
> distributions, suitably altered.
>
> Very easily the same program could be modified to
> simulate more real world applications. Also, we could
> add effectively arms and legs and wheels to the program,
> and thus create a simulation world which would keep on
> running entirely on its own, with its own inner controls.
> With much refinement in externals, this simulation world
> could be made to appear as real as the real world. To
> the extent the programming was thorough, the characters
> or events could even generate random issues that go
> beyond real life... However, the programing effort would
> have to be intense, and the simulation as good as the
> programming.
>
> But all this is very new, for computers are very new.
> What is really happening is that some changes are taking
> place very fast in some very small pieces of matter, and
> these changes are linked to external sensors. Those
> changes are dependent upon just a few factors, or very
> many factors, that are put in by the programmer for a
> given simulation. The whole process is totally
> artificial; nothing natural.
>
> The natural world, on the other hand, runs in its natural
> way. We find natural laws, twist them around for our
> apparent good. With proper observation, we learn. When
> the best among us get stuck, they pray to higher powers
> and then they get enlightenment. So, there has to be a
> link within us, to the higher powers. Similarly, if a
> simulation gets stuck, a character therein may issue a
> plea to the programmer to unstuck the thing. The big
> difference is that the simulation character can have no
> originality is unfixing the stuck simulation - only the
> programmer can do that job. However, in real life, we
> are on our own and act with inspiration, chance, insight,
> etc. that are our very own.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Excellent points. And the important component of that
inspiration is Divine Inspiration!
Original newsgroup distribution restored.
Original post of this thread:
[ Subject: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simulation-test-university-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
> > >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Methinks someone does not like the idea they might be a sim.
> >
> > I wonder
> > if humanity could really handle the idea if it turns out to be true?
> >
> > Would it lead to mass depression, chaos, insanity?
>
> A waste of time and money, degradation of physics, upping
> >
> > Methinks someone does not like the idea they might be a sim.
> >
> > I wonder
> > if humanity could really handle the idea if it turns out to be true?
> >
> > Would it lead to mass depression, chaos, insanity?
>
> wrong ideas at the expense of right ones, confusing
> imagination with reality, etc. are more disagreeable to
> me than the notion that we are all in a simulation.
>
> I should know more about computer simulation than most,
> for I have spent most of my professional life earning
> money and doing good with complex simulations, most
> notable, complete call centre networks starting with
> Australia's centrelink.
>
> So PACT, our showpiece simulation tool, simulated the
> performance of the entire Centrelink call centre network.
> The idea was to improve upon customer waiting times, find
> out the reasons for peak delays, improve upon strategies
> to route traffic better, etc. It was part of an annual
> 60+ million dollar contract Telstra had with Centrelink.
> I am happy to say, that it all worked.
>
> Having written the simulation software from scratch, I do
> have a feel for complex simulation, and the very
> interesting non-linear results generated. One could see
> so many dramas happening with each call - how long they
> waited, what they did... The core of it was a random
> number generator, which generated events as per given
> distributions, suitably altered.
>
> Very easily the same program could be modified to
> simulate more real world applications. Also, we could
> add effectively arms and legs and wheels to the program,
> and thus create a simulation world which would keep on
> running entirely on its own, with its own inner controls.
> With much refinement in externals, this simulation world
> could be made to appear as real as the real world. To
> the extent the programming was thorough, the characters
> or events could even generate random issues that go
> beyond real life... However, the programing effort would
> have to be intense, and the simulation as good as the
> programming.
>
> But all this is very new, for computers are very new.
> What is really happening is that some changes are taking
> place very fast in some very small pieces of matter, and
> these changes are linked to external sensors. Those
> changes are dependent upon just a few factors, or very
> many factors, that are put in by the programmer for a
> given simulation. The whole process is totally
> artificial; nothing natural.
>
> The natural world, on the other hand, runs in its natural
> way. We find natural laws, twist them around for our
> apparent good. With proper observation, we learn. When
> the best among us get stuck, they pray to higher powers
> and then they get enlightenment. So, there has to be a
> link within us, to the higher powers. Similarly, if a
> simulation gets stuck, a character therein may issue a
> plea to the programmer to unstuck the thing. The big
> difference is that the simulation character can have no
> originality is unfixing the stuck simulation - only the
> programmer can do that job. However, in real life, we
> are on our own and act with inspiration, chance, insight,
> etc. that are our very own.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Excellent points. And the important component of that
inspiration is Divine Inspiration!
Original newsgroup distribution restored.
Original post of this thread:
[ Subject: Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013
0 new messages