Whoa: Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation
Will you take the red pill or the blue pill?
Some physicists and university researchers say it's possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film "The Matrix."
In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, "The Simulation Argument," which argued that, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we're all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization's computer game.
Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.
So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.
"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."
The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: "Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."
To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there's a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.
Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?
University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should "simply" attempt to communicate with those. "The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'" she asked.
Link to Story (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html;_ylt=AwrHgEdUgs5QSR0AHwes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5cG51anJlBG1pdANTZWN0aW9uTGlzdCBUaGUgU2lkZXNob3cEcGtnAzgxN2RjZTE1LTkzOTItMzkyNC04OTQzLTIyZGEyNmUxODRmMgRwb3MDMQRzZWMDTWVkaWFTZWN0aW9uTGlzdAR2ZXIDZTYxYzNlNzItNDU3Zi0xMWUyLWI3YjctYTg5M2E2ZmFmMGUx;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3)
:spooked:
That's absolutely fascinating. While I really don't much think we're all living in a simulation, the chances that we aren't are certainly not zero. This is from the abstract of the original paper that put forth this supposition:
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation.
The full paper can be found here:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The philosophical ramifications of such a discussion are endless, let alone if one day it was shown to be true. :biggrin:
Oh man. . . Somebody must've performed the Vulcan mind-meld on me while I was sleeping and stolen my thoughts! :eek:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 16, 2012, 10:13:54 PM
Oh man. . . Somebody must've performed the Vulcan mind-meld on me while I was sleeping and stolen my thoughts! :eek:
Might that support the simulation theory? :razz: ;D
Quote from: Locutus on December 16, 2012, 10:16:09 PM
Might that support the simulation theory? :razz: ;D
:spooked: Holy binary Batman! :spooked:
Quote from: Locutus on December 16, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
Whoa: Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation
Will you take the red pill or the blue pill?
Some physicists and university researchers say it's possible to test the theory that our entire universe exists inside a computer simulation, like in the 1999 film "The Matrix."
In 2003, University of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom published a paper, "The Simulation Argument," which argued that, "we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation." Now, a team at Cornell University says it has come up with a viable method for testing whether we're all just a series of numbers in some ancient civilization's computer game.
Researchers at the University of Washington agree with the testing method, saying it can be done. A similar proposal was put forth by German physicists in November.
So how, precisely, can we test whether we exist? Put simply, researchers are building their own simulated models, using a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics. And while those models are currently able to produce models only slightly larger than the nucleus of an atom, University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage says the same principles used in creating those simulations can be applied on a larger scale.
"This is the first testable signature of such an idea," Savage said. "If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge."
The testing method is far more complex. Consider the Cornell University explanation: "Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."
To translate, if energy signatures in our simulations match those in the universe at large, there's a good chance we, too, exist within a simulation.
Interestingly, one of Savage's students takes the hypothesis further: If we stumble upon the nature of our existence, would we then look for ways to communicate with the civilization who created us?
University of Washington student Zohreh Davoudi says whoever made our simulated universe might have made others, and maybe we should "simply" attempt to communicate with those. "The question is, 'Can you communicate with those other universes if they are running on the same platform?'" she asked.
Link to Story (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/whoa-physicists-testing-see-universe-computer-simulation-224525825.html;_ylt=AwrHgEdUgs5QSR0AHwes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5cG51anJlBG1pdANTZWN0aW9uTGlzdCBUaGUgU2lkZXNob3cEcGtnAzgxN2RjZTE1LTkzOTItMzkyNC04OTQzLTIyZGEyNmUxODRmMgRwb3MDMQRzZWMDTWVkaWFTZWN0aW9uTGlzdAR2ZXIDZTYxYzNlNzItNDU3Zi0xMWUyLWI3YjctYTg5M2E2ZmFmMGUx;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3)
:yes: That's one of those mind-boggling ideas that make sci-fi so fascinating.
Quote from: Palehorse on December 16, 2012, 10:17:59 PM
:spooked: Holy binary Batman! :spooked:
;D
In all seriousness though, what would happen if we proved that we are nothing more than a simulation? Outside of what the theological and philosophical ramifications of such a discovery would be, what if the entity or entities who created the simulation noticed our discovery and hit the "end program" button? Or would they let it continue as it really would be a natural progression of the simulation that they initiated to begin with?
Like I said; the philosophical ramifications of such a discussion are endless, let alone if one day it was shown to be true.
Quote from: libby on December 16, 2012, 10:22:06 PM
:yes: That's one of those mind-boggling ideas that make sci-fi so fascinating.
Well obviously the researchers don't think the possibility of such being the case lies solely in the realm of science fiction. Otherwise, they wouldn't be studying it. They really are setting about intelligently discussing the 3 points stated in the abstract.
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Quote from: Locutus on December 16, 2012, 10:24:51 PM
;D
In all seriousness though, what would happen if we proved that we are nothing more than a simulation? Outside of what the theological and philosophical ramifications of such a discovery would be, what if the entity or entities who created the simulation noticed our discovery and hit the "end program" button? Or would they let it continue as it really would be a natural progression of the simulation that they initiated to begin with?
Like I said; the philosophical ramifications of such a discussion are endless, let alone if one day it was shown to be true.
Discovering that we are nothing more than a simulation; would that be the REAL moment we become "self-aware"? :spooked:
I can just see a bunch of people going all PS3 / God of War on the masses if they ever prove the theory. :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on December 16, 2012, 10:28:48 PM
Discovering that we are nothing more than a simulation; would that be the REAL moment we become "self-aware"? :spooked:
It would be the ultimate "cogito ergo sum" moment. But then Descartes was only a simulation as well, so what would he know anyway? ;D
Quote from: Palehorse on December 16, 2012, 10:30:47 PM
I can just see a bunch of people going all PS3 / God of War on the masses if they ever prove the theory. :spooked:
Quite possibly. There would really be no "real world" to begin with so there would be no "real world" ramifications in trying to alter the simulation, other than possibly annoying the entity/entities running the simulation if they're still watching.
It would be like lucid dreaming. It's easy to jump off a cliff if you know you're only dreaming, and it will cause no actual physical harm at all. I know of what I speak because I have lucid dreams quite often. I've jumped off of those cliffs. :yes:
Here's my next persona then:
(http://media.psu.com/media/articles/image/Kratos_1.jpg)
All of this computer simulation malarkey, is just fairy dust, :tink: make believe just as the bible is. :yes: SORRY!
Quote from: The Troll on December 16, 2012, 11:28:04 PM
All of this computer simulation malarkey, is just fairy dust, :tink: make believe just as the bible is. :yes: SORRY!
But unlike the Bible, it is being approached from a scientific standpoint.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Barin_in_a_vat_%28en%29_v2.png/220px-Barin_in_a_vat_%28en%29_v2.png)
;D
A computer simulation of a human being would explain my ex-wife.
I can't.
Quote from: followsthewolf on December 17, 2012, 06:46:46 AM
A computer simulation of a human being would explain my ex-wife.
I can't.
:big grin: :big grin:
Quote from: Locutus on December 16, 2012, 09:31:31 PM
The philosophical ramifications of such a discussion are endless, let alone if one day it was shown to be true. :biggrin:
It would at the least make a very good movie!
I don't think it will happen, or is happening. Computers cannot simulate emotion and imagination and curiosity and independent thought. I guess it's possible all the humans could die off or be annihilated and computers would run their version of what the world should be like, but what a :spooked: world that would be.
Quote from: libby on December 17, 2012, 11:42:47 AM
I don't think it will happen, or is happening. Computers cannot simulate emotion and imagination and curiosity and independent thought.
Ah! But you better think again on that premise. Check this out:
Whole Brain Emulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_brain_emulation)
From the article:
"Eminent computer scientists and neuroscientists have predicted that computers will be capable of thought and even attain consciousness, including Koch and Tononi,[5] Douglas Hofstadter,[6] Jeff Hawkins,[6] Marvin Minsky,[7] Randal A. Koene,[8] and Rodolfo Llinas.[9]"And from a separate article on the subject:
"A longer term goal is to build a detailed, functional simulation of the physiological processes in the human brain: "It is not impossible to build a human brain and we can do it in 10 years," Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project said in 2009 at the TED conference in Oxford.[4] In a BBC World Service interview he said: "If we build it correctly it should speak and have an intelligence and behave very much as a human does."[4]"
So you see, it isn't as far fetched of an idea as you may think that it is. :wink:
Locutus, here is where we differ: "A longer term goal is to build a functional simulation of the physiological processes of the human brain."
I have always been fascinated by science, and it has included increasing curiosity about what may reside in our noggins above and beyond the "physiological processes." I could try 15 different ways to explain what I mean by that, and give examples (not based on religion), but I tend to write and rewrite until I find the right words, and I don't have time for that right now.
:)
Quote from: libby on December 17, 2012, 03:18:16 PM
Locutus, here is where we differ: "A longer term goal is to build a functional simulation of the physiological processes of the human brain."
How exactly do we differ on anything? I don't recall really expressing an opinion on the subject outside of saying the philosophical ramifications are tremendous. ;D
Quote from: libby on December 17, 2012, 03:18:16 PM
I have always been fascinated by science, and it has included increasing curiosity about what may reside in our noggins above and beyond the "physiological processes." I could try 15 different ways to explain what I mean by that, and give examples (not based on religion), but I tend to write and rewrite until I find the right words, and I don't have time for that right now.
:)
That's okay. I would be interested in reading what you have to say about it when, and if, you find the time to do so. Actually, a discussion about whether a computer can simulate a human brain, up to and and including feelings, is only slightly off topic. That would be a prerequisite for anyone to write a program to simulate us to begin with. :wink:
One big difference the way I see it...and cannot be duplicated...........and, I'm sure you and I will disagree........but it is called a, SOUL. :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 18, 2012, 08:04:20 AM
One big difference the way I see it...and cannot be duplicated...........and, I'm sure you and I will disagree........but it is called a, SOUL. :yes:
But couldn't that be as simple as the number on the battery, or whatever is giving us the electrical charge, to keep us from being the same. I know that's out in left field but it just flashed through my mind. I probably should read the article before interjecting thoughts and opinions huh?
Quote from: me on December 18, 2012, 09:31:28 AM
But couldn't that be as simple as the number on the battery, or whatever is giving us the electrical charge, to keep us from being the same. I know that's out in left field but it just flashed through my mind. I probably should read the article before interjecting thoughts and opinions huh?
I am interjecting a "beleif" into a simulated hypothetical situation. You have to have some sort of faith in something much larger before you can buy into the concept of a soul. But, that is the difference between me buying into this kind of scenerio and my own personal belief. I am probably opening a can of worms, and that is not my intent.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 18, 2012, 08:04:20 AM
One big difference the way I see it...and cannot be duplicated...........and, I'm sure you and I will disagree........but it is called a, SOUL. :yes:
What if belief in such was just part of the simulation's programming for some individuals?
This is for Locutus. I tried to answer your question last night, but had a horrible day yesterday and couldn't focus on what I wanted to say long enough to write it.
I don't doubt that in the future just about all, or maybe all human body parts may be duplicated and replaced, including the brain, except for one thing -- the soul. I grew up in a Christian home believing that, and becoming disillusioned with religion did not change it. But how do I reconcile that with the science that I believe in? I found a way, a decade or so ago. I read something that made sense to me:
"Deep inside us, unknown to the five senses, is an innermost core of being, a field of nonchange that creates personality, ego, and body. This is our essential state -- it is who we really are....These are vast assumptions, the makings of a new reality, yet all are grounded in the discoveries of quantum physics made almost a hundred years ago. The seeds of this new paradigm were planted by Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the other pioneers of quantum physics, who realized that the accepted way of viewing the physical world was false. Although things "out there" appear to be real, there is no proof or reality apart from the observer. No two people share exactly the same universe. Every worldview creates its own world." -- Deepak Chopra, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind
Quote from: Locutus on December 18, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
What if belief in such was just part of the simulation's programming for some individuals?
and I say in return, what if God is real?
same conclusions...
Quote from: Locutus on December 18, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
What if belief in such was just part of the simulation's programming for some individuals?
That is a very good question. :confused: :biggrin:
The scientific research pointing toward everything in the universe being energy based at its core, really supports this being the case. . .
So....
do you want to be Morpheus?
Quote from: followsthewolf on December 18, 2012, 01:16:20 PM
So....
do you want to be Morpheus?
Perhaps we are all nothing but the creations of Morpheus! :yes:
or perhaps we are creations of God.
Quote from: libby on December 18, 2012, 11:10:39 AM
This is for Locutus. I tried to answer your question last night, but had a horrible day yesterday and couldn't focus on what I wanted to say long enough to write it.
I don't doubt that in the future just about all, or maybe all human body parts may be duplicated and replaced, including the brain, except for one thing -- the soul. I grew up in a Christian home believing that, and becoming disillusioned with religion did not change it. But how do I reconcile that with the science that I believe in? I found a way, a decade or so ago. I read something that made sense to me:
No worries on the delay. ;D On the subject of a soul, if this were just one big programming simulation, then the soul (for those that choose to believe in such) is no more than additional programming just like the rest of what we perceive to be reality around us. If this is all a simulation, then there is no true reality in any of it including intangibles like the soul.
Quote from: libby on December 18, 2012, 11:10:39 AM
"Deep inside us, unknown to the five senses, is an innermost core of being, a field of nonchange that creates personality, ego, and body. This is our essential state -- it is who we really are....These are vast assumptions, the makings of a new reality, yet all are grounded in the discoveries of quantum physics made almost a hundred years ago. The seeds of this new paradigm were planted by Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the other pioneers of quantum physics, who realized that the accepted way of viewing the physical world was false. Although things "out there" appear to be real, there is no proof or reality apart from the observer. No two people share exactly the same universe. Every worldview creates its own world." -- Deepak Chopra, Ageless Body, Timeless Mind
That part in bold is actually pretty close to the exact the topic of this thread, is it not? :biggrin: One could say, "Although things 'out there' appear to be real, there is no proof or reality apart from the
programming. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 18, 2012, 11:11:09 AM
and I say in return, what if God is real?
same conclusions...
Belief in a deity, whomever that may be for you, is just part of the programming. A grand study of the potential catastrophes or benefits of widespread belief in things that really have no proof, with the writers of the programming conducting the study. ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 18, 2012, 01:53:29 PM
or perhaps we are creations of God.
Well you have to admit that so far, the programming doesn't support that conclusion whatsoever, especially not as it's depicted in Genesis. The programming has given us other evidence to consider that would seem to belie that being the case.
On a more humorous note, if you're ever out walking in the forest and a door appears like this one, run like hell and get back to the Zone and let us know about it. :biggrin:
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120425001849/memoryalpha/en/images/e/eb/Riker_Jungle_Holodeck_2364.jpg)
:lol: I was already going there, but my comment about the programming was to be -- simply: BORG?
Quote from: libby on December 18, 2012, 09:11:26 PM
:lol: I was already going there, but my comment about the programming was to be -- simply: BORG?
:biggrin:
BTW, that's assimilation; not simulation. :rotfl:
Drat! Would it make a difference if I said I was thinking about the effect, not the process?