The Matrix Can Be Tested: Do We Live in Computer Sim?

[ojas]

Well, if we're in the simulation, how the hell could our descendants make this simulation? Won't they be in the same simulation too?

I first heard about this on Discovery, though.

 

[Guest]

So I did a little bit of mushrooms once.
I actually saw myself as connected to a grid in a huge storage thingamabob..
So I guess someone else saw matrix and did shrooms. 😉

 

[CrArC]

[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]The fun is hacking it from this side, and not getting caught.[/citation]I know, right? If this is a simulation and we could haxx my way into billionaire status and possibly super powers then who gives a crap?

If you've got a strong stomach, read The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect. It's disturbing but it raises some very interesting and relevant points about living in what amounts to a virtual world (and knowing about it). Seriously though, it's... disturbing. You have been warned.

 

[serendipiti]

Computers work in clocks. If not only the environment is simulated, but also the individuals (myself is a simulation) there's no computational power involved at all. My awareness of things can take all the clocks needed to complete the "evaluation" as I will perceive one moment of awareness.
1 second of simulation could take millions of years of processing.
Is like the uncertainty principle.
Is like running a Virtual Machine inside a Virtual Machine,

 

[Guest]

Great theory...

1. Where did we come from? I really doubt that the middle eastern fairy tales are the true explanation of the origins of the universe, but if we're simulated, that could explain the impossibility of knowing for sure..
2. As an elite science dork, I ask, why is it so incredibly computationally intensive to simulate such tiny things as atoms, physics and simple chemical reactions? If it takes terrawatts of energy and billions of dollars worth of supercomputers to simulated 2 atoms bumping into each other, It almost suggests that the universe is encrypted.

 

[Guest]

Goedel's incompleteness theorems imply that there is no way to prove you are in a simulation (unless the programmers accidentally or intentionally make it possible). Perhaps our concept of existence is just a subset of the concept of a simulation. "Existence" and "simulation" are just words our ancestors invented (see Logical Positivism).

 

[kellybean]

[citation][nom]FloKid[/nom]God dam it I was hoping to meet Nemo.[/citation]
Blasphemy is unbecoming.

 

[Botia]

I think therefore I am.

 

[surt@uga]

Someone pretty fundamentally misunderstands the hypothesis being discussed. Not sure who, though.

 

[dalethepcman]

[citation][nom]mazty[/nom]Proof we are not living in a simulation is if we could run a simulation. Why? Because no simulation would run that would allow itself to run a sub-simulation as that would end up causing a infinite regression and therefore infinite computational power. Some scientists think too hard at times and don't look at the basics. Scientists vs programmers for you.[/citation]

because everyone knows its impossible to put a virtual machine inside a virtual machine..

There is actually a large amount of particle physics / quantum mechanics research that points to "our universe" being simulated. Look deeply into the "observer effect" and not the explanation on Wikipedia, that's too watered down and is not enough information. The observer effect on the traces of particles that are not under observation do not seem to follow and laws, but once you directly observe the particle's they do follow the laws appropriately.

Basically the process of observing matter at a small enough state changes the way matter reacts. The way I read into this is that "our universe" does not have enough computational power to run all simulations at all times. It will only run the simulation on a particular object when its being paid attention to. Why waste computational power on things that no one is watching?

If the world were not a simulation, than the true "observer effect" would not exist. You can see the cracks in the code if you look hard enough, the big question is does it matter? Does it make our interactions any less real? Does it make your feelings and thoughts different?

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

Right now this is one of the biggest scientific questions and one that is being researched by very well known scientists. It's an idea that needs to be proven false and so far no one can prove we don't live in a simulation. So that's the question.

The problem with this article is it does not link a source. Below is your source.
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-simulation-idea.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-real-physicists-method-universe-simulation.html

 

[surt@uga]

[citation][nom]xxsk8er101xx[/nom]Right now this is one of the biggest scientific questions and one that is being researched by very well known scientists. It's an idea that needs to be proven false and so far no one can prove we don't live in a simulation. So that's the question.The problem with this article is it does not link a source. Below is your source.http://phys.org/news/2012-12-simulation-idea.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2012-10-real- [...] ation.html[/citation]

It may need to be proven false, but since it can't be, I wouldn't hold my breath. It's fundamentally impossible to contrive an experiment that the person running your simulation can't beat.

 

[xxsk8er101xx]

Read the articles. They have a hypothesis that can be tested that should indicate if it [the universe] is a simulation or not.

[citation][nom]surt@uga[/nom]It may need to be proven false, but since it can't be, I wouldn't hold my breath. It's fundamentally impossible to contrive an experiment that the person running your simulation can't beat.[/citation]

 

[surt@uga]

[citation][nom]xxsk8er101xx[/nom]Read the articles. They have a hypothesis that can be tested that should indicate if it [the universe] is a simulation or not.[/citation]

They have a misunderstanding of science. Their hypothesis is not falsifiable. They can find the 'evidence' they expect in a non-simulated universe, and also not find the evidence they expect in a fully simulated universe. Their claim is therefore useless.

 

[grumpigeek]

My brain hurts. Can someone unplug me now?

 

[gumbedamit]

Were are all apart of GODS! simulation

 

[Prophes0r]

The problem with the paper this was based on, AND these guys, is that they both assume that the "Outside World" and the "Simulated World" use the same rules. Which is incredibly limiting, and downright silly.

 

[c911darkwolf]

I think this article belongs less on a tomshardware page and more on the Sci-Fi channel page...

 

[youssef 2010]

Crap, crap, and CRAP

 

[g-unit1111]

Red pill or blue pill? The choice is yours. /Morpheus

 

[sinand99]

learn the truth here: http://harunyahya.com/en/Books/716/idealism-the-philosophy-of-the

 

[Ro0ster]

Alt+F4 on this article

 

[dalethepcman]

"Rise from your grave" thanks rooster...

Nothing new to see here, move along...

 

[cats_Paw]

There is no spoon...

 

[catswold]

This is typical sophomoric "reasoning." It's the same argument all half-educated know-it-alls have (usually when they are in an altered state--intoxicated) . . . what if our solar system is nothing more than an atom in the finger of a giant being and the universe we perceive around us nothing more than the empty spaces between them . . . and what if the world of that super being is nothing more than a particle in an atom of an ever greater being, ad infinitum.

It stems from having a great deal of knowledge with little understanding. It's why they call arguments like this "sophomoric."