Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Microsoft officially announces Xbox One: here's what we know so far
Have you ever considered the possibility that we may all live in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction (The Matrix, anyone?), but Nick Bostrom famously hypothesized (pdf) that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. This may sound totally absurd to most, but that modern existential notion is really no less credible than the equally mind-bending (and sometimes physics-bending) theories proposed by both science and religion.
The news here though, is that researchers now believe they have a way to test this thought experiment. A team of scientists from Germany -- University of Bonn, to be exact -- suggest that even the most powerful Universe simulation would be subject to certain limitations of its host Universe. The team believes those limitations would be observable by its inhabitants too, appearing in the form of physical constraints which may not jibe with otherwise universal laws.
What makes their discovery particularly exciting is scientists believe we actually have sufficient technology to test whether or not we are all just electric sheep. How, you ask? Simple -- by creating our own simulation of the Universe, of course.
The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time.
The question that Beane and co ask is whether the lattice spacing [example: our three dimensions + time] imposes any kind of limitation on the physical processes we see in the Universe. They examine, in particular, high energy processes, which probe smaller regions of space as they get more energetic.
What they find is interesting. They say that the lattice spacing imposes a fundamental limit on the energy that particles can have. That's because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself.
So if our cosmos is merely a simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles.
Source: technologyreview.com
Bonn scientists believe limits inherited by a simulation would affect high-energy particles like cosmic rays. Most interestingly, one such example could be the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit, a phenomenon produced by the interaction of cosmic rays and cosmic microwave background radiation, creating an unexpected limit on their energy -- a fact which doesn't fit neatly into physics.
In a totally meta way, this may essentially be us observing the orientation of the dimensional lattice from the reality in which our creators exist. Whoa...
This may be surprising, but we've gotten quite good at representing the tiniest nooks of the quantum universe digitally. Granted, we're only recreating areas spanning femtometers -- that's far less than a nanometer -- but hey, that's a start. Simulations of these incomprehensibly miniscule portions of our reality yield particles, energies and interactions which are indistinguishable from the real thing. Well, except for having the results displayed on a computer screen, anyway.
User Comments: 119
Got something to say? Post a comment-
This proves only that we are nowhere near the correct theory about Universe, matter and time and maybe it's time to re-consider our basics.
-
Some Physicists have far too much time on their hands, have taken way too much acid, and obviously have no accumen to cure Cancer et al.
-
42
hehehehe
-
Better scientist who ask if this is "real" then a regular human who thinks in god(s) (not aliens).
-
NTAPRO said:
Maybe there are some hackers out there to prolong our lives.
Lol, being in a computer simulation and playing the sims 3. Makes sense.
-
What if we were created by man or computer using a time machine in the future?
-
An article about the origin of the universe and out of the 31 comments only one post mentioned a bible verse? Oh come on, religious people! You can do better than that! We need our Saturday morning coffee entertainment!
-
Yes, we live in a computer software, and global warming is just a bug or glitches happen
-
Hm, I not physic if any kind but that lattice limitation...Is that similar to rounding errors?
-
*physicist
Sorry I'm using Swype.
-
An article about the origin of the universe and out of the 31 comments only one post mentioned a bible verse? Oh come on, religious people! You can do better than that! We need our Saturday morning coffee entertainment!
science doesnt disprove religion, therefore religion is irrelevant to any science article, including this one.
-
R3DP3NGUIN said:
The find the intelligence level of some of these comments, quite amusing *Sits back with Coffee in hand*. I could start trouble by saying, anyone who knows David Icke will know he has spoken on the subject for decades.
-
Niels Vandamme said:
No better than any other creationist theory: it points at something we don't fully understand yet as "proof," meanwhile using weasel words as only authority. This New Age version is no better than the Christian one.
Any species capable of creating consciousness in computer simulations would have achieved a Technological Singularity and would therefore have no more need for computer simulations, as it would be a computer, and instead of simulations it would just use its imagination. The difference between simulation and imagination is that when we imagine someone, we don't give it a consciousness of its own. And even if it would have any use to do so, it would be inhumane.
-
Doctor John said:
Any species capable of creating consciousness in computer simulations would have achieved a Technological Singularity and would therefore have no more need for computer simulations, as it would be a computer, and instead of simulations it would just use its imagination. The difference between simulation and imagination is that when we imagine someone, we don't give it a consciousness of its own. And even if it would have any use to do so, it would be inhumane.
What's a Technological Singularity?
-
5/10
Science has, and continues to, debunk the claims of religion. Thereby proving all religions are false. I don't know if there is a god, I reserve judgment until there is legitimate evidence, but I do know all religions are superstitious nonsense devoted to gods which debunk their own existence with the incorrect claims they make.
-
You naughty troll, you!
-
I'd hate to be that SysAdmin... :eek:
-
5/10
Science has, and continues to, debunk the claims of religion. Thereby proving all religions are false. I don't know if there is a god, I reserve judgment until there is legitimate evidence, but I do know all religions are superstitious nonsense devoted to gods which debunk their own existence with the incorrect claims they make.
you continue to say this yet you lack any evidence or examples.
-
PoisonHeadcrab said:
@TwixteaWell, if it was proven that there was "Intellegent Design" in the creation of the Universe, it would definatly point to a "Creator". Maybe not the "God" versions, but definatly intellegent. Which would not dicount "God", but would show that, A. W e are not alone in the universe. B: There is a Creator. C: Life would be everywhere in the universe as no intellegent creature (I hesitate to say being) would waste that much space.
First of all it's generally absurd to think the human race is as an intelligent species alone in the universe.
Secondly the problem with the concept of a simulation or an intelligent creator is simple - How are we supposed to explain the "host universe"? With another intelligent creator?
It actually makes much more sense to assume that everything emerged out of nothingness, sort of like a very complicated fractal, originating from the simplest formula and then spiralling into more and more complexity and diversification.
-
1 person liked this |
I drink therefore I am.
-
First of all it's generally absurd to think the human race is as an intelligent species alone in the universe.
Secondly the problem with the concept of a simulation or an intelligent creator is simple - How are we supposed to explain the "host universe"? With another intelligent creator?
It actually makes much more sense to assume that everything emerged out of nothingness, sort of like a very complicated fractal, originating from the simplest formula and then spiralling into more and more complexity and diversification.
it makes no sense from something to come from nothing, as that breaks the laws of (at least, what we believe) of physics. but if intelligent design was correct (and im not stating any more about my views on that) then it would make sense for a being that always existed (in line with the bible) to have the power to do things beyond human comprehension. Hypothetically, we could fool ourselves into saying we could comprehend it, but we would not be able to. im not saying you are incorrect, im simply offering another argument that it would be interesting to get a response.
-
BetaguyGZT said:
So the idea is that this universe is a simulation? And they think they can prove it?
It sure puts an interesting spin on the idea of Reincarnation and the 'Repeating Universe' theories and hypotheses. Something gets mucked up and they simply issue the reset command (whomever "they" are)?
I agree with the above that I hope this is a reality in beta testing.
Very interesting indeed.
-
PoisonHeadcrab said:it makes no sense from something to come from nothing, as that breaks the laws of (at least, what we believe) of physics. but if intelligent design was correct (and im not stating any more about my views on that) then it would make sense for a being that always existed (in line with the bible) to have the power to do things beyond human comprehension. Hypothetically, we could fool ourselves into saying we could comprehend it, but we would not be able to. im not saying you are incorrect, im simply offering another argument that it would be interesting to get a response.
I think the law that'd be broken would rather be a law of logic, rather than physics. I admit my point wasn't entirely accurate the way I formulated it, if we were to follow the analogy of the fractal, there certainly had to be some sort of trivial entity which the universe originated from.
Anyways, the biggest problem I see with the idea of an intelligent creator is the fact how extremely biased it seems on the human being, if you try to look at it rather objectively. I mean, the idea implies the existence of a person-like entity with arbitrary properties such as "will" and "intelligence" (Religions even go as far as attributing emotions like love or anger, almost completely "humanizing" this creator).
Now, I don't think terms like these can be assigned to anything else other than some sort of biological being, I dare you to present me a concept or example that suggests otherwise. I don't know what your take on this would be, but to me it seems kind of logical, that something that occurs inside a universe cannot happen outside of it, let alone lead some kind of a timeless existence. Things like us are formed by the universe and our existence relies on all of it's rules, mechanics and time. In conclusion that leads me to think that if an "intelligent creator" was in fact responsible, it must be resident in a(nother) universe.
I don't think all of this necessarily involves things beyond human comprehension... What concerns their existence however I'm pretty interested if there's a way to either be able to prove it or realize that doing so would be a paradox.
-
I think the law that'd be broken would rather be a law of logic, rather than physics. I admit my point wasn't entirely accurate the way I formulated it, if we were to follow the analogy of the fractal, there certainly had to be some sort of trivial entity which the universe originated from.
Anyways, the biggest problem I see with the idea of an intelligent creator is the fact how extremely biased it seems on the human being, if you try to look at it rather objectively. I mean, the idea implies the existence of a person-like entity with arbitrary properties such as "will" and "intelligence" (Religions even go as far as attributing emotions like love or anger, almost completely "humanizing" this creator).
Now, I don't think terms like these can be assigned to anything else other than some sort of biological being, I dare you to present me a concept or example that suggests otherwise. I don't know what your take on this would be, but to me it seems kind of logical, that something that occurs inside a universe cannot happen outside of it, let alone lead some kind of a timeless existence. Things like us are formed by the universe and our existence relies on all of it's rules, mechanics and time. In conclusion that leads me to think that if an "intelligent creator" was in fact responsible, it must be resident in a(nother) universe.
I don't think all of this necessarily involves things beyond human comprehension... What concerns their existence however I'm pretty interested if there's a way to either be able to prove it or realize that doing so would be a paradox.
I can see what we lead to this conclusion, however, there is no evidence suggesting that a creator does not have humanlike traits. I can also say that the bible states that god created man "in his image"..
When it comes right down to it, there really isnt a way to completely prove either science or intelligent design. which is why religion is synonymous to "faith"-believing something we cannot prove is true. Two atoms coming to existence from nothing isnt any more possible to prove than a God, because that would be implying that everything we know about science is 100% accurate, which is highly, highly unlikely.
-
We dont have the answer because this universe is just a part of the real one. only this make sense.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Building a Thin Mini-ITX PC: Small and Silent Performance
-
Metro: Last Light Tested, Benchmarked
-
Microsoft officially announces Xbox One: here's what we know so far
-
'Supercapacitor' could fully charge your phone in less than 30 seconds
-
Xbox One: Entertainment hub first, gaming console second - but can it disrupt TV?
Featured on Cases
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.