Quantum physicists conclude that existence cannot possibly be a computer simulation

Yes, it's quite interesting to see the flawed reasoning...coming from the peanut gallery here on Techspot.

Let's go down the line:
-- First, has anyone even tried to read the actual article, as opposed to the simple blurbs here on Techspot? Good Lord, that article is chock full of highly advanced quantum mechanics concepts, formulas & other esoteric ideas that sail well over the heads of 99% of the people out there (& I'm not just talking about the general public, I mean those of us here on Techspot, self included).
-- Second, whether in their article or in the summary here, it was never said that it was impossible for any computer system to be capable of running a simulation so realistic that we could be living inside of one right now & not know it. What was actually said was that a) the current quantum Monte Carlo simulations (QMC) were incapable of running the simulations without crashing due to errors once a finite number of particles were put into the situation (said finite number not only being very small, but relatively infinitesimal compared to the potential number of subatomic particles in the entire universe), & that b) that there was no way to build a computer system to be able to handle those models with the current technology available for building a computer that wouldn't by itself be comprised of more subatomic particles than there are in the universe.
-- While it would be theoretically possible that some sort of exotic computer technology might be capable of running such a simulation, the kind of breakthroughs & advancements in computer technology are so far advanced beyond anything theorized (& not even by real-world computer engineers, but even in the wildest fancies of sci-fi authors), that Clarke's Law #3 ("any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic") is the greatest understatement in all of history...past, present, and future (as in, there will never be any understatement that would be bigger). Even trying to make an analogy (I.e. a theoretically self-aware photon trying to understand the entire universe at a macro level) would be woefully inadequate in terms of expressing the kind of computational power involved.
-- For those liking the Minecraft quote...show me the Minecraft mod that allows a Minecraft character to play a fully functional game of Minecraft within Minecraft...& then you might be able to have the basic for claiming it's doable. And understand that this essentially would be sticking a Virtual Machine (VM) within the game that had 100% of the outer PC's computational power (including the power already in use to run the VM in the first place) so that it could run its own, equally powerful VM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cal Jeffrey and TempleOrion
Well said the point to the points next to it. Have you heart about what they called a line? It seems that we are not alone. there seem to be there are many points. May points next to each other. Stupid idea! I see only you and no others think we are alone.

The line overheard what to point where telling and he and the other lines laugh. What weird point, there are lines and points. Only point can not see them. The lines laugh unaware that they also could not see what the are grouped together and could not see too....
 
The problem is that this universe isn't a simulation. Its more likely malware.

At least it makes more since if you deal with the people I do everyday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: senketsu
Considering that quantum computer does not offer 100% certain results (2+2 in quantum reality may result in 3 or 5 on rare occurrences) I wouldn't bet my life on this.

Just starting from Heisenberg principle, you can't determine everything is where it supposed to be, not to mention Observer Effect when particles behave differently depending if you watching them or not. Quantum level of reality that's one quirky Universe.

On the other hand Observer Effect is very useful in 'classic-mode-physics' life. Ignoring stupid people really do solve a lot of problems. LOL
 
If this was all a simulation, who's to say all the science is based on it's own internal system and has little to do with anything outside of the simulation. It could be done on purpose, so that these type of discoveries would instill the idea that it can't be a simulation.

"computer as we realize them to be" - right... because we could be in the simulation. If we're in a simulation we have no idea what's outside of it.

And even if we aren't in a simulation.. Back before computers, scientists/equivalents would never have fathomed, with their current tech to take a hot air balloon to mars. Thus travel as we realize it to be, would be an impossibility.
 
From what I was able to understand from this article was that physicists discount our existence as being a simulation because they can not fathom the computing power necessary to simulate all the particles in the whole cosmos. The flaw here is that their thinking is limited to our understanding of current technology. Who is to say that a 'n'th level civilization will create something beyond a quantum computer existing on multiple dimensions where the rules of physics are different than our own. Imagine the ability to process data is a reality where time is slower and moving in multiple directions such that computing sets of data per second is irrelevant because that unit of time does not exist or operate as we know or be able to imagine. I believe that not only are we living in a simulation or even a great machine such that the work of processing reality is being done under the surface of the fabric of reality.
 
Squid Surprise said:
So our proof that we aren't in a computer simulation is that there's no way we could build said computer?

Anyone else see the inherent flaw in this logic?!?!?

While I think the premise that we live in a computer simulation is ridiculous for other reasons (mostly on the, "I think therefore I am" principle), saying that because we can't figure out how a computer could be powerful enough to simulate our universe is just as ridiculous.

Almost by definition, by being INSIDE the simulation, it would be impossible for us to comprehend anything "outside" it... We'd be "programmed" for this....
Click to expand...

True
 
Adding each new particle increases the number of calculations exponentially, but...
- We don't have to compute every interaction. Just those that are needed.
- Quantum computers get exponentially more powerful with each qbit added. Therefore exponential power needed to simulate more particles is offset by quantum computer exponential increase in power.
 
Our mind isn't even inside our skull, it is an energy field that permeates externally. God's mind is all of time and space and mother earth is the physical entity with nth power that traveled through the mind to be in precisely the right point to be able to grow us on it's surface.
 
TomSEA said:
"But what if that means our whole solar system could be, like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some giant being? That means one tiny atom in my fingernail could be.......could be one little tiny universe!"
Click to expand...
When I was young, I pictured myself in some FTL spaceship travelling toward the end of our universe. And then through the 'barrier' that is the edge of our universe--and being able to just keep going!
When I got far enough past the 'barrier', I looked back and saw the leg of a wooden chair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: namesrejected and Cal Jeffrey
Forebode said:
If this was all a simulation, who's to say all the science is based on it's own internal system and has little to do with anything outside of the simulation. It could be done on purpose, so that these type of discoveries would instill the idea that it can't be a simulation.

"computer as we realize them to be" - right... because we could be in the simulation. If we're in a simulation we have no idea what's outside of it.

And even if we aren't in a simulation.. Back before computers, scientists/equivalents would never have fathomed, with their current tech to take a hot air balloon to mars. Thus travel as we realize it to be, would be an impossibility.
Click to expand...

So...I take it you're not very familiar with Jules Verne's works, or at least not anything beyond 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Journey to the Center of the Earth.

His novel, From the Earth to the Moon, was written in 1865 (note: this is over 100 years before Apollo 11 landed on the Moon), & talks about a post-US Civil War group of artillery engineers & manufacturers that had formed a club to perform experiments with bigger & more powerful guns, but were looking for a challenge worthy of their intellect...& their president decided they should try to build a gun powerful enough to fire a manned projectile capable of reaching the Moon.

He got some of the details wrong, of course -- we are talking about pre-jet engine age, after all -- but he was on target with a lot of the ideas: basing the cannon/launcher in Florida (with Texas as a backup) to allow for a more vertical firing; the need to not only bring along food & water, but also a way to generate oxygen for them to breathe; the need to cushion the interior of the shell so that the crew wasn't crushed by the launch; the selection of a 3-man crew, etc. And this was done not only well before any transistor-based digital computers, but even before the earliest analog computing devices (his novel pre-dating Sir William Thomson/Lord Kelvin's tide-predicting machine of 1872).

If anything, back then scientists & explorers were more likely to imagine that they could take a balloon or other vehicle to the Moon, Mars, or the other planets, as they still thought back then that the Earth & other planets floated through an "aether", a much thicker (& more hospitable) realm than the mostly-empty space more modern scientists discovered was part of the reality.

As for "solving the problem in another dimension", or the use of other science-fiction gimmicks to get around the known limits of our universe...they're just that: tricks. I don't know if they can even be considered "hypotheses", since you have to be able to design an experiment that could be used to help determine whether a hypothesis is correct/incorrect/indeterminate. Not to mention that, assuming the hypothesis that our "reality" is nothing more than a simulation in some "magic" computer (in this case "magic" = "so hyper-advanced that the most outlandish theory won't ever come close to even being a hint at the level of technology & sophistication involved"), those theoretical "other dimensions" that supposedly could be used to help build the computer hardware would be just as simulated (& therefore no more "real" than our own reality).
 
...unless the programmer of said Universe changed the laws (our laws) of physics to where our physics can't match the outside world's logic.
 
Also, not every sup-atomic particle would have to be processed at every time. Only the ones "we" are observing. If this were a simulation, only the things "we" observe in it would have to be processed. For instance, to my knowledge there is a tree behind me, but I nor is anyone else are observing it at the moment, so is it really there? Also, I am looking at a monitor now, but not touching it. I assume I know the texture, I have felt it before, but as long as I'm not touching it, is it really there?

If the simulation only processed the things we are interacting with at the moment, and only processed them to the depth of our interaction then the processing power would be way less than they think.

Besides, I vaguely remember looking at the blue sky one day and saw:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_error_screen#/media/File:ConCon_bsod.png
 
namesrejected said:
Cal Jeffrey said:
42.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the answer is 69. 69 gives everyone meaning. 69 could bring world piece. The problem is that there are unbelievers, my wife hates 69 for example. There will always be questions about life until you accept 69 as the answer.
Click to expand...
69 is the more elegant theory, it has symmetry that 42 lacks for it looks the same upside down as rightside up. It must be right
 
senketsu said:
69 is the more elegant theory, it has symmetry that 42 lacks for it looks the same upside down as rightside up. It must be right
Click to expand...
Apparently we have people who haven't read Douglas Adams.... google hitchhikers guide to the galaxy then read the book!
 
The problem with the localized "loading" virtual reality (like a game loading the nearby area around you) argument is that it assumes the creators of the simulation actually care if lowly simulated beings (supposedly us) believe it's simulated on that level of detail or not.

It's more likely we're forced to perceive that this level of quantum detail is there whether it's being simulated on that level of detail or not. (if everything actually is a simulation)

Also, can this theory of theirs still "prove it's impossible" if it's applied to the Holographic Principle theory? Where it's mathematically possible that everything we see is an illusion of just 2 dimensions or something like that?
 
This isn't physics, this is time-wasting. There's nothing quantum about this conversation or anything to do with it. These guys don't even know what the quantum particle is or anything about physics newer than 1925, when Bohr and Heisenberg murdered it in Copenhagen. They're actually worse than those AGW frauds or the "gravity wave" fakesters, but only because they don't even talk about anything real at all. At least climate exists and gravity exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Apple secures iMessage against threats from quantum computers
Replies
1
Views
155
erickmendes
erickmendes
midian182
Amazon CEO says company is going all-in on generative AI, thinks it could be as big as the cloud and internet
Replies
3
Views
74
OortCloud
O
midian182
Steve Jobs signed Apple business card sells for over $180,000 at auction
Replies
2
Views
123
kiwigraeme
K

Latest posts

Back