Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 3 of 5«12345»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Is the universe a simulation? (Many physicists think this...)
Is the universe a simulation?
WatsisnameDate: Wednesday, 10.10.2012, 23:24 | Message # 31
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Quote (H2Bro)
I have not studied it formally, also I do not have the requisite background in tensor calculus to really dig into it.


That's cool, you still sound pretty knowledgeable on it. I've studied relativity formally but have another semester or so before I get into the vigorous mathematical framework (Minkowski Space, Field Equations, tensor analysis, etc). I have looked ahead in some undergraduate textbooks and it is pretty fascinating and beautiful stuff, if you consider pages and pages of equations and derivations to be beautiful. tongue

By the way, what journals would you recommend for articles on higher-dimensional treatments of field interactions? I'm guessing that falls into GUT's and maybe String or M Theory, but it's way beyond my understanding at this point.





 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Wednesday, 10.10.2012, 23:39 | Message # 32
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Here is an interesting article on the subject

http://io9.com/5950543....ulation





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
Antza2Date: Thursday, 11.10.2012, 09:16 | Message # 33
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
Whoa
- Neo





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
H2BroDate: Friday, 12.10.2012, 23:10 | Message # 34
Astronaut
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 51
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
By the way, what journals would you recommend for articles on higher-dimensional treatments of field interactions? I'm guessing that falls into GUT's and maybe String or M Theory, but it's way beyond my understanding at this point.


Try doing a google search on "Quantum entanglement in higher dimension"

Theres plenty of material. Some of it backed with journal articles, some not sad





i3 370M 2.3Ghz ATI Radeon 5650 8GB DDR3 Win 7 (runs SE suprisingly well for a laptop!)
 
Antza2Date: Monday, 15.10.2012, 19:17 | Message # 35
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012....77.html




Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Monday, 15.10.2012, 19:45 | Message # 36
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote (Antza2)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012....77.html



Was watching something last night about the idea that the universe may be a simulation and they talked about Quantum computers and something made me realize that even if it is a simulation it may be a 1:1 to the "real" universe. Basically a powerful enough Quantum computer could possibly simulate multiple entire universes down to their fundamental structures and anything within that simulation would be in a "real" universe. I feel like I butchered that explanation badly but I'm sure you can make some sense of it.

wacko





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
Antza2Date: Monday, 15.10.2012, 20:21 | Message # 37
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
Quote (DoctorOfSpace)
Was watching something last night about the idea that the universe may be a simulation and they talked about Quantum computers and something made me realize that even if it is a simulation it may be a 1:1 to the "real" universe. Basically a powerful enough Quantum computer could possibly simulate multiple entire universes down to their fundamental structures and anything within that simulation would be in a "real" universe. I feel like I butchered that explanation badly but I'm sure you can make some sense of it.

But what if the simulation is just inside another simulation?
We need to go deeper.

I N C E P T I O N





Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!

Edited by Antza2 - Monday, 15.10.2012, 20:21
 
VoekoevakaDate: Monday, 15.10.2012, 23:11 | Message # 38
World Builder
Group: SE team
France
Messages: 1016
Status: Offline
Quote (Antza2)
But what if the simulation is just inside another simulation?
We need to go deeper.

I N C E P T I O N

It seems that we'll not find an end to that.





Want some music of mine ? Please go here !

 
H2BroDate: Friday, 19.10.2012, 14:37 | Message # 39
Astronaut
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 51
Status: Offline
the topic also calls into question what they mean by 'simulation'. What would not be interesting if simulation just means some emergent form or complexity from simpler processes. A more interesting simulation would if something more complicated is actively working to produce an image of something much simpler.




i3 370M 2.3Ghz ATI Radeon 5650 8GB DDR3 Win 7 (runs SE suprisingly well for a laptop!)
 
dblackDate: Wednesday, 22.05.2013, 05:35 | Message # 40
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 35
Status: Offline
Ever since i started using Space Engine, i couldn't help but imagine if we are inside of a similar program with a creator that creates and sets the rules up. I have played Ms Flight simulators, Orbiter and Celestia. Hell i even played around with Grand Theft Auto. Even tho these are excellent simulators in there own right, none of them gives you a feel of completion like Space Engine. I seen a special on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about a year ago and they were talking about this same topic.
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Wednesday, 22.05.2013, 05:45 | Message # 41
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8713
Status: Offline
dblack, there is already a thread on this topic here.




All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
Gondor2222Date: Tuesday, 25.06.2013, 04:13 | Message # 42
Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 92
Status: Offline
Quote (Voekoevaka)
But what if the simulation is just inside another simulation?
We need to go deeper.

I N C E P T I O N

It seems that we'll not find an end to that.

Quote (DoctorOfSpace)
a powerful enough Quantum computer could possibly simulate multiple entire universes down to their fundamental structures and anything within that simulation would be in a "real" universe

If a quantum computer can simulate entire universes down to their fundamental scale using a finite amount of energy, doesn't that imply that those universes can each have millions of identical quantum computers to the point where you could create an infinite-order simulation (a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation etc.. to infinity) using a finite amount of power?
 
WatsisnameDate: Tuesday, 25.06.2013, 08:49 | Message # 43
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Obtaining an infinity out of a finite quantity usually if not always means that the reasoning was flawed. In this case, it's because no computer can run a simulation with greater total information content than what it itself is capable of, regardless of recursion or quantum computation. So at each level down, the computational power must necessarily decrease.

You can simulate a universe on a computer, but it won't be more information-rich than the universe that holds the computer.





 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Tuesday, 25.06.2013, 09:11 | Message # 44
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3599
Status: Offline
Quote (Watsisname)
Obtaining an infinity out of a finite quantity usually if not always means that the reasoning was flawed.


This is not true. If you cut the space up between anything you can divide that space by infinity and yet the amount of space between anything is finite.

Quote (Watsisname)
You can simulate a universe on a computer, but it won't be more information-rich than the universe that holds the computer.


You can fake it and space engine is a good example of this. SE simulates the whole universe and yet in reality it only generates something while you view it, the same thing could be done and done better by an advanced civilization. Basically put only when something is being directly observed by an entity within the program, would that information be rendered and if the machine doing the rendering were incredible advanced and incredibly complex you would never notice this happening within the simulation.

This would leave open all the extra resources of the machine doing the rendering and so even if simulations within the simulation built a simulation they would never use up anymore resources.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Tuesday, 25.06.2013, 09:13
 
WatsisnameDate: Tuesday, 25.06.2013, 09:51 | Message # 45
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2610
Status: Offline
Quote (DoctorOfSpace)
If you cut the space up between anything you can divide that space by infinity and yet the amount of space between anything is finite.


Space is not infinitely divisible (there is a smallest meaningful unit of distance according to quantum mechanics), and even if it was, that is not a physical infinity, but an abstract one, like the real number line.

I was actually expecting a counter about fractals having infinite information content (and that's not true, either). smile





 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Is the universe a simulation? (Many physicists think this...)
Page 3 of 5«12345»
Search: