d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Reality Is A Simms Game
1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 4,396
Joined: May 6 2008
Gold: 685.00
Dec 15 2012 05:11am
Quote
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.


Sorry, the url didnt work so i just quoted the whole thing.

The title is called "Whoa: Physicists testing to see if universe is a computer simulation" and its on yahoo

This post was edited by cletus7seven on Dec 15 2012 05:15am
Member
Posts: 13,829
Joined: Apr 15 2006
Gold: 367.00
Dec 15 2012 01:56pm
Nah
Member
Posts: 30,144
Joined: Nov 26 2004
Gold: 348.69
Dec 15 2012 02:23pm
Quote (bigbrd222 @ Dec 15 2012 01:56pm)
Nah


Compelling argument!
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Dec 15 2012 02:46pm
Quote (Cannabist @ Dec 15 2012 02:23pm)
Compelling argument!


about as much argument as you need with this one.

a computer simulation on this complex of a scale would be infallible. any result of any test would be preconceived since it would just be the output of inputs which the program controls.

there is no way of finding out answers to questions like this because questions like this are illogical.
Member
Posts: 30,144
Joined: Nov 26 2004
Gold: 348.69
Dec 15 2012 02:54pm
Quote (Subwoofer @ Dec 15 2012 02:46pm)
about as much argument as you need with this one.

a computer simulation on this complex of a scale would be infallible. any result of any test would be preconceived since it would just be the output of inputs which the program controls.

there is no way of finding out answers to questions like this because questions like this are illogical.


And why are questions like this illogical?
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Dec 15 2012 03:02pm
Quote (Cannabist @ Dec 15 2012 02:54pm)
And why are questions like this illogical?


its the same as asking "does god exist?"

proof of something of that scale isn't going to happen short of being told by god..or the computer program.
Member
Posts: 30,144
Joined: Nov 26 2004
Gold: 348.69
Dec 15 2012 03:10pm
Quote (Subwoofer @ Dec 15 2012 03:02pm)
its the same as asking "does god exist?"

proof of something of that scale isn't going to happen short of being told by god..or the computer program.


Sounds like laziness.
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Dec 15 2012 03:17pm
Quote (Cannabist @ Dec 15 2012 03:10pm)
Sounds like laziness.


evidence of something that controls everything is useless considering everything would be of evidence of something that controls everything.

"god created science that says there isn't a god." where the fuck do you go from that point? everything you do is redundant when trying to prove the absence/presence of universe controlling objects.

everything you do proves there is one if there is one...nothing you do proves there isn't one if there isn't one.

can't have it both ways unless faith is involved.
Member
Posts: 30,144
Joined: Nov 26 2004
Gold: 348.69
Dec 15 2012 03:55pm
Quote (Subwoofer @ Dec 15 2012 03:17pm)
evidence of something that controls everything is useless considering everything would be of evidence of something that controls everything.

"god created science that says there isn't a god." where the fuck do you go from that point? everything you do is redundant when trying to prove the absence/presence of universe controlling objects.

everything you do proves there is one if there is one...nothing you do proves there isn't one if there isn't one.

can't have it both ways unless faith is involved.


Nassim Haramein - Black Whole.

There, I just got it both ways. You can thank me later.
Member
Posts: 4,396
Joined: May 6 2008
Gold: 685.00
Dec 15 2012 07:13pm
Quote (Subwoofer @ Dec 15 2012 03:17pm)
evidence of something that controls everything is useless considering everything would be of evidence of something that controls everything.

"god created science that says there isn't a god." where the fuck do you go from that point? everything you do is redundant when trying to prove the absence/presence of universe controlling objects.

everything you do proves there is one if there is one...nothing you do proves there isn't one if there isn't one.

can't have it both ways unless faith is involved.


Not factoring in all possibilities is much less intelligent than eliminating possibilities just because you cannot wrap your head around it. You dont know whether or not it is true, so dont tell me its not true just because you dont know. Just because you dont have scientific evidence of something does not mean that cannot be possible, maybe science isnt advanced enough. This could just be an exemplar of our paradigm, altering our entire perception of the truth, and we could emerge into the next paradigm.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll