Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Martin Rees On The Multiverse, Scientific Research & Reality

Posted by Hemos on from the life-the-universe-and-everything dept.

There's an interesting piece by Martin Rees about the nature of the Uni/Multiverse, as well as some of the underlying mechanics. Also, a good bit on the nature of scientific research. You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

40 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. In my section of the Multiverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Real doesn't suck so much.

  2. Holographic Principle and M-theory by azoidx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    multi-verse theories are boring. try M-theory on for size: see http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/ and http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=holographic+principle+m-theory&btnG=Google+Se arch

  3. Real audio by fredrikj · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

    Great, except that the odds of getting meaningful sound out of the noise in .ram files are worse than those of finding alien signals in the SETI@Home project.

    (OT, it's great to have karma to burn)

    1. Re:Real audio by product+byproduct · · Score: 5, Funny

      [Morpheus] What's Real? Real is an audio codec designed to blind you from the truth.
      [Neo] What truth?
      [Morpheus] The text version is better.

  4. Theory of Doughnut shaped universe by someguy456 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it.

    --
    Robert Bindler
    A Computer Science student's views on technology.
  5. Don't encourage idiots... by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    This stuff is rather speculative. And, to really understand it, valid or not, takes quite a few years of background. Invariably, when you get the general public reading things like this, it gets them started spouting all kinds of ridiculous shit. They automatically oversimplify, and pretend to actually comprehend it (despite not even knowing what a differential equation is).

    I'm all for getting people interested in science. But, is there some way to do that without only getting them to absorb a fraction of the information, and then going on to propogate gross misinformation?

    I hate to say that such things shouldn't be written, but they may actually do more harm than good. Afterall, everyone who's read one of Hawking's books thinks they could carry on a conversation with a high level theorist (in topics such as cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc), which is absolutely not the case.

    I'll bet that over 50% of the comments for this article will be pseudo-intellectuals espousing their retarded theories, misinformation, and other general stupidity... as opposed to the typical 30-40% of idiocy most /. articles draw.

    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    1. Re:Don't encourage idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I'll bet that over 50% of the comments for this article will be pseudo-intellectuals espousing their retarded theories, misinformation, and other general stupidity... "
      Guess which side of that 50% fence your comment is on! bwhahahahaaaa!

    2. Re:Don't encourage idiots... by hbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Off-topic response to flaimbait warning.

      Afterall, everyone who's read one of Hawking's books thinks they could carry on a conversation with a high level theorist (in topics such as cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc), which is absolutely not the case.

      Heh. Well, the general public can carry on conversations with high level theorists that aren't elitist jerks.

      I actually have personal experience to back that up. For six years I worked as a system administrator at a UC Physics department. We had two Nobel Laureates. One could hardly speak to other people, including other Physicists. But that wasn't from elitism; it was more a question of poor socialization. 8) The other was quite accessible. A true gentleman, he would take the time to explain things if you asked. But I learned the most from the gradual students, many of whom seemed not to have caught the elite bug yet. (I wonder if they point a HERF gun at Physicists when they get tenure?)

      After all those years, I learned quite a lot about Physics, despite having only a rough conceptual understanding of what a differential equation is. I also learned much about human nature as it applies to Very Bright People. Some of them are the most wonderful people I've known. A few I would put in the category of "monster." And of course most fall in between the extremes.

      --

      "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers

  6. I thought this was interesting by spumoni_fettuccini · · Score: 3, Informative

    This" was in Scientific American a little while ago. Who knew? I had thought multiverse theory was restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

    --
    -- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
    1. Re:I thought this was interesting by Dale+Dunn · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, until a multiverse theory has actualy observational data pointing to it, perhaps it should stay restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

      I'm not aware of any widely accepted theory that says we can make observations to prove or disprove any multiverse theory, so it hardly seems logical to classify them as scientific. SciAm should know better, or at least admit that the article is philosophical speculation, and not scientific.

    2. Re: I thought this was interesting by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting


      > Well, until a multiverse theory has actualy observational data pointing to it, perhaps it should stay restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

      > I'm not aware of any widely accepted theory that says we can make observations to prove or disprove any multiverse theory, so it hardly seems logical to classify them as scientific. SciAm should know better, or at least admit that the article is philosophical speculation, and not scientific.

      It's all a part of the scientific method. Before you can test hypotheses you have to generate them, and that's exactly what's going on here. We know a lot about the universe, and our mathematical models for what we know have multiple interpretations. Rees and others are working out some of those interpretations as models for a multiverse, and it may be that some of those multiverse models will make testable predictions.

      Think of this as the high-risk phase of the loop in the scientific method if you wish. When physicists spend gazillions of dollars on particle accelerators go get high enough energy for that coveted observation, there's no a priori guarantee that the experiment will actually turn up the expected result.

      Same thing here: science of necessity relies on speculation. We just have to guide our speculation as best we can with the evidence at hand, and then see how things turn out when we get there.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:I thought this was interesting by harrkev · · Score: 3, Informative
      As I understand them, the theories you mention are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Without data to suggest multiple universes that theory has no more scientific basis than any form of creationism you might subscribe to. Some say God made the universe. Others say the universe cam out of some super-foam. Both are an appeal to the undetectable, since we can't reach outside the universe from inside.

      Mod the parent up!

      The original article states All we can expect is to have a very incomplete and metaphorical view of this deep reality. His arguments about multple universes is just as speculateive as an actual real God as most religions postulate. In fact, there is more evidence for the deity of Jesus than there is for multiple universes!

      1) Let's assume for a second that there ARE multiple infinite universes and that it is possible to travel between them. Certainly somewhere there is a super-agressive species that wants to invade all universes. We have not seen them, and we are certainly not enslaved by any aliens right now. So I would consider this theory to be unlikely.

      2) OK. Let's assume that ther ARE multiple universes, but they are completely separated from us -- no travel or information may cross universe boundaries. If this is the case, then there can be absolutely NO experimental evidence for this. The only evidence is a little bit of statistical evidence and a lot of faith. How is this so different from religion?

      3) Finally, let's assume that a deity DID create the universe, and has a plan for us. It seems reasonable that He left clues about what He wants. At least in this possibility, there is a possibility of searching for evidence and clues, unlike option 2 above.

      In short, everybody has to take SOMETHING on faith (Goedel proved that). You can either take it on faith that there IS a God, and look for evidence or clues, or take it on faith that there is NOT a God, and try to postulate multiple unreachable universes to explain the impossible odds of having a universe with life.

      At least the multiverse theory is not quite as absurd as the bifucating universe theory ... but that is a whole other can of worms!

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  7. More universes than atoms by killthiskid · · Score: 4, Funny
    At first it was thought that there might be just one unique solution to the equations, just one possible three-dimensional universe with one possible 'vacuum state' and one set of laws. But it seems now, according to the experts, that there could be a huge number. In fact Lenny Susskind claims that there could be more possible types of universe than there are atoms in our universe--a quite colossal variety. The system of universes could be even more intricate and complex than the biosphere of our planet. This really is a mind-blowing concept, especially when we bear in mind that each of those universes could themselves be infinite.

    Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!

    1. Re:More universes than atoms by qbwiz · · Score: 2, Funny

      He meant with other people physically involved, you dolt.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    2. Re:More universes than atoms by feepness · · Score: 5, Funny

      Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!

      Yes, but equally frightening is that _this_ could be the universe where slashdotters have the most sex!

    3. Re:More universes than atoms by hbo · · Score: 2, Funny

      One of the reasons scientists keep considering theories like these is the observation that the Universe we inhabit is eerily well suited for intelligent life to be observing it right at this particular moment. If this is the only Universe there is, the result would seem to suggest that we have some special place in the cosmos. Since god is not a testable hypothesis, many cosmologists theorize that there are a multitude of universes, and our privileged position is just our "luck of the draw," so to speak. (This isn't the only reason they consider such theories, but it's a big one.)

      So, if this is the best of all possible Universes for slashdotters, and assuming that most of us want to have sex, we can conclude that the average state of slashdotian sexual satiety in the Multiverse is close to zero, or even negative. That means that, on average, in an infinite Multiverse, sex is unpleasant. So, once we gain the hyper-limpid HERF enabled warp drive and can make our rampaging way across the true extent of the cosmos, there will be nobody to conquer due to chronic underpopulation!

      But hey, no lines at Frys.

      --

      "Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers

  8. Multiverse theories scientific? by Dale+Dunn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is the basis for multiverse theories? Is there anything in observed physics to indicate their possible existence? Is there any data pointing to a multiverse other than the fact that the idea of existence having a finite beginning is "philosophically repugnant".

    If multiverse theories are based on philosophical preference rather than observed data, are not multiverse theories then properly classified as philosophical or metaphysical rather than scientific? Is there any conceivable test that could prove the existence of another universe? If not, then it seems multiverse theories should be published in philosophical journals, and certainly should not be classified as scientific, since science can neither prove nor disprove them.

    This author may be a brilliant scientist, but I think we should keep in mind that he's speculating outside the realm of science.

    1. Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People say that the interference patterns created by single photons, electrons (or even atoms) in two slit experiments constitute "obsverved physical data." Wave/particle duality is another way of saying that we have evidence of many worlds, but don't want to admit it. Quantum collapse is also evidence, showing you can't directly look at one universe from another. These things have been shown over and over.

      I suppose it might be evidence of something else, but what?

      David Deutsch says that if (when) quantum computers get above a few hundred qubits (they're at seven? now), that will also constitute proof, as the calculations that they will do will require more steps than there are atoms in the visible universe.

      Etc.

    2. Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by ciphertext · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you should read this article in Scientific American "click me!". It speakes to parallel universes, but explains the thinking behind them. While it is not a journal by any stretch of the imagination, it is definitely an interesting read.

      --
      To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
    3. Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by LS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is the basis for your post? Is there anything you've observed that indicates that this is not a testable theory based on scientific principals? Is there any data indicating that it is not scientific other than your own nagging feelings that a multiverse theory is untestable?

      If your posts are based on assumptions rather than knowledge of the field, are not your posts uninformed tripe? If so, then it seems your posts should be withheld until they can be classified as thought-out.

      Your post may have a point, but I think we should keep in mind that you are speculating outside the realm of your knowledge.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    4. Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Surazal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The scientific method simply denies the existence of "laws", as you've put it. Theories do tend to get disproven, or modified over time. Cases in point:

      Newton created a model of how gravity works. Einstein proved Newton "wrong" with the general theory of relativity (I actually know little about the general theory of relativity, but am pretty familiar with the special theory of relativity; the latter being a subset of the former). But, when shuttle astronauts go up into space and use their computers to plot their trajectory, which do they use, Newton's equations or Einstein's? Newton's theory was slightly innaccurate (increasingly so as local space-time curvature and/or relative velocity increases), but even at the high velocities that space crafts obtain compared to the earth's position Einstein's "adjustments" to Newton's equations don't amount to any practically measurable effect. Since the overhead of computing Einstein's equations is much higher than computing Newton's equations, the astronomers stick to Newton's equations.

      What was the point to the above gobble-dee-gook? Newton was assumed to be "right" for a few centuries before a smart German guy figured out that he was a bit off in the final picture.

      Since Einstein, many of his theories have been modified, prodded, poked, measured, etc. Like Newton before him, Einstein has been shown to be "mostly" right.

      Now, if you're a Creationist (and I suspect you are judging from the nature of your argument), this looks like an Achille's heel for Science. "Well," you huff, "you can't PROVE that men evolved from primitive apes because where's the EVIDENCE?" Well, there's lots of evidence. I'll even dare to bring up the evil swear word of creationists: FOSSILS. Of course, it's easy for the non-scientific to ignore the evidence in front of them. Those of us who actually learn the tenets of the scientific method and the methodology of sensible logic (they teach these things in schools and colleges, incidentally) know that when the evidence is staring you in the face and points to a conclusion that is feasible and sensible, then it would be preposterous to simply ignore that evidence and sweep the conclusion under the rug as if nothing happened. Rather, the conclusion needs to be disproven. Otherwise, it will forevermore remain a possibility. This can be misconstrued from the outside as though scientists are trying to impose some sort of arbitrary laws on humankind. But the only way to eventually prove a theory wrong is to use it as an "assumption" and try to show that using that assumption produces contradictions. This doesn't always result in the theory being thrown away, though... usually, it's tweaked until a consistent result is produced. With evolution, the theory get tweaked constantly because, one, it's a complex field with lots of unknowns, and two, we still don't have that time machine (dangit). ;)

      Newton's theories were "tweaked" (though they were tweaked in a big way ;) by Einstein. Even shuttle engineers largely depend on Newton's version of events because, quite frankly, it's close enough for government work. Since trying to find solutions to Einstein's equations can be a pain even for a computer to solve expediently and it doesn't amount to much difference in the real world anyways, it's just easier for the computer (or shuttle pilots) to make corrections on the fly as the result of any error.

      Things like multiverse theory tend to strike people as strange and "unprovable" since we can't see them, just like we can't go back in time to see proto-humans wandering the African plains a million years back. But, when we look at things as simple as radioactive atom decay, the eveidence stares one in the face: It's impossible to determine when an atom *will* decay, so therefore it must be possible that it could decay at any time. And stemming from that, it's possible that there are different versions of reality in which an atom will decay at different

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    5. Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, in quantum mechanics, we can see the universes split and join back together again in some cases; it very significantly changes the probabilities that certain events occur.

      What happens to any universes that didn't rejoin with ours we can't tell for sure. However, a reasonable assumption seems to be that they still exist, and we have no reason to think that they don't. Most professional physicists believe in the many histories theory of quantum physics, which implies multiple universes.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  9. Info about dark matter and extra dimensions by zaneIO · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is some info about dark matter and extra dimensions.

  10. Whats wrong with you? by m4g02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't encourage idiots...
    I hate to say that such things shouldn't be written, but they may actually do more harm than good

    Elitist crap. Its ok if people dont understand now what he is saying, they dont need to, a lot of persons reading such an strange theory (to current common knowledge) is enough to do good for civilization. Is not like they are going to be in charge of a nuclear reactor, so why in the first place are you whining?, this kind of "for common folks" inspired documents are good to introduce ideas to the base culture, maybe it wont be undertood until 2050, but thanks to documents like this, that little by little introduce new ideas, it will be undertood some day.

    So, without prolonging more this stupid thread of yours, my guess is that you think you are way too special with your selfish elitist crap.

    --
    Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
  11. Please.... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 3, Funny


    ...let this be that one 'verse where I get modded up all the time.

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
  12. deja vu all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    best quote from the article:

    "All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. All these multiverse ideas lead to a remarkable synthesis between cosmology and physics, giving substance to ideas that some of us had ten or 20 years ago. But they also lead to the extraordinary consequence that we may not be the deepest reality, we may be a simulation. The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself. Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical..."

    Neo: Whoa, deja vu.
    Trinity: What did you just say?
    Neo: Nothing. Just had a little deja vu.
    ...
    Trinity: A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

  13. philosophy by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.

    I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Neither is the sun the center of the galaxy, neither is our galaxy the center of the universe etc. etc. There are a multitude of other planets, stars and galaxies in the universe. It is no hard leap to see that our universe is likely not special in any particular way and is not likely the only universe.

    I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator. One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing. So, I really think if this universe was created for the intent of life, things would be moving along quite a bit quicker (not on the order of trillions of years) and any life would be spaced a bit closer together. What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.

    So the only explanation I have for life is that with an infinite amount of universes and planets, the odds are SOMETHING will happen on one infitesimally tiny part of one of them. That something in the larger scheme of things has about the significance of a blip of nothing in nothingness. And that blip is us. That doesn't sound like divine intervention to me.

    1. Re:philosophy by jkauzlar · · Score: 2, Informative
      I was thinking the reasoning was more complicated than this, but I think you're right. I think its very simple! One reason I often hear to back up the multi-verse theory is that if one of our physical constants were slightly larger or smaller, then an entirely different universe would result where life as we know it would be impossible.

      So if (is it alpha?) alpha were .001 larger, we wouldn't be here. Either there IS a god that set the constants exactly right, or we are extremely lucky, or there are many universes, each with a different value for alpha. I think the anthropic cosmological principal covers this extensively. There's a big (HUGE) book by John D. Barrow on the topic.

  14. What would Morpheus say? by rufusdufus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "There is no matrix, there is only what is real." -- Laurence Fishburne in response to Matrix-inspired hysteria.

    It is only apropos that it is the actor who plays Morpheus who has to set us straight on what is and what is not real.
    Martin Rees is perhaps an expert on astrophysics, but Fishburne is an expert on appearance and illusion.

  15. Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scientific American's article is a confused mess of ideas in an attempt to take a lot of speculation in unrelated areas of theory and make it look like science. The magazine has gone down hill in credibility in the last few years, and this article is the crowning achievement so far; Scientific American is the new OMNI.

  16. Parallel Universe article in Scientific American by ciphertext · · Score: 4, Informative

    A Scientific American (publication website) article talks about a theory of parallel universes (article link) that is gaining in popularity in the cosmology circles. It speaks of a "Multiverse" as well. Though, not in the same vein.

    --
    To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
  17. Re:Martin Reese is... by Merovign · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting.

    If you are bothered by religion, you will be bothered a great deal. You can either seek offense at it, or swim past it. Don't worry about it.

    This message is for those who are either religious or irreligious and find themselves offended by the other.

    On the other hand, if Martin Reese was at your window with a bullhorn trying to convert you, then you are right to be offended. If that is the case, I apologize for intruding in the conversation.

    I say these things largely because, in my teens, I was what you might call an "Atheist Fundamentalist." In other words, from my doubt of religion flowed a certain rudeness and a desire to get my word in on the subject wherever possible.

    For the most part, such things do not bother me now. You might say I have mellowed (few would believe you).

    P.S. I am glad you have faith that there is a logical explanation. I do as well.

  18. Sounds familiar by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 3, Funny

    At first sight you might get worried about an infinity of things in themselves infinite, but to deal with this you have to draw on a body of mathematics called transfinite number theory, that goes back to Cantor in the 19th century. Just as many kinds of pure mathematics have already been taken over by physicists, this rather arcane subject of transfinite numbers is now becoming relevant, because we've got to think of infinities of infinity. Indeed, there's perhaps even a higher hierarchy of infinities: in addition to our universe being infinite, and there being an infinite number of possible laws of nature, we may want to incorporate the so-called many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.

    Why does this sound so familiar? ... Oh, I know, it sounds like the arguments I used to have with my brother:

    Me: You're an idiot
    Brother: Well, you're an idiot times infinity.
    Me: Oh yeah? Well, you are an idiot times infinity times infinity!

    And so on and so forth.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  19. Interesting typo by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 2, Funny
    Maybe I am reading too much into a simple duplication, but I wonder if this was intentional:

    Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.
    - JML
  20. (Slightly OT) Re:philosophy by Ragnar+Forkbeard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.

    Yeah, that's about all it's worth...

    I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe.

    I'll assume here that you're referring to the medieval belief that the earth was the center of the universe, and further that you're incorrectly assuming (like most who reference this belief in their philosophical ramblings) that the reason they believed this was that they thought the earth's central position in the universe was a testimony to the importance of man. In actuality, the exact opposite is the case. If one regards the earth as the center of the universe, everywhere else in the universe is "up" (so to speak) - leaving earth in the lowest and basest position. Additionally, Hell was thought by the medievals to be located in the center of the earth (and thus to occupy the exact center of the universe).

    I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator.

    Um, "recent claims"? The claim that the universe is uncreated is by far more recent than the claim that it was created.

    One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing.

    The fact that stars are really far apart lends absolutely no evidence to the belief that the universe was not created. Care to try again?

    What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.

    I thought you were the one who thought that humanity wasn't so special - why do you think that all God has to do with His time is to watch us humans? He's got an entire universe to amuse Himself with (imagine getting to watch supernovae as often as you watch sunsets :)

    --
    "America is - without a doubt - the most bizarrre culture this planet has ever produced." --James Lileks
  21. You are living in a Computer Simulation by pyramis · · Score: 3, Informative
    This stereotypical topic of coffee-house philosophers and stoners gets quite a serious treatment nowadays--The Matrix notwithstanding. Now Oxford faculty member Nick Bostrom provides a logical proof. Whoa.

    In Rees's article, he gives the proposition even more support by showing how it's a direct consequence of multiverse theory:
    Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves...
    Taking this one step further... If there is another universe X that is more complex than our universe U, universe X has the computational resources to simulate U in its entirety.
  22. Testing whether our universe is simulated by AYeomans · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One problem with the idea that some universes are simulated comes from information theory. It takes a certain number of bits to describe the state of a simulated universe, and so the simulator needs at least this number of bits. (Which is why your PC or PS/2 can only show a certain level of detail in its simulated world, up to its memory capacity.)

    This cuts through the possibility of infinite regression, and also hints at a way of testing whether a universe is simulated. I personally have serious doubts that our universe, with its demonstrable complexity, could be simulated, since the simulator would have to be several orders of magnitude more complex, to be able to store the state of all particles.

    There is a possible escape, mentioned in The Matrix, which is that the simulator "cheats" by not simulating to the same level of detail in all areas. Maybe Bishop Berkeley had the right idea to ask "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?". If the simulator cheats, then maybe not all falling trees do make a sound.

    Translated into physics, this would mean that some unobserved actions might not totally follow the same laws as observed actions. I'll let the Quantum Mechanics experts see how well this fits their observations. If anything, I feel QM disproves the cheating simulator - since an observed particle with collapsed wave function needs less information to describe it than an uncollapsed set of possibilities. But maybe our universe needs more stress-testing to see if the simulation breaks down.


    Anyway, our planet already contains 6,337,052,626 separate universes, and counting...

    --
    Andrew Yeomans
  23. The creationist must be wrong! by croftj · · Score: 2, Informative
    "The possibility that we are creations of some supreme, or super-being, blurs the boundary between physics and idealist philosophy, between the natural and the supernatural, and between the relation of mind and multiverse and the possibility that we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself. Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes.Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves, and you may get sort of infinite regress, so we don't know where reality stops and where the minds and ideas take over, and we don't know what our place is in this grand ensemble of universes and simulated universes."

    "...except, of course, with naive creationism and suchlike..."

    It's interesting how in one paragraph he espouses a theory in which there are infinite possibilities and how this could be all one big simulation, then in the next says that creationist are just nuts who could never be rignt.

    I personaly think the dude needs to get out into the sun a bit more. I think he's suffering from vitamin D deficiancy.

    --
    -- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
    1. Re:The creationist must be wrong! by Wizzy+Wig · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "It's interesting how in one paragraph he espouses a theory in which there are infinite possibilities and how this could be all one big simulation, then in the next says that creationist are just nuts who could never be right."

      I got that too. I've never been one to get hot one way ot the other on CREVO, but the "simulated universe" postulation thing throws a huge juicy "science bone" to the creationists - because it is creationism... then he goes and disses religious creationists - even though he plainly stated lines between science and philosophy were blurred by the multiverse theories. I sense blind prejudice... not something to be desired in a truly objective scientist.

  24. idiots... by barakn · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The whole page is suspicious, having more than 10 (unknown) people state he is a scientist.

    Alan Guth is the originator of the inflation model of the big bang. He is much more qualified than you to speak about Martin Reese's standing in the scientific community. Your problem stems from the fact that you believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. One can believe in science and another religion at the same time. There are no rules stating that you must believe one or the other but not both. If you believe there is such a rule, then you are the one with a closed mind.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show