Slashdot Mirror
Physicists Devise Test For Whether the Universe Is a Simulation
olsmeister writes "Ever wonder if the universe is really a simulation? Well, physicists do too. Recently, a group of physicists have devised a way that could conceivably figure out one way or the other whether that is the case. There is a paper describing their work on arXiv. Some other physicists propose that the universe is actually a giant hologram with all the action actually occurring on a two-dimensional boundary region."
What will we do then? When will Zaphod eat the cake?
They never pass the joint around :(
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
What is the definition of reality? If you are simulated, you are still a "real" simulation.
There is no spoon...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
This is fairly silly. They're assuming that the energy of a particle is actually represented in space-time, when it could just as easily be represented in a non-dimensional coordinate space, using equal length linkages. Then finding the energy is simply a matter of counting the number of links, and the number of links increases with correspondingly shorter length scales. In other words, there would be no meaningful limit to the resolution, and the particles could be represented in an effectively infinite resolution framework WHILE using a finite amount of data to describe it. Note: We should recall that the resolution of a detector is limited by it's own structure. Attempting to find the "pixelation point" of a structure in a linkage space requires the detector to approach the same length scale. That is obviously not possible when probing length scales below the typical subatomic level.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-real-physicists-method-universe-simulation.html#jCp
Recently, a group of physicists have devised a way that could conceivably figure out one way or the other whether that is the case.
In other news, the group of higher-dimensional physicists who are running this universe a simulation figured out a way to falsify the results of the test.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Wouldn't one of the interesting consequences of the Universe being a 'hologram mapped on a two-dimensional boundary region' be that we could then postulate the reason for the speed of light? Speed of light could be then some upper boundary on the most primitive matrix transformation, sort of like the maximum GHz that the Universe is running at (assuming that the matrix itself is a memory map and that there is a gigantic number of processors that can access and modify memory simultaneously), or maybe the speed of light is then a manner, in which race conditions and dead locks are prevented? Sort of like in a bad system, where you know an atomic transaction takes 1ms, so you force a wait condition on the memory it access for 2ms, so you know for sure that the transaction committed.
At the same time, if that is the case, then going above and beyond speed of light could cause transactional failure and that could mean some form of memory corruption and destruction of the matrix or space time distortion and destruction :) But then if we didn't care about transactionality we could somehow breach the speed of light, but only by going outside of the memory boundaries of the simulation, crossing into the instruction stack and overwriting that constant!
I just gave myself a mental highfive on the level of crazy.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
One thing genetic algorithms, when applied to entities in simulations, always seem to find are the flaws in the simulation. Those flaws are exploited to increase their "fitness" measure. Example, if your fitness measure is how far the thing moves over a period of time but your simulation doesnt have absolutely perfect conservation of energy , the GA will always find a way to exploit that lack of perfect conservation of energy (by smashing into walls, etc..)
"His name was James Damore."
The test can (maybe) figure out of one of the consequences that would result from our universe being a simulation does, in fact, exist, provided, of course, our theories about how the universe and simulations work are actually accurate. Or in other words, it might show that it is possible that the universe is a simulation. Even if we show that the consequence exists (the consequence is that energy particles have a limit, the theory being that a simulation would have an upper limit on what it is able to simulate, kind of similar to how your computer has an upper limit on what it can fit into it's RAM), we still won't know that it is actually the result of the universe being a simulation, or some other unknown cause, and even if we don't find an upper limit, it could mean either our methods are too limited to find it or that the simulation isn't limited in the way that we think.
Really, while the research is itself fascinating, it isn't some kind of definitive test. Such tests are phenomenally rare in physics, perhaps even non-existent (it's always possible to create another theory that fits the observations).
As a side note, saying the universe isn't "real" is almost self-contradictory, as we define existence and reality precisely by our observations of the universe itself. A holographic universe would be no less real for being holographic, if only because we would literally have no other possible meaning for the word "real" (the simulation that occurs in The Matrix movie is of a completely different nature from the holographic principle). I'd also somewhat object to even using the word "simulation" in the first place, as that implies it is a simulation of something, when we really have absolutely no reason to suspect that is indeed the case (holographic universes can be modeled by simulation cases, hence the use of the term).
Disclaimer: IANAP yet, but I'm studying in the field.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
When I ran into a wall yesterday, I thought I briefly saw a black wall with yellow lines...
"we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences."
If I read that right, they mean that their analysis can only conclude either that the universe is a simulation, or that it is either not a simulation or a simulation too accurate to tell via their method. It can't actually prove that the universe is *not* a simulation.
Looks like no need for elaborate and expensive equipment though - just a way to measure the energy of cosmic rays - so why not give it a try?
So if we zoom in far enough into what atoms are made of we'll see another universe?
A bit like that old Guinness advert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6deYNEFi1lc
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I always thought a good method of testing if we are a simulation is to attack its economics by slowing down the simulation to a crawl.
Math is universal regardless of your position in the simulation hierarchy. If we perform an experiment in our simulation that would require inordinate amounts of compute power on the simulator's part to maintain the simulation (say something like an NP problem that the simulator would need to solve), that would reduce the economic utility of the simulator to its operator. There are two possible outcomes to the experiment if we are indeed simulations: the simulator cuts corners on the solution and we learn we are in a simulator; or the simulation ends.
As to what puzzle we could pose the universe. I don't know, I'm not a physicist.
... efficiently on a classic Turing machine. This has been established since Feynman originally proposed it. So I simply don't understand the premise of this research. Not that this is hasn't come up before with SUSY string theorists.
It simply flies into the face of what these days is known about computational complexity.
Apparently some physicists are completely ignoring this branch of theoretical computer science.
Now if the question was that the universe might be a quantum computing simulation that'll make more sense, as these can also efficiently simulate field theories.
But my understanding is that this is not what they are investigating here.
"Important point: when my kids have grown up enough to reach such a mobile, it lasted mere hours."
Thanks, that's what we needed to know. <CLICK>
More seriously, Arthur C. Clark explored this idea in "The Nine Billion Names of God" in the 1950s.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I think we really are skirting the boundary between physics and philosophy. I suppose the fact that actual experiments are being proposed pushes the holographic universe idea and the simulation idea towards being actual physics. However, I still have categorizing the holographic universe hypothesis as real physics. By real physics, I mean experimental physics, where we base our ideas about the physical world on what we actually observe.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
What difference could it possibly make if the universe were a simulation? Would it even actually change anything?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What if the "simulation" is simply programmed to deceive this test?
Then what do you do?
If you see a couple of white mice in your laboratory, do not step on them!
They are there to monitor their experiment!
But science expresses that faith quite differently. It does it's best to disprove whatever it 'believes' in. The religious equivalent of climbing the tallest building in town and breaking every commandment you can think of during a thunderstorm.
Religion on the other hand does it's best to not questing things that it's based on, while demanding that everyone lives in accordance with it's rules.
Though this often earns the ire of physicists who have not studied their history, the fact is: physics is a specialized and well-developed branch of philosophy.
Unbeknownst to many successful physicists, physics is still replete with metaphysical assumptions, established-but-unprovable positions on classical philosophical problems, and analytical methods built firmly upon a foundation of formal logic. Physics is philosophy through-and-through.
This particular branch of philosophy gets special attention for the direct, highly visible, and wonderfully practical applications of what one learns from its methods. Because of this, people who have not been sufficiently educated in philosophy proper tend to imagine that the two are largely unrelated, and further that the other intellectual elsewheres of philosophy are so much hot air. This is unfortunate, as it winds up imposing unperceived limits on the capabilities of practicing scientists...but the situation has remained workable nonetheless.
Ah, and while I am going around stomping on feet with facts....
The world was discovered. The language we use to model it, mathematics, was invented in response to that discovery. Some interesting logical implications of that language were subsequently discovered. But this does not mean that "mathematics" itself was discovered. It was not. It was invented. Study your history and you can trace its invention and gradual refinement over the course of history.
And also man actually walked on the moon...it wasn't the most colossally-impossible-to-maintain lie in human history.
The vikings discovered America first.
Consciousness is a real phenomenon but the soul is a very high-level abstraction mistaken as a concrete reality.
It's okay to be gay.
K, I'm done.
Unless that was the original intention? And then to study what happens after that. Maybe they're researching the effect of a simulation becoming aware of it's own simulation?
Maybe they'll change the rules when it happens? Maybe there will be no more hunger parameters, maybe there will be no more boobs. Who knows?
That's what science is for, asking questions: Even if they are incredibly far fetched and borderline scamming for funds.
Personally I can think of dozens of better fields to spend time and money on, but that's the beauty of the human mind. Some people will dig around in places you think are absurd and if they DO find something you might benefit from it.
No, we'll see turtles.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
The Outer Limits - Wolf 359
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uAGABz4R4s
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Just like when Copernicus said the earth was not the centre of the universe, and all those scientists attacked him?? No, that was Christians.
Well how about evolution? It explains all we see in the natural world elegantly using a simple principle which is supported mathematically. Nope, Christians want to stop people discussing that. The big bang? The existence of other planets? The size of the universe? Fossils? Radio-isotopic dating? No, no, no - Christians HATE these things.
Christianity, and its brother Islam, are jokes. The teach ridiculous things, and demand acceptance without allowing questioning. I'm happy for you to believe that crap if you like, but know that it's bullshit and that you are wasting your time.
Also, and most importantly, stop trying to discourage science. Stop trying to stop people learning things. Christians and Muslims might be happy living in smelly caves, or you may accept the benefits of science at the same time as attacking it, but science is important for all humanity. More important that some bundle of lies, the false idol, cobbled together and continually altered declaring itself as god's word.
Alternative explanation: You're a human being, with the requisite overactive pattern recognition, that never learned about confirmation bias, so you don't notice all the times when patterns don't occur in the randomness.
And now, you've got a fun choice. You can fight the cognitive dissonance, and your reward will be that life gets a little less special. Or, you can continue to go on in a fog of self-deception, and try to ignore the awkward silences when a heap of crazy falls out of your mouth.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Their hypothesis rests on the idea that if the universe's fundamental characteristics have a smallest unit, then it's possible the universe is a phenomenon whose behavior is arbitrarily created by something that's not in the universe. I don't see why that makes it possible. We've believed for about a century that the universe is composed of quanta, fundamental characteristics with smallest units. There is an entire Planck scale, the smallest possible lengths (in space or time) and other sizes of space and what's in it. I don't see why it's necessary that "the real universe" is continuous rather than granular, and our granular universe isn't the real one. Or even how granularity even implies anything "outside" the universe exists.
Our universe is made of Plank pixels ("planxels"). That doesn't imply anything about anything except our universe and its granularity.
--
make install -not war
If Yes , then nothing is in the way of assuming that the simulation itself could be virtualized as well.
So this exercise in philosophy is another way of devising an experiment to whether Nature is knowable or not at all
Avoid your fears , or wonder at the past
The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.
This sounds similar to looking for aliasing artifacts. Right?
Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum.
This is do not understand, I thought we already had a theory predicting and explaining a high-energy cutoff.
According to my data, the universe is either a simulation of a simulation, or it's a rerun.
After all it's after year 2000, and we're still alive. It can't be based on Cobol.
Nice attempt at false equivalency.
Scientists "assume" that the big bang was a real event because big piles of evidence indicate that it was.
Religionists "assume" that their god created the world because big piles of tradition claim s/he did.
Not much in common between the two, unless you're an idiot who thinks "where you there?" is a good argument against something you don't want to believe.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Perhaps you're unaware that homosexuality has been observed in other mammals too.
But to bring this back on topic, we could speculate on whether you're a troll or a simulated troll, and devise clever methods to test our speculations.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's smoke and mirrors.
Smoke and mirrors all the way down. (You only need one turtle).
And it's even fake smoke.
And don't get me started on the mirrors.
It's probably just a 4th dimensional grad student's simulation designed to demonstrate how to create plutonium from hydrogen. Just code in a few state transitions, a few simple rules, cut some corners on how it handles too much mass in one place, slap a hard limit on speed in the simulation and let it run for a few billion years.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I tried both. The red pills had me bouncing off of walls all evening, and the blue ones gave me wicked boners. Didn't learn nearly as much about the universe from them as I did when I ate the blotter paper or when I ate a bunch of a particular fungus.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Who says we are even important to the simulation? Given the size of the thing it seems more likely we are just an emergent thing rather than an intended thing.
Who says war, famine, death etc are horrible things? War has lead us to land on the moon. Famine and disease have driven us to understand biology and create a world where more people can live, etc. pain and suffering have lead to many beautiful things, and some would argue that without knowing abject suffering we cannot know bliss.
Who says that there's only one right answer to the ethical questions that are raised?
You are making a lot of assumptions with your questions.not that they are necessarily bad, but just that it presumes a LOT in order for your questions to be valid.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.