Slashdot Mirror


Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Mathematician Edward Frenkel writes in the NYT that one fanciful possibility that explains why mathematics seems to permeate our universe is that we live in a computer simulation based on the laws of mathematics — not in what we commonly take to be the real world. According to this theory, some highly advanced computer programmer of the future has devised this simulation, and we are unknowingly part of it. Thus when we discover a mathematical truth, we are simply discovering aspects of the code that the programmer used. This may strike you as very unlikely writes Frenkel but physicists have been creating their own computer simulations of the forces of nature for years — on a tiny scale, the size of an atomic nucleus. They use a three-dimensional grid to model a little chunk of the universe; then they run the program to see what happens. 'Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not,' writes Frenkel. 'If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.' The question now becomes is there any way to empirically test this hypothesis and the answer surprisingly is yes. In a recent paper, 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation,' the physicists Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage outline a possible method for detecting that our world is actually a computer simulation (PDF). Savage and his colleagues assume that any future simulators would use some of the same techniques current scientists use to run simulations, with the same constraints. The future simulators, Savage indicated, would map their universe on a mathematical lattice or grid, consisting of points and lines. But computer simulations generate slight but distinctive anomalies — certain kinds of asymmetries and they suggest that a closer look at cosmic rays may reveal similar asymmetries. If so, this would indicate that we might — just might — ourselves be in someone else's computer simulation."

15 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. A looping simulation, apparently by fascismforthepeople · · Score: 5, Funny

    That paper is from November 2012. We should have been able to catch it a little bit earlier than this. That, or the person running the simulation missed an important loop bug.

    1. Re:A looping simulation, apparently by weilawei · · Score: 4, Funny

      e^(i*(1/2)*2*piiiii)-(0.19915)=0.80085

      What now, Mr. Pimp?

    2. Re:A looping simulation, apparently by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you see what happens when you let theoretical physicists hang around with the chemistry majors? Smoking crack and watching the matrix does not make for scientific advancement, nosiree.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:A looping simulation, apparently by icebike · · Score: 3, Funny

      e^(i*pi)+1=0

      Isn't that answer supposed to be 42?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:A looping simulation, apparently by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sometimes when they modify the Matrix, you get a sense of deja vu.

    5. Re:A looping simulation, apparently by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um, speaking of cocks, if the universe really is a simulation, could I get a re-roll, please?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Some possible ways by Shalian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some possible ways to determine if we're living in a simulation:

    Look for signs of optimizations/short cuts in the simulation:
    Is there a maximum speed?
    Is there a minimum size?
    Is there a limit as to determining an object's position and momentum?
    etc...

    1. Re:Some possible ways by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Another idea: try to generate an overflow, or division by zero.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:Some possible ways by Sique · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to sign a petition that division by zero should be permitted if human lives are in danger.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Some possible ways by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just work in C, then you can call it a singularity and do stuff with it.

    4. Re:Some possible ways by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention that he's a bit of an antisocial asshole. He kicked out Adam and Eve after putting the trees there (as an omnipotent being he could've put them anywhere) and then punishing them for using them (as an omniscient being he must have known that this will happen). Not to mention that I'd get into trouble if I tried to flush down a failed experiment.

      And I bet he never had any kind of approval from some ethic commission for his human experiments.

      If I did a fraction of what he committed on humanity I'd be hunted down and dragged to Den Hague, then locked up with the key being thrown away. But he gets praise and worship.

      Corporations would kill to get a PR department like that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Some possible ways by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      He tried that but the developer wouldn't follow the specs and had to be cast out.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Some possible ways by turkeyfish · · Score: 4, Funny

      With NSF grants being as competitive as they are these days, don't start giving them ideas.

  3. Re:This explains quantum physics by Hugh+Pickens+DOT+Com · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hello world

  4. Living in a simulation by fox171171 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It could explain that weird green diamond thing floating over my head.