Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Neil deGrasse Tyson Says It's 'Very Likely' The Universe Is A Simulation (extremetech.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the wake-up-you're-dreaming dept.

mspohr quotes a report from ExtremeTech: At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, [scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.] This is the crux of Tyson's point: if we take it as read that it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe. And, on a truly infinite timeline, we might expect an almost infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations -- and indeed, a sophisticated-enough simulation might be able to let its simulated denizens themselves run universal simulations, and at that point all bets are officially off."

19 of 830 comments (clear)

  1. He proves again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    he is not a scientist.

    1. Re:He proves again... by readin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Scientists are allowed to dabble in philosophy.

      And in the realm of philosophy this is actually one of the more reasonable things he has said.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    2. Re: He proves again... by jxander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This *IS* science.

      He's forming a hypothesis based on observed evidence. That's literally what science is.

      The only thing missing is the ability to replicate the results... but that's a tall order in this case.

      --
      This signature is false.
    3. Re:He proves again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most scientists sucks at philosophy, as they have no idea how well trodden certain topics are and do not know how to reason within the discipline. Neil doesn't do well, when he says anything about anything non-physics. Among physicists, Neil and Hawking have been criticized as being philosophically impoverished. It shows.

    4. Re: He proves again... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Real physics attempts have been made. http://news.discovery.com/spac...

      There was one experiment a few years that attempted to show that time was quantized, but it showed the opposite IIRC.

    5. Re:He proves again... by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the guy who didn't know that bats aren't blind?

      What does that knowledge have to do with his abilities as a cosmologist & astrophysicist?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re: He proves again... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >If you're inside a simulation, then you can't run any tests to find out, now can you?

      Why not. There are certain characteristics a simulated universe is likely to have - you can test for their presence. And quite a few of them are present in our universe. What we haven't figured out how to do is prove that a real universe wouldn't have the same characteristics.

      It's definitely a testable hypotheses. The fact that we don't know exactly HOW to do do the test yet doesn't mean it can't be tested. The mechanics of testing have nothing to do with the definition of testable. When Einstein predicted gravitational lensing we had no idea how we may test that - after all, how can you tell if the light you're looking at has been bent by gravity in the past ? Nothing on earth has enough gravity to bend light enough to measure with 1901 technology. We figured it out some ten years later - we can look at an eclipse from Jupiter which is just far enough that light is measurably delayed, and that means if there's gravitational lensing the delay should be slightly different than if the light had travelled straight. The test was done and confirmed the hypotheses* - but it was testable when first announced.
      Testable meant: "If you can show that light has bent in the presence of gravity, you can test the theory" it didn't have to mean "and here is how you determine that". It's perfectly fine to leave the HOW of testing to the reader, or future scientists who will have access to technology you don't have.

      If anything this is more testable than a lot of theoretical physics. We still have no idea how to test any of the variants of string theory. We can show they are logically consistent and the maths work - but much of it we have no idea how to test.
      Dark matter when first proposed seemed to fall clearly in the "untestable" category - how do you know something is there that doesn't interact with anything, doesn't give of any energy and cannot apparently be found ? Many scientists declared it "theory saving". Eventually though, somebody realized that if dark matter exists and has mass (and it has to have mass because it was proposed as an answer for missing mass in the first place) - then it would bend light (as per the aforementioned gravitational lensing) - and we've observed that - light being bent by a gravity source where no objects can be detected.... so it must be getting bent by objects we can not detect.

      *Ironically that test was terribly flawed, and later entirely discredited, but other more accurate tests subsequently done did confirm the hypotheses again. That too is part of science, sometimes the wrong tests can give the right answers. This is one reason we retest things and re-examine old data and old experiments. Because the test was flawed, it could have been that the hypotheses had been wrong all along, retesting with more advanced technology and avoiding the mistakes made last time would let us find out if that had been the case.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re: He proves again... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not.

      Because you have no control to test against, and because the simulation may well change the rules on you without you knowing it.

      There are certain characteristics a simulated universe is likely to have - you can test for their presence.

      You can only guess at what they might be, and an intelligent computer running the simulation may catch that and alter the conditions as needed. Keep in mind, you're just a simulation as well in this example, so the computer can alter you as well. :)

      It's definitely a testable hypotheses.

      Not without a control it isn't... you have no way of knowing what any proper behavior should be, or if the simulation is adjusting the conditions on the fly...

      And I'll repeat... if this IS a simulation, then so are you, and frankly you won't be able to accomplish anything the computer doesn't want you to anyway. :)

    8. Re:He proves again... by gtall · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Many scientists strike me as movie stars, because they are good at one thingy, they somehow have convinced themselves they are good at many others. Philosophy seems to present itself as a hot date to them. They have visions of bringing their striking insight to amaze the hot date with their otherworldly depth. From the hot date's point of view, there's very little the hot date hasn't run into several times before and is quite bored with the scientist and the new "insight".

    9. Re:He proves again... by zrq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, you're God every time you run a simulation?

      Yes. To the entities inside the simulation you are, to all intents and purposes, their God.

      • * You created their universe
      • * You created them, or you initiated the processes that resulted in them being created
      • * You know everything about their universe
      • * You know how and why their universe was created
      • * You know how and when their universe will end
      • * If you choose to, you can change the course of the simulation to benefit them in some specific way
      • * If you choose to, you can change the course of the simulation to terminate their participation

      That pretty much fits the job title of "Omnipotent entity that caused and controls everything", aka God.

  2. Re: Utter crap by AgNO3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sim theory isnt new. It was thought of because of the breakdowns in math that fail in computer sims also fail in our reality physics.

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  3. Makes sense by readin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My guy reaction was that he was joking. But thinking about it, it makes sense. We live in a universe where it is possible, at least in theory, to simulate a smaller universe. Given the vastness of time and space, if you assume that life has a high enough probability of arising that there are a lot of aliens out there, there are going to be a lot of simulations that are sophisticated enough to contain AIs that don't know they are simulations.

    If only 10 alien races create 10 simulations each, that's 101 environments that can contain intelligence (100 simulations plus the one non-simulated universe). The odds then less than 1% that we're in the original non-simulated universe.

    It still doesn't sit right with me - my skeptical gut tells me it is silly - but where is the flaw in the logic?

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  4. It would explain quantum effects by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kinda like looking at the resolution limit of the simulation. Like looking reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally close at your monitor and noticing that all the colors are just reeeeeeeeeally tiny LEDs in RG and B and that none of those other colors really existed.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re: Utter crap by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sim theory isnt new. It was thought of because of the breakdowns in math that fail in computer sims also fail in our reality physics.

    Sim theory (or at least the basic concept) predates computers by hundreds of years. One early example was in the 1600s when Descartes described an "evil demon" that took over all your senses "Matrix" style complete with other fake minds. Computers weren't around but he described all the concepts of "brain in a vat", the matrix, the 13th floor, etc.. perfectly.

  6. Turtles by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations

    Isn't this about the same thing as saying it's Turtles, all the way down.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Turtles by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't this about the same thing as saying it's Turtles, all the way down.

      No. He is saying that, given an infinite stack of turtles, it is unlikely that we are the bottom turtle.

    2. Re: Turtles by D.McG. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're obviously at the top of the stack, since we are not currently running a universe simulator. We have modeled it to some degree, but not to the fidelity that we perceive in our instance.

  7. It is literally a god argumet by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From a science standpoint arguing that we are living in a computer simulation is no different than arguing god created the universe. Either way you are saying "Something outside the universe, and greater than it, is responsible for its creation and upkeep." As such it is completely untestable and not science. You can't test for something literally outside of the confines of our reality, especially not presuming that thing is omnipotent as a god or creator of a simulation would be since even if you worked out a test they could change the results, change the parameters, etc.

    It really annoys me how the computer simulation crap has become the creation myth for a number of science and geek types. They'll laugh at the silly Christians for believing in some omnipotent being that was able to create all reality, but be perfectly ok with the idea of some effectively omnipotent (from our perspective) being or beings that managed to create all of reality by writing a computer program in some higher order reality. Either way it is invoking a god myth.

    If people want to believe in computer-god instead of religious-god ok I guess, but don't try to pretend it is any different and that it is any more than superstition.

    1. Re:It is literally a god argumet by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From a science standpoint arguing that we are living in a computer simulation is no different than arguing god created the universe.

      Living in a perfect computer simulation is no different.

      If, on the other hand, it's impossible for any universe to have enough computational power to perfectly simulate another universe then it's a very, very different situation.

      If the simulation is imperfect then we can start from that hypothesis and, in essence, look for the pixels and rounding errors in our reality, and eventually break out of this little honeypot into the rest of the network (or force the hand of whoever's running the experiment).

      --
      Log in or piss off.