Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No, We Probably Don't Live in a Computer Simulation, Says Physicist (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the i-demand-proof dept.

Science doesn't have all the answers. There are plenty of things it may never prove, like whether there's a God. Or whether we're living in a computer simulation, something proposed by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom. From an article on Gizmodo: This kind of thinking made at least one person angry, theoretical physicist and science writer Sabine Hossenfelder from the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. Last week, she took to her blog Backreactions to vent. It's not the statement "we're living in a simulation" that upsets Hossenfelder. It's the fact that philosophers are making assertions that, if true, should most certainly manifest themselves in our laws of physics. "I'm not saying it's impossible," Hossenfelder told Gizmodo. "But I want to see some backup for this claim." Backup to prove such a claim would require a lot of work and a lot of math, enough to solve some of the most complex problems in theoretical physics.

9 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. In Other Words by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all. Of course, I feel the same way about string theory, though one thing string theory has produced is some pretty useful mathematical tools, so even when a theory is wrong or indemonstrable, it can still be of some use.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:In Other Words by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To describe it as simply such is a bit dismissive. It is a provocative speculation that can spur interest, thought, and motivation to devise new experiments. I agree, it can be of some use.

    2. Re:In Other Words by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem comes when a theory such as this is "abused" as it were to justify a whole bunch of metaphysical claptrap. It's like every New Age fruitcake using the word "quantum" in sentences to make the word salads and bullshit they spew somehow sound "sciency". The fact is that demonstrating the Universe is a simulation is very far out of reach at this stage, and really, as the article makes pretty clear, there's little point to direct inquiry since the problems that need to be solved to make it a viable claim are problems that need to be solved anyways. Unlike String Theory, which has produced some good tools and new conceptual innovations, I don't see any great new tools being produced by simulation theory. It will become evident at whatever point we solve a lot of the big open questions in physics whether the simulation claim makes any sense or not.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:In Other Words by doug141 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all.

      You are wrong about there being no evidence for "the multiverse." There's actually more evidence for the existence of level 1 multiverses than there is for just our one being the only: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph...

    4. Re:In Other Words by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't even a theory though, as there isn't anything to support it.

      There is no conclusive proof, but there is plenty of evidence that the universe is a simulation. In many ways, the universe appears to be designed to be easy to simulate. If you were designing a universe simulation, what would you do?

      1. Due to limited computational resources, the simulated universe would be granular or "quantum".
      2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons.
      3. The maximum speed of information transfer would be finite, to limit the propagation of changes through the universe.

      All of these are actually true in our universe, ergo, we are very likely a simulation.

    5. Re:In Other Words by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The counter point, for me, is that's a very complicated way to produce the universe we actually live in. What is the purpose of the simulation? Is it to be similar to Conway's "Life", in which case why build something so convoluted, and why cheat as apparently the programmer did with 2 and 3?

      If not, if the aim was to create sentient beings (well, me at least, I can't speak for you idiots), then, again, why create a system that requires fourteen billion years to actually produce them, with them being around for a mere 50,000, and each having a life span of (almost always) less than 100 years?

      And if you're about to argue the universe was created ten seconds ago, well, no, because there's apparently information in it covering about fourteen billion years. To ensure the system is stable, the logic and current state has to fit that fourteen billion years AND has to be stable right now. One off-by-one error and the Earth will go spiralling into space, or get sucked into the Sun, or just disintegrate, or turn into a black hole for a split second, or...

      I can explain why John Carmack created a number of "virtual reality" (Doom and onwards) games, but he didn't create some overly complex physics model, just the bare minimum to work for the observer. Our universal engineer, however, appears to have created this enormously convoluted system for no apparent reason. I'm not seeing the reason to assume intelligence when a more likely reason for the things you note is that our universe is more complex than you want to believe it is.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Explain Trump by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the universe is a simulation then one can speculate on the purpose of the simulation. A good bet, based on our own world, would be it's a role playing game. If so the "players" are presumably the Elites in the game. A logical conclusion for any non-player character, such as yourself would then be that your highest calling in life is to become a groupie. That role is the only role that has any meaning beyond window dressing.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  3. FFS the summary goes against method by burtosis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Science does not, nor has ever, "proven" anything. The article linked demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding as well. The scientific method entails formulating a hypothesis and failing to disprove it, only becoming useful as a theory when it leads to new discovery and understanding.

    There isn't even a need for each particle to have a specific value, a simulation isn't limited to a binary operation in this universe much less any conceivable one. Nor is computational complexity a way to explain it away as there would be no way to tell how much time flows on this side of the simulation with respect to the other from our perspective. All that could ever be accomplished is to show that the simulation would need to be at least of complexity/size X and run for Y operations which at this point would likely correlate with the surface area of the visible universe. Further this would have to come with a caveat that it's only basic rule based and not sentient based as it would be trivial to then overwrite peoples minds/data or start it from any point at which point it generates no useful information, even if correct.

    Tldr pseudoscience

  4. Re:There is no God by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The quinque viæ is a collection of weak arguments. All of its forms boil down to: "I don't understand how this could happen, so it must be God."

    Physics has already chipped away at the First Mover and Uncaused Cause. The field does not offer a complete formal explanation, but there are enough details that these arguments are no longer compelling.

    Basic learning theories explain how we acquire idealized concepts, which basically eliminates the Argument from Degree. Most criticisms of Platonic idealism can be applied to it as well.

    The existence of natural laws explains what the Teleological Argument seeks to attribute to God. You could argue that God established those laws, but then there is no clear line of reasoning why God is necessary in such an explanation. Natural laws imply the regular behavior we observe; there is no need to assume the laws themselves are necessary in the philosophical sense.

    The Argument from Contigency was developed prior to our understanding of conservation of mass/energy. Aquinas' "things" may perish, but the matter and energy which comprised them will continue to exist, and new things may form from this material. The idea that things "go out of existence" is simply false. Things are broken and remade into new things.

    E.g., the human body may die and break down, but its atoms are incorporated into new soil, bacteria, insects, earthworms, plants, and eventually larger animals. Basically, Aquinas was conflating the macro-level that we care about (people, houses, foodstuffs, animals) with the fundamental level of existence (particles and energy).

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.