Fascinating thread! At the risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion, I recently wrote a book on this exact topic. It is called "The Universe - Solved!" and you can find more about it at www.theuniversesolved.com. The book was actually completed over a year ago and, although I haven't read Mr. Whitworth's paper, the abstract certainly sounds like it covers the same concepts.
I believe that there are four categories of evidence that lend support to this theory...
1. The very nature of the computational mechanisms of a Von Neumann machine are essentially the same as QM - a sequence of states, with nothing existing or happening between the states. The resolution of any program is analogous to the spatial resolution of our reality, just at a different level. In fact, if you carry Moore's Law forward (which has been consistent over the past 40 years), computers will reach the Planck resolution in 2192. Not too far off. However, you don't need to model reality all the way to that level for the model to be indistinguishable from our reality. Let's say you want to examine the guts of a tree. You cut it open, scrape off a few cells and put them under a microscope, maybe an electron microscope. To simulate this computationally, one doesn't have to model every single tree down to the Planck level. Only the OBSERVED tree needs to be modeled, and then only the cells selected, and then only down to a resolution that matches the observational limitations of our measurement devices. The program can do that dynamically. And all quantum effects can be programmatically modeled without building a reality model to the Planck level. So, given Moore's law and the limitations of "observational reality", we should be able to create VRs that are indistinguishable from our current reality within 20 years or so.
2. Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is a solid logical argument that we are most likely living in a simulation. Combined with #1 above, it is likely that we are already in one. Furthermore, there is no way to tell that we aren't. And no way to prove that history exists back to any arbitrary point in time.
3. The universe is unbelievably finely tuned for the physical existence of matter, let alone life. The only explanation that mainstream science can come up with is that zillions (yes, I know it's not a real number) of universes are spawned every second, most of which are entirely useless and throw-away, and via the hand-waving of the anthropic principle, we happen to be in the perfect one. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor heavily favors the simulation theory here.
4. The huge set of well-studied anomalies facing us in fields as varied as metaphysics, physics, philosophy, geology, anthropology, and psychology can all be explained ONLY by the programmed reality model.
Remember, science does not deal in truths, only evidence. And the evidence that supports this idea is actually pretty strong. Stronger, I would say, than the scant evidence that supports String Theory. Falsifiable? Not sure. Interesting to think about? I think so.:)
Have to run and I'll be back on tomorrow. Interesting to see what everyone thinks.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinating thread! At the risk of being accused of shameless self-promotion, I recently wrote a book on this exact topic. It is called "The Universe - Solved!" and you can find more about it at www.theuniversesolved.com. The book was actually completed over a year ago and, although I haven't read Mr. Whitworth's paper, the abstract certainly sounds like it covers the same concepts.
:)
I believe that there are four categories of evidence that lend support to this theory...
1. The very nature of the computational mechanisms of a Von Neumann machine are essentially the same as QM - a sequence of states, with nothing existing or happening between the states. The resolution of any program is analogous to the spatial resolution of our reality, just at a different level. In fact, if you carry Moore's Law forward (which has been consistent over the past 40 years), computers will reach the Planck resolution in 2192. Not too far off. However, you don't need to model reality all the way to that level for the model to be indistinguishable from our reality. Let's say you want to examine the guts of a tree. You cut it open, scrape off a few cells and put them under a microscope, maybe an electron microscope. To simulate this computationally, one doesn't have to model every single tree down to the Planck level. Only the OBSERVED tree needs to be modeled, and then only the cells selected, and then only down to a resolution that matches the observational limitations of our measurement devices. The program can do that dynamically. And all quantum effects can be programmatically modeled without building a reality model to the Planck level. So, given Moore's law and the limitations of "observational reality", we should be able to create VRs that are indistinguishable from our current reality within 20 years or so.
2. Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is a solid logical argument that we are most likely living in a simulation. Combined with #1 above, it is likely that we are already in one. Furthermore, there is no way to tell that we aren't. And no way to prove that history exists back to any arbitrary point in time.
3. The universe is unbelievably finely tuned for the physical existence of matter, let alone life. The only explanation that mainstream science can come up with is that zillions (yes, I know it's not a real number) of universes are spawned every second, most of which are entirely useless and throw-away, and via the hand-waving of the anthropic principle, we happen to be in the perfect one. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor heavily favors the simulation theory here.
4. The huge set of well-studied anomalies facing us in fields as varied as metaphysics, physics, philosophy, geology, anthropology, and psychology can all be explained ONLY by the programmed reality model.
Remember, science does not deal in truths, only evidence. And the evidence that supports this idea is actually pretty strong. Stronger, I would say, than the scant evidence that supports String Theory. Falsifiable? Not sure. Interesting to think about? I think so.
Have to run and I'll be back on tomorrow. Interesting to see what everyone thinks.