Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). This is a common misconception (¿among programmers?). Let's think about the double slit experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment In a classical word, you must simulate only one path. In a quantum word, you must simulate both. You don´t need some magical conscious observer to force the collapse of the wav…
> In a classical word, you must simulate only one path. In a quantum word, you must simulate both. You don´t need some magical conscious observer to force the collapse of the wave function. A CCD detector of a camera or a simple wall is enough to force that the "wave" collapse into a "particle" and the detector or wall gets a small spot where the "particle" hits it. This is a common misconception (among programmers).…
What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
171–180 of 215 posts
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try this physics paper[1] explaining how pretty much every model we have of physics is broken in fundamental ways. Things you take for granted because of what you've read in popular media (eg., heat death of the universe) are simply speculation based on stretching an incomplete mathematical model to its limits. The simulated reality nonsense is the same bad logic in a different guise. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.…
It doesn't sound like you've read Bostrom's simulation argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
Oh I've read it. It's a fun game to read through it and write down all the unfounded assumptions the author makes. It also doesn't help that his ideas about the complexity of the human brain are sorely outdated.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who is saying that? Very few are arguing that we're almost certainly in one. Philosphers like Nicholas Bostrom are arguing that either something will prevent most simulations from reaching a stage where we can or will simulate the past, or we most likely live in a simulation, but you'll note it's very possible that the answer is that we can't or won't too. The problem is that we don't have the faintest clue what th…
Another big problem for these theories is the amount of memory needed to represent our simulation. We can easily estimate the lower bound on the number of bytes needed for this simulation, being the number of atoms in the Earth (assuming they can "fake" the rest of the universe by exploiting the low speed of light), which you would need to all know a number of properties off (at the very least position and momentum).…
You only think this because the universe you inhabit is small. What if the universe the simulator is running in is far larger than this one?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#174Then conservation laws would not hold.)
Exactly!!! To me this is the obvious consequence. Another thing is Fermat's principle, if time doesn't exist then what is light minimizing as it moves through space?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time is very much a dimension. You should read up on relativity.
In relativity we can model time as a dimension, with great success. But even there it is always evident that the time dimension is very different from the spatial ones; for one, we cannot travel in it. I believe GP is only saying this is the problem, ignoring that the time dimension is very special.
We can travel in it. We all are travelling in time and at different rates depending on our speed and gravity.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the most obvious counter-interpretation. I think it's become remarkably successful, but also suffers in its embrace of causality. While the Copenhagen interpretation can skirt the issue completely, Bohm's must wrangle with the implications of both relativity and non-locality and no one has been completely successful as such. Also, if it were the leading view, I don't think discussions of a simulated universe wou…
> While the Copenhagen interpretation can skirt the issue completely, Bohm's must wrangle with the implications of both relativity and non-locality and no one has been completely successful as such. Some might consider that a feature. John Bell of Bell's theorem thought QM's non-locality was the most important unresolved issue, so placing it front and center where it couldn't be ignored was a great idea. Interpretati…
You're right that simulation arguments generally don't rely on QM interpretations. I mention it as potentially detracting from simulation because a common argument includes the need for computational shortcuts. QM as it is popularized now simply fits the shortcut narrative better than it would under the Bohmian approach.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#177Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
He says to the discussion group of people he does not believe to exist.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simulation argument comes from the fact that there a quite a lot of physics effects that are both surprising, and look an awful lot like dirty hacks that a programmer might put it. Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). The speed of light seems like a hack to prevent an n squared problem of everything in the universe effecting everything at the same time.
> Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). This is a common misconception (¿among programmers?). Let's think about the double slit experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment In a classical word, you must simulate only one path. In a quantum word, you must simulate both. You don´t need some magical conscious observer to force the collapse of the wav…
> In a classical word, a qbit is simply a bit and you only have to chose between the 0 or 1 state and simulate it. In a quantum word, you must simulate both.
Not just "both", you have to consider all quantum states.
It is more like adding an imaginary component to a real probability making it a complex probability. It is possible to calculate with the complex probabilities and only collapse to the field of R in the end.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a classical word, you must simulate only one path. In a quantum word, you must simulate both. You don´t need some magical conscious observer to force the collapse of the wave function. A CCD detector of a camera or a simple wall is enough to force that the "wave" collapse into a "particle" and the detector or wall gets a small spot where the "particle" hits it. This is a common misconception (among programmers).…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem#Practical_exper...
That is not an answer to his objection.
If you follow the equations of the wave packet of the particle arriving to the wall (or CCD) detector, you then need to solve the equation of the interaction of the particle + all the particles in the wall or the CCD. The challenge of the collapse is that simulating anything beyond a few dozen quantum particles is too demanding. Mathematical models that simulate millions of particles need to make assumptions (typically they are too hot, too cold, too strongly bound, so you can ignore most effects - think 1D Ising model, Bose-Einstein Condensates, Photon gases, etc). But the full description of a particle + all particles in a detector still escapes us.
Therefore the transition between: superposition of paths -> particle lands at specific points has never been truly explored. The best description currently involves decoherence. Many theorems have been proven (and experiments done) in that area. The gist is that as you add particles to a system (2, 3, 4, 5, 10, ...) the superposition effects slowly cancel each other out. Another angle is the monogamy of entanglement (the more particles are entangled, the weaker the entanglement between any 2 particles). The idea of decoherence is that as things get larger, the weird effects of quantum physics become more "dilute". However, going from double slit to macroscopic reading still has many assumptions along the way.
Take the above explanation with a grain of salt (as I have tried to make it accessible).
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#180Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
There is no serious evidence for the simulation theory. It is more of a religious belief than a scientific theory since it poses more problems than it answers (who is running the simulation? How did they come to exist? What is their reality like? Etc.)
"There is no serious evidence for the simulation theory."
Well, there are weird effects that would make sense in a simulated world (like superposition until observed). But the argument is a statistical one.
Can a world be simulated in a computer?
If yes, how many worlds and individuals are simulated at the same time? (And it may make sense for example market research, science etc. Of cause the simulation will run much faster then the real world).
Then there is a problem. If the world CAN be simulated and MUCH MORE simulated individuals exists than real persons it is more likely for you to live in a simulation than in the real world. A point worth thinking about.