New evidence of our existence!

[HalfBajan]

Physicists May Have Evidence Universe Is A Computer Simulation

Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation.

How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us.

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true.

In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws.

Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time."

What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program.

These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.

Naturally, at this point the science becomes pretty tricky to wade through - and we would advise you read the paper itself to try and get the full detail of the idea.

But the basic impression is an intriguing one.

Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison -- but through physics we may be able to reach out and touch them.










WHAT THE FUCK

[Mr.Seyeko]

Mind=Blown.

[HalfBajan]

Mind=Blown.

It just pretty much ruins everything......

[yugurt]

this has been posted before somewhere i think

[-MAJ]

Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation.

How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us.

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true.

In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws.

Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time."

What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program.

These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.

Naturally, at this point the science becomes pretty tricky to wade through - and we would advise you read the paper itself to try and get the full detail of the idea.

But the basic impression is an intriguing one.

Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison -- but through physics we may be able to reach out and touch them.

MIND RAPED

[Margherita]

Physicists say they may have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation.

How? They made a computer simulation of the universe. And it looks sort of like us.

A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilisation of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany led by Silas Beane say they have evidence this may be true.

In a paper named 'Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation', they point out that current simulations of the universe - which do exist, but which are extremely weak and small - naturally put limits on physical laws.

Technology Review explains that "the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time."

What that basically means is that by just being a simulation, the computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program.

These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim - and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co's paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.

Naturally, at this point the science becomes pretty tricky to wade through - and we would advise you read the paper itself to try and get the full detail of the idea.

But the basic impression is an intriguing one.

Like a prisoner in a pitch-black cell, we may never be able to see the 'walls' of our prison -- but through physics we may be able to reach out and touch them.

MIND RAPED

Question.

Why did you copy and past the article/thread and post it.

[iTzSeyeko™JR #1]

THEY'RE TROLLING US .

[Heartview]

*sigh*

Kids. Can barely expect them the be able to think about this type of stuff, which is why it is such news to everyone.

As it stands, our understanding of the world around us, and our actually physical limitations of knowledge, its quite possible humanity will never know where it came from. Trust, hanging out with stoners and kids on acid/MDMA can lead to some considerably more entertaining ideas about where we came from.

Theories like we are pets or an experiment from aliens, tiny, inconceivable parts of a larger universe, manifestations of a higher being's mind, elaborate toys in the hands of some greater purpose not yet known to us, etc etc.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Of course computer simulations of the universe will end up looking similar to our universe. That's an inherent fault in the design conditions. If the simulation generated a universe dissimilar to ours it would be dismissed marked as faulty and the simulation will be edited over and over until the result is satisfying. The premise for such a theory is fucking laughable.

[Heartview]

Of course computer simulations of the universe will end up looking similar to our universe. That's an inherent fault in the design conditions. If the simulation generated a universe dissimilar to ours it would be dismissed marked as faulty and the simulation will be edited over and over until the result is satisfying. The premise for such a theory is fucking laughable.

I feel like the bigger issue would be the parameters of the sim. Its difficult to see how a universe would turn out with intelligent being when the universe was set up by beings with their limitations of how they could direct the universe. To really find out if the idea would be true, we would need to observe a universe that is not effected by ours in any way. You know, the whole quantum physics thing 'observing something changes it'.

[[MPGH]Doc]

I feel like the bigger issue would be the parameters of the sim. Its difficult to see how a universe would turn out with intelligent being when the universe was set up by beings with their limitations of how they could direct the universe. To really find out if the idea would be true, we would need to observe a universe that is not effected by ours in any way. You know, the whole quantum physics thing 'observing something changes it'.

That's the jist of it. The more input we enter into a simulation, the more limited it becomes, and the less "accurate" the end result is. With little amount we know (certain things possibly being incorrect), we are incapable of judging the correct parameters for creating a universe and it's associated behaviour, just imputing what already may know just results in a biased simulation. It would be near impossible with current knowledge and technology to create a near representation of creating a unique universe and it's development. Hate to say it but it's akin to the creationists argument that we simply comprehend the creation of the universe. The difference is that we are getting there, but experiments like this really don't offer much value other than improving upon future simulations. I find most experiments of this kind try too hard at recreating the universe rather than attempting to create a completely fresh scenario.

We lump things we do not understand into physical references. We do not understand how this universe truly came to be in concrete stance, so we attempt to ease our minds by referencing it with something we know is true, electronics. It's in-the-box thinking and I refuse to acknowledge it.

It's like trying to visualize what aliens look like, and just giving them a face and limbs.

[Kevin]

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

[Lehsyrus]

Only a believable concept by one who is conditioned into a conformed way of thinking.

What's next, black holes are memory leaks? Pfft.

[666HiddenMaster666]

Old stuff is old

Of course computer simulations of the universe will end up looking similar to our universe. That's an inherent fault in the design conditions. If the simulation generated a universe dissimilar to ours it would be dismissed marked as faulty and the simulation will be edited over and over until the result is satisfying. The premise for such a theory is fucking laughable.

Only a believable concept by one who is conditioned into a conformed way of thinking.

What about if our "programmers" are actually part of an simulation "programmed" by another "programmer," much like how there was a concept of universe bubbles within our universe, which in fact may be a bubble within an even larger universe
I know what I'm saying is extremely flawed, but I just want to get your opinions

[Lehsyrus]

Old stuff is old




What about if our "programmers" are actually part of an simulation "programmed" by another "programmer," much like how there was a concept of universe bubbles within our universe, which in fact may be a bubble within an even larger universe
I know what I'm saying is extremely flawed, but I just want to get your opinions

We lump things we do not understand into physical references. We do not understand how this universe truly came to be in concrete stance, so we attempt to ease our minds by referencing it with something we know is true, electronics. It's in-the-box thinking and I refuse to acknowledge it.