Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Simulation Argument and Implications for Reality

Expand Messages
  • Jeremy
    ... Jeremy: If you consider the possibility that there is a level of parallel universes that vary in their physical laws, the physics of our universe become
    Message 1 of 27 , Jul 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Alan:
      > In the world of the simulation argument, we can't even do that, the
      > laws of physics are *in principle* totally inaccessible. If an
      > experiment turns up something that knocks our current theories into
      > a cocked hat its not that the laws of physics we currently have are
      > wrong, it's just the simulator acting up or running different sets
      > of laws in different places or whatever. And if we argue that the CI
      > doesn't make sense then the CIers can turn around and say that the
      > Simulator is just programmed to act *as if* quantum theory was
      > actually true and parallel universes existed when really their
      > pallid instrumentalist flim-flam is closer to the truth.

      Jeremy:
      If you consider the possibility that there is a level of parallel
      universes that vary in their physical laws, the physics of our
      universe become completely relative. We would like to think that
      the physical laws that we discover are universal; when in fact, they
      may be confined to only one universe.

      I see a peculiar problem arising in my logic, though. I believe
      that I watched a PBS interview with David Bohm; who recently
      wrote, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order." I remember attempting
      to read the book in a bookstore or on Amazon and found it to be too
      heavy for me at the time. In the interview, however, Bohm was very
      accessible. He explained that as we begin to understand more about
      physics, he is convinced that there are some irreducible principles
      that give rise to more complex physical laws. I don't want to
      simplify it too much, but in essence, you might compare this theory
      to the idea of a "life force." In contrast, the type of force that
      Bohm is talking about is inanimate; but the concept is similar.

      This kind of theory may invalidate the simulation theory and
      multiverse theory completely; in my opinion. If there are
      irreducible principles that govern matter; they couldn't vary...
      Could they?

      I've noted some frustration with regard to physics within a
      simulation. It's rather obvious that we would be unable to contrive
      the physics of the ultimate level of reality. Nevertheless, the
      physics of the ultimate level of reality are completely irrelevant.
      Your only reason for eliciting the "true" laws of physics would be
      to understand them if you ever transcended the simulation and found
      yourself in the real world. Not likely. Thus, the physics that are
      programmed in the simulation would have the only practical knowledge
      that would be of any relevance to your life.

      A critical flaw in the simulation argument may be that the
      simulators do not fully understand the physics of their own world;
      thus they would be unable to program their physics correctly. On
      the other hand, this problem might provide a justification for the
      problem of finding a motive to build a simulation. They could
      simulate the physics of their own world and see how the physical
      laws which they perceive to be true actually work in the simulation.

      --Jeremy
    • PaintedDevil@aol.com
      In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:40:16 AM GMT Daylight Time, ... Cosmic rays have a maximum energy which is determined by their interaction with the background
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:40:16 AM GMT Daylight Time,
        joehrevnack@... writes:


        > What are these anomalies in cosmic rays and does anyone have a link where
        > one may find out about them?
        >
        > THANK YOU
        >
        > Joe Hrevnack
        >

        Cosmic rays have a maximum energy which is determined by their interaction
        with the background radiation field of the universe (according to relativity
        theory). However the measured cut-off energy is anomalously high - it appears to
        be at least twice the expected value.

        This is discussed here:
        <A HREF="http://www.copernicus.org/icrc/CDProceedings/Icrc2001/papers/ici6454_p.pdf">http://www.copernicus.org/icrc/CDProceedings/Icrc2001/papers/ici6454_p.pdf</A>

        And mentioned in the context of a possible solution - "Doubly special"
        relativity - here:
        <A HREF="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0210/0210063.pdf">http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0210/0210063.pdf</A>

        (if you type ' gzk cosmic ray ' into Google you'll get lots more references)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • PaintedDevil@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:41:49 AM GMT Daylight Time, ... All explanations of reality are indirectly inferred at some stage. The double slit experiment
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:41:49 AM GMT Daylight Time,
          stephenk1@... writes:


          > Is the QM aspect directly contained in the pattern of the two-slit
          > experiment's screen or is it indirectly inferred from it?

          All explanations of reality are indirectly inferred at some stage. The double
          slit experiment (performed with one photon at a time) requires QM as part of
          the explanation, in that the pattern is necessarily caused by one photon
          passing through two spatially separated slits, which is impossible unless the
          photon is represented by a wave function.

          Charles


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • PaintedDevil@aol.com
          In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:42:00 AM GMT Daylight Time, ... I think the tensor term would have to be different at the Planck scale (where it would be
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:42:00 AM GMT Daylight Time,
            stephenk1@... writes:


            > No, I am writting about the momentum-mass-energy-stress tensor term,
            > AFAIK, the source of the gravitational field in GR. The same on the Einstein
            > claimed was "built of straw".
            >

            I think the tensor term would have to be different at the Planck scale (where
            it would be explained by a TOE - e.g. something like geometrodynamics?). I'm
            not sure what the wavelength of a quark is, but I would imagine that it's
            rather larger than the Planck length since the I believe momentum of quarks is
            rather high?

            The Backenstein bound is derived from QM and probably suffers from a problem
            with Lorentz invariance (except in "Doubly special" relativity, at least).

            Charles




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • PaintedDevil@aol.com
            In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:43:42 PM GMT Daylight Time, ... Not if it can be shown that our laws of physics are the inevitable and only result of some
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:43:42 PM GMT Daylight Time,
              doogiedc@... writes:


              > This kind of theory may invalidate the simulation theory and
              > multiverse theory completely; in my opinion. If there are
              > irreducible principles that govern matter; they couldn't vary...
              > Could they?

              Not if it can be shown that "our" laws of physics are the inevitable and only
              result of some logical principles - however we're nowhere near doing this.
              What we may be able to show at some point in the near (ish) future is that the
              laws of physics are all based on symmetry principles and our particular set of
              laws are created by randomly breaking those symmetries. This would still leave
              scope for them to broken in an infinity of other ways, however, the result
              being other universes which follow the same underlying laws but have variations
              at the "everyday" level - eg neutrons might be heavier than protons, for
              example, leading to no atoms, no chemistry, no life etc - or there might be 22
              generations of quarks - or gravity might be the strongest force - etc etc.

              Charles


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bruno Marchal
              Here is a comment on a proposition by Jeremy and a comment on Alan s comment about it. ( ) ... I think the
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Here is a comment on a proposition by Jeremy
                <doogiedc@...> and a comment on
                Alan's comment about it. (<alan_forrester2@...>)

                > --- Jeremy wrote:
                >
                > > I find that the computational hypothesis is the perfect answer to
                > > his question.


                I think the computational hypothesis is the perfect tool for
                formulating the question. It is hardly an answer
                (see my url for more).


                Alan answered:

                >The problem is that as an explanation this is ultimately a non-starter.
                >
                >This is because
                >(1) Due to computational universality you can never discover what kind of
                >hardware the universe is running on if it's a simulation. So we have to
                >give up on explanation.


                Not if you take into account the distinction between first
                and third person point of view. But then, of course the computationalist
                is obliged to justify the appearance of "hardware" from an
                average on all simulations going through his state. That's why
                comp is only a starter, not an answer. It forces a reduction
                of physics to number theory/computer science.


                >(2) The computable functions are not special in any sense except that they
                >happen to be the set of functions that the laws of physics allow us to
                >compute.


                This is a physicalist conception of math which postulates
                the existence of a physical universe (hardware). You are the one
                giving up the search for an explanation here, it seems to me.
                How could we explain the hardware by postulating the hardware?


                > As such, we can't explain the laws of physics by saying they're a
                >programme running on a computer since there is no such thing as an
                >explanation of what counts as computable without specifying the laws of
                >physics, which is what we're trying to explain.


                There exists a perfectly reasonable explanation of what is
                computable: the classical (mathematical) Church thesis. It
                presupposes only elementary arithmetic, and that's less than the
                mathematical decor which is supposed just for formulating any
                non trivial physical theory.

                Bruno

                http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
              • Stephen Paul King
                Dear Charles, Has anyone considered how a wave function behaves at these scales? Kindest regards, Stephen ... From: To:
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Charles,

                  Has anyone considered how a wave function behaves at these scales?

                  Kindest regards,

                  Stephen

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <PaintedDevil@...>
                  To: <Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 5:35 AM
                  Subject: Re: The Simulation Argument and Implications for Reality


                  > In a message dated 8/1/2003 1:42:00 AM GMT Daylight Time,
                  > stephenk1@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > > No, I am writting about the momentum-mass-energy-stress tensor term,
                  > > AFAIK, the source of the gravitational field in GR. The same on the
                  Einstein
                  > > claimed was "built of straw".
                  > >
                  >
                  > I think the tensor term would have to be different at the Planck scale
                  (where
                  > it would be explained by a TOE - e.g. something like geometrodynamics?).
                  I'm
                  > not sure what the wavelength of a quark is, but I would imagine that it's
                  > rather larger than the Planck length since the I believe momentum of
                  quarks is
                  > rather high?
                  >
                  > The Backenstein bound is derived from QM and probably suffers from a
                  problem
                  > with Lorentz invariance (except in "Doubly special" relativity, at least).
                  >
                  > Charles
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.