Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity
By ESO/MPE/Marc Schartmann (http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1151a/) [CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
This discovery and result has vast implications beyond merely disproving the simulation hypothesis.
In a paper published in the journal Science Advances, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi show that constructing a computer simulation of a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in metals is impossible – not just practically, but in principle.
If it is indeed impossible to simulate a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in physical reality then what does this mean for "digital physics" in general? The simulation hypothesis being disproven also might mean something for multiverse theories which indirectly connect with or rely on the simulation hypothesis being true.
The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.
And the universe has just become even more strange. How is this even possible? But it is possible if it's true. What we do know is the information storage capacity of the universe is fixed. Does this not also mean the computational capacity of the universe is fixed as well? So if we cannot physically build a computer to do the computation to simulate a universe within this universe does it definitively disprove the simulation hypothesis or not?
Hello Friend Nice Post by You
This claim - that we're certainly not living in a computer simulation - is premature at best. What @masterthematrix, @lukestokes, and @tabzjones have said hits the mark.
Unless we've somehow mapped the domain of all that will ever be known or possible, to rule out a simulation theory so concretely is pretty absurd. I don't know what the person who wrote that article in Cosmos was trying to achieve - the title alone is click-bait-y, so I don't know that the objective was to be thorough. Not to mention that there is inconsistency in the content: the caption below the article's image says some physical phenomenon "may" be impossible to simulate, while elsewhere he says that such simulation is impossible, both practically and in principle.
It's quite arrogant to think we know where the boundaries of what is possible or, well, the boundaries of what can be are with complete certainty.
Well, the whole purpose of such articles is to get clicks and ad revenue. Even if we are in some kind of simulation, I don't think anyone would really care anyways. Majority of population is too busy making ends meet than to ponder some exotic postulation on the origins of the universe concocted by billionaires and physicists.
As for myself, I'll wait till Spielberg latches on to this simulation theory and makes a good film out of it.
indeed...Infinite Beings on an infinite journey multiplying truth in every moment as we expand consciousness
Thank you very much
Interesting stuff. I wonder how much of this relates to a three dimensional being telling a two dimensional being to "look up."
LOL. That is a great analogy. It just might be that the limitations of our physical bodies essentially prevent us from going beyond certain limits. And this limitation may have been put in place for good reason!
that being would just be "talking to himself or herself", @lukestokes
There is this novella called "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions". It is a satire by Edwin Abbott Abbott in which there are worlds of different dimensions. The main dimension is 2d where the beings are 2 d geometric figures. It is a satire about the hierarchy in Victorian culture.
I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand it makes sense, but like @lukestokes posted, it could be like a three dimensional being telling a two dimensional being to look up.
Just because we don't understand why something would work does not mean it is not possible.
Is it not entirely possible that the universe that was created by the simulation is not exponentially bigger than ours?
I doubt we will ever know.
Read Flatlanders. :)
different dimensional speak is self talk again its like talking to yourself...it is interesting tho that is for sure think we all do this
I would hope folks talk to themselves -- how else do you learn to be a better person? Or make connections and have eureka moments?
We experience different dimensions everyday, if we don't take the time to understand why people have the beliefs they have. Learning to see the world from multiple angles is how we advance and have amazing creations like harnessed electricity and computers in the palm of our hands.
exactly what my post is saying it is beautiful....is it not....indeed
also exactly...'harnessed electricity"......perpetual motion holder...just don't piss her off.....eh eh
Great post, but I think there could be a possibility within the universe that some kind of simulation is taken place by technology of which where are not aware of...so for me everything is possible in a multi universe.
I agree. How could we possibly know anything about the technology in a world that is simulating us?
Even in a multiverse its still impossible cause it will mean the simulation will be even bigger to run the multiverse
Elon Musk's argument is based on flawed logic. I am seeing, with increasing frequency, the argument that 'it is possible, therefore it is certain', this is clearly not the case.
"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." Richard Feynman.
Simulation hypothesis strikes me as a rather entertaining variant of creationism, the 'evil demon' thought experiment, or Plato's 'ideal realm and the demiurge'.
As far as it goes for entertainment, here is one of my favorites,
https://steemit.com/simulation-hypothesis/@dan-atstarlite/the-simulation-hypothesis-dna-is-a-blockchain-you-re-an-account-your-consciousness-holds-the-private-key
Musk cant be wrong. There must be a flaw in the data!!
Or are we? I have read the publication and yes, it has a lot of interesting implications but does not definitively disprove simulation theory. The reason I say that is because...
This does not actually mean anything because the strongest computer we have can already simulate more atoms than we have on Earth. Just look at minecraft or 'No man's Sky' (Shit as it was). This implies that atomic theory is irrelevant when it comes to digital simulation.
What´s the basis of your claim? Where is this magical computer located? How is minecraft relevant to simulation in any way whatsoever? You are just making a claim, without any basis.
It was more a thought experiment than a claim. Watch the latest video by Vsauce3 and the companion video. It implies the thought that we could consider atoms as being equivalent to 1's and 0's in coding, then consider the rendering capacity of a simple desktop computer.
Also, notice I said atoms on Earth, not the universe. Games like Minecraft that can render vast amounts of code already simulate more 'atoms' than earth contains. I am suggesting that this does not definitively disprove simulation theory, especially since simulation capabilities are STILL on the rise...
I am not looking for a fight, simply trying to start a conversation since the Tag on the article is Philosophy...
I am sorry for my rude tone, I was in a shitty mood. I disagree that your minecraft example has anything to do with simulation. To simulate atoms, you need to simulate the physical properties of atoms,including electrons, protons, quarks,etc.
Excellent work the revealing a theme! Looking forward to exciting times ahead!
@dana-edwards I am following up on you and very impressed with your articles, and I want to ask you a question about the side line before the paragraphs what is its usefulness and what is the way it works?, thank you
Full of meaning
Is like so metaphysical all that. The fact that we haven't developed something like that doesn't imply is impossible. Is impossible for us. But in the theory quantum computing allows us to have great physical simulations. So is a fact that we don't know the full grasp of this new technology.
I am more confused about the subject than before reading your post. This is very stimulating. I am no scientist, and to be frank, I haven't concerned myself with the simulation hypothesis much.
No matter, if this is a simulation, I am glad it included the amazing people in Steemit :-)
Wow amazing
that is bad news :(
I also have to agree with @lukestokes . " I wonder how much of this relates to a three dimensional being telling a two dimensional being to "look up." "
Just because we cannot calculate it from our vantage point in the Universe, does not mean that it can't possibly exist. We are specks in the grand scheme, it would be arrogant and short sighted to assume that we know anything about the true boundaries of our dimensions, if any exist at all.
I think at some point, metaphysics and physics are going to have to meet in the middle or we are never going to evolve...
again you would just be talking to yourself in different dimensions or parallels
So many questions, and I'm always a bit freaked out with all of these people saying we live in a simulation, cuz then my life seems a bit worthless. So this article made me feel better! :D Thank You!
Even if we are in a simulation, this does not mean our lives are worthless. The reality around us is still our reality whether it is simulated or not. The knowledge of being in a simulation would not fundamentally change anything about our reality, so why should it detract value from our existence? Hope this reassures you even more
i agree. does it even matter if we're in a simulation or not?
i suppose not?
Good point man. Well said
you can simulate the effects without simulating every intricate detail. The point is if you were in a simulation then only what you perceive would be rendered.... this is how a lot of video games work. So you only need to simulate this quantum phenomenon as it is observed, and if the observation is just calculations then you don't need to suimulate it in reality at all - just its effects.
I will have to read the paper, but they are of course making assumptions that won't sit well with everyone.
First, we have no proof that the atoms exist except when measured. This solves the size issue and explains why distance does not matter for entangled items.
Second, they are working on the idea that physics here is the same in the "real world" or that there even is a real world. At the end of the day, we would be hardpressed to prove that this place only exists in a source's mind.
Last (for now), they have yet to develop quantum crystals to use in computers. This will change the way they see information.
Gosh, I have a lot of catching up to do.
and guess what? I get this weird feeling sometimes that one day I will wake up in reality and all this seems like I am dreaming. Anyone else feeling this way?
you may just wake up while your dreaming and be in reality that may be weird as well
ave always been a big fan of elon musk but on this one i kinda disagree with him, to run a simulation that can render all this data that we produce daily would mean a quantum computer that has the power of a million suns. you are talking of running a simulation of 7 billion humans plus their sorounding and then the universe all at once without glitches. thats a god like system that doesnt exist. simulation are not a small thing and computers that can run such a simulation will be so big that it would mean that their is a god like alien species out their
maybe elon musk is a simulation
if you have ever loved indeed all the simulation talk would end.........you would then know what is to be known..........just go to a computer simulated game with 2 characters and break each others hearts ...then fall in love on earth in reality and do the same thing....then come back and say what was simulation and what was not
This is dumb shit, a simulation can't happen in itself. A simulation must be computed outside the simulation. [A > B > A] is impossible. [A > B < A] is possible.
Elon must stated that it is probably true, not absolutly true.
Ignorance is bliss
I disagree about the findings if they are based off the assumption that the simulators can't have enough power. It is a ridiculous assumption to make, like guestimating the amount of energy in the multiverse.
It does make it more unlikely, but doesn't defeat the belief entierly. Something principly impossible would be our simulators being able to create a circle with 4 corners.
Left an upvote and follow, found it very interesting
I don't see how this disproves the simulation hypothesis. At most, it simply means that it's impossible to precisely simulate the entire universe in sufficient detail to trick the simulated intelligences within that their reality is a simulation.
Honestly, you don't need to simulate the entire universe. Really and truly, how much of the universe have we explored in any great detail? That, I think, is eminently achievable and could be achieved within our lifetimes.
Im not so sure this can disprove simulation theory...