What's Real?

[Timsup2nothin]

It also baffles me how he can say it is "very likely" when there is little to no evidence supporting the hypothesis...which is why it is still called a hypothesis.

It isn't even a hypothesis. As I said, the defining aspect of "a simulation" is that it is a representation of something. For "reality as we know it is a simulation" to be true, or even a testable hypothesis, would imply that somewhere there is a "real" reality to be simulated. "Reality is a simulation" is just a clickbaity collection of words.

 

[Hygro]

Is it possible?
If so, how many simulations can be run in parallel? (aka how big do the computers need to be?)
How fast are these simulations? (i.e. is our universe happening really in a few hours time, and we just experience at the simulated speed of... this (i.e. how many will be run one after another)?
Is the tech so good we can run simulations inside simulations?

With the right stipulations it's quite plausible.

 

[CavLancer]

Explain the various double slit experiments without accepting that this is a simulation.

 

[Hygro]

Limits on our ability to comprehend information.

 

[CavLancer]

Ya amigo, you got a mouse in your pocket? Who is our?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

BBC Horizon: What is reality

 

[timtofly]

It isn't even a hypothesis. As I said, the defining aspect of "a simulation" is that it is a representation of something. For "reality as we know it is a simulation" to be true, or even a testable hypothesis, would imply that somewhere there is a "real" reality to be simulated. "Reality is a simulation" is just a clickbaity collection of words.

I question the need for there to be a reality to simulate. Humans simulate imagined realities all the time without the reality to back it up. We do not have the means to make such imaginations reality. If we did have the means, they would be no less real, even though they were not simulated from reality. There was a movie a few years back that aliens created reality from the memories of the person experiencing the reality. This ideology was already explored by religions thousands of years ago, that a god was capable of creating reality from the minds of millions of existing humans. I don't accept that, but reality does not have to be a simulation of a separate reality. It can stand on the imagination of the one creating the simulation.

Is it possible?
If so, how many simulations can be run in parallel? (aka how big do the computers need to be?)
How fast are these simulations? (i.e. is our universe happening really in a few hours time, and we just experience at the simulated speed of... this (i.e. how many will be run one after another)?
Is the tech so good we can run simulations inside simulations?

With the right stipulations it's quite plausible.

Why is there a need for a computer at all? A computer is a human construct, within "this simulation". You are imagining something based on your reality, that may not be a given in the reality that is producing the simulation.

The universe itself could be the computer, running the simulation as part of it's programming. How many "computers" can a being "own"? We have the basic idea of how our computers work. I think the hypothesis is trying to figure out from physics how the "computer" of such magnitude is capable of working, even if the "need" to do so is only on a subconscious level. Is it humans themselves trying to figure out things, or their internal coding?

 

[Gigaz]

Simulation and reality is a false dichotomy. Because what is a simulation ultimately? A model of another physical system based on bits and transistors in a computer. But these bits and transistors are just as real as the thing which they model, they are made from particles like anything else. The question whether the world in which we live is real or a simulation is ultimately pointless.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Explain the various double slit experiments without accepting that this is a simulation.

Explain what makes you think that the best word to describe an uncollapsed probability matrix used to identify a particle is "simulation."

 

[warpus]

Even if the universe turns out to live inside a system that behaves according to holographic principles, that won't mean that stuff we're seeing and touching "isn't real". It would just mean that we are seeing 3 dimensions where there are only 2. You can see the same effect when watching TV - a usually 3D image displayed on a 2D surface.

It doesn't imply that somebody is actually running a simulation and we are on a holodeck or anything similar, it just means one or more of the 4 dimensions we experience don't actually exist.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not a fan of unfalsifiable claims in general, especially ones adding more than necessary detail to explain something.

Scientists are not immune to fallacy.

If the "our existence is a simulation" theory turns out to be something that CAN be tested in a yet-unforeseen way, it's worth giving it the time of day at that point. Absent that, it won't give any extra information.

Amusingly, even concepts that exist inside of computers as our own simulations are "real" in the lawful physical sense; they are stored data in a physical object. Not only is OP distinction baseless, but it might not be useful regardless. There's no reason to give it much attention as a theory, as opposed to alternatives.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Explain the various double slit experiments without accepting that this is a simulation.

The double slit is pretty clear that "observing" reality changes it. I don't see how you are connecting it to reality being a simulation.

 

[Hygro]

Ya amigo, you got a mouse in your pocket? Who is our?

No mouse, but a trackpad.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The double slit is pretty clear that "observing" reality changes it.

I'm not so sure about that one.

It certainly doesn't do much for the "simulation" theory though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not so sure about that one.

Probably wise to not be overly committed. Observation definitely changes something, but the something may be the observer, not reality.

It certainly doesn't do much for the "simulation" theory though.

I still contend that calling this a theory overstates its value.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Probably wise to not be overly committed. Observation definitely changes something, but the something may be the observer, not reality.

Reality is, based on every other interaction with it, probably still obeying consistent laws, regardless of how well we understand them or how well that understanding allows us to make accurate predictions. We don't know that for sure, but it's strange to toss away crushing precedent without equally crushing evidence.

Our perception and interpretation of the consequences are another matter. What does he mean by "changing" reality via observation? If he means "the act of measuring something", then even standing on a scale or using a tape measure "changes reality".

I still contend that calling this a theory overstates its value.

I guess, but "unlikely explanation we have no reason to believe or consider over other possibilities lacking in the extra assumptions" is a little long. It's a junk theory but I'm okay with leaving it at that in the interest of it not being a chore to come up with a great/super consistent classification system for the purposes of this thread.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Reality is, based on every other interaction with it, probably still obeying consistent laws, regardless of how well we understand them or how well that understanding allows us to make accurate predictions. We don't know that for sure, but it's strange to toss away crushing precedent without equally crushing evidence.

Our perception and interpretation of the consequences are another matter. What does he mean by "changing" reality via observation? If he means "the act of measuring something", then even standing on a scale or using a tape measure "changes reality".

Agreed. The leap from wave particle duality to "reality is in flux" is pretty long.

I guess, but "unlikely explanation we have no reason to believe or consider over other possibilities lacking in the extra assumptions" is a little long. It's a junk theory but I'm okay with leaving it at that in the interest of it not being a chore to come up with a great/super consistent classification system for the purposes of this thread.

Fair enough. I'm satisfied with my classification, which was "clickbait headline."

 

[warpus]

I still contend that calling this a theory overstates its value.

The simulation thing isn't a theory. As far as I can tell it isn't even a hypothesis, but I could be wrong about that part.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The simulation thing isn't a theory. As far as I can tell it isn't even a hypothesis, but I could be wrong about that part.

I agree. I think "clickbait headline" was a pretty accurate classification, if I do say so myself.

 

[timtofly]

I'm not so sure about that one.

It certainly doesn't do much for the "simulation" theory though.

Observation changes our perception of our reality and that is how reality changes. If we could perceive a solid brick wall as just empty space, along with our body as just empty space the reality of a human walking through the wall would change forever. Both are in fact on the molecular level in reality just empty space, but beyond our perception of reality. We understand that and do not even need faith. If someone told you to walk through the wall there is no faith needed to object, but it would take a lot (of faith) to actually do it and succeed. Unless you can get to the reality of the molecular level, I would not even advise trying.

The simulation thing isn't a theory. As far as I can tell it isn't even a hypothesis, but I could be wrong about that part.

All hypothesis are imaginations of the mind, based on the slim chance that they may be a practical reality. I do not see a simulation as being implausible, just not practical.