Re: [Vo]:Sims
terry sez: > The Red Pill: > > http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as/ > > Do we really want to know? Probably doesn't matter all that much... unless the universe is preparaing to install a new OS within the next millennium or so. In which case, all bets are off. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sims
The Red Pill: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as/ Do we really want to know?
Re: [Vo]:Sims
Good read Terry, IMO, these are exactly the kind of observations a contemporary more technically acceptable religion will incorporate into the core of it's philosophy. Strange as this might sound, a lot of these observations appear to be compatible with Buddhist and Zen related philosophies - i.e. where reality is taught to be an illusion. I suspect many of these contemporary concepts will eventually begin to feel more relevant to the younger generation. It will make more sense to them - as compared to paying lip-service to another story about morals, whose foundations are based on tribal law, where technology is no more advanced than an oil lamp. Old religions will eventually be discarded. We will upgrade to newer more contemporary versions. Harry follows up with: > so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just > another part of [the] simulation? I'm reminded of Star Trek TNG. There was a series of episodes involving the Holodeck where Data, wanting to play Sherlock Holmes assembled the personification of Sherlock's nemesis, professor Moriarty, in order to make the game more challenging. However, what Data didn't anticipate was the fact that he made Moriarty so complex (and real) that his foe eventually became self-aware of the fact that he was in a holodeck simulation. Needless to say, Moriarty, was pissed off when he discovered this. Moriarty retaliated by finding a way to hook into the guts of the Star Ship as a way to threaten the lives of everyone as a means to get himself out of his virtual photon predicament. This "adventure" resulted in several follow-up episodes where the principal Star Trek characters eventually figured out a way for Moriarty to "escape" his holodeck confines. However, what they actually ended up doing was transfer the personification of the professor to a larger holodeck simulation computer, one possessing oodles of additional memory so that Moriarty could begin living a richer more-fuller life. Perhaps an appropriate koan a contemporary master might give his students to ponder would be: Is God an atheist? Perhaps that's a question Professor Moriarty might care to ask Data. Lots of interesting philosophical conundrums here worth contemplating! PS: When we look at ourselves in the mirror, perhaps we closer to perceiving the essence of reality than we might think! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sims
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of > simulation? Too much positive feedback. T
Re: [Vo]:Sims
so why isn't the experiment and quantum mechanics just another part of simulation? harry On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Interesting article: > > http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-329-v19n9 > > excerpt: > > "The other interesting thing is that the natural world behaves exactly > the same way as the environment of Grand Theft Auto IV. In the game, > you can explore Liberty City seamlessly in phenomenal detail. I made a > calculation of how big that city is, and it turns out it’s a million > times larger than my PlayStation 3. You see exactly what you need to > see of Liberty City when you need to see it, abbreviating the entire > game universe into the console. The universe behaves in the exact same > way. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state > unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time > trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that > we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we > need to see it." > > > > Not that others have not considered this. For example, in this review > by John Walker of Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape": > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html > > > > "Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a > freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science > class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many > aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific > investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite > amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What > would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would > probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by > the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check: > the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our > universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain > the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint > on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of > light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could > observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot > penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background > radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller > radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical > measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the > simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games, > randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were > hit—check: quantum mechanics." > > > > I just hope it's not running a Windoz OS! > > T >
[Vo]:Sims
Interesting article: http://www.vice.com/read/whoa-dude-are-we-inside-a-computer-right-now-329-v19n9 excerpt: "The other interesting thing is that the natural world behaves exactly the same way as the environment of Grand Theft Auto IV. In the game, you can explore Liberty City seamlessly in phenomenal detail. I made a calculation of how big that city is, and it turns out it’s a million times larger than my PlayStation 3. You see exactly what you need to see of Liberty City when you need to see it, abbreviating the entire game universe into the console. The universe behaves in the exact same way. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we need to see it." Not that others have not considered this. For example, in this review by John Walker of Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape": http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html "Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by the time and position resolution of the simulation—check, and check: the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint on propagating updates throughout the simulation—check: speed of light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could observe—check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the simulation—check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle—and, as in games, randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were hit—check: quantum mechanics." I just hope it's not running a Windoz OS! T
