Elon Musk was wrong, we are not living in a simulation according to latest results
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!