Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on July 13, 2010, 04:44:43 pm
-
Okay, I know this is a popular source, so we should be skeptical of how enthusiastic this article is.
Nonetheless, this new account of the origins of the universe (http://io9.com/5586017/was-our-universe-born-inside-a-black-hole-in-another-universe) resolves a number of outstanding issues, explains where the Big Bang came from (which many theories before have done, but this one is quite elegant), and provides possible experimental tests.
I like it. It's very beautiful and very powerful.
-
I don't like it.
I'm allergic to recursion. This thread is giving me hives.
This thread is giving my hives hives.
Oh no!
*pop*
-
Fascinating stuff, I know that, thanks to Hawking radiation, it's possible for even a Black Hole to decay to nothing over time, but that, I suspect, takes far longer than the life of every star in the universe it formed in. I assume that given an infinite amount of time, the only thing left would be Black Holes, which would then gravitically attract each other over billions of years until the Universe simply consists of one Black Hole that more or less holds the Universe.
This theory would actually tie in quite well with that :)
-
It definitely sounds very nice and tidy.
-
This is new? I'd heard the universes-forming-from-black-holes theory years ago... although maybe this adds some details to it?
Edit: I'd heard about the evolving-universes theory, too.
Although this 'torsion' stuff I hadn't heard of. Then again, I hadn't looked into the details, so running into an unfamiliar term or two is no big surprise.
-
This is new? I'd heard the universes-forming-from-black-holes theory years ago... although maybe this adds some details to it?
Noob. Read the article.
-
Derp. I just read it, and it sounds even more like the theories I'd heard about. Above post edited.
Edit: I found out where I had heard about this before. I had to research and write about a topic of my choice, for a college application essay. I picked the stuff this guy's doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin
Note the section on "Fecund universes".
-
Derp. I just read it, and it sounds even more like the theories I'd heard about. Above post edited.
God save us from the layperson. *headdesk*
Black holes and the holographic principle have been discussed for decades now. If you're unable to distinguish between those and what's being suggested specifically in this theory, you may need to do more reading.
-
I wish it would tell me someone had responded when I'm about to edit a post. :sigh:
Edited to fix grammar/phrasing
-
Ok, I think I see what the problem here is!
Okay, I know this is a popular source, so we should be skeptical of how enthusiastic this article is.
It's worse than that. As with a lot of the "popular" articles about science, it spends too much of its "enthusiasm" explaining stuff that isn't the "new and exciting" part.
-
*sigh*
That theory is completely different. The only similarity is that it uses black holes, but its mechanism involves collapse.
Seriously, dude...
-
So, if our universe really did come from a different universe, do we stop calling ours the universe?
-
The fact that the values of the universal constants would evolve over many iterations of the universes going through black holes isn't a similarity? Bull****. The only difference is that one predicts there wouldn't be a singularity / collapse.
And w.r.t. all this:
Noob. Read the article.
God save us from the layperson. *headdesk*
*sigh*
[ ... ]
Seriously, dude...
All it does is make you sound like an asshole and a know-it-all who thinks thinks that anyone looking at the situation from a different angle is an unfortunate but nigh-incorrigible ignoramus. It's demeaning, even insulting, and it adds nothing to the conversation. So cut it out, dammit.
-
Okay, the depth of your misapprehension here is impressive. You have focused on the 'universes in black holes' notion - which has been around for decades - to the point where you missed the important stuff, stuff that is nowhere to be seen in the fecund universes notion (which is itself only a special case application of the holographic principle.)
I'm gonna try to help you out here.
Previous iterations of the holographic principle as applied to black holes have not included the critical aspects of the linked article.
These include, for your reading pleasure:
1) Resolution of the inflation problem by means of the ECKS torsion mechanism
2) The unification of quantum mechanics and GR in terms of describing subatomic particles
3) Matter/energy genesis by means of the torsion principle inside the event horizon, including baryogenesis asymmetry in matter/antimatter
4) Explanation of the arrow of time via infalling matter through the event horizon.
None of these key points are present in anything you've described. What you have described is the fecund universe principle, which suggests that universes arise from the collapse of black holes, and that natural selection operates to favor new universes that can in turn generate more black holes. It includes none of the above critical points, which are what make this theory worth noticing.
The fact that you said something as fantastically oblivious as this:
The fact that the values of the universal constants would evolve over many iterations of the universes going through black holes isn't a similarity? Bull****. The only difference is that one predicts there wouldn't be a singularity / collapse.
suggests to me that you completely missed all four points.
What you have done is taken a general principle that Smolin, the fecund universe man, endorses - the holographic principle - and from there assumed that this was nothing different, in the process completely overlooking at least four world-shatteringly important changes that will totally reshape physics and cosmology if they are substantiated. You are apparently not even aware that Smolin favors loop quantum gravity and thus would not have reached the conclusions in this proposed theory (which rely on a different synthesis of QM and GR.)
This theory explains the arrow of time as an emergent from something that also resolves inflation and you think it's no different from the fecund universes hypothesis because they both involve black holes? Are you aware that nearly everything written about the holographic principle in the past few decades describes universes inside black holes? That is not what is important here.
Forget the black hole universe thing. That's been around for 30 years. What is important is the four points outlined above.
EDIT: removed a hilarious, cutting and beautifully composed but probably nonetheless ill-advised description
-
Geezus, did Rian dump you or something? Chill the **** out, Battsy.
-
Geezus, did Rian dump you or something? Chill the **** out, Battsy.
I have the ability to generate scorn and derision by the bucketful without seriously perturbing myself.
It just boggles my mind that anyone could see 'oh, universes inside black holes', assume it's the same as something he knows, and then miss inflation, the arrow of time and mother****ing baryogenesis all explained in the same theory.
Miss them so completely, in fact, that he can't see any difference between this synthesis and the general fecund universe principle, which is a trivial thought exercise that makes no major testable or relevant predictions.
Going off this quote:
This is new? I'd heard the universes-forming-from-black-holes theory years ago... although maybe this adds some details to it?
He apparently thought that this theory was about universes forming from black holes, a notion that has been around for decades, and missed the MONUMENTALLY IMPORTANT stuff in the article.
'Maybe this adds some details' indeed. Maybe it resolves every extant problem in physics and cosmology...if it's experimentally born out and if the math holds up in the long run.
-
Consider this a friendly warning. Do not go ad hom over this. This topic is too interesting and fascinating to be destroyed by trading insults. Debate the topic, people, don't make it personal.
-
In fairness, some people aren't focussed enough on the physics side of things to spot the differences between this theory and others that involve black-holes, when you get to the Quantum area of Atomic behaviour, many people have a sort of general idea about Quantum states, they may be able to grasp things like power-level hopping etc, but it takes quite a bit of time and dedication to get your head around the sub-atomic stuff. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field, and, in fairness, the article did openly state those differences, but I think that many people are still a bit murky on the whole attempt at blending of micro and macro physics that is currently taking place.
-
I'll stop assuming I know what an article is about when articles stop having such stupid titles. I mean, why should I read an article if I can tell from the title that it's something I already know about? And if it's not about what the title says it's about, WTF? Because in case you didn't notice, the title of the article is nothing new. Expecting me to read the article text under such conditions... is like saying "here, read this book", handing me a book with a title the same as a book I've read, and then calling me a retard for thinking it's the book I've read when in fact it's another book with the same title.
In summary: I admit it! I responded before having read the full article! But can really you blame me for assuming the subject of the article has something to do with the title?
-
It's a fair point, and io9's science coverage tends to be a little sensationalist.
-
interesting idea and the article was a far better read than this thread has been. now would these black holes need to suck up a whole universe worth of material to create a new universe? or would that mean that the mass of new universes will always be smaller than the universes which came before? the former would mean that there would not be a whole lot of loss, but in the latter it seems like we would reach a point where there is not enough material in one universe to facilitate the creation of the next, causing the multiverse (for lack of a better word) to eventually fail epically. then what happens to the mother universe when the new universe is created? would it just puff out or crunch down or just turn into a soup of background radiation.
-
If for nothing else, a non-arbitrary explanation of inflation makes this new theory valuable. Einstein's cosmological constant may not have been so wrong after all.
I was about to ask the question "hurr, where does the mass for a new universe come from?" But upon closer reading, and the fact that matter and energy seem interchangeable somewhat (please set me straight if I'm mistaken about mass-energy ...equivalence), I'd just sound stupid asking that question now.
And, if I'm not mistaken, this torsion concept could be an explanation for zero-point energy?
Very fascinating idea, but it raises the question of "Where does our universe exist? Are WE within a black hole? Where does the recursion end? Where did all the mass/energy that comprises existence stem from originally?"
-
I was about to ask the question "hurr, where does the mass for a new universe come from?" But upon closer reading, and the fact that matter and energy seem interchangeable somewhat (please set me straight if I'm mistaken about mass-energy ...equivalence), I'd just sound stupid asking that question now.
e=mc^2?
Very fascinating idea, but it raises the question of "Where does our universe exist? Are WE within a black hole? Where does the recursion end? Where did all the mass/energy that comprises existence stem from originally?"
1. where seems like a universal property, it has no place in the multiverse :lol:
2. i doubt were in a black hole. the theory seemed to mention that a certain level of torsion had to be met before a universe would form.
3. the recursion most likely ends when the proper level of torsion can no longer be facilitated.
4. the mother universe.
-
Derp.
NO BAD AARDWOLF
punishment happes nao
-
Is it recursion, or iteration?
-
interesting idea and the article was a far better read than this thread has been. now would these black holes need to suck up a whole universe worth of material to create a new universe? or would that mean that the mass of new universes will always be smaller than the universes which came before? the former would mean that there would not be a whole lot of loss, but in the latter it seems like we would reach a point where there is not enough material in one universe to facilitate the creation of the next, causing the multiverse (for lack of a better word) to eventually fail epically. then what happens to the mother universe when the new universe is created? would it just puff out or crunch down or just turn into a soup of background radiation.
I believe there's something akin to zero point energy going on here.
-
why can't we ever just admit we have NO ****ING CLUE how the universe started and will never know.
-
why can't we ever just admit we have NO ****ING CLUE how the universe started and will never know.
Because it's wrong?
We can trace the development of the universe with pinpoint accuracy back to earlier than .0000001 seconds after the initial singularity. And the only reason that singularity exists is because of the current incompatibility between GR and QM.
This theory would eradicate that incompatibility.
-
this is usually the stage where you hand ovet the formulas to the particle accelerator crews to see if they can find proof that it isnt false.
-
Quite so.
-
Ignorant person questions inbound!
Does this mean that our universe completely exists within the center of another universe's black hole (like a compressed file) or that or universe basically is the material ejected out the end of another universe's blackhole?
While this does seem like it could answer the question of how our universe began it still doesn't really solve the issue of where/when/how "existence" started, correct? Since it seems we could be the universe of a universe of a universe times n, yes no?
-
The whole concept of recursive black holes generating universe inflation and linear time seems rather fundamentally absurd and contrived...but then again, quantum mechanics itself is bat**** insane, so what do I know?
-
Ignorant person questions inbound!
Does this mean that our universe completely exists within the center of another universe's black hole (like a compressed file) or that or universe basically is the material ejected out the end of another universe's blackhole?
The former. Mathematically you can treat it as a hologram emerging from information encoded on the 'surface' of the black hole, the event horizon. The whole universe can be described this way and it's actually very mathematically powerful.
While this does seem like it could answer the question of how our universe began it still doesn't really solve the issue of where/when/how "existence" started, correct? Since it seems we could be the universe of a universe of a universe times n, yes no?
Well, part of the problem is that conditions on the 'outside' could be very different, and we couldn't necessarily retrieve information on those conditions, so it's hard to say.
The whole concept of recursive black holes generating universe inflation and linear time seems rather fundamentally absurd and contrived...but then again, quantum mechanics itself is bat**** insane, so what do I know?
The math is what tells, and if the math works out and is experimentally validated...
If there's a single 'original universe' that contains black holes, which contain universes, which contain black holes, then odds are we're in one of the child universes, not the original.
-
I never did very well with the mathematical side of my physics degree. Unfortunately, that side comprised the vast majority of my physics degree. :p
And I do think that StarSlayer raises a valid point. Even if, as you say, there's some sort of single "original universe" that spawned all of the child universes, that still leaves us struggling to describe the origins of that original universe. We'd certainly gain a much greater perspective on our own universe if something like this could be experimentally borne out, but in the end, we'd sort of have the same questions as before.
-
I never did very well with the mathematical side of my physics degree. Unfortunately, that side comprised the vast majority of my physics degree. :p
And I do think that StarSlayer raises a valid point. Even if, as you say, there's some sort of single "original universe" that spawned all of the child universes, that still leaves us struggling to describe the origins of that original universe. We'd certainly gain a much greater perspective on our own universe if something like this could be experimentally borne out, but in the end, we'd sort of have the same questions as before.
Possibly, but science answers the questions it can answer to prepare the for the questions it can't yet.
There's always the possibility that the information we need is lost beyond an event horizon, of course.
-
IU: best music school in the country AND explained the universe. Kudos!
-
I must admit, I can look up at a sky full of stars on a clear night away from the city and feel insignificant, especially compounded with the fact that I'm seeing only a small portion of the galaxy which is one of many in the universe...
...And this postulates the universe is basically a tiny zip file in another universe's flash drive.
For all Sovereign's big talk this kinda makes the Reapers pretty insignificant :D
-
And I do think that StarSlayer raises a valid point. Even if, as you say, there's some sort of single "original universe" that spawned all of the child universes, that still leaves us struggling to describe the origins of that original universe. We'd certainly gain a much greater perspective on our own universe if something like this could be experimentally borne out, but in the end, we'd sort of have the same questions as before.
Assuming the theory will be proven, while it would not explain the origin of the parent universe it would still explain the origins of our universe, which is more than we know now. It's still a big step forward, pushing back the boundries of the unknown that much more.
-
Thing is, in physics, it's possible that the parent could be somewhere within a child, we think linearly, thanks to the arrow of time, and the very words used can be confusing, but for all we know, the Universe that we spawned from may not even have been created yet. Cause and Effect doesn't apply if Time is all over the place. This universe could as much be an echo backwards as an echo forwards.
Kind of like the Asimov story, The Last Question, where mankind turns out, at the end of the Universe, to be 'God' by starting a new one.
-
Thing is, in physics, it's possible that the parent could be somewhere within a child
:jaw:
-
Thing is, in physics, it's possible that the parent could be somewhere within a child
[/quote]
One part of me is thinking that this is uber cool and that the human mind could never truly understand the complexities of the universe.
The other part of me is just being really stupid and immature.
-
Thing is, in physics, it's possible that the parent could be somewhere within a child
One part of me is thinking that this is uber cool and that the human mind could never truly understand the complexities of the universe.
The other part of me is just being really stupid and immature.
I c wat yu did thar, and this makes me think, that i spend way to much time in tha interwebs.
-
One part of me is thinking that this is uber cool and that the human mind could never truly understand the complexities of the universe.
The other part of me is just being really stupid and immature.
The same molecules that make up our bodies once burst out of a supernova and formed new stars, planets and life... and finally us.
What are we? We are part of the universe. And as a part of the universe that can observe and understand... what we are really is a chance for the universe to understand itself.
-
This topic is relevant to my interests.
Particularly the concept of torsion as a force that would prevent true singularities from forming, as well as the follow-up question about what exists inside event horizons if not a singularity, and how the size of the space inside an event horizon would be affected by the strange space-time occurrences. Specifically, inflation of the space inside event horizon, and a differentiation between the space observable from outside the event horizon (parent universe) and the inside of the event horizon.
Recursive universes is a problem though in the sense that it pushes the problem of First Cause further back much in the same way as any other hypothesis that doesn't offer the universe from being born of nothingness.
The concept of us living inside a supermassive black hole event horizon, is intriguing, but it is also somewhat depressing in the sense that we wouldn't really have much in the way of receiving information from the parent universe, which could potentially hinder our deeper understanding of the nested multiverse system to an extent that we might never get any further than finding out stuff about our own universe and its existence. :nervous:
-
Relevant to my interests, as well! :)
If this theory indeed rectifies the problems of inflation, arrow of time, singularities, etc then this would be a breakthrough in physics and cosmology comparable to the birth of GR. Actually, it's probably greater.
One subject I didn't quite get deals with the experimental implications -- that there ought to be certain properties of the mother universe that trickle down into the child universes like ours. From article:
"That said, some properties of the mother universe could trickle through to its daughters, and detecting some of these properties could actually provide experimental proof of the theory. In fact Poplawski speculates this inheritance of properties could solve another great mystery of cosmology."
Interesting, but I wonder what sort of "properties" do they propose we could be looking for, and what conclusions would we be able to draw from them?
Thing is, in physics, it's possible that the parent could be somewhere within a child, we think linearly, thanks to the arrow of time, and the very words used can be confusing, but for all we know, the Universe that we spawned from may not even have been created yet. Cause and Effect doesn't apply if Time is all over the place. This universe could as much be an echo backwards as an echo forwards.
Possibly stupid question, but this is bugging me. How can we make the assumption that time might not need to be linear in the mother universe? Especially considering that we know that it'd have to be passing forwards in order for a black hole within it to birth our own universe. (Otherwise it'd be a proverbial "white hole", which wouldn't create a child universe inside.)
Are my thoughts correct here or am I just grossly confused? :confused:
-
Following the reasoning, it follows that:
Black hole has universe inside. White hole is the big bang.
Reversion of time could potentially switch the parent/child relation of universes, although I hesitate to think what that would do to entropy.
Mindbogglingest possibility is that there is a chain or network of linked universes that would (grossly simplified) be like a bunch of snakes eating each others' tails. In such universe, there wouldn't actually be either beginning or end of time as such, only universe-specific time. In this scenario, the chains of universes would not be recursive, but then again it also does not answer to the question of First Cause.
And THEN there's the possibility of many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics being true, which would mean the existence of parallel universes in a chained/networked multiverse...
(http://knowyourmeme.com/i/1123/original/xzibit-wtf.jpg)
-
Possibly stupid question, but this is bugging me. How can we make the assumption that time might not need to be linear in the mother universe? Especially considering that we know that it'd have to be passing forwards in order for a black hole within it to birth our own universe. (Otherwise it'd be a proverbial "white hole", which wouldn't create a child universe inside.)
The most honest answer I can give is 'I don't know' to be honest, time might work exactly the same in all Universes, it might work differently in each, we don't even really understand Time, and certainly the effects of relativity when passing through the event horizon of a black hole is based purely on speculation of what we know. You may well be correct and time can only flow through Black Holes in a linear fashion, kind of like a valve, but massive levels of Gravity can play all sorts of tricks, and Quantum mechanics can do odd things at times, there's a variation of the double-slit experiment that states that events in the future can alter what happens in the past, mix all that up with the other factors and I honestly couldn't tell you what the outcome would be :)
Edit: Would a snake-chain universe supply it's own solution to entropy via Gravity in that case Herra, each universe constantly pouring matter and energy into the next in a kind of never-ending hourglass effect?
-
Herra I did not know Xzibit was a proponent of the chained universe theory :D
Does anybody actually have a link to Poplawski's actual paper?
-
Does anybody actually have a link to Poplawski's actual paper?
Yes. :)
http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1007/1007.0587v1.pdf
-
Edit: Would a snake-chain universe supply it's own solution to entropy via Gravity in that case Herra, each universe constantly pouring matter and energy into the next in a kind of never-ending hourglass effect?
Now THAT depends on whether they're a closed system or not.
Assuming thermodynamics even applies in the chained multiverse. For all we know it could be specific to our universe (though I doubt it).
Entropy and temperature of a black hole are defined thermodynamic quantities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics), however it is uncertain how close the thermodynamics of a black hole corresponds with thermodynamics of the more normal parts of observable universe.
I guess that theoretically something like this could be possible:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/2965208286_be89946d1e.jpg)
-
Yup, that was the sort of image I had in my mind, of course, it creates a lot of questions, because I 'think' that every universe in the chain would effectively contain every other Universe, like the wierdest Russian Doll in history, where the outside Doll is inside the central one...which pretty much fries my noodle ;)
-
So the universe is just a giant and delicious cruller!? (http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/3240/kk12.jpg) (http://img806.imageshack.us/i/kk12.jpg/)
Oh God! :shaking:
Somewhere, somehow, extra-dimensional Homer Simpson is salivating profusely.
-
Mindbogglingest possibility is that there is a chain or network of linked universes that would (grossly simplified) be like a bunch of snakes eating each others' tails. In such universe, there wouldn't actually be either beginning or end of time as such, only universe-specific time. In this scenario, the chains of universes would not be recursive, but then again it also does not answer to the question of First Cause.
Great, then we'd have a bloody Wheel of Time going on. :p
-
Heh, it could be worse, imagine a Universe that is inside a Black Hole that is inside that Universe...
Kind of like the Aboriginal story of the man who carried the entire Universe in a sack on his back :)
-
Hmm, I think my thought process has already been reflected in some of the more recent posts. But I'm reminded of speculation that blackholes are somehow connected to other places, it'd be strange if blackholes are actually all connected and are our universe, feeding itself, as matter gets sucked in it gets spit back out to go into another black hole. So instead of thinking cruller, think dog chasing its tail :)
-
I don't suppose this means there's a universe composed of Ray Butts, a SA-43 Hammerhead and Johnny Cash music?
-
I don't suppose this means there's a universe composed of Ray Butts, a SA-43 Hammerhead and Johnny Cash music?
where are the pancakes?
-
I don't suppose this means there's a universe composed of Ray Butts, a SA-43 Hammerhead and Johnny Cash music?
I has eated them in one universe.
No actually i'm going to eat them in the other universe.
-
Heh, it could be worse, imagine a Universe that is inside a Black Hole that is inside that Universe...
Kind of like the Aboriginal story of the man who carried the entire Universe in a sack on his back :)
Oh God, It's like that one episode of Futurama!
-
I don't suppose this means there's a universe composed of Ray Butts, a SA-43 Hammerhead and Johnny Cash music?
that had to be the best scene in all of scifi
hail cash! emperor of blackness!
-
For those who didn't read the actual publication (which is extremely maths and physics intensive), the summary paragraphs are quite interesting and are much more in depth than the article description. I'll quote some of it here:
We propose the following scenario. A massive star, that is causally connected, collapses gravitationally to a black hole and an event horizon forms. Inside the horizon, spacetime is nonstationary and matter contracts to an extremely dense, but because of torsion, finite-density state.
In the frame locally moving with matter, this contraction looks like the contraction of a closed universe. Such a universe is initially causally connected and anisotropic. Extremely large tidal forces cause an intense pair production which generates the observed amount of mass and increases the energy density, resulting in isotropization of this universe. Additional terms in the Lagrangian density containing torsion could also generate massive vectors.
The spin density increases, magnifying the repulsive spin-fluid forces due to the negative εS. The pair production does not change the total (matter plus gravitational field) energy of the resulting FLRW universe, which is zero if we neglect the cosmological constant. After reaching its minimum size, the homogeneous and isotropic universe starts expanding. Such an expansion is not visible for observers outside the black hole, for whom the horizon’s formation and all subsequent processes occur after infinite time.
The new universe is thus a separate spacetime branch with its own timeline; it can last infinitely long and grow infinitely large if dark energy is present.
Furthermore, it discusses what evidence we can look for to verify/falsify the theory:
Since most stars rotate, most astrophysical black holes are rotating black holes. A universe born from a rotating black hole should inherit its preferred direction, related to the axis of rotation. Such a preferred direction should introduce small corrections to the FLRW metric, containing the Kerr radius a = M/(mc), where "M" is the angular momentum of a rotating black hole and "m" is its mass. These corrections could then couple to other fields, allowing to verify whether our Universe was born in a black hole.
Herra, since you brought up how this might affect entropy, there's this:
The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon, before the subsequent expansion. Such an arrow of time would also be entropic: although black holes are states of maximum entropy in the frame of outside observers, new universes expanding inside black holes would allow entropy to increase further.
-
Excellent post, thanks for digging that up.
-
This article has some fascinating ideas. I skimmed over it yesterday too. The math actually made sense to me, but not the physics so much. :p Maybe I should spend some time learning about this stuff.
-
Maybe I should spend some time learning about this stuff.
Yea me too. Been interested in the subject since.. forever. At any rate, great read.
-
Pretty soon we'll be able to artificially simulate intelligence.
We will create a virtual universe, where this simulated intelligence will be implanted; just for the hell of it.
When this intelligence gets up to a certain level of technology, our PC's permiting, it will start it's own simulated universe, etc.
What are the odds that our reality isn't simulated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
-
As screwed up as it is they must have a mickysoft too.
Interesting thought. Our black holes could just be uncaught division by 0 in the code that makes up our universe. Someone break out the debugger..
-
What are the odds that our reality isn't simulated?
Considering the lack of exploitable bugs, I'd say pretty good. :P
-
As screwed up as it is they must have a mickysoft too.
Interesting thought. Our black holes could just be uncaught division by 0 in the code that makes up our universe. Someone break out the debugger..
The funniest part IMHO is that the sim could be paused and we won't even know it (unless we are paused and the world changes, then we'd see differences), just like unconscious people don't feel the time going by.
What are the odds that our reality isn't simulated?
Considering the lack of exploitable bugs, I'd say pretty good. :P
I'm pretty sure the bugs are out there, waiting to be discovered (or perhaps even known for centuries, just that nobody thought of them as bugs).
-
It's not a bug... It's a feature!
-
What are the odds that our reality isn't simulated?
Effectively zero.
However there may be telltales depending on how much computational capacity our simulation has.
-
A bug seen from the POV of a character in the sim may not even appear to be a bug. For all we know time being variable with mass is a bug. Deja Vu might even be a reboot after a crash.without memory being cleared.
-
Yes, but they're not exploitable. Given the demonstrable human genius at finding exploitable mechanics to completely break most simulations I'm pretty sure if this was one as well, we ought to be ruling the universe.
-
You're talking about simulations designed by us, not some alternate level of being. And like they said, all they'd have to do is revert to a previously saved state and we'd never know.
-
Effectively zero.
Whaaaaaaaat?! How can this beeeee?
-
You're talking about simulations designed by us, not some alternate level of being. And like they said, all they'd have to do is revert to a previously saved state and we'd never know.
On the other hand, why should they revert it? And we've had plenty of time to brute-force the problem by now, if it's there we should be finding it.
-
You're talking about simulations designed by us, not some alternate level of being. And like they said, all they'd have to do is revert to a previously saved state and we'd never know.
On the other hand, why should they revert it? And we've had plenty of time to brute-force the problem by now, if it's there we should be finding it.
No we haven't. We have performed so hilariously few actions in such an immensely short span of time that we might as well not have existed at all.
The only thing we could do that would reliably detect whether we lived in a simulation would be to build a lot of very detailed simulations and look for some kind of signs of computational strain...and that's assuming that whatever substrate we run on isn't massively prepared with extra resources, or designed to prevent us from achieving any such thing.
-
...and now we've moved on to the Matrix. This is a fascinating conversational evolution. :p
-
And how do we know E=MC2 isn't an exploit?
After all it's the IDKFA of our sim.
-
No we haven't. We have performed so hilariously few actions in such an immensely short span of time that we might as well not have existed at all.
Considering that the exploits of the average simulation are diagnosed on the day it comes out, or before.
If there was a logical snapper somewhere in the universe, the odds are good we would have found it. As it stands the last place one could realistically be hiding would be quantum mechanics, and the odds of that decrease by the year.
And how do we know E=MC2 isn't an exploit?
After all it's the IDKFA of our sim.
Because it doesn't break anything. If you can produce zero point energy or a perpetual motion machine, then we have an exploit.
-
The average simulation made by humans is ridiculously trivial compared to the computational immensity of the universe. There's no valid comparison.
No simulation devised by man can match the power of the brain of lower mammal.
-
Your assuming the universe isn't just an animated skybox.
-
No simulation devised by man can match the power of the brain of lower mammal.
Then where is the break? As I said, if we're going to break the simulation, the last place to do it is running out.
Or are you posisting that we just happen to be in the only simulation that isn't being subjected to some form of outside influence to test a theory/provide entertainment?
-
No simulation devised by man can match the power of the brain of lower mammal.
Then where is the break? As I said, if we're going to break the simulation, the last place to do it is running out.
Incorrect. The fraction of the phase space of all possible actions occupied by the incredibly narrow human environment in its incredibly tiny lifespan is miniscule. Nor is the human mind a particularly likely place for any breakdown to occur - the brain is a tame system, relatively simplistic when compared to phenomena on the cosmic scale.
Furthermore there is no reason to believe that the simulation is inconsistent or glitchy in any way detectable by man - we would observe these inconsistencies or glitches as simply part of the natural universe.
This is complicated by the fact that the simulation could easily detect perception of any inconsistency and redact it seamlessly.
I suggest this paper (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html) for a good overview.
Another question is why you should care: if you live in a simulation, the simulation is the universe, and it is in no way a 'counterfeit' or a 'fake': it is the cosmos as it has always been.
The universe is undeniably a computational system, to the point where arguing over whether it's a simulation or not is sort of pointless - we have laws like conservation of information and physics is already treated as a form of computation.
-
Another question is why you should care: if you live in a simulation, the simulation is the universe, and it is in no way a 'counterfeit' or a 'fake': it is the cosmos as it has always been.
True, but in a simulation as big as the universe, big enough to simulate things like atoms and smaller, then there are bound to be bugs here and there. Such a large simulation would be impractical to debug by hand so you would most likely have another program do it for you. Rather than just deleting offending pieces of data, potentially throwing the rest of the simulation off kilter (what would happen if Sol were to disappear?) instead you would send something in to correct it for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykEepc1Wos8#t=6m42s)
Anyway, I love when I find these theories and ideas used in fiction, taking us back to black holes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V46ciduAzwo#t=2m9s). I find it hard to imagine how a black hole that has only consumed about a few hundred city sized space monsters being able to start a new big-bang...
I now return you to your normal service...
-
Why are there bound to be bugs? If the universe is the simulation then the bugs are part of the universe and our universe hasn't display any bugs...so why are you worried?
I find it hard to imagine how a black hole that has only consumed about a few hundred city sized space monsters being able to start a new big-bang...
The torsion theory suggests that new matter is generated inside the event horizon without violating conservation of mass/energy.
-
Why are there bound to be bugs? If the universe is the simulation then the bugs are part of the universe and our universe hasn't display any bugs...so why are you worried?
As it has been mentioned before, from the inside any bugs in the simulation will be interpreted as fact. Say somebody discovers free energy due to a flaw somewhere in the simulation's 'sub-subatomic' simulation or something like that. Stuff like that affects how everything interacts and if the entire universe has this flaw in it's makeup then you can't just patch it out without adversely effecting the entire simulation.
Now that free energy puts a considerable extra strain on the simulation, perhaps to the point that if say a nearly an entire galaxy's worth of intelligent life was to use it it would most likely cause the entire simulation to crash. Now intelligent life has rights and there's even talk nowadays that even artificial intelligence will have to be granted those same rights and I bet that in the world outside the simulation will have similar rights. Now if you has a simulated universe with a untold amount of genuine intelligent life inside it you would be bound to do all that was necessary to keep it running, even if that meant the destruction of the species that discovered the bug that could destroy the universe.
This is where your Executioners/Shivans/Great Destroyers come into play... or another species inside the simulation takes it upon themselves to do the job. Heck for all we know we aren't inside a simulation but another civilisation decides that we all are and begins purging all those who the see fit.
With humanity's thirst for knowledge, if we are in a simulator, with bugs, I would be worried about finding that one bug...
(yep, theres a bit of anti-spiral/Vendeeni/4D Being in this post)
-
And how do we know E=MC2 isn't an exploit?
After all it's the IDKFA of our sim.
So wormholes are like IDSPISPOPD ?
-
or IDCLIP
-
So what's the IDDQD of our universe then?
-
Being born as Chuck Norris or Isaiah Mustafa.
-
or IDCLIP
Same thing. But IDCLIP's history is less interesting.