Is the universe a computer simulation?

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 24, 2014

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here, a rabbi notes,

I was reminded of this last week, when I read the New York Times article “Is the Universe a Simulation?” by Edward Frenkel. In his op-ed, Frenkel introduces a theory that the universe as we know it is merely a computer simulation, and, as such, we humans are in a position to discover the mathematical basis of that simulation.

As the physicists Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage argue in their paper “Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation,” “…assuming that the universe is infinite and therefore the resources of potential simulators are finite… in principle there always remains the possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators.”

Is this just religion for nerds? A treat for the graphic artist?

Apart from the math and the graphics, how is “Is the universe a computer simulation?” different from “Is everything we experience a dream someone is having?”

There is no way to be sure we are living in reality and not simulation. But the onus is definitely on the person making simulation claims to demonstrate them unequivocally. Their version is much more complicated than a single reality without explaining anything further.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ciphertext, IMO, John Bell's inequality theorem is only concerned with proving entanglement, not proving randomness. Aspect's experiments have confirmed Bell's inequality and thus nonlocality (instantaneous action at a distance), thus proving that distance is an illusion. The problem with most physicists is that they describe phenomena without providing an explanation. Why must the universe be probabilistic? That is the question that must be answered. The answer is, the universe is probabilistic because there is no time dimension. But you won't find this in any physics book because Einstein and the relativists have already decreed that there is a time dimension. Doctrine is a very hard thing to defeat. So the physics community is stuck between a rock and a hard place.Mapou_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

RE:Mapou #27 I was under the impression that Alain Aspect published a paper in 1982 (at least from the subsequent interpretation of the paper) that the tested the predictions set forth in John Bell's 1964 paper concerning the existence of "supplementary properties" (a.k.a. hidden). What the Aspect paper found was that by testing the results (theoretical... as they were a mathematical postulation) published in John Bell's paper (that the hidden variables or supplementary properties are inconsistent with quantum mechanics) were correct. That the "randomness" implied by QM really is inherent to the universe, and not because we lack the instrumentation to detect the hidden variables. Wouldn't Aspect's paper have found otherwise?ciphertext_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

ciphertext @26, Probabilistic decay is indeed observed but there is no empirical way to prove that it is based on a truly random process. If, as CentralScrutinizer suggests, the universe is computed then it would, in principle, be possible to compute a pseudo-random number generator to simulate probability. Having said that, there is a solid logical reason to suppose that nature is inherently probabilistic. The reason is that there is no time dimension. The only way that nature can compute deterministic temporal intervals would be for it to have access to time. It doesn't because time does not exist. Why is there no time dimension? Because a time dimension implies a velocity in time (rate of change of time) and that would be self-referential. Why? Because a rate of change of time would have to be given as v = dt/dt, which is nonsensical. This is why there can be no motion in Einstein's spacetime. It is also the reason that Karl Popper compared Einstein to that ancient Greek crackpot, Parmenides (who, along with his disciple Zeno, denied that change is possible) and called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." The physics community does not like to discuss this for obvious reasons. It makes them look like a bunch of fools.Mapou_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

I was under the impression that there was an "inherent" randomness in nuclear decay. The example I'm familiar with is the decay of Caesium-137 into Barium. Suppose you are able to trap a newly created, single atom of Caesium-137, you would be unable to pinpoint the precise time it will decay into a Barium atom. Caesium-137 has a "half life" of 30.17 years, so you could, at best, say that there is a 50/50 chance that the atom would decay into Barium sometime between the time you trapped it and 30.17 years from the time of initial trapping. Wouldn't the existence of truly random nuclear decay indicate that the universe is itself a non-deterministic entity, at base?ciphertext_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Mapou: However, the universe is also probabilistic (nondeterministic) but digital computers are not.
The collapse of a wavefunction occurs randomly, but within statistical bounds. It's not totally random. Random number generators on digital computers can be made to look so random that they appear non-deterministic without resorting to quantum sources. Such a digital algorithm could provide the stochastic element to wavefunction collapse. Computable, but not predictable by us.
My main problem with the universe as a program within a computer is that it does not fully explain the universe. It only explains the program.
I didn't say I could explain what the algorithmic processor is. It could be something God made. It could be God "himself" performing each computation. Or it could be as you said, a bunch of independently acting sources. (In your conception, how do these sources know about each other and communicate with each other?) No way to know. At some point we hit the brick wall. My point is, so far, the universe looks algorithmically processed by a unified processor- that it's objects are data sets being manipulated "super-luminally." Empirical data appears to indicate this. That's all. What this would mean to us as a practical matter, if this is a computed universe, I don't know. Maybe it would spur researchers on to discover "easter eggs", so to speak, within the system. Maybe that's what the creator wants us to do.CentralScrutinizer_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

#23 "However, the universe is also probabilistic (nondeterministic) but digital computers are not." Probabilistic is epistemological not ontological characterization. As to whether universe is deterministic or indeterministic, no one actually knows and there are conjectures and models of either type. Computational processes and algorithms can be deterministic or indeterministic, though, so that choice doesn't matter for the question whether one interprets universe as a computational process or not (that's a question of preferences, tastes and heuristics, not an intrinsic property of the universe).nightlight_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer @20:
But you have to ask yourself: why does, say, every electron exhibit the same properties? Why do quantum events evolve according to extremely narrow specification? Why do the events within our universe are operating algorithmically. But that’s what computers do: they execute programs algorithmically. So while I do not think it is knock out proof that we are indeed living in a computed reality, it is certainly consistent with that view.
I agree that it's consistent with digital computers and algorithms. But it's only because the universe is discrete (so are computers) and causal (thus algorithmic). However, the universe is also probabilistic (nondeterministic) but digital computers are not. My main problem with the universe as a program within a computer is that it does not fully explain the universe. It only explains the program. The computer itself, which is also part of the universe, remains unexplained. I believe the universe behaves like a computer, not because it is computed but because it is computable.Mapou_{February 26, 2014
February
02
Feb
26
26
2014
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Some physicists are a taking the topic seriously with a possible means of testing the computed universe conjecture: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-real-physicists-method-universe-simulation.htmlCentralScrutinizer_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

jstanley, During the Industrial Revolution, humans concluded that the universe is a machine. Now, during the Information Revolution, humans are concluding that the universe is a computer. Meh…
There's more to it than that. Are you aware of photon delayed choice and photon eraser experiments? And quantum entanglement in general? A computed universe model handily explains these sort of empirically observed phenomenon.CentralScrutinizer_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Mapou, The discreteness and nonlocal nature of the universe is not proof that the universe is a program running within a computer. It is proof that the universe is not continuous and that distance is an illusion.
But you have to ask yourself: why does, say, every electron exhibit the same properties? Why do quantum events evolve according to extremely narrow specification? Why do the events within our universe are operating algorithmically. But that's what computers do: they execute programs algorithmically. So while I do not think it is knock out proof that we are indeed living in a computed reality, it is certainly consistent with that view.CentralScrutinizer_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Holcumbrink, Well putCentralScrutinizer_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

The discreteness and nonlocal nature of the universe is not proof that the universe is a program running within a computer. It is proof that the universe is not continuous and that distance is an illusion.Mapou_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

During the Industrial Revolution, humans concluded that the universe is a machine. Now, during the Information Revolution, humans are concluding that the universe is a computer. Meh...jstanley01_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Yes, it does make sense. The universe seems very mathematical, and the granularity is Planck length. There could be a lot of hanky-panky going on within such a tiny volume!
The universe is a THEATER FOR CONSCIOUSNESS.
I like that, CS. -QQuerius_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

I think I get what CS is saying. Maybe. A simulator implies a greater reality that this 'world' is only a mock-up of. So if we are in a simulation, a bird flying through the air, and even the bird itself, represents something like it in the 'prime' reality, whatever that might be. So all the atoms and particles involved with all of the bird's actions only serve to provide a crude representation of how a real bird in the prime reality outside of the simulation we find ourselves in would behave. But we are not in a simulation. The bird and all its actions, to a certain degree of resolution, represents the bird itself, not how 'real birds' in the greater reality would act and behave. The bird is real. It is the bird. But all of its particles and how they react to one another to make the bird what it is are in fact computed outside our world by some unknown goings on in an outside prime reality. I think that's at least sort of what CS means when he makes the distinction between a simulation and a computed reality. If that makes sense.M. Holcumbrink_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Sorry Denise for the harsh comments. The barley water was flowing a bit too much around here last eve.CentralScrutinizer_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Mapou: The distinction you’re trying to make between ‘computed’ and ‘simulated’ is lost on most of us.
There are real airplanes, and there are airplane simulators. A flight simulator only pretends to be a real cockpit on an airplane. Simulators are not the thing they simulate. They only pretend to be. However, the following statement is meaningless: our universe may be a real universe or it may be a simulated universes. With regards to the universe we find ourselves "in", what would be the semantic difference between it being a "real" universe or a "simulated" one? There is no difference in meaning as there is with regard to an airplane and an airplane simulator. I think what most people mean when they say "simulated" universe is really a "computed" universe. Strictly speaking, our universe being a computed universe has meaning. I hope that helps.
However, if by ‘computed’, you mean that the entire universe IS a super-parallel computer, then I agree with you. I believe that every particle in the universe is an all-seeing tiny processor that reacts to every other particle.
No. That's not what I mean. I do not suspect the universe is a computer. Rather, I suspect it is computed by some algorithmic processor that is not our universe. In other words, all objects within our universe are data objects within the algorithmic processor. Our universe has the same relationship to its host processor as a virtual reality game, such as World of Warcraft, has to it's host processor. The entities within World of Warcraft are not computers. They are computed.
Distance is an illusion and the universe is ONE, i.e., non-local.
I agree. But for a different reason. At any rate, as I said before, I think the empirical experimental data all but proves we are living in a computed universe.CentralScrutinizer_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

If the universe is simulated, it has to be in lattice form. The distance between the lattice points form the 'resolution'. Any particle can't be smaller than this resolution. We can measure the high energy cosmic rays and see if these rays shows a preferred travel direction. If they show a favored direction, it means the universe is a simulation. Studies like Pierre Auger observatory are trying to detect as many high energy cosmic rays (about 10^20 eV) as possible so we can deduce if universe is a lattice. However I don't believe universe is simulated.selvaRajan_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Thanks for helpful comments. The problem is as it was: It may be true that the universe is a computed or simulated reality. Or a dream someone had, in a much greater Uber-universe while spending the summer at the cottage. It makes absolutely no difference which of two unverifiable possibilities is true. We must reason from what we know or give up reason. The multiversers thinking within the current Scientific American frame seem to have chosen the latter.News_{February 25, 2014
February
02
Feb
25
25
2014
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer, The distinction you're trying to make between 'computed' and 'simulated' is lost on most of us. However, if by 'computed', you mean that the entire universe IS a super-parallel computer, then I agree with you. I believe that every particle in the universe is an all-seeing tiny processor that reacts to every other particle. Distance is an illusion and the universe is ONE, i.e., non-local. IMO, this super-parallel computer obeys a single conservation principle: Everything (every property) must sum up to nothing. I call it the 'conservation of nothing'. Every change/motion is the result of nature trying to correct a violation to the this principle. Something to think about. PS. As a Christian, I believe that the all-seeing capability of every particle is what some symbolic passages in the Bible metaphorically refer to as being "full of eyes all around."Mapou_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Ask yourself: how does a proton attract an electon thru EMPTY space? How do they KNOW HOW TO DO THAT from a DISTANCE? You're thinking about reality all wrong if you think particular are "things" that exists on their one,like little balls. Particles are merely informational objectsthat are being processed by an "overlord" computation system for our benefit. Matter is nothing. It's only information within a computed system for the benefit of CONSCIOUSNESS. That's what God is up to. Think about it and you will see. Duh.CentralScrutinizer_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

"There is no way to be sure we are living in reality and not simulation"
Sorry, Denise, but this is the one of the stupidest things I've ever read, and I like you, but you still wrote it. If the universe is a COMPUTED reality, it is STILL OUR REALITY. "REALITY" and "COMPUTED REALITY" are not some sort of diametrically opposed ideas. It's the same thing. There is NO OTHER. Think about it. How do you think God made this universe? It's COMPUTED. Duh.CentralScrutinizer_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

What seems clear is that underneath the activity at the quantum level, there is something that appears to be connected to everything all at once. Call it what you will, but it our reality appears to be a COMPUTED reality, where the computer is connected to all quantum objects at the same time, no matter how far separated. "Simuation" is the wrong term to use, but a simulator is something merely has the appearance to doing something, but really doesn't, which hardly applies to our universe. The universe is a THEATER FOR CONSCIOUSNESS. Good grief, people, get a clue already.CentralScrutinizer_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

But it immediately settles the question of whether we (and all living things) were designed.
It at least suggests that the concept of considering design is a valid scientific approach (unless it's a joke to see who will go along)es58_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

No. Given the definition of the word "simulation", it is not an appropriate term. The universe is what it is, and what it appears to be at the quantum level, from several empirical experiments, is that it's a COMPUTED reality. Ditch the word "simulated" from your vocabulary. Bostrom picked the wrong word.CentralScrutinizer_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

A minority of ID proponents (like Tipler and Barrow) believe the universe is a computer simulation. One of the first peer reviewed ID papers by Albert Voie allowed for the possibility of the universe being a computer simulation (though I doubt Voie believes this personally). Perhaps there is a grain of truth in the notion that somehow, the physical universe is less real than the spiritual universe where MIND is the ultimate reality. In that way, the physical universe as we know it could pass away once the "program" terminates and there could be a new Heaven and new Earth. I don't think however computer simulation is the best phrase because that implies an underlying hardware system. Though I don't believe in the Multiverse and am skeptical of many worlds, and don't completely endorse the universe as a computer simulation, I don't view these speculative notions as inherently anti-ID. See: Many Worlds, One God The missing graphic in that post can be found here: Dilbert Shift Happens :-)scordova_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Why a simulation? Well, here's one reason according to the Bible:
So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? - Luke 16:11 (NIV)
Interesting. And God doesn't need no stinkin' computer. ;-) -QQuerius_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

But it immediately settles the question of whether we (and all living things) were designed.EDTA_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

The universe as a computer simulation is a very attractive hypothesis that solves all kinds of problems such as entanglement (spooky action at a distance) and quantum tunnelling but it suffers from a fatal flaw, IMO. Who or what is simulating the computer? If the computer is part of the universe (one would assume), it too must be simulated. This leads to an infinite regress that does not ultimately explain anything.Mapou_{February 24, 2014
February
02
Feb
24
24
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply