Authored by Geraint Lewis via The Conversation,
As a cosmologist, I often carry around a universe or two in my pocket. Not entire, infinitely large universes, but maybe a few billion light years or so across. Enough to be interesting.
Of course, these are not “real” universes; rather they are universes I have simulated on a computer.
The basic idea of simulating a universe is quite simple.
You need “initial conditions” which, for me, is the state of the universe just after the Big Bang.
To this, you add the laws of physics, such as: how gravity pulls on mass, how gas flows into galaxies, and how stars are born, live, and die.
You press “go,” and then sit back as the computer calculates all of the complex interactions, and evolves the universe over cosmic time.
A wonderful description by Andrew Pontzen on how astronomers synthesize and study their very own galaxies and universes.
What’s more fun is playing “Master of the Universe,” and messing about with the laws of physics, such as changing the properties of gravity, or how black holes swallow matter. Waiting to see the outcome of these mutated universes is always interesting.
I know in my heart that these universes are nothing more than ones and zeros buried within my computer, but in the movies I make of my evolving galaxies and clusters, and the one embedded further down in this article, I can see the mass moving around. It looks real!
Computer simulations of complex phenomena are everywhere in science, and cosmologists aren’t the only ones that marvel at synthetic chunks of the real universe.
It is equally inspiring to watch the flow of air around a newly-designed wing, or how individual molecules make their way through a biological membrane, and such simulations have revolutionized science.
Of course, these advances have only occurred with the growth of computer power over the last few decades, and the push is always towards the inclusion of more complex physics over an immense range of scales, from the cosmological to the quantum.
We are always limited by the power of computing, but as computers get bigger and faster, so does the detail within our synthetic universes.
Cosmologists aren’t the only ones that marvel at synthetic chunks of the real universe.
But let’s imagine a time in the future, a time when computers are powerful enough to fully simulate a human brain, with its vast array of interconnected neurons.
These neurons obey the laws of physics, and fire as their chemical balances change. Thoughts would echo around this synthetic brain, with electrical signals coursing backwards and forwards.
Not being a philosopher, I will ignore the (seemingly endless) debates about free will and consciousness, but if you take a purely mechanical view of the human brain, the synthetic brain will be as “alive” as the organic brain that made it.
Fed with the stimulus from a synthetic body interacting with a synthetic universe, it will experience pain and fear, happiness and love, even boredom and drowsiness.
There are, in fact, some who believe we will all be reborn in a glorious future, where computers are powerful enough to recreate everyone who has ever lived, and then sustain them for eternity.
While this vision of heaven is touted as the Final Anthropic Principle, some have more bluntly labelled it the “Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle,” or C.R.A.P.
But we may not have to wait until the distant future!
In simulations, I can see the mass moving around. It looks real!
To quote the late, great Douglas Adams, “There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
Not that someone on Earth, or even within our universe, has created a truly synthetic universe, complete with beings that are clueless to the fact they are nothing but part of a computer experiment.
No, the startling realization is that we—our very existence, every thing we have seen, have experienced, or will ever experience—might be nothing but the chugging of bits in an unimaginable supercomputer.
As I type this on a laptop, and stare out the train window at the station rolling past, at the people, the trees, the dirt on the ground, surely I would know if I was part of a computer program?
But then again, my brain is simply processing inputs, and if the simulated inputs fed into my simulated brain are good enough, how would I know?
It is important to remember that this picture is different to the “Brain-in-a-vat” presented in the Matrix movies. There, an organic brain is fed information, recreating the synthetic world in which the characters find themselves.
Instead, our picture is that there is no organic brain. We are part of the matrix itself.
So, how can we know if we are part of a computer simulation?
It is important to remember our earthly computers are limited in the way they can represent real numbers, holding only a finite number of digits for typical calculations.
What this means is that my simulated universes are quantized, in some sense, with the limited resolution imprinted in the details of the structure that is produced.
If we are living in a computer simulation, then maybe such resolution effects are apparent to us. Our world doesn’t look like the Minecraft universe, and so we expect the resolution scale to be smaller than the scale of individual atoms, rather than large, cubed blocks the size of footballs.
Just last month, researchers from the University of Bonn, Germany, suggested we can detect such “chunkiness” of the small scale by looking how high-energy particles, known as cosmic rays, traverse huge distances in the universe. As these rays bounce through this space, their energy properties get modified, and by looking at what arrives on Earth, we can work out the size of the chunks.
But there are problems with this idea.
Firstly, we are working under the assumption that the computer we live in operates like an everyday computer. But these everyday computers are governed by the laws of physics of the synthetic universe in which we reside.
The unimaginably powerful computer that hosts our universe may operate in ways we cannot even think about.
The resolution scale of our universe is considerably smaller than in the “chunky” Minecraft universe.
Another problem is that those trying to understand the nature of the very small have already proposed a quantized backdrop of space and time in which we live.
Is the existence of such a space-time simply a property of a real universe, or the tell-tale sign of a synthetic one? How can we ever tell them apart? Do we even want to?
One way of potentially detecting the real nature of the universe is to search for the extraordinary—or, in the words of my children, who play video games, “glitches”—where the program doesn’t do as expected.
Perhaps some of the unexplained things we cannot yet explain are simply glitches in the program (although I am a fan of illusionist Derren Brown and think the human mind can be easily tricked).
The other alternative is more drastic.
When my synthetic universes are running, they can abruptly come to a halt for a variety of reasons, such as disk-space filling up, errors in the memory, or something as simple as the cleaner unplugging the computer to vacuum the floor.
If my synthetic universe is running when the power goes out, it simply ceases to exist.
I do hope the cleaners of our potential-hyperdimensional-universe-simulating overlords are more careful.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
As a cosmologist, I often carry around a universe or two in my pocket.
When specialization runs amok.
What happens if one of his pockets has a hole in it?
The Pyramid S01E33
It just leads to another pocket. A bizarro pocket, in which there’s a little Spock action figure with a goatee.
It is surmised by some physicists that the universe is actually a giant quantum computer. That would then imply that our world is part of a highly sophisticated and powerful quantum simulation. This is not the same as a digital computer simulation some of which have become highly sophisticated. A universal quantum computer would be so many orders of power and complexity greater than a digital computer simulation that it is not even worth discussing. We cannot imagine the power behind such a ‘program.’ However if it is true that we are part of a quantum simulation then we would need to ask the question ‘who programmed it?’ and where did they or it come from? – Fetterman’s Bump
It is surmised by some farmers that physicists are a massive drain on the economy. They produce nothing but fantasies about nonsensical notions cribbed from old episodes of Star Trek that can never be known, much less applied in any constructive manner while their useless physical bodies bloat from the consumption of processed foods, all the while tethered to their Herman Miller workstations, separated from other human beings by dedmountable wall systems locking them into cell like cubicles for the duration of their adult lives where their minds begin to feed on themselves until such time that they succumb to vaccine induced arrhythmia.
The End.
Hahaha…bravo.
“It is surmised by some farmers that physicists are a massive drain on the economy.”
…says the guy typing out his ignorance on a computer network designed by those same “useless” scientists. Yet Hardscrabble Dimwit believes in the Bible – because in everyone’s experience, talking snakes, walking on water and rising from the dead are rational and reasonable things to believe in.
I visit this website because sometimes the views expressed here are very insightful and intelligent.
…and sometimes they are not!
Theoretical physicists invented computers?
You learn something new every day.
Some of us do learn something new every day…
“John Vincent Atanasoff, OCM, (October 4, 1903 – June 15, 1995) was an American physicist and inventor from mixed Bulgarian-Irish origin,[1][2][3] best known for being credited with inventing the first electronic digital computer.[4]”
I think I heard sometime back where an unemployed cosmetologist came up with the idea of a hair weave during a stint between working in a braided rug factory and a circus.
The key to all innovation is the realization that something is possible. Once you realize the physics work, then the rest is simply engineering.
All modern science is based on physics, without it, we would still be riding horses and using sailing ships, which I am sure you would be fine with.
Physics is the science of using mathematics to separate truth from fantasy. Something many who comment here struggle with.
Modurn siense!
http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/82-if-van-allen-belts-werent-problem.html
Indeed, HSF. Anon won this argument. Another theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman, didn’t invent the digital computer, but did invent parallel processing using many female computers to speed up laborious calculations during the Manhattan Project.
Somehow I don’t think HSB is going to concede that loss or, if he is actually so gracious, he will consider the point irrelevant.
You learn something new every day.
Read the time stamp of the comment.
Your attitude towards physicists … and, I’m guessing, physics … explains why you believe;
— the Earth is flat
— nuclear bombs don’t exist
— the moon landing is a hoax
I would pay big big money to witness a debate between you and Einstein, or Isaac Newton, or Nicola Tesla. Just my guess, but somebody … won’t say who … would be reduced to organic mincemeat.
Stucky, fuck Isaac Newton (“alchemist” and so called Bible interpreter), fuck Einstein (neglecter of his own family)…don’t fuck Tesla, too honest a man…wait a minute…holy crap, you mean the moon landing wasn’t a hoax?!!!
Yea – fuck that ignorant Einstein dude. I mean anyone can explain that whole E=MC2 thing, am I right?
So why don’t you show us why Einstein was such a dumbass? Just tell us, in simple terms, how that whole E=MC2 thing actually works (just the basic formulas will be fine). Or you know, explain the relationship between light and mass (in your own words of course).
Anonmyous, just because somebody says a bunch of shite YOU don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s true or even on a higher plane. That’s a woman thing, “oooh, I can’t understand what he’s saying; he must be really intelligent.” My wife had a cousin, you couldn’t understand anything that mofo was sayin. Didn’t make no sense at all. He died in a mental hospital. No need to suck an ‘intellectual’s’ cock.
Thank you for admitting publicly that you don’t understand Einstein or his theories. You probably don’t speak Latin either so I guess that means it isn’t a real language.
As usually happens when people guess on TBP…you’re wrong.
Are you claiming that you do speak Latin?
I learned in physical chemistry that E-MC^2 preceded that fraud Einstein, only in a more useful form.
Sticks and stones and all that jazz.
Every once in a while I chime in but really, there is no point to it. Beating up on anti-science bible thumpers is like debating a hamster. They just run the treadmill and then use that as “proof” that they’ve actually gotten somewhere and that you, standing outside their cage, are obviously going nowhere.
How about an actual debate on the age of the cosmos, smartass?
As in, right here on this website? As in, an actual debate with actual rules which we both get to follow?
You bring your one strongest piece of evidence in support of your false model, and I’ll do the same.
We’ll see how free you are with your smartass mouth after that.
Yes or no?
You are going to create the rules of debate for determining the age of the cosmos? This ought to be a hoot. OK, I’ll play. What are these “rules”?
If you’re already confused by what I wrote, then this exercise will be an even bigger waste of time than I thought.
Neither one of us determines anything about the cosmos. All one of us does is shows the other to be an assclown.
1. Presentation of argument. One of us goes first, then the other.
2. Cross examination. Each gets to ask the other a series of four questions about the presented evidence, in order: question — answer — follow on question — follow on answer, etc. This is to be done in an orderly fashion and direct questions must be answered directly.
3. Rebuttal. First one side, then the other, following the order established prior to beginning and which will be maintained throughout.
4. Summation.
And you pick a piece of evidence and stick with it throughout.
How say you.
Also — we’ll do this on another board, more fresh, where we’ll have an audience.
Maybe we’ll advertise here for a couple of days to drum up interest.
Once we begin, we don’t stop till we’re finished. I’ll rearrange my schedule to accommodate you.
Morning, afternoon or evening. Your choice.
How will we know who “won”?
It seems doubtful that either of us would concede voluntarily. That is perhaps how things should work but I’ve learned from experience that it seldom happens online.
I would agree to judges but we will not agree on the qualifications of those judges (e.g. a panel of physicists, biblical scholars or plumbers?).
We might go with “majority of votes” but science doesn’t work via majority opinion and in this forum, I believe I am outnumbered from the outset.
So… how do you see this working?
“…It seems doubtful that either of us would concede voluntarily…”
That’s why we do this on a live board. There will be VOTES.
“…I would agree to judges…”
As would I. Feel free to nominate your own regulars or import others from elsewhere. However many you nominate, I will nominate the same number. Beyond that, there will still be votes. And I will ask Admin to keep the voting fair, since there is an Anonymous poster who runs amok with an ISP address generator. I have no idea whether that’s you or not, and that’s but one of the problems with posting as “Anonymous”. You thereby taint yourself with the disreputable actions of all such Anonymous posters. But I see you’ve chosen to set yourself apart from that confusion. Wise decision.
“…science doesn’t work via majority opinion…”
I submit that it does. That is, science, falsely so-called. Evolution and the age of the cosmos/earth are precisely two examples of the same.
“…in this forum, I believe I am outnumbered from the outset…”
Then it should come as no surprise to you that you’ve been called out precisely because of your generalized ill talk of believers. And because of that, I will not be kind to you in debate. Even so, there will be no ad hominem attacks or other of the logical fallacies coming from me.
By running your mouth carelessly you’ve put yourself in my wheelhouse. I’ve done this for decades and I have dismantled many a PhD in debates on various public and private forums. You will of course presume this to be an empty boast. Good. But come prepared if you actually do participate in this interaction.
[ADMIN: if you’re following this exchange and would be amenable to our arranging this contest here on your website, please let me know. I think I’ll contact Stucky and ask him to arrange a dedicated page for the matter. By your leave, of course.]
As I mentioned, here is the problem with relying on votes to determine who is correct.
When I commented on HSF’s statement about the hypocrisy of deriding science (physicists in particular) while typing on a device made possible by science (i.e. ain’t no computer schematics in the Bible), I got 10 down votes. When he commented sarcastically that he wasn’t aware physicists had invented computers (a mock declaration of ignorance) and I proved his actual ignorance by showing that the first digital electronic computer was invented by Dr. John Atanasoff, a physicist, I received only ONE positive vote.
HSF was shown beyond doubt, to be ignorant of the facts and by extension, ignorant of the contributions of science and physicists in particular (i.e. his ignorance in one area, easily remedied via a simple search, should call into question his other assertions).
The results of the voting however show that people are only willing to support views with which they already agree, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. If one were to ask a group of medieval peasants to vote for which statement they agree with: A. Lightning is the result of positive and negative charges or B. Angels exist – we know what the vote results would be, regardless of the truth of the matter. (I would have used A. The Earth revolves around the sun but I know that there are many Flat Earthers here).
So I don’t think this would be a fair contest (but I suspect you already know that). 😉
You know there is always a silver lining in every little storm cloud, so take heart.
Due in large part to my ignorance on this topic I contacted a friend of mine at the Junior Ivy a couple of towns over and signed up to audit the next physics course -for a nominal charge since it isn’t for college credit.
The fact is theoretical physics is one of my weakest areas. I took it about 40 years ago but didn’t apply myself. I don’t plan on making the same mistake twice.
Can’t wait to comment again when I have a better understanding the topic.
So thanks for showing me my level of understanding needed a refresh.
HTH
Likewise, I will perhaps audit a single class at the local college to learn all there is to know about farming. I think one introductory course ought to cover it. Then I will be in a position to better understand and debate the topic. 😉
Can’t wait to read your comment.
“…I don’t think this would be a fair contest (but I suspect you already know that)…”
Thanks for presuming what I know or don’t regarding what’s fair or isn’t.
I’ll presume too. By now you recognize you’ll have your hands full if you proceed along this course. You recognize the man who has answered your unjust charge isn’t your garden variety evangelical verse parroting poorly informed and undereducated cartoon. I’ll presume too you have all Bible believers as neatly categorized in your own mind, having yourself (therefore) slipped right into the same sort of over simplistic and comically cartoonish cage you presume for those you despise. Your intellectual arrogance has brought you to this point. And it is your intellectual arrogance which will cause you great humiliation if you proceed with this challenge. Having sensed that, now you’re looking for a way out.
So be it.
This website is where you made yourself a fool with your careless commentary, Doctor. This website is also where you should be put to the test. You’ve taken the measure of others and found them wanting. Do you have the strength of character to meet one of those very others whom you have judged, on the very field of battle on which you made the verdict of your judging known?
Don’t waste my time with what’s fair or isn’t. You had no thought of fairness when you rendered your personal verdict about believers.
Stand and expose yourself to this exhibit of your advertised superiority, or take your noise away with you. Or stay here in shame for the cheap intellectual currency which you’ve been found unwilling or unable to have counted right here, in single intellectual combat. And maybe change your name yet again.
Choose.
Why have you chosen “the age of the cosmos” as the topic? The post was about the nature of the cosmos, not directly about its age. If we are to debate, then perhaps we should first agree on the topic.
How about we take just a small part of the cosmos and debate it? For example, you demonstrate your ability to predict the dates of past solar eclipses, using only the Bible as your information source and I will use any standard state university textbook on Astrophysics. If science is a scam and the Bible is truth, then you should easily win out. Using solar ellipses as the standard provides easily verifiable evidence of one approach vs the other, without the need for subjective judgement.
If you don’t like the eclipse idea, there are any number of other natural occurrences that are subject to prediction or observation that we can use.
What say you?
You’ve heard my terms.
Your now wasting my time with bullshit because you’re a coward.
Why don’t you ask me to use a chainsaw to predict Madonna’s menstrual cycle. That makes as much sense as what you began by saying above.
You’ve already given me my answer.
You’re all talk.
Dismissed.
Just wanted you to publicly admit that when it comes to matters of science, the Bible is as useful as using a “chainsaw to predict Madonna’s menstrual cycle’. So now we know you can’t make reference to the Bible, or derivations therefrom, as a basis for your arguments.
Yes, I have already heard “your terms” and it is usually unwise to fight a battle on your opponent’s terms. This is why you have outright rejected even considering my invitation to debate something that can be objectively proven using common observations. Who is the coward now? Likewise, according to your own rules you stated there will be no ad hominem attacks (“Even so, there will be no ad hominem attacks or other of the logical fallacies coming from me”). You have thus far called me a “smartass” and a “coward”. Seems you are prone to cheating , even when working with your own rules.
That said, go ahead. Present your first premise with regard to the age of the cosmos. I concede the first move. Once you’ve made your first argument, I will follow. Then I will folow up with my questions and then you follow with yours.
Proceed.
You’ve already lost…with “muh science”. You’ve turned a tool into a religion.
One of those things is true, the moon landings actually were a hoax.
I think that the notion of the universe being generated by a quantum computer is quite a bit more likely than the old man in the sky above the clouds with a beard. Nothing could be more preposterous.
except this:
https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html
Who built the computer?
Love Chuck R.I.P.
THAT is your go to guy in the world of physics! Long time follower. God Speed, Chuck!
Nice response as it provokes deep thoughts and possibility.
The out-of-time existence
We were created “outside of time” (before and after were born into the world) and this material existence in time completes the paradox.
HILARIOUS nom de plume!!
Fetterman got that bump from taking DDD in the face. One might say he got donkey punched.
One problem…pictures from the new James Webb telescope reveal that the Big Bang didn’t happen…
And the science had been settled? Too bad for them.
You make that statement as if it is Conclusive and Widely Accepted in the science community. That simply is not true!!
=====
1) Here is a simple explanation;
“No, the James Webb Space Telescope did not disprove the Big Bang”
.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/big-bang-jwst-james-webb/
=====
2) This one is more technical.
“The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here’s how that falsehood spread.”
.
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-science-denial
Where does God fit into this? Is God the supercomputer?
Full marks.
Fair question. I find an appropriate answer in answer.
ooppss! Correction! I find an appropriate answer in scripture
John 1:1 … seems to say it all …
Also — the Tao Te Ching … also seems to say it all, but from a different cultural perspective …
He is an ethical hacker.
Hahah I like that!
Cosmologist eh? Kinda like that chick tole me one time, she had a Phd in metaphysics.
What a crock of crap. This article didn’t explain a dam thing. Pure mental masturbation exercise.
Lets play! Obviously a major mal-function in the program of our universe. The programmer must have forgotten to add the anti-virus software.
Oh Oh… What if the moon and Earth are just molecules in the big toe of another person and they’re a molecule in someone elses toe… LMAO… pass that spiff over here now…
I should have stayed in school… Then I could have gotten a sweet job to sit in some cubical play’n asteroid all day. Dream’n of toe molecules…. spiff break
More likely warts on another persons toe. Were all just toe jam. HAHA
When the house in on fire, worrying about the color of the paint is not your best strategy.
Boogieman be based.
The Australian Aborigines have always known this. Their concept of the Dream Time is where The Creator dreams the world into existence and when he awakens, the world and everything in it just vanishes.
But the question these guys from The Science never answer is, why does such a powerful metaphysical supercomputer exists to perform simulations of such earthly banalities? Like, the most powerful thing in the universe has an algorithm to tell me I have to give my dog a bath?
Why should I care what a HAIRDRESSER has to say about this??
Funny. Didn’t read, because clearly hairdressers are stupid.
And if he is male, you know he is queer.
How about barbers? Are they fags too?
Not usually. I prefer to have women cut my hair and have since HS.
My father would be relieved by the verdict were he still alive. Although…there was Floyd The Barber. He was about 3/4 fag. Funny thing about fags. They used to be funny. Now they’re just fags.
Hairdressers and telephone sanitizers will lead the way… colonizing new worlds… I have proof…
What if this whole universe could be inside your little sister’s purse?
Only you could bring fucken Joo shit into a cosmetology article.
Good one ,Stucky. I saw what you did there.
He did it again, Stucky.
The article reminds me of the mental masturbations as a youth high on pot.
In the matrix … brand of mattress?
Matressculation: gesticulating, pillowtopped in words, particularly printed, as on the tag that is illegal to remove, & on the bedridden tiny island bodies that sag downstream.
Bed•eviled be the bedheads.
Big Bang= Evolution = fraudulent theories created to keep people stupid.
Sometimes it’s better not to know the answer to things and just enjoy whatever this life thing is. You can drive yourself crazy trying to understand it.
Meh, if this is dv or crickets. Anything is possible. It’s something that makes me wonder. Does anyone remember the Intellivision game called Utopia? It was precursor to Sims. The game gave a head count of your domain. Nerdy me asked what if these “people” were really alive in some kind of Outer Limits kind of way. Brings back memories of Intellivision.
RED RIVER D challenges me to a fight
Publicly
Frames the topic and makes up his own rules for that fight and, when I question him about the topic and rules, pointing out that they are not very fair, he cops an attitude and then BREAKS HIS OWN RULES by attacking me personally (ad hominem attacks being against “his rules”)
After all of that, I STILL agree to debate him and what does he do?
He runs away like a little bitch!
There is your anti-science “champion”. LOL
Fuck you, dumbass. I followed your idiot responses to him. Clearly you couldn’t handle him, so what do you do?? You crawl back, days later, like the little coward bitch you are to a DEAD THREAD to save your pathetic face.
Bottom line: You’re a pussy. Everyone can see that now. He did his job.
Apparently he needs a woman to defend him (or maybe you’re one of those he/she/its so popular these days?). If it is a “dead thread” then why are you reading it and responding? I gave him several days to respond, thinking maybe he was indisposed or working on some magnum opus response.
But hey – if you are going to fight his battles for him – be my guest. Lay out your case for the current age of the cosmos.