The Universe-where did it come from?

[Constance]

Ufology wrote:

"when we hit the Enter key the program is set in motion, operational cycles begin, and as soon as the first one is complete, what happens? Out of the nothingness we had only moments before is born a new virtual universe. If we were given the opportunity to observe this birth from a point of view inside the virtual construct, it would seem as though this new universe had indeed come from nothing. How do we know that this situation is not exactly the case for the universe in which we presently inhabit? The answer is: We don't."

Perhaps a naieve question, but I have to ask it: I wonder how 'we' can hit the enter key to kickstart a computer simulation of a virtual 'reality' in which we are thenceforth embedded. In what reality were we and the 'computer' embedded before we triggered the production of the 'virtual' reality in which you claim that we thenceforth exist? And where is that former reality now?

 

[SRL+]

Instead of attempting to explain, I’m just going to post this again, as this speaks directly to Don’s post in relation to the research being conducted at PI, The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

 

[E. L. Wisty]

Just out of interest, did anybody else bother to read the paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf) on which that well-known scientific journal Wired based its claim that the Universe was a computer simulation just like it is in that movie with the slo-mo gunfights and the really cool if somewhat impractical leather coats?

I admit that I'm seriously out of practice, so I skipped the math, nearly all of which I've forgotten how to do over all those years when it didn't exactly come up on a daily basis. But if I understand the rest of this paper correctly, the authors are suggesting ways in which we might be able to determine whether or not we live inside a very complex version of The Sims, not offering any evidence that we actually do.

Some of their suggested proofs involve areas of physics we don't fully understand yet, and might or might not work if we did - a situation in which you can make any conjecture you like. Others involve distances so miniscule that we can't possibly check them out. In their conclusions, they suggest that their proposed "cubic lattice structure" may be so fine that it only becomes visible "several orders of magnitude below the Planck scale". Or, put another way, using current technology, to test that claim, you'd need something like the Large Hadron Collider, only with a diameter at least the size of the orbit of Neptune!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this paper doesn't seem to offer any even remotely testable conclusions whatsoever. Also, the references to the hypothetical Universe-simulators making a silly mistake and allowing the Universal Constant to be non-zero, despite their meticulous attention to detail in every other department, reads to anyone who knows the history of physics like a subtle joke at the expense of Albert Einstein. Frankly, I think this entire paper may be an extremely rarified PhD-student prank. And if it isn't, it doesn't really matter, because there's no practical way anyone can prove or disprove anything in it for a century or two at the very least. By which time, whether they were joking or not, the authors will no longer be worried about having their grants revoked. Just saying.

 

[SRL+]

Check out the above clip at 30:00, as it may be helpful.

 

[Randall]

Ufology wrote:
Perhaps a naieve question, but I have to ask it: I wonder how 'we' can hit the enter key to kickstart a computer simulation of a virtual 'reality' in which we are thenceforth embedded. In what reality were we and the 'computer' embedded before we triggered the production of the 'virtual' reality in which you claim that we thenceforth exist? And where is that former reality now?

Not a naïve question at all. The situation was meant to be illustrative, a sort of thought-experiment to illustrate what it would be like to observe a new universe coming into existence. We might also suppose that the creator of such a universe could observe it's formation from outside via a sophisticated optical display. Scientists are already using supercomputers and 3D imaging to model universe formation. The video below introduces you one of the most recent ones:

"Scientists at MIT have traced 13 billion years of galaxy evolution, from shortly after the Big Bang to the present day. Their simulation, named Illustris, captures both the massive scale of the Universe and the intriguing variety of galaxies -- something previous modelers have struggled to do ..."

A Virtual Universe

 

[Constance]

Instead of attempting to explain, I’m just going to post this again, as this speaks directly to Don’s post in relation to the research being conducted at PI, The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Maybe your media link will show up in this reply. It does not appear in your post.

 

[Constance]

Maybe your media link will show up in this reply. It does not appear in your post.

Apparently not. Would you reset the link?

 

[SRL+]

Apparently not. Would you reset the link?

It should link..I just tested it.

 

[Constance]

Not a naïve question at all. The situation was meant to be illustrative, a sort of thought-experiment to illustrate what it would be like to observe a new universe coming into existence.

From the way you expressed yourself in the previous post, it recalled for me a theory you expressed in another thread many months ago -- that we can expect eventually to be able to produce another universe through computation. I may not be remembering exactly what you said. If not, apologies.

We might also suppose that the creator of such a universe could observe it's formation from outside via a sophisticated optical display. Scientists are already using supercomputers and 3D imaging to model universe formation. The video below introduces you one of the most recent ones:

"Scientists at MIT have traced 13 billion years of galaxy evolution, from shortly after the Big Bang to the present day. Their simulation, named Illustris, captures both the massive scale of the Universe and the intriguing variety of galaxies -- something previous modelers have struggled to do ..."

A Virtual Universe

What is the connection between being able to computationally "trace 13 billion years of galaxy formation" in this universe and the proposition that this universe itself is a computer simulation, and further that we might ourselves become capable of producing still another universe through computation or computer simulation?

NOTE: Your intended link, like S.R.L.'s recent attempted link, shows up in this reply to your post but not in your original post as a live link. Is there a problem with the link or perhaps with the forum's software at the moment?

 

[Constance]

It should link..I just tested it.

Hmm, there is no live link showing up in your post on my screen; the same thing occurs with Ufology's most recent link. Could this be some kind of problem with my computer? Anyone else have the same problem?

 

[Constance]

S.R.L. and Ufology: both your links are visible and live now.

 

[Charlie Prime]

Now let's suppose that the program in question is one that is run on some vastly powerful computing system, and for the sake of argument we'll call it "universe_01.exe".

Your computer program is something. Thus we have something producing something.

As I said, something doesn't come from nothing.

 

[Randall]

From the way you expressed yourself in the previous post, it recalled for me a theory you expressed in another thread many months ago --

You're memory is better than you give yourself credit for .

What is the connection between being able to computationally "trace 13 billion years of galaxy formation" in this universe and the proposition that this universe itself is a computer simulation, and further that we might ourselves become capable of producing still another universe through computation or computer simulation?

I mentioned the computational model in this thread to provide an example of how within that context, the "something from nothing" idea for the origin of a universe can make sense. So that is the connection that I was attempting to make. But to address your question separately, the connection I see between the video ( posted here ) and us being able to create a virtual universe similar to our own, is that looking at the video, what you are seeing isn't simply an artistic rendering like something done out of an artist's imagination in Disney studios. It's based on the same laws of physics that astrophysicists and cosmologists use to describe the formation of the real universe we live in.

Therefore because we see in the video, the evolution of galaxies and other features that are strikingly similar to those found in our realm of existence, given sufficient computational power, why should we not expect to see even more features evolve, including planets and moons around the stars, along with their associated geology, and perhaps even life? Any life that evolves to sentience would find that their realm follows rules of nature imparted upon it from some mysterious and seemingly external source, and that at the smallest levels what appears to be material isn't really solid at all, but much like what we see when we peer into the microcosm of the subatomic.

 

[Randall]

Your computer program is something. Thus we have something producing something.

As I said, something doesn't come from nothing.

That's also another context. Both ways of looking at the issue are equally valid, and IMO might even be a clue that we're on the right track. After all when one way of looking at things tends to reinforce another way of looking at the same problem, it tends to reinforce the bigger picture as something possible.

 

[Constance]

Instead of attempting to explain, I’m just going to post this again, as this speaks directly to Don’s post in relation to the research being conducted at PI, The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Wonderful interview. Lee Smolin is a brilliant and beautiful man. Since you posted that interview just following a post of mine, I wonder if you intended it in some way as a response to what I'd just written. If so, how do you think the Smolin interview bears on what I'd posted?

 

[Constance]

. . . to address your question separately, the connection I see between the video ( posted here ) and us being able to create a virtual universe similar to our own, is that looking at the video, what you are seeing isn't simply an artistic rendering like something done out of an artist's imagination in Disney studios. It's based on the same laws of physics that astrophysicists and cosmologists use to describe the formation of the real universe we live in.

I'm afraid I still don't see, as I said before "the connection between being able to computationally 'trace 13 billion years of galaxy formation' in this universe and the proposition that this {our} universe itself is a computer simulation, and further -- much further -- that we might ourselves become capable of producing still another universe through computation or computer simulation." Can you clarify your reasoning?

Is it your supposition that if we could know that we live in a 'virtual universe' rather than a real one, we would have reason to suppose that we could produce another virtual universe as real as the one we exist in? You do seem to think the universe we live in is a real one (according to your last statement quoted above). I do think, with Lee Smolin, that the universe is real in an objective sense. Don't you? How could a virtual universe created in a computer become a real universe?

 

[SRL+]

Wonderful interview. Lee Smolin is a brilliant and beautiful man. Since you posted that interview just following a post of mine, I wonder if you intended it in some way as a response to what I'd just written. If so, how do you think the Smolin interview bears on what I'd posted?

Not really Constance, other than I find it incredibly difficult to wrap the human mind around the concept of infinity.

 

[Randall]

I'm afraid I still don't see, as I said before "the connection between being able to computationally 'trace 13 billion years of galaxy formation' in this universe and the proposition that this {our} universe itself is a computer simulation, and further -- much further -- that we might ourselves become capable of producing still another universe through computation or computer simulation." Can you clarify your reasoning?

Is it your supposition that if we could know that we live in a 'virtual universe' rather than a real one, we would have reason to suppose that we could produce another virtual universe as real as the one we exist in? You do seem to think the universe we live in is a real one (according to your last statement quoted above). I do think, with Lee Smolin, that the universe is real in an objective sense. Don't you? How could a virtual universe created in a computer become a real universe?

It's all about context. I'm using the word "real" as a convenience term to differentiate between the virtual world ( the construct ) and the world that created it ( the real world ). In another context ( the bigger picture ), both environments ( realms or universes ) are real in the sense that they both exist. So a virtual existence is still a real existence. The subtleties of usage do take a little getting used to.

 

[Constance]

So the "construct" is a virtual reality "created" by the real or actual universe that has evolved (according to the still-dominant theory) since the 'Big Bang'? When in the evolution of the actual physical universe does this 'construct'/virtual reality appear? And where does 'information' fit into your theory? Many physicists now believe that information is fundamental in the universe, exchanged and integrated by quantum interactions originating in the quantum substrate, producing systems that interact and increase in complexity over time to produce fields and forces, macrophenomena, life, consciousness, and mind. So the universe might be characterized as a complex system of systems universally entangled [this universality seems to be generally agreed upon], and depending on one's presuppositions is understood as either a closed system or an open system. How does your theory fit into these considerations arrived at in physical theory?

 

[Ufocurious]

Me in this thread