this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023

56 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13025 readers

5 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Space

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

remington

alyaza

Gaywallet

Do we live in a computer simulation like in The Matrix? Proposed new law of physics backs up the idea (phys.org)

submitted 1 year ago by eric@014450.xyz to c/science

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The simulated universe theory implies that our universe, with all its galaxies, planets and life forms, is a meticulously programmed computer simulation. In this scenario, the physical laws governing our reality are simply algorithms. The experiences we have are generated by the computational processes of an immensely advanced system.

While inherently speculative, the simulated universe theory has gained attention from scientists and philosophers due to its intriguing implications. The idea has made its mark in popular culture, across movies, TV shows and books—including the 1999 film "The Matrix."

The earliest records of the concept that reality is an illusion are from ancient Greece. There, the question "What is the nature of our reality?" posed by Plato (427 BC) and others, gave birth to idealism. Idealist ancient thinkers such as Plato considered mind and spirit as the abiding reality. Matter, they argued, was just a manifestation or illusion.

Fast forward to modern times, and idealism has morphed into a new philosophy. This is the idea that both the material world and consciousness are part of a simulated reality. This is simply a modern extension of idealism, driven by recent technological advancements in computing and digital technologies. In both cases, the true nature of reality transcends the physical.

Within the scientific community, the concept of a simulated universe has sparked both fascination and skepticism. Some scientists suggest that if our reality is a simulation, there may be glitches or patterns within the fabric of the universe that betray its simulated nature.

However, the search for such anomalies remains a challenge. Our understanding of the laws of physics is still evolving. Ultimately, we lack a definitive framework to distinguish between simulated and non-simulated reality.

(page 2) 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, I was talking about my own thoughts on this, and it can't be disproved, so it's not really something I can believe in per se, but I think it's an interesting idea nonetheless. I'm just gonna paste it here because I'd genuinely like to discuss it.

So like, we agree here that the universe could be a simulation, right? That this could be possible, regardless of whether or not that's true of our particular universe?

I sorta had this idea on christmas last year but I was thinking...
If it's possible for a universe like ours to exist; for it to be created and to live out its life, etc.

Maybe the idea that mathematics predicts a universe like ours, the stars, the planets, the division of anti-matter and matter, etc., maybe this entire thing is actually just that prediction. Not actually having "come true", but moreso a figment amongst other figments that the mathematics of reality predict.

To draw an analogue, if an infinitely intelligent, thoughtful, and knowing being had infinite brainpower running at infinite speeds, any time they thought of a universe, a world, a person, they would think with such clarity and depth that the person within it could live an entire life, could have evolved, would have existed in every way that we can perceive. They would have consciousness in any way we can recognize, and themselves wonder about the nature of their universe, and where it came from. But the reality is that it's just the thought of a being of infinites.

This would be deism, but if even I believe what I said above to be true, I don't think I need to be a deist.

Because maybe simply the possibility of that happening -- the plausible reality of everything existing -- is what all it takes.

It's something that's churned in my head for a long time, and I really have no reason to believe it; it's inherently unprovable, and thus isn't really something I can believe in. But I think it's an interesting concept.
idk maybe I've made some foolish error in the arrogant pursuit of conceptualising all that which I do and don't understand to be real lol

Basically I postulate that the universe could be in a state of quasi-existence wherein it doesn't actually need any sort of trigger or anything to exist, because it doesn't even.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's an interesting thought. I don't pretend to know an infinite beings thought process, but what does thought entail for them? Presumably an infinite being imagining our universe would come up with some universal laws, begin from singularity, and work from there event by event. How does general relativity factor in? Is the being simply doing those calculations too?

Overall, if our universe is is merely a prediction (and importantly, predictable), I just don't see the practical difference between a perfect being capable of cheap, infinite thought and a merely clever being with a really, really powerful computer. It's a different medium, but it doesn't say anything different about our universe as simulation. Whether the perfect being thinks of and builds the universe in their head, or the clever universe-software developer comes up with a framework for a universe and runs it on their super computer, it might as well be the same universe from our perspective if the initial conditions and laws happened to be the same.

And both were triggered by ideas, which surely didn't come from nowhere, but even if it did it only brings us back to the age-old question: what created the Creator? So it doesn't really answer the "why" and "what triggered it" questions either.

[–] ram@bookwormstory.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, brining up such a being was merely an analogue. The actual idea I'm putting forward is there is no need for a means of "the universe" to begin. If it can, it does, and we're simply within a figment of possibility and potential.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why "can" it? What defines what "can" and can't be? Why exactly should possibility imply reality? Why can't possibility not necessarily imply reality? Seems to me like a philosophical kick the can down the road thing - which to be fair is pretty much all philosophy.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] aio2 1 points 1 year ago

This is where the brain damage starts to show in full force.

[–] shiveyarbles 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well I'm definitely not the programmer, unless I'm a masochist in the out world.

[–] jarfil 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're an NPC.

"Computer, Arch!"... dammit.

We're all NPCs... 😨

[–] shiveyarbles 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gotta find the exit code

[–] jarfil 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I know several exit codes... but they look more like calls to purge the process space. Ultimately will have to use one, just wonder if I could've got Roy off the grid, although IDDQD would be a nice one.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments