Philosophically speaking...

[Edward M. Grant]

I don't follow you there, Edward. I mean, think of all the resources involved in maintaining such a system.

If this is a simulation, we have no idea what kind of resources are available to run it. One of the common arguments against this universe being a simulation is 'but you'd need a massive computer to run it, which couldn't be done in this universe'. Which is entirely true, and entirely irrelevant, because it wouldn't be running in this universe, this universe would be running in a computer in the other universe.

The mere fact that the universe is quantized and random at a low level tends to support the theory, since it looks an awful lot like a programmer's shortcuts to reduce the resources required for the simulation.

 

[RX-79G]

The mere fact that the universe is quantized and random at a low level tends to support the theory, since it looks an awful lot like a programmer's shortcuts to reduce the resources required for the simulation.

If any observable science is actually as "real" in the simulation as we are. There is no reason to assume that our observation electrons or proteins or quasars mean that they "exist" in our universe and aren't just the programmed facade offered by any active scrutiny. The simulation could be little more than our minds and some relatively complex VR to fill in the blanks.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Why would "humanist" have the connotation of denying the possibility of God(s)? Early humanists were nearly all Christians.

Yes, but this is 2016. The meaning of the word has changed.

 

[RX-79G]

Yes, but this is 2016. The meaning of the word has changed.

"Humanist" or "secular humanist" has always meant rejection of the supernatural in the real world. But I have never seen its meaning to include an active rejection of the possibility of an afterlife or a creator. The first is a scientific viewpoint in line with humanist value in reason, the second is not. I don't know when that change happened, or that everyone is aware of it.

 

[Fung Koo]

So, to thicken the plot some more...

Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness? From The Atlantic, last Monday.

Normally physicists avoid this conversation, as most neuroscientists would argue that the function of neurons is sufficient to explain consciousness (despite the points made on this matter) and the complexity of the neural system too complex and too "wet" to sustain quantum entanglements. But, this article points out a weird twist of science that hints at least at the possibility.

It turns out that if you're taking Lithium for a mental disorder like depression, you're almost certainly taking the common isotope Lithium-7... but, contrary to any reasonable reason, Lithium-6 appears to work in your system differently. A difference in the number of neutrons at the atomic level shouldn't have much/any impact on cognitive function, but it would appear as though it could, leading to a reopening of the question of whether or not quantum mechanics play a role in consciousness and cognition.

 

[Andrew LH]

Freakish - the standard wisdom is that any article with a question in the headline is always answered "NO"...

 

[Demon]

Freakish - the standard wisdom is that any article with a question in the headline is always answered "NO"...

Just to add more fuel to the fire... (apologies but... I mean ,*here comes the demon*) Standards are made to be broken.

 

[Demon]

In all seriousness, I have never actually seen a scientific discussion come to a conclusion everyone is happy or agreeable with. Ever. It's practically inconceivable for the mind to just switch its preset reality. That just doesn't happen in my experience. Even if the most mind-shattering revelation were to hit you. It pretty much plays out in history that way, anyways. It's roughly a hundred years after the geniuses of their times invented or discovered something that it was readily accepted as the standard knowledge/wisdom/theory/etc. It's hard to gather a consensus adequately among peers because we want to show each other what we know so bad its like trying to add a square wheel to a bike in order to make it work; it just doesn't.

Awesome debate anyways. If you keep an open mind this stuff kind of makes sense all together on a grand scale. You just have to sort of block what we think we know in the process of seeing it the other way. THAT I think is what trips people up.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

I have never actually seen a scientific discussion come to a conclusion everyone is happy or agreeable with.

The world works by consensus. Unanimity is rare.

It's roughly a hundred years after the geniuses of their times invented or discovered something that it was readily accepted as the standard knowledge

Or more. One quarter of Americans surveyed in 2014 thought the sun revolved around the earth. Take that, Copernicus.

You just have to sort of block what we think we know in the process of seeing it the other way.

Yes. We're preset to see things the way we expect to see them. And after we see them, we're prone to impose confabulation on the memory.

We experience reality through our senses and our cognitive apparatus, both of which were evolved to make us successful apes in east Africa. You can push the equipment only so hard before it reverts to default mode.

 

[Av Demeisen]

I was debating creating a new thread, but then a search directed me here.
----------
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation
The sci-fi trope might now be put to rest after scientists find the suggestion that reality is computer generated is in principle impossible
Just in case it’s been weighing on your mind, you can relax now. A team of theoretical physicists from Oxford University in the UK has shown that life and reality cannot be merely simulations generated by a massive extraterrestrial computer.

The finding – an unexpectedly definite one – arose from the discovery of a novel link between gravitational anomalies and computational complexity.

In a paper published in the journal Science Advances, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi show that constructing a computer simulation of a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in metals is impossible – not just practically, but in principle.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I was debating creating a new thread, but then a search directed me here.
----------
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation

Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation
The sci-fi trope might now be put to rest after scientists find the suggestion that reality is computer generated is in principle impossible
Just in case it’s been weighing on your mind, you can relax now. A team of theoretical physicists from Oxford University in the UK has shown that life and reality cannot be merely simulations generated by a massive extraterrestrial computer.

The finding – an unexpectedly definite one – arose from the discovery of a novel link between gravitational anomalies and computational complexity.

In a paper published in the journal Science Advances, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi show that constructing a computer simulation of a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in metals is impossible – not just practically, but in principle.

Obviously...

And hi again everyone .

Actually, thinking about it there's a way around the problem (to play devil's advocate). A computer simulation doesn't have to replicate the laws of physics, it just has to replicate the human mind's perception of them. So a human physicist studies the quantum Hall effect: he is not observing the behaviour of every particle in the virtual universe, he is just observing the approximated representation of the quantum Hall effect in the pseudo-matter he observes.

Which means of course that the simulation is based on a real universe, otherwise why go to so much trouble? But thinking about it, why go to so much trouble in the first place? Humans in a simulation need never know about the quantum Hall effect and the virtual universe could be much simpler since its inmates have nothing to compare it to. If you spent your entire existence living in a simple arcade game would you have any reason for thinking it isn't real?

 

[Av Demeisen]

Hello Justin, good to see you again. You might be onto a personal epiphany here. Why did God go through the trouble of creating an entire unreachable Universe for us in the first place? Maybe because He doesn't exist? To the informed he never was a convincing explanation to being with, unlike scientific theories like Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Hello Justin, good to see you again. You might be onto a personal epiphany here. Why did God go through the trouble of creating an entire unreachable Universe for us in the first place? Maybe because He doesn't exist? To the informed he never was a convincing explanation to being with, unlike scientific theories like Evolution by Natural Selection.

Hi Av,

Y'know, I've come to the realisation that religion is a really problematic subject since it is so difficult to keep it pleasant. I'm friends with some people who think very differently from me and my experience is that the friendships work fine so long as one keeps away from the sore subjects. So, OK, I'll answer your point, but I'm really not trying to convince you of anything. When it comes to belief in a God all parties have made up their minds long before they come to the discussion.

Anyhow, your question. "Why did God go through the trouble of creating an entire unreachable Universe for us in the first place?"

It's one I've wondered about for a long time. My answer: he didn't make the universe just for us earth-dwellers, i.e. we're not the only game in town. That doesn't mean that a huge unreachable universe requires aliens occupying it if God created it. It means he didn't create it just for our benefit. He supplied a habitable planet for our benefit.

In the Christian framework it's possible to push the answer a bit further. All major religions have several common denominators: a) there's some kind of supreme being, b) we survive death, c) our post-death existence is the real deal: this life is just a passage, not a destination, hence it doesn't have to be a paradise, and d) what we do in this life affects the kind of existence we'll have in the next. For Christians, the universe is unreachable now but it won't be unreachable in our future state of existence. We will be able to visit and experience every part of it and since we will be immortal we will have plenty of time to take in its vastness. There, that's an answer.

 

[Av Demeisen]

I was just mildly trolling you, Justin. I don't wan't to get bogged down in a discussion. I know there is no penetrating the bubble of the theologically inclined. Like you said, any nagging doubt is dealt with by making stuff up as you ago along. Since a lot of this credulous stuff was first made up by ignorant people centuries or even millennia ago, it has the aura of authority.

Good to see you again, nonetheless.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Cool. Back to the main point: can anyone think of a reason an alien civilisation would bother creating a simulation with an impossible-to-compute complexity? Wouldn't they be content with a much simpler (and easier to create) virtual universe that is rich enough to satisfy our need for beauty, diversity, etc. but not so complex that only experienced physicians can appreciate the maths involved?

 

[Matthew Hughes]

can anyone think of a reason an alien civilisation would bother

Not me, but if they were truly alien, their reasoning processes might be so strange and different that we couldn't understand the rationale anyway.

 

[Hereford Eye]

A seeming example of Spellcheck gone wrong....again:

...but not so complex that only experienced physicians can appreciate the maths involved?

but it would be interesting if physicians could appreciate the math.
But to the meat of the matter:

...can anyone think of a reason an alien civilization would bother

I'only read Kung Foo's original post and the few on this page of the thread but I don't need all the history therein to respond to Justin Swanton's question and Matthew Hughes comment thereon. Given the spread of shared on-line universes and virtual reality, their very existence may defy explanation. This, even though they are natural evolution from SFFH books which I have read these many years. I read because I enjoy immersing myself in a good story. I don't enter those games because it is more work than enjoyment.
While I'm reading I am divorced from whatever reality is, a sensation I am certain is shared by those partaking of the games alluded to above. So the creators of those diversions alienate us from our environment and adapt us to theirs. Why wouldn't an alien do the same?