electricarticles.com

Search for:

in



The Simulation Hypothesis: More Evidence From Physics And Astronomy - by John Prytz

The Simulation Hypothesis states that there is a highprobability that what we call life, the Universe and everything exists as astate of virtual reality within a higher realm of really real reality. We are acomputer simulation ‘living’ in a virtual landscape. There are variousobservations in the physical sciences that are suggestive that this hypothesisis true. Here are some additional examples.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Pixelated Universe

 

Ultimately we knowthat our really real reality is pixelated in that you can go down only so farbefore you hit fundamentals that not composed of anything else. So electrons,photons, neutrinos, gluons, quarks are all the pixels that our really realreality is created from. But wait, that also applies to virtual reality; computer simulations, programmed software, etc. Thepixels are the digital ones and zeroes that make up virtual reality and couldin fact make up the electrons, photons, neutrinos, gluons,quarks, etc. So no matter how you slice and dice things, reality is pixelated.That's also the case with Quantum Mechanics. You can have this state or thisvalue but not this other state or this other value. This is like a one; notthis is like a zero. So our Universe is digital, not analog.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and Identical Electrons

 

Why are all electrons (or positrons, or up-quarks, etc.)identical? Each species of fundamental / elementary particles, like electrons,are absolutely identical. The charge is identical; the mass is identical, etc.Why is that so? Well, if each species of particle has their own specificsoftware code, say electrons are 11011100 and positrons are 00100011 and so on,that explains that.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Fundamental Constants

 

So we have here a whole potful of nature's fundamental /physical constants* yet none can be derived from first principles or can any ofthe values be derived theoretically and to top it all off they have no apparentconnection to each other. The speed of light has no apparent relationsip to theelectron's electric charge for example. 

 

So, in the Simulation Hypothesis, there would be oneseparate and apart software code for each of the physical constants.

 

*Charge on the electron (proton, positron, etc.); mass ofthe electron (proton, positron, etc.); speed of light in a vacuum;gravitational constant, etc.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Theory of Everything

 

There is no Theory of Everything (TOE). You’d expect thatif there was just one Mother Nature that all of physics would be unified. Therewould be one physics. Alas, there are two sets of physics – Quantum Mechanicsand Relativity (gravity). Despite thousands of the finest minds, working nowfor many decades, these two branches of physics have resisted unification. Oneobvious answer is that there are two separate and apart sets of software, twosets of programs, one each that controls Quantum Mechanics and one thatcontrols Relativity (Gravity).

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Superposition-of-State

 

The concept of superposition-of-state implies thatsomething can be in two (or more) mutually exclusive states at the same timeuntil such time as an observer looks. Then apparently the associated wavefunction collapses and you get an either this or that outcome. In any reallyreal reality that would be totally nonsensical. If a coin rolls under your bed,even before you look, you don't assume that it is both heads up and tails up atthe same time. Further, the coin is not in two separate and apart places underthe bed even if you don't know exactly where under the bed it has rolled to.The coin is not in a superposition-of-state even if nobody ever observes itfrom that moment on. Yet another point about the alleged superposition-of-stateand associated collapse of the wave function. Even if the wave functioncollapses for the initial / first observer (the coin is say heads up), thatstate of the coin doesn't apply for each and every other potential observer inthe Universe. So the wave function can't have really collapsed and the coin'ssuperposition-of-state is still in vogue for all of those potential observers.However, superposition-of-state can be achieved via computer software programedspecial effects.

 

Discussion: There is nothing at all different inprinciple between a material / physical macro object and a physical / materialmicro object, especially since micro objects collectively make up macroobjects.

 

To prove superposition-of-state you'd need to observe /measure one physical / material object that's either in two different separateand apart geographical locations at the same time, or else observe / measurethis object as having two different and mutually exclusive states (like bothheads up AND tails up) at the same time. Now the flaw here is that by the samereasoning that says superposition-of-state exists, any observation /measurement instantaneously collapses that object's wave function into aneither/or state and thus no actual after-the-fact superposition-of-state existsto be offered up as proof that superposition-of-state actually exists in anyreally real reality sense.

 

If there is no such thing as superposition-of-state thenthere can be no spooky-action-at-a-distance (i.e. - quantum entanglement)*,which is not to say there isn't entanglement, it's just not spooky. An obviousexample of non-spooky entanglement would be say buying a pair of gloves andputting them - one each that is - into two different boxes and mailing thoseboxes to two different people, each halfway around the world from the other.Now if person A opens their box and the glove therein is a right-handed glove,then instantaneously, faster that the speed of light, that person knows thatperson B has a left-handed glove in their box. Nothing spooky about it despitethat the knowledge that person B had a left-handed glove traveled at fasterthan light speed to person A. However, there wasn't any actual transference ofinformation from one glove to the other so there was no violation of Einstein'sSpecial Theory of Relativity.

 

*The Simulation Hypothesis and Quantum Entanglement

 

How can X instantaneously affect Y when X and Y arelight-years apart? Well, in virtual reality, all points (like X and Y) areequidistant from the point of origin or the source, which in this case is theprogrammed software.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and Mathematical Equations

 

Mathematical equations (simple exponents, etc.): Themathematics that underpins the physical sciences might look pretty scary, butwhen looked at closely, you'll note that the exponents and the coefficientsnearly always tend to be simple whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) or simplefractions (like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 2/3, 3/4, etc.). Now this near universalfact goes totally against the grain of what you'd expect from pure probability.An explanation is in order and the Simulation Hypothesis supplies one. 

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Big Bang

 

If you read any modern account of the Big Bang (origin ofour Universe) event - and I've read dozens - you'll note, or should note, onevery obvious oops that you'll NEVER read about or see discussed / addressed.And that is, if the entire or total mass / energy contents of our Universestarted out being crammed back into a space the size of a tennis ball (orusually even less), what are you going to actually have, especially when termslike "singularity" are tossed around with reckless abandon? I'll tellyou. You're going to start the origin of our Universe out from the initialcondition of there being, of necessity, the Mother of all Black Holes fromwhich nothing in turn can Bang! A Black Hole will of course leak radiationvery, very, very slowly (Hawking radiation) but no one Big coherent Bang! Sohow do cosmologists arrive at having the entire matter / energy contentscrammed in the beginning back into the size of a tennis ball (or less)?

 

Starting with observations made today that the Universeis expanding, cosmologists wind the clock back (using their mathematical /physical equations) to a nanosecond after Time = Zero which translates intothat tennis ball (or less) size. Now IMHO this is totally unjustifiedespecially given that those same equations suggest that the Universe was opaqueuntil some roughly 400,000 years or thereabouts after the Big Bang event. Thus,cosmologists have no way of actually knowing via direct astronomicalobservations if their equations are telling them a reality story prior to400,000 years after the Big Bang event. In that 400,000 year interval, it's100% theory as to the state of play rather than discovering the state of playvia actual observation. This is just about as unjustified an approach as ifthey filmed the inflation of a hot air balloon and then taking that expansionrate over time and then running the equation clock backwards until such time asthey conclude that the hot air balloon was the size of a tennis ball, or pea,or even less. That approach would be nonsense. So why is it allowed incosmology?    

 

So either the Big Bang event happened in a geographicalregion large enough to prevent the formation of the Mother of all Black Holes,or else - software / special effects rule the origin of our Universe. The BigBang event (let there be light) and a software program kicking in are quitecompatible.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and the Multiverse

 

This one is a no-brainer. If a 'person' or 'persons'unknown have simulated what we call our Universe then they have probablysimulated lots, and lots, and lots of other universes, all starting withvariations large and small on the programming software that created oursimulated landscape and virtual reality. It's the ultimatecast-your-fate-to-the-wind physics and cosmological thought experiments, or'what if' research. Some simulated universes allow for A, B, & C and somefor X, Y, and Z and some for A, M, and Z and on and on it goes. Some simulateduniverses contain no symmetries; some no antimatter at all; some withvariations on the spin, charge and masses of the fundamental particles; some thatallow time travel; somewhere where mass and energy are not equivalent; somewhere there is no uncertainty principle; some where the inverse cube law holdssway; some universes with Big Crunches, Big Rips, and even Steady Stateuniverses; and maybe some where the speed of light is the minimum possiblevelocity. Collectively it's a Multiverse.

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and Neith of Venus

 

Neith was a 'natural' satellite that was observed by bothamateur and professional astronomers several centuries ago. It was so actuallyobserved that it was formally named - Neith. Alas, Venus has no naturalsatellite. So, Neith somehow popped into existence and then popped out ofexistence. Were all of the observations delusional or an illusion? Now if thingsjust pop into and out of existence without explanation, that's suggestive ofspecial effects or software. Popping in and out of existence is one of thosefacets known as "it can't be therefore it isn't" vs. "I knowwhat I saw".  

 

The Simulation Hypothesis and a Logical Absurdity

 

There are two concepts that I have difficultyreconciling. The first is the First Law of Thermodynamics which among otherconcepts states that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed.Thus, that leads to a conclusion that matter / energy has always existed. Thesecond is the quantum mantra - anything that can happen will happen givenenough time. Well, if matter / energy have always existed, that's more thanenough time for anything and everything that's possible to happen, happens. Imean an awful lot of weird stuff can happen given an infinite amount of time.The concept of a Boltzmann Brain is just one such idea.* Let your imaginationrun wild and you can easily come up with way over six just about impossible andutterly absurd things that must have happened. However, software overrides thatFirst Law of Thermodynamics in that any software program is finite and thepossible scenarios are fixed so not everything that can happen (like aBoltzmann Brain) does happen.  

 

*Equally events like you would quantum tunnel throughyour bedroom wall into the hallway instead of using the bedroom door; a fairlybalanced coin would land heads up a trillion times in a row; or a monkey wouldeventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare or the Bible (even andthe Bible).

 

Conclusion: The SimulationHypothesis and The Twilight Zone

 

Whoever, whatever,programmed our cosmos and our local landscape had a sense of the absurd.Perhaps that's our Supreme Programmer's sense of humor coming to the fore. Whatabsurdities? Quantum physics is absurd. The fact that we just can't come upwith a Theory of Everything is absurd. An accelerating expansion rate for thecosmos is absurd. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are absurd concepts. Crop circlesare absurd (but they're here). The Loch Ness Monster is absurd (but peoplereport seeing it or them). Long Delayed Echoes are absurd (but verified).Transient Lunar Phenomena are absurd (but verified). Those Martian rock'anomalies' like lizards, rats and skulls are absurd (but they have beenphotographed). Biblical 'miracles' are absurd but millions believe theyhappened. The SETI "WOW" signal is an absurdity but it happened.There are all manner of archaeological absurdities, but I’ll mention just one –The Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in modern day Lebanon. There are many thingsthat are absurd when it comes to the human species: here’s one – humans are theonly species where the saying “don’t shoot until you see the whites of theireyes makes actual sense. If photons cannot escape from a Black Hole thenneither can gravitons. Gravitons convey the gravitational force which meansthat Black Holes exert no gravity. A Black Hole without gravity is therefore anabsurdity. Then you have quasars that appear linked but have vastly differingred shifts which is also an absurdity. The missing satellite of Venus, Neith,is another absurdity as in how can satellites vanish?  You have physical constants that apparentlyaren’t – constant that is. Time travel to the past is both theoreticallypossible (General Relativity) and theoretically impossible (paradoxes) – it’san absurdity to have both something that can be and not be at the same time.Ghosts are absurd yet there are probably more sightings of ghosts going back toancient times than there have been sightings of UFOs. Perhaps UFOs, the"Greys" and related are also absurdities, but they exist in goodcompany with the rest of what passes for our simulated cosmic 'Twilight Zone'.

 

Addendum:How could our video / computer game characters know (assuming they hadconsciousness) that they weren't in a really real reality instead of in avirtual reality? They couldn't and they wouldn't. But even if they could, whatcould they or would they deduce about our (human) reality? Their conclusionswould be just pure guesswork since we (humans) have created such a massivediversity of virtual reality worlds / landscapes that the inhabitants of thesevirtual reality worlds would have so little in common with each other thattheir guesstimates of our (human) reality would be equally diverse. Theinhabitants of a "Game of Thrones" virtual reality would think wehumans co-existed with dragons. The inhabitants of a virtual "HauntedHouse" reality world full of spooky ghosts would think that would be thereality of their human creators as well. The inhabitants of a "StarWars" video game might conclude that really real reality humans had the'force' with them and that Darth Vader and the Death Star were real threats. 

 

In other words, if we (humans) are virtual humans and notphysical humans then we couldn't have much of a handle on what our computerprogrammer's reality is actually like.  

 

Addendum Two: Many of us have heard about the Holographic Universe scenario whichbasically postulates that like a hologram, our Universe appears to be 3-D butis actually 2-D. Now think of a video / computer game or computer simulation.That simulation appears to be 3-D (i.e. - simulated characters can move to thefront and to the back as well as up-down and left-right) but of course isactually displayed on a flat 2-D surface / monitor.



Science librarian; retired.

       Article Source: http://www.ElectricArticles.com