Idealism

nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

I'm a monistic idealist and believe our universe is made of information rather than matter.  It seems to make a lot more sense than either materialism or dualism.

One reason is conservation of energy.  For example, if extra terrestrials intentionally created our universe, it would make more sense for them to do this as a simulation.  Why would they waste all the energy required to do it for real?  With enough processing power simulating a universe on a computer doesn't seem like that far fetched of an idea.  Some being, phenomenon, quantum fluctuation, whatever producing an infinite amount of "real" energy and pressure in a singularity is more implausible.             

We, of course, can't tell the difference whether our universe is real or a simulation because we are only interpreting the data received through our senses, which is pure information.

The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.     

So for the materialists (and dualists), why do you have such a strong belief in the objective, observer-independent reality of physical matter? Are you skeptical of it at all?   


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Nebula,I think there's an

Nebula,

I think there's an error in your thought process here. (I may be wrong - I've been keeping an eye on this thread, but not looked too deeply into it)

If I understand correctly, your supposition is:

We live in a simulated universe

We know this because of the way QE works

This is - the universe doesn't decide what it's going to 'render' until it needs to - hence the quantum eraser results.

If I'm wrong on this, please ignore the rest of this post.

 

Ok, now my question: Why is the simulated universe only rendering that which needs to be rendered in order to fulfil the senses of observers within the simulated universe? As a programmer, who has the tools and skills to design and run an entire universe simulation model, When I click 'Go' the big bank starts (or however else you want to start your simulation) This would really be the only way to kick things off. It would make no sense to start things off by writing a bunch of code with pre-existing matter etc -i.e. a universe that started with sentient life parameters already in it; it would be better to tweak the starting parameters to allow this potential (Hmm, what shall I make the Planck constant in this simulation...), then run the simulation a bunch of times. To do otherwise would be.. inelegant to my mind. 

Given this, the simulation would be far grander than needing to create itself according to the visibility of those within it.. the simulation would start at the beginning, fully generate the seconds after the big bang, coalescence of stars and galaxies, Hawking radiation around black holes, etc etc. This would indeed be necessary of the simulation, because we, as residents within this simulation, have mathematically postulated on physics before finding our predictions true (e.g. the Higgs discovery). So these things must exist and be working before we 'discover them'.

In this universe, therefore, the programmers will have set up the simulation so my back exists, even if I as an observer, cannot see it at the moment.

So the reason for the results of the double slit experiment, while interesting and strange, do not describe evidence for our reality to be simulated. (It may be - but this experiment does not indicate it)

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu P.S.   I guess the

Ktulu P.S.   I guess the word I was looking for is "unfalsifiable."   What I'm saying is that consciousness as it relates to historical consistency has an effect on the experiment, and that this is supported by the evidence.   You're saying nope, if all the conscious beings on the planet died and then a pre-programmed robot conducted the experiment, the robot would get the same results as a person.  But that hypothesis can't be tested, so it's unfalsifiable.   


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:First, let's

nebula wrote:
First, let's get all of the critters out of a patch of woods about 1 square mile so we don't have to deal with them.  So now there is only vegetation, rocks and trees.

I'd argue the plants are alive the way we are, and if we're in a simulation and there's a point to rendering anything, there's no point in not rendering for the plants, if only to help ensure the simulation is running properly.
But most people think of plants as edible rocks instead of living beings, so it's probably semantics.

nebula wrote:
I must point out that you are accepting that sound exists regardless of consciousness on FAITH.

Of course. My perception of my own existence is faith based. On this level of discussion there's no way to prove anything, because the very minds we use to translate reality are called into question.
Your experience of a glitch could be an actual glitch in a simulation, or it could be a hallucination. Your belief it was actually a glitch is as faith based as the perception

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
..we exist and that the

..we exist and that the universe is, generally, consistent.

I've never experienced anything which would indicate a glitch or simulation, and even if I did it wouldn't change the fact that I must consume food or die, and pay the rent tomorrow or be evicted.

So I must ask what purpose the idea we may be a simulation serves?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Nebula,

I think there's an error in your thought process here. (I may be wrong - I've been keeping an eye on this thread, but not looked too deeply into it)

If I understand correctly, your supposition is:

We live in a simulated universe

We know this because of the way QE works

This is - the universe doesn't decide what it's going to 'render' until it needs to - hence the quantum eraser results.

If I'm wrong on this, please ignore the rest of this post.

 

Ok, now my question: Why is the simulated universe only rendering that which needs to be rendered in order to fulfil the senses of observers within the simulated universe? As a programmer, who has the tools and skills to design and run an entire universe simulation model, When I click 'Go' the big bank starts (or however else you want to start your simulation) This would really be the only way to kick things off. It would make no sense to start things off by writing a bunch of code with pre-existing matter etc -i.e. a universe that started with sentient life parameters already in it; it would be better to tweak the starting parameters to allow this potential (Hmm, what shall I make the Planck constant in this simulation...), then run the simulation a bunch of times. To do otherwise would be.. inelegant to my mind. 

Given this, the simulation would be far grander than needing to create itself according to the visibility of those within it.. the simulation would start at the beginning, fully generate the seconds after the big bang, coalescence of stars and galaxies, Hawking radiation around black holes, etc etc. This would indeed be necessary of the simulation, because we, as residents within this simulation, have mathematically postulated on physics before finding our predictions true (e.g. the Higgs discovery). So these things must exist and be working before we 'discover them'.

In this universe, therefore, the programmers will have set up the simulation so my back exists, even if I as an observer, cannot see it at the moment.

So the reason for the results of the double slit experiment, while interesting and strange, do not describe evidence for our reality to be simulated. (It may be - but this experiment does not indicate it)

This is hard for me to follow but I will do my best and if I am not answering your question please follow up.   First of all, I believe that yeah, a universe simulation begins with a simulated big bang and then stars/planets/life evolve from there.   In fact, if you check out Conway's Game of Life you can see how putting some very simple rules into place allows these little "lifeforms" called Cellular Automata to evolve.  

The next question is why is it only rendered as needed right?   The simulation is always running regardless of whether or not it's being rendered for anyone, but rendering in a reality simulation only makes sense when it is done as needed.   The rendering refers to a stream of data that you can interpret in your consciousness.  If you are playing an MMORPG, or Second Life, something like that, you know, you control where you look, or where you point your character's head.   So, you look up at the moon and the moon (which is in reality only data, ones and zeros) is rendered for you as an image of the moon.   Then you look down at your character's hand (more ones and zeros, different data) and an image of a hand is rendered for you.   Well, you don't need anything rendered for you other than what is in your character's field of vision.   For the video game company, it doesn't make sense to use their hard drive space, processing power, bandwidth etc. to render stuff that no is looking at.   So that is why it's only done as needed.   There is no reason to render something for no reason.        

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry, quick question -

 Sorry, quick question - who or what is doing the rendering? Is it the sentient beings in the program, or the program itself?

 

If it's the sentient beings, then this is just 'senses' right? Which are already part of the information the simulated reality is generating?

 

If it's the program itself that is doing the rendering:

Why do you think the simulated reality, which I'm glad you agree would start at the beginning of the universe, would care about doing something like special like 'rendering' for sentient beings within it? For all you know, we may just be an interesting anomaly within the experiment.. not the reason for it.

I'll follow up on this later.. Yoga calls.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: So I must ask

Vastet wrote:
So I must ask what purpose the idea we may be a simulation serves?

I dunno.   If it's true it may come in handy someday.   The concept of a spherical earth served Columbus.  I mean at least he knew there was no danger of falling off the edge of the earth.  


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Sorry, quick question - who or what is doing the rendering? Is it the sentient beings in the program, or the program itself?

 It's the program.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

If it's the program itself that is doing the rendering:

Why do you think the simulated reality, which I'm glad you agree would start at the beginning of the universe, would care about doing something like special like 'rendering' for sentient beings within it? For all you know, we may just be an interesting anomaly within the experiment.. not the reason for it.

Maybe, but if we accept the Simulation Hypothesis we have a nice, easy answer for why the cosmological constant is tuned to one part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, without which life as we know it would be impossible. 

The alternatives are bleak, unfalsifiable, convoluted hypotheses like Multiverse, Bubble Universe Theory, Top Down Cosmology etc.  Personally, I prefer Idealism.  It's elegant and simple, and fundamental things like that usually are, like E=mc2.
 

So, because of that fine-tuning problem, which you have to deal with one way or another anyway, why not use it for Simulation Hypothesis?   It looks like whoever is running this simulation wanted intelligent life to evolve, perhaps to have more interesting content in the simulation.  So I would say if Simulation Hypothesis is true there is a one in (that large number) chance we're an anomaly.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 It's not that elegant and

 It's not that elegant and simple, you still have the simulations within simulations problem, which necessitates a first, real universe - which leaves you right back where you were.

The cosmological constant doesn't necessitate tuning.. The weak Anthropic principle accounts for this.. You're free to pick your preference of course...

My main beef with your premise is that you seem to think that sentient life is the goal of universe creating. I can't see why that would be. Just because we happen to be here, does not suppose that something twiddled knobs and pulled levers to make it so.

And here's another thought - starting our universe again, with exactly the same starting parameters, would not necessarily lead to life forming. It may do.. but there's no guarantee.. It depends on the Drake equation, which we don't know enough bits of yet.. so to assume life will spontaneously pop into existence in every simulation starting with the big bang is another assumption you're going to have to make.

So it's getting less simple or elegant, wouldn't you agree?

 

 

 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

It's not that elegant and simple, you still have the simulations within simulations problem, which necessitates a first, real universe - which leaves you right back where you were.

I don't think it's important to figure out how that real universe came into existence.   It's enough for now to figure out what is going on in our own universe.  Like what is the best way to bridge the gap between general relativity and QM, String Theory or this?   I think it's this.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
  
The cosmological constant doesn't necessitate tuning.. The weak Anthropic principle accounts for this.. You're free to pick your preference of course…

Yeah, not a big fan of that one.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
 
My main beef with your premise is that you seem to think that sentient life is the goal of universe creating. I can't see why that would be. Just because we happen to be here, does not suppose that something twiddled knobs and pulled levers to make it so.

When you say "creating" you mean creating, not like a naturalistic origin, right?   If our universe was intentionally created, and I believe it was, I can't see why they wouldn't want sentient life to evolve.   It probably makes things much more interesting for them.   Why have an ant farm with no ants?  There may be some other reason though, like in order to test out our physical laws or something.  But even if that is the case, they built our data streams of sensory information into the program anyway, perhaps just in case any life evolved, though it was not their primary purpose for the simulation.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
          
And here's another thought - starting our universe again, with exactly the same starting parameters, would not necessarily lead to life forming. It may do.. but there's no guarantee.. It depends on the Drake equation, which we don't know enough bits of yet.. so to assume life will spontaneously pop into existence in every simulation starting with the big bang is another assumption you're going to have to make.

Then maybe this simulation was a big coup for them because it evolved life.   They're probably celebrating over champagne and orderves right now.

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
  
So it's getting less simple or elegant, wouldn't you agree?

For my purposes Idealism is the most elegant solution because I'm not worrying about how to answer every question imaginable, like how that real universe came into existence or what the primary purpose of a universe simulation would be.  I'm more concerned with things in our own universe.   Like I said, a good question is "how can we bridge the gap between GR and QM" and I don't think string theory isn't doing very well on this front.   
 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 interesting as the theory

 interesting as the theory is, I believe this is just god of the gaps in a different guise. 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I can't resist

This is a bit of a side track, but this topic reminds me of The Holographic Principle. I can't get my head around that either.

Even if the universe is a simulation, it doesn't really matter. As already mentioned, there is still the first cause issue, it is just pushed one stage back.

It undermines any idea that humans have any duty to our simulators. We'd be just like puppets, which I suppose we are anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

"The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." Bekenstein asks "Could we, as William Blake memorably penned, "see a world in a grain of sand," or is that idea no more than "poetic license".[12] referring to the holographic principle."

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.

 

 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 interesting as the theory is, I believe this is just god of the gaps in a different guise. 

There are variations of Idealism that don't include a "creator" like the Simulation Hypothesis does.   Biocentrism is one, which basically says life and biology create the universe and that (from Wiki): "space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects" but I haven't really looked into that one.  

I just thought of something.   Information can travel over radio waves, like pictures from the Mars rovers for example, and radio waves aren't matter, so doesn't that mean information can exist without matter?   That you don't really need a storage medium made of matter to hold the information, if it's traveling over radio waves?

My thinking is, some version of Idealism must be correct.   Information seems more important than matter.   What is a book?  A bunch of pieces of paper with black markings all over them, but that is not what is important about the book.   It's the information in the book and how it relates to consciousness that is important.        

I do believe there is some kind of Absolute or Ground of All Being, but even if I didn't, I would still be a monistic idealist.   Even if our universe wasn't intentionally created by anyone or anything but came about through some natural process (which may be the case even if a deity does exist), it's possible that it still is only made of information and that the physicality of matter is an illusion.  I know that anything is possible and there is no reason to believe anything without evidence, but there is evidence for idealism.   The thing that people get hung up on is how can information be stored without matter, but if the objective physicality of matter turns out to be only an illusion, then logically the storage thing shouldn't be an issue.    


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:I just thought

nebula wrote:

I just thought of something.   Information can travel over radio waves, like pictures from the Mars rovers for example, and radio waves aren't matter, so doesn't that mean information can exist without matter?   That you don't really need a storage medium made of matter to hold the information, if it's traveling over radio waves?

Radio waves are part of the electro-magnetic spectrum.  They are fields of energy, same as light, which are the same as matter from E=mc2.  Information is just matter arranged in a certain pattern.  It is not a thing of itself.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I see what you mean about

I see what you mean about the wild off the wall theories like Multiverse, String theory, Ekpyrotic universe (one of my favourites), what you call idealism would seem at first glance to be just one of the many.  

The problem that I have with it is that it doesn't answer any questions.  If a new hypothesis complicates your picture of the universe it is useless.  Your proposal just pushes everything back, what you're saying is, we're all in a simulation and there is no way to prove otherwise or see through it.  To me, that reeks of intellectual laziness and it really is no different then religion.  

For example, a multiverse model, by comparison, is much more plausible because it assumes the least amount of unknowns, and explains a lot about our universe in a natural way.  I just want to set a disclaimer that I'm not saying this is the current model and putting on a "multiverse" priest hat.  I'm simply saying that it seems like the most plausible idea.

I'll explain why:

1. Dark Energy.  I won't go into details, they're easily available, but the current cosmological model shows the universe's expansion as accelerating.  If the current conditions continue the universe will eventually dissipate into "nothing" (not for more then 1 to the google power of years). 

2. Least assumptions.  From our observations, Vacuum has energy, and temperature.  Meaning that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the philosophical sense.  If you take everything out of a vacuum, you would expect it to have no energy, but it does.  This energy is extremely small 10 to the power -9 J, it likely comes from pairs of virtual particles appearing and dissipating continually.  That means that all you need to get "SOMETHING" is the fabric of space/time, which we already know exists.  

3. Inflation.  Again, I won't go into details, and this is a bit of an assumption, but it does jive with observable universal homogeneity and the majority of cosmological observations. 

4.  Arrow of time.  There is no physical reason why we remember the past and not the future.  Relativity implies that "now" is relative to energy spent in momentum.  The only thing that dictates the arrow of time is entropy.  Basically, entropy is the only thing that dictates the arrow of time, coupled with the "least action" principle (basically nature is lazy, path of least resistance and all that).

If you consider the necessary conditions for the current conditions of reality to appear.  It would seem more energy cost effective for the universe to create a "brain in a vat" or a consciousness with all the current sensory input as an illusion, rather then the whole universe (or your idealism).  Unless you consider inflation, then the "least action" would be an entire universe, along with entropy/arrow of time and everything.  

Basically you need to wait around for a particle/antiparticle pair to appear with a temporary net energy (the overall energy will always be 0) past a certain thresh hold, enough for inflation to take hold.  And you have yourself an honest to god universe.

I'm sorry for skipping over most details, and I'll happily oblige any elaboration when I have more time. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Maybe, but if we

Quote:
Maybe, but if we accept the Simulation Hypothesis we have a nice, easy answer for why the cosmological constant is tuned to one part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, without which life as we know it would be impossible. 

Just because life as we know it wouldn't exist doesn't mean life wouldn't exist. You're confusing cause and effect. We are a symptom of the way the universe is. We came to be because the conditions were right, not because we were planned from the getgo and the universe was tailored to us. 99.999%> of the universe is so inhospitable to us that it would kill us in less than a second. 99.999%> of the rest would kill us within a minute. Even 99.999%> of the Earth itself is completely inhospitable to life. From the core all the way to about half a kilometre below the crust,...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
and most of the atmosphere,

and most of the atmosphere, only the hardiest life known to exist can survive. Survive, in hibernation, but not live and thrive.

So the fine-tuned hypothesis simply fails. If less than 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is habitable for life as we know it, then the universe is certainly not fine tuned for life as we know it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Life formed, and 'played the

Life formed, and 'played the hand it was dealt' so to speak. Self-replication was all that was need for life to evolve into what roles the earth could sustain it in. Eventually effecting the environment and, to a limited unintentional degree, shaped the environment to fit it better. Genetic drift and occasional random mutations filtered through the process of natural selection gave that first extremely simple form of life the only things it needed to expand through nessecity into the diversity we see today.

What I am saying, is that 0.000...001% of the universe that actually does support life as we know it, isn't prepared for life at all. Life has shaped itself to fit within that niche. Life adapted naturally. The key shaped itself to the lock, as an imperfect metaphor. The lock was not made for the key.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet and ThunderJones. 

Vastet and ThunderJones.  OK, you have convinced me.  Non-Finely Tuned Universe fits Simulation Hypothesis better anyway.   Don't forget what Agent Smith said:

"Have you ever stood and stared at it, marveled at it's beauty, it's genius? Billions of people just living out their lives, oblivious. Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world. Where none suffered. Where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program."

In other words, if it looks too hospitable around here, we're going to know something is up.   It's suppose to be convincing as a naturalistic, physical matter reality, on the surface at least.   That is why the Double Slit is such a good experiment.   It shows you what is really going on.  

Now, I would like to tell my little "Glitch in the Matrix" story along with my current Idealistic interpretation of this event.

I was in a park playing fetch with a dog.   There was a light drizzle coming down.   I had a tennis ball launcher which is just this thing you hold that is like an extension of your arm to allow you to throw the ball further and easier.   I was throwing the ball and every time the ball would land in the same patch of grass, maybe about 10 to 20 square feet.   We were only playing for about 10 minutes.  

Then, I threw the ball and saw it bounce and land in that area like it had done on every other throw.   The only difference was that this time, the dog ran down there and was running around in circles with his nose to the ground looking for it.   I was like, "what the hell?  How come he can't find it?" so I went down there to investigate and it wasn't there.  Both he and I were very confused.   Then I spent 20 minutes combing over this entire area looking for any holes in the ground or anything that could have explained the disappearance of this ball.   The dog did not swallow it.   So then I just had to give up and leave.  It had disappeared.    

At the time I had heard of Many Worlds and I thought maybe that had something to do with it.   Like maybe in some other world, a "me" was in that park and inexplicably ended up with an extra tennis ball.   But I don't understand that explanation very well.   Another explanation I thought of at the time was "Fairies."   "Fairies stole it."

Now, with my current understanding of reality this event makes perfect sense.   Everything in our reality is a probability distribution until we collect information about it but some things are more probable than others.   There was an extremely high probability that the dog and I should have been able to find the ball where I threw it but that probability still wasn't as high as the probability of where you will find a building or your foot.   So, there was just enough uncertainty about the location of the ball to allow the probability to be low enough that it actually did disappear out of our reality.  I mean the chances that the ball wouldn't be there was probably like 1 to several million, whereas the chances a building would disappear would be 1 to several trillion or whatever. 

But, since the ball wasn't important, like it wasn't evidence in a murder case or anything, and since my eyes weren't glued to it from the time I saw it bounce and land to the time the dog retrieved it, there was just enough uncertainty to allow the unlikely possibility of its disappearance.  
 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Of course. My

Vastet wrote:
Of course. My perception of my own existence is faith based. On this level of discussion there's no way to prove anything, because the very minds we use to translate reality are called into question.

 

I don't understand this.    You are saying the perception of the existence of your mind is faith based?   I thought you can always be 100% sure your mind exists - no faith required.  If your mind doesn't exist how can you have faith in anything or doubt anything or have thoughts of any kind?   

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:This is a bit of a

x wrote:

This is a bit of a side track, but this topic reminds me of The Holographic Principle. 

Not really because I saw Leonard Susskind (who is a proponent of Holographic Principle) in the BBC documentary "What We Still Don't Know Episode 3: Are We Real" which is about Simulation Hypothesis so I think they are very similar.  I had actually discovered HP before SH but didn't understand the former.   But it is probably an easier sell so if I did understand it I probably would been talking about that this whole time instead.  

x wrote:
Even if the universe is a simulation, it doesn't really matter. As already mentioned, there is still the first cause issue, it is just pushed one stage back.

Irrelevant.   Idealism in general (as opposed to Simulation Hypothesis specifically) is about the nature of reality (subjective -vs- objective).   It doesn't concern First Cause.    That is a separate issue.   

It would not have done people in the 6th century BCE any good to worry about the origin of the earth when they didn't even understand the nature of the earth (spherical -vs- flat) or astronomy (heliocentrism -vs- a geocentric, dome firmament model).    

 Also, if "Simulated Reality" isn't true in a literal sense of a computer program, it is at least a useful metaphor that describes how reality works (subjectively, in our perceptions), whatever the origin is.

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:I don't

nebula wrote:
I don't understand this.    You are saying the perception of the existence of your mind is faith based?   I thought you can always be 100% sure your mind exists - no faith required.  If your mind doesn't exist how can you have faith in anything or doubt anything or have thoughts of any kind?

I assume it, and I, exist, but I cannot prove it in a discussion where the possibility we live in a simulation is entertained. In fact, if this is a simulation, I don't exist. I'm a line, at most, of code in a ridiculously complicated programme that spawns people they way a video game spawns Non-Player-Characters (though in a more detailed fashion). That same line of code is likely responsible for the entire species, if not all life on/in the planet, solar system, galaxy, super cluster, and/or universe. All my thoughts and experiences are derived from this fragment of code, and my existence is an illusion. One that could end permanently and irrecoverably....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
.. in a split second if the

.. in a split second if the system running the simulation experiences technical difficulties.

Certainly my mind exists, however abstractly, but is it mine?

I have faith that I exist despite this, as I don't believe our existence is a simulation. While there is value in simulating a universe, that value drops the longer the simulation is run. By the time the simulated universe is old enough to support life, it is no longer particularly useful to simulate it, as far as I can tell. Valuable perhaps to a species that evolved a few billion years later in the life of their universe compared to we in ours, as observations of their surroundings simply wouldn't let them see what their universe looked like at our point. But it is unlikely that sufficient information about the universe to create a simulation of it would exist at such a time, when all skies are dark and the cosmic background radiation has faded into undetectability.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Re: your experience, I've

Re: your experience, I've had similar ones. But there's always an explanation. Usually when throwing a ball, you try to throw it hard. That puts distance into the equation, making it much more likely that both you and the dog will miss a bounce on landing. Your brain predicts the behaviour of the ball and directs your eyes to where it should go, but one weird bounce will throw the ball onto a path you aren't watching for, and can do so with sufficient velocity to leave the immediate area.
Dogs are horrible at tracking and analysing movement compared to people, so it isn't a surprise the dog couldn't find it if you couldn't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I can say that I have yet to

I can say that I have yet to meet someone who demonstrates better eyesight than myself. Last I was tested I was told I had better than 20/20, whatever that means.

There have been times that the exact same thing as you described happened to me. The only difference is that I usually recovered the ball.

After studying the area I knew it must have landed in, I would see something, or multiple things, that could have set the ball on a wild bounce(s).

I'll mention here that my practical experiences with physics have given me a good intuition on understanding impacts and trajectories. Pong, Pool, Blockbreaker, and other games as well as things as simple as bouncing a ball off the wall with different spins and curves have given me these experiences.

I've sometimes had to go dozens of metres, uphill, to recover a ball that hit 'just so'. But it was always there to be found.

Unless a likely trajectory was off a cliff, in which case I gave up. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I assume it,

Vastet wrote:
I assume it, and I, exist, but I cannot prove it in a discussion where the possibility we live in a simulation is entertained. In fact, if this is a simulation, I don't exist. I'm a line, at most, of code in a ridiculously complicated programme that spawns people they way a video game spawns Non-Player-Characters (though in a more detailed fashion). That same line of code is likely responsible for the entire species, if not all life on/in the planet, solar system, galaxy, super cluster, and/or universe. All my thoughts and experiences are derived from this fragment of code, and my existence is an illusion. One that could end permanently and irrecoverably....

This is a non-sequitur.   "If the computer is where I think it is (my head), I exist.   If it's somewhere else, I don't."   In either case you are a self-aware, conscious entity using the word "I" proving your mind exists regardless of where the data is stored.

Vastet wrote:
.. in a split second if the system running the simulation experiences technical difficulties. Certainly my mind exists, however abstractly, but is it mine? I have faith that I exist despite this, as I don't believe our existence is a simulation. While there is value in simulating a universe, that value drops the longer the simulation is run. By the time the simulated universe is old enough to support life, it is no longer particularly useful to simulate it, as far as I can tell. Valuable perhaps to a species that evolved a few billion years later in the life of their universe compared to we in ours, as observations of their surroundings simply wouldn't let them see what their universe looked like at our point. But it is unlikely that sufficient information about the universe to create a simulation of it would exist at such a time, when all skies are dark and the cosmic background radiation has faded into undetectability.

The people running the simulation wouldn't necessarily have the same physical laws in their universe that we have in ours so your argument fails.  

As side note, the entire history of a universe from beginning to end can be simulated in a short period of time from the perspective of the simulators.   We have simple examples of this in video games of course, in which 10 minutes of our time is equal to a day of game time or something similar. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"In either case you are a

"In either case you are a self-aware, conscious entity using the word "I" proving your mind exists regardless of where the data is stored."

No. If I'm a simulation then my mind doesn't exist, it's a simulation of a mind. A simulation is designed to mimic that which it represents, but it is not what it represents.

"The people running the simulation wouldn't necessarily have the same physical laws in their universe that we have in ours so your argument fails."

The people would have to have some variation of the physical laws in order to exist, let alone run a simulation. So your rebuttal fails.

"As side note, the entire history of a universe from beginning to end can be simulated in a short period of time from the perspective of the simulators."

Another problem with your argument is in assuming life must be simulated in order to simulate its effects. If a species is sufficiently knowledgeable enough to simulate the entirety of a universe, they don't have to bother with easily calculated minor details.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Uncertainty

Back to QM uncertainty, it seems that it isn't quite as uncertain as before, if I'm understanding this correctly.

It probably doesn't change much, but as Ktulu mentioned, the observer effect is all about how gentle the observation is. They seem to have found a gentler method.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385

 

Photons can be prepared in pairs which are inextricably tied to one another, in a delicate quantum state called entanglement, and the weak measurement idea is to infer information about them as they pass, before and after carrying out a formal measurement.

What the team found was that the act of measuring did not appreciably "blur out" what could be known about the pairs.

It remains true that there is a fundamental limit of knowability, but it appears that, in this case, just trying to look at nature does not add to that unavoidably hidden world.

Or, as the authors put it: "The quantum world is still full of uncertainty, but at least our attempts to look at it don't have to add as much uncertainty as we used to think!"

Whether the finding made much practical difference was an open question, said Prof Steinberg.

"The jury is still out on that. It's certainly more than a footnote in the textbooks; it will certainly change the way I teach quantum mechanics and I think a lot of textbooks.

"But there's actually a lot of technology that relies on quantum uncertainty now, and the main one is quantum cryptography - using quantum systems to convey our information securely - and that mostly boils down to the uncertainty principle."

 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.100404

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Back to QM

x wrote:

Back to QM uncertainty, it seems that it isn't quite as uncertain as before, if I'm understanding this correctly.

It probably doesn't change much, but as Ktulu mentioned, the observer effect is all about how gentle the observation is. They seem to have found a gentler method.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385

 

Photons can be prepared in pairs which are inextricably tied to one another, in a delicate quantum state called entanglement, and the weak measurement idea is to infer information about them as they pass, before and after carrying out a formal measurement.

What the team found was that the act of measuring

Heredid not appreciably "blur out" what could be known about the pairs.

It remains true that there is a fundamental limit of knowability, but it appears that, in this case, just trying to look at nature does not add to that unavoidably hidden world.

Or, as the authors put it: "The quantum world is still full of uncertainty, but at least our attempts to look at it don't have to add as much uncertainty as we used to think!"

Whether the finding made much practical difference was an open question, said Prof Steinberg.

"The jury is still out on that. It's certainly more than a footnote in the textbooks; it will certainly change the way I teach quantum mechanics and I think a lot of textbooks.

"But there's actually a lot of technology that relies on quantum uncertainty now, and the main one is quantum cryptography - using quantum systems to convey our information securely - and that mostly boils down to the uncertainty principle."

 

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.100404

 

Here's the paper.  Very good find.  Mind = Blown!

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034.pdf

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
nebula

nebula wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Occam's razor and all that...

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Occam's Razor applies here.

 

 Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions.   Idealism explains the paradox of wave-particle duality with only one assumption: our universe is a simulation rendered for conscious observers as needed.  Other explanations have LOADS of assumptions.   

 

No, the other explanations say we don't know for sure and try to figure it out. Idealism is a hand-wave. It also has no explanatory power. Magic is never the answer, even if the alternative is ignorance.

 

Not that it isn't neat to think about, I'm about as big of a nerd as you'll find and it's fun as hell to think about. But I can't see a path to making the leap between that and actually using it to inform my worldview past idle thought exercises...

 

It *would* be neat though. It would mean there are computational possibilities beyond what is likely possible in our "universe".

 

If I want to trip myself out I'd rather think about the idea that humans are sentient, semi-independent neurons and the universe is a giant brain. 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No. If I'm a

Vastet wrote:
No. If I'm a simulation then my mind doesn't exist, it's a simulation of a mind. A simulation is designed to mimic that which it represents, but it is not what it represents.

For the sake of argument lets start with the assumption that in our objective, physical matter reality our minds do exist as an emergent property of our brains, and that awareness of one's existence and surroundings is not just an illusion.  If that is the case, how does it follow that if Idealism were true it would mean our minds are less real?  Just because of where the data is processed and stored?  Isn't the brain basically a highly advanced, biological computer anyway?   You are merely giving different labels to them calling one a "simulated mind" and the other real but you seem to admit there are no experiential differences.  A "simulation of a mind" is a non self-aware AI program, not what our minds would be if reality were subjective.        
 

What if in the future, nanobots go into a person's bloodstream, then into her brain, scan every neuron and synapse and upload all the data to a "virtual brain" program on a computer.   Would that be a simulation of a mind?  Nope, that would be a copy of a mind.  The copy would be a "real mind" just as much as the original.   Why wouldn't it be?         
 

Vastet wrote:
The people would have to have some variation of the physical laws in order to exist, let alone run a simulation. So your rebuttal fails.

Not true.  People who are into Multiverse talk about how other universes should have different physical laws than ours and that these universes can possibly contain life as we DON'T know it.  

Vastet wrote:
Another problem with your argument is in assuming life must be simulated in order to simulate its effects. If a species is sufficiently knowledgeable enough to simulate the entirety of a universe, they don't have to bother with easily calculated minor details.

Wrong!   No one would have any idea what would evolve, if anything, as pointed out in post 59:
 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

And here's another thought - starting our universe again, with exactly the same starting parameters, would not necessarily lead to life forming. It may do.. but there's no guarantee.. It depends on the Drake equation, which we don't know enough bits of yet.. so to assume life will spontaneously pop into existence in every simulation starting with the big bang is another assumption you're going to have to make.

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: No, the

mellestad wrote:

 No, the other explanations say we don't know for sure and try to figure it out.

What a hypothesis.  Which of the explanations in this article say that?
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
 

I subscribe to the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation.
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"For the sake of argument

"For the sake of argument l~if reality were subjective."

Have you never wondered why a simulation never instantly results in new technology? For example, years ago, simulations regarding this article were concluded:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32903

Those simulations were never acted upon, because simulations are known to fail to simulate that which they were intended to represent. So now scientists are testing the simulation with real materials.

If I'm a simulation, then I only exist as a simulation. Everything, myself included, is an illusion. All my perspectives, beliefs, and thoughts are provided for me by a computer. My brain doesn't do anything, its just a simulation. I am not an emergent property of my brain. I'm not even an emergent property of the computer, I'm just made to act as if I am.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I cannot ever exceed the

I cannot ever exceed the limits of the simulation, none of us can. Nothing we do ever has any actual effect on anything. And none of us can ever know.

"What if in the future, nanobots go into a person's bloodstream, then into her brain, scan every neuron and synapse and upload all the data to a "virtual brain" program on a computer.   Would that be a simulation of a mind?  Nope, that would be a copy of a mind.  The copy would be a "real mind" just as much as the original.   Why wouldn't it be?"

Exactly right, it would be a copy. Not a simulation. A copy requires far more specific detail than a simulation.

"Not true.  People who are into Multiverse talk about how other universes should have different physical laws than ours and that these universes can possibly contain life as we DON'T know it. "

Irrelevant. Without some kind of predictable universal order, intelligent life capable of creating a system capable of simulating anything literally CANNOT exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Wrong!   No one would

"Wrong!   No one would have any idea what would evolve, if anything, as pointed out in post 59:"

Wrong. As the designers of the simulation are sufficiently knowledgeable to create the simulation, they are also knowledgeable enough to make predictions on the end and mid results. Some may be in error, but many won't be.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If I'm a

Vastet wrote:

If I'm a simulation, then I only exist as a simulation. Everything, myself included, is an illusion. All my perspectives, beliefs, and thoughts are provided for me by a computer. My brain doesn't do anything, its just a simulation. I am not an emergent property of my brain. I'm not even an emergent property of the computer, I'm just made to act as if I am.


Vastet wrote:

I cannot ever exceed the limits of the simulation, none of us can. Nothing we do ever has any actual effect on anything. And none of us can ever know.

 

The idea that if our reality works subjectively our minds are less real had never occurred to me before this conversation.   That probably stems from the fact that I believe we exist without this reality and are incarnating here voluntarily.  I believe our true nature is one of two things.  
 

1.   Individual partitions of data and memory or "units of consciousness" (Thomas Campbell's word).  
 

2.   We have bodies of some type and go somewhere to "plug into the Matrix" temporarily.   Maybe it's like taking a nap and having an intense communal dream with the other participants who are plugged in at the same time as you.
 

OK, so I actually have two assumptions but it is still a lot less than Many Worlds:
 

1.  Our world is (or at least works like) a simulation rendered for conscious observers as needed.
 

2.  We exist without this reality.  
 

Personally I would rather make two profound, radical assumptions that fit all the data rather than make a bunch of petty assumptions that don't.   That is because I'm not trying to hold on to any one conception of reality at all cost.  Instead, I'm being skeptical, open minded and choosing the least amount of assumptions that best fit the data, unlike SOME people around here.    
 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:I subscribe to

nebula wrote:
I subscribe to the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation.

I want to retract this before I get in trouble if it isn't too late.   I DON'T subscribe to "consciousness causes the collapse."   That is a gross oversimplification.    The which-slit info being available to the researcher - as it relates to historical consistency - is what causes it, as I said in 25, 33 & 41.   I'm sticking with that.       


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I see what you

Ktulu wrote:
I see what you mean about the wild off the wall theories like Multiverse, String theory, Ekpyrotic universe (one of my favourites), what you call idealism would seem at first glance to be just one of the many.  
 

The problem that I have with it is that it doesn't answer any questions.


It answers why QM works the way it does and how we get CM out of it, basically a Theory of Everything.   That seems to be answering some questions.
 

Ktulu wrote:
If a new hypothesis complicates your picture of the universe it is useless.
 
Multiverse is more complicated than Idealism so is more useless.  
 

Ktulu wrote:
Your proposal just pushes everything back, what you're saying is, we're all in a simulation and there is no way to prove otherwise or see through it.

What does it push back, First Cause?   It doesn't concern that.   It's about the nature of our reality, not the nature of First Cause.
 

Ktulu wrote:
To me, that reeks of intellectual laziness and it really is no different then religion.

To me, what physicalists do reeks of apologetics.   When it comes to the double slit experiment, physicists (and by extension the general physicalist community) are unwilling to follow the data where it leads, because of politics, grant money, good standing among peers, because they don't want traditionally religious concepts to enter their field and practical matters like that.   Because of this, they either ignore the results of the double slit experiment or offer incredibly convoluted explanations for it that fit with their preconceived notions, almost similar to what a Young Earth Creationist does when confronted with evidence of evolution.   I on the other hand follow the data wherever it leads.   It doesn't matter to me if it leads to Jesus' lap or Multiverse.   As it happens it doesn't lead to either of those, it leads to Idealism.
 

Ktulu wrote:
For example, a multiverse model, by comparison, is much more plausible because it assumes the least amount of unknowns, and explains a lot about our universe in a natural way.

Multiverse is suppose to have a lot of universes and each of them is an unknown, so Multiverse would be one of the ones that has a lot of unknowns, not the least.   I wouldn't say it explains anything in a natural way either because "nature" pertains to what is in our own universe.  As soon as you start talking about anything outside of our universe you are talking about something unnatural.   If you mean "without any magic" or something, what is magical about bits of digital information being processed (mellestad)?
 

I can't respond to the rest of your post because I didn't understand it and almost hurt myself reading through it the first time.    
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Personally I would

Quote:
Personally I would rather make two profound, radical assumptions that fit all the data rather than make a bunch of petty assumptions that don't.   That is because I'm not trying to hold on to any one conception of reality at all cost.  Instead, I'm being skeptical, open minded and choosing the least amount of assumptions that best fit the data, unlike SOME people around here.    

I'm also skeptical, I'm just as skeptical of your hypothesis as of the idea reality is real. Slightly more so only because I've yet to see a reason to alter my approach. Approaching the universe as a simulation, even if it is one, does not in any way increase my survival odds or enjoyment of living, and could have a negative impact on me even if the hypothesis is true.
Approaching the universe as if it were real has a definite positive benefit to my existence.
So that's what I'll continue to do, unless some new evidence changes my mind.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'm also

Vastet wrote:
I'm also skeptical, I'm just as skeptical of your hypothesis as of the idea reality is real. Slightly more so only because I've yet to see a reason to alter my approach. Approaching the universe as a simulation, even if it is one, does not in any way increase my survival odds or enjoyment of living, and could have a negative impact on me even if the hypothesis is true. Approaching the universe as if it were real has a definite positive benefit to my existence. So that's what I'll continue to do, unless some new evidence changes my mind.

If you want a reason to alter your approach or evidence to change your mind you will find it - directly proportional to your desire to figure out what the results of the double slit experiment mean.  If you are content to say "we don't know for sure" like mellestad then for you the evidence will always remain unlooked at.

If however you are determined to figure out the meaning, you will be confronted with several options.   A MAINSTREAM interpretation of QM now is Many Worlds, which says there are an almost infinite number of parallel universes and many of them contain DOPPELGANGERS of you.   What is it about this double slit experiment that makes mainstream physicists feel the need to postulate something as unscientific as doppelgangers?   It's absurd but it does maintain determinism and the status quo so it's accepted.  

Something like Simulation Hypothesis is much more scientific.   For one thing, we already have evidence that rather sophisticated computer simulations exist.   Doppelgangers on the other hand, exist only in fiction, folklore and mainstream interpretations of QM.                    
 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not an expert on the

I'm not an expert on the subject, and am not stating my support for the hypothesis, but dopplegangers is simply not an accurate term to use. It would be more accurate to say that if true, then every possible outcome of the big bang has happened, with each potential universe doing its own thing.
Not all of those universes would have an Earth. Many that did would be barren.
Sure, there'd be a few trillion different Earths with a few billion different me's, but they'd all be just a little different. Not clones.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not an

Vastet wrote:
I'm not an expert on the subject, and am not stating my support for the hypothesis, but dopplegangers is simply not an accurate term to use. It would be more accurate to say that if true, then every possible outcome of the big bang has happened, with each potential universe doing its own thing. Not all of those universes would have an Earth. Many that did would be barren. Sure, there'd be a few trillion different Earths with a few billion different me's, but they'd all be just a little different. Not clones.

If you want to call them "other mes and yous" or "other USes" that's fine but doppelgangers is a lot catchier.    The point is that it is a pretty fantastic idea and this 58% of "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" who agree with it (according to a "controversial poll" - Wiki) should be ashamed.  What is next, the Leprechaun interpretation of QM?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10143
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
This is the caption

This is the caption underneath the picture of the earth in the Wikipedia article for Occam's razor:

"It is possible to describe the other planets in the Solar System as revolving around the Earth, but that explanation is unnecessarily complex compared to the contemporary consensus that all planets in the Solar System revolve around the Sun."

That is a good point.   Similarly, it's possible to look at all the fossil evidence but deny evolution - if you dream up some convoluted explanation for how those fossils got embedded in the layers we find them in.  

It's also possible to look at the results of the double slit experiment and still insist our reality is objective - if you posit parallel worlds, doppelgangers and the like.   But is that the BEST explanation?   Occam's razor says no.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'll explain

Ktulu wrote:

I'll explain why:
1. Dark Energy.  I won't go into details, they're easily available, but the current cosmological model shows the universe's expansion as accelerating.  If the current conditions continue the universe will eventually dissipate into "nothing" (not for more then 1 to the google power of years).
2. Least assumptions.  From our observations, Vacuum has energy, and temperature.  Meaning that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the philosophical sense.  If you take everything out of a vacuum, you would expect it to have no energy, but it does.  This energy is extremely small 10 to the power -9 J, it likely comes from pairs of virtual particles appearing and dissipating continually.  That means that all you need to get "SOMETHING" is the fabric of space/time, which we already know exists.  
3. Inflation.  Again, I won't go into details, and this is a bit of an assumption, but it does jive with observable universal homogeneity and the majority of cosmological observations.
4.  Arrow of time.  There is no physical reason why we remember the past and not the future.  Relativity implies that "now" is relative to energy spent in momentum.  The only thing that dictates the arrow of time is entropy.  Basically, entropy is the only thing that dictates the arrow of time, coupled with the "least action" principle (basically nature is lazy, path of least resistance and all that).
If you consider the necessary conditions for the current conditions of reality to appear.  It would seem more energy cost effective for the universe to create a "brain in a vat" or a consciousness with all the current sensory input as an illusion, rather then the whole universe (or your idealism).  Unless you consider inflation, then the "least action" would be an entire universe, along with entropy/arrow of time and everything.  
Basically you need to wait around for a particle/antiparticle pair to appear with a temporary net energy (the overall energy will always be 0) past a certain thresh hold, enough for inflation to take hold.  And you have yourself an honest to god universe.
I'm sorry for skipping over most details, and I'll happily oblige any elaboration when I have more time. 

Ktulu, possibly 1, 3 and 4 are explained by digital physics.   Here is an article about it: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html
 

Why is your number 2 paragraph called "Least assumptions"? Shouldn't it be "No creator"?   That is what you mean right?  A naturalistic, random, phenomenal, "unintended by anyone" origin of our universe is preferable to it having been intentionally created, right?   OK, I can see why that would be the case if we were talking about a deity creating the universe, because we don't have evidence for deities.   But we do have evidence that intelligent beings exist, us.   So assuming we're not the only intelligent life in existence how does point 2 make Multiverse the better choice?

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:That means that

Ktulu wrote:
That means that all you need to get "SOMETHING" is the fabric of space/time, which we already know exists."

You are saying space-time existed before the big bang right?    Then why do they say stuff like this?:  

"The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/hawking_universe.html

This is how it looks to me but maybe I've got this wrong: the idea that our universe is not a simulation is an assumption and the idea that it is a simulation is also an assumption, so those two cancel each other out.   The idea that space-time existed before the big bang is an assumption and the idea that extra terrestrials exist is also an assumption, so those two cancel each other out.   Therefore, as to the origin of our universe, Multiverse doesn't have any less assumptions than Simulation Hypothesis:  

Our universe was born spontaneously from the fabric of space-time: number of assumptions = 1.

Our universe was created by extra-terrestrials: number of assumptions = 1.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Ktulu wrote:2.

nebula wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

2. Least assumptions.  From our observations, Vacuum has energy, and temperature.  Meaning that there is no such thing as "nothing" in the philosophical sense.  If you take everything out of a vacuum, you would expect it to have no energy, but it does.  This energy is extremely small 10 to the power -9 J, it likely comes from pairs of virtual particles appearing and dissipating continually.  That means that all you need to get "SOMETHING" is the fabric of space/time, which we already know exists.  . 

Ktulu, possibly 1, 3 and 4 are explained by digital physics.   Here is an article about it: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html
 

Why is your number 2 paragraph called "Least assumptions"? Shouldn't it be "No creator"?   That is what you mean right?  A naturalistic, random, phenomenal, "unintended by anyone" origin of our universe is preferable to it having been intentionally created, right?   OK, I can see why that would be the case if we were talking about a deity creating the universe, because we don't have evidence for deities.   But we do have evidence that intelligent beings exist, us.   So assuming we're not the only intelligent life in existence how does point 2 make Multiverse the better choice?

 

Ok, well I didn't read the article all the way through.  I stopped at the "new science of digitalism", my head hurt after that line... We can trash that article some other time, but let me elaborate on number 2.  I said "least assumptions" because if you consider the origin of the universe, you cannot conceive of anything less then "nothing".  Try to think of ANYTHING less then absolute vacuum.  So, what I'm trying to say is, if you consider the one thing in our universe that requires the least assumptions, we are understanding that it has such properties as to randomly generate a pair of virtual particles that cancel out almost immediately.  and from there follows my drivel... By contrast, ANY ONE OTHER THING that you assume, implies more assumptions as an existence outside our universe.  

So let's try one other thing, let's say that a chicken egg existed outside the universe, now you have to assume, at the very least an outside shell, a typical chicken egg composition... so on and so forth.  That's more assumptions then "nothing" (again, there is no such thing as "nothing", so really, this is not even an assumption, it is a given).

Now, you're proposing, not only that a whole other universe exists, but that it has purpose (in the theological sense), that it is organized in such a way as to allow for a superior race to exist, that they had built a super computer.... every one of those assumptions comes loaded with a million other assumptions.  

Furthermore, your "theory" is unfalsifiable, making it no more a scientific theory then god did it, your god just happens to own a PC and be a decent coder.  It also doesn't actually answer anything, because you can always ask, well, who created coder god?  was it some other "coder god"?  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu, also, I don't

Ktulu, also, I don't understand what any of your 4 points have to do with Multiverse specifically, or what the connection to Multiverse is.   Does Multiverse somehow uniquely explain those 4 things?   


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Ktulu

nebula wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
That means that all you need to get "SOMETHING" is the fabric of space/time, which we already know exists."

You are saying space-time existed before the big bang right?    Then why do they say stuff like this?:  

"The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/hawking_universe.html

This is how it looks to me but maybe I've got this wrong: the idea that our universe is not a simulation is an assumption and the idea that it is a simulation is also an assumption, so those two cancel each other out.   The idea that space-time existed before the big bang is an assumption and the idea that extra terrestrials exist is also an assumption, so those two cancel each other out.   Therefore, as to the origin of our universe, Multiverse doesn't have any less assumptions than Simulation Hypothesis:  

Our universe was born spontaneously from the fabric of space-time: number of assumptions = 1.

Our universe was created by extra-terrestrials: number of assumptions = 1.

You are correct, as we understand it, the space-time that we currently experience originated from the big bang event that gave birth to our universe.  

I don't think that something like the fabric of space-time that we're experiencing existing outside our universe is an assumption.  A few things on that.

Firstly, the question "why is there something, rather then nothing?" basically implies that you cannot get something out of nothing.  There is no such thing as "nothing" in a philosophical sense in our universe.  We cannot find a single example of anything that is completely void of all energy.  Since our universe is something, and our universe exists, it implies that something is eternal.  So far, this argument has a religious stench to it, but the more you think about it, the more you realize that something has always existed, but no more, or less then that.  This is the only given that you can take.  The fact that there is something now, rather then nothing, implies that there has always been something.

Secondly, in order to assume ANYTHING outside our universe, you must first assume a frame of reference for that something to exist in.  You can assume the "universe coder from eternal creation", but in order to do so, you must first assume a frame of reference that this "UCfEC" exists in.  So the only common denominator, well the only condition for ANYTHING to be outside our universe, is a frame of reference.  Therefore, something like what we experience as "space-time" must exist outside our universe. 

Since we know that our space-time has such fundamental property as to generate energy, then the only assumption is that the "exo-universe" frame of reference also has this same property.  This is like saying that the "nothing" in our universe is the same as the "nothing" outside our universe.  

You seem to think that assuming we are a simulation is ONE assumption, when in reality is a very large number of assumptions, the first of which is the "assumption" that I have made, namely that there is a frame of reference for your simulation to be in.

Do the math now and you will see why I believe the MW to be a better theory.

Edit: "something rather then nothing"

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Ktulu, also, I

nebula wrote:

Ktulu, also, I don't understand what any of your 4 points have to do with Multiverse specifically, or what the connection to Multiverse is.   Does Multiverse somehow uniquely explain those 4 things?   

Ok, let me elaborate... What I'm trying to say is that given our current understanding of QM and Cosmology, the Multiverse seems to be the best theory, with the least amount of assumptions.  

Let's leave out the arrow of time for now, it is a very cool problem on it's own and we can talk about it some other time in detail.  Let's just say that the multiverse explains it best.

Don't worry about "dark energy" either, for one, we have no freaking clue wtf it is, but it looks like it's a lot out there, 75% of the universe.  The only reason I put that in there is to show that the current theory shows the universe would eventually look like "nothing" and that is all you need to start a new universe.  

Let's just talk about "inflation" and "nothing".  I'm going to assume you're familiar with the theory of inflation.  In a few words (and to simplify the shit out of it), immediately after the big bang, everything expanded a lot quicker then physically possible.  Also, you have vacuum creating virtual particle pairs randomly.  

The scenario goes that over EONS (periods of time that would make the life of our entire universe seem extremely quick), you have one of the particle/anti-particle pairs generated with enough energy that before they have a chance to cancel themselves out, inflation takes over.  And that's ALL that you need for a new universe.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc