Possible Evidence That Our Universe is a Computer Simulation

[Muadib]

Check this out:

Are the various physical limits of our universe (e.g. the cutoff in the amount of energy a cosmic ray can have) evidence that our universe is the creation of technology with limited capabilities? Huffington Post explains:

A long-proposed thought experiment points out that any civilisation of sufficient intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible. Since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is more likely than not that our world is artificial.​

Now a team of researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany say they have evidence this may be true. They point out that simulations of the universe naturally put limits on physical laws. By just being a simulation, [a] computer would put limits on, for instance, the energy that particles can have within the program. These limits would be experienced by those living within the sim – and as it turns out, something which looks just like these limits do in fact exist.​

For instance, something known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin, or GZK cut off, is an apparent boundary of the energy that cosmic ray particles can have. This is caused by interaction with cosmic background radiation. But Beane and co’s paper argues that the pattern of this rule mirrors what you might expect from a computer simulation.​

​

You can find the original article here: Possible Evidence That Our Universe Is A Computer Simulation | Disinformation​

​

Thoughts? What does this say about paranormal phenomena or advanced intelligences that may have gained what a computer programmer would call 'root access'? Very interesting to be sure.​

 

[Muadib]

Here's another article on Simulation Theory that I found:

The question of whether we live in a real world or a simulated one has plagued philosophers for centuries – but now scientists believe they finally have found a way to test the theory.
Professor Silas Beane, a theoretical physicist at the University of Bonn in Germany said that his group of scientists have developed a way to test the ‘simulation hypothesis’.
The idea has been debated by the greats of philosphy, from Plato to Descartes, who speculated that the world we see around us could be generated by an ‘evil demon’.
The successful film franchise, The Matrix, also helped spawn the idea that what we think is our everyday life is in fact a simulation generated by an all-powerful computer.




But now more than two thousand years since Plato suggested that our senses only give us a poor reflection of objective reality, experts believe they have cracked the riddle.
Professor Beane told Radio 4′s Today programme that his proposal could be the beginning of a new period of discovery.
The test would see scientists using mathetical models known as the lattice QCD approach in an attempt to recreate – on a theoretical level – a simulated reality.
To identify what these constraints would be, scientists would have to build their own simulation of the universe.
They hope to see whether such an exercise would be theoretically possible – and what the constraints on the ‘evil demon’ might be.
Lattice QCD is a complex approach that that looks at how particles known as quarks and gluons relate in three dimensions.
Professor Bean said: “We consider ourselves on some level universe simulators because we calculate the interactions of particles by basically replacing space and time by a grid and putting it in a box.”
“In doing that we face lots of problems for instance the box and the grid size breaks Einstein’s special theory of relativity so we know how to fix this in order to get physical predictions that are meaningful.”
“We thought that if we make the assumption that the so-called simulators face some of the same problems that we do in terms of finite resources and so on then, if they are doing a simulation and even though their box size of course is enormous and the grid size can be very small, as long as the resources are finite then the box size will be finite, the grid size will be finite.”
“And therefore at some level for instance there would be violations of Einstein’s special theory of relativity.”
Philosophers have cautioned that there is still some way to go before we find out whether the universe is simulated. Dr Peter Millican of Hertford College, Oxford told the programme: “There are two main issues, one is whether the speculation even makes sense and the other is supposing it makes sense whether there is any good reason to think it is plausible.

Original article here: Scientists Believe They Have Come Close To Solving The ‘Matrix’ Theory – Secrets of the Fed

 

[Mystery-Student]

this is something i've wondered since i was a child. it's really interesting and i try to imagine ways in which is can be tested but i'm also curious if the very fact we live in a simulation universe means we cannot know that it is a simulation

 

[nameless]

lattice network with diamond nodes in which mirrors the lattice network with diamond nodes in which mirrors...

The Holographic Universe: Amazon.co.uk: Michael Talbot: Books


the self aware universe is called;
Virochana which is like Gaia. its a great word we should all try to use.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I think many of us have, in our own personal way, thought about the nature of reality and life and whether it could be some illusion - in as much as it's not the way we presume.

I could vote for 'our' reality being a simulation but what is the simulation 'run on'? Must be some kind of super-dooper computer or infinitely clever intelligence a.k.a 'god' ?

 

[Muadib]

I've often thought about this as well, it fascinates me to no end, the thought that we might be living in a computer simulation is an interesting one for sure. It creates all kinds of questions about theology and science. We could even be a simulation inside a simulation, the product of a pimply faced alien teenager still living in mom and dad's basement even. It would go a long way in explaining certain things that we observe about our reality, how things behave when observed versus how they behave when not observed. This makes perfect sense if we're living in a computer simulation because you wouldn't want to devote processing power to non critical processes, so for example, all of those books you see on your shelf could be at this moment completely empty, filling themselves with words from a central database once they're being interacted with.

How about the story of Dr. Herbert Hopkins, who had an interesting visitation from the so called 'men in black' The man in black correctly told Hopkins that he had two coins in his pocket and asked him to remove one, upon removing a shiny new penny from his pocket, he placed it on the table. The man in black told him to stare at the penny, after a few moments the penny started to take on a silvery appearance, then go out of focus, then dematerialize completely. The man told him that he nor anyone on this plane of existence would ever see that penny again. A number of other strange things happened but it's this part of the story that fascinates the most, as if it's true, it shows a being who has gained what a programmer would call "root access" to the simulation that we're in. In other words he can interact directly with the program and thus change aspects of our seemingly physical reality. Fascinating.

Let's face it, the term 'computer simulation' is a fancy way to describe something that most of us interact with all the time, a giant video game if you will. What if like a video game there are certain objectives that we have to complete before being allowed to move on to the next level of the simulation so to speak. Maybe this is why we seem to be interacting with intelligences that can change our reality on a fundamental level, maybe these are former residents of the simulation who have gone on to achieve 'root access' or maybe they're the programmers themselves, it would go a long way towards explaining why hard physical evidence seems to elude us. If this is the case, I wonder what we have to accomplish to gain 'root access' ourselves? World peace, maybe? Travel out into the stars? Create our own simulations? Who knows? It sure is fun to think about though...

 

[Randall]

Yup, I too have been onto this for several years now and in my view it's the best explanation we have at this time, and more circumstantial evidence accumulates every year. The issue for a lot of people is that it suddenly makes the whole concept of a creator, life after death, reincarnation, resurrection and a wide range of paranormal phenomena ( especially Chris' Trickster ) scientifically possible.

Good post! Keep 'em, coming whenever you see 'em.

 

[Muadib]

Yup, I too have been onto this for several years now and in my view it's the best explanation we have at this time, and more circumstantial evidence accumulates every year. The issue for a lot of people is that it suddenly makes the whole concept of a creator, life after death, reincarnation, resurrection and a wide range of paranormal phenomena ( especially Chris' Trickster ) scientifically possible.

Good post! Keep 'em, coming whenever you see 'em.

If it's true it certainly makes these things possible, though not a certainty. We would definitely have some kind of creator, but if our creator, or if this is all really just some kind of simulation, our team of creators are non perfect, non infallible (in any sense except in the simulation, where they control things by manipulating lines of code) beings somewhat like ourselves, are they really worthy of religious worship? What does it say about people who think they have some kind of personal relationship with their creator(s) when you're nothing but some kind of program in a simulation? Do the programs in your computer have a personal relationship with you? Or are they just there to be used as you see fit and then discarded when they no longer serve their purpose? It's definitely a different and imo more interesting way of looking at a possible creator, and I would posit that since they've done almost nothing to the natural world that would give undeniable proof of their involvement with creation, then they aren't really interested in being objects of worship. Though one could say that since they've programmed mankind to seek out the spiritual, that they wanted us to look for something beyond the physical, the question is what? Is it nothing more than an artifact of the code, some unintended consequence of the way we're programmed or is it something more?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

It doesn't answer still the most intriguing question which is how did the first whatever come to exist?

 

[Randall]

If it's true it certainly makes these things possible, though not a certainty. We would definitely have some kind of creator, but if our creator, or if this is all really just some kind of simulation, our team of creators are non perfect, non infallible (in any sense except in the simulation, where they control things by manipulating lines of code) beings somewhat like ourselves, are they really worthy of religious worship? What does it say about people who think they have some kind of personal relationship with their creator(s) when you're nothing but some kind of program in a simulation? Do the programs in your computer have a personal relationship with you? Or are they just there to be used as you see fit and then discarded when they no longer serve their purpose? It's definitely a different and imo more interesting way of looking at a possible creator, and I would posit that since they've done almost nothing to the natural world that would give undeniable proof of their involvement with creation, then they aren't really interested in being objects of worship. Though one could say that since they've programmed mankind to seek out the spiritual, that they wanted us to look for something beyond the physical, the question is what? Is it nothing more than an artifact of the code, some unintended consequence of the way we're programmed or is it something more?

You're absolutely right Maudib. Very thoughtful. I'd add that even if our universe is a simulation, it doesn't necessitate that we haven't evolved along with the rest of the simulation or that there hasn't been some sort of alien intervention from within. The universe creator may also be entirely different than the Biblical God.

 

[Randall]

It doesn't answer still the most intriguing question which is how did the first whatever come to exist?

Yes Goggs, that's always a nagging question. The way I handle it is by thinking of it one step at a time. Just establishing that we are in fact in a generated construct ( the phrase I prefer to use ), would open up so many more possibilities to further our knowledge and resources, and by the time we get that all figured out, I think that we would have gained further knowledge toward the ultimate question. I like to use the analogy of the time before we knew the Earth was a sphere. Think of all the advancements between then and now. I tend to think that we're just on the verge of learning the true geometry of our universe and 500 years from now we'll have it figured out and looking at how to navigate the next level ( if such exists ).

 

[nameless]

We wont be able to understand it just by using words, well not the vocabulary we have at the moment anyway. We need a new analogy or metaphoric analogy the same way you guys have to use computer analogies to barely describe the conundrum. We had to invent computers first before we could start using the analogy. The problem is for the things that philosophers and mystics have described as a "holographic universe" there are no analogies at present.

In the past people have attempted to describe the HU using art eg. The Matrix analogy, which in part is art trying to recontextualise and describe a gnostic mystery school type initiation.


It seems as much as computers have helped us in little, arbitrary or grand ways, it seems an overlooked contribution is to give us the ability to use a further analogy to explain the human condition or make things even more complex.

 

[Wade]

so I suppose it could be argued that it's possible that whenever anybody in our reality fires up their video games and enfuses (?) their being or existence on that online persona maybe the online persona undergoes the same existential questions we do. What if one of us created an online persona that was a gamer and created an online persona...a persona within a persona...could it become sentient ?

What if the people who experience abductions (assuming they aren't mental) are being taken "offline" for adjustment or tinkering, if so would that negate free will because maybe said being was starting to fall off his or her program and had to be put back on course ? would the chaos theory be a casualty of a quantum computer program ?

For that matter do we truly have free will if it is limited to making a choice in reaction to things that we don't really have control over?

 

[Randall]

It seems as much as computers have helped us in little, arbitrary or grand ways, it seems an overlooked contribution is to give us the ability to use a further analogy to explain the human condition or make things even more complex.

Can you please clarify and elaborate on the above. I'm not sure if you mean that computers are an overlooked analogy or if you are referring to something else and if so what.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

If we are in a simulation - then paranormal events - are they glitches or part of the program?

All this reminds me of the end of the first Men In Black movie in which at the end the camera shot zooms out and out to show like a whole universe is held within a marble dangling from a cat's collar. There is no reason why something similar to this could not be the case. How small is small and how big is big - it's all relative and perhaps size does go in both directions infinitely - one of my fav mental thought-games.

 

[Randall]

If we are in a simulation - then paranormal events - are they glitches or part of the program?

All this reminds me of the end of the first Men In Black movie in which at the end the camera shot zooms out and out to show like a whole universe is held within a marble dangling from a cat's collar. There is no reason why something similar to this could not be the case. How small is small and how big is big - it's all relative and perhaps size does go in both directions infinitely - one of my fav mental thought-games.

Ya, I loved that scene too. Movies can make anything possible. Are some paranormal events glitches in the Matrix? I think that is a distinct possibility. In other cases they could be the result of knowing how to manipulate reality by intentionally accessing the system. This is the kind of technology that I think would be behind a real-life stargate. In essence distance is all an illusion. That is to say, from the point of view of the OS, everything is simultaneously connected to everything else, so it would take no more effort for the OS to move a salt shaker from galaxy A to galaxy B than it would to move it across the dining room table. The question is, how do we gain access to the program?

 

[Mystery-Student]

not sure this has any relevance but you could think of the "big bang" in terms of a simulation. it could be looked at as the point in which the program was turned on and as the energy source spread through the system it 'expanded outward' to the different areas that turned on different processors or whatever. and then from there the system was tweaked until it reached a certain point in which, in our thoughts might be where the great expansion of our universe stopped. though its expanding now it's not at the same fast rate as in the beginning just after the big bang, and that was the point when the system could run on its own letting the constraints put in place do what they will to form everything we see now.

 

[Mystery-Student]

in regards to the paranormal events, they could be multiple simulations running on a giant platform that could bleed through. they could also be for example i'll use ghosts. if in the simulations the data of a person or entity is removed from the playing field or even set aside after they are dead, ( like in a computer the information is deleted) yet people of a later time remember or have knowledge of the people that lived before them, the rememberances of the dead causes a kind of glitch that pulls the deleted or set aside data back into the playing field and in effect causes them to be partially constructed. i apologize the wording is terrible i am having a hard time explaining this.
same for entities like mothman or the thunderbird, whether we think of it as a interdimensional being or an entity in a simulation running next to ours that bleeds over somehow. or because an entity like mothman was thought up and imagined long ago and people remember it today the simulation may not be able to process the data of memories correctly and causes the memories, just like of people who have died, to be partially constructed from time to time. in a sense the program isn't able to properly categorize memories or know what to do with them. it may not be capable of processing the countless number of people who remember or think about creatures that may never have existed yet they exist in our mind, and say enough people have the idea of mothman in their head, the program tries to find a way to incorporate the data and that might be why we see it.
again, sorry for my descriptions, i'm having trouble putting these ideas into words

 

[Mystery-Student]

it's kind of the same way we think of the collective conscious, collective un-conscious, or tulpas just in a simulation universe

 

[Randall]

not sure this has any relevance but you could think of the "big bang" in terms of a simulation. it could be looked at as the point in which the program was turned on and as the energy source spread through the system it 'expanded outward' to the different areas that turned on different processors or whatever. and then from there the system was tweaked until it reached a certain point in which, in our thoughts might be where the great expansion of our universe stopped. though its expanding now it's not at the same fast rate as in the beginning just after the big bang, and that was the point when the system could run on its own letting the constraints put in place do what they will to form everything we see now.

All honest attempts to convey something of relevance are relevant in that they give us something to reflect on and discuss. I tend to share the basic premise of your Big Bang analogy. I tend to think of the generated construct as a product of a collection of algorithms that define the rules we associate with physics combined with those we associate with organic geometry like fractals.