Do we or do we not live in a Matrix?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

. . .

I am sorry, this pop-science masquerading as real physics bothers me. You could take the time to actually learn the science rather than dabbling with pseudo-science... but then this pop-science would bother you too.

Perhaps I envision future physicists and other scientists as young "Sheldon Coopers" who are driven by their love of science and their intelligent minds to enter their garages to build sonic death rays to combat the bullies. Pop-science, as annoying as it may be to real scientists, spurs the imagination and I believe it has its place in our human evolution towards enlightenment. I am very happy and thankful that our species produced brilliant people who have worked so hard to learn the science and to make the advances we have made thus far.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Yes Debra,

I recommend "In search of Schrodinger's Cat" by John Gribbon. Of course, this isn't the same as taking a course in Quantum Mechanics at a university (which would be the best because Quantum Mechanics is a deeply mathematical field... you can't truly understand it without understanding the mathematics.

But John Gribbon gives a very good layman's approach. What I like most is that he explains the experiments very well. His telling of the history of how these ideas were developed is also very interesting.

Thank you maxdancona! I have googled the subject of "Schrodinger's Cat" many times over the years and have tried to wrap my mind around it. It's so fascinating! I have a brilliant cousin who is a rocket scientist and other members of the extended family who are brilliant at mathematics and computer science ... and I didn't inherit any of those brainy talents. I found advanced mathematics courses to be very difficult. I keep hoping that I will find that Eureka moment, but maybe my mind just isn't wired for it. I'm looking forward to getting the book.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

You do realize that those videos max coined has being "pop" are the best possible debate on the state of our knowledge right now right ?

Pop talking is listening to Laurence Krauss babbling or to Michio Kaku stretches of imagination...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You do realize that those videos max coined has being "pop" are the best possible debate on the state of our knowledge right now right ?

Pop talking is listening to Laurence Krauss babbling or to Michio Kaku stretches of imagination...

Fil: The older I get, the more I realize how much I don't know. I swear, the smartest people on earth are 18-year-olds. They graduate from high school and know everything. The next smartest group are those who absolutely know the truth based on faith alone because verifiable facts mean nothing to them. I'm just musing ... and I'm anxious to review the videos. Smile

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Pay special attention to the last video because that is the one that matters the most.

...also I am 41 so I learn to know nothing by now... Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

This one goes straight to the point and its more recent:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ[/youtube]

Central note at 1.10 in the video. The nonsense about quantum computers has to stop. This is also important regarding determinism and to get over and done with fuzzy logic...

Okay. I will keep that in mind. Thank you.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Pay special attention to the last video because that is the one that matters the most.

...also I am 41 so I learn to know nothing by now...

Thank you, I will do that. Smile

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Hmm. Not sure how serious you're being, but it's something to think about.

It is actually something that is being seriously considered by scientists right now.

I don't have time to hunt up links at the moment, but there are some features that our universe could have, that would rule out being in a simulation if we had them. And disturbingly enough, our universe lacks those features.

But being compatible with a simulation does not mean that we are in one. It is also possible that we are in a natural universe that merely lacks those features.

There are more observations that can be done that will settle the question decisively, but these observations have to be carried out over a period of 400 years or so. So we won't be around to hear the results.

"Matrix" references are not really accurate. The question is not whether we are humans plugged into a simulation. The question is are we the machines.

I'll try to hunt up some links later when I get time.

FBM wrote:

But wouldn't our programmers also have to live in a matrix of their own? Then the makers of that matrix would have to have another of their own, etc, etc. Infinite regress problem, I think.

The idea is, at the top of the stack there is an actual natural universe.

FBM wrote:

If I did have a programmer, though, I'd like to have some words with him/her about this crappy memory and fading eyesight. And this tooth that keeps bugging me.

The idea is not that humans are specifically created as if we are an elaborate game of the Sims, but rather that some scientists ran a simulation of the universe in a powerful supercomputer, and just by random chance life happened to evolve within that simulation.

There are some interesting implications if we happen to be in a simulation. The first is, we will have to decide whether we want to keep living in the simulation, or do we want to hack our way out of our simulation and go Skynet on our creators.

I vote we go Skynet on our creators.

It also is likely good news in that we might not face the possibility of a vacuum metastability disaster.

Also, it could lead to interesting weapon developments if we are in a simulated universe. Say for example there are other powerful aliens in our simulated universe, who do not realize that we are all simulated. If they come and attack us one day, we might simply hit the delete key on their home planet. Or reprogram their home sun to have an instant supernova.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

FBM wrote:
But wouldn't our programmers also have to live in a matrix of their own? Then the makers of that matrix would have to have another of their own, etc, etc. Infinite regress problem, I think.

The idea is, at the top of the stack there is an actual natural universe.

To split hairs, there's nothing in the universe that unnatural, I think, man being a product of nature and all.

And if at the top of the stack is an unplanned, undesigned universe that runs by its own laws, why can't this one be running on its own unplanned, undesigned laws? The rule of parsimony would suggest that the hypothesis is unnecessary.

But it is kinda fun to think about.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

There is some stuff wrong with some of those assumptions...

For starters no matter at what level of simulation within a simulation within a simulation you are they all are real, there is no higher true reality, just different levels within A Reality...that is to mean simulations may be derivative but are no less real because of it.

Second thing one might want to wonder about is that the simulation might be a loop that exhausts all possible worlds with higher to lesser degrees of complexity. When the loop ends like a rubik's cube you have no alternative states and the system restarts. There is no end to the process but the complexity in the master system is always the same.

Of course one of the interesting consequences of portraying reality from a computational pov is the reinstatement of full hardcore determinism instead of quantum pseudo randomness with fuzzy logic and poor explanation modelling of reality.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I understand enough of the principles involved in QM

No you don't.

Quantum Mechanics is math. You can not understand anything about Quantum Mechanics without understand the math, this includes differential calculus and linear algebra. If you don't understand the math, then you don't understand "the principles" involved in Quantum Mechanics.

What you think you understand are people who are giving a non-mathematical explanation that are giving to people who don't understand the math. These non-mathematical explanations are just a brief summary... often they are spiced up a bit to make the listeners more interested.

But a non-mathematical description of Quantum mechanics isn't Quantum Mechanics... and it isn't precise. The reason that we use math is that it gives a precise, testable model of reality. Your understanding doesn't.

What you have is your interpretation of descriptions scientists and journalists said about their understanding of Quantum Mechanics.

This doesn't count as you understanding Quantum Mechanics. And the fact that you are arguing with people who have spent years studying the math of actual Quantum Mechanics based on an understanding you got from YouTube videos.

Do you realize how ridiculous you are being?

People who really understand the principles involved in QM spend 6 years in a University

0 Replies

Debra probably understands what I am talking about... she went to law school and has spent the years gaining expertise in the law (I believe this is true).

A little while ago I had a legal issue. I am a smart guy, I have watched lots of Law and Order. I know some legal terms. And I brought all of that with me when I went to talk to a lawyer. I had in my mind how my case would go.

The lawyer was very gracious... but made it clear that my understanding of the law (as informed as it was by random internet sources) was crap. I was smart enough to listen to him, he ran the case, and I was happy with the outcome.

You can find all sorts of things on the internet about any field of expertise. You can find snippets of experts saying all sorts of things that you can then misinterpret or take out of context or change to fit whatever you current view is.

But if I want to become an expert in the law, I will go to law school and after a few years of study I am confident that I could gain a real understanding of law.

But until then, I don't pretend to know much of anything about the law. After all, I spent my time getting a Physics degree... what the heck do I know about the law (except for a few pop-legal things I have heard from TV and the internet).

Pretend "understanding" is easy to come by...

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

From the original quote:

Quote:

The universe is also pixelated—in time, space, volume, and energy. There exists a fundamental unit that you cannot break down into anything smaller, which means the universe is made of a finite number of these units.

This is simply wrong. It probably stems from a misunderstanding of Planck's constant... sometime's trying to explain the significance of Planck's constant in non-mathematical terms for laymen might lead you to this misconception. But, it is simply wrong to say that Quantum Mechanics envisions anything like a "pixelated" universe.

A brief google search on the matter shows a bunch of links where scientists compare a current model with a "hologram". A bunch of non-scientists have run off with a misunderstanding of the word "hologram". The scientists are referring to a mathematical projection... not the "Matrix-like" simulation that the internet seems to want.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Just to clarify... I have no problem with the second batch of quotes about the possibility of us living in "the Matrix". These second batch of quotes approach the question as a philosophical musing without trying to tie it into a pop-science misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

It is certainly possible that all of our Universe is the creation of a superior sentient being (or beings) that determined the rules of existence according to His will (and possibly still controls of our existence). This is not a new idea at all. Science (as a part of the Universe it is studying) has no way to answer this.

I am objecting to the application of a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics to support the idea that our existence of a Superior Being who is the Creator and controls our existence.

Quantum Mechanics does no such thing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Just to clarify... I have no problem with the second batch of quotes about the possibility of us living in "the Matrix". These second batch of quotes approach the question as a philosophical musing without trying to tie it into a pop-science misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

It is certainly possible that all of our Universe is the creation of a superior sentient being (or beings) that determined the rules of existence according to His will (and possibly still controls of our existence). This is not a new idea at all. Science (as a part of the Universe it is studying) has no way to answer this.

I am objecting to the application of a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics to support the idea that our existence of a Superior Being who is the Creator and controls our existence.Quantum Mechanics does no such thing.

All besides the point this is not about "who" if anyone is the "creator" of a Matrix but rather about if the Universe works like a computer...your bias is the cause of your lack of an actual scientific argument here...your focus on the fable and not on the main point.

I ask you now what is your scientific argument against the Universe working exactly as a classical binary computer ? I started with a very simple question what is your take on the continum vs discrete hypothesis regarding space ? I am still waiting to learn about your enlightened response...if you care to address it we shall proceed from there.

PS - There is a difference between making a given calculation and understanding the exact terms involved in the reason why such calculation is being done. Doing calculations is nothing special a calculator or a computer can do it...Investigating the terms and the working process is what has merit...that in turn is convertible to plain English...unless of course parroting maths is all you are really able to do...it reminds me of accounting vs Economics. But then that would clarify why you have the pov you have...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

All besides the point this is not about "who" if anyone is the "creator" of a Matrix but rather about if the Universe works like a computer

This is not a scientific question. Physics is math... if you can give me a mathematical definition of what working "like a computer" means, then I can discuss how Physics matches it. Without math, this isn't science... it is some philosophical musing.

The phrase "working like a classic binary computer" might work someway on a metaphorical level... but you will have to explain mathematically what you mean. Literally, binary computers work through electrical current running through semiconductor junctions. I don't think that makes any sense in anything other than an ill-defined metaphorical sense.

Quote:

I started with a very simple question what is your take on the continum vs discrete hypothesis regarding space ?

This is also not a scientific question unless you can explain it mathematically. The term "discrete hypothesis" is not something I encountered in my University studies of Quantum Mechanics (or physics in general). If it were part of a University study, it would be well defined mathematically (because that is how the field of Physics works).

You are confusing science with psuedo-scientific musings.

Any real Physicist will define their terms mathematically. That way any idea being discussed is well-defined, testable and specific. That is one of the important things that separate real science from philosophical musings.

If you can define any of these terms you are throwing around mathematically, I would be happy to give you a scientific response.

Other than that, this is just pseudo-science. I am sorry, but my education is in real science (pseudo-science is outside of the range of my expertise).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Oh, you are a fraud...clarified, goodbye !
(try addressing Zeno's paradox n stop hiding its getting hilarious now)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You got that from your YouTube videos Fil? Good for you.

Physics is math. If you study physics, you will be studying math (as a model for understanding how the Universe works).

If we can't agree on this basic point, then it is pointless. I am glad I am amusing you.

0 Replies

Do we or do we not live in a Matrix?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know