Life as a Simulation

[Kano]

I thought this was an interesting experiment. He mentions in his abstract the inverse lattice spacing of the universe which sounded a lot like RS.

One of the more unusual topics in the academic blogosphere currently revolves around a physics professor’s contention that the world is not real, but merely the product of a computer simulation.

Martin Savage at the University of Washington says it is quite possible the universe was created by our descendants, or other beings, using sophisticated software.

And, Savage contends, he has devised a way to test if the theory is true.

Along with two other colleagues, Savage offered an explanation of his proposed test—involving the examination of cosmic rays and how they travel—in a new paper (“Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation”) to proof his theory.

Savage is not the first academic to propose that the universe is not real. Nick Bostrom, a philosophy professor at the University of Oxford, offered a computer simulation idea in 2003, which prompted Savage to take a crack at proving it.

Since a story on Savage’s paper was published by the university, the web page has received more than 100,000 views in just a week, setting off a lively discussion among students and professors about what is real and the state of consciousness.

Many find the theory intriguing and plausible, including physicists who are interested in testing it. Others are highly skeptical, including one respondent who wrote: "You folks take yourselves way too seriously. This is proof we never should have legalized marijuana."

-Noel Brinkerhoff

http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news ... ews=846557

Here's a bit from his abstract.

Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847v2

Still getting my head around it, but very interesting.

[aurora]

This reminds me of a couple of things I have seen or learned. One - in What the Bleep Do We Know, is that things change as they are observed and do not behave the same as they would being unobserved. The confusing thought to me about this is that how can they know the behavior of anything that is unobserved without observing it. Two - The Matrix when Neo learns that what he is and has done throughout the series is nothing more than a computer program that has been running and rerun over and over like in a loop and that if he wants to change things, he has to change himself.

[Kano]

One - in What the Bleep Do We Know, is that things change as they are observed and do not behave the same as they would being unobserved. The confusing thought to me about this is that how can they know the behavior of anything that is unobserved without observing it.

A very good question and one I have always had about the quantum realm. Coincidentally, What the Bleep Do We Know was the catalyst that basically changed the course of my life, or at least how I viewed and interpreted my life.

Two - The Matrix when Neo learns that what he is and has done throughout the series is nothing more than a computer program that has been running and rerun over and over like in a loop and that if he wants to change things, he has to change himself.

I have always said that this life is like a cross between the Truman Show and The Matrix. It makes sense that if we are in fact living inside of a hologram, that changing one small piece of the hologram (ourselves), then the entire hologram changes as well. Very powerful when you look at it that way.

[bruce]

Most people don't realize that there is BOTH a quantum universe (the material sector) and an aetheric universe (the cosmic sector). Things in space appear digital, and things in time appear analog.

Consider how a hologram is made: it is a wave interference pattern on a film, much like ripples on the surface of water. Matter is composed of temporal displacements--not space. Time is aetheric and wavelike, so it ripples the "interface" between the two sectors, much like where air (vacuum of space) meets the ocean (solid of time). The only thing that is common between the two sectors, sitting right at the light-speed division, is the surface: photons. Ripple the photons the right way, and you get the appearance of structure.

[Kano]

Things in space appear digital, and things in time appear analog.

Can you say more about this? I don't understand what you mean exactly.

[bruce]

Things in space appear digital, and things in time appear analog.

Can you say more about this? I don't understand what you mean exactly.

Larson's Reciprocal System is entirely yang-based, so everything is linear and quantized. Nehru added the yin component with RS2, and we started integrating from there.

In order to have a digital or quantized representation, you must count up from zero to a finite value, start with nothing and go to something, using counting numbers. This is Larson's yang, spatial perspective--the digital half of the universe.

When you start considering a temporal perspective, you start with everything and chip away at it to a finite quantity, much like a sculptor. The problem then becomes how to "count" from infinity, down--you can't. But you CAN count "infinitesimals", using calculus techniques that take that "count" down to zero-sized chunks between infinity and the finite value you want to reach; quantities like the natural log or the trig functions. As a result, you are counting zero-sized objects that create a "smooth flow", or what is referred to in electronics as an "analog" system, because everything comes down to "series expansion" waves, like sine and cosine.

Anything that has a digital count is spatial and referenced from zero.
Anything that has an analog wave is temporal and referenced from infinity.

Might want to look at the "Quantum PI" topic on RS2 as well.

[Kano]

Things in space appear digital, and things in time appear analog.

Can you say more about this? I don't understand what you mean exactly.

Larson's Reciprocal System is entirely yang-based, so everything is linear and quantized. Nehru added the yin component with RS2, and we started integrating from there.

In order to have a digital or quantized representation, you must count up from zero to a finite value, start with nothing and go to something, using counting numbers. This is Larson's yang, spatial perspective--the digital half of the universe.

When you start considering a temporal perspective, you start with everything and chip away at it to a finite quantity, much like a sculptor. The problem then becomes how to "count" from infinity, down--you can't. But you CAN count "infinitesimals", using calculus techniques that take that "count" down to zero-sized chunks between infinity and the finite value you want to reach; quantities like the natural log or the trig functions. As a result, you are counting zero-sized objects that create a "smooth flow", or what is referred to in electronics as an "analog" system, because everything comes down to "series expansion" waves, like sine and cosine.

Anything that has a digital count is spatial and referenced from zero.
Anything that has an analog wave is temporal and referenced from infinity.

Might want to look at the "Quantum PI" topic on RS2 as well.

Great, thanks for that. I need to read up on my infinitesimals and Quantum Pi.

[Kano]

When you start considering a temporal perspective, you start with everything and chip away at it to a finite quantity, much like a sculptor. The problem then becomes how to "count" from infinity, down--you can't. But you CAN count "infinitesimals", using calculus techniques that take that "count" down to zero-sized chunks between infinity and the finite value you want to reach; quantities like the natural log or the trig functions. As a result, you are counting zero-sized objects that create a "smooth flow", or what is referred to in electronics as an "analog" system, because everything comes down to "series expansion" waves, like sine and cosine.

This reminded me of a philosophy class I took in college where I was introduced to Zeno's Arrow Paradox.

Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not.[12] It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

Infinitesimals seem to be describing a similar function because math states that there is an infinite number of points the arrow can travel on between bow and target, yet the distance from bow to target is finite. Again, zero-sized chunks (infinite possible instances) between infinity and the finite value (measurable distance from bow to target).

I wasn't posting this to challenge RS since RS states that we live in a universe of motion, not matter. I was making a point about the math aspect as it relates to infinitesimals.

[aurora]

Infitismals, hah! I finally am understanding the relationship between space, 3D time, and motion. Thought we lost you there Kano, you haven't posted for a while. I bet you are enjoying B5.

[Kano]

Infitismals, hah! I finally am understanding the relationship between space, 3D time, and motion. Thought we lost you there Kano, you haven't posted for a while. I bet you are enjoying B5.

No, no, you're never gonna lose me. As long as this forum is up and running, I am here! I do have to take time outs to reflect on things and do some introspective dot connecting from time to time. 3D time and space and RS, it's heavy stuff but I love it! I am almost through the first season of B5 and my fiancee and I are loving it. So far, G'Kar is our favorite character. He reminds me a little of a role Louis Gossett Jr. played as an alien (can't think of the movie name) and I loved it as a kid. Hope you all are well!