RS2--daniel

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

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.

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.

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

Kano wrote:

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 wrote:

Kano wrote:

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.

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.

aurora wrote: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.