We are playing a simulation of a galaxy, and real science claims the universe "could" be a simulation

[Besensec]

A few off topics I would like to address, if I may!

Simulation hypotheses are more philosophy than science, though.

Although you didn't state the contrary, I want to stress that Science has more Philosophy than most people normally believes (even philosophers), in fact, they even share the same ultimate purpose; a complete understanding of the world (doesn't that sound like Cosmology? or like the hypothetical Theory of Everything?). Aristotle for instance, was as much of a scientist as a philosopher, and that is because, back then, being one or the other was pretty much the same thing. This is applicable to nearly every intellectual before the industrial revolution. Something happened along the way, I don't know if it was the division of labor, plain arrogance, or postmodernism what created the separation and the tension between those two (probably a mix of everything). Anyway, with the rise of cognitive sciences all the disciplines are coming back together.

I read some time back that our universe is strictly observable--meaning that it only exists when observed.

I think this is a distortion of the Uncertainty Principle and the Observer Effect, popularized horribly in 'What the Bleep'. What actually is going on, as far as I understand, is that no particle can be measured without affecting it in one way or another. The fact of measuring/observing a particle alters inevitably its position and its direction. But that has nothing to do with influencing any particle with your sight or with the mind having some direct causal power over the quantum level. The universe is observable in the sense that you can measure it, and everything in it is potentially measurable. When this notion is taken out of context, people tend to equal 'observation' with 'sight' or with 'conscious agency', and from there they can draw all sorts of crazy conclusions (such as the idea of the universe collapsing into existence as we see it).

It's the exact same conundrum as "Does a falling tree make a sound if nobody is around to hear it?"

Pure existential philosophy. Of course, we KNOW that computer games only render objects when they're observed because we've designed them that way. That doesn't mean the rest of the game doesn't exist in some way.

Your argument is good, but I would like to say two things: (1) Existential Philosophy is something else. Is the Philosophy about the meaning of being an individual. And (2) The famous question about sound and falling trees, although you might connect it with Existentialism, it is strongly related to Epistemology or Gnoseology, and as such, is closer to the question for the nature of sensory experiences, and therefore, not entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. In other words; it wonders on whether our senses are fabrications of our minds or if the world around us really sounds. The apparent consensus so far is that the world doesn't make any sounds, it only moves. Is just that hearing emerged as a good candidate as a method to protect and replicate genes, is nothing more than a translation of kinetic energy into manageable information.

Off topic over, go on

 

[playfuldreamer]

It is nothing like that, either. The idea of quantum state very much came from empirical evidence. The problem is that when it is explained in layman terms they use words that are easy to misunderstand. 'observed', for example, doesn't mean 'someone looking at it'. And 'exists' doesn't mean that it 'doesnt exist' in quantum state. So the comparison between the 'it only exists when observed' and 'its like occlusion culling in computer games' is made because people misunderstand both the concept of being observed and the form of existence.

In physics, these mistakes are not made, and it is not doing it justice by calling it mere philosphy.

If we didn't transcribe complex scientific concepts into words for laypersons, interest in science would be even more pathetic than it is now. I'll take some of the misunderstandings or misinterpretations if it means science can reach a wider audience--and perhaps inspire someone to dig deeper themselves.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Although you didn't state the contrary, I want to stress that Science has more Philosophy than most people normally believes (even philosophers), in fact, they even share the same ultimate purpose; a complete understanding of the world (doesn't that sound like Cosmology? or like the hypothetical Theory of Everything?). Aristotle for instance, was as much of a scientist as a philosopher, and that is because, back then, being one or the other was pretty much the same thing. This is applicable to nearly every intellectual before the industrial revolution. Something happened along the way, I don't know if it was the division of labor, plain arrogance, or postmodernism what created the separation and the tension between those two (probably a mix of everything). Anyway, with the rise of cognitive sciences all the disciplines are coming back together.

Put crudely: philosophy has no tools empirical science doesn't have as well, yet experimental science does have tools philosophy does not have: the scientific method. Or even more crudely, in modern times a philosopher is only half a scientist.

- - - Updated - - -

If we didn't transcribe complex scientific concepts into words for laypersons, interest in science would be even more pathetic than it is now. I'll take some of the misunderstandings or misinterpretations if it means science can reach a wider audience--and perhaps inspire someone to dig deeper themselves.

Oh, not gonna disagree there.

 

[Besensec]

I'll take some of the misunderstandings or misinterpretations if it means science can reach a wider audience

The lack of interest in science is rooted in misunderstanding.

 

[playfuldreamer]

The lack of interest in science is rooted in misunderstanding.

Perhaps, but it's also rooted in science's inaccessibility. It's daunting to look at words like "quantum entanglement" and "String Theory" and not feel like Sisyphus staring at the hill.

Coincidentally, it's also daunting for someone not into mythology to look at the word "Sisyphus" and not be lost.

 

[space pilot]

the obvious question: if our universe is a simulation, what's it a simulation OF? no scientist has ever said

The obvious answer would be the past.

They did that in The Matrix. The why was stupid though, cows would have been a better choice.

 

[NascentChemist]

The lack of interest in science is rooted in misunderstanding.

Yeah, have to agree with this. There's a growing body of academic research on the role early misunderstandings can have on later aptitude or interest in science. Once you've got a wrong idea in you head, it can be impossible to get rid of completely. It can also lie dormant until you need to build on it, at which point a student can become frustrated enough to walk away from STEM.

Here's my example of a brain-worm I can't get rid of completely. Somehow in middle or high school, I learned that bacteria have an RNA genome. For the life of me I can't stop that "fact" from popping into my head, and I'm a biochemist! I can isolate a gene, transfer it to a vector, and force E. coli to express the damn protein! But I still have trouble with that years old misunderstanding.

 

[Punished Mobius]

But why doesn't Toggle ROTAIONAL CORRECTION have any purpose in 2.3 any longer if it's still inside our simulation?

Asking the real questions right here.

 

[Besensec]

Perhaps, but it's also rooted in science's inaccessibility. It's daunting to look at words like "quantum entanglement" and "String Theory" and not feel like Sisyphus staring at the hill.

Coincidentally, it's also daunting for someone not into mythology to look at the word "Sisyphus" and not be lost.

We agree in the diagnosis, but not in the solution. You said that simplifying science at the expense of confusion is better than scientific illiteracy. I think is worst, for instance the already mentioned misunderstanding of the Observer Effect is what gave New Age scams, such as 'The Secret', some force in a deliberate attempt to look 'scientifically proven'. There are other cases in which the Theory of Evolution is misunderstood for ad hoc arguments supporting some misconceived idea of superiority of the nature of entity/quality/population X. In this type of cases, misunderstanding of science is far more pervasive and dangerous than no understanding at all, and even more, the whole idea of scientific literacy is to protect oneself from those.

Furthermore, there is nothing daunting in scientific terminology either, the problem of the feeling of anxiety towards those terms is not intrinsic to those terms. It is rooted in the school system, in how knowledge is acquired at an early stage, in how the entire system neglectfully deals with the feeling of ignorance, and the misrepresented classification of humanities vs sciences / letters vs numbers being perpetuated by a neglectful detection of talents. It is quite foked up. But the point is, misunderstanding science is as bad as ignoring it. If there is an alternative to not understanding science, is actually understanding ignorance.

 

[DocPossible]

This falls heavily into the "fun stuff to speculate about", but like String Theory that's all it is. It's great for pop sci, something which Susskind excels at, but it's not real science.

 

[Strangepork]

Not that I buy this "universe" being a simulation, I don't really understand the physics behind it all.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation

but it does amuse me that we are playing a game which is a simulation of the galaxy, and our avatars are two levels of inception down.

Or we are a playing future version of Elite 6th, made by a cybernetically enhanced David Braben in the year 2105 letting us play a version of our younger selfs in 2017.

Elite is real, in a simulation the AI would be far more intellegent.

 

[Besensec]

This falls heavily into the "fun stuff to speculate about"...

No need to be dismissive, since that is how most major theories came about.

 

[DocPossible]

No need to be dismissive, since that is how most major theories came about.

And all failed ones too When it comes up with predictions that can be tested by experiments we can actually perform, then it'll get interesting. I'm not dismissing it, just putting it in the 'speculative' category for now.

 

[space pilot]

There are other cases in which the Theory of Evolution is misunderstood for ad hoc arguments supporting some misconceived idea of superiority of the nature of entity/quality/population X. In this type of cases, misunderstanding of science is far more pervasive and dangerous than no understanding at all, and even more, the whole idea of scientific literacy is to protect oneself from those.

Many people can't understand evolution no matter how much effort is spent explaining it. It appears to be something you can't get while only thinking about one component at a time, like mutation or selection. You have to think about both, and some can't. So good luck!

 

[Besensec]

And all failed ones too When it comes up with predictions that can be tested by experiments we can actually perform, then it'll get interesting. I'm not dismissing it, just putting it in the 'speculative' category for now.

All theories are supposed to fail anyway, and current theories are the product of failed ones!

 

[AsukaZ]

I recall some time ago some group came to the conclusion that the most probable explanation is we are in an 'ancestor simulation'. A very low probability I might add, but apparently more likely than other 'supernatural' explanations.

Also Einstein is quoted as saying "Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". Draw from that what you will.

 

[space pilot]

I recall some time ago some group came to the conclusion that the most probable explanation is we are in an 'ancestor simulation'. A very low probability I might add, but apparently more likely than other 'supernatural' explanations.

How do you calculate the probability? First you have to decide it's possible for such simulations to be implemented, an assumption. Then you have to decide other intelligent beings exist, an assumption. Then guess at how many there are, and whether or not our conception of the universe is similar to the real one, assumptions. Then guess at the motivations of who or what would be instituting such simulations. Assumptions.

You can come up with numbers, but only by using made-up numbers to calculate them. It's all just "maybes".

 

[AsukaZ]

I don't know their methodology, apparently the idea is whatever humans evolved into were curious about their distant ancestors so created the simulation. Their technology would seem like magic.

But you're right, it's all just maybes.

 

[space pilot]

I don't know their methodology, apparently the idea is whatever humans evolved into were curious about their distant ancestors so created the simulation. Their technology would seem like magic.

But you're right, it's all just maybes.

Right. As far as I recall that occured to me independently as well, the "anthropological study" simulation. But there's no way to calculate how likely it is we live in any simulation, nor any way to calculate what variety of simulation it would be.

It's really easy to say something like "Obviously on our current path we'll be able to create entirely simulated worlds populated by AI that would be convincing to any of us, in the future. Therefore it probably is the future, and it's already happened, and we're living in it"--if you want to get on public television.

 

[AsukaZ]

Right. As far as I recall that occured to me independently as well, the "anthropological study" simulation. But there's no way to calculate how likely it is we live in any simulation, nor any way to calculate what variety of simulation it would be.

It's really easy to say something like "Obviously on our current path we'll be able to create entirely simulated worlds populated by AI that would be convincing to any of us, in the future. Therefore it probably is the future, and it's already happened, and we're living in it"--if you want to get on public television.

If I recall correctly they weren't looking for a true description of reality but more what was the most likely of these alternative explanations.

When you say "it's not possible to calculate ..", well they must have have some confidence in their numbers or they would't publish. Like I said, I don't know their methodology so I can't really comment.