• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we living in a hologram?

Rogue Valley said:
What I was referring to is a computer simulation managed with advanced AI software.

From what I can recall of the theoretical science back and forth, there is no way to disprove such a scenario.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the "simulation hypothesis" or "simulation theory" or "simulated universe theory".

But - and I cannot begin to imagine where I saw it - I had read some articles in the past few years that did mention theoretical ways a simulation might be detected. e.g.,



More realistically, physicists have proposed experiments that could yield evidence that our world is simulated. For example, some have wondered if the world is inherently “smooth,” or if, at the smallest scales, it might be made up of discrete “chunks” a bit like the pixels in a digital image. If we determine that the world is “pixelated” in this way, it could be evidence that it was created artificially. A team of American and German physicists have argued that careful measurements of cosmic rays could provide an answer.

Are we living in a simulated universe? Here'''s what scientists say.


What reads like an 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. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation



Also:


Is 'reality' unreal? Scientists aim to find out - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

https://medium.com/amazing-science/the-theory-of-the-simulated-universe-ffad5bc57c17
 
Dōmo arigatō, Mr. Roboto

zyzygy said:
Could such advanced software cause us to feel emotions and pain?
Click to expand...

Here, let me help you with that:

Could such advanced software cause us to feel emotions and pain?

There you go ...
 
Re: ... & the skies are not cloudy all day

zyzygy said:
In the grip of the Matrix! Who will save them?
Click to expand...

Alack & alas! These being the days of white hats, black & gray, virtual beings (& otherwise) will unfortunately have to self-extract.
 
Re: ... & the skies are not cloudy all day

southwest88 said:
Alack & alas! These being the days of white hats, black & gray, virtual beings (& otherwise) will unfortunately have to self-extract.
Click to expand...

The trouble they went to back then! Painting everything black, white and grey before they started filming or taking a photograph!
 
Mr Person said:
To be clear, the holographic universe theory is more of a different way to view reality.

It's entirely separate from any notion that we are a simulation (ie, a hologram produced by a program run on Star Trek's holodeck). I really can't explain it any better than the links. And I'd bet one would have to be a theoretical physicist to truly grasp the point.

But again, it's not that we are holograms generated by a computer, aka, simulations. We are "real" in a holographic universe, it's just that the three large spatial dimensions are an illusion created by information on a two-dimensional surface (but again, not 'information' in the sense of a program running on a computer somewhere)
Click to expand...

Yep, you got it. As one of my friends says: (A pretty damn good physicist) "When you start realizing that there are no actual particles but just fields of energy, your mind can accept things that don't sound quite right with normal knowledge." I also love his thought on Mother nature>> Something like: "You know when I was putting your skills together, like making sure your major senses (Hearing, eyes, ears) were close to your brain so that large animal on your right side MIGHT not be able to stalk you, I was pretty damn busy, so EXCUSE me if I didn't have time to explain Quantum Physics to your primitive ass!" :)
 
Mr Person said:
I think he's accidentally referring to the holographic universe theory...

Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram. The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. It's called the holographic principle. The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world — and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth.

It might sound absurd. But when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems — such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics — become much simpler to solve. In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three."It's not considered some wild speculation among most theoretical physicists," says Leonard Susskind, the Stanford physicist who first formally defined the idea decades ago. "It's become a working, everyday tool to solve problems in physics."

[cont].

Holographic universe theory: why some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram - Vox

See also

Information in the Holographic Universe - Scientific American

Holographic principle - Wikipedia


There is of course the separate theory that the universe is simulated....but I've never heard to it referred to with "hologram"...
Click to expand...

Holographic Universe is a its a convenient mathematical construct to simplify physics problems. It isn't a philosophical expression of reality.
 
Jonsa said:
Holographic Universe is a its a convenient mathematical construct to simplify physics problems. It isn't a philosophical expression of reality.
Click to expand...

That appears to depend on which physicist you ask (and from what I gather, not merely simplify, but solve, like information loss re: black holes); some think the first leads to the second.

And I understand it isn't much of a solid theory of this is how things are. But it's an idea some toy with.




If a way of approaching difficult problems in physics provides solutions (or appears that it might help lead to them), is it really not worth considering whether it might actually reflect reality more accurately? I know I'm not in that field. I know I can only sort of half-grasp the implications of using this to solve equations, at the very best I might manage. But it seems to me that if an approach leads people to solutions they did not arrive at otherwise, it is worth considering whether that approach accurately describes observable reality.
 
Mr Person said:
That appears to depend on which physicist you ask (and from what I gather, not merely simplify, but solve, like information loss re: black holes); some think the first leads to the second.

And I understand it isn't much of a solid theory of this is how things are. But it's an idea some toy with.




If a way of approaching difficult problems in physics provides solutions (or appears that it might help lead to them), is it really not worth considering whether it might actually reflect reality more accurately? I know I'm not in that field. I know I can only sort of half-grasp the implications of using this to solve equations, at the very best I might manage. But it seems to me that if an approach leads people to solutions they did not arrive at otherwise, it is worth considering whether that approach accurately describes observable reality.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, I was pointing out to the OP that this hologram idea is not a philosophical statement but a legitimate tool.
 
Jonsa said:
Oh I agree, I was pointing out to the OP that this hologram idea is not a philosophical statement but a legitimate tool.
Click to expand...

Oh, heh, gotcha.
 
Jonsa said:
Oh I agree, I was pointing out to the OP that this hologram idea is not a philosophical statement but a legitimate tool.
Click to expand...

the religion of science takes it vey seriously, it seems.
 
Palandro said:
the religion of science takes it vey seriously, it seems.
Click to expand...

hello mcfly!!!????

yes its a seriously useful mathematical construct. if you are positing that mathematics is the "religion of science" (neat oxymoron) I think you have a defensible position.
 
Jonsa said:
hello mcfly!!!????

yes its a seriously useful mathematical construct. if you are positing that mathematics is the "religion of science" (neat oxymoron) I think you have a defensible position.
Click to expand...

'Modern Academic Science" is indeed a religion, and yes, there are even huge problems with mathematics.
 
Palandro said:
'Modern Academic Science" is indeed a religion, and yes, there are even huge problems with mathematics.
Click to expand...

Name some of the problems. (What am I saying!?) Jack Nicholson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom