23rd January 2013 - 01:07 PM
Because of there aren’t some comments to the last post I re-post here some post from other forum
Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:06 PM
Semjase, on 17 Jan 2013 - 18:19, said:
This universe may be a computer simulation, scientific evidence is pointing in that
direction as German physicists are trying to prove if this universe is a computer simulation or not.
Here's a link to their story below http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physici...simulation.html
“(Nick Bostrom “famously hypothesized”) … that our very existence may be nothing more than the algorithmic results of a computer simulation. in a holographic universe constructed by vastly superior beings? I know -- it sounds like the basis for good science fiction, but...”
- The “simulation hypothesis”, is in reality, the basis for a science fiction only, since it have a number of evident problems. For example – it is practically impossible to make corresponding simulation of Matter, e.g., every particle interacts with every other particle in Universe, at least by gravity; besides now it is known 3 fundamental forces besides gravity. Even “to simulate”, e.g., a real flight of a stone is necessary to simulate every impact of every air molecule, which, in turn, are dependent on wind, temperature, dust, etc., etc., etc. It seems very probable, that some “vastly superior beings” could find much more useful business, then to game in some puppet-show.
As well as “…The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time...”
– isn’t by any means required by the “simulation hypothesis” only, there are a lot of much more physically based hypotheses, where space-time is discreet.
As well as, for example, the discreet space time is in the informational physical model; the difference – in this case the discreetness of space-time is rigorously grounded; from the model follow a number of experimentally tested rather important physical results – see arXiv:1110.0003 , arXiv:1004.3712 , arXiv:0707.4657 , arXiv:0706.3979 .
Though the “simulation hypothesis” have, by some unknown reasons, very good PR, for example – in May 2011 the info "you’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it"
was in a week widely spread through Web – there were more then 100 000 links.
At that – the info was at least twice incorrect, besides the “hypothesis” itself, the statement that “math proves something” is nonsense. Math cannot prove anything, all what can math, that it guarantees that the math results are consistent with the corresponding initial suggestions/ conditions. So if the suggestions were rubbish, then math results will be rubbish also, and nothing more
And some addition. In contrast to the “simulation hypothesis”, the informational conception/ model haven’t too much PR, moreover, quite the contrary something other things happen. A couple examples – the paper “Space and Time” a month ago was rejected by “Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics” journal (earlier was rejected by two other journal), though it is evidently new, actual and metaphysical.
And – it even seems make one laugh: I info about next iteration of the conception in so called “Cosmocoffee” WEB forum, http://cosmocoffee.info/viewforum.php?f=5&...842304d92cd8f0a
as an anonymous, in the thread “Crackpots”. As well as I placed the info about the next version of the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
, V2. At evening the info existed, at next morning it disappeared…