"anonymous" after logging in can occur in a Simulated Universe if the system logs you out before posting your message. A way out is to compose your message, select and copy it, log out, log in again, then paste and send before something screwy happens.

"a Supreme Programmer, is NOT, repeat NOT, a supernatural agent. If we (life, the Universe and everything) have been created by a set of various software programmes, then the creator IMHO is a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood entity who can, will, and has make mistakes in creating our virtual landscape, thus accounting for all of the anomalies that the Universe seems to throw at us."

Let us not use words too loosely. A flesh-and-blood entity must likely eat to nourish his flesh and blood. And if he eats, he must pass stool and urinate, therefore he must kidneys, bladder and intestines. He must breathe in and breathe out, so he must have lungs. But all these activities is what we the simulated do, therefore the Supreme programmer is a simulation of a more supreme programmer, who in turn is a simulation of a more supreme programmer, ad infinitum.

Simulated Universe is interesting and has its use in discovering truth whether our universe and all activities in it are ultimately digital. But that same little voice that whispered to Einstein, tells me that God does not play computer games.

Oh, you do not like the term supernatural agent? How about master gamer instead?

"If we (life, the Universe and everything) have been created by a set of various software programmes, then the creator IMHO is a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood entity who can, will, and has make mistakes in creating our virtual landscape, thus accounting for all of the anomalies that the Universe seems to throw at us. In fact the existence of anomalies is one of those predictions that arise from the simulation hypothesis."

There are no rules about supernatural agents...they can be mortal, they can be as human as anyone, in fact, SA's can be anything you want them to me. They can make mistakes, they can make anomalies, they can even be fallible. Since it is all unproveable, SA's can be anything you or anyone else wants them to be.

If that upsets the applecart, so be it. My believe is for a simpler reality...

Zeeya,

I have a new unpublished model of reality, so this seems to be the thread for me. Since I have been working by myself on unconventional material for a long time, I need to understand how to best explain its many unusual assumptions and implications to the larger community and to recruit others to help with the long term research. The technical details are so extensive that a thorough discussion would demand its own forum thread. Simpler details and synopses are appropriate here, however.

As far as I know, I am the only person to go beyond philosophical speculation on how mathematics and science are dual to each other and to develop the foundation for a specific co-construction of mathematics and science. The insight is to start with Einstein's maxim that the laws of nature are the "simplest conceivable mathematics", to see that algorithmic simplicity requires choosing symbols with the maximum "meaning", and to use divisibility as the measure of that "meaning". Specifically I extend Ramanujan's composite number theory to build a 12 number index of the dimensions of the mathematical structures that correspond to "elementary" physical structures. I use a bit of logic, topology, and empiricism to choose what is "elementary". Some of the numbers directly correspond to well known physical values. Others require a moderate amount of calculation.

The result is a Shakespearian universe: All the World's a Stage - to play out the acts of life (and the rest of the universe is a backdrop). There is a Big Bang / Current Epoch duality similar to wave/particle duality. People are in a privileged position as to epoch, scale, and living on the Earth (which has its own privileged position), so the model is thoroughly non-Copernican. Since my specialization runs orthogonally across standard academic disciplines, I need to cast my presentation in a larger context. I wrote the following 5 applications of my theory at the request of Ryan Foland, Assistant Director of UC-Irvine's ANTrepeneur Center, so they could look for mentors for the development of large scale research. The first, Fundamental Mathematical Science, is an extension of Theoretical Physics and is the one directly relating to the FQXi community.

1) Fundamental Mathematical Science - Fundamental science has reached a point of stagnation recently with the discovery of a standard Higgs boson at the LHC at CERN. This completes the Standard Model of Particle Physics with there being no evidence for further particles, yet 95% of the apparent mass of the universe is unexplained. My theory involves nonstandard extensions of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory that allow further fundamental scientific progress. Such progress is essential to the high level mission of major math and science institutions, e.g., AMS, APS, NSF, and ICSU.

2) Cosmic Democracy - The philosophical starting point of my theory is that everything in the cosmos creates everything else. This provides an alternative to the traditional theology currently being rapidly abandoned by young adults in the U.S.

3) Advanced Enzymology - An elementary level of my theory gives the correct density for lithium, bond length for methane, and diamond lattice constant. Extending the theory to amorphous matter should give an advanced enzymology, because the typical major parameters of enzymes are of roughly the same size as in these elementary results. This will support synthetic biology and major medical interventions based on using new sets of enzymes.

4) Nanoengineering - The current International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) projects to the year 2028 with widths down to 5 nm (twice the fundamental length of my theory). Further progress will get into the realm of engineering atomically precise nanostructures through directed self assembly. The further reduction of power consumption in computation will require using new processes, e.g., superconductivity, electromechanical memory, and spintronics. Nanoengineering at this scale will need more efficient mathematics based on my theory. This extension of ITRS will also be useful for other technology than computation, e.g., biotechnology.

5) Low energy nuclear reactions - Devices now generating these reactions quickly self-destruct at the microscale. Conventional physics provides no effective theory for understanding how to control these destructive secondary reactions. My theory has a particular branch covering them, so potentially can lead to practical small nuclear heat sources. Bill Gates had a discussion Nov 12 with Italy's leading cold fusionist Vittorio Violante at ENEA's Frascati Lab, so there may be new research money available through him.

Supernatural just means outside of what is the natural order. Your simulation defines a natural order and what lies outside of your simulation is then supernatural, i.e. the master gamer. Even Blind Freddy can see that.

Your master gamer is very much like the Zeus of ancient Greece. Manipulating nature and humans for diversion, but still fallible and subject to the fates of time. As long as Blind Freddy read about ancient Greece, he would see that too.

John,

The angular diameters of the sun and moon are both nearly one-half degree or 1/720 of a circle. This and the age of the universe at the current epoch can be easily derived from elementary number theory, so beautiful solar eclipses do not result from just a coincidence. Your "Simulation Hypothesis" is another way of looking at "Cosmic Democracy" and "Fundamental Mathematical Science."

Look, this is your simulation, not mine. You are the one proposing that all of reality is a simulation, not me. I am just pointing out that the ancient Greeks had a very similar if not identical notion...and I think Blind Freddy would agree.

Everything that we can know is within this universe. Everything that we can never know lies outside of this universe. The boundaries of the universe are the limits of what we can know and we simply must accept those limits as axioms or beliefs.

You have decided to create another universe outside of ours and call it a simulation and you evidently believe that this is somehow helpful for predicting action. It certainly is helpful for predicting your actions...over and over and over and over again...you might be stuck in one of your master gamers do-loops.

Please, don't clog the blog...

I always like it when someone pulls the "lots of other smart people believe in this" card...Augustine of Hippo and Paul of Tarsus are there right with you playing that subroutine. I admire your desire to explore the deep issues of the universe and am there with you, but you do need to get a grip.

Your ability to parse concepts into little boxes helps you avoid the obvious Zeus of Mount Olympus as master gamer. There just might just be a server buried in the Parthenon somewhere you know...or maybe in a pyramid of Egypt or a Mayan cave?

"You are clearly NOT reading, or at least NOT comprehending what I've been saying. I have NEVER claimed all of reality is a simulation, just our reality. One level, or maybe more, on up the chain, there exists a really real reality that has simulated what we think is our reality."

Well, I am reading what you wrote and am simply pointing out the logic of your approach. All I am saying is that "our reality" is the only level while you are the one suggesting there are other levels of that subroutine. In the hierarchy of programming, the kernal usually is the master recursion, the parent, that manages all of the details of its children's realities. My use of supernatural seems to upset you, so just call it hierarchial reality instead. To me, it is just semantics.

  • [deleted]

Mr. Agnew,

If I were the ONLY person past or present who has ever postulated that we are just virtual beings living in a simulated landscape, well then you would probably be right that I need to get a grip or else have society remove me to the confines of a padded cell at the funny farm. I just point out that when it comes to this idea that I'm not the Lone Ranger; I'm not the first to speculate; I'm not even the best and brightest who have waxed lyrical on the simulation hypothesis. That's just being honest and truthful. So, by implication, a lot of other people therefore in your opinion must need to get a grip too and/or who display faulty logic. It's not just my approach you're attacking. Just saying. I just happen to be in the here and now the visible and only 'face' on this website with respect to this topic.

Now back to your use of the term supernatural. I would not suggest that when we create our simulations that we are engaging in a supernatural activity. However, if by supernatural you mean do humans play God, well the answer is "Yes". We have played God for thousands of years. All of medicine, ancient and modern, and medicines are the result of humans playing God. Ditto the artificial selection we enforce on otherwise natural plants and animals turning them into artificially created breeds for our benefit. Corn, wheat, roses, cats, dogs, horses, cattle, goldfish, etc. are cases in point. We do a good job at playing God. Apart from selective breeding, there's a whole host of biotechnologies, genetic engineering, and of course abortion, capital punishment and all sorts of other moral and ethical issues we assume Godly status over. So, in this sense we engage in 'supernatural' activities. I still find it however a hard stretch to attribute the simulation hypothesis, be it we are the simulation and/or we create simulations, as an exercise in all things supernatural. Another form of simulation is of course when we dream, even daydream. Is that supernatural? And what about creating a film or a TV series. Is that a supernatural activity?

Yes, we've played God since Day One so if that makes us supernatural, okay, then we're supernatural. We've dethroned God and told Him to move over and we've moved in and taken over His territory. Let's just go along with your observation that it is all semantics and call it quits at that. A rose by any other name can apply here.

John Prytz

Then we are in agreement...your master gamer is Zeus...

"However, if by supernatural you mean do humans play God, well the answer is "Yes"."

And one of the strongest arguments for the veracity of the various supernatural agents, the bible, the koran, the vedas, and the dao are all that a large number of people believe devoutly in those stories. You are not alone by any means. Those stories explain anything and everything.

What I am after are the simpler stories that predict action better than older stories.

That question is nicely answered by Leonard Susskind in his lectures about quantum entanglement available via resources on the Fqxi home page.I'll try to explain in my own words based on what I learned from those lectures.

Its rather like asking does an average exist before its calculated? We may all have heard about an average of 2.5 children, when I was a child it was the average number of children in British families. However we also know that there are no families that actually have 2.5 children. So the average is not a real material (of matter)thing but it does accurately describe something about the number of children in a population.

Do the quantum probabilities exist prior to the measurements being made, yes in the same way that there is an average number of children that could be calculated. Both say something about the system under consideration without having a material(of matter)existence.

John,

You say averages and probabilities are abstract. Yes I agree and tried to demonstrate that with the 2.5 children example. Your cat examples work too. Leonard Susskind explained that for electron spin state, upon measurement, it can only be spin up or spin down so there is a 50 50 chance that it is one or the other but that makes the average or expectation value 0, half way between spin up and spin down even though that is never detected. So the average never has actual material reality even though it is an accurate description of that system. That's like your not 80% have kittens but individually they 100% have kittens or they 100%don't. They individually never 80% have kittens. It isn't a description of individual cats or particles but how cats and particles behave in general. If your job is feral cat population controller then the 80% average figure is very useful in working out estimated population growth over time.

You say "However, in the real world, if you remove the conscious human mind from the picture then statistics and probabilities go out the window." but contradict that by saying " Like cats, quantum physics pre-dates human consciousness too." Certainly sub atomic particles doing what they do does pre date human consciousness. However like it or not sub atomic particles behave in probabilistic ways. Whether a particle is detected spin up or spin down has a half life, explains leonard Susskind, the longer the elapsed time the greater the probability it will be found spin up. Radioactive decay is probabilistic. If there is a half life of 100 years it is not possible to predict when any individual particle will decay. It can be anything between Now and when the last particle decays. But in 100 years half of the particles will have decayed. And in the next 100 years half of what was left will decay and so on. It does not require a human observer for that mathematically ordered, probabilistic, decay process to occur.

I should have said for clarity -the greater the elapsed time within the magnetic field of the detector...

John, All

I haven't watched all of Leonartd Susskind's lectures yet. Though I intend to watch more as he is a very good teacher explaining things thoroughly step by step.

Things like the spin of an electron are determined by the measurement. Prior to measurement the spin vector can be in any direction but putting the electron between the magnetic field to measure it results in either release of a photon, called spin up or not called spin down, so there are only two possible outcomes rather than many. So the act of measurement is forcing the many possibilities into only two possible outcomes one of which will be detected, photon or no photon.

When a coin is spinning and falling it isn't possible to say if it is heads or tails because a measurement is needed to force it into one or the other possibilities. What it is found to be will in part be determined by how, when and where the measurement is taken and only partly by the state of the coin prior to measurement. So though the state of the coin itself prior to measurement requires no observation. The determination of whether it is heads or tails at a point in time and space requires a sample to be taken. How it is taken also affecting the outcome. Whether the hand just opened, or the catching hand flipped and the coin placed on the back of the other non catching hand.

That outcome would have happened under those same circumstances whether the measurement was taken or not, because of the state of the particle prior to measurement, that has nothing to do with an observer.

As I see it physics is happening across the sequence of iterations of the Object universe. There are particles and objects and they are behaving in probabilistic ways. I have tried to create an analogy by talking about lion behavior and the probabilities of finding lions in certain places within its territory. Lion behavior is not a lion. Particle behavior is not a particle.

In my opinion what is happening is a switch from a situation where the state of a particle is unknown ( except for the probabilities of being in a particular state that can have been found by previous measurement of that system many, many times)Finding the probabilities allows predictions to be made such as 70% chance it will be "x". Without that prior measurement nothing is known. Upon measurement a singular Image reality is produced co-created by the observer.

That is, by the how, where and when the potential sensory data is sampled to produce the observed output.

I should have said -So though the state of the coin itself prior to measurement requires no observation, the determination of whether it is heads or tails at a position in time and space, IE at a position within a particular iteration of the Object universe, requires a sample to be taken.

I should also perhaps have emphasized more clearly that the sate of the coin is not just unknown prior to the sampling,it doesn't have a singular state prior to detection. Its behavior is spread over many iterations of the Object universe. Its orientation is altering not fixed and can be represented by points in phase space or values in state space.

There is a switch from considering generic behaviour to considering just one definite orientation found for one position and iteration(time) and sampling method. The generic behaviour is not an object.It seems to me that that is why it can be said to be in superposition of states whereas an an object observed by a singular observer can not.

Moving this post here as I put it in wrong place :Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 28, 2014 @ 23:31 GMT

I should have said -So though the state of the coin itself prior to measurement requires no observation, the determination of whether it is heads or tails at a position in time and space, IE at a position within a particular iteration of the Object universe, requires a sample to be taken.

I should also perhaps have emphasized more clearly that the sate of the coin is not just unknown prior to the sampling,it doesn't have a singular state prior to detection. Its behavior is spread over many iterations of the Object universe. Its orientation is altering not fixed and can be represented by points in phase space or values in state space.

There is a switch from considering generic behaviour to considering just one definite orientation found for one position and iteration(time) and sampling method. The generic behaviour is not an object.It seems to me that that is why it can be said to be in superposition of states whereas an an object observed by a singular observer can not.

My previous post is in the wrong place and can be deleted. Have copied it to the correct place.

continuing the clarification started in that previous post

I wrote -That outcome would have happened under those same circumstances whether the measurement was taken or not, because of the state of the particle prior to measurement, that has nothing to do with an observer.

I mean by that if the coin is caught and manipulated in that way the result (state of the coin) is the same whether the observer looks at the coin creating an image reality or not. It is catching the coin that causes it to cease being engaged in behavior that can be described as a superposition of states to being just a coin with a particular characteristic. The former behavior ceases, and no longer exists and is replaced by consideration of a static state.Though it will also depend upon how the measurement is taken.

Also I meant to Write Leonard Susskind. Apology to him for mispelling.

John thank you for your reply.

All,

Leonard Susskind explains that the spin vector of an electron can theoretically have any orientation. We don't know what it is so can't say which orientation it has. However magnetic fields have an effect on electrons and cause them to become aligned. Magnetism results from many aligned electrons. So the magnets permit two orientations of the spin vector, spin down or spin up. So the many possible orientations are forced into just two possibilities by the act of measurement or rather the apparatus necessary to make a measurement.

Considering the behaviour of many electrons in general, yes they could very well be in a variety of orientations not just two possible states.They might be rolling around with a fluctuating orientation of spin vector being influenced by the environment. It is not possible to say what the states of any single electron is in,without measurement which forces it to be just one of two possible states. It can be considered to be in a superposition of states prior to measurement which is just all the states it can be, not at a place and time in space but in an abstract theoretical space.Which is just a useful theoretical holding pen not an actual limbo.

Think about a coin falling in the air . It can be viewed from many different angles including from above and below. Knowing that do you consider it possible to say that the coin is heads or tails? When the coin hits the floor in your scenario a measurement takes place. It has a where, when and how component. Those components together with the physics of the coin itself, how it is falling , determine what state results. All that is missing is the observer to turn that fixed state into a see-able Image reality. Coin under the bed is like detecting the spin of the electron but not looking at the output result. It remains unknown but already has fixed state prior to the observer's Image reality being formed.

My opinion on these matters differs from mainstream because I am sure that there is an Object reality where actual particles and objects have material existence underlying the space time fabrication that we see. That gives somewhere for the Objects and particles to exist prior to observation that is not just abstract state space or phase space, those theoretical holding pens. Without that Object reality the coin, for example, would remain in superposition of states right up until observation when it becomes a visible reality, as only the visible space-time reality is considered to be real.