Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:11 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:50 pm You don't get it, you are focusing on the said system only, discarding the rest of the quantum realm inside the sphere, which also needs to be simulated. Thus making such a simulation classical, even if you have a perfect statistical description of the said system down to the quantum level (which isn't the same as a perfect simulation either).

Well, let me try and re-explain it then.

The Bekkenstein bound doesn't care that the universe is 'quantum' or 'classical'. It pre-supposes that energy exists and its consequence - mass, and therefore the Higgs boson/field!

And so as long as we only care about RE-DESCRIBING the universe so that it is indistinguishable TO A QUANTUM PHYSICIST then we are good to go!
There is no distinction between a perfect and imperfect simulation if the system responds isomorphically for all inputs!

That is - there is no distinction between 'brain-in-a-vat' and 'simulated universe'! Unless you propose an experiment for HOW we tell whether THIS universe is simulated!

Basically. The only violation of the laws of physics would occur if we were to INVENT ENERGY. Out of thin air!

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:27 pm Again: the Bekenstein bound only deals with the already classical "part" of our universe, and the statistical quantum behaviour of that classical "part". That's what quantum physicists work with. So you don't address the whole-universe simulation, which needs to take into account all of the quantum realm at Planck-scale.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:30 pm So you don't propose any experiment to determine if this universe we live in is a simulation?

I wonder why

And it's not a "brain in a vat' It's brainS in a vat. It's multiplayer!

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:34 pm Quote where I wrote that.

Of course I've been considering such possiblities for decades now but have so far seen zero evidence.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:36 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:34 pm Quote where I wrote that.

Of course I've been considering such possiblities for decades now but have so far seen zero evidence.

You didn't need to say it. You have it backwards. First you contrive the experiment THEN you run it e.g obtain the evidence/results.

So don't worry about evidence for now. HOW would you tell the difference between a simulated universe and a real one?

Can you even conceptualize such an experience?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:41 pm If it's a good enough simulation then there's no way to tell. Even if there are glitches or whatever they'll just mess with our memory so we forget about them.

Otherwise, well, basically glitches. Unexplicable exceptions to the laws of physics, and I don't know of any.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:57 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:41 pm If it's a good enough simulation then there's no way to tell. Even if there are glitches or whatever they'll just mess with our memory so we forget about them.

Otherwise, well, basically glitches. Unexplicable exceptions to the laws of physics, and I don't know of any.

There are glitches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Which would indicate more than one time dimension. Exactly like in a computer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_time

Try define the word 'prediction' (as in scientific prediction) without defining time.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:08 pm Problems about time can possibly be solved in some multiverse view about QM. Also, by understanding that Einstein spacetime is a local feature of an entirely quantum and timeless universe, you never even considered the possibility of circular time.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:12 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:08 pm Problems about time can possibly be solved in some multiverse view about QM. Also, by understanding that Einstein spacetime is a local feature of an entirely quantum and timeless universe, you never even considered the possibility of circular time.

Totally. In which case the arrow of time is made up. And that's the kind of wrong I WANT to be.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:28 pm Of course the arrow of time is "made up". That's why I showed you the quantum Zeno, it neatly demonstrates the actual timelessness of the universe.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:28 pm Of course the arrow of time is "made up". That's why I showed you the quantum Zeno, it neatly demonstrates the actual timelessness of the universe.

It doesn't because the experiment doesn't exist in a vacuum :/ It can be interpreted in two ways. Quantum 'observations' are not passive. By measuring we are INTERACTING with the system. By INTERACTING with the system we are putting energy INTO the system.

Cause and effect... So all that the quantum Xeno effect could mean is that we've figured out exactly how much energy is required to bring about equilibrium between the quantum system and the measurement apparatus. e.g PAUSE the arrow of time.

In that interpretation - Einstein is right. There is no way around thermodynamics and information doesn't exist.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:48 pm Again: you have missed the greatest mistery they found in the history of science, the one QM is based on, the measurement problem. Quantum observation (measurement) doesn't require an energy transfer. They already experimentally falsified the idea that interaction is the culprit.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:56 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:48 pm Again: you have missed the greatest mistery they found in the history of science, the one QM is based on, the measurement problem. Quantum observation (measurement) doesn't require an energy transfer. They already experimentally falsified the idea that interaction is the culprit.

I am not convinced.

If we don't know what 'time' is - we don't know what a 'prediction' or 'sampling' is either. And yet the Schrodinger equation 'predicts' the wave function in respect to 'time'...

That is to say the scientific method itself is broken because of its time dualism.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:01 pm Of course it does; we are human, so by and large we are bound by time. That's a tautology.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:01 pm Of course it does; we are human, so by and large we are bound by time. That's a tautology.

Which is why we need to re-define/re-invent 'measurement'...

We need to control for 'time' (change) in our experiments and measure in respect to <something else>.
And so by inverting the principle of maximum entropy into a principle of maximum knowledge (we know, with 100% certainty what doesn't change) we can build a measurement apparatus which measures change e.g entropy that is different from a temperature.

Of course, it's all conceptual, I am working my way through the maths