Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What We Still Don't Know - multiverses and the simulation argument

I was really dissapointed with this series - aside from missing the last one which sounds good, it was all pretty standard stuff. I guess I was expecting a bit more stuff on M-Strings and Brane theory, certainly a lot more stuff on quantum reality and such like.

Oh, and the best variant of the 'we're a simulation' theory is Doug Adams and the Mice...IMHO...

OH yeah, and my best guess on the creation of the universe? Two branes colliding with each other, thus causing a massive release of energy that started our universe.

Or you can take Iain M Banks 'onion' view of reality - the universe is a torioid shape, and like an onio there are outer layers - older universes - and inside there are younger universes, and at the heart of it all is a sporadically exploding cosmic fireball...
 
kropotkin said:
From "the neutronium alchemist" comes this variation:

In a muiltiverse of near-infinite possibilities, it is conceivable that technology can evolve to the position where rips can be made between universes. This means that reality breaks down.

Brilliant.
Now: i'm a Sudanese refugee- how do i grow enough maize to feed my family?
Click to expand...


Try and convince one of the biotech firms to supply some cheap that is engineered to whitstand the climate of Sudan? Or send an army down to stop the fighting and then they get emergency supplies :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :o
 
kyser_soze said:
OH yeah, and my best guess on the creation of the universe? Two branes colliding with each other, thus causing a massive release of energy that started our universe.
Click to expand...

i'm with you kyser.

or at least i saw the same episode of 'horizon' as you did. :)
 
Or you can take Iain M Banks 'onion' view of reality - the universe is a torioid shape, and like an onio there are outer layers - older universes - and inside there are younger universes, and at the heart of it all is a sporadically exploding cosmic fireball...
Click to expand...
He's also used the simulation thing in his fiction. It's something 'Minds' (incredible AI) do to while away the picoseconds. He dubbed it 'The land of infinate fun'. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The "could exist + infinate universe = must exist" argument baffles me a bit, but again, seems perfectly reasonable for the argument. Yes, it sorta proves the existance of a creator in some cases, but not a 'god' in the sense it's normally used.

If we're just actors in some cosmic computer game does it mean we don't have free will?
 
Blagsta said:
I don't think anyone is asking us to believe it. It's fun to think about though.
Click to expand...

I can't believe they were just saying it for a giggle when the rest of the series was about vital, cutting edge science. Brain-in-the-vat, malicious demon nonsense. Perhaps useful in thought experiment hypothesising, not much else.

layabout said:
I'm going with the Simulation Argument.

Always have done.
Click to expand...

He believes it anyway.
 
OH yeah, and my best guess on the creation of the universe? Two branes colliding with each other, thus causing a massive release of energy that started our universe.
Click to expand...

What caused the existence of the branes? That doesn't say much about the origin of the universe - just our section of it.
 
888 said:
What caused the existence of the branes? That doesn't say much about the origin of the universe - just our section of it.
Click to expand...

other branes.

and so on... what makes more sense - a beginning or no beginning at all?

or a long loop of time - dragon eating its own tail - like in superboy!!! :)
 
He's also used the simulation thing in his fiction. It's something 'Minds' (incredible AI) do to while away the picoseconds. He dubbed it 'The land of infinate fun'. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah - the Irreal is first mentioned in Excession. There is a fan theory that Against a Dark Background is in fact an Irreal simulation of a human society cut off from the rest of the universe.
 
akirajoel said:
other branes.

and so on... what makes more sense - a beginning or no beginning at all?

or a long loop of time - dragon eating its own tail - like in superboy!!! :)
Click to expand...

The existence of a beginning relies on the existence of the concept of 'a beginning', which is a human creation based on the concept of linear forward flowing time.
 
Blagsta said:
Personally I think it's quite likely. Look at the increase in computing power over the past 50 years. Extrapolate that over thousands of years...
Click to expand...
Personally I think it's more likely that the tendency for politics to conserve advantage for the powerful will mean, in another 50 years, we'll lose all ability to push electrons around semiconductor wafers and thus computing power will return to zero.

But, then, I'm just an American, someone who lived through the re-theft of the Presidency and will have to live through another 4 years of Gee Dubya, so pardon my pessimism.
 
Blagsta said:
From the Channel 4 website: "4. Multiverse... How about the suggestion that the universe we inhabit is only one of many? If there are many universes, then there must have been many Big Bangs creating them and each could have resulted in a universe with a different set of natural laws. So we would be existing in a universe that is one of many, each with its own peculiar set of laws to define it. If this were the case then it wouldn’t be at all surprising to find that one of the many universes was finely tuned enough for the evolution of life.

Martin Rees explains: ‘If you go into a clothes shop and there’s a large stock, you’re not surprised to find one suit that fits you, whereas if there’s only one suit in stock, then you are surprised to find it fits. So, many universes governed by different laws would remove any reason for surprise at the apparent fine-tuning in our universe.’

In one bountiful leap of imagination, the problem of Intelligent Design is swept aside. Martin Rees has coined the term ‘multiverse’ to describe the whole ensemble of universes. The next leap of imagination takes us even further into the outreaches of sci-fi, or is it sci-fact?"
Click to expand...
The multiverse proposition here is just as speculative as Intelligent Design. Neither proposition is science -- neither can be tested, proven or refuted. Both propositions are akin to saying that the earth is born on the back of a giant turtle or was created 2,000 years ago by a god of certain tribes of people who inhabited the mideast back then. Or arguing over the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin.

No?
 
Yeah but it doesn't stop it being interesting and it doesn't make it necessarily untrue: metaphysics still has value even if it's not scientific.
 
davekriss said:
The multiverse proposition here is just as speculative as Intelligent Design. Neither proposition is science -- neither can be tested, proven or refuted.
Click to expand...

Just up the thread:

me said:
If there were some falsifiable prediction (in this universe, obviously) of a theory that also entails branching - any of the kinds of branching I noted - that'd do me as a kind of second-order test...
Click to expand...

Which is to say: though I haven't thought of a way of directly falsifying many-worlds theories, if some kind of many-worlds interpretation is a necessary consequence of a theory which is testable, then it is science.

The only test for Intelligent Design that I know of involves conducting a sin-free life (though choice of definitions is a problem here) and waiting to meet the same. Or not. I cannot think of a way of corresponding with the referees to get a proper paper published reporting your result - since even if you believe in mediums' powers, they don't.
 
nosos said:
Yeah but it doesn't stop it being interesting and it doesn't make it necessarily untrue: metaphysics still has value even if it's not scientific.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. A favorite old quote:

Finally I say that there exists an excellent demonstration of what I just proposed in the form of a question. Once it was only a possibility, but now it suffices to consider the fate of the great systems to find it already realized. In what way do we read the philosophers, and who ever consults them with the real hope of finding anything but a pleasure or an exercise for the mind? When we set out to read them, do we not have the feeling that we are submitting for a short time to the rules of an enjoyable game? What would become of these masterpieces of pointless discipline, if it were not for this convention which we accept for love of an exacting pleasure? If one refutes a Plato or a Spinoza would nothing remain of their astonishing works? Absolutely nothing--if there did not remain a work of art.
---Paul Valery, Leonardo and the Philosophers​
I also see that my remark (previous post) is redundant as (I think) 888 makes a similar remark here on page 3.

Carry on yo' cosmologists and dreamers... :)


On edit: Laptop, as you probably guess, I posted while reading through page 2 only to find my point made and (successfully) countered here on page 3 before I made it. A breach of etiquette! Apologies...
 
I'd say the weight of over engineering, redundancy and general wastefulness that happens in the universe is proof against intelligent design. An engineer would NEVER leave such a half assed job lying around.

Evolution is fantastic, but how wasteful is it? Entire ecosystems and species - entire environments - that by quirk of fate over specialise and then 'ZAM!' along comes some external threat that it can't defend against, 'SPLAT!' whole thing, gone.

Does this sound like the work of an intellligent designer to you?
 
"This glass is half-full."

"This glass is half-empty."

"Its half-empty, no wait, half-full, no wait... what was the question?"

"hey! I ordered a chessburger!"


i rest my case. :)
 
kyser soze said:
I'd say the weight of over engineering, redundancy and general wastefulness that happens in the universe is proof against intelligent design. An engineer would NEVER leave such a half assed job lying around.
Click to expand...
Depends on how hard management was riding his ass...

No engineer worth his salt would be proud of it. If it is a control system (and it is far too haphazard to obviously be one, nevermind its lack of an apparent goal) is the single most inelegant one outside of a workshop.
 
<devil's advocate mode>

kyser_soze said:
I'd say the weight of over engineering, redundancy and general wastefulness that happens in the universe is proof against intelligent design. An engineer would NEVER leave such a half assed job lying around.

Does this sound like the work of an intellligent designer to you?
Click to expand...



A human engineer never would. But this argument is too anthropomorphic. "Engineer" is here being laden with too many human associations. Which I find ironic. We (rightly imo) poo-pooh the idea of God as a giant old geezer human with a beard sitting on a throne - before then going on to use human definitions of design and engineering to show there is no god...


kyser_soze said:
Does this sound like the work of an intellligent designer to you?
Click to expand...


Not an intelligent human designer. But does "intelligence" automatically have to be something inherently human anyway?


(Just pointing out a certain straw man flavour to the argument there.)
 
Inefficiency isn't a human quality.

The ridiculous amounts of time, energy and resources wasted by ineffective mutations and sloppy implementation has nothing to do with humanity. They are inefficient by natural quantities - when we see an efficient natural system (like energy utilisation through digestion) or a quick natural developement (mangrove swamps changing their enviroment) and we compare that to evolution, we can only be shocked by its inefficiencies. Just because some of the products of evolution are beautiful designs doesn't mean evolution itself is.
 
Blagsta said:
^
That makes no sense. The entire concept of "inefficiency" is human by definition.
Click to expand...

But... the arguments for design are based on entirely human concepts. (Mostly they start from "I cannot imagine...")

If you end up proposing a designer whose designs are indistinguishable from the results of things just happening, then you may as well not propose on at all, yes?
 
What I mean is, are you saying that because it's a human concept then it doesn't really exist otherwise? Or that it doesn't really matter otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sasaferrato
Trees stressed by heat and lack of water.
Replies
9
Views
399
Fflur
F
editor
Colin Furze: the man who built an enormous bunker and car lift under his suburban home
Replies
27
Views
1K
existentialist
existentialist
bcuster
The α Centauri AB Star System and Andromeda Galaxy
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
T & P
NASA’s Artemis II mission- fly me to the Moon
Replies
24
Views
489
T & P
T & P
editor
RIP Jim Lovell who guided Apollo 13 safely back to Earth,
Replies
5
Views
313
weltweit
weltweit
Back
Top Bottom