Current Events > Scientists confirm we're not living in a computer simulation

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/10/04/scientists-confirm-were-not-living-in-computer-simulation.html

Some people fear we humans are nothing more than pickled brains floating in a glass bowl as we're fed a false version of reality through a bundle of wires.

Now a team of scientists at Oxford University has demolished the theory that we are all living in a computer simulation that's been masterminded by alien overlords.

Science fiction fans and modern philosophers have long debated whether the world is actually the same as we percieve it to be.

Following the popularity of 90s classic The Matrix, many have questioned whether the philosophical "Brain in a Vat" scenario may actually be our reality.

But the notion that a computer could create such a huge scale of simultaneous interactions is "impossible", according to research published in Science Advances.

After doing some mind-bending sums, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi calculated that simply storing information about a couple of hundred electrons (very, very tiny particles) would need computer memory that requires more atoms that exist in the universe.

It pours water on the gloomy theory put forward by Professor Brian Cox, that our entire universe may have been created by a "super-intelligent computer programmer".

Bonkers as it might have seemed, it is a far-fetched belief that is shared by luminaries including Elon Musk, who famously said there was a minuscule "one in billions" chance that we weren't operating at someone else's whim.

The pair of Oxford University researchers had initially set out to study a mysterious physics phenomenon involving magnetic fields but managed to crack the simulation conundrum in the process.

In discovering that some natural phenomena could never be simulated by a computer, they confirmed that our worst fears will never be realized.

As Andrew Masterton, editor of Cosmos wrote: "Given the physically impossible amount of computer grunt needed to store information for just one member of this subset, fears that we might be unknowingly living in some vast version of The Matrix can now be put to rest".

Of course, that's exactly what those extraterrestrial supercomputer programmers would want us to think, right?
---

Scorsese2002 posted...

After doing some mind-bending sums, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi calculated that simply storing information about a couple of hundred electrons (very, very tiny particles) would need computer memory that requires more atoms that exist in the universe.

Maybe our universe...
---

Scorsese2002 posted...

would need computer memory that requires more atoms that exist in the universe.

this proves nothing. it needs more atoms than exist in OUR universe. that doesn't mean anything if we are indeed a simulation.

They really didn't demolish the theory or add anything of substance that hasn't been put forth and discussed multiple times already.
---

scientists being full of shit again
---

it is really ignorant to use the amount of atoms that exist in our universe to prove that our universe is a simulation

if our universe was a simulation, they would not simulate more atoms than exists in the higher order universe where the simulation is being done, so this should be expected

but most readers will see the word scientists and study and believe this without question
---

No they didn't.

Just like nobody has confirmed it.

It is not a scientific question.
---

My problem with that is the scientists assuming that the creator of the program is restricted to the same rules we are. Saying that it would require a physically impossible amount of computer storage to make it work means nothing.
---

All this proves is that our understanding of the universe is crap. While WE couldn't create an artificial world as detailed as our world, there's nothing saying beings with massively advanced technology couldn't do it. I mean, relatively speaking, its not been that long since humans thought that Earth was the center of the universe
---

So they based their study on human computers? How do they know there aren't alien computers more efficient than our own that CAN run a universe-wide simulation?
---

Oxford scientists' study confirming that we are not living in a computer simulation demolished by Gamefaqs posters
---

TC getting reamed.
---

Good enough for me, it was a dumb idea to begin with that didn't have any evidence supporting it in the first place.
---

stoltenberg11 posted...

Oxford scientists' study confirming that we are not living in a computer simulation demolished by Gamefaqs posters

because their study is bullshit. it doesn't prove anything. all they are doing is making a bunch of assumptions. and their assumptions aren't even logical. of course the creator would have access to higher power and more atoms than we do. if we are in a simulation, this isn't Base Reality. Base Reality is bigger and more complex than we are. only fools would believe this study.

I didn't read the article, but it does kind of annoy me that anyone could think we are in a "computer" simulation, unless the word computer is changed to mean something completely completely different than what it currently means. No matter how good the software gets, computers (in the Alan Turing sense of the word) will never experience consciousness in the way we do.
---

Maybe instead of storing atom data of the whole universe...it just simulates doing that.


---

untrustful posted...

Good enough for me, it was a dumb idea to begin with that didn't have any evidence supporting it in the first place.

actually it did. but go ahead and remain ignorant. your the only person in this topic that believes the study

untrustful posted...

Good enough for me, it was a dumb idea to begin with that didn't have any evidence supporting it in the first place.

Sativa_Rose posted...

I didn't read the article, but it does kind of annoy me that anyone could think we are in a "computer" simulation, unless the word computer is changed to mean something completely completely different than what it currently means. No matter how good the software gets, computers (in the Alan Turing sense of the word) will never experience consciousness in the way we do.

you hating the idea of the world being a simulation doesn't give credit to this study especially when people can easily point out the major hole in it
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRLCBb7qK8
---

Bagamak posted...

actually it did.

Oh cool, where's the proof that supports the idea of us being in a simulation I wanna read it.
---

Bagamak posted...

actually it did. but go ahead and remain ignorant. your the only person in this topic that believes the study

This is misleading, given that nobody should believe anything about the simulation hypothesis scientifically.
---

i mean, good for them and all, but what's next? solipsism? are they going to have words with the ancient aliens guy?
---

But if the simulated universe goes by different rules?

What if those scientists are actually planted by the aliens to deceive us!?

HUH!?
---

What sort of grade school fucking journalism is this? It reads like a person who just learned about a topic yesterday declaring themselves the authority on it.

Scorsese2002 posted...

After doing some mind-bending sums, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi calculated that simply storing information about a couple of hundred electrons (very, very tiny particles) would need computer memory that requires more atoms that exist in the universe.

For fuck's sake OBVIOUSLY. You think any fucking scientist would even have to compute that? The simulation OF our universe would OBVIOUSLY NOT TAKE PLACE IN OUR UNIVERSE JESUS CHRIST

untrustful posted...

Oh cool, where's the proof that supports the idea of us being in a simulation I wanna read it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

Goes back to playing Sims.
---

NeonOctopus posted...

But if the simulated universe goes by different rules?

What if those scientists are actually planted by the aliens to deceive us!?

HUH!?

while this is sarcasm the point is kinda true, every test we thought up could be just programs built in to deceive us

in turn it all goes back to Descartes, the only thing you can be sure of is that you're a thinking thing
---

Yeah, I am sure a bunch of NPCs would be able to tell if they are in a game or not.
---

COVxy posted...

Bagamak posted...

actually it did. but go ahead and remain ignorant. your the only person in this topic that believes the study

This is misleading, given that nobody should believe anything about the simulation hypothesis scientifically.

This really can't be stated enough.
---

This is like a fucking Minecraft character declaring he is not in a simulation because his Redstone computer can't run Minecraft.

Science out here not proving shit again. Honestly what do they ever prove other than biology related things. They're just like more annoying philosophers.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

I didn't read the article, but it does kind of annoy me that anyone could think we are in a "computer" simulation, unless the word computer is changed to mean something completely completely different than what it currently means. No matter how good the software gets, computers (in the Alan Turing sense of the word) will never experience consciousness in the way we do.

wow you just solved the qualia question, someone call dan dennett
---

Thats exactly what a computer simulation would say!
---

I'm kinda surprised that publication even published this study honestly. Must really be starving for content.
---

stoltenberg11 posted...

I'm kinda surprised that publication even published this study honestly. Must really be starving for content.

they are counting on readers that don't stop to think, and just see the word scientist and accept it

Bagamak posted...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html

That's a pathetic analogy.

Our simulation had limits, the universe has limits, therefore, we may be in a simulation.
---

COVxy posted...

No they didn't.

Just like nobody has confirmed it.

It is not a scientific question.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

TC getting reamed.

Not really
---

So I already know none of you read anything about this but let me sum up some stuff here.

1. This study isn't about debunking the Universe Simulation theory, it's a study about reaching sign problems when trying to computationally solve gravitational anomalies in classical or quantum computing systems. Think "Divide by 0" issues, to really simplify it.

2. As an example of the impossibility of the theoretical computing, the study demonstrated that a few hundred electrons perfectly modeled for all known forces in a closed system would require more atoms in the computer than is currently in our universe. They also demonstrated that this number grows exponentially the more bodies you add, meaning to computer simulate an arbitrarily larger system (But before reaching the size of our universe) will eventually require a number of atoms in the computer equal to:

Our universe ^ Our universe

As an example.

3. This would mean it is practically impossible to computationally simulate a universe assuming the laws of physics are within similar bounds in the host universe. Problems arising would include things like: Any computer system of this size within interactable distance within a realistic timeframe would collapse into a tremendous black hole.

4. Bizarre unicorn theories are still absolutely possible. Maybe we are a simulation that has had cosmological constants removed that are present in the host's universe that could solve this problem. This study, however, does not pretend to address any of this business because Universal Simulations are not even mentioned in the study.

5. Blame the articles reporting on this study. News sites are the worst place to recieve information about science anything, but especially theoretical physics.

Here's an excellent video from a Nottingham Uni particle physicist about "Quantum Woo", the free-wheelin' misinterpretations by the news media of the hard and brilliant work of our science community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DGgvE6hLAU
---

mortimerjames posted...

NeonOctopus posted...

But if the simulated universe goes by different rules?

What if those scientists are actually planted by the aliens to deceive us!?

HUH!?

while this is sarcasm the point is kinda true, every test we thought up could be just programs built in to deceive us

in turn it all goes back to Descartes, the only thing you can be sure of is that you're a thinking thing

What if you're just programmed to THINK you have free will?
---

For the record, this stuff is so far over my head in terms of complexity that I can't even pretend to be standing on the same planet as these theorists. But it doesn't take much knowledge to see how brutally ignorant most of the self-assured posters in this topic are about something they did not even bother to research for two minutes.
---

Sounds like a stoners attempt to debunk it tbh
---

This study is garbage. The supercomputer that simulates our universe for the amusement of that 15-year-old boy in his mother's basement only renders and stores information when an AI observer (like a human being) interacts with it, thereby vastly reducing the amount of memory and processing power needed for the simulation we live in. This was proven by the double-split experiment and the more recent quantum entanglement experiment, both of which showed that an AI observer is needed for the supercomputer to render the scene. Much like a videogame.

crap, well there's goes my hope of a reset button
---

I'm not saying that I think we live in a computer simulation, but I bet neither does Mario, or Nico Bellic.
---

lmao this is the dumbest shit I ever read. Scientists are fucking idiots if these guys are taken seriously

I don't believe a word that lolscientists have to say. As far as I'm concerned, I'll just go by the opposite of what they say.
---

Sorry, but I'll believe Star Ocean 3's premise as real life.

We're characters in a life simulation video game.

Not really.
---