tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1810825479512320479..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: No, we probably don’t live in a computer simulationSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger130125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88203188641622363722017-03-26T03:26:03.159-04:002017-03-26T03:26:03.159-04:00Furthermore, let's for the moment imagine that...Furthermore, let's for the moment imagine that some higher-order entities were to simulate the multiverse, with all those endless superpositions.<br /><br />At Cambridge University, mathematician Noah Linden and physicist Sandu Popescu found that <br />"in the typical quantum state occupied by any group of particles the links between the particles are mostly of a nonlocal character. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259384237716775722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48133005007208697382017-03-26T02:53:22.457-04:002017-03-26T02:53:22.457-04:00JimV
"the ability to simulate every paramete...JimV<br /><br />"the ability to simulate every parameter (mass, energy, spin, etc.) of every particle in the observable universe"<br /><br />Well, that assumes a certain interpretation of quantum theory that many (I believe a majority) of physicists would dismiss.<br /><br />As David Deutsch explains (in The Fabric of Reality) "Single-particle interference phenomena unequivocally Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259384237716775722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21045855479701094582017-03-25T10:29:05.115-04:002017-03-25T10:29:05.115-04:00The whole discussion strikes me as pretty absurd. ...The whole discussion strikes me as pretty absurd. The best known methods for studying the time evolution of quantum many body systems without serious approximations can do maybe 100 atoms at most. This only works by treating nuclei as point particles. If you need the dynamics of neutrons and protons you can at most do a small nucleus, say carbon. And if you want the dynamics of quarks and gluons Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06838983632065478955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10525658982076273282017-03-24T18:49:01.983-04:002017-03-24T18:49:01.983-04:00"However, if Bell's theorem just says &qu..."However, if Bell's theorem just says "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics" (Wikipedia) I don't see how it is necessarily a roadblock for making a simulation." (Qwertie)<br /><br />I think the point was that the simulation would require qubits, not classical bits.<br /><br />As for computers JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71573714965352388152017-03-24T18:41:41.915-04:002017-03-24T18:41:41.915-04:00I agree with Sabine, I think the majority here are...I agree with Sabine, I think the majority here are either ill-informed or ignorant of the deeper implication of quantum physics.<br /><br />E.g. _Shorty, and all those who "think" that we or someone may one day, or is simulating or modeling reality.<br /><br />As physicist Dr Bernard Haisch points out "the Leggett inequality that was recently measured ... rules out any possible Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259384237716775722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34433987031047642472017-03-24T13:56:19.468-04:002017-03-24T13:56:19.468-04:00If there is such an entity as a creator who simula...If there is such an entity as a creator who simulates 'all of it', then i would personally be more interested in the constitution of that creator, since he would be the only 'real' stuff around. Which means the simulation is the boring part of the quest, haha.Koenraad Van Spaendonckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090279727324831109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31639237236729793752017-03-24T11:52:48.268-04:002017-03-24T11:52:48.268-04:00Hey Qwertie
Just some questions here. Why would yo...Hey Qwertie<br />Just some questions here. Why would you say that our universe is unimaginably large? For whose imagination is this claim valid? For ours? Why would that matter for the creator of the simulation? This simulation may not even have to do with us at all. Did that occur to you at all? Also, why do you suggest that the simulation should have laws of physics that are easy to simulate? Bill Toulashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16814428400335803369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27089120408388028652017-03-24T11:48:07.281-04:002017-03-24T11:48:07.281-04:00Qwertie,
Yes, indeed! The 'real' universe...Qwertie,<br /><br />Yes, indeed! The 'real' universe could work by other laws than ours. And these more fundamental laws could be used to give rise to the laws we observe. Which is exactly what theoretical physicists have been working on for decades... Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21594351056131219692017-03-24T11:16:13.037-04:002017-03-24T11:16:13.037-04:00This Shorty, huh? I could ask him why people are w...This Shorty, huh? I could ask him why people are working so hard to build large and expensive quantum computers with modest, non-general-purpose computing abilities if classical computers are all one could ever need. I could point out that as a computer engineer who recently took a course in quantum computation, I might even have a clue about this. But I certainly have no desire to talk to him.<Qwertiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595705428290721343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-89398244473922976132017-03-24T08:30:51.552-04:002017-03-24T08:30:51.552-04:00I winced when I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson supporti...I winced when I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson supporting this harebrained idea.<br /><br />My problem with the simulation hypothesis is that - even if there is some way to simulate a large space including quantum effects, or even if there is some way to deceive the brains in the simulation into thinking this is what is happening, it would be prohibitively expensive computationally.<br /><br />In our Qwertiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595705428290721343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59065156098740283252017-03-24T06:45:54.357-04:002017-03-24T06:45:54.357-04:00And yet, you don't understand something so sim...And yet, you don't understand something so simple. I thought you were supposed to be smarter than me? Confounded by an "idiot." Hilarious. With every interaction you confirm the stuff your "peers" publicly say about you. Quite entertaining. :)_Shortyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678142103501105356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-89749667204619532532017-03-24T03:08:55.014-04:002017-03-24T03:08:55.014-04:00_Shorty,
I am posting your comments because you h..._Shorty,<br /><br />I am posting your comments because you highlight the problem my post was alluding to. People talking about physics without knowing a thing about it to begin with. Do you realize at all that you're making an idiot out of yourself by proclaiming you can disprove Bell's theorem while at the same time demonstrating you don't even know what the theorem says? Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3223438930115291042017-03-23T16:02:22.138-04:002017-03-23T16:02:22.138-04:00I continue to talk down to you because you don'...I continue to talk down to you because you don't understand everything you think you do, as smart as you think you are. I know something you don't know. And it is eating you up inside. And you don't like that. Because you think I'm not anywhere near as smart as you. And that's why you continue to respond. Because you hate it. And can't leave it be.<br /><br />I'_Shortyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678142103501105356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7851231510582452282017-03-23T15:54:59.967-04:002017-03-23T15:54:59.967-04:00_Shorty
"Anything can be modeled. Anything&q..._Shorty<br /><br />"Anything can be modeled. Anything"<br /><br />Rubbish. Actually, "Complete and utter rubbish".<br /><br />Tell you what, why don't you disprove not only Bell's Theorem, proving that local reality is unable to explain the world we experience, but also Gödel' Incompleteness, Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminism, and Chaitin's RandomnessAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18259384237716775722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32399393012390844912017-03-23T12:28:57.417-04:002017-03-23T12:28:57.417-04:00Hello Ms Hossenfelder,
I read your interesting bl...Hello Ms Hossenfelder,<br /><br />I read your interesting blog post. I have to say, I am interested in physics but being a mechanical engineer I can't claim to understand even a tiny percentage of what you are. I'm here to make a question on the topic. I remember this from when it got published a couple of years ago: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf<br />It is supposed to be an effort Bill Toulashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16814428400335803369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57518702176564265012017-03-23T11:25:08.239-04:002017-03-23T11:25:08.239-04:00_Shorty,
I am not saying it's not possible th..._Shorty,<br /><br />I am not saying it's not possible that we live in a simulation. I am saying that it's a non-trivial statement that isn't easy to make compatible with all we know about the laws of nature. Or some of us know, anyway.<br /><br />It is really remarkable that you continue to talk down to me after you've just publicly demonstrated your utter ignorance of even basic Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31520771390601768232017-03-23T10:00:47.380-04:002017-03-23T10:00:47.380-04:00Interesting analysis.
The interesting thing I fin...Interesting analysis.<br /><br />The interesting thing I find is that in order to valid the world as a "real object," we are using data from our measures. So how you use that data reinforces the belief that what is real, conforms to the data from the measures you use. But you create measure in order to validate? You see the circle?<br /><br />So data "as information" may be PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36224130520489319792017-03-23T09:39:12.640-04:002017-03-23T09:39:12.640-04:00"Because the knowledge I possess right now sa..."Because the knowledge I possess right now says to me that it is impossible, and that means it will always be impossible."<br /><br />a) That is a gross mischaracterization of what Dr. Hossenfelder has said.<br /><br />b) In fact, certain things *have* been proved to be impossible, and will always be impossible. For a trivial example, if N is an integer, N*N+1 (N-squared plus one) will JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59985367832035410982017-03-23T08:52:48.364-04:002017-03-23T08:52:48.364-04:00As I said, you just don't get it. Your argume...As I said, you just don't get it. Your argument is no different than someone from 15,000 years ago thinking it is impossible for people to fly, so nobody will ever fly. And yet, planes.<br /><br />The fact that you personally can't build a universe simulator right now because you can't see how it could possibly be done doesn't mean the universe you're in can't be a _Shortyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678142103501105356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63037902632912860602017-03-23T08:31:13.478-04:002017-03-23T08:31:13.478-04:00_Shorty,
As I said, you're welcome to try. Bu..._Shorty,<br /><br />As I said, you're welcome to try. But unless you manage to come up with a way to circumvent Bell's theorem, I can't take your claims seriously. (Neither will any other physicist.)Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13708824628836532752017-03-23T08:26:51.923-04:002017-03-23T08:26:51.923-04:00No need to look up anything. You think because yo...No need to look up anything. You think because you can't do something, nobody can. Not even someone with more knowledge and technology than you. *shrug* I honestly do not know how you cannot get that through your head. You are saying "I personally don't know how to do "A" right now. So nobody anywhere ever will be able to, either. Because the knowledge I possess right_Shortyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678142103501105356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81195489810488777552017-03-23T08:07:17.383-04:002017-03-23T08:07:17.383-04:00_Shorty,
Seriously? After all I've explained ..._Shorty,<br /><br />Seriously? After all I've explained you didn't even bother to look up Bell's theorem? Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-286914676377870932017-03-23T08:02:05.769-04:002017-03-23T08:02:05.769-04:00Keep it simple then. The two-slit experiment'...Keep it simple then. The two-slit experiment's results are due to quantum effects, correct? As I understand what you're saying, you believe you cannot model that experiment on a computer with "classical bits." Is that not what you're saying? Because that sure seems to be what you're saying._Shortyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678142103501105356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54369116205759119662017-03-23T07:56:01.994-04:002017-03-23T07:56:01.994-04:00_Shorty,
I give up. I merely post your last comme..._Shorty,<br /><br />I give up. I merely post your last comment to demonstrate the communication failure. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20013450514255092492017-03-23T07:53:10.450-04:002017-03-23T07:53:10.450-04:00Anything you understand can be modeled on a comput...Anything you understand can be modeled on a computer. Whether a computer/network fast enough and large enough exists today isn't relevant. And just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible for anyone to ever understand it. I know full well that you know more about physics than I ever will. This does not change the fact that anything that is understood can be _Shortyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11678142103501105356noreply@blogger.com