Cognitas Ergo Sum... cognitas?

[whatdoiknowanyway]

Sometime in the recent past, a scientist posed a new version of "the Mad God's Dream." Am I/we just a computer program in some future super computer? In the sixty something years since Turing built the first working computer, computing power has increased at an almost unbelievable rate.

 

Just how powerful can computers become? How intricate can programs get?

 

Can anyone prove to me that this is reality?

 

Pass me the aspirins.

[GAHD]

Poor poor people, stuck in the Matrix... free your mind!

[whatdoiknowanyway]

GHAD. I think you misunderstand.

 

What I am asking is:- Are we simply a computer program?

 

Not:- Are we controlled by computers?

[Qfwfq]

Can anyone prove to me that this is reality?

You can only suppose it.

[whatdoiknowanyway]

Thanks Q.

 

I suppose you are correct.:cup:

[BluesMan]

 

Can anyone prove to me that this is reality?

 

Pass me the aspirins.

 

Vitual? :cup:

Heres some ASA :)

[CraigD]

Am I/we just a computer program in some future super computer?

…

Can anyone prove to me that this is reality?

I don’t believe this is an intractable proof.

 

Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that all of reality is actually a simulation inside a powerful computer mechanically similar to the kind with which we’re similar. This computer exists in the context of a “real” universe, with physical laws that effect how it operates. It is subject to events unrelated to the planned execution of its software – for example: a component can fail in a fatal or non-fatal manner; it can be turned off; it can be effected by vibration, external magnetic fields, etc.

 

Many programs are sensitive to these outside effects. If we assume that the program that is our reality includes our seemingly unlimited inquisitiveness, then this program can eventually contain a model of itself, and, included in that model, the impact of these external events, and the fact that these events are external. In short, physical theory can eventually reveal that our universe is a program, and provide information about the hardware on which it is running, and the larger universe in which it exists.

 

I find it interesting that, while classical physics (of a universe with more than 2 massive particles) can be shown (not quite rigorously proven, but convincingly demonstrated) to not be modelable on a computer (a Turing/Von Neumann machine), quantum physics can be. The idea that the entire universe can be discretely computed is one of the more exciting ones in Physics at the moment, and the subject of some intriguing theories, such as the holographic principle.

[Qfwfq]

You can write a program comprising a model of the hardware, or comprising no model of it. You can even write one comprising a model of other hardware. How can the program know the difference?

 

I've heard that LSD has the physiological effect of killing more neurons than usually happens. If you take LSD without knowing this or anything about our brain, can you deduce that the hallucinations are caused in this way?

 

In essence, our brain is part of the same reality that we perceive, so we've been able to understand what we do about it by dissecting other living creatures along with other diagnostic methods.

 

If you write a program without the capability of analysing the RAM it works in, could it figure out the processor? Even with diagnosis based on effects of hardware events, I say it can't. Consider in particular a program compiled to the bytecode of the JVM. This is actually concieved to not only be hardware independent but to make it impossible to write a program in the bytecode that can glean platform stuff that the security manager doesn't allow. You can't make a malicious program in it that works with the tightest security manager.

 

I find it interesting that, while classical physics (of a universe with more than 2 massive particles) can be shown (not quite rigorously proven, but convincingly demonstrated) to not be modelable on a computer (a Turing/Von Neumann machine), quantum physics can be. The idea that the entire universe can be discretely computed is one of the more exciting ones in Physics at the moment, and the subject of some intriguing theories, such as the holographic principle.

If you apply quantum formalism to the hamiltonian of a three body system, I don't see how you get a more computeable differential equation. :Waldo:

 

Alkali atoms are easier to work out because the Hartree-Fock iteration can be used, at each step you treat it like a hydrogen atom with an altered V®.

[Tormod]

It is indeed a very good question. John Barrow has argued that if we lived inside a computer simulated universe, we would observe occasional "problems" like a change in the speed of light, for example. We would however be unable to prove it.

 

There is a lot about this topic at

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Qfwfq]

Bell's inequality violations! :Waldo: