 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008The Universe in a Grain of Sand
Hi, Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that big? I mean. When we write computer programs, the virtual world can be any size compared to the computer hardware. Using a Dell Pentium the size of a table. We could simulate millions of light years of cosmic evolution. What if a Dell Computer in 1 million A.D. (comparatively speaking) could simulate something more complex. What if it could create a spacetime that obeys GR and SR and chemistry were simulated inside it and we were the product. We could live inside it but that doesn't mean the spacetime is really that big. Maybe of you straight physics guys don't believe that spacetime is a a thing. If it is not a thing, it could be a program and we who are in it may be similar simulation. Can this concept be falsified? This is the ramification if spacetime is not an object but a math construct or a program. What do you think? Danny > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > spacetime is not an object but a math construct or > a program. What do you think? Why not just READ what space-time IS. Then you won't have to play "twenty questions". The game of Charades is infinitely more fun. "Space-time" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html Sue... > Danny > Why not just READ what space-time IS. Then you > won't have to play "twenty questions". > > The game of Charades is infinitely more fun. I don't think Danny's question is deserving of hostility. I doubt that we can determine the real size of the universe as Danny asked, and I believe that distance is always relative. Instead of absolute distances, I believe in ratios of distances. Some religions and philosophers have written about the idea of Eternal Recurrence, that the universe will be reborn over and over again. What if there were infinitely many universes of different sizes? Would it have the same implications? > > Why not just READ what space-time IS. Then you > > won't have to play "twenty questions". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > there were infinitely many universes of different sizes? Would it have the > same implications? If spacetime is not a thing and distances could be just math trick. Then there is possibility that we are the only intelligent beings in the entire universe... this is.. because the rest of the universe could just be math program designed to make us feel insignificant. What if we can detect planets in orbit near other stars. They were not sceneries in the math program. It may only take more CPU speed for a real multi-dimensional civilization to model our entire universe with us the only intelligent beings. Danny > > > Why not just READ what space-time IS. Then you > > > won't have to play "twenty questions". [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > speed for a real multi-dimensional civilization to model our > entire universe with us the only intelligent beings. I mean what if those indirect or even direct sightings of planets in orbit near other stars were just sceneries in the virtual universe math program. They could be just decoys designed to fool us. Danny > Danny- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Why not just READ what space-time IS. Then you > > > > won't have to play "twenty questions". [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What makes the simulation idea seemingly unlikely is the span of time from alleged Big Bang. But what if the universe started only 5000 years ago and it were just fast forwarded to the present. We may feel it lasts eons when it could have started nearer in time. Of course. It is more likely the universe is a result of natural birth and rebirth. But the idea still remain how you can falsify whether the math program is contained in very small area only with the "distances" inside the simulation just mere illusions. I'm looking for the critical falsification argument, anyone? Danny > > > > > Why not just READ what space-time IS. Then you > > > > > won't have to play "twenty questions". [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The simulation theory is a modern equivalent of the scenarios presented in the context of Radical Scepticism. Some of them go like this, 1) What if the universe was created 10 minutes ago as it is, with all our memories beyond 10 minites being created at the same time. even million yr old archeological remains were created 10 min ago and made to look that old. 2) What if there is a monster who is controlling our minds and creating in it the idea of physical reality as he wants it. There are similar ideas in mysticism about the unreality of the world. Plato's Allegory of the Cave and The Matrix share this view point. The way out for Descartes was cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am). The very act of doubting necessitates the presence of a thinking mind. > Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that big? No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004 by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with some repeating shape, around which light rays might wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense that, as in video games, something might disappear off the left side of the screen and reappear on the right side). A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana State, and Case Western looks for signs of such "wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible universe," and the place in deep space whence comes the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should show up in the microwave background. But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis. The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of 10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish, Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986, corn...@physics.montana.edu.) > > Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that big? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC But these data came from math. Math can pull any trick and can be contained inside a software. Just because the software shows those apparent sizes doesn't mean they are that big in the original world. Refute this. D. > Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or > about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986, > corn...@physics.montana.edu.) Dear Danny Milano: ... > > Physics News Update -- Number 685, > > May 12, 2004 by Phil Schewe and Ben > > Stein Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html > > Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of > > at least 24 GPC > > But these data came from math. No, these data came from observations. The logic set that describes the here and now to 9 or 10 sig figs, is used to extrapolate to a distant past. Add to this that there is no pattern to stars / galaxies to the "left" that repeats (as mirrored or anything else) to the right. So we cannot look out into space and see the backs of our own heads (or at least an ancient Milky Way). > Math can pull any trick and can be contained > inside a software. Just because the software > shows those apparent sizes doesn't mean they > are that big in the original world. Refute > this. Done. David A. Smith >>> Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that big? >> No Center [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > the software shows those apparent sizes doesn't mean > they are that big in the original world. Refute this. Don't be stoooopid Danny, the data comes from observations. I suspect you have no understanding of the scientific method. >> Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or >> about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986, >> corn...@physics.montana.edu.) > >>> Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that big? > >> No Center [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - but obsevations came from measurement and measurement come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation where the size of the universe is only apparent or in the math D. > but obse[r]vations came from measurement and measurement > come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation > where the size of the universe is only apparent or in the math > > D. Don't be stooopid, Danny. Mathematics can be applied to measurements. Since when did you get into this mode where you have no desire to understand or learn anything? > > but obse[r]vations came from measurement and measurement > > come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since when did you get into this mode where you have no desire to > understand or learn anything? Right. But a software uses math and measurements and since our observations is based on measurement. We may be living inside a running software program created by say 1 billion A.D. multi-dimensional civilization. D. > > > but obse[r]vations came from measurement and measurement > > > come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > D. Or we could be living on the back of a unicorn. Such proclamations are not testable and thus are not relevant to science. Your comments about math are pretty ignorant, by the way. Time to find a new hobby. >>> but obse[r]vations came from measurement and measurement >>> come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > inside a running software program created by say 1 billion A.D. > multi-dimensional civilization. The universe is the way she is independent of human activities. Software is a recent invention of humans... a tool to do computations. Kepler did his computations on paper. Danny, you tend to get reality and fantasy confused. > >>> but obse[r]vations came from measurement and measurement > >>> come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So long as the reality software is designed to engage your senses and detectors and make you believe in the solidity of the world and vastness of the universe when the GR manifold may just be composed of numbers and math stored in maybe something much much smaller. There may be no way to know. Don't forget quantum entanglement which may be a another algorithm of the program. It doesn't make sense in relativity even if no information is conveyed because a superluminal correleration still occur. How is the correlation conveyed when nothing is supposed to travel faster than light. The other explanation is the Many worlds interpretation. But occam's razor says that living inside a simulation now is more likely. The alternatives are even stranger. D. > > >>> but obse[r]vations came from measurement and measurement > > >>> come from math.. so we could really be living inside a simulation [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > D. Dale wrote: Hi Danny. Yes most of us have probably seen the Matrix so this idea is no longer a new one and its not considered science unless you can figure out a test to prove its really the case and good luck on that. You might want to take a look at my postings looking at an alternative theory on how time and space got created and its so beautifully simple. Testable too. But if you really want to go to the extreme with the speculating. Then because this alternate theory suggest an older previous universe its also suggests far more chances for a super advanced civilization having came into existence along with a almost god like advanced science.That universe would of course be dead of heat death so they would have needed to have migrated to ours and other universes as well. The speculation that any society advanced enough to know there was no god could have proceeded to create one if it could.Because not only do we now have a extra universes they are also much older than ours so the odds on this happening go up substantially.We would if we could and why wouldn't we after all its not only for ourselves if we get killed but for the people we care about and with this alternative theory it becomes bit more of a question of if its ever possible to do this at all.Statistically if it actually applies here then it could well get to become a bit more of a question on what is the limits on science to do this sort of thing.Is it possible at all and what parts of it are possible.Yes of course it probably would be into artificial worlds like the matrix.Its also possible that such machinery could exists in our future and reach into the past to gather the souls on the moments of death without any of the problems with time travel.Nothing is known about soul mechanics as even now "as far as I know" we cant even create a computer of the level of an insect as far as a device actually capable of experiencing even a simple color so its all very open to speculation. I will have it on my site when I get the time. www.alttheories.com Dreadfully neglected, incomplete and filled with errors at this time. Also look up I think its called Drake equation but I am to lazy to check the spelling. Have fun with it. Dale [snip] > But these data came from math. Math can pull any trick > and can be contained inside a software. Just because > the software shows those apparent sizes doesn't mean > they are that big in the original world. Refute this. Google "fallacy of stolen concept" Socks > Hi, > > Is there a way to tell whether the universe is really that > big? Which "big"? Multipole fits to cosmic background radiation fluctuations assign size the to the post-Big Bang universe when it cooled and flashed transparent to photons. > I mean. When we write computer programs, the virtual > world can be any size compared to the computer hardware. He saw "the Matrix", perhaps twice. Second Life, War Whatever, etc. > Using a Dell Pentium the size of a table. We could > simulate millions of light years of cosmic evolution. The idiot doesn't know a computer from a sales pitch and knows nothing about the three-body problem. Hey stooopid, "digital orrery" 7060 hits If you want spiffy discrete iron for a hot price, http://www.abs.com/ then Beowulf clusters, then massively parallel clusters (NOT Intel Itanium-II. Go AMD Opteron now; Intel hafnium core quad modules later). > What > if a Dell Computer in 1 million A.D. (comparatively > speaking) Idiot. The First World is dead and gone by no later than 2050; most likely defunct by 2015 when 70 million Baby Boomers are retired and their infinitely taxable wallets slam shut while they whine "gimme SS and Medicare". > could simulate something more complex. > What if it could create a spacetime that obeys GR > and SR and chemistry were simulated inside it and > we were the product. [snip crap] One despairs at any code that evolves Democraps, Republicants, and Yahweh.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 In article <990de3e1-9633-4681-a33f-f3fbfb09fb00@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and SR and chemistry were simulated inside it and > we were the product. We could live inside it ***{Could we? Upon what evidence do you base that statement? Do you have an example to offer us of a person existing virtually inside a digital computer? If not, then do you have evidence that some recipe known to be capable of producing a person can be implemented via computer software? The only recipe I know of that has been demonstrated capable of producing a person involves to humans engaging in unprotected heterosexual relations and waiting 9 months. Do you know of a computer that can do that? Bottom line: when a person alleges that something is possible, he is not exempt from the requirement of supplying evidence, or, at least, of being aware of evidence and hence capable of supplying it, if asked to do so. Until you meet that requirement, this entire line of discussion will be no different, in principle, from that of a group of medieval scholastics speculating about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. --Mitchell Jones}*** > but that doesn't > mean the spacetime is really that big. Maybe of you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Danny ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.