Jump to content

Simulation theory?


QuantumEcho

Recommended Posts

I always have been curious with this one it’s fascinating I haven’t had any time to really look into it. All I know is that the likely hood of us living in a simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas Monteiro

There is other theories with similar approach, such as the theory that we live on a universe created by holograms. It's really all interesting, but we can't prove for sure, at least not now. But back to the topic and to your theory, there is some proves that may help us think that we are in a simulation, such as that particles don't have any velocity but only when we examine them, they have it. I would suggest for you to study Quantum Physics, lots of great and disturb things are seen by studying her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum physics baby !!! 

If something exists only when u observe it....who's observing us ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like physics, cant decide because i like quantum, particle and astronomy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the idea that free will doesn't exist (the present has enough information in it to completely define the future) easier to believe than the idea that there is something inherently unpredictable about the future.  That said, if this is a simulation, then who is simulating this universe and what laws of nature apply to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Necron said:

I find the idea that free will doesn't exist (the present has enough information in it to completely define the future) easier to believe than the idea that there is something inherently unpredictable about the future.  That said, if this is a simulation, then who is simulating this universe and what laws of nature apply to them?

Pretty much inception. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AstroCookie said:

I always have been curious with this one it’s fascinating I haven’t had any time to really look into it. All I know is that the likely hood of us living in a simulation.

You could also look up Botzmann Brain. The idea is that the Universe has a very improbably balance of properties that makes life possible, and it's far more likely for the Universe to be a lifeless, unstructured chaotic mess. So why are we here? Simply, only the small subset of Universes that could produce an environment that life can evolve in will contain the intelligence to be aware of it, so there must be a (nearly) infinite number of Universes with all mix of properties, and we just happen to be in one that allowed us to evolve. But the complexity of an entire Universe with the right properties is more than the complexity of just one brain. So it's actually more likely that the Universe consists of (or contains) just one brain which "perceives" the external world by false senses - that is, there is only one "perceiver" brain that is hallucinating, and everything else is unknowable chaos.

 

The flaw is that it's not necessarily true that a brain is simpler than a life supporting Universe. If a brain exists, something also exists to keep it alive, and then the Universe complexity increases from there. Descartes touched on this concept vaguely - roughly speaking, he surmised that perceptions must come from somewhere, and if they were too different from reality, the "perceiver" wouldn't survive long (for example, walking off a cliff - which supposes that the actions the "perceiver" takes are actually performed in the real world, which if not guaranteed to be the case).

 

As for a simulation, the theory is that if someone decides to make a simulation, and has the technology to make it so accurate that the inhabitants can't tell the difference between it and reality, then someone in it will also want to make a simulation as well, and so on. This story illustrates the idea:https://qntm.org/responsibility

 

The other thing is that if one person wants to make a simulation, so will someone else. In an infinite Universe that means an infinite number of simulations created by an infinite number of individuals, each with an infinite number of simulations. So that means that change of any Universe not being a simulation is roughly 1 / infinity, or vanishingly close to 0.

 

There are several flaws with this view. First, the story above makes the point that it requires infinitely powerful computation, which does not exist. It can't exist because all computation requires energy, and even if that energy is the smallest amount that could theoretically exist, that amount multiplied by infinity is still infinity, and there is no infinite energy source. Also when one computation is replaced by the next, the previous one is released as heat, and that would raise the temperature of the Universe by an infinite amount.

 

With finite computation, that means that simulated Universes must either run much slower, or the simulated physics must be less accurate, or more likely both (Consider a computer simulating itself - each simulated operation takes multiple real operations. And a perfectly simulated Universe must also contain a computer equivalent to the one which simulates it). And since the Universe has limited resources, any simulation which is indistinguishable from reality will not be able to span the time of an entire Universe - and any simulations started within those simulations will have even less time. At some point the parent simulation will be stopped, terminating any simulated simulation early.

 

A Universe simulation would more likely be started well past the beginning of the Universe, but it would still have a limited life span. The numbers change from infinity to an unknown but finite quantity. It still is large-n to 1 in favour of any given Universe being a simulation, but it's no longer a virtual certainty.

 

Next, simulations themselves have creator imposed limits, either intentional, like observing a specific thing of interest like a supernova, or unintentional like bugs, or inevitable like simplifications. Anomalies might be allowed and noticeable if they don't interfere with the purpose of the simulation. The simulation you're in will not likely include the full Universe, so if your Universe has no detectable anomalies, it's probably not a simulation. On the other hand,  simulation limits might just seem like a natural part of the Universe. - for example, the expansion of the Universe means that there is a visible edge 46.5 away. That might seem fishy, but cosmology theories also can't find any way for a Universe to exist and not have that occur, so there's no way to know.

 

Overall, there is too much unnecessary detail in the Universe if it were a simplified simulation, so that reduces the numbers severely. Of course we have no idea how much detail might be needed for whatever purpose someone might want to simulate our Universe, and what we can measure and experience might actually be very simplified compared to the real Universe. There's not enough information to even guess at that, which means that there's no way to even say whether it's more or less likely. Also based on our knowledge, we can't even say it's possible - certainly it's not possible with current technology or theory, but we don't know the limits of technology or theory yet. So it's really a bit question mark at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Bayko said:

You could also look up Botzmann Brain. The idea is that the Universe has a very improbably balance of properties that makes life possible, and it's far more likely for the Universe to be a lifeless, unstructured chaotic mess. So why are we here? Simply, only the small subset of Universes that could produce an environment that life can evolve in will contain the intelligence to be aware of it, so there must be a (nearly) infinite number of Universes with all mix of properties, and we just happen to be in one that allowed us to evolve. But the complexity of an entire Universe with the right properties is more than the complexity of just one brain. So it's actually more likely that the Universe consists of (or contains) just one brain which "perceives" the external world by false senses - that is, there is only one "perceiver" brain that is hallucinating, and everything else is unknowable chaos.

 

The flaw is that it's not necessarily true that a brain is simpler than a life supporting Universe. If a brain exists, something also exists to keep it alive, and then the Universe complexity increases from there. Descartes touched on this concept vaguely - roughly speaking, he surmised that perceptions must come from somewhere, and if they were too different from reality, the "perceiver" wouldn't survive long (for example, walking off a cliff - which supposes that the actions the "perceiver" takes are actually performed in the real world, which if not guaranteed to be the case).

 

As for a simulation, the theory is that if someone decides to make a simulation, and has the technology to make it so accurate that the inhabitants can't tell the difference between it and reality, then someone in it will also want to make a simulation as well, and so on. This story illustrates the idea:https://qntm.org/responsibility

 

The other thing is that if one person wants to make a simulation, so will someone else. In an infinite Universe that means an infinite number of simulations created by an infinite number of individuals, each with an infinite number of simulations. So that means that change of any Universe not being a simulation is roughly 1 / infinity, or vanishingly close to 0.

 

There are several flaws with this view. First, the story above makes the point that it requires infinitely powerful computation, which does not exist. It can't exist because all computation requires energy, and even if that energy is the smallest amount that could theoretically exist, that amount multiplied by infinity is still infinity, and there is no infinite energy source. Also when one computation is replaced by the next, the previous one is released as heat, and that would raise the temperature of the Universe by an infinite amount.

 

With finite computation, that means that simulated Universes must either run much slower, or the simulated physics must be less accurate, or more likely both (Consider a computer simulating itself - each simulated operation takes multiple real operations. And a perfectly simulated Universe must also contain a computer equivalent to the one which simulates it). And since the Universe has limited resources, any simulation which is indistinguishable from reality will not be able to span the time of an entire Universe - and any simulations started within those simulations will have even less time. At some point the parent simulation will be stopped, terminating any simulated simulation early.

 

A Universe simulation would more likely be started well past the beginning of the Universe, but it would still have a limited life span. The numbers change from infinity to an unknown but finite quantity. It still is large-n to 1 in favour of any given Universe being a simulation, but it's no longer a virtual certainty.

 

Next, simulations themselves have creator imposed limits, either intentional, like observing a specific thing of interest like a supernova, or unintentional like bugs, or inevitable like simplifications. Anomalies might be allowed and noticeable if they don't interfere with the purpose of the simulation. The simulation you're in will not likely include the full Universe, so if your Universe has no detectable anomalies, it's probably not a simulation. On the other hand,  simulation limits might just seem like a natural part of the Universe. - for example, the expansion of the Universe means that there is a visible edge 46.5 away. That might seem fishy, but cosmology theories also can't find any way for a Universe to exist and not have that occur, so there's no way to know.

 

Overall, there is too much unnecessary detail in the Universe if it were a simplified simulation, so that reduces the numbers severely. Of course we have no idea how much detail might be needed for whatever purpose someone might want to simulate our Universe, and what we can measure and experience might actually be very simplified compared to the real Universe. There's not enough information to even guess at that, which means that there's no way to even say whether it's more or less likely. Also based on our knowledge, we can't even say it's possible - certainly it's not possible with current technology or theory, but we don't know the limits of technology or theory yet. So it's really a bit question mark at this point.

I will read this later i should get back to my studying

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Necron said:

I find the idea that free will doesn't exist (the present has enough information in it to completely define the future) easier to believe than the idea that there is something inherently unpredictable about the future.

According to chaos theory, the future is inevitable, but unknowable (well, predictable within limits). Which in a practical sense is the same as free will, without resorting to mystical non-physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Bayko said:

According to chaos theory, the future is inevitable, but unknowable (well, predictable within limits). Which in a practical sense is the same as free will, without resorting to mystical non-physics.

Maybe unpredictable isn't the right word to describe what I meant.  It doesn't matter to me that the future is practically unknowable.  I just like to think there is some underlying state that is being propagated through time, according to some unchanging laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, John Bayko said:

There are several flaws with this view. First, the story above makes the point that it requires infinitely powerful computation, which does not exist. It can't exist because all computation requires energy, and even if that energy is the smallest amount that could theoretically exist, that amount multiplied by infinity is still infinity, and there is no infinite energy source. Also when one computation is replaced by the next, the previous one is released as heat, and that would raise the temperature of the Universe by an infinite amount.

Hmm I don't think many people believe that the Universe is infinite anymore. It's pretty well quantified.

 

We probably have free will because we are after all just like mould growing on a wet pebble on the beach. Our existence is inevitable if the conditions are right ... but there is no intelligence 'playing' us ... anything that advanced would ;

 

1. Find our existence so dull as to be utterly uninteresting.

2. Not have messed up wasting time making dinosaurs.

 

But we might not have free will...when time eventually stops and all the Universe is in entropy... cold, immobile and dead.. it could be that time will begin to rewind and gather pace towards a big gnab. If it did everything may simply retrace it's steps.. every atom may follow exactly the path that it took originally. So we would live our lives in reverse, with no free will.

BUT ... if that's imaginable then why not the idea that that whole cycle has already happened and we are now in an expansion again? But destined to follow a well trodden path .. just like a DVD on play once more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, banoffeepie said:

there is no intelligence 'playing' us ... anything that advanced would ;

 

1. Find our existence so dull as to be utterly uninteresting.

2. Not have messed up wasting time making dinosaurs.

Maybe we're being simulated by some spotty basement-dweller 'neckbeard'-type who has sweet Fanny Adams better to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2018 at 4:27 AM, Lucas Monteiro said:

There is other theories with similar approach, such as the theory that we live on a universe created by holograms. It's really all interesting, but we can't prove for sure, at least not now. But back to the topic and to your theory, there is some proves that may help us think that we are in a simulation, such as that particles don't have any velocity but only when we examine them, they have it. I would suggest for you to study Quantum Physics, lots of great and disturb things are seen by studying her.

We can't even test it, let alone even starting to think about proving it for sure. I'm not sure what you mean about particles not having a velocity until you examine them? Are you referring to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle? If so, the most common form of this principle draws a relationship between the uncertainty of a particle's position and momentum. Or are you referring to the observer effect in which (when applied to quantum mechanics) a wavefunction will collapse when 'measured' into one of its available quantum states from its previous superposition?

 

Regardless, neither the uncertainty principle nor the observer effect proves anything of the nature of a simulation. We don't know why this happens, as far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean we get to fill in the gaps with whatever we want. I could also say it's evidence of Martians interfering with our experiments. Else how would the universe know we're trying to observe it if the Martians aren't telling it we are?

 

21 hours ago, AstroCookie said:

I like physics, cant decide because i like quantum, particle and astronomy. 

Why not choose astroparticle physics? Three in one! Study the quantum and particle physics of the Big Bang, for example.

 

1 hour ago, banoffeepie said:

Hmm I don't think many people believe that the Universe is infinite anymore. It's pretty well quantified.

I wasn't aware we had managed to quantify the universe's size. What is this well quantified size you speak of? Surely such a feat would have been boasted about just as much as the gravitational wave detection..? I couldn't find anything on a quick Google (or Astrophysical Journal) search, could you please provide a link to a research paper?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this theory and it's cool but I don't really think it changes all that much. Simulation or not, it still feels real to me and to the other people living in it and that's the most important part. Heck we could be a forgotten Petri dish in a gigantic lab but we still think we're real and we explore, so that's the important bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, banoffeepie said:

Hmm I don't think many people believe that the Universe is infinite anymore. It's pretty well quantified.

What I was referring to was the idea of an infinitely powerful computer, and why that's not possible. However, all we know about is the size of the observable Universe, no way to extrapolate beyond it - specifically no way to know it's not infinite.

 

Since the Universe had a beginning, which was infinitely dense as far as we can extrapolate, you're looking at the limit of infinity divided by infinity, which is not well defined. That is to say, based on that there's still no way to say whether the Universe is finite or not.

 

11 hours ago, banoffeepie said:

But we might not have free will...when time eventually stops and all the Universe is in entropy... cold, immobile and dead.. it could be that time will begin to rewind and gather pace towards a big gnab.

Time goes forward because of how entropy progresses, not just because entropy increases. Imagine balls on a pool table. Give each one a random velocity, and they will end up in random positions - this is true whether they are racked into a triangle or in random positions to start with, with the exception of one very specific set of velocities that will send them back to the original nicely ordered triangle. Again, you're looking at one out of infinity, so unlikely to happen that you can discount it with confidence.

 

That's why time goes only one way. Infinitely equivalent random outcomes, nearly no equivalent ordered outcomes, and only one original. To reverse time you'd need some force to actually reverse every motion (spend twice the energy that exists in the Universe), and even that will only work for a Newtonian Universe. Quantum physics might have an underlying structure that allows it, but it doesn't look likely, and what we do know forbids the complete precision needed. Relativity doesn't at all within a black hole - light can't escape because gravity pulls it, but because space is warped so much that the direction "out" literally no longer exists, meaning even a reversed trajectory just goes more "in".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need to do is explore the universe until we hit the Minecraft badlands where the computer can't procedurally generate anything more and it gets all wonky.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 5:14 AM, John Bayko said:

Time goes forward because of how entropy progresses, not just because entropy increases. Imagine balls on a pool table. Give each one a random velocity, and they will end up in random positions - this is true whether they are racked into a triangle or in random positions to start with, with the exception of one very specific set of velocities that will send them back to the original nicely ordered triangle. Again, you're looking at one out of infinity, so unlikely to happen that you can discount it with confidence.

 

If the balls were not hit laterally but thrown in the air they would all stop at different heights and then fall down returning to their lowest energy level but to an observer on the ball the lowest energy level would APPEAR to be at the height of it's travel, which would be at it's highest potential energy. Maybe that's the state of our 'dead' Universe.  Or if the balls were on a pendulum and swung they would oscillate around a lowest energy point in a simple harmonic motion. Who's to say our big bang point is not a point through which our Universe oscillates, with time rewinding after each extremity is reached?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 5:14 AM, John Bayko said:

Since the Universe had a beginning, which was infinitely dense

Oh that's interesting, I'd love a copy if you've got that written somewhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, banoffeepie said:

> Since the Universe had a beginning, which was infinitely dense

 

Oh that's interesting, I'd love a copy if you've got that written somewhere?

That's kind of the definition of the "big bang", so, almost any source on the subject. It's the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

 

That is an extrapolation based on Relativity. There might be some unknown physics that limits the density of the Universe, but being unknown, it's not science yet, just speculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, banoffeepie said:

If the balls were not hit laterally but thrown in the air they would all stop at different heights and then fall down returning to their lowest energy level but to an observer on the ball the lowest energy level would APPEAR to be at the height of it's travel, which would be at it's highest potential energy. Maybe that's the state of our 'dead' Universe.  Or if the balls were on a pendulum and swung they would oscillate around a lowest energy point in a simple harmonic motion. Who's to say our big bang point is not a point through which our Universe oscillates, with time rewinding after each extremity is reached?

Analogies break down pretty quickly, so it's best not to try to extrapolate anything from them. I was just trying to explain what "causes" time to only go forward in familiar terms. Specifically for most events there are few equivalent starting points and a huge number of ending points, so if you just pick one at random, it will almost always be an ending point - that is, goes forward in time.

 

The opposite can occur, a marble in a bowl has many equivalent starting points, but only one end point. But that's not as common, and when you look at the larger picture and include more things (the sound the marble makes, the heat caused by its motion, the drop from the rim of the bowl to the bottom, the person dropping the marble), then you get back to large number of end points, and few starting points (e.g. random sound waves won't converge on the bowl and start pushing the marble up to the rim), with the position of the marble being the only exception within this system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a simulation therory that touts itself as arguably unable to be proven or disproven is just a faith that thinks it's more sciencey than other faiths and is not anything I have any reason to care about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 1:53 PM, Baam said:

Are you referring to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle? If so, the most common form of this principle draws a relationship between the uncertainty of a particle's position and momentum. Or are you referring to the observer effect in which (when applied to quantum mechanics) a wavefunction will collapse when 'measured' into one of its available quantum states from its previous superposition?

 

Regardless, neither the uncertainty principle nor the observer effect proves anything of the nature of a simulation. We don't know why this happens, as far as I'm aware.

The way I've thought of this issue is about incompatibility of methods of measurement/analysis.  I may have details off it's been a while, but someone was discussing how photons go through atoms and scatter happens on an x-ray for example, or how sometimes a photon is absorbed... and there's different ways they detect for example the energy of a particle, or the location of a particle.  If you shoot a photon at something to 'look at it' to figure out it's position, the energy of the photon will interact with the energy of what it hits, whereas if you just put a plate up to read energy levels, you don't have the interference.  So if you are looking for where something is, you don't get a clear reading of energy level because you are adding energy into the system, but if you are reading energy well then you have no idea where exactly the particle was because nothing's interacting with it to deduce it's previous position, that sort of thing, a practical conundrum, not a mystical state.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cnyb said:

The way I've thought of this issue is about incompatibility of methods of measurement/analysis.  I may have details off it's been a while, but someone was discussing how photons go through atoms and scatter happens on an x-ray for example, or how sometimes a photon is absorbed... and there's different ways they detect for example the energy of a particle, or the location of a particle.  If you shoot a photon at something to 'look at it' to figure out it's position, the energy of the photon will interact with the energy of what it hits, whereas if you just put a plate up to read energy levels, you don't have the interference.  So if you are looking for where something is, you don't get a clear reading of energy level because you are adding energy into the system, but if you are reading energy well then you have no idea where exactly the particle was because nothing's interacting with it to deduce it's previous position, that sort of thing, a practical conundrum, not a mystical state.

 

I'm not sure of what you're trying to point out. The observer effect and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle aren't issues. They merely describe some of the physics at the quantum scale.

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're speaking of the issue that measurement of a quantum system often affects the state of the system thereby changing the result. But what's your point? This still doesn't say anything about the question of whether or not we're all in a simulation, does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that issues of measurement, and the practical conundrums that result, are unfortunately misunderstood by a lot of people in terms of mystic states/properties.  Despite hearing a scientific theory, what is heard is often a philosophical justification of some other kind.  I understand the uncertainty principle in the context of issues of measurement, as a practical set of relations, to disentangle some of the 'woo' that's out there.  My preferred way to discuss 'woo' is via philosophy, without reference to quantum physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cnyb said:

The way I've thought of this issue is about incompatibility of methods of measurement/analysis.  [...] If you shoot a photon at something to 'look at it' to figure out it's position, the energy of the photon will interact with the energy of what it hits, whereas if you just put a plate up to read energy levels, you don't have the interference.  So if you are looking for where something is, you don't get a clear reading of energy level because you are adding energy into the system, but if you are reading energy well then you have no idea where exactly the particle was because nothing's interacting with it to deduce it's previous position, that sort of thing, a practical conundrum, not a mystical state.

Tha's how the uncertainty principle was first derived, but it's a more fundamental property than that.

 

Wikipedia has a useful comparison with a wave on a line. You can vibrate a string with a single frequency that's the same from one end to the other - that is, a single frequency, but no location, or rather, the position is infinite. You can add a second wave with a slightly different frequency that cancels out the first everywhere except near the centre, making the waves there higher than the others. You now have a less certain frequency (two), but a partial position. You can keep adding specific frequencies which make the central wave higher. As the number of frequencies approaches infinity, the position they define approaches a single point.

 

You can consider these analogies for momentum (frequency) and position.

 

This applies to quantum physics because it models particles as waves in quantum fields, so a particle literally is made up of a combination of wave frequencies (in three dimensional space, not just a string) producing a position and a motion. People sometimes get confused about the idea of a particle not being something with a specific size, location, and movement, but that's because all direct experience is with huge masses of particles behaving differently than individual particles do. Similarly the expression that "light acts like a particle and a wave" is also incorrect - photons always act exactly like photons, but as a group can seem wave-like.

 

Anyone who doesn't like it can always say the quantum model is wrong, but that's not very useful without some other explanation that actually works, and nobody has come up with one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of food for thought there... I am recalling something about particle or wave behavior being dependent on relative size or energy, i.e., if small enough (or at the right energy level?) to get past a field of electrons, it might act as a wave, but if bigger (or different energy level?), bounces off like a particle.  What I took away from that sort of thing was, again, so much strangeness can derive from simple-seeming practical consequence (size or energy preventing or allowing passage through a field) .  IRRC.

 

But I guess it boils down to, it's way over my head on the maths and physics, but sometimes a particular illustration or analogy brings some common-sense-like normality to concepts that otherwise get easily misunderstood or mushed up into ideas detached from observation/analysis of experience.  Or philosophically, how much of perceived and interpreted phenomena more or less corresponds with an ontological state or processes, with how much distortion in the construction of meaningful relationships -- back to questions of simulation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cnyb said:

My point is that issues of measurement, and the practical conundrums that result, are unfortunately misunderstood by a lot of people in terms of mystic states/properties.  Despite hearing a scientific theory, what is heard is often a philosophical justification of some other kind.  I understand the uncertainty principle in the context of issues of measurement, as a practical set of relations, to disentangle some of the 'woo' that's out there.  My preferred way to discuss 'woo' is via philosophy, without reference to quantum physics.

Yes, I agree. People try to mix up philosophy and physics ('metaphysics') and often mess it up entirely. See Deepak Chopra for a stunning example of this.

 

3 hours ago, Cnyb said:

Lots of food for thought there... I am recalling something about particle or wave behavior being dependent on relative size or energy, i.e., if small enough (or at the right energy level?) to get past a field of electrons, it might act as a wave, but if bigger (or different energy level?), bounces off like a particle.  What I took away from that sort of thing was, again, so much strangeness can derive from simple-seeming practical consequence (size or energy preventing or allowing passage through a field) .  IRRC.

The idea of particles and waves is just a model to describe how we see electrons (or any other type) act. Neither the particle model nor the wave model is 100% accurate. It turns out that depending on certain things - like size - the particle or the wave model works better. At longer wavelengths, photons are described better in terms of waves. At shorter wavelengths, they're better described as particles. But they're really not one or the either, they're both. They're just models. Physics does not give us any absolute truths, we only model the universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2018 at 12:46 PM, AstroCookie said:

I always have been curious with this one it’s fascinating I haven’t had any time to really look into it. All I know is that the likely hood of us living in a simulation.

i guarantee that we live in a simulation. this is in fact, the function of our brain. assuming it, and the rest of existence even exists in the first place - the brain can only simulate it. All we know is a simulation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...