We are not a computer simulation afterall

[GreyGeek]

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/p...ter-simulation

Quantum Monte Carlo methods use random sampling to analyse many-body quantum problems where the equations involved cannot be solved directly.


Ringel and Kovrizhi showed that attempts to use quantum Monte Carlo to model systems exhibiting anomalies, such as the quantum Hall effect, will always become unworkable.
They discovered that the complexity of the simulation increased exponentially with the number of particles being simulated.


If the complexity grew linearly with the number of particles being simulated, then doubling the number of partices would mean doubling the computing power required. If, however, the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task quickly becomes impossible.

So, we don't live in "the matrix" after all. May that idea

[jpenguin]

The study was rigged by those running the simulation.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk

[GreyGeek]

The study was rigged by those running the simulation.

A "false flag" operation, huh?

[Snowhog]

Obi Wan: "These are not the droids you are looking for."
Storm Trooper: "These aren't the droids we are looking for."
Obi Wan: "Move along."
Storm Tropper: "Move along."

[Simon]

Personally as medical doctor, I find all those physicists highly condescending and annoying. They express things with a math formula and state the formula is proof God was swallowed by a blackhole (or other nonsense) just to get published. When you question their methods or formulas they look at you, like you are some ape that just dropped out of a tree to call himself human. If that is not enough, they just ask, "How stupid are you?". I believe most people who fall for their quackery are the same ones who think airplane condensation trails are chemicals being spread by the CIA.

I found this old blog and I can relate with what the author has to say about "The Holographic Universe".
http://13613.blogspot.com/2010/12/ho...deo-gamer.html
This is reality people, if I cut you with a knife, you will bleed.

[jlittle]

Personally as medical doctor, I find all those physicists highly condescending and annoying.

While I sort of agree with the sentiment of your post, a couple of points:

• These news items are generally not concocted by physicists, but by hack journalists, whose job is to generate click bait. Real physicists usually don't spout this nonsense with other physicists, they'd be laughed at.
• The medical profession does condescension on an industrial scale. IMO they used to be trained at it, perhaps sincerely believing that encouraging "we know best" is in the best interest of patients. Doctors I know in my country of my generation were trained to hide their condescension, but it's still there. I have a doctor in-law in the US who was not so well-trained. When I encounter it, I may become condescending, with the attitude that medical training brainwashes doctors, so their intellect is impaired, thus inferior to mine. Can produce sparks. Getting self-referential here.

It appears to me that the original paper is about simulating quantum level interactions with real computers by us, and it's a stretch to take it as evidence against our universe being a simulation. The main idea with that is that all the information in any volume can be mapped to a surface enclosing that volume, and so our universe could be an object in a containing universe of higher dimension; but the physics of that universe would not be ours, and the whole idea is unfalsifiable speculation.

[GreyGeek]

....
It appears to me that the original paper is about simulating quantum level interactions with real computers by us, and it's a stretch to take it as evidence against our universe being a simulation. The main idea with that is that all the information in any volume can be mapped to a surface enclosing that volume, and so our universe could be an object in a containing universe of higher dimension; but the physics of that universe would not be ours, and the whole idea is unfalsifiable speculation.

It was about using Quantum Monte Carlo methods and random sampling to analyze many-body quantum problems where the equations involved cannot be solved directly. ... If, however, the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task quickly becomes impossible.

With exponential doubling even a computer with the number of gates equal to the number of atomic, or even quantum particles in the known universe, would quickly run out of space. IF we, supposedly in a matrix, run out off space, even the entity containing the matrix would run out of room as well, regardless of how much "RAM" it had. And this doesn't even take into account Kurt Gödel's limitations.

[kubicle]

It was about using Quantum Monte Carlo methods and random sampling to analyze many-body quantum problems where the equations involved cannot be solved directly. ... If, however, the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task quickly becomes impossible.

With exponential doubling even a computer with the number of gates equal to the number of atomic, or even quantum particles in the known universe, would quickly run out of space. IF we, supposedly in a matrix, run out off space, even the entity containing the matrix would run out of room as well, regardless of how much "RAM" it had. And this doesn't even take into account Kurt Gödel's limitations.

I have to concur with jlittle, it would be illogical to conclude that the rules of the simulation would govern those running the simulation (and the study doesn't really do that, it just suggests that it would be impossible to run the simulation within the rules of the simulation...the extrapolation is done in the article, not the study).

For example, if I ran an "ant farm simulation" in a box, it would be illogical for the ants to conclude that I couldn't exist because I wouldn't fit in the box.

For all we know, things like "RAM", "Quantum Mechanics" etc. might only exists within the simulation and not have anything to do with "the real world". I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just saying there is no way to know (and the study shines no light on this).

[GreyGeek]

Binary logic, and its constraints, would work the same in the simulation or outside of it. The binary computer of the ant farm "simulator" (farmer?) would have the same restraints that exist on the binary computers of the ants. Binary logic is just a form of math, so math in or out of the simulation would have the same constraints. So, if WE exist as 0's and 1's in some computer that computer program would fail as well.

[kubicle]

Binary logic, and its constraints, would work the same in the simulation or outside of it. The binary computer of the ant farm "simulator" (farmer?) would have the same restraints that exist on the binary computers of the ants. Binary logic is just a form of math, so math in or out of the simulation would have the same constraints. So, if WE exist as 0's and 1's in some computer that computer program would fail as well.

This isn't really true (well, more accurately, it could very well be true, but the statement cannot be proven)...Just as a 3D simulation universe could exist in a multi-dimensional simulatee system, the mathematics and physics are restricted to the universe/simulation we see (for all we can know) and are not necessarily universal in the sense that it would apply to things outside our universe/simulation. For example, we can create a 2D simulation like the "game of life" with it's own rules laws or "physics", but we, "the simulators", would not need to abide by those rules, nor could "anyone" within the simulation really logically apply the rules of the simulation to the outside world.

Also, "the simulators" could simply be just be feeding us (or just me or you) just everything that we perceive in our immediate surroundings (they would not need to simulate our whole "complicated universe"...just the things we can perceive at any specific time, not a particularly hard task even for our computers. For example, if I would do a quantum experience of some sort, the simulators could just feed me results that I would interpret as quantum phenomenon, even if the results would in fact not be quantum (or random) results. And to follow the path even further, even the study in question (or the results of the study) could just be electrical signals fed to our brains (or in reality, electricity and our brains might not exist at all, but the data could be fed to our minds in some other way that would follow no logical laws of the world as we perceive it).

Again, I'm not saying these thing are actually happening, just that we cannot know if they do. And this study doesn't offer an answer either (nor does it claim to do so).

If this study would actually prove we cannot exist in a simulation (which it doesn't do or claim to do), it would also simultaneously rule out god as well, and one would think it would have gotten some better publicity for accomplishing that (previously thought to be) impossible task. (You can picture god scratching his head on the third day because his brand new "CreationComputer2000" throws an out-of-memory error as it does not have enough RAM to handle all the 0s and 1s needed to create and run our complicated universe).

[GreyGeek]

And 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.

The original study is here.

RESULTS

Here, we expose a direct link between gravitational responses and the sign problem in QMC. In particular, we show that no local sign-free QMC formulation is possible for phases that have a nonvanishing quantized thermal Hall conductance and a gapped bulk. These results suggest a link between quantum gravitational effects and quantum complexity theory.

And their proofs summarize in equations 11, 17 and 21.

The "matrix" and the simulation itself (our universe) are one and the same. IF we are a simulation then we are IN the matrix and the difficulty of a problem which increases exponentially for us does the same for the "matrix". While the "matrix" may be larger than and encompass our universe, exponential increases will overcome that largeness as well. A computer running the Game of Life has the same problem. To be more precise, IF the Game of Life is allowed to be self-modifying, as WE are, it can generate algorithms which can not only crash itself, but the computer that is running it as well. That's what the study is claiming.