Monday, August 2, 2010
I already know what I know, so I am not interested in what you think and have to say ...
Tom Siegfried had a great comment in the July 31st Science News (in the magazine, but the site for them is (www,sciencenews.org). I love this magazine and have been a reader for a long time. I love that it's today topical and cover's what's out there as well as doing their own stories. It comes in a short format magazine, but in depth reporting and stories with links to background and more info on their site should you want to explore more on the various topics they report and write about. Anyway, in his editorial he said that "science is not the sum of past research as recorded in textbooks, but the active process of continuing to question nature even if those books say the answers are already in." He was by example talking about recent research finding that the proton may be not as big as has been thought in well-established scientific theories. and it's potential effects on what we currently believe. This was a timely read for me because this exact topic came up while visiting a friend of mine in the hospital last week. We were talking about scientist's lack of interest in ideas that buck the norm (or as Tom put it, what's "in the textbooks"). Bruce recently asked whether we were living in a computer simulation in his book "Reality is Virtual". His goal was to get the discussion going on the science behind his explorations into this idea. It is not like there isn't anyone asking, thinking about or discussing this topic since a search on Google will return numerous sites and dialog on this (although interestingly, not Bruce's). But at a quick glance, nothing mainstream science. It seems to me that we need to keep our minds open and challenge what is 'known' because it may not be what we think. There are other examples of this Bruce and I discussed, in 1915 when Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of Continental Drift (plate tectonics 'proved' in the 1960's), and more recently (1982 but recognized in 2005 with a Noble Price) Dr. Barry Marshall's discovery that ulcers can be caused by H. pylori. and the painful way he went about to to prove it when no one would listen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A recent article "Scientists Are Ready to Build Some Galaxies" (found at: http://discovermagazine.com/2010/may/04-scientists-ready-to-build-some-galaxies) illustrates these ideas. In this article Scientist use a computer model of the early universe (with all the usual physical laws programmed in) to test whether their Cold-Dark-Matter Theory creates primordial dwarf galaxies that match the appearance of photos of the same objects taken with Hubble. This line of reasoning requires that Science accepts that a computer simulation of the universe is equivalent to the real universe. Yet if one states explicitly that a computer generated version of reality is equivalent to reality, one is outside of the mainstream of science. Why? Here are two thoughts. Proposing that the universe is equivalent to a computer simulation of reality is one step closer to saying that the universe IS a computer simulation. This thought probably scares older Scientists, who did not grow up with computer video games or Science Fiction movies like “The Matrix”. Another line of thought is that “equivalence” is a very powerful idea in Science not readily granted. For example, Einstein’s equivalence between Mass and Energy (E=MC-squared), Newton’s Laws of Motion and Gravity, and others listed in Part 2 of Chapter 2 of “Reality is Virtual” ( www.realityisvirtual.com). When I have discussed the idea that the universe is equivalent to a computer simulation of it with young Physicists and students, I get a strong and immediate sense that the idea is worth pursuing. Perhaps we just have to wait for all the older Scientists to retire before this idea can become mainstream.
ReplyDeleteis the computer simulation a model of the universe as we perceive it or as the universe truly is?
ReplyDeleteBrendan, that is THE question. What seems to be definititvely true is that the universe we perceive is definitely equivalent to a computer simulation of it - at least a computer simulation with enough computer power and all the laws of the universe programmed in (not all are known by us now, but the assumption is that the laws are knowable and will in time be known). This weaker statement is not accepted by all scientists even though they make the assumption that it is true. Anyone who denies that the universe is (at least) equivalent to a computer simulation is denying the facts as they now appear in the 21st century. But could in fact the universe actually BE a computer simulation? Not just equivalent to one, but actually be a computer simulation? Since Science only can tell you that it is equivalent to a simulation, you need to consider areas not strictly the bound of science. In my book "Reality is Virtual" part 2 explores this equstion in detail and comes to the conclusion that it makes more sense than not that this universe is, in fact, a computer simulation. Not an easy idea to swallow. I can't quickly summarize the book's line of reasoning but you can check out the table of contents at the website - realityisvirtual.com. Let me know if you purchase the book ($14.95) plus shipping and don't be afraid to use the e-mail link on the website for further questions or dialogue. (Note - I am presently working on my dark matter hypothesis. In summary - today scientists know that the stars in galaxies do not orbit as expected. They guess that there is additional matter - DARK MATTER - lurking which handles the problem. But, no distribution of DARK MATTER handles the rotation cuve of the smaller galaxies. I am suspicious that the computer simulation handling gravity is overtaxed by the number ofr concurrent gravitation force changes and combines them to keep the compuation within bounds. It "rounds-up". Anyhow - that is what is next for me. If it works it definitely supports the idea that the universe is ACTUALLY a computer simulation - because only a computer simulation/computation would such a course of action make sense.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely a hard idea to swallow. Does that then mean the big bang was when our creator plugged in the power cable? I think I'll pick up your buy, I like buying things on Amazon. Can a simulation explain relativity?
ReplyDeleteThe Big Bang was immediately followed by a period of "Inflation", where the universe expanded in size by (about) 2 to the 100th power in a very tiny period of time [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29 for an explanation]. I have not been able to figure out how to incorporate "Inflation" into a computer simulation of the universe - partly because no one has a clue as to the process/energy/force and also because it happened in a time interval smaller than any simulation interval I would use in a simulation of the universe. So from my perspective I suggest that 'God' started the computer simulation at what we identify as the end of inflation. As to explaining relativity - somewhat. It is clear that the speed of light is a limitation of a computer simulation. It is also clear that the framework that I propose is consistent with Special Relativity - but that doesn't really explain it. BUT, if you are a simulation and there was no Special Relativity then you could figure out what the framework of the simulation is. Thus Special Relativity is required in a simulation where you are trying to hide the fact that it is a simulation from those inside the simulation. Now, why would you want that? Don't you enjoy the movies and books that you get lost in - that seem real? If you could actually see the seems of the simulation then you would realize it isn't real and the fun would be gone. That is a much too short explanation of an idea explored in greater detail in Part II of the book, Reality is Virtual. To find the book on Amazon.com you need to search for "reality is virtual bruce maier" - for some crazy reason without the author's name the book is way low on the returned list of books. You can also find our more at realityisvirtual.com.
ReplyDelete