Alan Guth - Are We Living in a Simulation?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 янв 2013
- For more videos and information from Alan Guth click here bit.ly/1Fn0oN1
For more vides on whether we're living in a simulation bit.ly/1G9RQw2
To buy episodes and seasons of Closer To Truth click here bit.ly/1LUPlQS
Could a super intelligence create a universe? Are we living in such a universe?
wow he really explained the theory more clearly than any other physicist that i heard about alternate universe.
Not the first time a gram has created an imagined universe....
a little special sauce
Won't be the last, either.
A gram in a Las Vegas hotel at 5am, is powerful enough to explain the inflation theory
@@MrPINHEAD123 yup, and pretty much any other theory that you might want to cook up, too.
Haha no doubt
This is mind numbingly brilliant!!
If I'm going to create a universe, I would want to seed all new civilizations with a Bible describing that Pizza is the omnipresent creator, and forbid pineapple from being on pizza as the unforgiveable sin.
Hahahahahhaha
If "God" supposedly created the universe especially for us, why does the universe need to be so vast for one little planet. Religion is just nonsense , the men who wrote the Bible knew as much about the cosmos as a chimpanzee.
"Are we living in a simulation?" that isn't what this suggests. It suggests a new universe that is every bit as real as the one it was created from and completely separate from its parent, indistinguishable in terms of origin between the two. It also suggests "creation" would be more of an act of nudging a boulder down the cliff, then letting the laws of nature take their course.
THE ULTIMATE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=MA.
Consider the man who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!!
E=mc2 IS F=ma. The linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE SUN is A POINT in the night sky. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, the linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE EARTH is ALSO A POINT in the night sky. Great. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the Earth AND the Sun are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!!!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA.
The EARTH and the SUN thus constitute and comprise what are the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) INDEED, BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Now, very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Great.
NOW, OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. Notice the black space of THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. Now, carefully consider what is the semi-spherical, translucent, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE SKY. Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEAR. THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE (AS WATER). GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as this unifies AND balances gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This clearly explains BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, the BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Our EXPERIENCE is NECESSARILY that of what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS we are BALANCED between what are THE SUN AND c (A POINT); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH/as F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. THINK about what is QUANTUM GRAVITY.
"Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!! Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravitational force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Magnificent !!!
E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE visible or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH. So, the electron AND photon are structureless. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to E=mc2 AS F=ma. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to the Sun AND c (A POINT). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=MA. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=MC2 IS F=MA. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) It is a very great truth that THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Beautiful. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
By Frank DiMeglio
This is more of a "daughter universe", like a hydra budding off a new individual.
I agree with the general sense of what you're saying. There's no "gradient" of reality implied by such a process. But it also inevitably raises the question of how the environment in which all this presumably happens gets its own existence with its own properties which enable or constrain the creation of subsequent environments.
One thing that's clear from this line of speculation is that it can't originate in strict nothingness, because that would also entail an absence of all properties such as the potential for inflation or some other more abstract sort of emergence. Even the most minimal form of bootstrapping requires a nonempty definition.
At the other extreme, we can't strictly rule out an "everything is possible" precondition out of which has happened, in our case, to emit a universe with quite coherent properties. It's still only a line of speculation to consider this, but interesting that it can't be ruled out in principle.
What do you want to say
Simulation, in the OTHER sense of the word. And also, tho we may experience reality, it could be we are in a derivative of the actual reality that we “broke off from”.
I love your interviews!
Interesting and worthwhile video.
I admire Guth, and the interview is interesting. But it has nothing to do with the question in the title, "Are we living in a simulation?" Guth is talking about creating a *real*, independent universe, that follows the laws of physics, not a *simulation* of a universe, running in a computer or other device in the experimenters' universe (which almost instantly gets causally separated from the created universe in Guth's scenario), according to rules/algorithms of the experimenters' choosing.
Mapping the solar system good discussion. Amazing conversation.
This is a very good thought you have here. Very good. Continue to develop this on your own. Be careful not to adopt ideologies into you thought process, or copy information from other ideologies. That would be detrimental. You should do a video expressing your thoughts.
Wow, what a mind, could listen to this erudite fellow for hours.
No discussion of living in a simulation. Only talks about creating a universe in an experiment.
Which is essentially the same thing.
Nal: I think not the same. A physical universe created in another physical universe is not equal to a simulated, computer software system.
@@adamtek909 how you know that this universe and his physical laws is a sumilatoin in a computer it is the same if you thing about it
@@chakir348 maybe this is a computer generated universe, but in this video there's nothing about it
I agree with you, misleading title but still interesting.
Love your series ! Unique and distinquished ;)
great interview, this is amazing.. thank
Titled wrong but very cool. Should be, " are we living in an experiment " or something like that.
Very good. Thank you.
The title is misleading. That happens sadly too often in the small clips of Closer to Truth. The person in charge of giving the tilte of the small clips seems rather confused.
They're probably correct in some parallel universe or something
Guth's "baby universe" isn't the same thing as a sim, is it? It's a real universe, created by intelligent beings in an existing universe, that then "goes its own way" and is every bit as real. Sounds like this segment has the wrong title.... no less fascinating, though.
I like his theory better than the pure simulation theory. It's more elegant and seems to fit better within what we already know about the laws of physics.
thanks ..very interesting..
Would you have to push it together or would you have to get it to attract itself to an infinitely small size?
Alan's the man!
He's not.
People are thinking of “simulation” too narrowly defined in their mind. It’s just an explanation of “why are we here?”. Simulation doesn’t mean we are in the Sims, being modelled after something, or being looked over by someone.
Simulation is just a word to describe the idea that we were created by a “God” who had all the necessary ingredients to make a universe pop into existence from theirs.
My guess is that these universes that are created have all different types of properties tied to their fundamental nature. Some of these universes fundamental properties don’t allow for life to form (eg. no entropy), but ones like ours allow for life, which allows that universe to question the most important one of all, why are we here?
Who we were modelled after isn’t the question. The question is what fundamental principles of our universe led to make this universe look the way it does?
If a being create simulation with universe starting as tiny gram, then what fills out rest of the picture that universe expands into through inflation and dark energy, some kind of multiverse? The simulator being would live outside or inside the multiverse picture that the universe expands into?
3:50: I observed a special effect that model this effect. Also shows a rapped expansion and quick containment of the expansion. When the containment is achieved it leads to E.S. Wave equation.
where did you see it?
Neyo Utha by accident I became fascinated with a mechanical effect I observed when I was very young. The mechanical effect takes a sheet of material And I compress it from the end to make it buckle. You might know that this is Euler’s column theory that engineers used to calculate the thickness needed for a column to prevent it from buckling. In field theory the sheet of material would represent a two dimensional field. In engineering a lot of times the area under the curve represents energy. This area increases very rapidly over a short period of time. My process is a variation of Euler’s contain column theory/work. In my model if the containment of the of the curve is not achieved very early then affect does not work. This is the initial condition of my mechanical model. From that point I compress the Buckle. As I compress the buckle and waves start to be produced. this models the quantum mechanics‘s wave function known as particle in a box our quantum particle and I infinite potential well. Please see my video of this mechanical effect. Are use it to build structures and also springs with unique characteristics.
If you could control the process that Guth is speculating about, then rather than create a new universe, wouldn't you potentially have a small black hole? And if you could control it's collapse or expansion, could you use the characteristics to locally warp some specific region of our own space/time?
Is something like this the route to WARP drive?
fascinating idea. What would render state of nothingness unstable?
I thought the beginning of the Universe was like making an apple pie but I could be wrong. What I notice is that when I am eating pie my mouth is opening and closing. Much like how Robert and Alan's mouths are opening and closing when they talk about getting closer to that abstract concept we all call truth.
My life is a first person shooter
But if we create a new Universe, will the new Universe continue to exist on the same level we were, when it was created, or it will begin from a random casual combination of events? And will the same psychic laws apply to this new Universe?
Would a being create a simulation with a universe starting as a tiny gram and expanded by inflation and dark energy? If this universe would be a simulation of tiny gram expanded by inflation and dark energy, what would that say about the simulator?
The visualization of a two-dimensional planar universe becoming dimpled and then eventually pinching off into a separate planar universe could use a slightly more detailed explanation.
The first thing that was pointed out - and it's important - is that the dimple isn't really in a higher dimension like that used in this visualization. It's more like an elastic distortion of the plane - at least, from the viewpoint if anyone on the plane, the two are indistinguishable.
So you don't end up with two parallel planes, much as that seems geometrically plausible. What you have instead is a consequence of how any interval in any dimension has the same cardinality as any other, regardless of size. So in the limit you can have a plane lying within an infinitesimal interval of some other plane. I don't see how it would be unavailable to the enclosing plane, however.
This mostly works nicely if you know anything about computer Hosts and VMs and we already have those
They say multiple universes can exist or float in a higher multiverse or membrane or other dimensions. But it is really difficult to conceive of something existing outside of our universe, especially if our universe is infinite in distance as some physicists believe.
Sir i have a best idia about galaxy ican share with talented person can u talk me
The total energy of the universe is said to be 0 ( the gravitational potential energy is negative and compensates for the positive energy ), but maybe not exactly zero. It may have started with a strict minimum of energy which would have started the inflation.
For more info regarding cosmology, you can watch Susskind's videos, like watch ? v=rYQTAJ50A44. The last cosmology lecture is about inflation if you're interested in the basics.
My 2 cents...
I have never understood how physicists came to that conclusion. How is the total energy 0, when the universe is expanding exponentially, and there is no indication that it will stop or reverse. This suggests a polarity, or energy in some direction (energy/dark energy , negative/positive). I have a lot of thinking to do.
Im not so sure. But I will think about what you claim.
Guth explains in one video how the gravitational energy can be negative. Look at his videos about inflation and you will find it.
Basically you can extract energy form negative gravitational energy.
We know for a fact from studying the flatness of the cosmic microwave background that the universe is flat with a precision of more than 1 percent, which means that the total energy is close to 0 indeed.
And that God says," sure, make your own stuff, but all my particles are copyrighted. You have to create your own particles."
Shh.
Can we create our own atoms? Maybe we could just borrow and innovate something
Conrad Garcia underated comments
Woahhh last line....
Your first paragraph is just nitpicking.
Regarding your second paragraph I could see how a naturally evolved super-intelligent creator of the Universe could be called a god, but I also pointed out that the most common view of god(s) is that it is supernatural. So, even if this naturally evolved species created the Universe, and even if we choose to call it "god" (with our without capitalization) all the major religions would still have been incorrect about the nature of this "god".
Here's a good question for you. If the universe is like a bath tub and a black hole is a drain then where does all the matter it consumes drain into.?
Wow!
This how the idea of inflation sounds bizzer, which says the matter is created the energy is acquired from the repulsive gravity, although we knew that gravity is nothing but quality of matter in space with time when there is not matter and space and time howcan gravity be the possible reason for creating matter
Who's the guy doing the interview?
Alan Guth is so cool.
what's with the reverb?
Why Mr. Anderson, why do persist Mr. Anderson
What an ending!!
Amazing intellect He-Man has in our universe...
Wow, I just realised that he looks like He-Man. 😂
Even if we are in a simulation, and the entire universe was created by someone outside ours, there still has to be a first. Basically, even if literally everything was different in that universe, there would still have to be a start, and therefor still a question of who created that one, and so on. You can explain infinity, or the idea that time is just an illusion all you want, but in my mind you still have to have a first universe. But like I said,....who created that one? You can't get to the egg part before you have the chicken, and you can't get a chicken without an egg.
That's ego talking, man thinks everything needs to have a beginning. I truly believe it has always been, no beginning or end. Fractals,same above as below. .
All chickens hatch from eggs but not all eggs are derived from chickens. Evolution from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) eventually branched into egg-laying species which are ancestors to chickens. Before LUCA there was likely chemical evolution. Before chemical evolution, there was inflation of the universe. Before inflation there were quantum fields, which for all we know always existed. Must there be a beginning? No, because otherwise you have to concede that there was once nothing from which existence spawned. Existence must always have been. Religion is superfluous (and I would argue, therefore false).
tombapilot04 Or maybe we are just replacing God with quantum fields in the model? Maybe "quantum fields" are just a single attribute of God in our/your limited understanding. Maybe its the inevitable deduced answer to the equation thats missing more data. Religion is mans physical manifestion of expressing a higher power. Its not suppose to be a scientific proof. Perhaps our inability to understand how quantum theory and general relativity mesh is because we fail to incorporate what binds them. Maybe it is to some degree something of a spiritual notion.....Just a thought. So, I agree, " 'Existence' has always been." And I believe that existence is GOD. And in that idea, religion IS superfluous. But spirituality has always, and in my opinion, will always find its way into mans basic needs. A reminder that God created us with a hole that only He can properly fill.
jamie Russell
_"Or maybe we are just replacing God with quantum fields in the model?"_
Well, we can demonstrate that quantum fields exist, but we can't demonstrate any aspect of gods. Seems to me you are just equating "god" with "quantum fields" here and probably do so dishonestly because you have something completely different in mind, such as the Abrahamic superstitions.
_"Maybe "quantum fields" are just a single attribute of God in our/your limited understanding."_
And maybe gravity is caused by gravity fairies pulling things together. the time to believe this is when there's evidence.
_"Maybe its the inevitable deduced answer to the equation thats missing more data."_
Maybe, but rational decision makers form their beliefs based on what they know, not on what they don't know. It's logically possible that you getting out of bed in the morning will set off a bomb you don't know about, but this is not a reason for you to not get out of bed.
_"Religion is mans physical manifestion of expressing a higher power. Its not suppose to be a scientific proof."_
The problem is that it's a useless word. It doesn't allow you to predict a thing about reality. And to try to separate it away from science is just laughable. That directly implies that this "god" of yours never manifests in the physical world and consequently you have zero reason to believe it exists.
_"Perhaps our inability to understand how quantum theory and general relativity mesh is because we fail to incorporate what binds them."_
Well, that's not a question of "perhaps". Obviously they are related somehow, otherwise the universe would not exist, but "Something unknown exists" is not a license for you to start making shit up and calling it "god". That approach has a failure rate of 100% in human history. Whether gods have been invoked to explain the movement of the sun and the moon, lightning, tides, natural disasters etc - it doesn't matter - whenever we have gotten an actual understanding of something, it has turned out to not be a divine explanation.
_"Maybe it is to some degree something of a spiritual notion.....Just a thought."_
And maybe not. Our previous experience with what kind of explanations bear out in reality suggests that a "spiritual" approach is almost certainly going to be futile.
_"So, I agree, " 'Existence' has always been." And I believe that existence is GOD."_
I believe that we should try to create a language that has as little useless equivocation as possible. If "existence is God", then I have a label for it already - "existence" - that can't be conflated with all kinds of laughable bronze age myths. I find my terminology strictly superior to yours.
_"And in that idea, religion IS superfluous. But spirituality has always, and in my opinion, will always find its way into mans basic needs."_
I don't even know what "spirituality" means and I certainly have no need of it. Mostly, I think it reduces to the behavior of exceptionally gullible people who will believe anything from astrology to crystal healing etc.
_"A reminder that God created us with a hole that only He can properly fill."_
Again, I have no clue what you're talking about, but this sort of sounds like Christian indoctrination speaking, like you're somehow not a complete person if you're not part of their cult. However, this mentality is manufactured by indoctrinating people with the idea that they are malfunctioning creatures to begin with. If you don't harm people psychologically this way, they won't have this idea that they depend on invisible creatures to be full persons and will just go on making the best of their lives. Given how religious belief has a negative correlation with almost all objective measures of societal health, I think this is a good argument for why one should not engage in such indoctrination.
I agree, it's not far off saying God did it, just based on more logic and evidence.
Whoever created us must have begun themselves somehow so it becomes circular like religion. That's the flaw of the movie Prometheus, where did the Engineer's come from?
Dr. Guth looks like a simulation
hahahahaha lmfao
@@dhritimansen3307 Oh, but that's not Guth!!!
HC-JAIPUR
He looks a bit like Stephen King and has a similar laugh.
I'm not a physicist at all, but the isn't total amount of energy in the universe equal to 0? Thus it possible that the universe could've started without a creator agent? I might be wrong tho. Also, at the big bang wasn't it all just energy that was converted to matter according to the current version of the big bang?
The universe is a dream which is being observed by Consciousness which is Singular and Fundamental.
I think most scientists who postulate a simulated universe think of it as the entire observed universe being in existence, "produced in a laboritory".
This is the wrong way to look at it. You should think of it as being more like a dream, existing only inside your consciousness. If you want, you can think of it as a dream shared by a finite number of separate consciousnesses.
we could communicate with it !
Any cosomologists here? Is the 'pinching off' that Alan talks of just a stretching of space at the 'neck' of the 'bulb' to beyond any observable reach? In other words does the bulb just fall outside of the light cone of observability rather than just vanishing?
***** No, it's a spacetime separated from ours, the concept is highly theoretical and can be described in many ways and take many shapes (described by different metrics). Here are two papers about this kind of universe: arxiv.org/pdf/1406.0922v1.pdf and arxiv.org/pdf/1003.3204v3.pdf .
amadexi
many thanks.
I read the abstracts and introductions of both. Too many words and symbols I don't understand unfortunately. Nevermind. I did however pick up on the fact that universes can have very different dimensional arrangements and geometries that suggested to me that these universes would be discontinuous from each other aside from their spacetime separation.
yes.
Yes, we are.
Is serious simulation as serious as simulated seriousness ?
If a "pinched off" lab universe of the kind Guth describes would appear as a black hole from our space, and one is allowed to drift off into free association, it might allow you to imagine what lies beyond the plethora black holes in this universe.
So many physics professors, so little time!
so many professors, so little results
I think Kant would essentially agree with you. You can dream of no better company.
Wow Jeff Goldblumb cosplaying as Steve Jobs is exactly what I needed rn
In the beginning, something popped out of nothing, and created everything...
Yep. Can't have nothing without a something.
It goes back to Zeno, who argued with his famous paradox that motion is impossible, therefore the material universe is an illusion and we're all pixels. Maybe the Hindus are saying the same thing. If, as some scientists believe, near-death experience is objectively real, how can that be? If we're data, are we on somebody's permanent record?
MBT .....Tom Campbell .....worth examination
Look up Zeno of Elea in Wiki. Bertrand Russel was impressed by him!
There could be a many order simulation that we are in : A simulation that's is viewing us : And many other simulation(s) compounded.
If you are simulation then you know nothing. Simulations know nothing. But, you are much better than simulation. You Are Alan Guth.
as others have commented, this is not a “simulation.” this sounds to me like a plausible explanation around what could happen at a singularity of a black hole, and how our universe may have just been created when a black hole formed in some other universe. black holes don’t evaporate instantly though, and are thought to slowly evaporate over trillions of years or something. but perhaps a small amount of matter may be squeezed through some quantum tunnel inside a black hole, right when it initially forms.
I love this shit!!
Space is a calculation done by consciousness in order to interpret the data that comes into it. It is a mathematical function defined by the larger consciousness system (LCS). Scientists are expecting to see the edge of the Universe and they will never find it because is all virtual and it generates itself as long as you stare at it. It’s like AutoCAD model space. It’s infinite and a virtual generated space. As crazy as that sounds the Space is the same and consciousness is the computer.
Would not quantum mechanics make possible that classical relativity and quantum physics can exist simultaneously.....relativity for our universe quantum mechanics for the universe of our simulators
A simulation would be, by definition, simulating something. This kind of creates the impression that there is a 'real' version of us somewhere, walking around, doing what we do. Seems to me that a more plausible speculation is that our condition is not what we have hitherto taken it to be - we misconstrue the appearance of existence. I don't necessarily have a suggestion as to what existence consists of in actuality, but scientific endeavour seems to have led us to the point of realisation that the material universe is illusory.
+Kim Runic It could be a simulation of what and how we used to be..
+mysterymediacorp ok - like the Nick Bostrum idea you mean? That would still mean the 'real' us would have to have existed at one point and the problem with that is you'd have to account for what existence consisted of at that point. By definition it could not be what it consists of now, because what it is now, is a simulation. Ergo, what it is now is not _actually_ a simulation.
Kim Runic We'll probably never know for sure either way, but why couldn't 'now' be a simulation of what was? It would seem that if we're not in a simulation, then that means at some point in the future.mankind's advancements in virtual reality came to a halt for some reason.
+Kim Runic Apparently it's about special sauce :)
mysterymediacorp "why couldn't 'now' be a simulation of what was?"
Because you're left with the question of 'what was' consisted of. Also this not being a simulation would not necessarily mean that development in VR was halted. After all if this is a simulation but mans advancements in VR were halted, how come we're here at all? It just means that this is not in fact a simulation. That doesn't stop it from being an illusion though - or rather not what we have hitherto taken it to be.
If we are living in a simulation -- and there is evidence that we are from the huge numbers of glitches that have been reported (I have experienced some myself) -- then the "laws of physics" that we deduce are actually "laws of the physical aspects of the simulation." We can't therefore argue that these laws are fundamental, if they can easily be changed or violated at the whim of the simulation.
The title is misleading. They haven't even addressed if there are any options for determining the properties of the resulting universe.
Computer programmers do this every day. For a program the Big Bang is equivalent of a hard reset of CPU. Different galaxies are then an equivalent of different processes in an address space of RAM. God is a computer programmer.
REALLY zac???
You're copying and pasting the very same shite yet again?
I'm now getting convinced you are indeed a troll/poe.
Though I must admit it gets increasingly difficult to tell the difference between that and the truly deluded/brainwashed.
Maybe this sometimes happens but I believe that universes naturally come into existence because a state of nothingness is unstable.
Wouldn't true nothingness be the most stable state of all? Doesn't instability presume the existence of "something" that can become unstable, thereby negating nothingness?
if something can arise from nothing (which it must, if you believe the universe started as nothingness and now is not nothingness), and there’s no available time dimension to move through until that event occurs, then it seems to follow that something must immediately arise from nothing
i like the way they ended it :)
Does this dude gave apsburgers?
If we could create another universe then logically that would make the person(s) that created it god(s)?
Jungian synchronicity that their voices sound robotic/computerized?
So doesn't this imply that all black holes are just the 'necks' of our universe feeding into new universe bubbles, to be finally pinched off [evaporated black hole] to create new ones? There are countless black holes out there - we don't even know how many. If they are all creating new bubble universes, doesn't sound much different than boiling water. Some galactic entity is making tea.
People seem to mean many different things by "simulation." Some mean a computer generated universe. Some mean a dream or emanation from a divine realm. Some refer to the fact that our sensory perceptions are brain hallucinations. Some mean just that our assumptions about life are illusions, shaped by political and social forces.
most probably
Put 20 years on George McFly and you've got Alan Guth. "HEY MCFLY, I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T BE IN HERE!" Biff
HAHAHA.. that's precious xD
Turkish subtitle please
Dr. Thomas Campbell (Physics has said similar things for years.... My Big T.O.E. trilogy,)
no but even considering that we might be in a simulation is a good way to make people who have all the power treat all the other people like NPC‘s in a video game.
Oh snap! Where did my universe go?
title is misleading. this is not talking about a simulation but initiation of a new, physical universe.
Can a simulation hope to manifest outside the simulator?
In the new universe that was created, they discussed whether they were in a simulation. We, however, had no and can have no contact with that universe.
The chuckles at the end lol
The paper in the following link describes a different concept for the origin of the universe than Dr. Guth's Inflationary concept.
www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf.
hes a clark kent character
Scale is the extra dimension
This would be an interesting argument for deism.
It depends on your definition of God(s). The most common view is that he/she/it/they are supernatural, but if this idea is correct our creator would be a super-intelligent, but nonetheless naturally evolved species.
Alan's occasional tongue slips makes me think he is secretly a lizard.
Can build a conscious intelligent simulation.