Simulations/matrix and the speed of light

[Lion IRC]

Because it has been vindicated at all scales except quantum. The train thought experiment just helps explain it to people who can’t get down with the math.

Yes it has been proven in reality.... but I'd like to understand how Einstein knew that that was the case. On the other hand apparently Einstein didn't believe in spooky action at a distance so sometimes his thought experiments aren't necessarily true...

That wasn’t a thought experiment, it was the math.

A bit like the math Lawrence Krauss uses 2+2 = 5

 

[excreationist]

That wasn’t a thought experiment, it was the math.

I thought the "spooky" term was based on his intuitions of how the universe should work... he was saying that this "spooky" theory couldn't be true... if there was an objective problem with the math then it doesn't explain why physicists accepted it...

 

[excreationist]

Here's another case of synchronicity in my life...

I've heard of the claim that there is error-correcting computer code in physics...

e.g. 10:01 in "The Simulation Hypothesis" documentary:
https://youtu.be/pznWo8f020I?t=601

But I'd never found it convincing - not for a second. At the moment I can't recall any other example of evidence for something I believe in that I instantly reject for no clear reason...

Later I noticed this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznWo8f020I&feature=youtu.be&t=657

James Gates was asked about his belief in a simulation by Neil deGrasse Tyson... but then the video changes to another topic!

Then I was watching a two hour large-scale debate video and found this:
https://youtu.be/wgSZA3NPpBs?t=1933


32:13: James Gates said:

"This point about error correction is something that when people have - general public has looked at my work, they say, “Oh, you must believe in simulations.” And I’ve said, no, actually I don’t."

I guess my reason for not finding his finding convincing is that I think the simulation mainly involves machine/deep learning rather than mostly being computer code....

 

[skepticalbip]

That wasn’t a thought experiment, it was the math.

I thought the "spooky" term was based on his intuitions of how the universe should work... he was saying that this "spooky" theory couldn't be true... if there was an objective problem with the math then it doesn't explain why physicists accepted it...

Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" was his criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, not QM itself which he contributed quite a bit to.

Just as "Schrodinger's cat" was Schrodinger's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation, not his example of how QM works. Schrodinger was one of the primary founders of quantum mechanics and, like Einstein, didn't think much of the Copenhagen interpretation.

 

[excreationist]

Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" was his criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, not QM itself which he contributed quite a bit to.

I thought it was about quantum entanglement.... (thought maybe partly about Copenhagen as well)

 

[excreationist]

YouTube videos can be very helpful..

That one explained Einstein's beliefs....
Maxwell says the speed of light is a universal constant while Newton says that velocities are relative - "with respect to" something....

Another video for beginners was surprising - it is about something that can travel faster than light! (in water)

 

[skepticalbip]

Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" was his criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, not QM itself which he contributed quite a bit to.

I thought it was about quantum entanglement.... (thought maybe partly about Copenhagen as well)

He understood entanglement quite well. It was the Copenhagen interpretation of what it meant that he had problems with... the same problems Schrodinger had, and many physicists today have, with the interpretation.

Pretty much the reason for the "shut up and do the math" method of working in QM.

 

[Bomb#20]

Because it has been vindicated at all scales except quantum. The train thought experiment just helps explain it to people who can’t get down with the math.

Yes it has been proven in reality.... but I'd like to understand how Einstein knew that that was the case.

Executive summary: He knew because Maxwell's equations told him so.

What I've heard is that for the forty-odd years before Einstein's "miracle year", physicists had been trying to wrap their collective minds around the mathematical difficulty of reconciling Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism with Newton's equations for motion. The general approach was to subconsciously assume Newton was a divine oracle, infer that Maxwell's equations were only an approximation, and therefore look for subtle differences between measurements and Maxwell's predictions, in order for physicists to get a handle on what modifications to Maxwell's equations would be needed to account for the discrepancies. This process culminated in the famous Michelson-Morley interferometry experiments, which should have been sensitive enough to detect the failure of Maxwell's equations to take into account the motion of the earth around the sun. But to the limit of accuracy Michelson and Morley could measure, Maxwell's predictions turned out to be spot on. This led to a flurry of activity by a lot of physicists, some trying to come up with even cleverer modifications to Maxwell, others trying to come up with clever modifications to Newton. Among those pursuing the latter approach, Einstein succeeded first. If Einstein had never lived, Poincare would allegedly have discovered special relativity within another year or two.

 

[bilby]

Because it has been vindicated at all scales except quantum. The train thought experiment just helps explain it to people who can’t get down with the math.

Yes it has been proven in reality.... but I'd like to understand how Einstein knew that that was the case.

Executive summary: He knew because Maxwell's equations told him so.

What I've heard is that for the forty-odd years before Einstein's "miracle year", physicists had been trying to wrap their collective minds around the mathematical difficulty of reconciling Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism with Newton's equations for motion. The general approach was to subconsciously assume Newton was a divine oracle, infer that Maxwell's equations were only an approximation, and therefore look for subtle differences between measurements and Maxwell's predictions, in order for physicists to get a handle on what modifications to Maxwell's equations would be needed to account for the discrepancies. This process culminated in the famous Michelson-Morley interferometry experiments, which should have been sensitive enough to detect the failure of Maxwell's equations to take into account the motion of the earth around the sun. But to the limit of accuracy Michelson and Morley could measure, Maxwell's predictions turned out to be spot on. This led to a flurry of activity by a lot of physicists, some trying to come up with even cleverer modifications to Maxwell, others trying to come up with clever modifications to Newton. Among those pursuing the latter approach, Einstein succeeded first. If Einstein had never lived, Poincare would allegedly have discovered special relativity within another year or two.

Poincaré? That's just conjecture.

 

[Bomb#20]

Poincaré? That's just conjecture.

I see what you did there.

 

[fromderinside]

Tap, tap, tap ....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was ponder Planck and his length, ~10-35 meters.

The Universe is approximately 4x10^80 cubic meters. If Planck lengths would be the 'resolution' of the simulation, that would mean, I think roughly 1x10^185 cubic plancks for the universe's volume. That is nearly 2 googols where a googol is defined as "a huge fucking number"! Bigger than the number of subatomic particles in the universe, or at least after Biden was done with them.

 

[excreationist]

I was ponder Planck and his length, ~10-35 meters.

The Universe is approximately 4x10^80 cubic meters. If Planck lengths would be the 'resolution' of the simulation, that would mean, I think roughly 1x10^185 cubic plancks for the universe's volume. That is nearly 2 googols where a googol is defined as "a huge fucking number"! Bigger than the number of subatomic particles in the universe, or at least after Biden was done with them.

It's the maximum resolution.... it wouldn't need to be always at that resolution in a simulation... there is a thing called "level of detail" - so when stars are observed it doesn't need to simulate every single particle in them....

 

[bilby]

I was ponder Planck and his length, ~10-35 meters.

The Universe is approximately 4x10^80 cubic meters. If Planck lengths would be the 'resolution' of the simulation, that would mean, I think roughly 1x10^185 cubic plancks for the universe's volume. That is nearly 2 googols where a googol is defined as "a huge fucking number"! Bigger than the number of subatomic particles in the universe, or at least after Biden was done with them.

Ot would be rather strange if the universe contained more particles than discrete units of volume. Pauli probably wouldn't like it, on principle.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah, but Pauli didn't exclude two electrons in the same orbital. That leaves some room for for more than one if ones spins them right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And then I pondered telescopes. I'm in the market for telescopes and I'm picking up on the varying optics science and what not. The topic? Eye pieces and its field of vision, wide, super wide, etc... So you look in the telescope through a cheap eye piece, the simulation renders a narrow band of site. Get a more expensive eye piece, now the simulation needs to render a wider field of vision.

And then we get to photography which really just kind of flushes the simulation argument down the toilet. So, you look in the eye piece and see a deep space object, in a manner of speaking. You take 100 photos and stack them, you really see the deep space object and its color. Which then deflates this idea of simulation and resolution. Because we are recording something we aren't even seeing without our own eyes. Meaning that we are witnessing a simulation that is providing resolution we can't even see straight up with our eyes and need technology to capture!

This kicks the simulation doesn't need to render to such a high degree everywhere argument to the curb, because the above indicates it is rendering things we can't even see.

 

[atrib]

And then I pondered telescopes. I'm in the market for telescopes and I'm picking up on the varying optics science and what not. The topic? Eye pieces and its field of vision, wide, super wide, etc... So you look in the telescope through a cheap eye piece, the simulation renders a narrow band of site. Get a more expensive eye piece, now the simulation needs to render a wider field of vision.

And then we get to photography which really just kind of flushes the simulation argument down the toilet. So, you look in the eye piece and see a deep space object, in a manner of speaking. You take 100 photos and stack them, you really see the deep space object and its color. Which then deflates this idea of simulation and resolution. Because we are recording something we aren't even seeing without our own eyes. Meaning that we are witnessing a simulation that is providing resolution we can't even see straight up with our eyes and need technology to capture!

This kicks the simulation doesn't need to render to such a high degree everywhere argument to the curb, because the above indicates it is rendering things we can't even see.

I think he stated that the simulation of the universe beyond our immediate visual environment is coarsely rendered until we actually point telescopes at distant stuff, at which point the software driving the illusion increases the resolution at the location being observed to the level we would expect to see. He hasn't presented any evidence to support this hypothesis that I can think of.

 

[excreationist]

....This kicks the simulation doesn't need to render to such a high degree everywhere argument to the curb, because the above indicates it is rendering things we can't even see.

You didn't prove that every star needs to be simulated on a sub-atomic level constantly... stars could be approximated with billions or trillions of elements in most circumstances.... I'm talking about "level of detail".... the AI behind the simulation would know how much detail is required at any time....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And then I pondered telescopes. I'm in the market for telescopes and I'm picking up on the varying optics science and what not. The topic? Eye pieces and its field of vision, wide, super wide, etc... So you look in the telescope through a cheap eye piece, the simulation renders a narrow band of site. Get a more expensive eye piece, now the simulation needs to render a wider field of vision.

And then we get to photography which really just kind of flushes the simulation argument down the toilet. So, you look in the eye piece and see a deep space object, in a manner of speaking. You take 100 photos and stack them, you really see the deep space object and its color. Which then deflates this idea of simulation and resolution. Because we are recording something we aren't even seeing without our own eyes. Meaning that we are witnessing a simulation that is providing resolution we can't even see straight up with our eyes and need technology to capture!

This kicks the simulation doesn't need to render to such a high degree everywhere argument to the curb, because the above indicates it is rendering things we can't even see.

I think he stated that the simulation of the universe beyond our immediate visual environment is coarsely rendered until we actually point telescopes at distant stuff, at which point the software driving the illusion increases the resolution at the location being observed to the level we would expect to see. He hasn't presented any evidence to support this hypothesis that I can think of.

Somehow the quantum computer is able to render the field of view based on which eye piece I use. That's pretty darn impressive coding, so impressive it is wickedly absurd. It would require coding to be able to recognize optics, that'd require a near molecule for molecule tracking of materials that are processed.

 

[excreationist]

Somehow the quantum computer is able to render the field of view based on which eye piece I use. That's pretty darn impressive coding, so impressive it is wickedly absurd. It would require coding to be able to recognize optics, that'd require a near molecule for molecule tracking of materials that are processed.

The following would also be "darn impressive coding" where it puts leaves on the trees and removes the snow.... and in the second pair the road becomes reflective....

Except it wasn't explicitly coded - it just involves machine learning.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nvidia-ai-winter-summer-car/

Day to night:



And that was from about 3 years ago. Deep/machine learning is even better now. Current machine/deep learning is only a fraction as powerful as a human brain yet it can do amazing things. I don't see why AI in several decades time couldn't take into account optics, etc.