Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Assume that we have access to a computer with unlimited computing power.

As with the Lattice QCD can try to prove that we live in a simulated universe?

Apparently, one may use the issue of cosmic rays.

Here is full article

Quote:

If we were living in a simulator, we'd expect to find evidence of that lattice if we looked close enough to the edges of the observable universe - and that's what Silas Beane from the University of Bonn and colleagues have calculated, in a paper published in arXiv. As cosmic particles fly through the universe, they lose energy and change direction and spread out across a spectrum of energy values. There's a known limit is how much energy Those particles have, though, and Beane and his colleagues have calculated That this seemingly arbitrary cliff in the spectrum is consistent with the kind of boundary that you ''d find if there was an underlying lattice governing the limits of a simulator. It should also, if present, scatter the particles in a Certain Way as they come up against it, and the should be able it investigate Whether that's the case.

Do you have any idea?

share|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by ACuriousMind, BMS, Brandon Enright, Kyle Kanos, Ali Aug 20 at 17:35

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
Solipsism is a psychological phenomenon, not a physical one. I think your question would be better dealt with in psychology.stackexchange.com. –  CuriousOne Aug 20 at 13:49

2 Answers 2

The great simulator idea is piffle, see See http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/ItFromQubit.pdf.

A brief summary of the problem. A set S of computational gates is universal if by composing gates in the set S you can do any computation allowed by the laws of physics. Both the classical and quantum theories of computation say that there are many universal sets of computational gates. For example, in the quantum theory of computation almost any two qubit gate is universal. In the classical theory of computation both the Fredkin and the Toffoli gates are universal. As a result, it is not possible to tell what the underlying hardware of a computer is composed of just by looking at its output. So the great simulator idea implies that we can never discover the real laws of physics: the laws of the simulator's hardware. Also, if there is a simulator what is it simulating and why? The great simulator in the sky idea makes no predictions, raises insoluble problems and solves no problems: it is anti-scientific rubbish.

share|improve this answer

The article you quote is about metaphysics:

The idea that we might be living in an artificial reality constructed by something higher than ourselves has been a recurring philosophical hypothesis for centuries. Plato's Allegory of the Cave,

and cannot really be discussed in a physics framework because it is searching for a Creator.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who are mathematically literate or should be cannot separate necessary from sufficient conditions.

The terminology itself , lattice, is used in physics. What are crystals other than atoms on a lattice? Is a creator necessary for the existence of crystals?

Even if the ultimate internal level of reality were to be experimentally proven to be on a lattice of some type, that is not a sufficient condition for the existence of a creator. How can it be a proof? It is just a mathematical model that uses integers instead of the field of real number . Physics is about modeling nature with mathematical theories as tools, not about exploring metaphysics.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.