The half-hour Fox-News-Special over-the-air broadcast version of this article contains an interview with one person (I don't recall who or their affiliation) claiming that if we lived in a computer simulation, then cosmic rays would be "asymmetric" (that was his word, by which I'm assuming he means anisotropic).

But (a) how's that possibly related to the subject (can't see it for myself and not googling anything)? And (b) uh, oh -- doesn't IceCube and similar experiments confirm some such anisotropy (lending support to simulation speculation)? And (c) anybody else see that over-the-air broadcast? Am I maybe misunderstanding something?

>>Edit<< Okay, found an online transcript of that broadcast here: http://www.fox5ny.com/news/the-big-idea-is-life-a-simulation where you can read the quote from Peter Morgan (the chief artificial intelligence officer with Ivy Data Science, a company specializing in AI education)...

He says there are ways to test the limits of our physical world, such as by measuring cosmic rays. he says that if we were living in a simulation, the energy distribution from the rays would be asymmetric. So far, good for us. He says everything lines up.

  • $\begingroup$ Simulation is universally misunderstood. If you observe a simulated universe, then you see me as a simulated character. Thus a simulation implies only one consciousness, to which the simulation is presented. Then the simulation does not need to include the universe or much at all, but only what you actually see and hear. And this really is not that much and may even be possible with the upcoming technology. $\endgroup$ – safesphere Jan 2 '18 at 9:48

I would guess this is the idea that the cosmic ray distribution would show features arising from the lattice used to simulate it. There is an article on this on the MIT web site, which is as reputable a source as you're likely to find in discussions of this ... erm ... unconventional nature :-)

The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation

This work was also was published on the Arxiv.

Since the conclusions are only as reliable as the assumptions that went into them, and since we have no idea what technology super intelligent aliens would be using to simulate us I think it would be wise to treat this area with care.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the explanation and references (which my own googling hadn't turned up). And, yeah, not taking it too seriously:) $\endgroup$ – John Forkosh Jan 2 '18 at 6:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnForkosh The next to the last two paragraphs there explain why this work is a waste of German taxpayers money. (1) These guys assume absolute space. It's easy to simulate relative space with isotropy, just another layer of abstraction; (2) If the lattice is as the Plank scale, their argument fails. In fact it fails long before the Plank scale. $\endgroup$ – safesphere Jan 2 '18 at 9:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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