Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

the idea of this "cosmic information" is disturbingly close to invoking simulation theory.

i don't see how? the universe acting as if it were a simulation is not strong evidence for the universe being one

I didn't say it was evidence, but it does leave the possibility open. As opposed to a universe that acts in a way which makes simulation impossible.

I'm also more talking about the tendencies of the author. If the cosmic information concept is being fueled by the belief that the universe is a simulation, the idea becomes suspect. It's the kind of thing I'd expect a person who believes in simulation to believe.

It's fairly straightforward to handle. Chaos theory dictates that the "error" in any system propagates exponentially in any chaotic system. Simply demonstrate that the universe contains chaotic systems relying on fundamental constants. Hence, the simulation would exponentially diverge from the actual unless on infinite memory.

I've been thinking about that and it's an argument that doesn't quite work, since you don't actually know what the "actual system" is supposed to be, and so you can't observe this divergence.

In fact, it seems like chaotic systems are easier to "realistically" simulate than the stable ones, since a lot of errors or mismatches can then be hidden underneath this "chaotic randomness".

[USEC_OFFICER]

What do you mean by finite representation? And if the results didn't match what we think about the universe, then wouldn't our thoughts be wrong instead of the constant/representation?

[Sergarr]

Well, you'd have to demonstrate that no finite representation of the constant in question produces results matching the behavior in the universe itself.

That would be pretty fucking hard, if not outright impossible, because all experimental measurements we can produce are finite values, too.

[Rolepgeek]

Yes, it's impossible to prove the universe is not a simulation. If it is one, it's probably not one in the sense we think of, since it's fairly likely that any simulating universe or entity would have to be in a fundamentally different level.

The amount of credibility I give to simulation theory can be modeled as a wave as a function of time and/or education. Most of it comes from the way the universe acts at it's limits, quantum stuff being fucking weird, and what takes precedence in physical interactions. Most of my anti-credibility for it comes from mathematical simplicities as I find out how stuff eventually boils down, and baseline incredulity.

[Max™]

I recall Verlinde being interesting when I first read his ideas years ago, I'll have to go chew on the paper later though, I only remember it being related to holography/infoverse stuff.

[Putnam]

can you tell me what the problem actually is

The basic problem is that astronomical observations of star systems point at there being more gravity / mass than you would expect based on the observed stars. Dark matter is a hypothetical explanation of which no one had a clue what it actually is or if it exists at all.

See, that's the thing, we don't know what it is, sure, but we undeniable know it exists. Stuff behaves exactly as it should with the existence of dark matter.

[Max™]

We can see that it is there: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1163.html

It's not "if it exists at all" because if it were the case that a new theory explains everything without dark matter your replacement theory needs to explain what is causing the deflection of light in that and many other clusters.

[martinuzz]

Apparently, it is an illusion.

[Max™]

Not the best explanation, as it goes, but hey.

I prefer Pratchett here: 9/10ths of the universe is just keeping track of the rest.

[Putnam]

Apparently, it is an illusion.

How very convenient

[martinuzz]

Why are you being so snide?

Here's another article (in dutch). If someone knows how to browse and use arxiv.org, could they please find the link to the paper? It was posted in the night from monday to tuesday.
https://newscientist.nl/nieuws/vooruitblik-nieuwe-theorie-ontmaskert-95-procent-van-het-heelal/

EDIT: I think I found it: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

[Putnam]

It tends to be the default when I hear anything along the lines of "will overturn Einstein", especially ones that stay too near stuff like string theory (which the article mentions. It also seems to say repeatedly that gravity is caused by mass, which is about as true as saying that light is created by blackbody radiation (i.e. technically true but definitely not the whole story)

[martinuzz]

There's a phys.org article on it now:
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

[Rolepgeek]

Had an idea I sorta worked out. Remembered reading something about string theory working out with 11 dimensions, and maybe figured out what each could be. Looking it up, turns out they could be fewer or greater than that number, but in that case there could be more dimensions or some phenomena could involve multiple.

Space X
Space Y
Space Z
Time V (Linear Time)
Time W (Lateral Time, aka multiple timelines/parallel universes; if linear time is the real component of the number scale, lateral time is the imaginary component; going different directions on it means different probability/quantum states are true; this is why we can only determine the position or whatever of a particle after the fact/by affecting it, or something; this is all very vague and shit)
Higgs Field
Gravity
Electricity
Magnetism (the reason these are separate is that when articles and diagrams talk about lightwaves the electrical and magnetic field components are at ninety degree angles to each other...which, ya know. >.>)
Weak Nuclear Force
Strong Nuclear Force


And that's 11.

It's probably dumb/a misinterpretation, mind you, but it's been part of my general musings on physics recently.

[Putnam]

Where does the residual strong nuclear force fit in (since if you have magnetism and electricity separate, you should probably have that)?