If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy) Video Forget physicalism. Let's doubt the Multiverse explanation. Maybe we're all just quantum bits in a quantum simulation   (scitechexplained.com) divider line 134
    More: Video, qubits, quantum, multiverse, Lawrence Krauss, simulations, explanations  
•       •       •

4295 clicks; posted to Video » on 28 May 2012 at 1:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-28 09:40:32 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-28 10:11:24 AM
Um, it's not a big secret that there are about 10 or so physical interpretations of QM. The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most popular, but there is currently no way to tell which possible interpretation is true.

As for the multiverse, that is typically used by atheists, like Dawkins, to explain away the fine tuning argument for the universe being designed and to get back to an eternal universe, though it fails to do that. I don't see how that relates to the video, though I haven't made it all the way though.

/Probably gonna download the video and have to listen to it a couple times while on the road and then go check out criticisms.
 
2012-05-28 10:20:22 AM
Can I buy some pot from you?
 
2012-05-28 10:36:47 AM
You mean we live in a Romneyverse?
 
2012-05-28 10:42:53 AM
So they guy basically goes on a minute to arrive at what I've been saying, based on centuries old philosophical observations, for years?

In other words, his interpretation of quantum is probably closer to the truth than some others as it arrives at properly testable conclusions in both physics and philosophy.

Then again, the heart sutra wasn't designed to do physics. It's a meditation. Just because a particle physics theory agrees with it doesn't mean that said particle physics are correct. But I like where he's gone with QM.
 
2012-05-28 01:32:35 PM
The more I learn about the quantum world, the more I think its just one big simulation. What really, is reality?

I have no proof. There is no spoon.
 
2012-05-28 01:37:25 PM
Here's the thing that'll bake your noodle: a universe that is just a quantum simulation and a universe that isn't a quantum simulation... would look identical.

Crosshair: As for the multiverse, that is typically used by atheists, like Dawkins, to explain away the fine tuning argument for the universe being designed


Um... Dawkins is a huge proponent of the Weak Anthropic principle. I have never heard him weigh in on the multiverse, but he hardly needs it to explain away the "fine tuning" argument, mostly because the fine tuning argument is stupid and usually used by stupid people.

Further, the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is not the same as the idea of a multiverse. Many Worlds is just one way to deal with some nasty side effects of entropy and reversibility (quantum computation is another, and, I think, more elegant approach). It does not predict nor require multiple actual universes. It's just a way of holding onto some state information in case it's ever needed again.

The Many Worlds interpretation implies that the initial state of the universe could have been a superposition of possible universes. But it does not demand that to be true.

Crosshair: and to get back to an eternal universe


I don't think anyone is seriously working on retaining the idea of an eternal universe. I mean, yes, there are lots of people that would really rather have an eternal universe, but there's no good reason to think that's true, and nothing about QM is going to really fix that. This is extra true now that we're grappling with "Dark Energy" and seeing the universe accelerate- heat death is the only seriously likely outcome based on the information we have.
 
2012-05-28 01:37:42 PM
If multiverse is correct, then there is a universe, somewhere, where all the evolutionists suddenly sieze up and die of heart attacks, while all the creationists praise God for answering their prayers while dancing on the evolutionists' graves. From then on, scientists will observe a strong correlation between prayer and results, and will conclude that God exists. This universe exists somewhere in a multiverse interpretation.

If it makes you feel any better, one of the universes branching off from that one will have the creationists all dying of pneumonia a few years later.
 
2012-05-28 01:37:57 PM
Humanity is really only one living entity that exists in a quantum superposition of seven billion individuals?

Makes sense to me.
 
2012-05-28 01:43:27 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Every scientist gets to that point where they become a wizard.
 
2012-05-28 01:52:27 PM
In Universe B, I'm married to Jessica Alba
In Universe C, I'm rule of the world
In Universe D, I'm a hippy
etc
 
2012-05-28 02:00:36 PM

enforcerpsu: The more I learn about the quantum world, the more I think its just one big simulation. What really, is reality?

I have no proof. There is no spoon.


webspace.ship.edu
 
2012-05-28 02:03:22 PM

StoPPeRmobile: .


Unfortunately, what Plato couldn't realize is that the observers themselves are but projections on the wall.
 
2012-05-28 02:04:22 PM
An hour long video?

/too long, didn't watch
 
2012-05-28 02:06:24 PM
This is a great little "talk". While the speakers simplifies things for the audience, I believe what he says hold true for the most part.
 
2012-05-28 02:15:19 PM
t3knomanser: Here's the thing that'll bake your noodle: a universe that is just a quantum simulation and a universe that isn't a quantum simulation... would look identical.

This. It's a theory, but it's not a very interesting theory until it has a real-world practical application. If you don't like the math, there isn't that much else to it, maybe a little phenomenology.

My belt buckle may have been replaced, during the night, with an incredibly identical counterfeit belt buckle. Any differences between them may be too fugitive for me to detect no matter how carefully I measure the belt buckle.

Personally, I'm just going to put my belt on and not worry about it. Well, if I have to go to work. Otherwise, to hell with pants and belts and belt buckles.

For the rest, Niven's All The Myriad Ways covered it pretty well. You can mope about possibilities, or you can live the life of this world, or some compromise in between. But it's not that amazing.
 
2012-05-28 02:19:02 PM
I had a thought the other day(surprising for me) which went something like this. If the Universe is infinite then every point is in the center at the same time. If the Universe isn't infinite then is it important to determine where we are in it? are we in the middle or out on the edge? does it matter?
And now my head hurts.
 
2012-05-28 02:31:05 PM

t3knomanser: Um... Dawkins is a huge proponent of the Weak Anthropic principle. I have never heard him weigh in on the multiverse, but he hardly needs it to explain away the "fine tuning" argument, mostly because the fine tuning argument is stupid and usually used by stupid people.


It's like finding a fleck of iron in a rock the size of a car and declaring that the rock is a car.
 
2012-05-28 02:31:32 PM

tcan: If the Universe isn't infinite then is it important to determine where we are in it?


It's a little more complex than that, but it's also largely a moot point. The universe is larger than our Hubble Volume, and we're always going to be at the exact center of our Hubble volume. We will never be able to leave our Hubble volume, nor will we be able to get information about what exists beyond our Hubble volume.
 
2012-05-28 02:40:45 PM
Needs more math and less handwaving.
 
2012-05-28 02:44:44 PM
It all comes down to the constant of integration. Just write a big +C on the end and move on.
 
2012-05-28 02:47:35 PM
 
2012-05-28 02:49:25 PM
t3knomanser: We will never be able to leave our Hubble volume, nor will we be able to get information about what exists beyond our Hubble volume.

Well, if there's no FTL. Personally, I have no trouble believing the universe 'allows' things that are inconvenient, such as bad curves in time. On the other hand, just because FTL is a nice idea doesn't mean it's possible.

The Hubble space concept is trippier than the multiverse concept, if you ask me, because (A) it's more concrete and, to some extent, inescapable, and (B) it allows many of the same weird concepts. There's been work done so you can calculate things (statistically) like how far, in parsecs, you have to travel to reach a Hubble space where right now there's an Earth-like planet with a human-like culture eerily similar to our own.

Not that you could get there. And it's a long, long way. But it's weird that you can calculate how far (on average) it is. Alternate universes, as such, not necessary.
 
2012-05-28 03:00:44 PM

RandomAxe: Well, if there's no FTL.


I'm willing to come right out and say that there is no FTL. If there were, I imagine we'd be receiving messages from the future already. It's possible to build a wormhole and achieve something like FTL (wormholes aren't FTL- they're changes in the universal topology), but that basically requires you to first build two black holes, entangle their states in a relativistic matter, and then fly into one and out the other. There's the faint possibility of building a naked singularity, but this still isn't going to be a fun trip for the passengers.
 
2012-05-28 03:05:07 PM
I figure if workable FTL exists, or will exist, it'll probably be through some means that hasn't occurred to us (yet?) even in concept. I could be wrong. But I agree that brute-force means that I've heard of all sound . . . a little cataclysmic.

As for getting FTL messages, etc, every time I think about the Fermi Paradox, I come to the conclusion that we don't see or hear anything because we're being prevented, one way or another. We're in a protected zone. Although not necessarily a beneficial one.
 
2012-05-28 03:26:54 PM

t3knomanser: We will never be able to leave our Hubble volume, nor will we be able to get information about what exists beyond our Hubble volume.


Not even by physically moving? Like if we move one light year to towards the edge of the volume, that doesn't allow us to see one light year "beyond" the Earth centered volume?
 
2012-05-28 03:28:13 PM

RandomAxe: I figure if workable FTL exists, or will exist, it'll probably be through some means that hasn't occurred to us (yet?) even in concept


The issue is that if FTL exists, so does time travel. Where are the time travelers from the future?

RandomAxe: I come to the conclusion that we don't see or hear anything because we're being prevented, one way or another


I find that dubious, simply because it requires that somebody else has detected us. It's exceedingly unlikely that anyone has noticed the Earth as an interesting source of radio waves. We haven't been looking very long, we haven't been looking terribly thoroughly, and there's good odds that any interstellar communication happens with highly directional beams that are routed around the cloudiest parts of the galaxy, so away from anything that could fluoresce and give away their presence.

The other thing is that I think the very idea of "interstellar civilization" is like calling "interstate highway" a "path". Yes, it's accurate, but it fails to capture the essence of the idea. When conversations have to be stretched out across decades, you need to have a different approach to organization.
 
2012-05-28 03:28:59 PM

t3knomanser: The issue is that if FTL exists, so does time travel. Where are the time travelers from the future?


Hanging out in more fun parts of history?
 
2012-05-28 03:30:21 PM

PonceAlyosha: that doesn't allow us to see one light year "beyond" the Earth centered volume?


Well, let's say I could travel at the speed of light. I go 1ly away from Earth. In the time it takes me to travel that distance, Earth's Hubble volume has gotten 1ly larger. In the time it takes me to send any messages back to Earth, it'll have grown by yet another light year.

No matter how fast you go, you can never push back the boundaries of your Hubble volume faster than they would expand naturally.
 
2012-05-28 03:39:17 PM
I am only a little way into this and will have to pick up the rest after work, but I have to say there is some kind of Epicness at about the 6:20 mark when he asks, "Has anyone here not heard of the two slit experiment?" and no one raises their hand. Awesome! You don't find that kind of crowd every day.
 
2012-05-28 03:41:29 PM
imgs.xkcd.com

I've been thinking about the topic of being in a simulation, and if this is a computer sim we can hack it or break it.

/iddqd
 
2012-05-28 03:53:40 PM

wildcardjack: [imgs.xkcd.com image 518x588]

I've been thinking about the topic of being in a simulation, and if this is a computer sim we can hack it or break it.

/iddqd


Wouldn't idspispopd make more sense, you know, to walk through walls?
 
2012-05-28 04:00:04 PM

t3knomanser:
It's possible to build a wormhole and achieve something like FTL (wormholes aren't FTL- they're changes in the universal topology), but that basically requires you to first build two black holes, entangle their states in a relativistic matter, and then fly into one and out the other. There's the faint possibility of building a naked singularity, but this still isn't going to be a fun trip for the passengers.


Please stop getting your knowledge of physics from internet forums.
 
2012-05-28 04:04:46 PM
t3knomanser: The issue is that if FTL exists, so does time travel. Where are the time travelers from the future?

Possibilities include:

A) They're here, but we don't notice them.

B) They're prevented from being here.

It's not hard to imagine explanations for either, but of course there are probably a lot of possible explanations that we can't imagine. Also,

C) Time travel doesn't work that way. There's more than one way to plot a time-like curve, especially if our assumptions about the graph itself are wrong. If the 'past' isn't recursive but expansive, then you could travel into the past, even your own past, without altering the present.


I find that dubious, simply because it requires that somebody else has detected us. It's exceedingly unlikely that anyone has noticed the Earth as an interesting source of radio waves.

Check out a good discussion of the Fermi Paradox. Given its premises, which are likely if not inescapable, Earth should most likely have been under observation since long before human life arose. It's not a question of us attracting someone's attention, as such.

Even without FTL, if intelligent spacefaring self-replicating life has arisen previously in ways we believe are likely, then they (or their robotic explorers, etc) should have saturated the galaxy by now. By a long, long time ago, in fact. Our system is not among the first systems like it to have formed, not by a long shot. We should be latecomers. Even with technology we already know is possible, by now the galaxy should be full of explorers, even if they're just catalogers.

We don't see any sign of them, and that's the paradox. We shouldn't have to look at distant stars. They should be HERE, logically, and since before we were here. If the Drake Equation is off by five or six orders of magnitude, or more, then fine. Or if something goes around hiding evidence of ETs, then fine.

Really, no explanation is satisfying. But you can't have everything.
 
2012-05-28 04:14:52 PM
NERRRRRRRRRRRRDS!
 
2012-05-28 04:21:15 PM

RandomAxe: We don't see any sign of them, and that's the paradox. We shouldn't have to look at distant stars. They should be HERE, logically, and since before we were here.


But, seriously, isn't it worth considering that they ARE here, and that we are them?
 
2012-05-28 04:30:21 PM
"Treat life like the game it was. This might be the truth behind the Truth, the religion Luseferous had been raised within as an obedient member of the Mercatoria: that nothing you did or seemed to do really mattered, because it was all - or might be all - a game, a simulation. It was all, in the end, just pretend. Even this Starveling cult he was titular head of was just something he'd made up because it sounded good. A variation of the Truth with added self-denial every now and again, the better to contemplate the gullibility of people. People would swallow anything, just anything at all. Apparently some people found this dismaying. He thought it was a gift, the most wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the weak-minded."
 
2012-05-28 04:32:12 PM
YRThereSchool: But, seriously, isn't it worth considering that they ARE here, and that we are them?

It's not a terrible concept, but it doesn't seem likely. Explanations like Pratchett's Strata aside, I think the great preponderance of evidence suggests that we did evolve here from goop.

If time travelers have arrived here and, say, interbred with modern humans, then they've taken care to hide that fact. When mRNA is sampled randomly and tested, none of it suggests any weird unhistorical drifts that mystify, for instance. So if they are here, and in some sense we are them, then that case has been disguised sufficiently so that we can't tell. In which case, once again, what's the difference?

A number of groups hold Time Travelers' Balls fairly regularly. I mean that they hold parties for time travelers. If any of them hold time travelers' testicles, I haven't been notified. Not that I'd expect to. ANYWAY, the point is, they have parties where any time traveler has an open invitation.

If time travelers show up to these parties, they don't reveal themselves. Which -- and this is sort of my point -- proves nothing either way.
 
2012-05-28 04:36:44 PM
DC had a crisis about its multiverse.
 
2012-05-28 04:37:00 PM

Haerski: "Treat life like the game it was. This might be the truth behind the Truth, the religion Luseferous had been raised within as an obedient member of the Mercatoria: that nothing you did or seemed to do really mattered, because it was all - or might be all - a game, a simulation. It was all, in the end, just pretend. Even this Starveling cult he was titular head of was just something he'd made up because it sounded good. A variation of the Truth with added self-denial every now and again, the better to contemplate the gullibility of people. People would swallow anything, just anything at all. Apparently some people found this dismaying. He thought it was a gift, the most wonderful opportunity to take advantage of the weak-minded."


It's a shame that book is mutually exclusive from the Culture. I'd love to see them go bludgeon those assholes' faces in.
 
2012-05-28 04:38:21 PM
Taking an idea to an extreme...

It should be easier.

/Occam's razor
 
2012-05-28 04:47:31 PM

verbaltoxin: DC had a crisis about its multiverse.


Yeah, about three of them.
 
2012-05-28 04:49:26 PM
Stephen Wolfram says that existence is just a cellular automata program.

***
*
**
 
2012-05-28 04:51:31 PM
Stephen Wolfram says that existence is just a cellular automata program.

Saying it's "just" something doesn't change anything unless there's a practical application.
 
2012-05-28 05:07:21 PM

RandomAxe: I figure if workable FTL exists, or will exist, it'll probably be through some means that hasn't occurred to us (yet?) even in concept.


We just haven't located any Spice yet.
upload.wikimedia.org

But seriously, folding space is an interesting theory.
 
2012-05-28 05:08:01 PM
Not mine, but c'mon guys, how much more proof do you need?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-28 05:51:07 PM

TheCommunistCow: Please stop getting your knowledge of physics from internet forums.


I was wondering if someone was going to see what I did there.
 
2012-05-28 05:53:41 PM

t3knomanser: RandomAxe: I figure if workable FTL exists, or will exist, it'll probably be through some means that hasn't occurred to us (yet?) even in concept

The issue is that if FTL exists, so does time travel. Where are the time travelers from the future?



I think a a better way to go about this would be to try and understand this question:

Let's say a traveler folds space to travel instantaneously to a star system 13,000 light years away from Earth in the year 2100. He brings along a timer that is calibrated in Earth's reference and is set for 5 years. At the end of those five years, the traveler folds space again to return to Earth. Does the traveler return to Earth in 2105 or does he come back at a different date?

From an outside observer, the traveler would appear to travel faster than light which would imply he traveled through time as well. However, if the traveler returns to Earth in 2105 then he did not travel through time relative to Earth. So we would never see any time travelers from our future.

Now if the observer returns at a different date than 2105....well, that messes everything up and makes a lot more things possible. Also, FTL travel that does not involve folding space is physically impossible for objects with mass.
 
2012-05-28 06:21:03 PM
Came for the double slit experiment, left satisfied after 8 minutes
 
2012-05-28 06:22:49 PM
Found it an interesting video. I tend to be more partial to Hawking's philosophy behind M-theory and model-dependent realism: Certain things are true in certain theories when they are in their own bounds, and correct theories will be correct on both accounts if they overlap bounds, but what is real depends on the bounds you are in right now.

There's only one thing I'm quite sure of: In this reality there is/are no God/Gods.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report