Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) big bang cosmology in which the temperature is high enough that the four fundamental forces—electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction—are all unified in one fundamental force. Little is understood about physics at this temperature, and different theories propose different scenarios.
First that is a very different assertion than "The laws of physics themselves, and the 4 fundamental forces did not exist until some incredibly small, but greater than zero time after T=0." Your source essentially pleads ignorance regarding the laws of physics, and only says that the unified field did not yet express itself four different ways. I'm sure you are aware that progress on a unified field theory (even now, long after the Planck epoch has closed) is being made.
But most relevant to our discussion, it refers to a specific period after T=0, and not to either T=0 itself or T= some minus value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Time DID NOT EXIST. There is no such thing as time minus anything.
This is a bald assertion. There is no reason to believe it is true, and it violates several of the most fundamental natural laws with which we are empirically familiar. The only point at which time can confidently be said to not exist was itself durationless. The assertion therefore that "There is no such thing as time minus anything" has no evidence, and further demands the direct violation of what we empirically know to be natural law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Well, I haven't bought into the quantum flux argument, nonetheless beyond T=Big Rip, all matter (or potential matter) is too spread out to accomplish anything.
Whether you have bought into it or not is not the issue. Your own source on even the idea that the universe "began" as quantum fluctuation in a vacuum renders your ad hoc objection unjustified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Because I've yet to grasp the concept enough to object to it strongly. It seems so completely incomprehensible to not be worthy of argument. No offence intended.
I am not offended in the least. I am fully aware that it is couterintuitive, and that is why theists find it a convenient excuse for the logical contortionism they employ to make an argument for god. None of that alters one whit the simple truth that it is the only conclusion that can be logically derived from the natural laws with which we are empirically familiar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Before I respond to this, I'd like your detailed thoughts of the simulation theory, specifically how it solves so many scientific mysteries rather elegantly.
First and foremost, I am struggling to wrap my head around how it might be empirically tested. What specifically would we use to discriminate between a simulated universe and a real one?
When creationism was still the reigning scientific paradigm, but just starting to confront the facts that scientists and naturalists were uncovering that contradicted it, creationist began to appeal to an ancient artist's controversy called "The Omphalos (Navel) Argument." The question for medieval artists was, when portraying Adam and Eve, should they be painted with or without the universal scars of our individual births; belly buttons. One camp argued that since they had not been born, they would have no such signs of an event that never took place. But the other camp insisted that God would have had to create the universe as "a going concern" giving it the appearance of a long history that was never the less untrue. Rivers would need river beds, volcanoes would need to be built from successive lava flows (that never actually took place), and Adam and Eve would have belly buttons.
The obvious objection to this idea is that it is completely and entirely unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. If the universe can have been created 6,000 years ago along with all the (false) evidence of a far more ancient history, it could just as easily have been created 15 minutes ago, along with all our memories of a childhood and life that never really took place.
There is no way to test it.
I see the same problem with your simulation theory. If we cannot (and I'm pretty sure we cannot) even distinguish between a simulation that began 14 billion years ago and one that began 14 minutes ago, how would we test if it was true at all?
I also struggle to discern what "problems" it "solves." Some help on getting a handle on your thoughts there would be appreciated.
The rules of debate insist you stay on your side of the fence. On this subject I choose to break that rule. Quite frankly I do not have the mental capacity (nor desire) to go as deep as some of you have. However, when I have been prodded into this discussion, it always goes something like this ....
Literal translation discussions I have had in the past regarding this issue have always ended the same. It seems to me (as in my opinion) that the timeline and most major events in the Bible are easily dismissed in a literal sense. Age of the planet? Forty days and forty nights resulting in an ark ride for all? Jonah camped out/in a whale? Moses and the fifteen Commandments (See History of the World, Part One, Thanx Mel!)? Etc, etc.. But those anomalies do not dismiss the whole creation theory. Just the literal one outlined in the Bible. Once these discussions get beyond the literal outline (which they often do not) they rarely get much further. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to get a creationist past this hump, despite all the evil scientific data (Galileo, anyone?). But, if the discussion does in fact get past the hard line either/or aspect it is about to end. The creation possibility (again, in my opinion) has to be a bump, glitch, or hiccup if you will, in the laws of nature as we know them. However unlikely, I am willing to concede this hiccup as the hand of God if just one creationist will concede anything. That ain't gonna happen. Ever. And therein lies the enigma of this discussion. As a fence walker, but someone who thinks evolution is more realistic, I am willing to concede, however unlikely, divine assistance. Quite simply because I do not know for sure, and no one does. But a creationist is steadfast. Unwavering. No matter how deep the conversation goes (i.e. time, space, matter, etc.) it will always come down to the definition of the word faith - a belief that is not based on proof. For both sides. A discussion that has no 'resolution' is not one I enjoy. They start out as civil as possible and usually end in an argument with two non winners! No thanx ....
No, I read it. It was extremely leftist and was tailored to be given to people who were against you as an "informational pamphlet."
How odd that you would evaluate a science article in political terms. How odder still that you use that as an excuse to completely dismiss it without even the pretense of critique rather than deal with its eloquent and incisive argument.
Oh well. You were given the opportunity to actually make an argument... and you punted. That is your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter
I actually used the definition of a scientific theory to determine my conclusion. The conclusion was, by the way, that it is a theory (which as YOU said is a work of progress) but only true until it can be found to be falsifiable.
You have so completely garbled karl Popper's concept of "scientific falsifiability" as to render it completely unrecognizable. Theories are never "true until falsified." Theories exist on a range of confidence from "utterly speculative" to "overwhelmingly confirmed." This is not a continuum of "truth."
You betray no genuine understanding of the meaning of "theory" whatsoever.
Before I jump into that ... the previous contentions of historydude that nothing outside the mind exists is perfectly consistent with his other misinterpretations of what can be readily considered plausible by one possessing an open and inquisitive mind.
It is not clear that you understood my point. I never asserted that "nothing outside the mind exists." I asserted that there is nothing of the mind that outside of the brain. So either you completely misunderstood or you are merely setting up another of your compulsory straw men. The smart money is on the latter.
First and foremost, I am struggling to wrap my head around how it might be empirically tested. What specifically would we use to discriminate between a simulated universe and a real one?
I'm going to limit my response to this portion of your post for now, I'll revisit the rest when I have more time.
My point is that it HAS been empirically tested, and the results are that it IS a simulation, we just didn't realize it.
How so?
Well consider this. Assume there are two possibilities. Our reality is objective, real, and physical (A), OR it is a probabilistic simulation being presented to us as reality (B).
When you consider the double slit experiment, and the possible results, you would expect different, but specific results based on whether or not A or B is true. In fact, the results predicted from assuming B are in fact the results we get "in the real world". Which is why the experiment is so damn frustrating and hard to understand when you assume A, which most people do without even giving it a second thought.
It also explains quantum tunneling (which is when a substance appears to penetrate an otherwise impenetrable barrier), for if the location of any given particle is calculated, as opposed to real, then even if the chance of any given particle being at location X is 1 in 1,000,000, if you have millions of particles, a couple are gonna show up at X, even if it's "physically impossible". Which is, in fact, what happens.
Quantum physics MAKES SENSE if you assume reality is simulated. It doesn't under the objective reality hypothesis.
Well consider this. Assume there are two possibilities. Our reality is objective, real, and physical (A), OR it is a probabilistic simulation being presented to us as reality (B).
Okay. Dichotomies are always questionable, but lets run with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
When you consider the double slit experiment, and the possible results, you would expect different, but specific results based on whether or not A or B is true.
Why? If the simulation is good enough, it should perfectly simulate the same results that one would get if it were not a simulation at all. Shouldn't it?
Now... what exactly are the different results you think we should expect in the different circumstances? What is the result that should obtain if reality was not a simulation, and how is that different than what we actually obtain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
In fact, the results predicted from assuming B are in fact the results we get "in the real world".
Why do you think that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Which is why the experiment is so damn frustrating and hard to understand when you assume A, which most people do without even giving it a second thought.
I'm not certain that frustration is a useful criterion for discerning truth. And it is also unclear that your frustration is widely shared. The particle wave duality is what we observe. Under Quantum mechanics it is simply a fundamental property of the universe. Under other ideas it is an emergent property of particles, a second order result of the observer affect. Your idea seems closer to the latter than the former, but I am still missing the specific difference in outcome you are asserting distinguishes between the two assumed options.
In short, you are asserting this explains "something." But I cannot see that explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It also explains quantum tunneling (which is when a substance appears to penetrate an otherwise impenetrable barrier), for if the location of any given particle is calculated, as opposed to real, then even if the chance of any given particle being at location X is 1 in 1,000,000, if you have millions of particles, a couple are gonna show up at X, even if it's "physically impossible". Which is, in fact, what happens.
The universe is statistical. It appears to me that you are not really evaluating different results that should be achieved dependent on reality v. simulation, but merely identifying the different perspectives of classical v. quantum physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
Quantum physics MAKES SENSE if you assume reality is simulated. It doesn't under the objective reality hypothesis.
I'm missing the distinction. Quantum physics makes sense either way.
Why? If the simulation is good enough, it should perfectly simulate the same results that one would get if it were not a simulation at all. Shouldn't it?
If it were designed to do so, I suppose it could. But what if figuring out that it's "not real" is actually one of the goals of the game?
Quote:
Now... what exactly are the different results you think we should expect in the different circumstances? What is the result that should obtain if reality was not a simulation, and how is that different than what we actually obtain?
Electrons are like bullets, except many orders of magnitude smaller. But they are matter, and in theory anyway, if you could shrink yourself down small enough, you could hold them in your hand just as you can bullets.
When you fire bullets at a bulletproof barrier with 2 slits in it, you expect to get 2 vertical lines of bullet holes behind the barrier. That is what the expected behavior of electrons is under similar circumstances. Only that's NOT what happens. Instead you get an interference pattern, as though the electrons passed through both slits and interfered with themselves, which is of course physically impossible.
And yet, it happens. Despite the fact that it's physically impossible.
Now, if the electrons are not in fact physical, but if their behavior is probabilistic and calculated, and they are only "rendered" to the simulation when necessary (i.e. when observed), then the behavior pattern makes sense. It has a greater than zero probability of going through both slits, so it's behavior is calculated as if it did, unless we alter the experiment by determining which one. Once that happens, the chance of it going through the other drops to exactly zero, and the results reflect that.
An objectively real electron CANNOT create an interference pattern. A calculated, simulated one not only can, it would be the expected result when you assuming rendering only occurs when necessary, which is a logical assumption.
Quote:
Quantum physics makes sense either way.
Well, if you think that, explain it to the rest of the world. Not even Hawking thinks that.
Electrons are like bullets, except many orders of magnitude smaller.
Actually, the double-slit experiment makes a damn good case that electrons aren't like bullets.
Quote:
But they are matter, and in theory anyway, if you could shrink yourself down small enough, you could hold them in your hand just as you can bullets.
That's just an assertion on your part. Perhaps we've just discovered something about the nature of matter...
Quote:
An objectively real electron CANNOT create an interference pattern. A calculated, simulated one not only can, it would be the expected result when you assuming rendering only occurs when necessary, which is a logical assumption.
This is a fairly interesting idea, but in order for your simulation hypothesis to gain credence as a theory, you need to come up with a way to falsify it - otherwise, it's just a twist on solipsism. What positive evidence would make you discard the simulation hypothesis?
This is a fairly interesting idea, but in order for your simulation hypothesis to gain credence as a theory, you need to come up with a way to falsify it - otherwise, it's just a twist on solipsism. What positive evidence would make you discard the simulation hypothesis?
Interesting question.
I would be open to any theory about reality that explains quantum weirdness as eloquently as does the simulation theory. I am unaware of any that does.
That's just an assertion on your part. Perhaps we've just discovered something about the nature of matter...
Indeed, we have. That it's not real!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
