# Are we in The Matrix? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2012, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059 "2012-10-08T04:33:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![allotrope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@allotrope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/allotrope)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/21 "2012-10-09T05:16:30Z")
Reality might be a lot stranger than we imagine. If quantum mechanics is accurate and in some meaningful sense describes reality, then according to Bell’s theorem, we have to reject either the idea of locality or realism (counterfactual definiteness). I think the de facto attitude is to reject the former. However that by itself is a fairly profound result since it implies that every point in the universe could conceivably be connected to and be influenced by every other - and vice-versa. Of course there is no mechanism in QM that would account for such an infinite level of connectedness but I suspect that it’s not specifically prohibited either. Things get even stranger if you opt to reject CFD, but I’ll let someone with a deeper background it QM take that one. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/22 "2012-10-09T05:26:21Z")
Shushhh. If they realize we are catching on, they might shut the simulation down. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/23 "2012-10-09T05:30:49Z")
This is probably better suited to GD than GQ. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/24 "2012-10-09T11:20:33Z")
If “there is no spoon”, how do I eat my cereal? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/25 "2012-10-09T11:44:39Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > If “there is no spoon”, how do I eat my cereal? Funnel. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/26 "2012-10-09T14:53:03Z")
Yes. Can I have your stuff? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/27 "2012-10-09T15:11:15Z")
No, but those that believe they are controlling us _are_. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/28 "2012-10-09T15:24:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No, but those that believe they are controlling us _are_. Hehe, you really think you thought that up yourself.Didn’t you, my little battery? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/29 "2012-10-09T15:27:20Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Hehe, you really think you thought that up yourself.Didn’t you, my little battery? Must be something wrong in the program-that line was supposed to be posted seven minutes ago. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/30 "2012-10-09T16:39:48Z")
Are we in the Matrix? Yes, and I hacked the sytem to make bacon milkshakes. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/31 "2012-10-09T16:46:29Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Are we in the Matrix? > > Yes, and I hacked the sytem to make bacon milkshakes. That’s not a hack-that’s an authorized update. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/32 "2012-10-09T17:38:38Z")
We are not IN the Matrix – we ARE the Matrix. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2012, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/33 "2012-10-09T17:44:59Z")
It seems like if we were in the matrix, and the matrix needed to cut down on computational power, cutting down the size of the universe by a factor of 50 billion would be a simpler way to save clock cycles than subtle quantum and relativistic effects. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/34 "2012-10-10T02:03:23Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > I offer two bits of evidence: > > 1. Quantum mechanics, specifically, the role of the observer in controlling the behavior of particles. What is that? How would any non-living system have the slightest idea whether or not it’s being observed? Try measuring a tire’s air pressure without releasing some of the air. Or the age of a tree by counting the rings without cutting into it. > [@al27052](#): > > 1. Relativity, specifically the speed of light. Why would nothing be able to exceed it? Light is massless. You have it backwards. Light travels at the “speed of light” because that is the speed limit of the universe. The speed of light isn’t the speed limit for the universe because that’s how fast light travels. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/35 "2012-10-10T02:45:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Try measuring a tire’s air pressure without releasing some of the air. Or the age of a tree by counting the rings without cutting into it. > > You have it backwards. Light travels at the “speed of light” because that is the speed limit of the universe. The speed of light isn’t the speed limit for the universe because that’s how fast light travels. I don’t have anything backwards, I just didn’t express myself clearly. My question was _meant_ to be, “Why would something massless not have infinite velocity?” As I’ve said, I think that the reason, theoretically, could be that it would cut down on the number of complex interactions in a computer simulation. I’m surprised none of you have ever heard of the “double-slit experiment”, which demonstrates the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. here’s the wiki: > **[Double-slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)** > > In modern physics, the double-slit experiment demonstrates that light and matter can exhibit behavior of both classical particles and classical waves. This type of experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1801, as a demonstration of the wave behavior of visible light. In 1927, Davisson and Germer and, independently, George Paget Thomson and his research student Alexander Reid demonstrated that electrons show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and molecules. > The expe... That, to me, would imply the possibility that some Matrix creator could, theoretically, be trying to conserve computer power. Please don’t comment on this post unless you’ve _thoroughly_ read the link. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/36 "2012-10-10T04:24:31Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > I’m surprised none of you have ever heard of the “double-slit experiment”, which demonstrates the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. No. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is demonstrated by any number of experiments, such as simply repeatedly measuring non-commuting observables. The double slit experiment demonstrates the difference between quantum mechanics and ordinary probability theory: interference, which means that the law of total probability gets modified, such that the probability of a photon to arrive at a point on the screen via either slit is not the same as the probability of arriving at that point via one slit plus arriving there via the other. > [@](#): > > That, to me, would imply the possibility that some Matrix creator could, theoretically, be trying to conserve computer power. As I (and others) have pointed out, trying to simulate quantum mechanics does not save computing time, but rather, consumes exponentially much additional time. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/37 "2012-10-10T23:37:36Z")
Paper can be downloaded at the link, though I don’t really understand it all. **Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation** Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage (Submitted 4 Oct 2012) ``` Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice. ``` [http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847](http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847) ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/38 "2012-10-11T00:48:19Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > As I (and others) have pointed out, trying to simulate quantum mechanics does not save computing time, but rather, consumes exponentially much additional time. For the vast majority of human history, humans have had no way to test quantum theory, or really do anything that would allow observation of quantum behavior. Granted, once people can observe and test quantum behavior, the rules may change. I’m personally still not convinced of that, but that’s unimportant. The point is that a simulation wouldn’t have had to accurately model things on the quantum level until very, very recently. Even then, it would only have to do so for those rare cases where a human is observing quantum events. Even now such cases are extremely rare among humans as a whole, going through their daily activities. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/39 "2012-10-11T00:56:12Z")
So if the universe is a simulation, can I stop paying taxes yet? ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059/40 "2012-10-11T01:07:12Z")
Did someone already post this abstract and I missed it? This is the most compelling argument that I’ve seen for the matrix. ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM [Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255. (First version: 2001)] This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-in-the-matrix/637059.md?page=3)