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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
As I (and others) have pointed out, trying to simulate quantum mechanics does not save computing time, but rather, consumes exponentially much additional time.
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.
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.
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.