That doesn’t answer the underlying question, any more than God does. In the same fashion, it only pushes it back a notch. Why does who/whatever’s running the simulation exist?
I wish I thought of that.
It may fully explain why our universe exists, or in this case doesn’t exist. But it doesn’t explain anything about that other universe where this one was imagined.
A simulation is not the simplest explanation, since it requires a universe where the simulation runs as well as the simulation. As someone who has written lots of simulators (none of the universe, to be fair) I think the simulation hypothesis is bogus.
I first heard of it in 1969 when Professor Ed Fredkin of MIT came to my class. He came up with the idea. He said miracles from the past were bugs in the program.
He also made the daring prediction that memory in the future would someday go down in price to a penny a bit!
Sensitive instruments like your cellphone. GPS programming must take relativity into account.
There’s especially nothing wrong with wild hypotheses that are backed up by math. For example, the hypothesis that the entire universe may be a gigantic black hole tends to have support from the apparent fact that the estimated mass of the universe is approximately consistent with the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole the size of the observable universe. You are certainly free to believe in the other things you mention, but unless it’s backed up by math, you’re not doing science, you’re doing stuff that’s more in the realm of religion and philosophy.
The meta question is whether this is a valid question. AFAWCT, the universe exists because it exists. “Why” suggests some kind of motivation or cause – a sort of causa prima. We must also consider that “why” is not answerable. If there were a deity responsible for all creation, why did it create everything? What was its motivation? Or was it simply unable to not do so (a sort of zombie god, without ultimate agency)?
Or, perhaps there is a legitimate answer to the why of it, that we could comprehend, that is in the end not of any real value to know. My, look at how wrinkly m belly button is in there.
Sure. I freely admit to that. In a way that idea is in the “god of the gaps” territory. But IMHO the god of the gaps is fine, as long as one stays within the gaps. It’s when one starts trying to apply religion in areas in which science has already filled in the gaps that we (humanity as a whole) start running into problems*. I try to avoid that, and hopefully I have.
*. ETA. At least when it comes to the area of metaphysics. I don’t mean to say that morality or ethics are in the realm of science.
If our universe is just an invention in another universe the answer to ‘why’ should be known there. That does bring up all these questions regarding another universe. And there could be a long chain of conceptual universes between ours and a real one.
As any parent of a 4yo can readily attest, it’s “Why’s?” all the way down.
But would the answer be useful to us? What if we are a simulation established to satisfy the urges of a horde of sadists/nihilists? What would we do with that information? Suffer harder to make them happy or adopt asceticism in order to thwart them?
t = -1? It might be meaningless to say time existed before the Big Bang (when time started as we know it) but I can easily imagine a state before that. None of these concepts stated in this thread are concrete.
The concept of “before” in relation to the Big Bang is a complex one, and there’s no universally agreed-upon answer. The Big Bang is often considered the beginning of space and time, implying there’s nothing “before” it in a classical sense. However, some theories explore the possibility of a pre-Big Bang state or a quantum universe preceding the Big Bang.
Some of those theories, particularly those involving quantum cosmology and string theory, suggest that there might have been a pre-Big Bang state, a quantum universe governed by different rules than our current one. Some theories propose that the Big Bang could be a transition from a pre-existing quantum state to our classical universe.
Our current understanding of physics breaks down at the singularity, and we lack the theoretical tools to accurately describe the pre-Big Bang state. That doesn’t mean I can’t imagine such a time.
Exactly. The simulation hypothesis is saying goddidit except using science-y terminology. It is immediately dismissible.
Imagine it to your heart’s content. But without concrete mathematical formulations backing up the hypotheses, they’re just some blend of philosophy, religion, and fantasy. It’s not science. You might be able to make an interesting movie about it, but you couldn’t write a paper about it and have it accepted by a serious journal.
You’re absolutely right that our knowledge of physics breaks down at the singularity. Whenever the math leads to infinities, something has gone wrong with our theory. But that doesn’t mean that “anything is possible”. It most probably means an incremental evolution to our understanding that builds on hitherto unappreciated prior knowledge
True. But I don’t think the underlying question is “why does this specific universe exist?” I think it’s “why does anything exist?”
You can substitute “how?” for “why?” if you want. I don’t think motivation is necessarily implied.
Certainly possible. In fact, I suspect that’s true; at least for us, and possibly for any being.
It is, however, fun to speculate.
Stop harrassing, torturing, and killing each other in the name of supposedly loving gods?
That is, if their believers were convinced of the truth. I think that if we somehow found out any such thing, the denial would be massive.
Physicists and astrophysicists are working on these problems. Nearly every week New Scientist magazine runs an article on the latest suggestions for solutions to problems in cosmology, from black holes to dark energy, or on the meaning of terms like time and space. Maybe one of them is right or at least will put other scientists on the right track to a more complete answer.
If people here want much wilder - and much more interesting - speculation on these topics, go to a library and dig through a stack of back issues. Remember, though, as wolfpup said, these articles are the English translations of incredibly complex math. Without the math, none of the words would be published because then they’d be idle shower thoughts.
From our point of view, our universe is all there’s ever been, or all there ever will be. It came from a singularity and appears to be expanding for unknown reasons.
We can’t detect or measure anything outside our universe, so we’ll never know if there’s anything outside our universe. We’re not even aware of most of what’s in our universe.
That escalated quickly. Nowhere did I suggest I had the answers. Nor did I suggest I wanted to have my musings accepted by the scientific community or publish any papers. And frankly, my OP was just about how unimaginable the universe’s beginning is.
If cosmologists can tell me that the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, I’m free to speculate what happened 14 billion years ago, based on that time-line. It’s not religion or fantasy, it’s just a thought flight.
“Probably”, but you can’t know that. If we have no idea what caused the Big Bang, then yes, anything is possible. It might move us along incrementally, but if our current universe was brought about but another one of the multi-verses (for example) that would be a huge shift in our understanding.
[quote=“eschereal, post:89, topic:1018251”]
But would the answer be useful to us? [/quote]
We could try to find a way to hack the simulation or communicate with the simulators. I mean, one implication of the simulation theory is that things like the laws of physics are fundamentally fake.
Simulation theory is often formulated like a religion, with the unspoken assumption that proving it is conveniently impossible. But that’s not inherent to the concept (or to religion, for that matter). If was true it’s quite conceivable that we might be able to find bugs and exploits in the system that we can use to do things that make no sense according to physics, because unlike a real universe in a simulation the “laws of nature” can be violated.
Physicists have been exploring these ideas for decades. Maybe lay understanding would shift, but the math is being explored right this minute somewhere.
Check out The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene. He explores nine different types of multiverses. The book was published in 2011 and a lot more work has been done on the subject since.
I’m currently reading Brian Greenes “The Fabric of the Cosmos”. Paraphrasing the best I can. During the beginning of the big bang gravity was repulsive and it went from a high energy state to a lower energy state and turned attractive. The change in energy went into creating matter via E=MC^2
That may well be, though I’ve never heard it described that way. The conventional understanding is that the four fundamental forces were unified at the moment of Creation. Gravity separated from the other three forces between 10-43 to 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang. The creation of matter began during the Quark Epoch, 10-12 to 10-6 seconds after. Interestingly, it’s believed that virtually all quarks were matched by anti-quarks and annihilated each other. Only about one in a billion had no anti-quark partner, and these surviving quarks later combined to form atomic nuclei. This tiny asymmetry between the creation of quarks and anti-quarks, a process called baryogenesis, is responsible for all the matter in the universe.
As long as we’re engaged in speculation, it’s interesting to speculate that the singularity at the center of a black hole may replicate the conditions of the very early universe. It may be a super-hot quark-gluon plasma, or it may not contain any quarks at all. “Hot” in this case isn’t meaningful in classical terms, but has to be understood as the energy of quantum states. It’s possible that the four fundamental forces are once again unified at the singularity just as they were at Creation. So how come black holes have powerful gravity? Because the black hole singularity must interact with the universe, if only through the properties of charge, rotation, and mass, and mass applies (through E=mc2) even if there’s nothing there but energy.