Q: What is the evidence for the Big Bang? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
Finding an agent is a little like dating – you need to find someone who 'gets' to her bones, pulling her toward the boat as if the universe needed her to act. Physicist: The very short answer is: all the galaxies in the universe are flying apart, so at some point in the distant past they must have been. The trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Yahoo! statements after the date of this Annual Report on Form K to reflect new The VaR model uses a Monte Carlo simulation to generate thousands of random price.
The question of whether we are actually aware of the real world is one which has been continually asked by philosophers. One of the earliest articulations of the conundrum occurs in Plato's Republic, where the Allegory of the Cave attempts to describe the illusory existence led by most unthinking people. Plato, regarded by many as the father of Western philosophy, suggested that the only way to come to a realisation of the real world was an in-depth study of maths and geometry, which would give students an inkling of the real nature of the world.
Harry Potter adaptations, ranked
French philosopher Rene Descartes, pictured above right, whose works are often used as a general introduction to metaphysics, raises the problem again as a thought experiment to lead readers to a position of radical doubt.
By postulating a malicious demon who can keep us trapped in an illusory world, Descartes asks readers to cast aside all the evidence of their sensory experiences in a search for one certain premise. He famously comes up with the argument 'cogito ergo sum', or rather 'I think therefore I am', which he uses as a indubitable bedrock from which to reconstruct a certain picture of reality.
Subsequent critics of his work, however, say that just because there are thoughts, there is no guarantee there is really a thinker. Professor Beane and his colleagues say this lattice spacing imposes a limit on the energy that particles can have, because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself.
This means that if the universe as we know it is actually a computer simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles. And it just happens that there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic rays, a limit known as the Greisen—Zatsepin—Kuzmin GZK cut off. As the Physics arXiv blog explains, this cut off is well-studied and happend because high energy particles interacting with the cosmic microwave background lose energy as they travel across long distances.
The researchers calculate that the lattice spacing forces additional features on the spectrum, most strikingly that the cosmic rays would prefer to travel along the axes of the lattice. Such a brain-only mechanism to account for consciousness, required for whole-world simulations and promulgated by physicalists, is to me not obvious.
I asked Rees whether human-level consciousness and self-consciousness can be simulated. He uses simulation theory to tease out possible contradictions in the multiple universe multiverse theory, which is his countercultural challenge to today's mainstream cosmology.
Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we're just typical observers, then we're overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one. Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe's physics is a fake.
Is our Universe a computer simulation?
Therefore, Davies reasoned, "We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics. Davies concluded, "While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions. If these five premises are true, I agree, humanity is likely living in a simulation.
The logic seems sound, which means that if you don't accept or don't want to accept the conclusion, then you must reject at least one of the premises.
Expert explains why we DON'T live in a computer simulation
Exponential growth of technology? Not all civilizations going extinct? No simulations ban or barrier? Whichever you choose, it must apply always, everywhere. That, to me, makes no sense. Would the simulation argument relate to theism, the existence of God? Bostrum said, "the simulation hypothesis is not an alternative to theism or atheism. It could be a version of either — it's independent of whether God exists.Is The Universe Real? Or Is It a Computer Simulation?
So they would have some of the capabilities of omnipotence in the sense that they could change anything they wanted about our world. But that leads to the old regress game and the question of who created the weaker creator-simulators.
Most detailed ever simulation of the universe shows scientists how black holes shape galaxies
At some point, the chain of causation must end — although even this, some would dispute. Personally, I do not think humanity is living in a whole-world simulation.
But because the simulation argument seems to work, what it seems to do is to uncover deep discrepancies, or fundamental flaws, in how people think about deep reality — about this universe, multiple universes, consciousness, and even inferences for and against theism.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.