Are We Living in a Simulated Universe? [closed]

Question

1. Isn't Quantization of Energy (or action) in Quantum Mechanics prove that our world is a Great Computer Simulation!?

2. Are We Living in a Simulated Universe?

just imagine the whole world is a great simulation, and the whole world started with a simulated big bang. and every things are results of spontaneous program self- organization and automorphisms. The big bang happened in a kind of supercomputer And now we're inside of it. the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years to our eyes, But perhaps within less than a second for simulator.

1. If the universe is just a Matrix- like simulation, how could we ever know?

It seems to me the Quantum Mechanics Implies That The Universe is a Computer Simulation. E=nhυ where the h is planck constant and (n=1,2,3,...)

Laser fires single particles of light, called photons, through the slits. Even though only single photons of light are being fired through the slits and They create three pattern again. How single particles of light can create this wave pattern?

parallel worlds. They're here, millimetres away. And they're being created all the time. This vision of reality says that any time we go to work, there'll be another universe where we stay at home. It's a disturbing idea, developed in the 1950s, it's the best and only solution to the paradox at the heart of quantum reality. The big problem with quantum mechanics is that the little particles that we're all made of can be in multiple places at once According to this theory, when the photon of light faces two slits it doesn't split in two. It splits the world in two. Every photon in the double slit experiment creates a new parallel world.

Answer 1

Only just recently has a method been proposed to determine if the world is in fact a simulation. See "proposed method to determine if the universe is a simulation" which refers to a recent paper from Cornell, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation"

A tiny glimpse of the method would be

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.

Answer 2

Quantum mechanics are discrete. They are not easily computable, ask any physicist.

If you are referring to the simulation argument, let this be known:

The simulation argument does NOT say that we live in a simulation.

The simulation argument is as follows:

1. Consider the following syllogism:
   • It is highly probably that future!humanity will have access to vast computation resources.
   • It is probably that some future!human will at some point simulate something resembling the civilisation of their ancestors.
   • THUS we are probably living in a simulation.
2. The above syllogism appears absurd.
3. The above syllogism is valid.
   • A valid syllogism is true when both it's premises are true.
   • A valid syllogism is false when either of it's premises are false.
   • The validity of a syllogism is distinct from it's truth.
4. Ponder the following: If the above syllogism is to be false in accordance with our intuitions of absurdity, which of the premises do we disagree with? Or do we disagree with the validity?

There is an reductionist answer, and it is that it doesn't matter, since a simulation is a "window" into a "universe," not a "universe" in itself. This observation is as follows:

1. Suppose we simulate a universe.
2. The simulation is a physical computer modelling a mathematical set of axioms.
   • The fact that 2 apples and 2 apples is 4 apples has no bearing on the the truth of arithmetic.
   • The apples is a physical system, modelling a mathematical set of axioms (Peano Arithmetic, for instance).
   • A computer is just a really complicated system of physical interactions behaving like Peano Arithmetic and other axiom sets.
3. THUS our simulation of them has no bearing on their reality.

There are problems with the view of universe as mathematics which number among others difficulty of defining consistent utilitarianism. This I will not go into detail with here.