Ever wondered if we are living in a computer simulation?
You know the drill........
The Matrix came out the same year I started going to college for computer programming.
I took some binary classes (breaking everything down into the most basic building blocks...1's & 0's)
It wasn't until a couple years later that I started to question my reality..I was reading a lot of quantum mechanics back in my 'crazy days' ....
Our code is contained within our DNA...
a Double Helix can even be found operating at the cosmic level:
Here is an article I posted years ago on TheComatorium ...I like the fact that it uses music production a an analogy(hoping this is where I can keep some of you interested)...I've spent quite a bit of time on these 3 different subjects that give one an understand how are universe may operate....this is probably the least crazy of the threads I have here haha
One way to resolve this seeming paradox of waves without medium is to note that there remains another kind of wave altogether. A wave with which we are all familiar, yet which exists without any medium in the ordinary sense. This is the computer-generated wave. Let us examine a computer-generated sound wave.
Imagine the following set up. A musician in a recording studio plays a synthesizer, controlled by a keyboard. It is a digital synthesizer which uses an algorithm (programming) to create nothing more than a series of numbers representing what a sampling of points along the desired sound wave would look like if it were played by a "real" instrument. The synthesizer's output is routed to a computer and stored as a series of numbers. The numbers are burned into a disk as a series of pits that can be read by a laser -- in other words, a CD recording. The CD is shipped to a store. You buy the CD, bring it home, and put it in your home entertainment system, and press the play button. The "music" has traveled from the recording studio to yourliving room. Through what medium did the music wave travel? To a degree, you might say that it traveled as electricity through the wires from the keyboard to the computer. But you might just as well say it traveled by truck along the highway to the store. In fact, this "sound wave" never existed as anything more than a digital representation of a hypothetical sound wave which itself never existed. It is, first and last, a string of numbers. Therefore, although it will produce wave like effects when placed in your stereo, this wave never needed any medium other than the computer memory to spread itself all over the music loving world. As you can tell from your CD collection, computers are very good at generating, storing, and regenerating waves in this fashion.
Computers and Quantum Mechanics:
Quantum units of the same type are identical. Every electron is exactly the same as every other electron; every photon the same as every other photon; etc. How identical are they? So identical that Feynman was able seriously to propose that all the electrons and positrons in the universe actually are the same electron/positron, which merely has zipped back and forth in time so often that we observe it once for each of the billions of times it crosses our own time, so it seems like we are seeing billions of electrons. If you were to study an individual quantum unit from a collection, you would find nothing to distinguish it from any other quantum unit of the same type. Nothing whatsoever. Upon regrouping the quantum units, you could not, even in principle, distinguish which was the unit you had been studying and which was another.
The complete and utter sameness of each electron (or other quantum unit) has a number of consequences in physics. If the mathematical formula describing one electron is the same as that describing another electron, then there is no method, even in principle, of telling which is which. This means, for example, that if you begin with two quantum electrons at positions A and B, and move them to positions C and D, you cannot state whether they traveled the paths A to C and B to D, or A to D and B to C. In such a situation, there is no way to identify the electron at an end position with one or the other of the electrons at a beginning position; therefore, you must allow for the possibility that each electron at A and B arrived at either C or D. This impacts on the math predicting what will happen in any given quantum situation and, as it turns out, the final probabilities agree with this interchangeable state of affairs.
The computer analogy. Roger Penrose has likened this sameness to the images produced by a computer. Imagine the letter "t." On the page you are viewing, the letter "t" appears many times. Every letter t is exactly like every other letter t. That is because on a computer, the letter t is produced by displaying a particular set of pixels on the screen. You could not, even in principle, tell one from the other because each is the identical image of a letter t. The formula for this image is buried in many layers of subroutines for displaying pixels, and the image does not change regardless of whether it is called upon to form part of the word "mathematical" or "marital".
Similarly, an electron does not change regardless of whether it is one of the two electrons associated with the helium atom, or one of the ninety-two electrons associated with the uranium atom. You could not, even in principle, tell one from another. The only way in this world to create such identical images is to use the same formula to produce the same image, over and over again whenever a display of the image is called for.
so how do I know we're going to finally find out if we're currently living in a computer simulation?
The latest and greatest news the status quo has to offer (Time Magazine) has a new article about how there are experiments are now in the works because there is actually a way to test this now!!!!!!!!!!!!
In his paper, Bostrom argued that at least one of the following things must be 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.
That third point is almost surely true, argues, Bostrom, if the first and second points prove false. So if we actually survive to a “posthuman” stage (the so-called “singularity,” or point at which it’s assumed machine intelligence will transcend human), and assuming that we can’t help ourselves — that designing and running what Bostrom calls an “ancestor simulation” is ineluctable — then, according to Bostrom, we’re almost certainly living in a computer simulation created by an advanced civilization. (Don’t faint or anything, though I guess fainting would be simulated, too.)
How do you test for something like that? Can you? Bostrom argues that we’ll know his third claim is true if we’re ever able to create an ancestor simulation ourselves (in other words, not for a really long time). But a group of University of Washington researchers has suggested there may be a way to start testing soon if we want to verify Bostrom’s supposition.
Start with the assumption that we’ll actually be able to simulate the universe, or small portions of it, perfectly someday — a pretty big assumption, since we’re still trying to reconcile disparate physical and cosmological theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity, to say nothing of Stephen Hawking’s and Leonard Mlodinow’s idea in The Grand Design that “ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature.” (In fact most days, we’re lucky if we’re getting the weather right.)
But according to University of Washington physics professor Martin Savage, we could test our universe for computational artifice by looking for the sort of “signatures” you’d find in current-day simulations. Supercomputers currently use a technique called lattice quantum chromodynamics (LQC) to model aspects of physical reality, say molecules, or quarks and gluons. If our universe were crafted from a lattice-driven simulation, we ought to be able to find evidence of the underlying, interlacing imprint.
According to the UW summary, supercomputers using LQC chop space-time into a four-dimensional grid, which allows researchers to inspect something called the “strong force” — one of the four building-block forces (along with electromagnetism, the weak force and gravity) that hold subatomic particles together.
“If you make the simulations big enough, something like our universe should emerge,” says Savage.