I said the same thing when I left the Cannabis Cup last year... if only I could get some funding

Bah! If the universe were based upon a true information simulation then travel back in time would be possible. Entropy wouldn't exist. Etc..

IMO, if this were possible, it would be on a level so far beyond the information itself (us) that the point would be moot. Good sci-fi stuff though.

Sounds like someone has been playing to much star ocean 3. Can't really blame him though because it was a great game.

Boy...I hope god (SysOp) doesn't hit Ctrl+Alt+Del!!!!

See, I dont mind the fact that I dont have superpowers and an underground base and ultra-sex-droids, because those things aren't real. But if the world is a simulation, then I *could* have had those things, and the only reason I don't is because the cyber-Archons are mean.

That would truly piss me off. If that turned out to be true, there would be trouble.

Big trouble.

I'm just saying.

@FrankenPC:

Right. This theory ASSUMES a system operator(s). And they are jerks!

Read "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd.

People designing quantum computers have discovered that we actually live in a quantum computer.

I wonder if Brian Whitworth's work will draw the attention of SysOp and SysOp will take a liking to him and provide him with phat lootz. if next year Brian Whitworth is dating 3 Victoria's Secret models and has more money than Bill Gates, the existence of SysOp will have been proven.

@GroovyMojo:

Right. That idea has been around for a while. The Universe may be a titanic quantum super computer. But the idea that we are living in VR is a bit different I think. Instead of being an active, real, part of a larger whole, we are figments of reality embedded in some sort of storage medium being manipulated by "others".

That's how I intrepeted it anyway.

@FrankenPC: Entropy's existance would depend on the rules of the system. Similarly, time travel would require rules that allow it, plus a system that saves all previous states as well as the current state of the system.

There is actually a theory that we are in a system; it states that at least one of the following must be true:
Almost no civilizations will advance to the point that such simulations are feasible
Almost no civilizations with the ability to make such simulations will, for whatever reason (moral, etc)
We are almost certainly living in such a simulation.
The idea being that, assuming the existance of (a) civilization(s) able and willing to create such simulations, there are more simulated realities than actual realities, and thus we are probably in a simulated one.
I'm personally arrogant enough to assume I'm living in a "real" reality rather than a simulated one, but people seriously postulating that we aren't isn't really new.

Soooo...any ladies wanna cyber with me? No, I mean in this computer.

Blah blah blah, can't even call this a retread theory it's so old. How did this rank posting on a *sci-fi* blog? Seems like something that should pop up briefly on Slashdot...

@Morgan:

(Wow this is seriously nerdy talk)

Yes, in that context I agree with you. If the universe and all realities exist in a quantum superposition at all times (I use the word time loosely) then the other "threads" which ultimately collapse and fail would be the simulations. And I agree, "our" thread is the real and successful one :D

But to go back in time is to alter your position in the thread system and you would end up going down an alternate path. Potentially a thread destined for failure and destruction.

One concept about quantum mechanics backs up your idea. That is the idea that we perceive reality in FPS (Frames per second). And that in between these frames is total freedom from time (infinite possibility). So, if we are being built up and destroyed frame by frame (See Stephen Kings The Langoliers) then, in theory, something behind the scenes could be making computational decisions and altering our information system at will.

This paper is a great post here, since it's completely science fiction. What it's doing on my beloved arXiv, I don't know.

@GROOVYMOJO: This is true in the sense that a quantum computer is just a quantum system, and the universe is a quantum system. In the sense of "computer" as we commonly use the term, no those researchers haven't said anything of the sort.

Sounds like some publicity ploy to me. :)

@FrankenPC: That would suck. :-)

There's a 20% chance we're living in the matrix
[www.nytimes.com]

@FrankenPC: Re: reconstructed reality:
This idea forms the plot of the film Dark City. There's a disappointing deus ex machina ending but it's still quite compelling.

I just hope they dont have to reboot any time soon.

I have this terrifying feeling that one of those big atom smashers is going to uncover the "god" particle and written on it is: "Powered by Windows Vista".

alright, no more bullshit. for real.

as time goes on i myself growing tired of this film garnering approval as some sort of philisophical masterpiece.

is anyone else tired of endless droves of sometimes even seemingly intelligent people who saw the matrix saying "it changed their lives" and "really made them think" or "gave them a whole new perspective"?

well here is something to "really think" about. the wachowski brothers pretty much ripped all their "philosophical" ideas from Jean Baudrillard (specifically his work "Simulacra and Simulations", a copy of which is explicitly placed in the first film). I say pretty much because according to Baudrillard himself, they completely botched the interpretation of the material (see his interview "The Matrix Decoded"...its funny).

so i say to you, deep thinkers of the matrix...read a (non-fiction!) book for fucks sake!

and further yet, anyone who thinks these films evoke anything deeply spiritual and/or religious should be "clubbed to death" with their shrine of Matrix merchandise whilst being filmed in "bullet-time"...for posterity.

What is that line in Hitchhikers' Guide? Something like if anybody figures out the universe it will immediately be replaced by something even more incomprehensible?

The Matrix idea is silly, but a useful McGuffy to aid plotting.

ever hear the rumor about how they stole 80% of this stuff from an anime?

No, but no doubt.. Plot-wise, the matrix's are very sloppy movies, with plot holes you could drive dirigable planets through.

ow my head hurts

It's an interesting concept, and fun to blabber about, but at the end of the day seems to serve no useful purpose. We might be a simulation, we might not. Now, if people start discussing ways in which we might be able to determine if this is the case, then it becomes of value.

I'm not sure if we could create a test that could determine if this is the case - after all, wouldn't we need a reality that is not a simulation to compare it against?

[qntm.org]
And it's still better then the sequels.

@Jonn: That was pretty good. Thanks for the read.

@FrankenPC: Hitchhikers "Part of a computer" hardware/program like vs Matrix "Computer has you" program variable/input/output"

@GROOVYMOJO: Yeah, sure. Just like, when clocks were the hot new tech, the universe was just a giant clock.

You find a rich enough metaphor, and then try to interpret *everything* in those terms.

@CERIPHIM: If this is the idea underlyng all of Greg Egan's novels,.... Both still count as interesting SF discussions, nonetheless.

Man, how would this even obviate the origin of the universe question?

"If the universe were a simulation, the big bang would no longer be paradoxical, because every system needs to be booted up."

No, jackass--now the paradox would be where the fucking computer that it's running on came from. It doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it.

More about that, (universe being information), on the appendix section of the "Valis" book by Phillip K Dick...

Some extracts:
"…4. Matter is plastic in the face of Mind…

…14. The universe is information and we are stationary in it, not three-dimensional and not in spate or time. The information fed to us we hypostatize into the phenomenal world….

…30. The phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind.

31. We hypostatize information into objects. Rearrangement of objects is change in the content of the information; the message has changed… We ourselves are information rich; information enter us, is processed and is then projected outward once more, not in altered form. We are not aware we are doing this, that in fact this is all we are doing…"

I'm going to go bend my mind with a spoon.

@IMIPOLEX_G-UNIT: There is no mind.

Descartes...

I forgot to bring up this theory. The Vidic Domain.
[iptq.com]

No The 13th Floor?
Common! That movie needs a LOT more love than it received. Maybe because of the Matrix, that got a lot more attention. 13th floor is actually plausible (humans as batteries? Ha!).

@Robsteranium: It's not a 20% chance that we live in a simulation just because it's some guy's "gut feeling". In fact, by his own logic and mathematics, the probability is far higher than 20% - perhaps incalculably high. But then, since there currently isn't any way to even gather evidence one way or the other, Occam's Razor demands that we assume we are NOT in a simulation. An interesting conundrum :-)

It's not Wachowski Bros any more remember... It's Wachowski Brother and sister! :p

That, in and of itself sounds all weird and Science Fiction-y to me. " I was born a little boy, but changed my gender after I made a hit movie about being stuck in a computer, primarily relying on computer generated imagery." Am I just showing my age?

It's so easy to dismiss this idea, but we forget that we deal in equations, code, on a momentary basis. I read what is written, I process a response, I type it in, and I submit. Within each of those actions is code which helps me make sense of what I am seeing and helps me decide how to react.

Also, if you want to consider the physical world itself as a series of constantly interweaving equations, you'd notice that, for the most part, we can predict physics quite well. This is because we can apply the mathematics (code) of a theory to its actual application. We need to exist within a system to be able to execute any sort of planned outcomes.

You can even approach evolution from the perspective of code, because DNA is just that. Of course, programmers in this reality need to add and change code in order to actually change its properties and application. You don't write a super code for an OS, or for Azeroth for that matter, in one sitting. It's the kind of thing that takes time, that must grow. DNA is coded through the experiences of life, and grows to better suit the environment in which its physical manifestation of life is living. So why not consider evolution to be part proof of how and why this world is based on mathematics (which can only be processed in a very elegant system or our in our brains - which itself is dependent upon another external system, of course).

Maybe we do not have the ability to ever leave this system, as our existence is reliant upon it... and maybe we aren't just part of some program running on a mega-computer by designed by a superior intelligence. But I think one thing that we need to take into consideration is the fact that we live in a reality, and are part of it. Therefore, we are subject to its physical properties, which we manipulate with our own supercomputer brains. We don't need the sci-fi approach to be amazed by such a thing.

And lastly, if God didn't exist, one would surely have to invent him/her/it, no? Don't you think that this scientist is just trying to prove the existence of God? Or rather, intelligent thought outside of our universal bubble? Why wouldn't that intelligence use a super computer to base our reality in? What else would it use, playdoh?!

Okay I'm done.

@ramsaystirling: Yeah, but at least it got those people thinking. Better than nothing. Maybe some of them will now pick up a book etc.

but... isn't true that particles disappear and appear again at an enormous speed? Then it would resemble an incredibly high refresh rate where our so called reality would be recalculated and redesigned at each appearance.. just consciousness would be the only real constant... because even our thought and emotions would be in the script through molecular modifications... mmm.. ancient India knew better.. uh.. who wrote this then!?