Search FQXi


John Merryman: "Tom, The only thing we measure is redshift. The expansion of the universe..." in Why Quantum?

Thomas Ray: "Lorraine, no one disputes that information is discrete, i.e., categorical. ..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Lorraine Ford: "Above post was from me" in Why Quantum?

Lorraine Ford: "Tom, I'm saying that information comes in distinct categories (e.g. mass,..." in Your Invitation to FQXi's...

Peter Jackson: "Akinbo, I have no 'mental agitation' about time, until I have to..." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

Akinbo Ojo: "Georgina, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Call it an illusion or whatever..." in Q&A with Paul Davies:...

Thomas Ray: "" ... eternal is in NOW - instant" An instant isn't symmetrical?" in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Amrit Sorli: "there is no time symmetry, time has only a mathematical existence as..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

click titles to read articles

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

Reality's NeverEnding Story
A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

The Quantum Dictionary
Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

September 2, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor

Your name: (optional)

Important: In order to combat spam, please select the letter in this menu between 'Q' and 'S':

Recent Comments

The problem I have with virtual reality/computer simulation hypotheses is that, to me, they inevitably lead, almost paradoxically, to an infinite regress of simulator/programmer. By this I mean that, if we say it is possible for a sufficiently powerful computer/virtual reality machine to run *our* simulated reality so that there is no way we could falsify it, then how could the "simulators" falsify their own "reality" being a higher level simulation? And so on up the heirarchy? It's a bit like,...

The subjective reality that we all inhabit is created by each individuals brain from the input it has received and processed. Everything that is seen is generated internally by the organism and sent to the conscious mind, with the information that it exists externally.

Since the reality we inhabit is already a biologically generated simulation,if the input is good enough the virtual reality is experienced as real and therefore is real.

The reality could be said to be an...

The article comments on our not being able to prove we are not in a simulation, but don’t really talk about looking evidence that we might be.

There is a comments about drifts of fundamental constants - but really, so what.

But it never really ask the question,

“If we were simulating a universe, and machine resource was an issue, then what sort of computational tricks would we use and how might their effect be observable?”

The first thing we...

read all article comments

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.