Search FQXi


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: ""Things have been moving fast." I see that! It looks good to me now." in Classical Spheres,...

Peter Jackson: "Richard, Good. You ain't seen nuffin yet, it gets simpler! Inside the box..." in Classical Spheres,...

amrit: "Gravity without graviton, mass without masson, dar energy without darkon" in Time at the Event Horizon

Eckard Blumschein: "The how-question already implies the non-fatalistic view which I consider..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

Pentcho Valev: "The children of the universe are leaving the sinking ship because they now..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

David Brown: "Consider the question "How should humanity steer the future?" — there..." in How Should Humanity Steer...

Steve Agnew: "You do pretty much have it. It is important to distinguish between real..." in Time and the Nature of...

Jason Wolfe: "Also, I'm sorry to say this, but a theory of the existence of spirits and..." in Reality's NeverEnding...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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?

Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?
Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

Quantum Computers Get Real
Fighting decoherence to scale up quantum technologies.

Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space
Satellite experiments could soon investigate the boundaries of quantum physics and relativity.


FQXI ARTICLE
April 23, 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 'R' and 'T':




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.