Could the reason we cannot yet find/define a Grand Unified Theory be the fact our universe is simulated and the simulated physics are not designed to be unified. Or perhaps the human race is sandboxed into a simulated reality within the real universe were a GUT is actually (relatively speaking) easy to find.
Could the reason we cannot yet find/define a Grand Unified Theory be the fact our universe is simulated and the simulated physics are not designed to be unified. Or perhaps the human race is sandboxed into a simulated reality within the real universe were a GUT is actually (relatively speaking) easy to find.
it would seem unlikely that the first part was a possibility. i don’t believe we can see any reason why they cant be unified only that at the present time we just aren’t “clever” enough to do it.
but i’m of the opinion that we aren’t in a simulated universe, but it really doesn’t matter one way or another anyway. the “rules” have been self-consistant so far so we assume that they always will be.
Incidentally, the holographic universe theorem does not imply a simulated universe. Only that what we observe is the result of the interaction of forces beyond our observable universe.
Postpocelipse said:
Incidentally, the holographic universe theorem does not imply a simulated universe. Only that what we observe is the result of the interaction of forces beyond our observable universe.
Yes I did mean a simulated universe but I suppose a holographic universe could also prevent us from finding a GUT.
Cymek said:
Postpocelipse said:
Incidentally, the holographic universe theorem does not imply a simulated universe. Only that what we observe is the result of the interaction of forces beyond our observable universe.
Yes I did mean a simulated universe but I suppose a holographic universe could also prevent us from finding a GUT.
Not so much. A holographic universe might imply that otherwise hidden interactions ‘should’ be readily observable provided you figure out where to look. If we are methodical we will figure it out relatively quickly…..
a holographic universe is totally different to a simulated universe. holographic is akin to the information being ‘spread out’ on the surface of a black hole, 2D, that can be, theoretically, reconstituted into a 3D object.
some interesting stuff on simulated universes
nick bostrom.
ChrispenEvan said:
some interesting stuff on simulated universesnick bostrom.
“Those who believe suitably programmed computers could enjoy conscious experience of the sort we enjoy must accept the possibility that their own experience is being generated as part of a computerized simulation. It would be a mistake to dismiss this is just one more radical sceptical possibility: for as Bostrom has recently noted, if advances in computer technology were to continue at close to present rates, there would be a strong probability that we are each living in a computer simulation.”
There has to be a probability factor that makes the assertion that this is more than ‘radical sceptical possibility’ fairly difficult to support. Simply because a technology is possible does not follow that there would be any functional cause for employing it in such a manner. The suggestion within the theory is that conscious beings are being schooled and programmed. As a programming method what is the advantage of presenting material in this manner?
these are philosophical arguments it must be remembered.
ChrispenEvan said:
these are philosophical arguments it must be remembered.
No is an extremely philosophical point and entirely valid arguing………..
:P
That’ll be 2 pound 50 if you don’t mind……
For all we know our entire solar system is sandboxed in a filtered universe out to say a one light year bubble and anything entering this bubble is filtered to show a lack of extraterrestial life when in actual fact outside this bubble signals are everywhere. It could also slightly change a universal constant so a grant unifying theory is much harder to achieve as we have altered data to work with.
we make certain assumptions about the universe. and one is that what you say is unlikely. if we didn’t then we would be caught up in these arguments and not progress. this isn’t to say that they are untrue.
:-)
ChrispenEvan said:
we make certain assumptions about the universe. and one is that what you say is unlikely. if we didn’t then we would be caught up in these arguments and not progress. this isn’t to say that they are untrue.:-)
Do you think that it is possible that life may have evolved within that simulation?
Cymek said:
Could the reason we cannot yet find/define a Grand Unified Theory be the fact our universe is simulated and the simulated physics are not designed to be unified. Or perhaps the human race is sandboxed into a simulated reality within the real universe were a GUT is actually (relatively speaking) easy to find.
The first reason is that neither human being nor computers can handle the mathematics yet. QED mathematics is easy enough (except when you start talking about large molecules or lattices), but even QCD mathematics is beyond what high energy physicists can handle, except for simple examples and to rough approximations. There is as yet no proof even that QCD is not self-contradictory. If it does turn out to be self-contradictory then that would be a very very interesting result.
Beyond QCD is GUT. Most high energy physicists now think that GUT doesn’t exist, because of the failure of the LHC to detect supersymmetry (and other GUT alternatives such as technicolor).
Beyond GUT into TOE and similar the mathematics gets much more difficult again. And again it’s only the simple examples and crude approximations that can be understood. Many physicists are trying to construct a TOE that does not contain a GUT, it can be done but isn’t aesthetically pleasing.
Then even beyond TOE, there are some basic assumptions that may turn out not to be correct. It may turn out that the use of “probability theory” to described the universe is fundamentally flawed because no experimental conditions can ever be exactly duplicated. It’s been speculated umpteen times about what happens if probabilities really drop below zero or if they really add to a number other than one.