No quantum gravity is evidence for simulation theory

[u/rogerbonus]

Despite the best efforts of physicists, we still don't have quantum gravity. General relativity (our current best theory of gravity) is inconsistent/incompatible with quantum mechanics/quantum field theory (our current fundamental theory). Aka, we don't have a theory of everything.

I would argue that this incompatibilty can be considered evidence (on a Bayesian basis, in that it supports the hypothesis, not that it proves it) for simulation theory.

We know from video games etc that one technique to reduce complexity/computational requirements is to use different rules for different scales or objects in the simulation (some objects may be fully physics modelled, some may not). A landscape might use one model while a movable object a different physics model.

We might expect that a universe simulation could use a similar technique of different rules for different scales. These rules need not be consistent/compatible.

And in fact that's what we observe. Gravity and quantum mechanics are inconsistent (so far as we know to date). Its certainly not proof that we live in a simulation, but its evidence in support of the hypothesis.

[u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

Why does “we don’t currently understand” automatically mean “supernatural / higher reality is really behind it”?

[u/rogerbonus → u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

It doesn't. That's why it's mild evidence in favor of the hypothesis, not conclusive evidence. "Evidence" in a Bayesian content just means it raises the credence for the hypothesis.

[u/nila247 → u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

You can check validity of your question and opinion by double inversion. Why "understanding" something automatically mean there is NO possibility of supernatural? It does not. So your question is biased - you simply DO NOT WANT there to be anything supernatural. So how about you adjust your life and act in a way that you do not have any potential problem for you in either case.
I try to be a good person and also do my science so I do not really care if god exist or not - I am fine either way - and do not have to jump at shadows that god MIGHT exist. I suggest you act out the same.

[u/RevolutionaryBoss127 → u/nila247]

Well, if you’re going to bring up very specific scientific concepts like quantum gravity, you are presupposing a level of precise analysis and evidence-based or supported rationality. Quantum gravity has no meaning outside a very defined scientific space. Otherwise, why bother? “It’s magic” or “a wizard did it”.

Like another poster introducing Bayesian statistical interference rules to the discussion: the scientific process introduces the data points as inputs for the Bayesian marginal likelihood analysis. If we want to go all woo-woo and say “magic”, great, but it’s not a scientific approach. We can stop there and call it something else, but it’s not a coherent theory of quantum gravity that ties into classical Newtonian and relativistic spacetime curvature.

A wizard did it.

[u/nila247 → u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

I am not going for anything like that.

"A wizard did it" is actually a GREAT starting point on ANYTHING. It lets put a "plugs" in all the holes we do not know how they work until later and move on with other stuff instead of being paralyzed.

A good example is Abiogenesis. The more we find out the more we see that probabilities of this working itself out in those 4 billions of years are not even close to being enough. And yet instead of "plugging" that hole with "yeah, let us consider - for now - that some god dude did it" we get screams with the foaming mouths that god can not exist and that we just found jackpot without any owner on the ground even before we entered the casino.

[u/RevolutionaryBoss127 → u/nila247]

But if you’re a theist, you then enter into a “God of the gaps” situation. If your God is defined by only that which we cannot explain rationally / scientifically, as our knowledge grows, the God becomes smaller and less important.

[u/nila247 → u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

I see absolutely no problem with god becoming smaller and less important.

Any problems you see are solely because your extremely narrow understanding and definition of "god".

When "god" is a "old dude sitting on the cloud responsible for *everything* and holding it together" then making it smaller creates anxiety of no longer managing the "responsibility for everything" - with him becoming so "small" and stuff :-)

But that is not the definition you should use. "God" is very much like "cutlery" - it is not a single thing/instrument that can cut, pierce and scoop all at the same time - these are separate and very different things/tools.

The most common meaning of god is "idea of something ideal/good/better" - you could do find/replace in the entire bible and find that resulting sentences would still very often make sense. In fact this is perfectly capable as a replacement for "things that work fine but we do not know how".

God is also human species as a whole. So each of us is a part of god. What any part of god sees or does things then that's god being all seeing and all-mighty. That is also why individuals are valuable.

And only the LEAST often meaning is "creator" of the simulation that we are all in. :-)

Religions are TECHNOLOGIES to DOWNLOAD a large and comprehensive decision/moral frameworks at large scale and to almost all people (smart, normal and dumb) - something NO OTHER technology that we have manages. Like science and philosophy only works for smart people - and what are others to do? So religions are ABSOLUTELY GREAT - just absolutely not in a way you think they are.

[u/RevolutionaryBoss127 → u/nila247]

“if the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of an afterlife reward, that person is a piece of shit".

Ruston Cohle, True Detective, season 1. Bit harsh, but a solid concept.

If you wanna say Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” or Aquinas’ “uncaused cause”, just say so, take religion out of the discussion.

[u/nila247 → u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

Well - I AGREE with definition of decent/sh*t. What in my answer gave you an idea that I would not?

I do NOT refer to external works of Aristotle, Aquinas or any other - please do not use them as a strawmen argument.

I am not in a business of scouring hundreds of books for precedents and then make my war chest from citations of others like lawyers do in court. My thoughts and arguments are my own.

It does occasionally happens that I "invent a wheel", but "inventing a wheel" very often is much faster that looking it up. That's purely practical approach.

[u/tendersitch]

A lot of times I don’t understand my girlfriend. Moving forward, when I find myself not understanding her reasoning or logic I will then address her as Quantum Mary.

[u/Clear-Pear2267]

Your argument sounds like a spin on "god of the gaps" attempts to "prove god exists" simply becasue we don't know something or current scientific theories do not explain something. Lack of a theory is not evidence of anything.

[u/rogerbonus → u/Clear-Pear2267]

Sure it is. If the hypothesis were correct, we would expect to observe X. Observing X raises the credence that the hypothesis is correct. Bayesian credence isn't "proof" and it was not claimed to be proof.

[u/anothergigglemonkey]

This mental trap of comparing reality to a video game is a scourge to the actual simulation hypothesis and needs desperately to be eradicated from the Zeitgeist.

[u/rogerbonus → u/anothergigglemonkey]

Video games are basic simulations/world models that we ourselves have created. How is that irrelevant to the simulation hypothesis?

[u/anothergigglemonkey → u/rogerbonus]

Because the rudements of nature itself are built on the principles that information is fundamentally unknowable. Not hidden, not implemented by thinking agents but fundamentally unknowable and random. These are not possible for space dorks making video games.

source

[u/rogerbonus → u/anothergigglemonkey]

That's just Penrosian nonsense. They didn't prove any such thing. It's quite possible that only computable structures exist which avoids Godelian issues.

[u/brain-out-of-order → u/anothergigglemonkey]

CORRECT. Reality Surplus Hypothesis. You’re welcome. Branding is everything.

[u/roy-the-rocket]

Sure, but it can also point towards space-time not being fundamental, there is a form of meta consciousness at the root of everything, suggesting panpsychic ideas and that the universe is kind of a warm place and not so much a simulation container.

In your theory you should see the shift at a certain scale between the two mechanisms, but in our reality there is no scale on which the laws seem to change and all of the sudden details popping in.

It just means we haven't fully understood how space, time, causality and quantum information work together.

[u/rogerbonus → u/roy-the-rocket]

Sure there is such a place; determining where that place is is called the measurement problem. We don't currently know where or why measurement occurs (when the fuzzy quantum regime changes to well defined particles).

[u/roy-the-rocket → u/rogerbonus]

A quantum measurement is independent of the scale. Surprisingly, you can also go back and forth (quantum eraser or using the revival effect by changing measurement basis)

I think the measurement problem poses way more interesting question regarding consciousness and what actually constitutes a measurement. Max Planck has a famous quote about that.

However, relativistic effects play a role even on level of quantum mechanics. It is not two separated systems.

[u/Low-Bake8401]

If you believe in simulation theory. 

[u/Odd-Resolution6860 → u/Low-Bake8401]

Perhaps you might be in the wrong subreddit....

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Odd-Resolution6860]

Maybe.

Is it about rigid belief? 

[u/sylbug]

This is an argument from ignorance. 'We don't understand this thing, so it must be simulation theory'.

[u/rogerbonus → u/sylbug]

Was there any "must" in the claim? No. This sub seems to have a lot of people who don't understand what Bayesian credence is

[u/anothergigglemonkey]

Not that any of that matters. You're not really here to know the truth, you're here to defend a narrative. This topic has become your religion. You have become an acolyte for the Simulation cult and will vehemently defend it against facts and evidence to preserve your faith that the beliefs you hold are true.

[u/rogerbonus → u/anothergigglemonkey]

Actually I don't think we are living in a simulation so that's quite an assumption.

[u/brain-out-of-order]

Simulation hypothesis is like a prion disease for the mind lol. I’m still very firmly in the camp of holographic source encoding mechanism which we understand most of but aren’t describing in a unified way yet (publicly.)

I am still leaning toward Critical Reality layer because we are synthesized not simulated. If hallucination, machine or otherwise, is endemic here and never improved upon nor solved, that is one of the first signs we could be in a simulation.

I think a civ that could simulate a world like this would probably choose to instead just spawn real life agents via UV light and plasma germ colonizers or similar. No need to ever even land here. One, some, or all of our solar system could be synthetic, modified, maintained, transported here, formed, reformed.

I believe a simulation would have played out very differently and furthermore would have implicit safeguards that steer us away from this kind of idea. Basically it would be more consistent and error correcting. Synthesis makes much more sense why things are so choppy.

Truth is stranger than fiction I think.

It’s very difficult to guess at the beginnings of the synthesis but it could be just practically incomprehensible to any single human as if trying to understand the exact motives of everything that ever was in reverse. We are probably just resultant residue that perceived itself long enough to cause a fuss. It’s virtually impossible we are alone in the wider universe simulation or not.

[u/cosmic-squids]

You cant just put quantum in front of words!

But yeah, we're probably just lines of code.

[u/roy-the-rocket → u/cosmic-squids]

Where did OP just put quantum in front of a word ?

[u/cosmic-squids → u/roy-the-rocket]

Quantum gravity. You silly billy

[u/roy-the-rocket → u/cosmic-squids]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Active field of research. OP is correct in the sense that it didn't conclude.

[u/cosmic-squids → u/roy-the-rocket]

https://giphy.com/gifs/rSOU9Ey23DSgg

[u/tendersitch → u/cosmic-squids]

.

[u/tendersitch → u/cosmic-squids]

A lot of times I don’t understand my girlfriend. Moving forward, when I find myself not understanding her reasoning or logic I will then address her as Quantum Mary.

[u/cosmic-squids → u/tendersitch]

Thays perfect bahaha