Search FQXi


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Lorraine, Don, further to my previous post; I think the analogy I used..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Georgina, I am understanding,we imporve after all our models and..." in New Podcast: A MICROSCOPE...

Don Limuti: "Hi Georgina, This question: Is the universe deterministic or not? Cannot..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Joe, you have previously said that the light does not travel. How is..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, my ideas have changed a lot since writing that. Embarrassingly..." in New Podcast: A MICROSCOPE...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Joe, Re. your statement "But you cannot see a state of invisibility,..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Pentcho Valev: "Why LIGO Cannot Fake Neutron Star Gravitational Waves LIGO conspirators..." in LIGO to Make a...

Steve Agnew: "For most macroscopic actions, the notions of continuous space and time work..." in Real-Time Physics


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu
Tests of a rival to quantum theory, taking place in the belly of the Gran Sasso d'Italia mountain, could reveal how the fuzzy subatomic realm of possibilities comes into sharp macroscopic focus.

Dropping Schrödinger's Cat Into a Black Hole
Combining gravity with the process that transforms the fuzzy uncertainty of the quantum realm into the definite classical world we see around us could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.

Does Quantum Weirdness Arise When Parallel Classical Worlds Repel?
Quantum mechanics could derive from subtle interactions among unseen neighboring universes

Wrinkles in Spacetime
Searching for defects in the fabric of the cosmos could help physicists home in on the correct theory of quantum gravity.

Blurring Causal Lines
Quantum experiments mix past and future on the microscopic scale—opening the door to faster computers and revising our notion of causality.


FQXI ARTICLE
May 31, 2016

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 'L' and 'N':




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:

And select the letter between 'V' and 'X':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.