Simulations back up 'universe is a hologram' theory, physicists say

#1
I came across this thread today in the Consciousness & Science sub-forum.
I for one wonder continuously how can and why persons draw such obvious non sequitur conclusions.

The article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
Here are the replies so far.
As you people are a lot smarter than I am, does the idea of a holographic universe add validity to our conscience existing outside of our physical brain?
Well this seems to give more wight to the veracity of NDE in the sense that they are very likely to be a window to other dimensions.
While the idea that the universe is a computer simulation or some kind of special construct seems to be increasingly acceptable, I usually see people use this as yet another argument against expanded consciousness. One such response I saw said that there was no room for an afterlife in a simulation.

I usually wonder a few things about comments like that:

  • Complex systems tend to have garbage collection, which means some amount of resources are held over after use until they are needed again. A strange form of afterlife and reincarnation, if you will, is when an object resides in yet-to-be-reclaimed space.
  • It seems inconcievable to people making comments like that, for there to be 'players' in the giant universe 'game.'
I think it makes sense for this all to be a huge Minecraft. People zonk out playing video games in a lot of places, and given how a lot of conscious patterns are recurrent I don't see why spirits wouldn't make a construct to do the same thing.
 
#2
Yes, these conclusions are non sequitur. So what? The non sequitur is only invalid when we proceed by deductive reasoning, but I think those people seem to be following an abductive reasoning, that is, trying to figure out which is the most plausible conclusion but the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
 
#3
Yes, these conclusions are non sequitur. So what? The non sequitur is only invalid when we proceed by deductive reasoning, but I think those people seem to be following an abductive reasoning, that is, trying to figure out which is the most plausible conclusion but the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
It matters because after awhile some people will convince themselves that a non sequitur is a fact and that fact after awhile will become a meme when it's nothing more than an idea
 
#4
I came across this thread today in the Consciousness & Science sub-forum.
I for one wonder continuously how can and why persons draw such obvious non sequitur conclusions.

The article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328
Here are the replies so far.
Steve,

It is sobering to realise that after decades of study, there is absolutely no evidence in favour of string theory - the Higgs is part of the Standard Model, and none of the hoped for super-symmetric particles turned up at the LHC (at least for the time being - they are upgrading it to a higher energy right now). Since this simulation seems to depend on this theory, I'd be very cautious as to what it means.

My bet (for what it is worth) is that when ψ is incorporated into physics, it will change a lot and many of these speculations will just fade away.

David
 
#5
I'd personally be cautious of any article on physics found in pop-sci venues (even Nature News). Things are often over-hyped into more than they are. As David Bailey just pointed out, examining the content is important to know what they're really based on and to know how much stock to put into these articles

As far as SUSY, folks aren't sounding too optimistic, in general, on the LHC finding it during the next run. It really should have already found evidence for SUSY. However, the theory can be pushed to higher and higher energies (with the cost of becoming less elegant and more intractable), so the theory may only fully die through attrition. A few folks who have invested their careers in it have pretty much stated it's possible SUSY is beyond the LHC, which means some may cling to the last imaginary bit of life left in SUSY for decades to come.
 
#6
My quote is only "non-sequitur" when you completely pull it from context.

If one pays attention to what I actually said, I posited that people respond to the holographic universe hypothesis by saying "there is no room for an afterlife in a computer simulation" and then proceed to draw on actual computer science systems where simulated objects might have some form of existence past where the simulation deems them necessary.

It would only be a non-sequitur if I was asserting that 1) the universe is a simulation and 2) because simulations can have "afterlife"-like states, then an afterlife exists.
 
Top