You mention “information”. The term is thrown around a lot these days. Information is said to be “stored” in a black hole. I don’t really understand the meaning, but it seems like it’s just everything we know about a physical object?

You would have to come up with a self consistent physics that operates in a quantized space-time, yet gives the illusion that everything is continuous when viewed at a large enough scale. We could call it ‘Quantum Physics’. While we are at it, (If we are really interested in creating simulated intelligences in this simulation) we could further simplify the computation immensely by not bothering to do detailed calculations on parts of the universe that are un-observed by those intelligences. Why simulate all the atoms under a rock on Mars if one of your intelligent beings in the simulation is not there to observe it? Just let such unobserved regions exist as vague probabilities that can be rendered in higher fidelity if and when they are observed.

This would would be one explanation for the Fermi paradox. Like a video game world where the features and inhabitants of that world are only seen when the player is in range to observe it. But I would think there would be some infintesimal measure of time where it would blink into existence that could be observed witht he right technology.

As for its ultimate purpose, or what is behind it all -those are likely questions that can never be answered…

Though I do have a sci-fi short story idea that explains the purpose, why the universe seems fine tuned for intelligent life, The MEANING of life, while at the same time explaining the Fermi paradox and why FTL travel is not just possible, but is mandatory. All without invoking a creator or a ‘universe is a simulation’ concept. AND it has a mind blowing M. Night Shyamalan ending…

Sigh… maybe someday I will have the time to actually write it… it wouldn’t be terribly long.

Yes, we evolved to process a Newtonian world – and that was 100% effective for understanding the universe up through the 19th century. If we continued at that level of technology we would be able to prosper without any problem relying on classical physics. That sort of physics is compatible with the brains we have evolved. Effectively – if we want to use the computer program analogy- classical physics is the Graphical User Interface for the universe- something that lets intelligent beings to interact with the program and get useful results. Without having to know anything about the source code and calculations being done under the hood.

But now, the ‘objective’ universe is no longer irrelevant to us, our investigations have us trying to understand the underlying source code, we are looking in detail at some of the blocks of code that make up some of the routines that work in the background to make the program work… we have learned a lot… but we are still only seeing snippets of code and trying to use that to infer broader things about the way the code is written…

We know that the concept of information is fundamental to the principles the program is based on.
Quantization makes sense as a way to simplify calculations… as I wrote below:

Well, for starters you would quantize everything at a scale that makes computation possible- we do this in simulations we do for mechanical design, Finite Element Analysis- you take a structure and break it up into tiny pieces for the purposes of calculation.

You would have to come up with a self consistent physics that operates in a quantized space-time, yet gives the illusion that everything is continuous when viewed at a large enough scale. We could call it ‘Quantum Physics’. While we are at it, (If we are really interested in creating simulated intelligences in this simulation) we could further simplify the computation immensely by not bothering to do detailed calculations on parts of the universe that are un-observed by those intelligences. Why simulate all the atoms under a rock on Mars if one of your intelligent beings in the simulation is not there to observe it? Just let such unobserved regions exist as vague probabilities that can be rendered in higher fidelity if and when they are observed.

If your simulated universe has only so much computational capacity per unit of volume, then if you cram too much matter in too small a volume you have a problem— so in that case why not handle such situations by walling off such dense collections of matter from the rest of the universe, and replace it by a simple object- like a black hole. No longer any need to simulate all the particles in that volume, since now no observers can see it. Just replace it by a simple object that is defined by a few variables like mass, charge and spin…

If you view spacetime as the ‘processor’, with only so much processing power per unit volume of space-time, then that may explain why- in the region around a dense assembly of matter- time slows down… the processor is struggling to keep up…

Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light- at least not information useful for intelligent beings- entanglement seems to allow instantaneous ‘communication’ between particles, but the code for that subroutine is carefully written to ensure we cannot use that for communicating faster than the speed of light.

All the variables in the initialization routine of the cosmos- the startup file-are exactly right for the development of intelligent life- with our current understanding of cosmology it seems that the odds that the variables would be so exactly perfect for us are mind-bogglingly low… yet here we are. (yes yes I know- OBVIOUSLY they have to be just right for us to be here pondering this question- but still, why are the rules such that it is so staggeringly improbable?)

IF its a simulation, then the fact that the variables are selected to allow for intelligent life to exist would seem to indicate that it was create for intelligent life, to enable intelligent life to study and explore the universe.

Theorists might be well served to at least consider the possibility that the universe is effectively a simulation and see if that leads to testable predictions…

However, one implication of a simulation concept is that space-time itself would be quantized. Coincidentally (?) one of the leading theories of quantum gravity (Loop Quantum Gravity) requires quantization of space time.

IF spacetime is quantized, then it may have effects on short wavelength light travelling cosmological distances – efforts to see these effects have been, so far, unsuccessful.

I am not saying it IS a simulation run by an extradimensional kid on his extradimensional PC, while he drinks extradimensional Red Bull and is yelled at by his exasperated extra-dimensional mother to do his chores… I am just saying that it may effectively have many of the constraints such a simulation would have- we already see more than a few things that lend themselves to that interpretation.

I have long thought that it might bear fruit for theorists to approach physics from that viewpoint…

Perhaps magic mushrooms will fall under ‘research supplies’ in the near future… And more published papers will start with ‘Whoah, dude- check this out, what if…’

I am not saying it IS a simulation, but perhaps for other reasons- some deeper reality- it shares some of the limitations and considerations a simulation would have.

For instance, the concept of information seems to be deeply ingrained in the fabric of the universe… there were all the quantum and general relativity concepts that I outlined in another recent thread that lend themselves to being interpreted as computational shortcuts.

All I am saying is that MAYBE it would be worthwhile for theorists to approach things from that angle- start with an assumption that it is effectively a simulation and look for testable implications of this. And then look for ways to ‘Hack’ it…

Leave it to the cosmologists explain the universe.

This is one of the great insights of Existentialism. We perceive only a tiny piece of the universe with our senses, that which evolution has equipped us to see, however imperfectly, in order to live long enough to reproduce. In other words, the “objective” universe is irrelevant to us, we only get to deal with our subjective perception of it.

If the universe is indeed a quantum computer simulation, wouldn’t that imply design even if it’s not the same as the general universe simulation theory? How likely is a random universe size quantum computer simulation?