Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/21/2026 5:36:23 AM PDT by Merrick
Abstract
Introduction: The “simulation hypothesis” is a radical idea which posits that our reality is a computer simulation. We wish to assess how physically realistic this is, based on physical constraints from the link between information and energy, and based on known astrophysical constraints of the Universe.
Methods: We investigate three cases: the simulation of the entire visible Universe, the simulation of Earth only, or a low-resolution simulation of Earth compatible with high-energy neutrino observations.
Results: In all cases, the amounts of energy or power required by any version of the simulation hypothesis are entirely incompatible with physics or (literally) astronomically large, even in the lowest resolution case. Only universes with very different physical properties can produce some version of this Universe as a simulation.
Discussion: It is simply impossible for this Universe to be simulated by a universe sharing the same properties, regardless of technological advancements in the far future.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontiersin.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
TL;DR - the amount of energy needed to simulate the universe in detail for just a few time steps is many orders of magnitude greater than the total energy in the universe.
Here's a nice short giving a synopsis of the results: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tnjTFvUrKws
The worst?
"greater than the total energy in the universe"....Which universe? The fake one that we have access to measure or the real one which we have no access to determine how much energy is in it?
I don't believe for a second in the simulation theory but this is a terrible argument against it.
Thank you for posting this!
though the maths is beyond me. there are some parallels in Sanatana Dharma (aka ‘Hinduism’) thoughts - in one of the stories (I can’t remember from when, but I think dating from either around the time of Christ or 400 years later — I think the later date is more accurate), the idea is that the universe goes through cycles of rebirth and death - and each rebirth is when the creator god, Brahma (who strangely enough ISN’T the highest ‘god’) wakes up in HIS day, then creates the universe and it goes through a cycle, then it gets destroyed when he goes to sleep, and he does this for 100 of Brahma’s years and finally Brahma dies and everything ends and goes back to the ‘highest god’ - Eshwara
Come on now! We all live in a yellow submarine....
I’ve been saying for awhile that a simulation would be more complicated than creating an actual universe. In an actual universe you don’t have to keep track of everything, the physics takes care of itself.
I prefer the DC universe to Hinduism. It’s more based in reality and Superman would kick the crap out of Vishnu.
If our universe were a mere simulation from a higher and “more capable” universe, we would see limits at our level which might be necessitated by the limits in the system that was built to creates our simulated universe. Such as:
— Planck Length determines how small something can be. Exactly like a pixel.
— Speed of light may be a processing limit and may represent the top speed that the simulation can render information. It’s a HW problem that limits our simulation.
— Einstein’s time dilation could be a type of process optimization. Heavy gravitational fields require a lot of processing — so time slows down around massive objects to help the system catch up.
— Our video games do not render distant objects until it is necessary, as they get “closer”. Quantum Mechanics works in a very similar the same way.
— Constants are suspiciously perfect — the universe is extremely finely tuned.
> The “simulation hypothesis” is a radical idea which posits that our reality is a computer simulation. <
What happened to the days when physicists investigated things like force and voltage?
I dunno. Maybe all the practical stuff has been discovered. So now those guys are just looking around for something to do.
🤔
So, the energy is available in your imagined, absolutely no evidence for, universe - thanks for making *my* point.
I am pretty sure we live in a simulation to see how we behave and decision making and Heaven is the real world. “Scientific evidence” about energy requirements doesn’t take i to consideration of an omnipotent God.
That’s not what entanglement indicates. What entanglement indicates is that the underlying rules of quantum mechanics, envisioned long before anybody thought of entanglement, are correct. The idea of entanglement was dreamed up by Einstein as a way of mocking quantum mechanics, which he didn’t like, and he thought proving it wrong. 30 years later John Stewart Bell worked out the math that Einstein’s (and Podolski’s and Rosen’s) assertions require - and 20 years after that Alain Aspect managed to design an experiment to test Bell’s math.
When the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics were postulated no one knew what entanglement was and no one “put” it into the rules. The rules were based on observed (non-entangled) phenomena like atomic spectroscopy (in fact, most of quantum mechanics is based on spectroscopy) and mathematical intuition and entanglement was realized to be a consequence of the rules much later.
No simulation required. Entanglement is a consequence of principles developed based on experiment and observation long before we ever devised an experiment to observe it. We don’t need a simulation to explain entanglement, so Occam’s Razor says speculating it is unprofitable. Come up with an experiment that could test for the simulation, then it’s another story. I haven’t seen a convincing model for that yet.
So the repeated statements that God *created*, including the nuanced creation of Man from *other* created materials, isn’t good enough for you?
What are you talking about? Your poor reasoning skills are now public for all to see. Can your god not build a universe sized simulation for qualification purposes?
I still believe Elon Musk on the subject. He’s thought about this more than probably any human, and he says it’s not just possible that we live in a simulation, but it’s almost impossible to imagine otherwise.
Much of modern physics is indistinguishable from Theology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.