The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

You can already simulate, for example EM fields propagation using FDTD (Finite element in Time Domain) to analyse waveguide, antenna and so on. It use discrete cube (Yee cells) to compute maxwell Eq.
Computational fluid do the same things with well... fluid. Computational chemistry, software that help you to conceive drugs and chemistry also.
Same things in engineering when they calculate force, torque, constraint, heat flow for example in an ICE.
When meteorologist predict weather they use also simulation with discrete cube, it take a supercomputer do to calculation in order to have the result in a decent time...
It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.

[sarkeizen]

How was it performed, a simulation?

Where is it explictly stated that the authors performed a simulation.   This really shouldn't be such a hard question to answer if the paper PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE and where explicitly does it say they did a probability calculation and where specifically is the result posted.

What was it performed on?  A cubic space-time lattice.

What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located?  Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.  If you had read enough papers where the cornerstone was a software simulation you would see they list the software (often the version number if it's a stats package) or the source code (or link to further information if the source is long).  So either this paper fails a basic tenet of science - the ability to replicate the experiment preformed or no experiment was preformed. 

However, you put conditions and constraints on how I could answer your questions, and one of them was not to go outside of this paper in question, which is actually only an abstract of their work.  You wrongfully shackled and put chains on me in how I could answer your questions.  You did this intentionally!

Intentional, yes.  Wrong, no.  Either this paper you stated PRESENTS evidence or it doesn't.  If it does then the EVIDENCE should be in the paper.  If some other paper presents evidence then you should have cited that other paper instead.  Now the question falls to what qualifies as evidence.  You said the evidence which is IN THIS PAPER is STATISTICAL.  Which in my usage of the term means that a probability calculation was done.  Futhermore you said the evidence was STRONG.  Which again in my usage would seem to mean that the outcome is more likely than not. i.e. P(x) > 0.5

You said all these things. These are your claims.  All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked about twice now:

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then you are now saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  Please withdraw this paper and submit one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and you have chosen some non-calculation definition of STATISTICAL then clearly there exists a problem when you state that the probability is > 0.5

In other words, They used QCD to simulate the space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice, as previously mentioned.

All that says is that people do simulations of this nature.  Not that the authors performed any.   It also doesn't necessarily mean that those simulations performed by others have anything to do with demonstrating the universe is a simulation.

Where did I say I find this discussion interesting?

I really should learn that you won't actually answer questions.  The point was that you are just trolling. 

I didn't know I was to show you a machine intelligence equal to humans.

So you're allowed to accuse me of supporting an argument but allowed never to show me the evidence?  Isn't that an argument by assertion?  Seems like those are ok for you but not for anyone else.

However, when I have more time I will.

You have to admit this is pretty unlikely.

I strongly suspect you will say it is human, and won't be able to differentiate the synthetic human from the real human.

Are we still talking about a computer program or is this more bait and switch?  If there's a link to this human simulator then please produce it.  How much work can that take?  Or did you feed that one question into some chatterbot?

It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.

Especially since this paper demands a classical machine.  The short short version for most of this stuff is: Classical simulators are probably unfeasible but the best choice for coming up with a detection method since we already know a lot about classical machines.  Non-classical quantum machines are not something which is easily detectable but perhaps are more feasible.  Non-classical non-quantum machines are probably the most feasible to run a simulation but would probably be entirely undetectable as you are really only guessing at the physical laws that are governing them.

[gravityblock]

English Grammar 101: 

Diagram the following sentence-
What is the subject of the sentence?

A. consequences of the hypothesis



What action occurs?

A. The consequences are explored.

Does the sentence say that a simulation occurred?

A. No, the hypothesis, the consequences of which are explored is the idea that the universe is a simulation.  The sentence does not express any action against the hypothesis. 

Thank you for your participation in English Grammar 101.

What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Gravock

[sarkeizen]

What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Is English not your native language?

"that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid"

Is a noun-phrase.  Which means nothing needed to be performed for the statement to be true.  I'm not a grammarian but I'd label "performed" as being in the subjunctive mood. i.e. We all discussed the hypothesis that the dog actually performed the operation.

[gravityblock]

What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located?  Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.

sarkeizen,

Below is a snapshot taken from one of the home pages of Silas Beane, an author of the paper.  It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".  The abstract paper heavily makes reference to lattice QCD!  They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!  If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.  You know the paper was based on performing a computer simulation of a cubic space-time lattice, and you also know the paper only makes indirect references to this computer simulation, and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.  This is WRONG of you to do, for it hides the TRUTH and gives you a way out!

Gravock