Scott Adams Blog: Weird Future 10/16/2009

Weird Future

Oct 16, 2009 General Nonsense | Notify

From an Article in the New York Times, here is one of the coolest theories I've ever heard that isn't already an episode for Star Trek. This quote sums it up:

"A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the (Large Hadron) collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=3&hpw#articleBodyLink

Obviously the phrase "abhorrent to nature" has no precise meaning in science. So I figure if we're tossing out sensational interpretations I should add one of my own. As regular readers of this blog know, I believe our reality is a holographic simulation, and you and I are just software running within it. Our creator, or creators, who presumably had bodies like ours, made this simulated universe so they could live forever, in a fashion, because their own reality was about to be annihilated in some sort of cosmic catastrophe. Or maybe we're someone's seventh grade science project. The point is that we only think we are real because that's how we were programmed.

Or if you prefer a less "Superman's exploding planet" version of that idea, from someone with more credibility than me, check out Boltzmann's Brain theory: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html

If we are a software program, we might be constrained, perhaps by rules of the program, to stay within certain parameters of enlightenment. For example, we might be restricted from discovering that our reality is a simulation. And the Large Hadron Collider might be testing the limits of our allowed enlightenment. So you might expect some paradoxical, illogical, frightening thing to happen when knowledge starts to approach the programmed forbidden zone of knowing.

But apparently speculation about our software simulation reality is still allowed by the program as long as you mock me in your comments to prevent the idea from spreading.

Votes: +14

Comments

tattooed_pariah

Dec 13, 2009

This blog made me immediately think of the XKCD comic where he talks about seeing dead pixels in the sky.. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/morning.png)

HonusWScruggs

Oct 24, 2009

Working within the rules of your scenario, there's no reason why a programmer good enough to come up with all of this and hide it from us wouldn't be able to program the enlightenment fail-safe to behave in ways that appear completely natural, and continue to do so forever.

The problem isn't anything remotely new. In fact, it was inevitable that it would come up when you decided to start laying the groundwork for your new religion (I say that for purposes of description, not as a pejorative: I see nothing wrong with your intellectual exercise or the sharing thereof). Ask any Christian why we don't see the proof of God in all the miracles he's presumably performing, and that Christian will tell you that because God's plan requires that we have faith in him instead of a sure knowledge, he generally constrains himself to working miracles through natural-appearing means.

In God's case this is done so that no man is forced to believe in him under the burden of indisputable proof, that instead each may choose to believe or not. In the programmer's case, the means of achieving the ends (of preventing harmfully excessive discovery and enlightenment) need not be any different.

Humanity cannot possibly observe all things at once, so whether it's God or some alien programmer, he can hide whatever he wants from us by limiting his manipulations to the massive set of existence defined by a lack of our observing it. He can do this indefinitely, and there is no danger of ever being caught.

jl2486

Oct 23, 2009

Maybe the Higgs boson is like the forbidden fruit.

Or maybe the story of original sin is just the first instance of a human straying beyond his/her parameters of knowing.

Kshaeta

Oct 22, 2009

When people talk about our universe, they are essentially talking about a a quazi-bubble shaped form that is the size of the maximum distance light could have travelled since the big bang, right? Albeit very large, it does not leave out the possiblilty that there are things beyond that threshold that could cause our world to collapse.

I think that's something new we should worry about, since people already worry about other things they can't possibly change, like solar flares destroying our planet, or the sun consuming it in the future, or the moon crashing into it, or asteroids or meteoroids smashing into our planet, or aliens eating our brains. I think we should further worry about Our universe crashing into a parallel universe bubble. Maybe one where light is dark, and dark is light. Such a thing must exist, no? And it would totally mangle everything, screw up all our theories, and wreak havoc on our compact flourescent light bulbs.

Who know's what's beyond our universe? Maybe there are universes composed solely of Higgs Boson particles.

I also seem to recall a smart man, Ray Kurtzweil (sp??) talking about the fact that there is so much development n brain analysis and understanding, that maybe we will reach a point where we can't figure any more out, because the complexity of our brains won't be enough to unravel the complexity of our brains.

Locky

Oct 21, 2009

I just bought a shirt from an ad on your blog cause there was a hot chick wearing one.

The forbidden zone of knowing is nowhere in sight.

Benedict42

Oct 21, 2009

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Drowlord

Oct 20, 2009

Your holographic universe and we-as-software idea have been pretty boring for a long time. For starters, your particular theory doesn't describe a hologram so much as it describes a pure simulation. I think you just like the words "holographic universe." Further, it doesn't require or even imply that the entire universe is simulated -- just the portion that we inhabit. Lastly, you can arbitrarily fit any event or idea into the concept, and it defies proof or reason of any sort. Counter-proof is just simulated to throw us off track. It's such a lazy concept to argue.

GroggySwagger

Oct 19, 2009

And we understand that as an entertainer, when you say you believe our reality is a holographic simulation, and you and I are just software running within it, you are entartaining and don't really mean that.

JoshP

Oct 19, 2009

This theory is rediculous - the Higgs boson (if it exists, wouldn't surprise me if it did, but not proven) is a naturally occurring particle present in nature since the beginning of time...it isn't abhorrent to nature; it's completely natural!

It just hasn't been proven by mankind yet.

This "scientist" is a moron promoting almost subconsciously that "human, scientific discovery isn't just discovery, it's totally the creation of something new" and not applying common sense. We don't know completely how it will act when discovered (if discovered), but we have some pretty good hypothesis based on abundantly proven general, standard particle physics knowledge. It's science, not science fiction.

xacutti

Oct 19, 2009

Sigh

The "Boltzmann's Brains" theory is not something believed by any cosmologists.
It's simply a reductio ad absurdum of the hypothesis that our universe is the result of a random fluctuation causing a low entropy region in an otherwise high entropy greater universe.

Briefly:

If, our universe is a result of such a fluctuation, it follows that it's much much more likely for such fluctuations to create simpler universes - resulting in regions that have just one "Boltzmann's Brain" floating around in an otherwise disorganised universe.

Since we observe a universe far more organised than this, it follows that it's extra-ordinarily unlikely that our universe is the result of such a fluctuation.

And that's it.

quantum_flux

Oct 18, 2009

Hahaha, I have just discovered a way to make myself look slightly better than everybody else.

kshepherd

-1

Oct 18, 2009

mock mock mock, dance dance dance

Actually, I'm one of those boring plebs who doesn't so much *reject* the "we are all just a simulation" hypothesis... I just argue that it explains nothing, just shifts the problem. There's still a "where does life start" question to be answered, we just have to ask it of our simulators (or their simulators, and so on) instead of us. Right?

It's turtles all the way down!

Aardwizz

-1

Oct 18, 2009

So ANYTHING is possible, and EVERYTHING happens, but the Universe goes back in time to correct the mistakes?

But of course, we can't possibly be aware of the other time-paths, because our memory is made up of the results of the one time-path that it is the product of.

How is this different from the cosmology where every single random event creates two universes - one where the event happened, and one where it didn't. Thus there are an infinite to the infinite number of universes out there, separated from each other by the point in the past that they diverged, like branches on a tree. If ttime-travel exists, it isn't so much changing the past, but following a different branch to a different point.. With all the posibilities, you'd probably never find your way "home".

BobNL

Oct 17, 2009

In case that that ever happens, we will always have the Dilbert Blog to prove that the Large Hadron Collider will have existed. Make sure to have a back-up.

Seidl

Oct 17, 2009

@Leora - You mean Descartes.

Leora

-4

Oct 17, 2009

'I think, therefore I am.'
You need to go back in time and argue with Sartre.

Is there a ranch where they raise Higgs bison (smellier and hairier than the regular variety)?

BigNoo

-2

Oct 17, 2009

Hey its got to make more sense as an answer than the fluffy cloud man theories ! At least the idea can withstand a little scrutiny unlike ALL of the Worlds religions.

SydLivedinLuton

Oct 17, 2009

This is why I think physicists are on some serious drugs if I had known I would have changed courses at college. Or they are just making it up as they go along.

ldcroberts

Oct 17, 2009

How about this - your "simulation" theory doesn't happen because its actually more likely that each civilization wipes itself out with a colliding hadron before they get good enough to simulate anything

d4d

Oct 16, 2009

Occam's razor is a good rule, but not that true. MAYBE THERE ARE THINGS THAT MAN SHOULD NOT KNOW!!??

Showing 1-20 of total 43 comments

Old Dilbert Blog

Share on Digg

Share on Reddit

Woh! What is this thing?!

Email link to a friend

Comments