Research Simulation hypothesis? New paper describes how qubits can output Euclidean space

[C C]

SABINE HOSSENFELDER
https://youtu.be/7See8OhtN-k

VIDEO EXCERPTS: Is space just space, or is it made of something else? In a recent paper, two physicists argue that space might be made of qubits. Does this mean that the universe is maybe a quantum computer? Let’s have a look.

[...] What they show now is that if you measure these three spin components repeatedly, then the measurements will behave like angle measurements in flat space. And instead it gives you flat space, from nothing resembling space!

So their point is that you start with this abstract qubit that has a spin. But out comes an observable quantity that behaves like it’s a part of Euclidean space. And that is from only one qubit. If you were to take a whole lot of qubits and coax them into interacting with each other, quite possibly you can make up space from them entirely.

They use mathematical descriptions of qubits, not physical qubits. But consider they are right, and space is made of qubits. Maybe the qubits are physical. Maybe they’re someone else’s quantum computer.

[...] The idea of the new paper falls neatly into a larger research theme that has been called “it from qubit”.

The reason that you haven’t heard much about it is that this has been going very slowly. Indeed, the slogan "It from bit" was popularised already by John Wheeler in the 1980s.

Wheeler thought that what is really fundamental aren’t particles or fields or space or time, but information. And that information is of course quantum information and carried by the qubits. Hence, it from qubit. Not much has come out of this, but maybe the time for this idea just hasn’t come yet...

[...] If space and particles and forces all come out of qubit interactions, but the qubits are just information, then what’s left that’s actually fundamental? Is there even a need for physical stuff at all, or is everything just a manifestation of relationships between bits of information? Well, if I’m a program in someone’s quantum computer, I hope they do regular backups...

Is everything computer? New calculation supports simulation hypothesis ... https://youtu.be/7See8OhtN-k

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/7See8OhtN-k

[Magical Realist]

If qubits can mathematically compute space itself, maybe a not too distant and future AI artilect will hack into this simulated space of ours and open some kind of portal out of it. Then we will finally meet our Makers--the ones behind all this craziness and tomfoolery. That is, if they aren't in fact just ourselves in a higher ontic state.

[stryder]

I don't believe the universe is one simulated run in some giant computer, the main reason for this is because we would cease to exist once whatever is being processed is complete.

What is more likely is the universe exists and interactions of simulations from within the universe (possibly future ones) are layered/merged with the universe as Tensors.

As for space being represented by Qubits, I'd considered the problem of a simulation system requiring information to be be available across a network.  If the data to be shared between nodes is too great, then it would be difficult to sycronise the network to maintain the simulation.  That means the data would have to be reduced to smaller amounts for the network, which would likely just be 2D datasets.  (2D data sets like a spreadsheet can still hold polynomials and enough information to act as a "popup", in the sense of populating higher dimensional constructs)  It also has to consider "Backwards compatibility" as a simulated system wouldn't just be one build in one time period, it would actually be many builds from many time points so the level of technology could be higher in some versions.  Further to that, the overlayed simulations do not have to come from one single universe, especially if it's "potential future" simulations., those simulations can be merged from parallels.


Having many systems processing the same instance of time also allows "Non-volatility" (making sure matter doesn't just disappear from the simulation) and "Causality" (keeping events consistent) so you don't end up with a breakdown within the sublayering versions, and they actually composite together to make sure the outcome is exact (even if "fuzzy").

Incidentally I theorised in whether parallels are possible from considering particle waveform duality, where both particles and wavefunctions initially are part of the same system before they are split, once split it leads to them being paradoxical since the systems diverge from their original state.  Eventually the wavefunction dissipates as it loses its cohesion from no longer being attached to the particle properties and is open to further devolution by other external forces.  The particle can however have further wave functions emanate from it.  It's the difference between a holographic universe and the classic universe.

The reason for considering this was if you created a paradox of a wavefunction, is that wavefunctions are non-tangible.  You could shoot wavefunctions at each other in opposite directions and they will pass through each other, although they will suffer some deformations.  If you try to shoot particles through each other, they collide.  Having a universe split int parallels would mean that particles could end up having heighten energy states from sharing properties (due to them colliding) you wouldn't of course get that with wavefunctions.

So that would imply that physical parallels wouldn't be possible from using a qubit to split off from (it would of also been problematic as creating a universe isn't just an instance or pocket, a universe would itself require a universes worth of energy.

While that might undermine parallels as being possible from that position there is a further points to consider.

Any symbiotic/augmented properties that we'd want to add to the universe would require "Grandfathering in".  That would mean taking the properties we decide to have an adding them before we'd even got to the point of looking for them.  That would imply looping back to a past point and putting the properties there, and paralleling them to keep them there.  Now that would be simplified if that was just one universal timeline to worry about, however if we have many potential different futures all attempting to put their properties back at the beginning... we end up with a Singularity (from the near infinite rewrites of the beginning) and likely "The Big Bang".  It would make sense to apply all those differences and changes in that same instance as its before life evolved, it wouldn't cause problems as the early universe would be in fluctuation while prototyping matter etc.

Having "The Big Bang" occur in this manner would allow for the energy for multiple universes to coincide and not create the problems that would otherwise existed from using purely particle/waveform duality to have parallels.  It means any system that branches in the future from that point would actually connect to an already existent universe.


Simple points that this all points too:

• The Universe doesn't have an off switch
  
• The Universe doesn't exist in side a giant computer, however it can be augmented.  (An Augmented Universe rather than Simulation)
  
• The Universe wouldn't necessarily have a creator, as augmenting it would cause the universe to have cycles of repetition that could be used to wipe out any initial catalyst universe (Universe Zero could be an Ouroboros, thus never observed more than once.)
  

While off-topic, but related to some of what I speculated. The reason for Stephen Hawking's time travel conventions not having time travelers travelers is usually easily explained by the suggestion that time travel is not possible. There is however the point that if we have the potential of a near infinite number of futures, to have all of those futures have someones time travel back to the same time point prior to their branch being created would mean having a singularity event. In other words a near number of infinite travelers all attempting to reach the same convention would lead to a singularity (since it would assume a sudden surge to near infinite mass in a given time and space)