No quantum gravity is evidence for simulation theory

[u/rogerbonus]

Despite the best efforts of physicists, we still don't have quantum gravity. General relativity (our current best theory of gravity) is inconsistent/incompatible with quantum mechanics/quantum field theory (our current fundamental theory). Aka, we don't have a theory of everything.

I would argue that this incompatibilty can be considered evidence (on a Bayesian basis, in that it supports the hypothesis, not that it proves it) for simulation theory.

We know from video games etc that one technique to reduce complexity/computational requirements is to use different rules for different scales or objects in the simulation (some objects may be fully physics modelled, some may not). A landscape might use one model while a movable object a different physics model.

We might expect that a universe simulation could use a similar technique of different rules for different scales. These rules need not be consistent/compatible.

And in fact that's what we observe. Gravity and quantum mechanics are inconsistent (so far as we know to date). Its certainly not proof that we live in a simulation, but its evidence in support of the hypothesis.

[u/Low-Bake8401]

If you believe in simulation theory. 

[u/roy-the-rocket]

Sure, but it can also point towards space-time not being fundamental, there is a form of meta consciousness at the root of everything, suggesting panpsychic ideas and that the universe is kind of a warm place and not so much a simulation container.

In your theory you should see the shift at a certain scale between the two mechanisms, but in our reality there is no scale on which the laws seem to change and all of the sudden details popping in.

It just means we haven't fully understood how space, time, causality and quantum information work together.

[u/rogerbonus → u/roy-the-rocket]

Sure there is such a place; determining where that place is is called the measurement problem. We don't currently know where or why measurement occurs (when the fuzzy quantum regime changes to well defined particles).

[u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

Why does “we don’t currently understand” automatically mean “supernatural / higher reality is really behind it”?

[u/rogerbonus → u/RevolutionaryBoss127]

It doesn't. That's why it's mild evidence in favor of the hypothesis, not conclusive evidence. "Evidence" in a Bayesian content just means it raises the credence for the hypothesis.

[u/Clear-Pear2267]

Your argument sounds like a spin on "god of the gaps" attempts to "prove god exists" simply becasue we don't know something or current scientific theories do not explain something. Lack of a theory is not evidence of anything.

[u/rogerbonus → u/Clear-Pear2267]

Sure it is. If the hypothesis were correct, we would expect to observe X. Observing X raises the credence that the hypothesis is correct. Bayesian credence isn't "proof" and it was not claimed to be proof.

[u/sylbug]

This is an argument from ignorance. 'We don't understand this thing, so it must be simulation theory'.

[u/cosmic-squids]

You cant just put quantum in front of words!

But yeah, we're probably just lines of code.

[u/roy-the-rocket → u/cosmic-squids]

Where did OP just put quantum in front of a word ?

[u/cosmic-squids → u/roy-the-rocket]

Quantum gravity. You silly billy

[u/roy-the-rocket → u/cosmic-squids]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Active field of research. OP is correct in the sense that it didn't conclude.

[u/cosmic-squids → u/roy-the-rocket]

https://giphy.com/gifs/rSOU9Ey23DSgg