What are some of the properties of the simulation we live in?
Recent events, namely Donald Trump narrowly avoiding being murdered, in astonishing fashion, is one element that leads me to believe we are in some sort of simulation.
I think there is a large amount of cause and effect in the simulation. The kind you would expect. But I also think some things are predetermined, or post-determined. The latter being Trump's survival this weekend potentially.
I'm curious if other forum members think this way. And how it may operate to them.
There are a lot of curious patterns of the universe for example. Can you name any?
My take is that it is a simulation, not of some other advanced culture or species, but of the quantum field, with the universe as a giant quantum supercomputer-like structure. So we aren't pawns or icons of some game creator, but products of a quantum universe that is virtual in its nature. I love the quote of a physics professor named Seth Lloyd: "If the universe is acting like a giant quantum computer, and let's face it, it is ...."
An extremely interesting pattern to me is the phenomenon of synchronicity, named by Jung, which I have experienced and written about extensively, and which hints, in my view (and that of many others, including notably David Bohm) at an underlying substrate to our mundane "reality." With intense seemingly tailored synchronicities generated at the melding point of the two realms (implicate and explicate). It's a beautiful component of a spirituality, not of supernatural magic claims, but based on the nature of human consciousness.
I was going to mention quantum physics, but I only have a child's understanding of the subject. I will digress anyway...
Everything about quantum science is cartoonish, freaky, and a bit of a magic show. Whether it is Entanglement, Superposition, Collapseable Wave Functions, Foam .... etc .... all of it is alien relative to our understanding of the world. Which begs the question, how can the fundamental building blocks of our universe be so wacky, while the outcome is largely basic and normal? That principle does not make sense to me.
My take is that it is a simulation, not of some other advanced culture or species, but of the quantum field, with the universe as a giant quantum supercomputer-like structure. So we aren't pawns or icons of some game creator, but products of a quantum universe that is virtual in its nature. I love the quote of a physics professor named Seth Lloyd: "If the universe is acting like a giant quantum computer, and let's face it, it is ...."
An extremely interesting pattern to me is the phenomenon of
Maybe there is no "measurement problem" nor "collapse of the wave function". Maybe nothing ever becomes "definite". It's always in a universal quantum state. It's just that the projection of the universal quantum state to a restricted region involving a lot of stuff appears classical to us.
PairTheBoard
Maybe there is no "measurement problem" nor "collapse of the wave function". Maybe nothing ever becomes "definite". It's always in a universal quantum state. It's just that the projection of the universal quantum state to a restricted region involving a lot of stuff appears classical to us.
PairTheBoard
I've long liked the idea that the "many worlds" theory is perhaps better explained as "no worlds theory," in which our perception is just attuned to a quantum show, we sense and experience that, call it reality ... and meanwhile what is "there" is really just the see of infinite possibilities in the quantum fields. I like your word doesn't become "definite," and also (only) "appears" classical to us. The brain transduces, the brain creates all its perceptions. What is there is some very different version of that creation. Something like that. I luv that kind of take.
The existence of the speed of light and absolute zero, which are limits that bind reality itself, are the only data points we need to demonstrate this is not a simulation. If it is a simulation then why do these exist?
As thinking beings we should choose to not believe in harmful nonsense such as the multiverse merely because it allows for things that we think we want like faster than light travel.
The fact we don't have an objective understanding of quantum mechanics is not evidence of a simulation but of the large amount of progress we have yet to make in science and philosophy about the Universe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Modern physics seems to be screaming that what we call reality is just our mundane experience, not in any sense the ultimate foundation of things, shall we say of ontology?
Modern physics seems to be screaming that what we call reality is just our mundane experience, not in any sense the ultimate foundation of things, shall we say of ontology?
This is the Kantian bifurcation between the noumenal and the phenomenal, however modern science would argue (correctly) that the noumenal exists in our reality and is not transcendent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Answering this poll shows extreme arrogance.
Sorry, Random $hit about Trump or other coincidences have no bearing on whether we are in a simulation.
IMHO quantum wiredness demonstrates the disconnect between what is and what our limited brains are capable of understanding.
The best evidence that we are in a simulation would be for us to create a complete set of laws of nature, which exactly explain what we observe. So in principle at least we could design a computer to simulate what we observe. However quantum physics would appear to move us in the other direction.
So who is going win the World Series this year?
Are you putting money on it?
By proxy, yes.
Part of the simulation is my money causes bad outcomes. Sort of like the double slit experiment.
Answering this poll shows extreme arrogance.
Sorry, Random $hit about Trump or other coincidences have no bearing on whether we are in a simulation.
IMHO quantum wiredness demonstrates the disconnect between what is and what our limited brains are capable of understanding.
The best evidence that we are in a simulation would be for us to create a complete set of laws of nature, which exactly explain what we observe. So in principle at least we could design a computer to simulate what we observe. How
A theory of everything, one holistic set of equations that model reality does not necessitate that those equations are actually reality. They certainly don't "govern reality". You'd have to actually create reality which is absurd since you exist in reality.
Just because we have no knowledge of the true ontology of quantum physics does not mean that a computer model is reality.
We do have knowledge of the ontology of light and the ramifications of the speed of light as the maximum velocity that anything can be propelled at. It is impossible to achieve.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
John Lennon takes five shots in the back, but we still have to listen to Yoko Ono? Of course it's a simulation.
The existence of the speed of light and absolute zero, which are limits that bind reality itself, are the only data points we need to demonstrate this is not a simulation. If it is a simulation then why do these exist?
As thinking beings we should choose to not believe in harmful nonsense such as the multiverse merely because it allows for things that we think we want like faster than light travel.
The fact we don't have an objective understanding of quantum mechanics is not evidence of a simulati
The maximum speed of a computer is the speed of light, and a quantum computer must be very cold but warmer than absolute zero to function?? Seems to jibe.
Totally agree. It seems a property of humans to believe in nonsense and then find evidence after the fact that supports the nonsense while believing it was the other direction. For modern humans, the more pseudoscience language used when describing the evidence, the greater weight is given to supporting the nonsense.
It is easy to fall prey to the simulation nonsense since the language makes it sound like some kind of computer science problem.
The existence of the speed of light and absolute zero, which are limits that bind reality itself, are the only data points we need to demonstrate this is not a simulation. If it is a simulation then why do these exist?
As thinking beings we should choose to not believe in harmful nonsense such as the multiverse merely because it allows for things that we think we want like faster than light travel.
The fact we don't have an objective understanding of quantum mechanics is not evidence of a simulati
I was going to mention quantum physics, but I only have a child's understanding of the subject. I will digress anyway...
Everything about quantum science is cartoonish, freaky, and a bit of a magic show. Whether it is Entanglement, Superposition, Collapseable Wave Functions, Foam .... etc .... all of it is alien relative to our understanding of the world. Which begs the question, how can the fundamental building blocks of our universe be so wacky, while the outcome is largely basic and normal? Th
a bunch of dach people hunching about events just past the fringe of human observation by winding the fractals backward
why do limits of speed of light and absolute zero disprove a sim?
This is the Kantian bifurcation between the noumenal and the phenomenal, however modern science would argue (correctly) that the noumenal exists in our reality and is not transcendent.
what does this mean? how have you determined it's the correct argument? seems you're assuming the conclusion
Nick Bostrom uses our knowledge of time of our universe’s existence and uses it to form an argument, that the thing is instead a….computer simulation.
Thats after he is comfortable in assuming the universe can be simulated and perceived by conscious characters we create in it.
Lmfao
How does the computer simulate all the varieties of Beer, much less all the other alcoholic drinks.
Ancient physics assumed the existence of Gods.
