The Nature of Reality

[StarMountainKid]

8 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I never said I mastered anything. I know and understand them. Enough to discuss them. Enough to build a model.

If you disagree, then please tell me, how much knowledge is required to discuss things and build a model?

From my perspective it all seems pretty clear and simple. The whole universe is in my mind.

Ok, good. So, what's your model, what's the nature of Reality?

[zep73]

1 minute ago, StarMountainKid said:

Ok, good. So, what's your model, what's the nature of Reality?

Very virtual. Our universe is pure information and energy. Its language is mathematics. If it is unique, it is fine tuned to make earth life like it is.

My model also explains the supernatural, UFO's and every mystery ever. Rejecting it is natural. It's counter intuitive to accept not being physical.

But it's logic, and it fits the data.

[zep73]

Nothing is real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UQK-UcRezE

To the sceptics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Edited July 13, 2018 by sci-nerd

[moonman]

How old are you OP?

[StarMountainKid]

Somehow I always suspected Rick Astley had something to do with the design of the universe. 

[Rlyeh]

4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Very virtual. Our universe is pure information and energy. Its language is mathematics. If it is unique, it is fine tuned to make earth life like it is.

My model also explains the supernatural, UFO's and every mystery ever. Rejecting it is natural. It's counter intuitive to accept not being physical.

But it's logic, and it fits the data.

Mathematics is our way of measuring.

Your model explains the supernatural and UFOs?

[ai_guardian]

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

As I wrote in the OP, it's not a single thing that made me reach my conclusion, but the sum of the parts.

- The information-nature of our universe was one thing. Before the big bang, matter was estimated to be the size of a marble. A marble! And that's just an estimation. Could be less. Could be nothing.

How does the information-nature of the universe sway you towards virtual? In all honesty, any universe I would think would be information-nature type. And why tack on the big bang matter/marble blurb? What is it from this that makes it more likely to be virtual? - and btw it is not necessarily "estimated to be the size of a marble"

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- The wave function that caused most of this fuss: It CAN be interpreted as caused by the observer. That's another.

As already pointed out, an 'observer' is the detector. Again how does this ever-so-slightly even point to a virtual system? The wave function is a mathematical construct allowing us to predict with probabilities an outcome based on starting conditions and subsequently modelling something that is observed.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- Non-locality defies logic and relativity (exceeding light speed!). Only logic place this could happen is in a virtual system with central govornment.

Relativity once defied logic too I'm sure. That is a bold (my emphasis) statement to make. We know one place it is happening is the universe. Just because something does not seem logical, to you, does not mean its more likely to happen in a virtual system.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- The limit of (light) speed in a vacuum makes no sence, if something shiny is already moving! Something stops it!

And it makes sense in a virtual system more why?

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- The physical constant is to exact to be random, if this is the only universe.

That again is no indicator whatsoever of a virtual system. I could hypothesize that there are infinite big bangs (bounces) in ONE universe each bounce having a different constant, we just so happen to live in one with one particular constant because.....WE CAN.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- Nature uses matematics throughout. We can choose to be in awe, or wonder why and how?

I'm not sure I'd say "nature uses mathematics" nature just is. We use mathematics (various fields of) to model nature and we find that we can. How does that make it any more likely to point to a virtual system?

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- Everything that happens in this universe is displayed at its outskirts. We could just wonder why, or we could add it to the pile.

You lost me here, please explain. A different kind of pile comes to mind right now.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- Why does nature need Shannon code? There are variants of this code, but they all share the same purpose: To correct data errors, specificly in graphics.

First time I've come across this, so not much to say except that if your reasoning for it pointing to a virtual system is along the same lines as with your other reasons listed here, then with regards to a virtual system it's nothing to get excited about.

 

On 7/11/2018 at 6:12 AM, sci-nerd said:

- When math must decide what reality is, it favors a multiverse, or a zeroverse. The latter seems to be the most favored.

How so does math decide anything? The very broad subject that is mathematics is our way of modelling observation. And a zeroverse is synonymous with virtual system? And what of the "central govornment"? with their maths and all creating virtual systems, are/is they/it too in a virtual system?

 

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

How does the information-nature of the universe sway you towards virtual? In all honesty, any universe I would think would be information-nature type. And why tack on the big bang matter/marble blurb? What is it from this that makes it more likely to be virtual? - and btw it is not necessarily "estimated to be the size of a marble"

 

As already pointed out, an 'observer' is the detector. Again how does this ever-so-slightly even point to a virtual system? The wave function is a mathematical construct allowing us to predict with probabilities an outcome based on starting conditions and subsequently modelling something that is observed.

 

Relativity once defied logic too I'm sure. That is a bold (my emphasis) statement to make. We know one place it is happening is the universe. Just because something does not seem logical, to you, does not mean its more likely to happen in a virtual system.

 

And it makes sense in a virtual system more why?

 

That again is no indicator whatsoever of a virtual system. I could hypothesize that there are infinite big bangs (bounces) in ONE universe each bounce having a different constant, we just so happen to live in one with one particular constant because.....WE CAN.

 

I'm not sure I'd say "nature uses mathematics" nature just is. We use mathematics (various fields of) to model nature and we find that we can. How does that make it any more likely to point to a virtual system?

 

You lost me here, please explain. A different kind of pile comes to mind right now.

 

First time I've come across this, so not much to say except that if your reasoning for it pointing to a virtual system is along the same lines as with your other reasons listed here, then with regards to a virtual system it's nothing to get excited about.

 

How so does math decide anything? The very broad subject that is mathematics is our way of modelling observation. And a zeroverse is synonymous with virtual system? And what of the "central govornment"? with their maths and all creating virtual systems, are/is they/it too in a virtual system?

 

I fear the dreaded Zetetic method of research is being used here by the OP and a good bit of sci-fi and fantasy.

[ai_guardian]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

I fear the dreaded Zetetic method of research is being used here by the OP and a good bit of sci-fi and fantasy.

I think it's a case of eating too much too fast, you don't get to taste each morsel so you can form a more informed opinion of what you've eaten....then it all comes up in a mess.

 

I admire him trying to learn a lot and being so interested, however doing it fast means you only skim the surface and from a high level overview, you oftentimes get an emotional feeling of what reality is. That is what we're seeing here imho.

[ExpandMyMind]

On 10/07/2018 at 6:43 PM, sci-nerd said:

Let me get back to that later

I guess you'd have to wait on those stackexchange replies.

[moonman]

I think we all realize by now the OP has no "model", but a bunch of random bullet points he posted to make himself look smart.

No actual answer is forthcoming.

[zep73]

17 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Your model explains the supernatural and UFOs?

In my virtual reality model, someone must have programmed and started the machine that runs it. If that is plausible, it's also playsible that they did it for some selfish purpose. That purpose could very well be entertainment. And that's where the supernatural and the flying saucers come in.

Have you ever used a small reflection of light to tease and confuse a cat? The cat is clueless. It runs around trying to catch the little dot of light. I imagine ghosts and UFO's might be their version of that little dot. We're the cat.

[zep73]

2 hours ago, moonman said:

I think we all realize by now the OP has no "model", but a bunch of random bullet points he posted to make himself look smart.

No actual answer is forthcoming.

Maybe you're asking the wrong questions...?

[zep73]

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

How does the information-nature of the universe sway you towards virtual? In all honesty, any universe I would think would be information-nature type.

That's like a fish saying: Of course anything is wet! What else would it be?!

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

As already pointed out, an 'observer' is the detector. Again how does this ever-so-slightly even point to a virtual system? The wave function is a mathematical construct allowing us to predict with probabilities an outcome based on starting conditions and subsequently modelling something that is observed.

In my interpretation the detector is an extension of the observer. Making the intrument responsible makes no logic sense. But, anything to keep the woo out, right??

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

Relativity once defied logic too I'm sure. That is a bold (my emphasis) statement to make. We know one place it is happening is the universe. Just because something does not seem logical, to you, does not mean its more likely to happen in a virtual system.

This is in a league of it's own. Even Einstein, the smartest man alive, called it spooky. You might refuse to accept it for what it is. So be it.

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

And it makes sense in a virtual system more why?

Because of the settings in the virtual system. Maximum value = 300.000 or something. I will not even pretend to know their technology.

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

That again is no indicator whatsoever of a virtual system. I could hypothesize that there are infinite big bangs (bounces) in ONE universe each bounce having a different constant, we just so happen to live in one with one particular constant because.....WE CAN.

I said IF our universe is the only one. And we have no evidence of others, so we must expect this one to be the only one.
Only a god can fine tune a universe. I don't believe in divine beings. A programmer of a virtual one sounds more plausible.

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

I'm not sure I'd say "nature uses mathematics" nature just is. We use mathematics (various fields of) to model nature and we find that we can. How does that make it any more likely to point to a virtual system?

Now we're back to the fish saying everything is wet.

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

You lost me here, please explain. A different kind of pile comes to mind right now.

The holographic principle.

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

First time I've come across this, so not much to say except that if your reasoning for it pointing to a virtual system is along the same lines as with your other reasons listed here, then with regards to a virtual system it's nothing to get excited about.

Well, the man who discovered it, Dr. James Gates Jr., is not so convinced. He calls it computer codes. Straight out.

17 hours ago, ai_guardian said:

How so does math decide anything? The very broad subject that is mathematics is our way of modelling observation. And a zeroverse is synonymous with virtual system? And what of the "central govornment"? with their maths and all creating virtual systems, are/is they/it too in a virtual system?

Math doesn't decide anything. But it can be a tool to find a probable answer.

[zep73]

Here's an explanation to why the collapse of the wave function can point to a virtual reality:

In this virtual reality, everything we see and feel is holographic pixels. That includes photons and electrons (the particles we're able to see and feel), and all the others.

When not observed by anyone, they serve no purpose, so they are in the wave function. When they are viewed by us, or felt, they collapse to a determined state where we can interact with them.

The determined state is happening everywhere all the time. It's not a lab phenomena.

Of course this is just a theory. But I hope it will be proven one day (that it's everywhere).

 

I'll be back monday evening.

Edited July 14, 2018 by sci-nerd

[XenoFish]

If I was going to go with any kind of fringe theory of reality. I'd say that we're clone brains in vats, hooked to a vast neural network, "living" in a dream reality. At least that's more interesting. Everything that exist in this 'reality' is a product of the memories of the first ones. If I decided to go the sci-fi edge on this, I'd say that we are in a generation ship traveling the cosmos till a habitable planet is found/terraformed and a new body is grown around our brains. But that's just speculation for the fun of it.

[StarMountainKid]

My opinion is ours is a naturally occurring universe/. To consider it an artificial construct adds too many complications. For instance, who  constructed it, for what reason, what is the technology used, why is it constructed the way it is, why is it constructed as to allow human life in it as screwed-up as human life is, what is the origin of the constructors, etc.

It leaves too much to the imagination, there's no simple answer possible when there are such a large number of possibilities. Occam's Razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. 

Though we do not understand the origin of our universe, it would seem to me to be much simpler, as it wouldn't require a complex preconceived agenda. The universe would be the result of some naturally occurring elemental process.

 

[Rlyeh]

9 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

In my virtual reality model, someone must have programmed and started the machine that runs it. If that is plausible, it's also playsible that they did it for some selfish purpose. That purpose could very well be entertainment. And that's where the supernatural and the flying saucers come in.

Have you ever used a small reflection of light to tease and confuse a cat? The cat is clueless. It runs around trying to catch the little dot of light. I imagine ghosts and UFO's might be their version of that little dot. We're the cat.

Are there any other intelligent beings in the virtual universe or only humans?

[danydandan]

What's the point in this, ever hear of René Descartes, the guy who coined Cogito, ergo sum?

If we are in a constructed Universe we could not tell the difference.

[Truthseeker007]

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 7:30 PM, moonman said:

I suggest that the OP post this on a forum where the users are trained experts in these fields, and see how long it takes to be taken down a few pegs from the "I'm so smart I know everything I'm a genius" mindframe he seems to be stuck in.

Random quotes, buzzwords and recycled ideas won't cut it there.

"Experts" don't know everything and if they are trained in a fraud they will regurgitate a fraud. I think it is a great idea for people outside the box to explore these things. After all at one time didn't "experts" say we couldn't fly and the earth was flat?

[Truthseeker007]

16 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

In my virtual reality model, someone must have programmed and started the machine that runs it. If that is plausible, it's also playsible that they did it for some selfish purpose. That purpose could very well be entertainment. And that's where the supernatural and the flying saucers come in.

Have you ever used a small reflection of light to tease and confuse a cat? The cat is clueless. It runs around trying to catch the little dot of light. I imagine ghosts and UFO's might be their version of that little dot. We're the cat.

There are others who think this:

This was the terrifying theory first proposed by British philosopher Nick Bostrom.

The shocking hypothesis was penned four years after Andrew and Lana Wachowski wrote and directed The Matrix, a film set in a dystopian future in which humans are subdued by a simulated reality.

In his paper, Dr Bostrom suggested a race of far-evolved descendants could be behind our digital imprisonment. The futuristic beings - human or otherwise - could be using virtual reality to simulate a time in the past or recreate how their remote ancestors lived.

Sound crazy?

Well, it turns out NASA thinks Dr Bostrom might be right

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix89.htm

 

One of the biggest arguments for the simulation hypothesis came from University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrum in 2003.

 

Bostrum posed the idea that members of an advanced civilization with massive computer power may choose to generate simulations of their ancestors.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia2/ciencia_matrix122.htm

 

 

[ai_guardian]

16 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

 

I'll be back monday evening.

Then I shall be back later too. Sunday and Monday are very busy for me

[XenoFish]

8 hours ago, danydandan said:

What's the point in this, ever hear of René Descartes, the guy who coined Cogito, ergo sum?

If we are in a constructed Universe we could not tell the difference.

The way I see it, is that we are subjectively experiencing an objective reality. I think you could literally drive yourself insane trying to contemplate the very nature of reality.

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The way I see it, is that we are subjectively experiencing an objective reality. I think you could literally drive yourself insane trying to contemplate the very nature of reality.

I agree, if someone does prove,(no matter how unlikely) that we are in a virtual reality akin to the Matrix. It won't change the fact that your in it. You can't leave it your stuck here so what's the point in speculating?.

 

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

I agree, if someone does prove,(no matter how unlikely) that we are in a virtual reality akin to the Matrix. It won't change the fact that your in it. You can't leave it your stuck here so what's the point in speculating?.

 

The problem with answering questions is that for each one question answered, ten more show up. I don't think humanity will every know fully. We'll never answer "Why?"