zep73 Posted September 5, 2018 Author #551 Share Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Harte said: Take your own advice then. A "true skeptic" should question what he himself has stated. Why would you think I don't question it? Of course I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted September 5, 2018 Author #552 Share Posted September 5, 2018 40 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said: As an example, we can understand the mechanism of our reality, but because we are part of this reality ourselves, our knowledge will always be limited to this mechanism (which includes us). If there exists anything beyond or external to the mechanism, this will remain unknowable to us. What may be external to our reality may be inaccessible to the capabilities to the human mind. There may be no comprehension possible to our intellect. We are the internal universe observing itself, limited in understanding by being part of this internal mechanism. It's like the old example of the clockwork of a clock. The clockwork understands the clockwork because it is the clockwork. The purpose of the clock and what lies external to the clock is unknowable to the clockwork. The clockwork only knows itself, only knows its own mechanism. Unless the clock is inside a much larger clock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted September 5, 2018 #553 Share Posted September 5, 2018 Did you get any answers? Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Noteverythingisaconspiracy Posted September 5, 2018 #554 Share Posted September 5, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, sci-nerd said: In science there are no certainties, only theories and probabilities. A true sceptic is not afraid to question anything, even reality itself. A true sceptic apparently doesn't get my brand of humour. Try to see who I quoted. Edited September 5, 2018 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted September 5, 2018 #555 Share Posted September 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said: A true sceptic apparently doesn't get my brand of humour. Try to see who I quoted. So skeptical, in fact, that they would not accept undeniable proof that God exists. Hypothetically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted September 5, 2018 Author #556 Share Posted September 5, 2018 44 minutes ago, Harte said: Did you get any answers? No, it went straight to voice mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted September 5, 2018 Author #557 Share Posted September 5, 2018 32 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said: Try to see who I quoted. I did see that you quoted yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted November 1, 2018 Author #558 Share Posted November 1, 2018 (edited) Three things has happened since the latest post here: 1: I finally found the name of the scientist, who says that math points towards a virtual reality: Brian Whitworth I checked him, and he seems genuine. No controversies or outstanding criticism. 2: New experiments with non-locality has shown that it goes beyond the so called "quantum realm". Two bacteria has been entangled successfully! We are awaiting a repetition to confirm it! If it is confirmed, non-locality is no longer a lab phenomenon. Duality will most probably also not be. 3: The documentary linked to in the OP is dead, here's a working one: Edited November 1, 2018 by sci-nerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted November 2, 2018 #559 Share Posted November 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, sci-nerd said: New experiments with non-locality has shown that it goes beyond the so called "quantum realm". Two bacteria has been entangled successfully! We are awaiting a repetition to confirm it! If it is confirmed, non-locality is no longer a lab phenomenon. Duality will most probably also not be. Sorry. no. You've fallen prey to lazy (or ignorant) journalism. Nobody has entangle bacteria. They might have observed photons being entangled in a layer of bacteria squashed between mirrors. That's photon entanglement, not bacteria entanglement. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted November 2, 2018 Author #560 Share Posted November 2, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Harte said: Sorry. no. You've fallen prey to lazy (or ignorant) journalism. Nobody has entangle bacteria. They might have observed photons being entangled in a layer of bacteria squashed between mirrors. That's photon entanglement, not bacteria entanglement. Or maybe your interpretation of it is different. I am not making any conclusions yet. Isn't this just another step further from molecule duality? https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b Off tomorrow, be back saturday night! Edited November 2, 2018 by sci-nerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted November 2, 2018 #561 Share Posted November 2, 2018 I don't consider this reality is a simulation, because why would a simulation include me not believing it? It seems to me, in a simulation, why would the subject be considered at all? In a video game, for instance, the characters don't sit around and wonder if they're in a video game, they're just sims, they do what the algorithms tell them to do. What's the point of a simulation in which the sims sit around and wonder if they're sims? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted November 2, 2018 #562 Share Posted November 2, 2018 9 hours ago, sci-nerd said: Or maybe your interpretation of it is different. I am not making any conclusions yet. Isn't this just another step further from molecule duality? https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b No. It's photon entanglement. The bacteria absorb photons as a matter of course since they use photosynthesis. This appears to be about entanglement occurring between photons and the photon receptors in the bacteria, not between two bacteria. Here's the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.08075.pdf Quote We model recent experiments on living sulphur bacteria interacting with quantised light, using the Dicke model. The strong coupling achieved between the bacteria and the light indicates that during the experiment the bacteria (treated as dipoles) and the quantized light are entangled. The vacuum Rabi splitting, which was measured in the experiment for a range of different parameters, can be used as an entanglement witness. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted November 6, 2018 Author #563 Share Posted November 6, 2018 On 2/11/2018 at 4:28 AM, StarMountainKid said: What's the point of a simulation in which the sims sit around and wonder if they're sims? If we are simulated, I doubt very much that they intended for us to figure it out. Besides, only a very small fraction of people believe that we are, so "the secret" is still relatively safe. Most people refuse to believe that qualia, pain, pleasure and emotions can be simulated anyway. So all is jolly from their perspective, I would imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted November 17, 2018 Author #564 Share Posted November 17, 2018 On 2/11/2018 at 10:55 AM, Harte said: No. It's photon entanglement. The bacteria absorb photons as a matter of course since they use photosynthesis. This appears to be about entanglement occurring between photons and the photon receptors in the bacteria, not between two bacteria. Thanks for the rapid repudiation. Would have hated to waste time thinking it was anything more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted November 18, 2018 #565 Share Posted November 18, 2018 The repudiation may have been rapid, but this recent response was pretty darn slow, wan't it? Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted November 18, 2018 Author #566 Share Posted November 18, 2018 18 hours ago, Harte said: The repudiation may have been rapid, but this recent response was pretty darn slow, wan't it? I wasn't going to reply at all, but after a while I changed my mind, because my lacking answer could be interpreted as disagreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted December 10, 2018 Author #567 Share Posted December 10, 2018 What we call matter is really voxels. They're like pixels on a screen, but they're tiny, 3D and spherical. Like a hologram. There are many voxels, but the four most common are called electrons, protons, neutrons and photons. They consist of energy, or rather charges. Each type of voxel has the exact same charge as all others of its kind. This repetitiveness is one of many giveaways for the origin of voxels. Voxels respond to measurement. Some say measurement is just an extension of observation. Whether we call it measurement or observation is up to you, the interpreter. But they respond. They change behavior. Another giveaway. Voxels can interact even at endless distance, when they are entangled. That violates the speed of light as the maximum allowed speed of anything in the universe. Voxels don't care about that. That also tells about the origin of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted January 29, 2019 Author #568 Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) Sorry about the above post. I made voxels sound like an axiom. They're not. I just tried to explain particles as voxels in a easy/fast way. The reason why I revisit this old thread of mine is the Asimov memorial debate of 2016, where theoretical physicist Zohreh Davoudi talks about her research to find shortcuts in the cosmos, that could indicate a simulation. Since I saw that debate I have also been looking for indications. And now it finally hit me. It is SO obvious. There is one! It's not hidden, it's right in our faces! Black holes! Everything that passes the event horizon does not need to be computed anymore. It can be taken out of the equation. Why? Because it can never be observed or measured. We got a shortcut. Edit: this also gives post-mortem credit to Stephen Hawking. He was right when he said information disappeared. Edited January 29, 2019 by sci-nerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted January 29, 2019 #569 Share Posted January 29, 2019 The information lost into a black hole is stored holographically on the surface. Black holes were predicted long before one was ever found. I wouldn't call it a shortcut when it's the natural result of the rules you set up for your simulation. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted January 29, 2019 Author #570 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, Harte said: The information lost into a black hole is stored holographically on the surface. It is equally distributed on the surface of the event horizon when it enters. I don't see any eternity in that. From anyone's POV it is gone forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aearluin Posted January 29, 2019 #571 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Good job figuring out everythingabout the universe in 1 year. I'm 39 and can't seem to even figure out my life! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted January 29, 2019 Author #572 Share Posted January 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, aearluin said: Good job figuring out everythingabout the universe in 1 year. I'm 39 and can't seem to even figure out my life! I started in 2015. And now it's 2019. And I am not finished. I might have found a valid conclusion fast, but I am still validating it and learning. Before you can figure anything out, you need to decide who you are. What are your values, you boundaries. What will you accept, what will you not accept. When those are in place, you can seek higher meanings. Mine were only limited by family and science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habitat Posted January 29, 2019 #573 Share Posted January 29, 2019 11 minutes ago, aearluin said: Good job figuring out everythingabout the universe in 1 year. I'm 39 and can't seem to even figure out my life! There is a good reason for this. Whilst some might think that the person who "knows everything worth knowing", and many think they do so, by say, age 19, must be pretty smart, the reality is quite the opposite. They really are the dumbos of the world, and I've really yet to see one that could turn it around, and get back to a position of being rather less "certain" of what they know. It is just a state of mind, where ego leads the way, has little to do with what people actually know, but what they've managed to convince themselves they know. Smart people really aren't able to be so convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted January 29, 2019 Author #574 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, Habitat said: Smart people really aren't able to be so convinced. Never said I was convinced. I've only talked about probability. I absolutely love the ontology of it! It's exciting philosophy! But convinced? Never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted January 30, 2019 #575 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 hours ago, sci-nerd said: It is equally distributed on the surface of the event horizon when it enters. I don't see any eternity in that. From anyone's POV it is gone forever. Actually, from our point of view, it never even enters. But, nonetheless: Link. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now