The Nature of Reality

[zep73]

12 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Statements like that are probably part of the reason why many posts are somewhat aggressively calling your understanding of the subject into question.

You started this thread with a rather grand claim regarding your understanding of a very broad chunk of science, then make statements like this...

A statement like the one you made here doesn't prove ignorance of the formalism of quantum mechanics, but it certainly raises ones' suspicions that it may be the case...

I understand the scepticism towards my claims, but that statement must be seen in the context it was made: Explaining quantum phenomenons within the hypothesis.
See, I wasn't claiming anything about entanglement in general, but I was putting it into the hypothesis, and giving my 2 cents about it's purpose there. My own theory, by the way.

Last but not least, I'm not trying to convince anybody about this. I don't care if I 'm the only person in the world with this theory. What you or others believe in, is your own business.
My purpose is to keep the idea alive, so that future generations can hear about it, and make up their own minds.

Edited July 21, 2018 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Maybe not a brilliant or important thought but.....would a virtual or simulated "being" have emotions?

don't the words virtual and simulated mean...not real?    Or a copy?  ...of what?

the entire concept confuses me.

To have emotions you need to be vulnerable. Robots are not. If they break, they can be put back together. They don't age and die. They don't get sick. They don't need food. They don't need to reproduce. They are safe from all that.
But! If you program an AI to think it needs those things, it will most probably begin to feel alot of things!

We are not necessarily simulated. There's no evidence that suggests we are like "them". I prefer to just call our existence "virtual".

[lightly]

Ok, thanks sci-nerd.... I guess they might have glitched my programming?....  Because the idea that I am a virtual being ,existing In a virtual universe, just does not compute in my thinking. 

[SHaYap]

Actually, in theory at least, all life is actually a continuous sequence of illusion ...

~

What Is Reality? The Human Brain - Fascinating Brain Documentary (Consciousness & Universe) Howard Corley • 655K views

 

[00.50:29]

~

[sepulchrave]

9 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I understand the scepticism towards my claims, but that statement must be seen in the context it was made: Explaining quantum phenomenons within the hypothesis.
See, I wasn't claiming anything about entanglement in general, but I was putting it into the hypothesis, and giving my 2 cents about it's purpose there. My own theory, by the way.

Yes, I understand that you weren't making a specific claim. But the wording of the phrase calls into question whether or not you understand what you are talking about. The phrase "The things we observe are entangled all the way through" doesn't make much sense, and is not the kind of statement I'd expect someone who understands entanglement to make - the statement is either incorrect (you are using the commonly understood definition of entanglement, but misunderstand the concept) or ambiguous (you understand entanglement, but are misusing or mistranslating other parts of the phrase).

Furthermore: "The atoms are in the same state" is also a phrase that is either incorrect (it is easy to empirically demonstrate that all the atoms of any object are  definitely not in the same state, and even getting a substantial minority of atoms into the same state --- i.e. a condensate --- requires a great deal of effort and carefully controlled conditions), or ambiguous (you are using a definition of ``same state'' that I am not familiar with).

9 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

My purpose is to keep the idea alive, so that future generations can hear about it, and make up their own minds.

Don't worry about that, the concept of ``it from bit'' is being carried by many other scientists.

[StarMountainKid]

It's one thing to study science and come to some conclusions, it's quite another to actually make these scientific discoveries your conclusions are based upon. 

I'm thinking of orders of magnitude of intellect. If we think we can peruse Wikipedia and come up with a new scientific theory, we're fooling ourselves in the extreme. 

 

 

[zep73]

18 hours ago, lightly said:

Ok, thanks sci-nerd.... I guess they might have glitched my programming?....  Because the idea that I am a virtual being ,existing In a virtual universe, just does not compute in my thinking. 

Of course it doesn't. It's counter intuitive. It takes getting used to. For me too, when I first realised it has a likely probability of being real.

Edited July 22, 2018 by sci-nerd

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

It's one thing to study science and come to some conclusions, it's quite another to actually make these scientific discoveries your conclusions are based upon. 

I'm thinking of orders of magnitude of intellect. If we think we can peruse Wikipedia and come up with a new scientific theory, we're fooling ourselves in the extreme. 

When I first started my scientific research, I did it because I was curious about the Big Bang, and what could have been before that.
I didn't expect to understand much of it, so imagine my surprise when I actually did! I became eager and curious to learn even more. And more. Untill one day, I couldn't find any more subjects to study.
Since then I have been following cutting edge science and refreshed the "old" stuff regularily. Once in a while I find something I missed the first time. That's exiting! But there's not much left, so it's mostly refreshing and updating.

You doubt my comprehension of science. I don't blame you. But I can only prove myself in detailed and respectful discussions - not by being doubted, ridiculed and attacked.

[StarMountainKid]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

When I first started my scientific research, I did it because I was curious about the Big Bang, and what could have been before that.
I didn't expect to understand much of it, so imagine my surprise when I actually did! I became eager and curious to learn even more. And more. Untill one day, I couldn't find any more subjects to study.
Since then I have been following cutting edge science and refreshed the "old" stuff regularily. Once in a while I find something I missed the first time. That's exiting! But there's not much left, so it's mostly refreshing and updating.

You doubt my comprehension of science. I don't blame you. But I can only prove myself in detailed and respectful discussions - not by being doubted, ridiculed and attacked.

I'm not ridiculing or attacking you in my post, I'm just trying to convey the fact that what we amateurs base our ideas on have been conceived by greater intellects than our own. I call us amateurs because, unless we are accomplished professional scientists and have published in recognized scientific journals, well, we're amateurs. 

This is not a put-down, it's just a fact. This does not preclude us from expounding ideas, it's just we should realize our place in the realm of science. You nor I are ever going to win a Nobel Prize in physics for our discoveries, no matter how much time we study and research the subject. 

I love thinking of ideas, but they are always based on discoveries made by others.

[zep73]

5 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm not ridiculing or attacking you in my post

I know. But many others have, which makes it hard to talk real science.

6 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'm just trying to convey the fact that what we amateurs base our ideas on have been conceived by greater intellects than our own. I call us amateurs because, unless we are accomplished professional scientists and have published in recognized scientific journals, well, we're amateurs.

I agree partly.

Not all great intellects get PhD's. Let's assume for arguments sake that Einstein never chose academia and never got his PhD's. Would that have made his intellect less?

I know I'm no Einstein, but my intellect cannot be judged by my lack of PhD's. No ones can!

[StarMountainKid]

3 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I know. But many others have, which makes it hard to talk real science.

I agree partly.

Not all great intellects get PhD's. Let's assume for arguments sake that Einstein never chose academia and never got his PhD's. Would that have made his intellect less?

I know I'm no Einstein, but my intellect cannot be judged by my lack of PhD's. No ones can!

But the intellect can be measured by the intellectual depth of what it produces. 

[zep73]

1 minute ago, StarMountainKid said:

But the intellect can be measured by the intellectual depth of what it produces. 

True.

But if the product is dismissed due to lack af credentials, it is in vain. Atleast if you carry the opinion that most people here do.

[StarMountainKid]

3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

True.

But if the product is dismissed due to lack af credentials, it is in vain. Atleast if you carry the opinion that most people here do.

I must say I'm not convinced of the intellectual depth of this thread. The credentials lie within the hypothesis. 

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I must say I'm not convinced of the intellectual depth of this thread. The credentials lie within the hypothesis. 

Ya, it has been a nasty thread. I've defended myself 95% of the time. It has been wasted, regretfully.

But it's my own fault. I started it wrong.

[StarMountainKid]

Even if ours is a digital universe based on information, computer program-like, it still could be naturally occurring. Perhaps this is the only way a natural universe can exist.

[zep73]

14 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

Even if ours is a digital universe based on information, computer program-like, it still could be naturally occurring. Perhaps this is the only way a natural universe can exist.

So computers are imitating nature, not vice versa?

Yes, it is a valid idea. But certain things - especially in QM - does not add up. But that's just my opinion.

[zep73]

I may have failed in this thread, but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

[lightly]

On July 22, 2018 at 6:26 PM, sci-nerd said:

I may have failed in this thread, but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crgQGdpZR0

I don't think your thread is a failure ...or you.   I can't think of a more interesting  topic than  the Nature of reality  !

        The thread got a bit sideways for one reason or another....but still,  it's a great topic.

[danydandan]

22 minutes ago, lightly said:

I don't think your thread is a failure ...or you.   I can't think of a more interesting  topic than  the Nature of reality  !

        The thread got a bit sideways for one reason or another....but still,  it's a great topic.

I agree. Good thread, people (including me) getting caught up in the I know everything claim in the OP aside, the idea is interesting to consider. I often think of how simple and beautiful, Einstein Field Equations are. How one can infer a cosmic and seemingly Universal idea of General Relativity(I know it has limitations) based on a Ricci curve always made me think prehaps maybe we look too hard for things.  Look at how Maxwell merged Lorentz force, magnetic field theory and electrodynamics to create his equations. In my opinion James Clark Maxwell's contribution to the scientific field needs to be reassessed. Euler's Identify an awesome use of Mathematics to create something beautiful. The law of gravitional forces is also simply beautiful, chaos theory, second law of thermodynamics, Schrodinger's equation etc etc ...... All these make me jump to a conclusion of a coded Universe, of course this can be a natural occuring, coded by whom? I could not tell you, as I have no clue. It just seems to me our language of Mathematics has allowed us to discover, predict and define our Universe prehaps it was God, a 12 year old pimple head Alien creating us using a code or it could have all just happened.

Ramble over.

[zep73]

33 minutes ago, danydandan said:

the I know everything claim in the OP

The apparant claim. It was not intended as such. I apologise for my poor, easy-to-misconceive formulations.

[danydandan]

14 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

The apparant claim. It was not intended as such. I apologise for my poor, easy-to-misconceive formulations.

I was hoping to move the conversation on, however you appear to be as hung up on our reaction to your claim as we were to your claim.

I assumed I made some interesting points in my post yet you wanted to focus on that.

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of post so we can move on?

[Emma_Acid]

On 22/07/2018 at 9:33 PM, sci-nerd said:

True.

But if the product is dismissed due to lack af credentials, it is in vain. Atleast if you carry the opinion that most people here do.

It isn't though. It's being dismissed because you're describing it as if you don't know what you're talking about. Real physicists on this thread have already pulled you up on that and you've kind of hand waved your way out of it.

[zep73]

On 26/7/2018 at 8:16 AM, danydandan said:

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of post so we can move on?

I envy you. I find math, along with chemestry, to be the most tricky of the sciences. It's kinda like a car. I know what each part do, and how they work together, but fix a car or build one, I still don't master.
So I don't see the beauty of said equations, or what they say about reality, yet. For me it's just numbers and symbols. If I'm told the value of the symbols, I can calculate the equation. But I rely on experts to tell me the deeper meaning and beauty.

On 26/7/2018 at 3:01 PM, Emma_Acid said:

and you've kind of hand waved your way out of it

Well, what would you do, if you were attacked by 4 or 5 opponents at once?
I may have "hand waved", but I didn't run or quit 

Edited July 27, 2018 by sci-nerd

[danydandan]

59 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I envy you. I find math, along with chemestry, to be the most tricky of the sciences. It's kinda like a car. I know what each part do, and how they work together, but fix a car or build one, I still don't master.
So I don't see the beauty of said equations, or what they say about reality, yet. For me it's just numbers and symbols. If I'm told the value of the symbols, I can calculate the equation. But I rely on experts to tell me the deeper meaning and beauty.

Well, what would you do, if you were attacked by 4 or 5 opponents at once?
I may have "hand waved", but I didn't run or quit 

Maths ain't a science. If you're ascribing to a virtual reality. You'd assume this reality is coded perhaps mathematics is the way to describe it's nature?

I recommend reading some Rodger Penrose books.

Edited July 27, 2018 by danydandan

[zep73]

6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Maths ain't a science.

It's the language of scientists (and nature) then 

Edited July 27, 2018 by sci-nerd