Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

The Nature of Reality

444 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 
StarMountainKid

So, in this simulated universe, what about free will? What parameters are pre-determined? Are there any parameters set to pre-determine outcomes? In other words, is there a plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
28 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Well..........

That's the saddest thing I've ever seen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Well..........

That's the saddest thing I've ever seen.

Not a gamer myself. I find games trivial and banal. Pointless.

But it is the first attempt to simulate human life, although it is very simple and limited. I think the game itself is nearly 20 years old.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Not a gamer myself. I find games trivial and banal. Pointless.

But it is the first attempt to simulate human life, although it is very simple and limited. I think the game itself is nearly 20 years old.

You're certainly right when it comes to the Sims.

Completely pointless.

But I enjoyed the Zelda games very much. Problem with games is they steal your life.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Not a gamer myself. I find games trivial and banal. Pointless.

But it is the first attempt to simulate human life, although it is very simple and limited. I think the game itself is nearly 20 years old.

Board games are fun and educational.

I recently read an interesting article detailing that 'gamers' ( I'm a big RPG gamer) are generally more morally considerate than non gamers also that in certain cases gamers are better at certain hand eye coordination activities. So calling them trivial and banal I think is incorrect.

You should play a game called Detroit Become Human it's incredible storytelling at it's finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So calling them trivial and banal I think is incorrect.

No no, not them as in the players! I mean the games themselves. From my POV.

My daughter is a big fan of the Detroit game.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

No no, not them as in the players! I mean the games themselves. From my POV.

My daughter is a big fan of the Detroit game.

I know you meant the game, I also meant the games. They can do the same thing as books and movies, they have the ability to expand your knowledge, work your brain and help your creativity.

The games that I have issues with are the mindless repetitive ones. The makers of the Detroit game have made some great story driven games that would put most movie and book writers to shame.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edenlog
On 8/5/2018 at 1:56 AM, Rlyeh said:

None of this shows the universe is a brain or behaves as one.

I am not trying to prove anything, I am merely sharing my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edenlog
Posted (edited)
On 8/5/2018 at 8:49 AM, StarMountainKid said:

So, in this simulated universe, what about free will? What parameters are pre-determined? Are there any parameters set to pre-determine outcomes? In other words, is there a plan?

I think yes and no, the pre-determined nature of reality are the laws of physics, or the inherent way 'objects of existence'  behave and their own unique makeup.  While the outcome of these laws interacting is not set.  For example, we can see this in biological creatures, they have a set makeup that keeps them from forming into another species, yet at the same time this is not always a perfect outcome due to genetic mutations.

A plan would be the objects in existence , the parameters of change are the way these interact and human intelligence can discern different modes of interaction to generate a specific outcome.  

Because human thought is rooted in duality, duality being a law of nature, to think this or that is only half the picture, I personally will make a conscious effort to see this and that.

(duality for example: hot and cold, up and down, right and left, summer and winter, light and dark, order and chaos, matter and energy, good or bad, particle or wave, negative and positive.)

Edited by edenlog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

My current study of supersymmetry so far has shown me similarities with the holographic principle.

In both of them there are equivalents of information ("matter") both here - in our universe - and "not here".
In supersymmetry it's another dimension, in HP it's outside the perimeter of our universe.

If any of you have a different understanding, please do tell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

My current study of supersymmetry so far has shown me similarities with the holographic principle.

In both of them there are equivalents of information ("matter") both here - in our universe - and "not here".
In supersymmetry it's another dimension, in HP it's outside the perimeter of our universe.

If any of you have a different understanding, please do tell!

The only similarities is both are basically unfalsifiable. It's the scientific equivalent to 'God of the gaps argument'.

The only thing it predicts that might bare fruit is that the three forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces, at high engry may have the same strength. This might lead to an insight to a grand unified theory.

I don't think it's predictions regarding dark matter are falsifiable, I don't think the LHC has discovered any similarities between fermions and bosons. They are very different particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
4 hours ago, danydandan said:

The only similarities is both are basically unfalsifiable. It's the scientific equivalent to 'God of the gaps argument'.

The only thing it predicts that might bare fruit is that the three forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces, at high engry may have the same strength. This might lead to an insight to a grand unified theory.

I don't think it's predictions regarding dark matter are falsifiable, I don't think the LHC has discovered any similarities between fermions and bosons. They are very different particles.

Many aspects of the Standard Model appear to make it unfalsifiable as well.

Not to mention the ugly fact that experimental evidence contradicts some of the Standard Model's predictions.

But we go with the model anyway because it works, usually.

If Superstring Theory can be developed to that level, the inconsistencies won't matter, in the same way they don't in the Standard Model.

It may very well be that the future of cosmology and high energy physics will henceforth be rife with unfalsifiable predictions because of our own limitations and the limits of experimental observation.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Harte said:

Many aspects of the Standard Model appear to make it unfalsifiable as well.

Not to mention the ugly fact that experimental evidence contradicts some of the Standard Model's predictions.

But we go with the model anyway because it works, usually.

If Superstring Theory can be developed to that level, the inconsistencies won't matter, in the same way they don't in the Standard Model.

It may very well be that the future of cosmology and high energy physics will henceforth be rife with unfalsifiable predictions because of our own limitations and the limits of experimental observation.

Harte

Absolutely agree with that. I think our biggest issue is our limitations of observation, this creates massive errors in experiments. It seems the bigger we go we get more error, and the smaller we go we get more error. Error is the bane of my work at the moment, recently we have been working with silicon nitrate for CMOS applications. It's unique as it displays both classical and quantum applications. Classical, as it can lead to broadband dual frequency comb spectroscopy. Quantum, it allows us to generate nonclassical states of light on a photonic chip. The issue is experimental error in non classical applications, it appears mathematically solid, but experimentally uncertain.

I have doubts regarding super string theory, maybe because of my own ignorance, but it's very outlandish in some aspects. I'm a proponent of M-Theory which incorporates the consistent aspects of superstring theory.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
On 8/8/2018 at 10:37 AM, danydandan said:

The only similarities is both are basically unfalsifiable. It's the scientific equivalent to 'God of the gaps argument'.

The only thing it predicts that might bare fruit is that the three forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces, at high engry may have the same strength. This might lead to an insight to a grand unified theory.

I don't think it's predictions regarding dark matter are falsifiable, I don't think the LHC has discovered any similarities between fermions and bosons. They are very different particles.

This is also a reply to your post in the monks PK thread.

So you're saying that the different mathematical theories are nonunifiable? Even though they all attempt to decribe the same reality, but sometimes from different perspectives?
I know that sup-sym is about particles, and that the hol-prin is about events, but events are made from particles, and the goal of science it to unify all theories. So how can addressing similarities between them be wrong? Isn't it the dream of science to reach a TOE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
18 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

This is also a reply to your post in the monks PK thread.

So you're saying that the different mathematical theories are nonunifiable? Even though they all attempt to decribe the same reality, but sometimes from different perspectives?
I know that sup-sym is about particles, and that the hol-prin is about events, but events are made from particles, and the goal of science it to unify all theories. So how can addressing similarities between them be wrong? Isn't it the dream of science to reach a TOE?

There are no similarities, that's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

There are no similarities, that's my point.

I disagree.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but maybe your perspective is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I disagree.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but maybe your perspective is.

Its not. Ask any high energy physicist, that's where I got my opinion from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
26 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Its not. Ask any high energy physicist, that's where I got my opinion from.

Okay, you win the argument. For now... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.