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 -
zep73

The Nature of Reality

587 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zep73
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Did you get any answers? :w00t:

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
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. :P

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
22 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

A true sceptic apparently doesn't get my brand of humour. Try to see who I quoted. :P

So skeptical, in fact, that they would not accept undeniable proof that God exists. Hypothetically speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
44 minutes ago, Harte said:

Did you get any answers? :w00t:

No, it went straight to voice mail. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
32 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Try to see who I quoted.

I did see that you quoted yourself ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

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 by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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 by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

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?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
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

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

The repudiation may have been rapid, but this recent response was pretty darn slow, wan't it?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

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 by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aearluin

Good job figuring out everythingabout the universe in 1 year. I'm 39 and can't seem to even figure out my life!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
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

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.