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
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Mister Sci-nerd quy. You say you know everything. Can you answer the following and prove it thanks.

C=5/9(F−32)

The equation above shows how temperature F, measured in degrees Fahrenheit, relates to a temperature C, measured in degrees Celsius. Based on the equation, which of the following must be true?

A temperature increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit is equivalent to a temperature increase of 59 degree Celsius.


A temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius is equivalent to a temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Atemperature increase of 59 degree Fahrenheit is equivalent to a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius.

A. I only
B. II only
C. III only
D. I and II
 

 

Let me get back to that later

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
On 8/7/2018 at 11:16 PM, sci-nerd said:

I started my research back in 2015. One day I decided to learn everything there is to know about the universe. Everything. From quantum mechanics to black holes. It took me a year to learn everything, but it took me an additional two years to process and confirm everything. Midways through that processing, I came to a shocking conclusion about the nature of reality.

It was not easily made. Before I ever got to it (as mentioned), I studied science in all its forms: nuclear physics, biology, astro physics, quantum mechanics, electro magnetism, evolution, math, geometry, string theory, relativity, chemistry, computing, robotics, consciousness and probably some more.
So it was not some vaguely based conclusion. It was the sum of the parts.
In science there are no certainties, only probabilities. So my conclusion is the most probable answer, not rock solid.

The following mysteries can point to my conclusion. They can also point in other directions, but my conclusion is the only answer they have in common:

- Everything is electric. Everything is energy. Everything is informaton.
- The collapse of the wave function (a.k.a. "The observer effect" of quantum mechanics)
- Non-locality (a.k.a. "Spooky action at a distance")
- The speed of light. What stops it?
- The physical constant. Either it was set, or there must be many universes.
- The Fibonacci sequence / The golden ratio in nature.
- The holographic principle.
- Graphical error correcting codes in string theory equations (Shannon code).
- Mathematics favors a zeroverse.

All this, and probably more, left me with very little doubt, that our reality/universe is most probably virtual.

We are living in a very advanced computer.


Allow me to quote some of the pioneers of modern science:

"The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."
- Werner Heisenberg (apprentice of Niels Bohr)

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."
- Niels Bohr (the father of quantum mechanics)

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein

"Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought."
- Albert Einstein

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke (author)

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
- Max Planck (father of nuclear physics)

The last one is about the aversion, scepticism and rejection that most physicists have towards the simulation hypothesis. They hate it, because it's counter intuitive and anti physicalistic. They cannot accept that matter is really just information.

 

Fair Wind Films made an excellent video about it: The Simulation Hypothesis


A note at the end:

I do not support the word "simulation". It indicates that something is being imitated. There is no evidence that says we are like "them" at all. I much more prefer the word "virtual".

Hi Sci-nerd I'm also a nerd, so welcome. When you start making crazy claims about your authority to state facts or how well researched you are people are gonna call BS because your trying to make an argument from authority. Its why I posted a very simple mathematical question for you to provide a proof for.

What your proposing sounds very much like a very debunked concept of the Electrical Universe Hypothesis, mixed with a philosophical take on a number of interpretation of basic physics. Can I see some mathematical proofs for your hypothesis please.

I have a PhD in Physics, and I'd like to think my opinion holds some authority in a debate like this. My field of research is silicon photonics and virtual particle applications which has a good and ungodly amount of classical and quantum physics involved.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Let me get back to that later

The answer isn't as important as the actual proof.

Share this post


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

Let me get back to that later

It's not a difficult question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
8 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I sometimes forget things. It's a part of being human. So the "maybe more" is my way of saying: I might have forgotten a thing or two.

Is being a biased bully normal here? It seems so. But why this place? Easy targets?

Calling BS and mocking is stupid. Plain and simple. Get in the game instead!

This place is weird.  It's a bit of a sh**t show.  Anyway, nice OP.  I have been thinking quite abit along the lines you discuss.....and it is certainly one possibility among many that explains things.  I'm not sure if the reason for our existence can ever be known while we live here, outside of the most obvious answer - namely - the reason for life is to live it.  That is a good thing, and a bad thing, IMHO.

Anyway, sit down, buckle up and enjoy the ride if you can.  Welcome to the forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Just now, moonman said:

It's not a difficult question.

The proof may take time to write, the answer is very simple. I'm no mathematical genius by any stretch of the imagination and I'm pretty sure first year students got solve it pretty easily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The proof may take time to write, the answer is very simple. I'm no mathematical genius by any stretch of the imagination and I'm pretty sure first year students got solve it pretty easily.

I was never any good at proving my work, I always hated math. I thought you just wanted the answer, I missed the "and prove it" part.

Nope, I can't do that.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Hi Sci-nerd I'm also a nerd, so welcome. When you start making crazy claims about your authority to state facts or how well researched you are people are gonna call BS because your trying to make an argument from authority. Its why I posted a very simple mathematical question for you to provide a proof for.

What your proposing sounds very much like a very debunked concept of the Electrical Universe Hypothesis, mixed with a philosophical take on a number of interpretation of basic physics. Can I see some mathematical proofs for your hypothesis please.

I have a PhD in Physics, and I'd like to think my opinion holds some authority in a debate like this.

Wow! Cool!
I have a world cup semi final to watch. TTYL ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, moonman said:

I was never any good at proving my work, I always hated math. I thought you just wanted the answer, I missed the "and prove it" part.

I can't do that.

Well he did claim he was well versed in everything including maths. It's actually very simple. I'll post the proof if it's not posted in a few hours.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wow! Cool!
I have a world cup semi final to watch. TTYL ;)

Me too, hopefully Belgium can win this then beat Engerland in the final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Me too, hopefully Belgium can win this then beat Engerland in the final.

Love how the Belgians play, but my heart's with England

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

I'd say our universe is simulated in the sense that our experience at the macroscopic scale of events is a simulation created by the quantum scale of events. 

I'm wondering if it would be more efficient to create a completely deterministic simulation instead of a simulation that included quantum mechanics as its base? Why create all that complexity and spooky stuff? A useful simulation would only need to be simple enough and efficient enough to be convincing to those who are simulated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
23 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I'd say our universe is simulated in the sense that our experience at the macroscopic scale of events is a simulation created by the quantum scale of events. 

I'm wondering if it would be more efficient to create a completely deterministic simulation instead of a simulation that included quantum mechanics as its base? Why create all that complexity and spooky stuff? A useful simulation would only need to be simple enough and efficient enough to be convincing to those who are simulated. 

This is a philosophical debate rather than a scientific debate in my opinion, considering we really can prove it.....yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Mister Sci-nerd quy. You say you know everything. Can you answer the following and prove it thanks.

C=5/9(F−32)

The equation above shows how temperature F, measured in degrees Fahrenheit, relates to a temperature C, measured in degrees Celsius. Based on the equation, which of the following must be true?

A temperature increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit is equivalent to a temperature increase of 59 degree Celsius.


A temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius is equivalent to a temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Atemperature increase of 59 degree Fahrenheit is equivalent to a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius.

A. I only
B. II only
C. III only
D. I and II
 

 

I have a feeling this is a trick riddle?

The equation itself is just a converter between C & F.

I & III is false.

II is true.

Thus the answer must be B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

This is a philosophical debate rather than a scientific debate in my opinion, considering we really can prove it.....yet.

 

That is SO true! Philosophy is the interpretation of scientific results. This thread was never meant to be anything more than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

You say you know everything.

No no no! I know nothing! (Quote: Socrates) I know the overall results from each branch of science, which can change at any time, and is open for interpretation, but truly I know nothing!

I take the liberty to interpret the knowledge we have in the here and now. That's it. Tomorrow, everything we think we know, could be gone.

Share this post


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

I have a feeling this is a trick riddle?

The equation itself is just a converter between C & F.

I & III is false.

II is true.

Thus the answer must be B

Your half right and half wrong, yet you didn't provide a proof. So your claim about being an expert in the field of Mathematics is bogus.

Here is a simple proof. By the way the answer is D.

C=5/9(F−32)

or

C=(5/9)F − 5/9(32)

You can see the slope of the graph is 5/9, which means that for an increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit, the increase is 5/9 of 1 degree Celsius.

C=5/9(F)

C=5/9(1) = 5/9

Thus, statement I is true. This is the like saying that an increase of 1 degree C is equal to an increase of 9/5 degrees F.

C=5/9(F)

1=5/9(F)

(F)=9/5

Since 9/5 = 1.8, statement II is true.

The only answer that has both statement I and statement II as true is D, but if you want be thorough, you can see if statement III (an increase of 5/9 degree Fahrenheit is equal to a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius) is true:

C=5/9(F)

C=5/9(59)

C=25/81(whichis≠1)

An increase of 5/9 degree F leads to an increase of 25/81, not 1 degree, C, and so Statement III is not true.

Edit: apologise for the crappy equations I'm using my phone so can't do fractions. 5/9 is 5 over 9.

I also just seen your last post, apologise if I came across as a prick but we are forever having people claiming they know everything and when I read you initial post and seen a list of stuff I assumed you were stating I know everything about the stuff on the list, then I seen a year and seen red.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

So your claim about being an expert in the field of Mathematics is bogus.

Never claimed that. Just said I understand it. I'm an expert in nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

Never claimed that. Just said I understand it. I'm an expert in nothing.

I edited my last post to reflect your earlier post and statement. Also why I seen red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
17 minutes ago, danydandan said:

This is a philosophical debate rather than a scientific debate in my opinion, considering we really can prove it.....yet.

 

This is a philosophical debate, yet we ask the OP how good a mathematician he is and what is his science credentials. I suppose it is true that without a comprehensive understanding of the mathematical basis of these subjects, all our observations are philosophical. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

If all you want to do is discuss an idea, then maybe in the future refrain from posting about how "qualified" you are and how you "understand everything".

That might help you not come off as a pompous know-it-all.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, moonman said:

If all you want to do is discuss an idea, then maybe in the future refrain from posting about how "qualified" you are and how you "understand everything".

Never said I was qualified for anything. Understanding something is not equal to being an expert.

It seems most of you read more than I wrote in the OP.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I edited my last post to reflect your earlier post and statement. Also why I seen red.

Can you confirm that all particles in each their class (proton, electron, neutron e.t.c...) contain the same charge?

Example: All electrons contain the same charge.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

"One day I decided to learn everything there is to know about the universe. Everything. From quantum mechanics to black holes. It took me a year to learn everything, but it took me an additional two years to process and confirm everything."

That only reads one way to me - and it's not a good way. You have not "processed and confirmed" the workings of the universe nor have you "learned everything" in a year. No one has. No one can.

Just by typing that, nothing you say afterward can be taken seriously.

 

Edited by moonman

Share this post


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

Can you confirm that all particles in each their class (proton, electron, neutron e.t.c...) contain the same charge?

Example: All electrons contain the same charge.

Do you want me to go into great detail on what our standard model looks like now? Can I redirect you to an attempted article I wrote here?

Edit, as far as I can recall it describes the force carriers and particles, but a simple answer is electrons, negative, protons, positive, and neutrons contain no charge. So a simple answer is no.

Edited by danydandan

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.