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 -

Do we live in a self-simulating universe ?


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

What evidence?

Mainly duality, which entails everything we look at, or work with.
Please note that I didn't say proof. I know it's a question of interpretation. But when it comes to duality, you either refuse to interpret it, or you admit that it looks exactly like a GPU response.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Mainly duality, which entails everything we look at, or work with.
Please note that I didn't say proof. I know it's a question of interpretation. But when it comes to duality, you either refuse to interpret it, or you admit that it looks exactly like a GPU response.

Duality of what?  Obviously not scientific evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Duality of what?  Obviously not scientific evidence.

That's not for you to decide.

You're obviously an opponent, so no need to continue this.

Quote

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.
....
When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

Conclusion: Scientific evidence is a matter of interpretation.

Edited by sci-nerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

That's not for you to decide.

You're obviously an opponent, so no need to continue this.

Does it satisfy the scientific method?

 

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

Conclusion: Scientific evidence is a matter of interpretation.

Read it again, namely this part; "they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Does it satisfy the scientific method?

For duality it's a bit tricky, because the evidence from the experiments came before any hypothesis. It came as a complete surprize. No one knew what it meant.
Most people gave up figuring out what it meant, so they decided that it didn't mean anything. It just was the way it was.
But now, a century later, we finally found something that has the exact same mechanism. We found a possible explanation. Graphics processing.
So are we gonna keep denying that explanation? Are we gonna keep claiming that there is no causality in QM? (And thereby that a causal universe derives from a non-causal source?)
Also, there is a logical inconsistency with the observer effect: What collapsed the wave function before mankind came about 300,000 years ago? Before the first observers?
It all only makes sense, if we live in a virtual environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulation second 
436,117,076,646,564,786 = Sim 8,764,937,484 born

Simulation second 436,117,079,244,842,493 = Sim 8,764,937,484 dead

Thanks for playing

Net change = 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was actually a real experiment made with gravitational waves in Germany some 12 years ago. Was called Geo 600 and they say its proving the theory of holographic universe.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203130708.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

For duality it's a bit tricky, because the evidence from the experiments came before any hypothesis. It came as a complete surprize.

Duality of what?

 

11 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Also, there is a logical inconsistency with the observer effect: What collapsed the wave function before mankind came about 300,000 years ago? Before the first observers?

Decoherence doesn't need observers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Duality of what?

Would be interested to have this explained also.

Watched a youtube vid from these people (well, as much of it as i could take) and from a non physicist's perspective it seemed like some new age religious quasi science, similar in some ways to "What the bleep do we know". There were enough partial truths, misleading claims about real science, assumptions and illogic all mashed up together (to support a pre existing belief?), that it wasn't worth watching the whole thing.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 10:22 AM, Rlyeh said:

Duality of what?

22 hours ago, Horta said:

Would be interested to have this explained also.

How can You be in doubt, when I also mention the observer effect and the collapse of the wave function in the same post?

As far as I know, there's only one other kind of duality, and that's body/soul duality, which is a totally different subject. Sorry, there are many, but none of them are connected to the collapse of the wave function and the observer effect. Only one is.

Edited by sci-nerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 10:22 AM, Rlyeh said:

Decoherence doesn't need observers.

Decoherence is not a quantum phenomena per se. It's just contamination of an experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

How can You be in doubt, when I also mention the observer effect and the collapse of the wave function in the same post?

That's not much of an explanation to the question "duality of what" re the topic. That's just a claim that it is relevant.

Quote

 Sorry, there are many, but none of them are connected to the collapse of the wave function and the observer effect. Only one is.

Yes there are many forms of duality. Hot/cold, light/dark, big/small, science/woo. My theory is that the universe was held in abeyance at the quantum level for billions of years waiting for mammals to evolve and get a PhD before before all of these wave functions could start collapsing lol. Is the moon there when you're not looking?

These people are promoting a form of panpsychism. That's actually an interesting topic, although it has no direct evidence to support it and they don't really provide any. It can only be an assumption at this stage, and seems similar to claiming "god" as the explanation for unexplained phenomena.

Quote

Decoherence is not a quantum phenomena per se. It's just contamination of an experiment.

Decoherance is a thing, isn't that why they have to perform certain experiments at (near) absolute zero? 

In a similar way couldn't we also say that thunderstorms are not really a weather phenomena per se, they're just a contamination of a sunny day lol?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Horta said:

That's not much of an explanation to the question "duality of what" re the topic. That's just a claim that it is relevant.

Fine, have it your way. I'm talking about wave-particle duality. Please save this post to your hard drive for future reference, in case you forget.

45 minutes ago, Horta said:

My theory is that the universe was held in abeyance at the quantum level for billions of years waiting for mammals to evolve and get a PhD before before all of these wave functions could start collapsing lol.

I like you! :D

45 minutes ago, Horta said:

 Is the moon there when you're not looking?

There's always somebody looking, so it'd be a waste of surveillance resources to keep track to eventually remove it :D

45 minutes ago, Horta said:

These people are promoting a form of panpsychism.

I am not a supporter of QGR, although we do share some views. But then again, everybody shares views with everybody, if you split enough hairs.

45 minutes ago, Horta said:

Decoherance is a thing, isn't that why they have to perform certain experiments at (near) absolute zero? 

In a similar way couldn't we also say that thunderstorms are not really a weather phenomena per se, they're just a contamination of a sunny day lol?

Yes, it is a thing. It is quantum experiment contamination. It is the thing that ruins the experiment. I'd compare it to light in a darkroom, if you're familiar with old school photographic processing.

Edited by sci-nerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the fek next?? hasn't the LA-based theoretical physics institute got anything better to do with their time & money?? fekin stupid:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Fine, have it your way. I'm talking about wave-particle duality. Please save this post to your hard drive for future reference, in case you forget.

I like you! :D

There's always somebody looking, so it'd be a waste of surveillance resources to keep track to eventually remove it :D

I am not a supporter of QGR, although we do share some views. But then again, everybody shares views with everybody, if you split enough hairs.

Yes, it is a thing. It is quantum experiment contamination. It is the thing that ruins the experiment. I'd compare it to light in a darkroom, if you're familiar with old school photographic processing.

Unless I'm mistaken it is observed in nature as being integral to certain processes. Isn't decoherence times one of the problems Hameroff and Penrose had to overcome had in their pet idea (Orch-OR)? Unless you're saying that the normal function of the brain (namely the processes of microtubules in neurons) amount to an experiment? What about other biological systems where decoherence times are integral to the process itself. The "compass" in certain bird species, photosynthesis? If these ideas are correct, decoherence definitely does exist outside of experiment.

Aren't you really saying that in a "hypothetical" perfect system (that doesn't seem to exist in nature) decoherence isn't a thing? The fact that this can never be observed makes it highly theoretical in itself doesn't it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

How can You be in doubt, when I also mention the observer effect and the collapse of the wave function in the same post?

As far as I know, there's only one other kind of duality, and that's body/soul duality, which is a totally different subject. Sorry, there are many, but none of them are connected to the collapse of the wave function and the observer effect. Only one is.

I think you'll find some interpretations don't even have the wave function collapse.

Anyway the "wave function collapse" occurs for non-humans.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

Fine, have it your way. I'm talking about wave-particle duality. Please save this post to your hard drive for future reference, in case you forget.

What I don't get is the profound significance you seem to have attached to this. There seems to be more that you haven't elaborated on. Why is this so significant, are you claiming some deeper understanding of it, or its implications?

Edited by Horta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Horta said:

What I don't get is the profound significance you seem to have attached to this. There seems to be more that you haven't elaborated on. Why is this so significant, are you claiming some deeper understanding of it, or its implications?

Well, everything is made of particles -> atoms -> molecules (all displaying duality), so if they behave odd, it makes everything odd. That is pure logic.
The implication is that reality adapts to us, but sadly that's a fact that most people ignore or deny. But it does.
The universe might not be a simulation, but it behaves exactly like one. It behaves like a huge holographic projection, only showing us what is necessary / what we look at / what we measure.

On 5/1/2020 at 9:38 AM, Rlyeh said:

Anyway the "wave function collapse" occurs for non-humans.

How do we know that it collapsed for a machine? Did someone read the machine? ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

How do we know that it collapsed for a machine? Did someone read the machine? ;)

How do I know it collapses for other people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

This hypothesis is just another example of pan-psychichism,  which claims all matter is not truly tangible and physical but rather a product of conscious thought processes. It's Pierre Tielhard de Chardin's "noosphere" writ large.

It's basically the infamous Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

Hmm...Not really.  The VN-W theory concerns the wave function of a particle in QM, and how it's thought to collapse when observed. It really doesn't address matter being driven by consciousness at all. VNW is more of a "Schroedinger's Cat" thing.

In the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation only consciousness collapses the wave function, that is any matter affected by quantum physics exists in superposition until the chain is collapsed by a conscious observer.  How is that any different to what you're saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2020 at 4:58 AM, Tuco's Gas said:

This hypothesis is just another example of pan-psychichism,  which claims all matter is not truly tangible and physical but rather a product of conscious thought processes.

Not quite. According to the hypothesis, our thoughts does not make anything appear or disappear. It's our attention that is the key factor.

On 5/3/2020 at 4:58 AM, Tuco's Gas said:

And to me, it just poses more questions than it answers. Worse, it actually answers no questions.

Let me guess. Your questions are all related to the supposed "real world outside the simulation"?
If that's the case, then it's no longer science. Science is only about this universe, and nothing else.
Should science one day conclude that this is a simulation (that will never happen!), then it will do so based on facts about our universe, and not based on speculations about who made it, why it was made or how they made it. Pre-Big Bang, or other universes, will never be included in science, other than as philosophical speculation.

On 5/3/2020 at 4:58 AM, Tuco's Gas said:

Why no glitches?

Maybe your expectations of glitches, is not the glitches that actually occur.
You should also be aware that glitches could be outside our perspective, as in 'only visible from the outside'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Sci-Nerd that the simulation hypothesis has merit and is supported by observation.  He has listed some of these facts.  I watched a nice summary of it some time ago on YouTube and several aspects that support a simulation are compelling, IMO.  As time permits, I’ll try to offer a summary of the main points from that presentation here.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm substantially ignorant on the subject... So, I've been reading a bit about the idea of a simulated universe...maybe that's partially why the term SELF- simulating confuses me.  I can sort of understand the idea of a simulated universe... A simulation created by an outside force or entity....   but a SELF simulating universe?   I don't get it.

Plus, a simulation would be some sort of,  not quite real,  copy of something that does EXIST?   So' a SELF simulation would be something . . simulating . . Itself.     Odd.

Edited by lightly
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, lightly said:

I'm substantially ignorant on the subject... So, I've been reading a bit about the idea of a simulated universe...maybe that's partially why the term SELF- simulating confuses me.  I can sort of understand the idea of a simulated universe... A simulation created by an outside force or entity....   but a SELF simulating universe?   I don't get it.

Plus, a simulation would be some sort of,  not quite real,  copy of something that does EXIST?   So' a SELF simulation would be something . . simulating . . Itself.     Odd.

Yes, I agree....the “self” part is a bit confusing.  I’m just sticking with the “simulation” aspect of this discussion.  If we live in some type of simulated reality, that is different from what we would expect reality to be, then it does seem that the notion of “self simulation” is redundant in my mind.  A simulation is a simulation and as such would be the system itself.  So, yeah, I don’t get the reason for saying it that way either.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.