Are We Simulated?

[caveman4.20]

this was a point of what i typed; and is built upon by squiggly, but without true explanation. The duality of atoms to some degree means that anything that exists in this "universe" has either an inverse or a replica in a seperate universe....this drove einstein to religion haha

There is a rumor of a conversation between Einstein and his professor debating duality and faith and Einstien changes his professors view.

 

[squiggly]

this was a point of what i typed; and is built upon by squiggly, but without true explanation. The duality of atoms to some degree means that anything that exists in this "universe" has either an inverse or a replica in a seperate universe....this drove einstein to religion haha

That's actually a statement of supersymmetry--not particle-wave duality. It's also not been confirmed, though it is widely believed to be the case.

Though you are correct to posit that Einstein was driven to religion by particle-wave duality. As many scientists before him, he made the ultimate mistake of apealing to a higher power when he found something he couldn't fully explain or understand. Scientists as far back as Galileo are guilty of as much, and almost every time it was later shown that God was not needed to explain the result.

Einstein was addicted to determinism. Most of his theories are deterministic. When confronted with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, he famously said that God does not play dice with creation. He ultimately proved himself wrong, because he was a scientist through and through.

 

[iCultivate]

This sort of thing does my head in. Hard to imagine that in a simulation there would be the amount of detail that there is present in our reality, down to atoms and particles and random critters crawling around in obscure areas...

-- iCultivate --

 

[deepthought]

That's actually a statement of supersymmetry--not particle-wave duality. It's also not been confirmed, though it is widely believed to be the case.

Though you are correct to posit that Einstein was driven to religion by particle-wave duality. As many scientists before him, he made the ultimate mistake of apealing to a higher power when he found something he couldn't fully explain or understand. Scientists as far back as Galileo are guilty of as much, and almost every time it was later shown that God was not needed to explain the result.

Einstein was addicted to determinism. Most of his theories are deterministic. When confronted with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, he famously said that God does not play dice with creation. He ultimately proved himself wrong, because he was a scientist through and through.

LOL When I first saw this thread I thought "Yep, that there is some Squiggly-bait"

 

[kolah]

I find stuff like this interesting. I have not had time to view some of the vids but once I do I will make some comments.

 

[entropy99]

Oh the irony, that if we do live in a simulation, then essentially there is actually a god - the dude that made the program!

 

[xX Kid Twist Xx]

Oh the irony, that if we do live in a simulation, then essentially there is actually a god - the dude that made the program!

but then that dude is living and is real

 

[entropy99]

but then that dude is living and is real

I know, but still a god to us. Presumably that guy lives in a simulation too. Just endless simulations within simulations...

 

[xX Kid Twist Xx]

I know, but still a god to us. Presumably that guy lives in a simulation too. Just endless simulations within simulations...

endless....

 

[entropy99]

So thinking about it, that dude is only a simulated creator, so we would be worshiping a simulation, who in turn worships a simulation in the false belief that simulation is actually God, and so on. Yes, I can see why this would hurt some people's heads. It certainly straining mine!

 

[Munchy]

Seamaiden, I'm in auto parts, so most of my customers come in unhappy that their vehicle is crapping on them. Most of them are nice, especially after I'd been there a few years, but many of them are unstable/right on the edge of losing it. I always have to be extra careful, like walking on eggshells. and then there's plenty of meth heads as well as naturally crazy people... but aside from all of those, the ones who are always just real assholes would be between 5-10%. but I've been around long enough that I usually see them before they see me. If I see someone coming who's flipped out on me before, I'd much rather go scrub the toilet while they wait in line. :)

squiggly, I do find it surprising that particles are waves until they are observed, and I don't think the fact that we can't see IR radiation makes that to be expected... apples and oranges. there are much higher implications than the scientific details, if you consider what this all really means to the nature of our reality, in the grand scheme of things, or at the next level... it's not enough to learn that things are so strange, and then figure ok, that's just how it is, but then if you think about... exactly why would things be that way? if there is evidence of computer clocking at the planck length scale, and recognizable error-checking computer code discovered concealed in superstring equations, along with all the other bits of evidence which suggest that we exist inside a quantum computer program... then who programmed it, and who uses it, and for what purpose? if our reality breaks down at the quantum level, as if we are in a simulation, then there must be a true reality at a higher dimension, where the quantum computer(s) were created and programmed. I don't recall anyone mentioning a holodeck before, but the theory has it that our brains are basically the holographic projectors, via the pineal gland and visual cortex, projecting our own bodies, as well as everything we see/sense around us... so it's more like we exist in cyberspace, much like players in the Sims, World of Warcraft or Second Life, except as sentient beings, with a lot more pixels.

btw, I don't mean to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs, nor argue about them, just trying clarify my take on it all.

 

[squiggly]

if there is evidence of computer clocking at the planck length scale, and recognizable error-checking computer code discovered concealed in superstring equations, along with all the other bits of evidence which suggest that we exist inside a quantum computer program... then who programmed it, and who uses it, and for what purpose? if our reality breaks down at the quantum level, as if we are in a simulation, then there must be a true reality at a higher dimension, where the quantum computer(s) were created and programmed.

The fact is that evidence isn't proof.

Realistically speaking we haven't nailed down quantum mechanics. We know things about it, but if I were to draw a comparison I'd say we're about where we were with deterministic physics pre-Einstein--which isn't to say that we know nothing, but rather is to suggest that what we're dealing with is likely to be vastly oversimplified.

That's quite a harrowing thought for anyone who has a bare minimum of expertise with quantum physics, because the model we have now is thoroughly complicated and difficult to work within.

It's important to understand that this "error code" is nested within equations which are meant to describe not one, but two, theories which remain 100% unverified and which are next-to-impossible to to experiment with or verify/falsify.

This doesn't qualify as science (science must be testable and repeatable as a bare minimum for entry). It is, instead, a very advanced mathematical exercise. It's mathematical modeling at it's best, but that doesn't always tell the whole story. In fact, for most systems we find that math is typically vastly oversimplified. Math suffers from something known as ideality bias, which is to say that--because there are so many objects to model, all the way down to quantum particles--it is very difficult to nest a REAL description of the world into an equation. When we model systems mathematically and then go test the results, what we often find is that there is a range of values wherein the model predicts quite well the behavior of the system--however there is a limit to the ideality of the system. Outside of the ideal range we must use MUCH more advanced mathematics to describe the state of a system. This is true for even the most BASIC of equations and well understood physical concepts. Take the gas law for instance, essentially the basis for all thermodynamics.

This law, after a great deal of testing, has become known as the ideal gas law. Unfortunately, ideal gasses and the conditions which describe them are extremely diminutive and fail to describe most of reality.

Instead, to describe a much large portion of gas behavior we use the following equation:

It is often posited, and very likely to be the case, that string theory will ultimately also be found (if it is ever confirmed in the slightest) to suffer from this ideality bias. Ultimately it is likely that, as with the gas equation, a whole slew of "fudge factors" will need to be added in order to make good predictions about the system. The truth is that with real systems the math very often doesn't work out perfectly. It's only meant to be used as a model which can guide discovery, not as an absolute answer to the questions of the universe.

 

[neverbreak]

hectic thinkin about this kinda shit.

neverbreak

 

[deepthought]

The fact is that evidence isn't proof.

Realistically speaking we haven't nailed down quantum mechanics. We know things about it, but if I were to draw a comparison I'd say we're about where we were with deterministic physics pre-Einstein--which isn't to say that we know nothing, but rather is to suggest that what we're dealing with is likely to be vastly oversimplified.

That's quite a harrowing thought for anyone who has a bare minimum of expertise with quantum physics, because the model we have now is thoroughly complicated and difficult to work within.

It's important to understand that this "error code" is nested within equations which are meant to describe not one, but two, theories which remain 100% unverified and which are next-to-impossible to to experiment with or verify/falsify.

This doesn't qualify as science (science must be testable and repeatable as a bare minimum for entry). It is, instead, a very advanced mathematical exercise. It's mathematical modeling at it's best, but that doesn't always tell the whole story. In fact, for most systems we find that math is typically vastly oversimplified. Math suffers from something known as ideality bias, which is to say that--because there are so many objects to model, all the way down to quantum particles--it is very difficult to nest a REAL description of the world into an equation. When we model systems mathematically and then go test the results, what we often find is that there is a range of values wherein the model predicts quite well the behavior of the system--however there is a limit to the ideality of the system. Outside of the ideal range we must use MUCH more advanced mathematics to describe the state of a system. This is true for even the most BASIC of equations and well understood physical concepts. Take the gas law for instance, essentially the basis for all thermodynamics.

This law, after a great deal of testing, has become known as the ideal gas law. Unfortunately, ideal gasses and the conditions which describe them are extremely diminutive and fail to describe most of reality.

Instead, to describe a much large portion of gas behavior we use the following equation:

It is often posited, and very likely to be the case, that string theory will ultimately also be found (if it is ever confirmed in the slightest) to suffer from this ideality bias. Ultimately it is likely that, as with the gas equation, a whole slew of "fudge factors" will need to be added in order to make good predictions about the system. The truth is that with real systems the math very often doesn't work out perfectly. It's only meant to be used as a model which can guide discovery, not as an absolute answer to the questions of the universe.

Interesting stuff. Very interesting thread. I thought about joining in but my thoughts are somewhat off topic so I decided that I will share them at a later date, in a separate post.

 

[kolah]

Haven't seen any of the vids yet but does any of them pertain to Sumerian and Annunaki stories. I kinda dig that stuff.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

That's actually a statement of supersymmetry--not particle-wave duality. It's also not been confirmed, though it is widely believed to be the case.

Though you are correct to posit that Einstein was driven to religion by particle-wave duality. As many scientists before him, he made the ultimate mistake of apealing to a higher power when he found something he couldn't fully explain or understand. Scientists as far back as Galileo are guilty of as much, and almost every time it was later shown that God was not needed to explain the result.

Einstein was addicted to determinism. Most of his theories are deterministic. When confronted with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, he famously said that God does not play dice with creation. He ultimately proved himself wrong, because he was a scientist through and through.

I'm typing of particle wave duality; and it has now been proven, do your research. Here's a qoute for yeah; " A scientist without faith, is a fool" . I feel your field and knowledge of science as a whole is somewhat limited. College is meant to do that to a person. alls i can say is be proficient in as many fields of science as possile and faith will be an ultimatum which you can not run from. Also i would suggest reading through the united nations dialog that talks about faith and science and how current college is creating what they quote as "dumb" science; and therefor dumb scientist; not to say their not knowledgable or educated. faith from science requires deep-thought. rather then leadership that is imprinted upon young college students from dumb professors. hope alls well squiggs =))

 

[Ohiofarmer]

LOL When I first saw this thread I thought "Yep, that there is some Squiggly-bait"

ahahahaha, great minds think alike!

 

[squiggly]

I'm typing of particle wave duality; and it has now been proven, do your research. Here's a qoute for yeah; " A scientist without faith, is a fool" . I feel your field and knowledge of science as a whole is somewhat limited. College is meant to do that to a person. alls i can say is be proficient in as many fields of science as possile and faith will be an ultimatum which you can not run from. Also i would suggest reading through the united nations dialog that talks about faith and science and how current college is creating what they quote as "dumb" science; and therefor dumb scientist; not to say their not knowledgable or educated. faith from science requires deep-thought. rather then leadership that is imprinted upon young college students from dumb professors. hope alls well squiggs =))

Particle-wave duality has been demonstrated (many times--even in quite large molecules now). Supersymmetry has not. I apologize if you misunderstood my separation of the two.

As a person who has been performing and publishing his own research for several years now I resent the implication that I am, or have been directed to be, a "dumb" scientist. I work under one of the most genius men I've ever come to know, and that's saying quite a bit. He's had every intention since day one of our meeting (in freshman orgo) of making me into the best possible scientist I can be.

Reality is not a statistic, and even if a great deal of the students in this country are under the tutelage of poor teachers using a poor curriculum, that is not the way I've been educated at this university. Science in practice is compartmentalized, but in reality some of the best chemistry discoveries come from physicists and vice versa and so on with other scientific disciplines. Biology has rocketed materials science to places we never thought it'd go.

Real scientists are trained in how to model, measure, and analyze the physical properties of any number of systems. They don't shove us in a chem lab and pretend like chemistry is a thing unto itself. It may be the central science, but chemistry is not science.

Science is science. Chemistry is just a part of that. As it happens, that's why I know that supersymmetry (a particle physics concept) has not be demonstrated and particle-wave duality (same) has.

In fact I can operate most of the equations for you which describe both the particle and wave properties of atomic and molecular systems.

Edited to add--also subatomic systems, if it please you.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

Particle-wave duality has been demonstrated (many times--even in quite large molecules now). Supersymmetry has not. I apologize if you misunderstood my separation of the two.

As a person who has been performing and publishing his own research for several years now I resent the implication that I am, or have been directed to be, a "dumb" scientist. I work under one of the most genius men I've ever come to know, and that's saying quite a bit. He's had every intention since day one of our meeting (in freshman orgo) of making me into the best possible scientist I can be.

Reality is not a statistic, and even if a great deal of the students in this country are under the tutelage of poor teachers using a poor curriculum, that is not the way I've been educated at this university. Science in practice is compartmentalized, but in reality some of the best chemistry discoveries come from physicists and vice versa and so on with other scientific disciplines. Biology has rocketed materials science to places we never thought it'd go.

Real scientists are trained in how to model, measure, and analyze the physical properties of any number of systems. They don't shove us in a chem lab and pretend like chemistry is a thing unto itself. It may be the central science, but chemistry is not science.

Science is science. Chemistry is just a part of that. As it happens, that's why I know that supersymmetry (a particle physics concept) has not be demonstrated and particle-wave duality (same) has.

In fact I can operate most of the equations for you which describe both the particle and wave properties of atomic and molecular systems.

Edited to add--also subatomic systems, if it please you.

I agree, to an extent; my main point is that science as a whole the way it is being taught is creating scientist with tunnel vision. can science explain everything around us; no it cannot, not currently atleast(and not for a very long time), but scientists are being educated as if science is the end all know all; which it's not, in essence i believe scientists now lack wisdom in the results they see and how too "connect the dots" between the different theories. This is where i believe einstein and all the lot; along with tesla where genius, is that they understood that science is not the end all know all, and excepted that science itself explains that there is always something greater; how does science explain "consciousness or the soul"; well up unto a few years ago it was explained as the bio-chemical process of death. But new confirmed research is coming fourth which cannot be explained via the current view of science. einsteins faith and spirituality is in the end what makes great scientists; where as the opposite of which creates great researchers, which is what i believe your mentor is creating in you; a fantastic researcher. Science has created all the technology around us, currently it's also that technology which is killing the planet; so was it really good science that created the technology around us? technology that destroys the one who created it is bad science. so science in essence without spirituality is it's own cancer. Now the research here says " yeah but that doesn't matter b/c our knowledge is increasing so quickly that we'll figure out a solution", which isn't the case: science cannot solve or answer all problems or provide viable solutions too all things, that is why it's important to nurture spirituality in young scientists not make it a bane to science our to laugh it off as kooky.....Also in terms of Supersymmetry, i believe(hasen't been proven at all, but then again very little has been proven in this field thus far), that in the future supersymmetry and particle-wave duality will be seen as functions of eachother. And supersymmetry has been proven to exists, but too what degree and the effects in different circumstances has not........Also keep in mind, the best researchers back in the day, unequivocally agreed that the earth was flat, so again science is not an end all know all...when your squigg body lies still hopefully years and years from now i know you will see this.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

also take a look at the U.N. agenda where the brightest minds in science from countries all over the world came together and unanimously agreed that spirituality is not just "a good idea for creating good science" but is fundamental to good science and too furthuring our race in a sustainable way