The universe is a digital simulation...

This is a very interesting whitepaper that uses science to come to the conclusion that our universe is, in fact, a digital simulation, and is right in line with my thoughts on the subject, in fact, I've made many of the same points. Thoughts? (Please, before posting your thoughts, actually READ it, don't just go off half-cocked based on what you think it might say...)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dvel8yl1i9odmuz/What is Reality 4.pdf

 

I read it twice, but it's still beyond my ability to understand the science. But that's just me. However it did occur to me that in a way it's a little similar to the brain-in-a-vat conjecture.

 

Skimmed it. Basically the author doesn't like the idea of quantum physics, and has arrived at the very unnecessary conclusion that we're living in a simulation. The universe works the way it works; it doesn't care what one person thinks "makes sense".

 

How is representing a digital universe pi (=3,141592654...) without transzendence? Why are not [endless] many shortest ways between two points in the reality of a digital universe ? Why do we not see dissapear from time to time a part of the universe and see it come back on another place? Why is light-speed (and time) a problem if someone likes to travel through the (probably existing?) digital universe? ...

By the way: The Schroedinger formula is beautiful also in case someone has no idea what this formula says - Beauty is also an indicator for truth. And the existance of a car (or house or universe) says not really very much about the structure and mind of the driver (or house-owner or ¿god?) - although it says not really nothing about the driver (or house-owner or ¿god?). To find out that natural science says anything like "god is not existing" - what your link says - is an unbelievable nonsense. Example: For a dog mathematics is not exisiting and there's no way to prove anything for a dog in case of mathematics - but this doesn't mean mathematics is not existing. Natural Scientists are using for example the paradigma: "There's only one truth in this world" - that's very similiar to the monothestic statement "There's only one god". All scientists - not only natural scientists - are not using this paradigma on their own free will, because otherwise they would accept a reality where contradictions are really normal - and that's not the way of natural science. Contradiocsions are only the way of our minds and discussions and societies. The theme of physics is nature and not [anti-]theology or political science or ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80

 

Only if no one takes care the universe doesn't take care - if someone takes care then the universe takes care. We are the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-Q5Wq_uKI

 

I read it, it's ridiculous. On several occasions, he ignores the current understanding of physics and just concludes that some concepts "make no sense", he writes, without justification, things like "Religion is a cancer upon mankind", makes many assumptions about God, physics, consciousness and what we call reality. He displays a lack of understanding of quantum physics and general relativity.

 

How do you come to that conclusion? Seems to me it solves the problems with QM quite elegantly.

 

An idea like that will solve any problem by claiming that the simulation is designed to work that way. What problems would you say it is solving?

Most of the time, he avoids the link between the results he is quoting and his theory and when he addresses it, he is very wishy washy. For instance:

"It may only be one in a million, or even one
in a billion, but if you have billions of atoms inside our hypothetical balloon, one in a billion is, from time
to time, when measured, going to actually happen. Experiments have verified that it [quantum tunnelling] in fact does.
Further evidence that stuff in our universe isn’t stuff at all, but is simply probable stuff until someone
comes along to see where it is. Such a thing cannot occur in a physically real environment, but MUST
occur in a calculated simulation."

He only uses his own understanding of what can happen in a physically real environment. He ignores the fact that it is allowed and even required for a quantum understanding of the universe. Also, we know that the universe follows laws that can be described by mathematical calculations, so identifying that simulations can mimic reality isn't exactly rocket science. I do however not agree that tunnelling must occur in a calculated simulation, I can imagine many simulations that will not have quantum tunnelling. If I was to design a world, I certainly wouldn't add that.

 

Absolutely, it can be done. But the point is, matter is not matter, it's a calculated probability distribution. Which is why in the double slit experiment particles seem to exist in 2 places at once and interfere with themselves, and explains why particles can penetrate an impenetrable barrier.

 

It would seem from reading this article that we are 'time-space limited' and reality is but a moment in our time of observance. That all is relative and must be qualified by several factors.

Altho 'digital' is a one-zero,on-off quantity, the universe to me appears as 'analog' having varying degrees, as why not everything is 'black & white' and evident in certainty. The 'relativeness' of all is varying pending many things. Also why organization & chaos can both be true..

 

Yes, this is all standard quantum physics, it requires simulation to no higher extent that it requires any reality.

I assume that when you say "matter is not matter", what you mean is that matter does not act the way we intuitively think it would act, not that it is "not matter". However, that is a flaw in most people's intuitive understanding of matter (to not include quantum), not evidence that the world is a simulation.

 

Thoughts? It's mental masturbation and a complete waste of time. We must deal with reality as it manifests itself. There is no other option. If the reality is that we live in a massive simulation, so what? Don't waste time with this kind of crap! Use your mental energy for something usefull!

 

Then explain why the human mind focusing in an effort to change the experiment actually does?

[video=youtube;wJwsSbiVE2g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wJwsSbiVE2g[/video]

 

Show me a peer reviewed paper in a respected journal, and then we'll talk.

 

The "it-bit" idea is very interesting from the point of view of Artificial Intelligence, too.

As computers have demonstrated, the universe can be transformed into bit information which allows computers to interact with Reality uwing the same kind of interface as we connect through our seven senses. Computers can smell, see, hear, etc.

Man has created his own view of the world external to himself by interpreting what his seven senses might be telling him about it.
Even man's own appearance, and his physical body is something which man has mentally deduced about himself.
In every case, the information has been digitized by his neurons discharging and bit by bit describing the world beyond the mind inside his skull.

 

Hmmmm...

What Kevin concludes is rather supportive of Theistic Evolution theology which itself assumes that the Bible is factual and must find endorsement in empirical sciences as facts present themselves that under right what a God has reveal in scripture.

This guy Kevin concludes that our Consciousness is a small part of a larger Consciousness which we are unaware of.
This Unconscious mind inside our own head has been verified as rather dominant in our life decisions and sort of a third eye that we are unaware of, looking over our shoulder at all times, and actuaally intercoursing with other people unnoticed by ourselves.
It also follows that there is a world of the Unconscious minds of all men, a Collective Unconsciousness that acts as a shepherd over humanity in general.


What this article says explicitly is supported in Revelation directly, in regard to the idea that there is no death.
The article confirms the statement that Light is Christ, which itself is a euphemism for The Truth.

Very interesting Quantum Science in its relationship to the bible, indeed:






Revelation 21:4-5
And God, (blessing them with Total Phylogenetic Consciousness: [Carl Jung]), shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind: [Freudian Hypothesis]), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a genetically remember able, a continuum, we shall remember from one generation to the next living generation); and,
(in genetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) there shall be no more death... (For we shall not all "sleep:" [1Co15:51], but total phylogenetic Consciousness will have evolved), neither sorrow... (For we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our own past, flowers upon our genetic vine), nor crying,.. (for we are happy in these revelations of reconstitution from our human gene pool), neither shall there be any more pain, (as men will have neurological control, a self-hypnotic ability to stop the nerve signals to the brain),... for the former things (in Modern Homo sapiens paradigm of the life experience) are passed away.
And he, (the Christ, the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind in their own Kingdom within), that sat upon the throne (within the kingdom of the evolving Homoiousian sapiens' brain: [Luke 17:21]) said, Behold, (in this way, through evolution: [Gen 9:11-18]), I make all things (in human experience) new.
And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true, (i.e.; words of Christ himself, who is the experiential presence of Truth in us, rational, the Unconscious mind), and (worthy of) faithful (belief).

 

In the beginning was the bit
And after that came the rest of the weird world, says Hans Christian von Baeyer

The atom of information is the bit--the quantity contained in the answer to a yes or no question. If experiments are questions we ask of nature, then the simplest of them have yes or no answers: "Did the photon arrive here, or not?", "Did the counter click, or not?" We can also ask more complex questions, but they can always be built up from simpler yes or no questions like these.

Zeilinger's conceptual leap is to associate bits with the building blocks of the material world. In quantum mechanics, these building blocks are called elementary systems, and the archetypal elementary system is the spin of an electron. The only possible outcomes of measuring an electron's spin are "up" and "down". You can choose any axis to measure the spin along--vertical, horizontal or tilted--but once that axis is chosen, only the two results are possible, as if the electron were a spinning top that can be one way up or the other, but can't point to any intermediate direction. These outcomes could just as well be labelled "yes" and "no", or, in the fashion of digital computers, "1" and "0".



Hans Christian von Baeyer is a physicist and writer based at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.
From New Scientist magazine, 17 February 2001.

Further reading:

"A Foundational Principle for Quantum Mechanics" by Anton Zeilinger, Foundations of Physics, vol 29, p 631 (April 1999)
www.quantum.at


http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/links/newscientist/bit.html

 

Man, you are a brilliant spin artist. The contents of the paper are completely incompatible with the buybull being legit. Nice try though.

 

Well, the idea of a holographic universe isn't exactly new, but it does solve certain problems, such as observation changing the result in the double slit experiment to make the particles act like particles instead of waves. While it has been established for some time now that consciousness does indeed influence reality, one thing I have not been able to find anything out about is non-human observation. Not by machines- that has been shown to not work until the results are viewed. But what about animals? Microbes? Is all life capable of this influence?

 

I fail to see how that's relevant to anything.

 

Source?

 

Well, in the case of the double-slit no life form is capable of directly observing it so the question is kinda moot. When I explain this idea to people I use the analogy that when a tree falls in the forest, not only does it not make a noise, there is no forest, there is no tree, and the tree only "probably" fell. However, that is an explanatory but thawed analogy, for it ignores other conscious beings like squirrels, bears, woodpeckers, and any other form of life present in the forest, because their observations do indeed count. So I'd say if there was a form of life capable of direct observation of the electron passing through the slits, it would indeed collapse the p-wave, unless it died before the electron hit the back wall.

 

Enjoy! I'd get some coffee if I were you...

https://www.google.com/webhp?source....r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.eWU&biw=1600&bih=837

 

*Sigh* Ok, let's try this again:

Reputable source?

The default position is that a human brain is nothing special, and scientific consensus largely reflects that. The "observer" in quantum mechanics is anything making a measurement, conscious or otherwise. If someone claims that consciousness is somehow different, they have to back to that up.

 

Here's one for you: Delayed Choice Quantum eraser. Google is your friend.