Universe A Matrix Computer Game Designed By Aliens, Say NASA

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Korg Trinity

From the link.

While tests performed on samples can never unequivocally prove that a sequence is random (in fact, we know the digits of pi are not random, since we know formulas to generate them) the apparent randomness in pi is consistent with the idea that it contains all finite sequences (or, at least, all fairly short ones). In particular, if we generate a number from an infinite stream of digits selected uniformly at random, then there is a probability of 100% that such a number contains each and every finite sequences of digits, and pi has the appearance of being statistically random.

The statement itself is flawed.

Although this article recognizes that an infinite stream of randomness gives 100% chance of giving any number.... it then contradicts itself by stating that it would exhibit every finite sequence....

This is a paradox... wouldn't you say??

a reply to: Vaedur

That's where fractal time comes in.
Simulation of a simulation of a simulation etc

which nice shiney fractal infinite complexity.

Time isn't that special, just another dimension like any other.
the "magic" comes from the relationship between one and the other - which is what they are trying to work out.

I think in this theory, we are also more or less "fixed" in all dimensions "except" time.
and the world/universe as we perceive it is just us meandering through the fractal.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I'm personally a little loath to use the percentage of "100%", and I think the article was wrong in using it as well (especially since it admits at the beginning of the article that this isn't settled among mathematicians). Perhaps your reasoning is why this isn't a universal concept. I was just posting it because I find it interesting and if true makes it hard for the universe to be a simulation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I'm personally a little loath to use the percentage of "100%", and I think the article was wrong in using it as well (especially since it admits at the beginning of the article that this isn't settled among mathematicians). Perhaps your reasoning is why this isn't a universal concept. I was just posting it because I find it interesting and if true makes it hard for the universe to be a simulation.

Agreed.

a reply to: mSparks43

Time isn't that special, just another dimension like any other.
the "magic" comes from the relationship between one and the other - which is what they are trying to work out.

Perhaps, but imo "time" is an artificial construct that man invented to make sense of the environment. And like all things made by man; has the propensity to **** up from time to time. Thus the apparent glitches some experience.

in5d.com...

a reply to: Korg Trinity

no

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: mSparks43

Time isn't that special, just another dimension like any other.
the "magic" comes from the relationship between one and the other - which is what they are trying to work out.

Perhaps, but imo "time" is an artificial construct that man invented to make sense of the environment. And like all things made by man; has the propensity to **** up from time to time.

I often hear this and I have to wonder at the reasoning.

Time existed before humans attempted to measure it's passage.

Saying humans created time is like saying humans created space....

Can you see where you have gone wrong?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

because humans DID invent time. Time is a crude measurement that is completely local in its usefulness.

The actual measurement would be something different, like "frame rate" or something. But time...it is completely unsatisfactory for use beyond mundane Earthly existence.

ETA: i suspect the inclusion of time in physics might be part of the problem with a unified theory coming out any time soon. We are measuring a shadows movement as from a 2d perspective, basically.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

No, time isn't a measurement.

Time is a concept.
Seconds/Minutes/Hours etc are measurements of time.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Korg Trinity

because humans DID invent time. Time is a crude measurement that is completely local in its usefulness.

The actual measurement would be something different, like "frame rate" or something. But time...it is completely unsatisfactory for use beyond mundane Earthly existence.

ETA: i suspect the inclusion of time in physics might be part of the problem with a unified theory coming out any time soon. We are measuring a shadows movement as from a 2d perspective, basically.

I must respectfully disagree. Humans did not invent time and it is not arbitrary. Nothing happens but that time passes. Try and walk to the other side of the room. Unless time passes, you will go nowhere. We may have quantified time, but we did not invent it. Time is real and it affects everything.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Korg Trinity

no

This is using Different Sets... as I stated it is possible to have larger sets that includes infinities... Such as an infinity of Fractions would be larger than an infinity of whole numbers... Which is used in various ways to calculate varying degrees of curvature for example...

However... that is not the same as the kind of Infinity we talk about when we talk about infinity concerning the universe, which is all there is, was and will be conserving space-time. That is not a comparison of sets.... it is as is...

I'm sure you have heard the over used expression 'with infinite time a monkey could type the whole works of Shakespeare out on a typewriter' although you would also need an immortal monkey and an infinite amount of paper and ink... the premise is correct.

Because if the universe were infinite then all things that can happen will happen and Pi would contain a never ending sequence of numbers.

Do you follow?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Korg Trinity

because humans DID invent time. Time is a crude measurement that is completely local in its usefulness.

The actual measurement would be something different, like "frame rate" or something. But time...it is completely unsatisfactory for use beyond mundane Earthly existence.

ETA: i suspect the inclusion of time in physics might be part of the problem with a unified theory coming out any time soon. We are measuring a shadows movement as from a 2d perspective, basically.

I suggest you learn more about both General and Special Relativity before you discuss this further...

originally posted by: Vaedur

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: olaru12

Ironically if true that will be the easiest explanation for the universe.

I guess, except who invented our overlords universe?

1001111010000001111010000000000011111101010

a reply to: jaffo

Yes, "time" is real. But like gravity, we have no idea what it is.

And its wholly relative nature makes it utterly useless outside of the narrow scope of our locality. It is a meaningless concept meant to measure something else entirely. What is that "something"? I don't know. But another way of putting it (wrongly) would be 'frame rate". I heard someone once call it "changes of state". Whatever it is, it isn't time. Time is just a tool we invented to measure something related.

Time, like gravity, is something we all can discuss, measure, and claim to understand. But we don't. We don't understand them. If we did, we would understand how gravity, time, and space are all related.

I have no doubt that everyone here doesn't think they understand what time is, and how important it is. But really...it isn't. Because it doesn't even exist.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

I suggest you learn more about both General and Special Relativity before you discuss this further...

Fair enough....

I am curious: what effect does gravitational lensing have on our measurements of the cosmos? Do we really know? Do we really even know where everything is in relation to one another, or is that just a perception created by things like gravity?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The reason that speech resonates so much with us is because its most likely true on some level. Maybe we humans designed it and use it as a means of population control? maybe aliens and humans designed it to preserve the human race?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

I suggest you learn more about both General and Special Relativity before you discuss this further...

Fair enough....

I am curious: what effect does gravitational lensing have on our measurements of the cosmos? Do we really know? Do we really even know where everything is in relation to one another, or is that just a perception created by things like gravity?

Gravitational lensing is an incredibly useful phenomena... Given that space-time curvature is affected by mass it means that Light for example would have to travel through the curvature of space-time... further than if it had to travel through flat space.

often we are able to see further back in time and often to objects that would have been obscured otherwise as a result of Gravitational lensing.

What Gravitational lensing allows us to do however, is accurately measure the mass of the objects that are causing the lensing.

One really strange aspect of the gravitational lensing phenomena is that it can produce ghost images of objects... sometimes repeated three or four times.

It takes quite a bit of observational science and number crunching to determine what is going on.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Correct in the way I understand it too.

So then you see my skepticism. Things like "time" and "distance" are measurements that are relative and wholly related to the local observation point.

With each being a cornerstone of physics....it causes me to question the usefulness of our physics beyond our own heliosphere.

Didn't realize one NASA scientist represented the whole of NASA as an organization these days.

Article is a bit misleading, but I do enjoy his hypothetical support of the simulation as a possible explanation for some aspects of quantum mechanics.