Here's more evidence that our universe is a Quantum Computer

a reply to: neoholographic

It has nothing to do with magic and many Scientist say Consciousness is non computable.

If it was truly non-computable then we simply wouldn't exist. It is magic when you say consciousness is impossible to compute and then ignore the fact it must be calculated some how if we exist. Lets assume for a moment we are in a simulation right now. You claim my decisions are not being computed, so how are they occurring? If I decide I want to write a response to you, something in my brain happens which causes my finger to click the reply button. My brain did some sort of computation and then it fired electric signals along my nervous pathways telling my finger to move. If you say such decisions are not part of the simulation then what drove my finger to move? If my decision was not computed as part of the simulation, then you're saying some sort of external force reached into the simulation and made the particles in my finger move. That sounds like magic to me.

if hear cracker of code add my son +10 health, all red +99 mind , and all blue multiplied by 0 ... please

a reply to: UniFinity

And there are no limits to "its" expression. No good or bad, right or wrong. Just natural flow of desires, thoughts and emotions behind the veil, controlling our thoughts to a point.

We can think what we want...for some time at least. This is a question of concentration.

So therefore with full one pointed concentration. we could eventually get to a state of no thoughts whatsoever ... that means no karma...that means .. ?

There is no separate you who can do anything - you cannot control 'your' thoughts because every thought is just part of the appearance - the thoughts do not belong to someone anymore than the clouds belong to someone.

Again, if the spacetime is like a computer screen, then it's holistic and non local nature makes perfect sense and the everything is being computed down to you putting on your socks in the morning to driving home from work at night.

Everything that happens - is happening - is being done.
There is no one doing anything - everything is done - even thoughts and actions.
Everything is free.

The truth shall set 'you' free but only when 'you' are realized to not be doing anything - there is no 'you'.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
But we are not the ones playing the game ("the individuals"). We are the characters in the game, unknowingly being directed to make the choice (like super mario).

This is Kermit at the doctors - he has had a scan to see what is going on inside him. The doctor tells Kermit to take a seat and to be prepared for a shock.

Reality is not a quantum computer, only physical reality may be - or, rather, its hardware. Its software (more commonly known as living beings (not necessarily human) work under the algorithm of an operating system (it used to be called the "soul") that belongs to superphysical levels of reality. The quantum mechanics of spinless, 1-d objects in a space-time of D dimensions requires D = 26 in order for causality to be preserved by there being always commutivity of two quantum field operators defined at space-time points that are separated by a space-like interval. Imposing supersymmetry reduces that to D = 10 in order for the field theory of such objects to be free of quantum anomalies. E8xE8 heterotic superstrings combine left-moving oscillations with one dimensionality with right-moving oscillations in the other dimension. We know that a quantum object does not move along a unique world-line; it moves along all possible trajectories simultaneously, each with its own assigned probability that contributes to the "classical" path obtained by averaging over all possible world-lines. Photosynthesis in plants, trees, etc is initiated by photons creating superpositions of entangled states when it hits a chromophore (colour-causing part of a molecule) that is attached to proteins and excites either electrons in its atoms or vibrational modes in the molecule itself. The superposition of all possible vibrational and electronic quantum states excited by the absorbed photon involved in photosynthesis is analogous to how qubits express information in quantum computers. It is an example of how living things behave as quantum computers.

If we now extrapolate this ancient, hermetic principle of "As above, so below" by mathematically describing a meta-operating system that is yet isomorphic to individual operating systems (an essential requirement, it turns out) and then by identifying the simplest form these operating systems can take with fundamental subatomic particles, it becomes possible to predict that space-time must have 26 dimensions and that these elementary operating systems can exist in 496 quantum states, those that have quantum spin being identifiable in 10 of these dimensions. This is precisely what physicists Michael Green and Gary Schwarz discovered for superstrings in 1984. The Great Chain of Being from God to particle has now been mapped out and shown to predict the existence of superstrings. But they are no longer just lifeless objects confined to the space-time continuum. They are microscopic versions of the Macrocosmos, which extends beyond space-time to higher realities in which these and larger operating systems function. Moreover, the mathematical pattern inherent in this Cosmic Operating System (the vast aggregate of all similar versions of Itself) has been shown to be embodied in isomorphic ways as certain sacred geometries found within some of the world's ancient religions.... For details, see here.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The facet you keep saying magic and you don't provide a shred of evidence to support anytthing you're saying shows this is about what you already believe and not any sort of reality.

The fact is, I just showed you Scientist from Duke to Sir Roger Penrose who use things like the math of quantum theory and Godel's theorem to show that consciousness is non computable and yet you don't debate these things you just blindly yell magic like that means something.

You said:

If I decide I want to write a response to you, something in my brain happens which causes my finger to click the reply button.

You answered your own question. The fact that you have to saying "something in my brain happens" that allows you to decide to write a response supports that the brain is non computable. You have zero evidence that there's something in your brain causing this to happen that can be computed.

Where's the evidence that shows your brain did some type of computation to decide whether or not to reply to my post?

Here's more:

An essential feature of Penrose OR is that the choice of states when OR occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following measurement or decoherence) nor completely algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a “non-computable” influence involving information embedded in the fundamental level of spacetime geometry at the Planck scale. Moreover, Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truth, aesthetic and ethical values. Plato had proposed such pure values and forms, but in an abstract realm. Penrose placed the Platonic realm in the Planck scale.

I think this is very important in light of the paper I mentioned earlier about entangled histories and temporal correlations of the quantum vacuum.

Experimental Test of Entangled Histories

We propose and demonstrate experimentally a scheme to create entangled history states of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) type. In our experiment, the polarization states of a single photon at three different times are prepared as a GHZ entangled history state. We define a GHZ functional which attains a maximum value 1 on the ideal GHZ entangled history state and is bounded above by 1/16 for any three-time history state lacking tripartite entanglement. We have measured the GHZ functional on a state we have prepared experimentally, yielding a value of 0.656±0.005, clearly demonstrating the contribution of entangled histories.

arxiv.org...

Again, magic doesn't have anything to do with it. Science are debating these questions because you can't put conscioness in a non computable box of your blind beliefs.

You have people like Max Tegmark saying Consciosness might be a different state of matter.

Physicists Say Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter

It’s not enough to have a brain. Consciousness—a hallmark of humans, mammals, birds, and even octopuses—is that mysterious force that makes all those neurons and synapses “tick” and merge into “you.” It’s what makes you alert and sensitive to your surroundings, and it’s what helps you see yourself as separate from everything else. But neuroscientists still don’t know what consciousness is, or how it’s even possible.

www.pbs.org...

You have other Scientist saying the brain isn't computable and they support an integrated information theory of the brain.

Mathematical Model Of Consciousness Proves Human Experience Cannot Be Modelled On A Computer

medium.com... nuyd425

Again, these questions are being debated by Science and has nothing to do with magic.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Just where is that huge (universe sized) computer that is running everything, down the the billions of blades of grass and billions of snow flakes?

Why does it have to be huge , huge to who? Who is to say we are not subatomic to another Universe and we are running of an advanced aliens kids ipad for a science experiment?

Outside of our universe its all fair game, since we know squat about it.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Is it really freedom if we are stuck between parameters? Freedom of choice means complete freedom, not freedom with restrictions -

a reply to: Martianlanded

And I suppose things that go faster than the speed of light is what, overclocking?

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you know if there have been followup studies on ORCH OR that were not done by Penrose or Hameroff?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Poor Kermy

a reply to: neoholographic

The fact is, I just showed you Scientist from Duke to Sir Roger Penrose who use things like the math of quantum theory and Godel's theorem to show that consciousness is non computable and yet you don't debate these things you just blindly yell magic like that means something.

I cannot accept any claim that consciousness is non-computable when we don't even know how it works yet. Notice the words "Penrose claimed" in your first excerpt, we're talking about theories and not facts so stop acting like you know the ultimate truth, you don't. An incomputable/undecidable problem is something that cannot be solved by any logical process, it's literally impossible for such problems to be solved because they are in a class of problems which exist outside of the solvable problems. To say human consciousness is not computable is to say the impossible is a reality.

You have zero evidence that there's something in your brain causing this to happen that can be computed.

Where's the evidence that shows your brain did some type of computation to decide whether or not to reply to my post?

Lmao now you're just in denial. There's a boat lot of evidence showing how brain activity corresponds to our physical activity and there are even experiments which show our brain activity can be used to guess our decisions before we're even aware of what decision we have made. The electrical activity which occurs inside our brain is clearly performing computations related to our decisions and actions whether you want to accept that or not. Think about it this way: the particles in my finger have to move to click the reply button, but something must have caused my finger to move because things don't just happen without a cause on the macroscopic level.

If you trace the motion of the particles in my finger back to the source, you will find that it originated in my brain when it sent an electric signals to my finger, causing the muscles in my finger to react. This is absolutely undeniable science, it's simply how our nervous system works. Now we must ask where did that original electric signal come from? You seem to be implying it just popped out of thin air, but clearly the neurons in my brain fired the signal and you could trace that signal back to previous brain activity. Every particle in my brain is following the laws of particle physics at the end of the day, there's nothing magical influencing the behavior of those particles.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

This is Kermit at the doctors - he has had a scan to see what is going on inside him. The doctor tells Kermit to take a seat and to be prepared for a shock.

I can always appreciate your finds. Great analogy.

"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

Also great OP. I'm curious though, what causes particles to entangle and how can scientists "find" and subsequently study entangled particles?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Nothing you have said is backed by a shred of Scientific evidence.

It would be nice if you had some actual evidence to support anything you say. You said:

I cannot accept any claim that consciousness is non-computable when we don't even know how it works yet.

This just shows you're stuck in your blind belief. You say we don't know how consciousness works but you can't accept any claim that consciousness is non computable.

Do you even realize how closed minded and silly that sounds?

If you don't know how something works, how can you rule out what it can't be??????

You have Scientist like Sir Roger Penrose and Physicist that went to Duke and Princeton saying consciousness is non computable but someone should listen to your blind opinion without a shred of evidence to support it?

Again, when someone makes a blanket statement like "it's magic" they can't debate the issue. Pseudoskeptics do it all the time.

Show me where Miguel Nicolelis, a top neuroscientist at Duke University or Daegene Song who got his Ph.D from Oxford said anything about magic.

Again you said:

I cannot accept any claim that consciousness is non-computable when we don't even know how it works yet.

This should start the Pseudoskeptics creed:

I cannot accept any claim......

If you can't accept any claim that goes against what you already believe and comes from people like Sir Roger Penrose or Miguel Nicolelis, then why are you debating?

It's like saying:

I can't accept any claim of parallel universes.

I can't accept any claims of extra dimensions.

I can't accept any claim of loop quantum gravity.

Even though there's intelligent Physicist making the claim and providing evidence to support their position.

Saying that consciousness is non computable isn't magic and by your own admission you don't know how consciousness works so how can you say what it can't be?

I cannot accept any claim that consciousness is non-computable when we don't even know how it works yet.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
And a year after that I find out that Stars are used on humans the same way as pixels are used for TV, THANKS neoholographic, SO STOKED !

...Except that's not even remotely true. As for your psychotic episode, have you seen a doctor?

Care to tell us why you "believe" that is not even remotely true ?

It appears your avatar does not reflect even remotely with your experience.

Your limitations on what is possible, also appear, suspiciously limited.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: bandersnatch

“There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another that states that this has already happened.”

Douglas Adams

This is what happened to the initial observers, except they were replaced with more bizarre and inexplicable observers.

Stepping back beyond the Universe WHILE IN HUMAN FORM, is going to be the key to destroying the everlasting descent of no return.

a reply to: neoholographic

Nothing you have said is backed by a shred of Scientific evidence.

Nothing? Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them

This just shows you're stuck in your blind belief. You say we don't know how consciousness works but you can't accept any claim that consciousness is non computable.

Do you even realize how closed minded and silly that sounds?

It does not sound silly at all, it sounds like I'm not going to accept anything unless I have concrete proof, it's called rationality.

If you don't know how something works, how can you rule out what it can't be??????

Because the thing you're claiming it to be is by its very definition something which cannot occur. You still haven't addresses any of my questions concerning where the forces come from which cause my finger to move when I decide to click the reply button.

You have Scientist like Sir Roger Penrose and Physicist that went to Duke and Princeton saying consciousness is non computable but someone should listen to your blind opinion without a shred of evidence to support it?

Just because a couple of scientists say something doesn't make it true. Penrose is known for postulating many controversial ideas and it would be naive to accept everything he says just because he went to a prestigious university. The simple fact of the matter is, most scientists believe in a computable chemical-electric framework for the brain, so if you want to use the weight of scientific opinions, you cannot ignore the large numbers of scientists who believe the brain can be simulated by advanced artificial neural networks on computers.

originally posted by: Phage

everything is being computed down to you putting on your socks in the morning to driving home from work at night.

Ok.
Now what? Have you started working on modifying the code? How does one go about doing so?

Is this notion fundamentally different from the ancient idea of predestination?

It could be different than predestination if the computer code is written to allow us to make choices with our lives. There would be multiple realities depending on what choices we choose to take. In the end all the choices are accounted for, but it does allow for choices.

a reply to: ImmortalLegend527
And another star for you.

As yet another theory of plausible existence yet unproven but sound in theory; might as well call it the Dataverse and add it to the list.