It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

I may or may not understand this

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


If I do, it is only a fleeting glimpse. Care to expand on these thoughts?




posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You say stuff that makes ZERO Sense.

You said:

Because the thing you're claiming it to be is by its very definition something which cannot occur.

Where's is your evidence that this can't occur. They're many Scientist who show that Consciousness is non computable and I listed the evidence up above. For you to state "it can't occur" is just nonsense especially after you said this:

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

Again, you can't see how crazy this sounds because you have a blind belief. You say you don't know how it works but yet you know something can't occur. That's just illogical.

You said:

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.

I have addressed it and I have listed a ton of evidence to support it. You're the one who claims you don't know how it works. You're trying to debate an issue where you say you don't know how it works yet you want to say what it can't be in light of Scientist cleary showing the brain is non computable.

Let's look at the work of Song:


In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."


www.prnewswire.com...



Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using Algorithmic Information Theory


In this article we review Tononi's (2008) theory of consciousness as integrated information. We argue that previous formalizations of integrated information (e.g. Griffith, 2014) depend on information loss. Since lossy integration would necessitate continuous damage to existing memories, we propose it is more natural to frame consciousness as a lossless integrative process and provide a formalization of this idea using algorithmic information theory. We prove that complete lossless integration requires noncomputable functions. This result implies that if unitary consciousness exists, it cannot be modelled computationally.


arxiv.org...

You look at the recent experiments verifying entangled histories and temporal correlation in the quantum vacuum which could be the information or qualia Penrose talked about at Planck scales.

So when you decide to hit reply, there's entangled histories or information that went into your decision. It's not a one to one correspondence. So you may be ready to hit reply, or you want to add more to the post, you want to change something or want to scrap the entire post and start over.

All of these things go into your decision on whether you hit reply or not. This can't be computed. So you can only talk about your final decision in terms of probability.

This is even so profound it shows up in the math of quantum theory as Song showed symmetry breaks down between Heisenberg and Schrodinger in cases involving consciousness. Penrose came to a similar conclusion using Godel's theorem.

The inescapable conclusion seems to be: Mathematicians are not using a knowably sound calculation procedure in order to ascertain mathematical truth. We deduce that mathematical understanding – the means whereby mathematicians arrive at their conclusions with respect to mathematical truth – cannot be reduced to blind calculation!

— Roger Penrose

Simple yet profound.

Humans can ascertain a mathematical truth in ways that can't be reduced to blind calculation. Think about Einstein. He said:


“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”


This comes right back to Penrose. Einstein would not reach his conclusion based on blind calculations, things like riding a bike on a beam of light would help him reach his conclusions.

I was watching a Doc about Alan Guth and Inflation and he talked about things like watching bubbles form and rise to the top when you shake a can a pop or sparkling water.

These things are non computable and subjective. Who thinks about bubles from the early universe while looking at a bottle of sparkling or riding a motorbike on a beam of light?

Penrose showed that Gödel-unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians.

The problem you have is ignorance for lack of a better word. It's just ignorant to say non computable consciousness can't occur and this is somehow magic.

You can say, I don't think it's the case and that's fine but what Pseudoskeptics do is go even further because of their blind belief. So you can't just debate the issue and say I don't agree, you have to say reall ignorant things like it can't occur or it's magic.

For instance, I don't fully agree with Hawking Radiation but I don't say ignorant things like it can't occur or it's magic. You say, you don't know what something is and then you say what can't occur. How does that make any sense?



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

...


It is interesting that you bring up Penrose. Here is what he said about consciousness and quantum computers:


When I argue that the action of the conscious brain is noncomputational, I'm not talking about quantum computers. Quantum computers are perfectly well-defined concepts, which don't involve any change in physics; they don't even perform noncomputational actions.


Which goes against your "universe is a Quantum Computer" hypothesis.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.

...


It is interesting that you bring up Penrose. Here is what he said about consciousness and quantum computers:


When I argue that the action of the conscious brain is noncomputational, I'm not talking about quantum computers. Quantum computers are perfectly well-defined concepts, which don't involve any change in physics; they don't even perform noncomputational actions.


Which goes against your "universe is a Quantum Computer" hypothesis.


Wrong!

First, I said the universe is a quantum computer not consciousness. This is why I talked about things like temporal correlations and entangled histories. Now the part of the brain that is computable may be a computer. In fact, Scientist recently said in order to have true AI you will have to include some quantum circuitry.

This was probably said in 95 or 96 before there was experimental evidence of temporal correlations and entangled histories and some of the latest discoveries when it comes to Quantum Biology.

So because the universe is a quantum computer it doesn't mean consciousness is and that's why I talked about the research of Song and the subjective universe and temporal correlations in the context of entangled histories. Entangled histories could be the qualia of Orch-Or.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: WonOunce
a reply to: Ksihkehe

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

Ain't that, something in you claims for ABSOLUTE FREEDOM?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
if the universe is a computer, then what do you call the space containing this computer?



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: reddragon2015
if the universe is a computer, then what do you call the space containing this computer?


Space ? You're thinking too humanee, unless you can think of everything in a sphere collapsing in and expanding out onto itself you have not much chance of understanding reality.



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I have been reading here for about four years now. Finally decided to login and make my first post! This thread is EPIC. Wanted to say thank you to the OP for this.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pavlik
I have been reading here for about four years now. Finally decided to login and make my first post! This thread is EPIC. Wanted to say thank you to the OP for this.


Thank you for posting and the evidence is really growing in these areas!



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: neoholographic

This happened to me 5 years ago.

So here I am 5 years ago waking up and when I woke up, I saw binary codes in red all over the room all over my body, so I get up to open the window and it's all over the world, on people and everywhere ,it lasted for at least 5 minutes. I just sat and looked at all the red zero and one just all over the place and when I reached for it,it sprinkled apart but came back together.

Can you explain to me what happened and if so ,why did it happen Please ?

By the way the earth is the computer screen and the stars are the pixels used to do what whatever it does.

By the way, would black holes be considered as the trash bin?



Why would a universal code embedded in reality use the same number symbols (0,1) as we do?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: neoholographic

ARE YOU SERIOUS!

IS THIS TRUE.

So here I am 5 years ago waking up and when I woke up, I saw binary codes in red all over the room all over my body, so I get up to open the window and it's all over the world, on people and everywhere ,it lasted for at least 5 minutes. I just sat and looked at all the red zero and one just all over the place and when I reached for it,it sprinkled apart but came back together.

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 !


I have to venture the guess that though I have no reason to doubt u, this was more a personal/spiritual/psychological manifestation in fact I've hallucinated for up to a minute and a half after waking up but thats nowhere near five min and the times it happened I was so paralyzed I started crying thinking I must have done something in my sleep to damage my spinal cord (and my hallucinations were terrifying)...but I'm surprised u could move or walk in that state. But i only say it couldn't be a true since there's zero possibility the cosmic computer, if it uses binary code, would use human Arabic numbers. Youd see some sort of two symbols but not an Arabic 0 and 1
edit on 2/23/2016 by AlexandrosTheGreat because:



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: neoholographic

ARE YOU SERIOUS!

IS THIS TRUE.

So here I am 5 years ago waking up and when I woke up, I saw binary codes in red all over the room all over my body, so I get up to open the window and it's all over the world, on people and everywhere ,it lasted for at least 5 minutes. I just sat and looked at all the red zero and one just all over the place and when I reached for it,it sprinkled apart but came back together.

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 !


I have to venture the guess that though I have no reason to doubt u, this was more a personal/spiritual/psychological manifestation in fact I've hallucinated for up to a minute and a half after waking up but thats nowhere near five min and the times it happened I was so paralyzed I started crying thinking I must have done something in my sleep to damage my spinal cord (and my hallucinations were terrifying)...but I'm surprised u could move or walk in that state. But i only say it couldn't be a true since there's zero possibility the cosmic computer, if it uses binary code, would use human Arabic numbers. Youd see some sort of two symbols but not an Arabic 0 and 1
Before I even thought it was something from the universe, I thought it might have been a Manchurian program of some type launched through a computer. Just being honest!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: neoholographic

ARE YOU SERIOUS!

IS THIS TRUE.

So here I am 5 years ago waking up and when I woke up, I saw binary codes in red all over the room all over my body, so I get up to open the window and it's all over the world, on people and everywhere ,it lasted for at least 5 minutes. I just sat and looked at all the red zero and one just all over the place and when I reached for it,it sprinkled apart but came back together.

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 !


I have to venture the guess that though I have no reason to doubt u, this was more a personal/spiritual/psychological manifestation in fact I've hallucinated for up to a minute and a half after waking up but thats nowhere near five min and the times it happened I was so paralyzed I started crying thinking I must have done something in my sleep to damage my spinal cord (and my hallucinations were terrifying)...but I'm surprised u could move or walk in that state. But i only say it couldn't be a true since there's zero possibility the cosmic computer, if it uses binary code, would use human Arabic numbers. Youd see some sort of two symbols but not an Arabic 0 and 1
Before I even thought it was something from the universe, I thought it might have been a Manchurian program of some type launched through a computer. Just being honest!

Funny, that sounds remarkably like the delusions of those suffering from schizophrenia and related disorders. Have you seen a doctor lately? If not, it couldn't hurt. Also, I recommend you look up the word 'Manchurian' because it does not mean whatever you seem to think it means.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The universe is a quantum code being simulated on a quantum computer. I'm about 95% sure of that now. There's just too much evidence that supports it and there's no evidence to support that the universe is an objective material reality. In fact, experiment after experiment shows local realism is dead.

We will eventually run this code when we have a quantum computer powerful enough to do so. We will do this for research as well as entertainment.

Preskill asking is space-time an error correcting code. James Gates finding an error correcting code in the equations of string theory. A quantum code found underlying stock market portfolios.

These things point to the universe as a simulation. The way you will find the quantum code is through things like quantum gates and error correcting codes. This will mean the universe is simulating a quantum code.

So we wouldn't be alive or dead just lines of code.

You tie this in with growing evidence that the universe may be a hologram and there's no evidence that 3-dimensional volume exists, it just makes it more evident.

Look at the fact that there's no signal between entangled particles and this makes perfect sense if information is being processed and simulated rather than any objective material reality.

It may be hard to accept but it really isn't hard to grasp. Since Einstein, Science has been saying,"Does the universe really work this way?" Here's a quote from Heisenberg:

“I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”
― Werner Heisenberg



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not sure why bulk/bound theory or the holographic theory even need to exist. Everything in this universe including most if not all paranormal activity can be explained through a straight up classical simulation. Also, not sure why people would think we are bound by computation therefore having no true free will. That's nonsense. This simulation wouldn't even work without free will because consciousness is at the core of it all, whether it be this simulation, another one, or the encompassing reality that we are a subset of.

It's also easy to visualize such strange and mysterious ideas such as an infinite universe by simply looking at a video game world and enable no-clip mode so you can just fly around at will. You'll notice once you leave the game world full of objects you'll simply fly into free space and watch your magmatical coordinates change. It's the only way you even know you're still moving once the game world is far behind you and you can continue to do this infinitely. You're avatar being the camera at that point, but your consciousness is always outside of the computed reality. It's all really a very simple concept and it works quite well.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: Phage

I was thinking the same too, if we're bound by code to do what we do then why give us the illusion of freedom by choice within the code ?


Maybe the programmer designed you to be an object with free will. Just because you're a string data type doesn't always mean you're destined for anything. Maybe you can even change your own attributes and properties or even which type of data type you are. You could go from string to integer. Just beware of memory cleanup time.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Fantastic post.
Bear with me here, bit of skepticism required, and a ton of imagination...
But I think because of this very premise, that eventually, any intelligence that harnesses the ability to most efficiently modulate this reality, could, via ultra nano and genetic technology, make phenomena like Harry Potter's Magic and Star Wars Force a plausible reality.
Visionary author Arthur C Clarke once was quoted as saying "Any technology sufficiently advanced, would be indistinguishable from magic."
Again, visionary, innovative, imaginative mindset needed here.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


Look at the fact that there's no signal between entangled particles and this makes perfect sense if information is being processed and simulated rather than any objective material reality.


Information being processed and simulated how? That's moving the question into another box and giving up on it.



It may be hard to accept but it really isn't hard to grasp. Since Einstein, Science has been saying,"Does the universe really work this way?" Here's a quote from Heisenberg:

“I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”
― Werner Heisenberg


We should believe the experiments and no more than necessary from that. Yes, there is something non-local (in the classical light-cone sense) about quantum mechanics and the universe works that way.

There is no other mystical belief necessary.

edit on 23-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Humans don't actively self-introspect in a fundamental way. As shown by many psychology and neuroscience experiments, their conscious explanations often do not match the underlying computations and decisions/behaviors.

Humans make up a story about themselves as they make up a story about other people's minds and motives. It's a useful skill to evolve in a social animal, but the stories human make up are crude approximations to self-introspection and other-introspection.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

To all your responses, I think he;s using abstract though tho permeate hypothetical scenarios, which, are necessary, no matter how "inconceivable"
Let's explore the unreal, these measures of conception that are traditionally avoided for sake of participation
What's to lose? Let's push the envelope and try every caveat.. than when we will find success in our will
Test reality I say .



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join