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.

 

Does the simulated universe update itself?

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I think evidence is growing that the universe is a simulation. One of the things I look at is you have more and more Physicist talking about error correcting codes. You have Scientist saying spactime could be a quantum error correcting code. You have error correcting codes found in the equations of string theory.

Error correcting codes would be very important especially if the universe is constantly updating itself. This would preserve key components of the universe and this could also point to the universe changing as it updates itself and maybe we can spot these changes. Here's more:

Is Spacetime a Quantum Error-Correcting Code? | John Preskill







Where could we see the simulated universe updating itself? One thing we might be able to look at is when people say, "I could have sworn I saw X" or I could have sworn I heard that x had died."

This just happened to me recently. I could have sworn I put my keys on the table before I went to bed but when I looked for my keys they were in my pants pocket. I watched a TV series that I haven't seen in awhile and I remembered a part in the series that I was waiting to see but it wasn't there. I could have sworn these parts were in the series and I remember these parts in the Series I was waiting to see.

These things happen all the time but we just explain these things away and say we must have been mistaken. What if the simulated universe allows for small fluctuations? These small fluctuations could occur when the simulated universe is updating itself. So the universe updated itself between the time I put my keys on the table and the next day. So a fluctuation occurred when the universe was updating itself and something small like my keys being on the table changed to my keys being in my pocket.

This could happen as a way for the Simulators to give us clues that we're living in a simulation. So the error correcting code preserves parts of the simulation that can't change or causes a big fluctuation like WW2 but smaller things can change when the simulation updates itself. It's like DNA which has error correction that preserves key components but allows for more change or mutations in other areas.

If we look at some of the values in these error correcting codes and see they're precise up to say 20 decimal places but in the last 2-3 places they allow for more change, it could explain why these small fluctuations occur. I just typed in "I could of sworn I saw" on Google and this random post was one of the links from Trip Advisor.

I could have sworn in my searching that I saw a pool with a water slide at the Boca Raton Resort or at Beach Club but now I do not see it. We just booked at the Boca Raton Resort for Thanksgiving and my seven year old is bummed if there is no water slide. I am trying to talk him into all the other amenities like the new Flow Rider that opens during our visit as well as the fact that we can visit the pools at both hotels.

Please let me know if there is or is not a water slide. If not, please point me to a list of the other fun things to do.

Thank you!


Here's the response:

Good Afternoon,

We can't wait to welcome you and your family for Thanksgiving! Unfortunately we do not have a water slide, but we have many options for kids! During your stay we will be having our holiday tree lighting with a performance by Kendall Schmidt and the grand opening of our FlowRider with performance by Smash Mouth. We also have Quest Club for kids, which is a camp offering a large amount of activities. We have our Quest Clubhouse, which is a big arcade. We have our Rec Dec, which offers basketball, a rock climbing wall, and other games. Your son will have so much to do during your stay! See you next week!


www.tripadvisor.com...

This is some random post from over a year ago. When she made her reservations she did so after she saw a water slide she must have even told her kid about the water slide and when she went to show him it wasn't there.

The point is, these small fluctuations occur all of the time but we just explain them away as faulty memory or we must have been mistaken. If we exist in a simulation these could be glitches put there by the Simulators because they didn't bother finishing out the code because they realized that we would just explain these things away or they put them there so we would notice.
edit on 2-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
It updates itself only when we observe it.

Who is "they" in your opinion?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Signals

They could be an advanced civilization. As one person said, we could be the product of some kids homework 200 years from now who had the assignment to create an ancestor simulation.

They could also be God or an intelligent Mind that Creates and expresses itself through it's creations like us.
edit on 2-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Then the God or Gods are complex machines.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Really? 200 years from now, in the real universe, would still be at least 100+x in the past of this simulated universe. And where do the simulators live in? Or are thy also simulated?

This is just a thought model. Nobody with any scientific background would ever take a theory serious which makes it necessary to invent a God, or alien civilisation, in order to make it work...
Just acid heads go all "oh wow dude I can totally feel it!" about things like that.
But wasn't it you who had issues to grasp the dna computer code analogy? Google metaphor.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Substracto
Then the God or Gods are complex machines.


No, they could be an intelligent Mind that can create complex machines like we do.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

This is just nonsense. There are plenty people who talk of advanced civilizations like Marvin Minsky, Michio Kaku and Nick Bostrum.



Francis Crick, one of the Scientist of DNA even proposed at one time that DNA was seeded by intelligent space travelers through a process called Directed Panspermia. He later changed his mind but your absurd notion that anyone with a Scientific background would never propose a theory that required an alien civilization is just nonsense.

You have Biocentrism which talks about Consciousness and God and says there's mind behind everything. Who is Robert Lanza?

Robert Paul Lanza (born 11 February 1956) is a prominent American medical doctor and scientist. He is currently Head of Astellas Global Regenerative Medicine,[1] and is Chief Scientific Officer of Ocata Therapeutics, formerly named Advanced Cell Technology[2] and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

Lanza has received numerous awards and other recognition, including TIME Magazine’s 2014 Time 100 list of the "100 Most Influential People in the World",[41] the 2013 “Il Leone di San Marco Award in Medicine” (Italian Heritage and Culture Committee, along with Regis Philbin, who received the award in Entertainment),[42] a 2010 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director’s Award for “Translating Basic Science Discoveries into New and Better Treatments”;[43] a 2010 “Movers and Shakers” Who Will Shape Biotech Over the Next 20 Years (BioWorld, along with Craig Venter and President Barack Obama);[44] a 2005 Wired magazine "Rave Award" for medicine “For eye-opening work on embryonic stem cells”,[45] and a 2006 Mass High Tech journal “All Star” award for biotechnology for “pushing stem cells’ future”.[46][47]


en.wikipedia.org...

So your notion that anyone with a Scientific background would ever take theories like these seriously is just pure nonsense.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple


This is just a thought model. Nobody with any scientific background would ever take a theory serious which makes it necessary to invent a God, or alien civilization, in order to make it work... Just acid heads go all "oh wow dude I can totally feel it!" about things like that.


Well, most of the acid heads I know ARE scientists... just sayin'.

And as far as us living in a simulation... it doesn't "solve" anything and just puts the "god question" off a couple (or infinite) levels, you are correct... but it sure seems like it's part of the ...er... final solution to our existence in this particularly weird universe we find ourselves in...

that said, I want a chat with the programmers... maybe burnt offerings. or something?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


I think it happens all the time.
Take the Lunar wave, for example:
Lunar Wave - Youtube



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

I think it does solve something and these questions are important to ask as we become more technologically advanced.

The notion from Peeple that nobody with a Scientific background would take these things seriously is just asinine. Here's a paper from Silas Beane called:

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

arxiv.org...

Who is Silas Beane? Is he someone without any Scientific background? He's a Professor of Physics at the University of Washington.

My primary interest is in nuclear physics. I am involved in calculations of basic nuclear properties and interactions from first principles, using lattice quantum chromo dynamics (QCD), a method for solving the strong nuclear force (QCD) with big computers.

Here's an interview he conducted:

‘The idea we live in a simulation isn’t science fiction’


The idea that we live in a simulation is just science fiction, isn’t it?

There is a famous argument that we probably do live in a simulation. The idea is that in future, humans will be able to simulate entire universes quite easily. And given the vastness of time ahead, the number of these simulations is likely to be huge. So if you ask the question: ‘do we live in the one true reality or in one of the many simulations?’, the answer, statistically speaking, is that we’re more likely to be living in a simulation.

How did you end up working on this issue?

My day job is to do high performance computing simulations of the forces of nature, particularly the strong nuclear force. My colleagues and I use a grid-like lattice to represent a small chunk of space and time. We put all the forces into that little cube and calculate what happens. In effect, we’re simulating a very tiny corner of the universe.


www.newscientist.com...

So again, the notion that "nobody with a scientific background" would ever take these things seriously is just ASININE.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

Well then they're not very good ones.

rationalwiki

"
Three bodies moving chaotically under gravity, as a solution to their motion cannot be solved analytically. The question is; how does this little problem of physics affect a hypothetical simulation of the universe?
One of the most well-known problems in mathematics and physics is the "three-body problem" or the "n-body problem", which states that it is impossible to create an analytical solution to a system with more than two parts interacting with each other. Solving for one body is trivial, solving for two is possible because you effectively "freeze" one of the bodies, thus reducing it to a one-body problem, but for three or more - except in very trivial cases where certain mathematical approximations are perfectly applicable to a real system - is not possible. Such systems display chaotic behaviour. This, on its own, doesn't necessarily preclude simulation as determining forces in a many-body system and then advancing it by one "frame" is possible, and so only precludes the existence of a deterministic equation to solve anything. However, it does often make simulation and generation of a suitable set of equations (presumably, by any meaningful definition of "simulated reality", the simulation functions on such solvable mathematics) to describe a system.
When attempting to make mathematical models of reality, certain assumptions and approximations are made in order to describe systems. If the universe was being described by an analytical process anyway, such things would be unlikely to be needed, and so basic two-body approximations should be perfectly analogous to experimental behaviour. However, such things are rarely seen. In the field of quantum computation (computer models of quantum systems such as atoms and molecules) introduction of such approximations to make even the simplest models disagree with reality considerably. In order to compensate for any approximations made in order to make the systems computable, computational cost must increase significantly - in computational chemistry, the cost of a simulation scales by at least the fourth power of the number of bodies and functions being considered. To make a "perfect" simulation, an infinite number of functions needs to be considered. To accurately model the interaction of just two water molecules (perhaps the simplest chemically interesting system) requires over 500 functions to bring the result within experimental error. This sort of issue extends from chemistry and into physics, where the interactions modelled by Feynman diagrams can produce an indefinite number of particle interactions, each contributing to the observed properties of a particle. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of just the smallest of these possible diagrams are required to make reasonably accurate predictions of the energies of sub-atomic particles. To make an "accurate" picture of the particle system requires an infinite number - each and every possible Feynman diagram up to an infinite size. These are very small and isolated systems, an entire universe raises the complexity beyond what can be readily imagined.
Basic mechanics, therefore, makes a simulation of the universe a considerably bigger task than most proponents of a simulated reality seem to grasp. A simulation would have to be "perfect", as otherwise we would begin to observe flaws in real-world mechanics. Yet the number of interactions required to make such a "perfect" simulation are vast, and in some cases require an infinite number of functions operating on each other to describe. Perhaps the only way to solve this would be to assume "simulation" is an analogy for how the universe (operating under the laws of quantum mechanics) acts like a quantum computer - and therefore it can "calculate" itself. But then, that doesn't really say the same thing as "we exist in someone else's simulation".
"



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I wouldn't doubt it. After my experience with a freemason member. (His ring finger had it) and another guy (he also had a golden ring with red black and silver?) my post

This universe could be updating itself

"They could be an advanced civilization. As one person said, we could be the product of some kids homework 200 years from now who had the assignment to create an ancestor simulation.

They could also be God or an intelligent Mind that Creates and expresses itself through it's creations like us." -neoholographic

This made me think. If God is so grand, could he also experience this himself? Could his Higher self see everything and change things, while his lower self experience this on a micro level? The lower self God could experience it consciousnesly while his Higher self unconsciously or subconsciously?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
So who types all the code for every single blade of grass, tree leaf, snow flake, raindrop, grain of sand, pebble, boulder, germ, virus, knife,. fork, spoon, plates, cup, saucer, the list is endless, so is the typing.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

What??? You said:

Well then they're not very good ones.

So any Scientist that doesn't agree with your beliefs are not good ones??

This is an ASININE statement.

How can anyone be taken seriously who says Scientist that put forth theories they don't agree with are not good Scientist?

I don't agree with Laurence Krauss and a Universe from Nothing but I wouldn't say he's not a good Scientist. That's just childish.
edit on 2-4-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You're such a joke, it is hilarious. Calling a rational approach that clearly points towards the impossibility of this sensationalist theory you adopted a "belief", while at the same time inventing god and alien civilisations to make your more religious or philosophical than scientific view work...
I bet you can't see the irony in that can you?

Also what's up with all the asinine, you just learned a new word and now have to use it in every post or what?



edit on 2-4-2016 by Peeple because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: luciferslight

You said:


This made me think. If God is so grand, could he also experience this himself? Could his Higher self see everything and change things, while his lower self experience this on a micro level? The lower self God could experience it consciousnesly while his Higher self unconsciously or subconsciously?


Good question.

I think that God or an intelligent Mind couldn't experience it's creations unless it did so through it's created beings if it wanted to experience life on earth without knowing it's an intelligent Mind that created it. If it wanted to experience it's creation while it's aware of who it is, I'm sure it could do that also. Maybe it does both.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Asinine just perfectly describes silly statements like this:

Well then they're not very good ones.

So Francis Crick isn't a good Scientist? He discovered the double helix structure of DNA.

Robert Lanza isn't a good Scientist? Lanza is part of a team that cloned the first early stage embryos and in 2001 he was one of the first to clone an endangered species.

So, it's just childish to say because a Scientist doesn't agree with your personal belief they're not good Scientist.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Francis Crick didn't discover DNA. The 3-d yes he did, but he stole most of the work from a female scientist who took really bad radioactive photos of the DNA which looked like squares going in a circle. The dark shaded ones ment they were closer and the faded ones were further. Only reason he got the recognition was because

The other scientist exposed herself to too much radiation as nobody knew the limit was back then and died. Then her lab was raddied and most of her work was stolen. Watson and Crick obviously before a few years later "discovered" DNA when they just formated it to 3-d models.

High school teacher taught us that



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I wasn't talking about them, was i? And what do they have to do with a simulated universe?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: luciferslight

That's what I meant, that's why I said in the earlier post he discovered the double helix structure of DNA. He also won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine alongside Watson and Wilkins.

The point is, he proposed Directed Panspermia and a space traveling intelligence as seeding DNA on earth which refutes the statement that nobody with a scientific background will propose anything like this.




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join