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: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: neoholographic

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


Of course you was talking about them. You said,"Nobody with a Scientific background" would propose a theory that included alien civilizations and you were wrong.




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Well the space travelling and panspermia thing is also pretty silly.
I don't know therefore aliens! Is not how science works.
And now since 2011 to be precise we know building blocks for dna were travelling in meteors and asteroids.
nasa



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

First off Crick was dead by 2011 and secondly, it's not how science works to say I don't know but I will rule out Aliens because of my personal belief especially today with people like Stephen Hawking saying Aliens almost certainly exist or with many Scientist believing in a multiverse or parallel universes based on the available evidence.

So just because you want to believe something is "pretty silly" doesn't mean much based on many Scientist coming up with theories that put forth a different conclusion than your blind beliefs.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

But you're not talking multiverse you are saying simulated universe.
Aliens may exist, but to propose they are godlike creators of a simulation we live in is quite the stretch, don't you think?

And please tell me what you think I believe? You silly, asinine metaphorproof genius you.
edit on 2-4-2016 by Peeple because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

You are the one that talked about Aliens and of course an advanced civilization could be responsible for the simulation. Do you even read what you write?

I responded to your post that said,"Nobody with a scientific background" would take these theories seriously and that statement made zero sense and that's why I also talked about Silas Beane and Bostrom as it pertains to the simulated universe argument.

You have people like M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd who says the universe is a quantum computer. Is he a stupid Scientist also?



So the things you're saying make no sense.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

No, you just have a very serious reading comprehension skill handicap.
You were the one proposing "advanced civilisations".
And to say it is like a quantum computer, doesn't mean it is one.
If I remember correct all Lloyd says is, it can be simulated using a quantum computer, which we can't, because we don't have a theory of quantum gravity.


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



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Yes and so were others proposing advanced civilizations and you said nobody with a scientific background would propose these things. When you found out you were wrong, you then said:

Well then they're not very good ones.

Which makes no sense. Because a Scientist doesn't agree with your blind beliefs this means their not very good ones?

Lloyd didn't say it's like a quantum computer. Did you watch the video? He started off by saying the universe is effectively a quantum computer, he then said not effectively but actually a quantum computer. It's the first thing he said.

Seth Lloyd didn't say the universe is like a quantum computer he said it's an actual quantum computer. Here's an interview from Wired:


You've jumped from working on quantum computers to saying, oh, by the way, the universe is a gigantic quantum computer.

SL: When you zap things with light to build quantum computers, you're hacking existing systems. You're hijacking the computation that's already happening in the universe, just like a hacker takes over someone else's computer.

You seem to be saying that the concept of the universe as one huge quantum computer is not just a metaphor – it's real.

SL: Absolutely. Atoms and electrons are bits. Atomic collisions are "ops." Machine language is the laws of physics. The universe is a quantum computer.


www.wired.com...

Wrong again.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Really? Look at the pictures here and then look at a qubit here
They are the same?
And again you bore me with my "blind beliefs". You really are not worth to have any discussion with you. You are the one believing in this outlandish # not me. Just because some bored nut wants fame and money and writes sensationalist nonsense, doesn't make it true. David Icke wrote books too, so there must be reptilians!

Have fun in your simulated universe.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

So now Seth Lloyd is some bored nut LOL. You have no credibility with the nonsense you have uttered in this thread. For anyone to claim Scientist who disagree with their blind beliefs is a bored nut or not a very good Scientist is just delusional.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
For anyone to claim Scientist who disagree with their blind beliefs is a bored nut or not a very good Scientist is just delusional.

About as delusional as one who blindly believes anything any "scientist" says, as long as it conforms to their beliefs.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Now just figure out how to do something like buffer overrun and see if the registry shifts. Then you could try some code injection. Can the sandbox be broken from the inside? (Of course if there's anything to the idea, it's damn risky. But still it's an idea that can be entertained if the universe as we know it is simulated at some level.)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Despite the bickering, a damned interesting thread.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
It's a very interesting topic. I love Gates – – the guy has a phenomenal intuition about nature.

You said: “These things happen all the time but we just explain these things away and say we must have been mistaken. “ But what if “these things” don't happen to everyone or only happen once or twice in a lifetime? Isn't “updating” just change? Some things change; others don't. The only change we can be certain of is time. Whoever or whatever set the simulation in motion had only one input: time. Everything else that occurs is built around, or because of, time– even the error codes. I'm wondering if the term “error code” is really correct – self assembly systems “know” how to assemble correctly – just like DNA. Along the way, there are deletions, insertions, etc. But the end product is the intended output of the code even if it contains an oncogene code which can kill the life form. I guess I just don't like the term “error code” because it implies that everything that is wrong with our universe can be corrected – including Gates' pictographs. Just random thoughts....



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

"We are living in a computer programmed reality and the only clue we have to it is when some variable is changed and some alteration in our reality occurs." - Philip K. Dick


www.youtube.com...

I will submit these statements to help human learning - although these will be difficult to accept, I will try to explain, also give Evidence and Outcomes.

Do you believe in something like "The Adjustment Bureau"?
edit on 2-4-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Link to the theory behind all supersymatrical adinkras

www.onbeing.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
No. That would require the universe to be a simulation. It's not.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Okay, so let's try to think this through logically.

People forget stuff because... you know that's what they do.

People also have ego's because you know... that's what they've got.

...or, hocus pocus listen to a few wacky physicists and latch onto it must explain my flaws.

What do you think makes more sense?



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I'm gonna have to go with column A.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Hey, you know... lot's of drugs with that guy... very creative guy... I'm glad we all got to enjoy his works.

I watched a scanner darkly a few weeks ago.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Who's to say the faults and flaws we have and deal with aren't part of what the programmers are studying?

The code gives us our flaws. You didn't decide in some autonomous way to have that extra piece of cake after dinner, the code that defines you did and you really had no choice but to comply. But you aren't separate from the code. It just defines your actions and reactions and you feel that you are autonomous. That feeling is part of the code as well. You're like a Pac-man running through a maze, but with a few more lines of code defining you and that maze.







 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join