Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

No, according to Bohr, it is purely random and probabilistic by nature, not because we have a measurement problem. It actually has nothing to do with measurement.

But you base this conclusion on whether we observe them or not?

Tilt, again.

No. I base this on the fact that this is EXPLICITLY, what QUANTUM MECHANICS SAYS.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

First of all, I never said reality is a vast simulation.

Oh good. So we agree.

Last response.

Yes, we agree that I never said reality is a vast simulation.

That's not the first time you've accused me of saying something I never said. And I hope this truly is your "last response," so you can refrain from doing it again.

Clearly some folks need a primer on the nature of reality as stated by Quantum Mechanics. This video makes it perfectly clear what QUANTUM Theory says about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

originally posted by: intrptr

Simulated space doesn't exist as a real volume in a computer program.

Just in case anyone is following along, I wanted to address this. I agree that simulated space would not exist as real volume on some piece of hardware. IN fact, the universe behaves as though the only parts rendered are the parts observed. One reason why this might be the case is because rendering is expensive, and it would be far too expensive to render the entire universe, when the only parts that need to be actively rendered are the parts being observed, which would be an extremely small percentage of the universe as a whole. The savings in RAM would be tremendous.

We have every reason to entertain the notion that the base unit in our reality is planck-length binary. This planck length binary would be processed by software into larger and larger constructs, possibly only at the moment of observation. Why? Maybe to improve performance and save systems resources.

a reply to: Greggers

What reason do we have to believe the universe operates on binary though?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Greggers

What reason do we have to believe the universe operates on binary though?

Well, we don't really know for sure. But Leonard Susskind's work on black hole entropy comes to mind, specifically the holographic principle, which discusses the base units of reality.

From en.wikipedia.org...


or a given energy in a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information (the Bekenstein bound) about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times and there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles. As the degrees of freedom of a particle are the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles, were a particle to have infinite subdivisions into lower-level particles, the degrees of freedom of the original particle would be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.

Also, I find it interesting that Physicist James Gates found dual linear block codes embedded in the equations for super-symmetry.



These are, incidentally, the same codes used to maintain data integrity in a web browser between a client and server.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Greggers

What reason do we have to believe the universe operates on binary though?

Well, we don't really know for sure. But Leonard Susskind's work on black hole entropy comes to mind, specifically the holographic principle, which discusses the base units of reality.

From en.wikipedia.org...


or a given energy in a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information (the Bekenstein bound) about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times and there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles. As the degrees of freedom of a particle are the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles, were a particle to have infinite subdivisions into lower-level particles, the degrees of freedom of the original particle would be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.

Also, I find it interesting that Physicist James Gates found dual linear block codes embedded in the equations for super-symmetry.

These are, incidentally, the same codes used to maintain data integrity in a web browser between a client and server.

Holy #, that diagram looks so much like the kabbalistic tree of life...it's uncanny.

originally posted by: Mianeye
Let's hope we never find the source code for this simulation, weird # might start to happen

Weird # is happening my friend.

I have been researching this for sometime now this year and the easiest explanation is this:

Imagine you have a PC and a game. Let it be The Sims. You have a screen and you have 2 characters (quantum entangled particels) animated on it projected by your GPU and CPU. If one character is programmed to do the same thing when the other does; they move together even though they have distance in between on the screen (space/spacetime). This has only one explanation: The commands or the info comes from one source which is CPU. You only see them move together and have a distance but they actually come from the same source code.

originally posted by: belkide
I have been researching this for sometime now this year and the easiest explanation is this:

Imagine you have a PC and a game. Let it be The Sims. You have a screen and you have 2 characters (quantum entangled particels) animated on it projected by your GPU and CPU. If one character is programmed to do the same thing when the other does; they move together even though they have distance in between on the screen (space/spacetime). This has only one explanation: The commands or the info comes from one source which is CPU. You only see them move together and have a distance but they actually come from the same source code.

Yep. This is how "Universe as Simulation" would explain quantum entanglement: The use of hidden, non-local variables.

In fact, the entire wave function of EVERYTHING that has a wave-function (particles, atoms, molecules) might exist only in the PROBABILITY SERVER until observed.

a reply to: Greggers


I think you have nailed it.Infinite probabilites are available,but the human condition only allows a discreet range through to prevent, overload.The sum of all the posible conections of the neurons of the human brain, are immense. But still mind bogglingly finite.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VanDenEviL

Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

In any case, the theory is not mine. But the available evidence does support it. Elsewise, it wouldn't be much of a theory.

Cherry picking and biased thinking leads to believing available evidence supporting something.

Why bother believing so steadfastly in something entirely unprovable ?

Because theories which are not facts are facts in this delusion of science, until they are changed, and that is never scoffed at , only worshipped by those who think it was all on the right track anyways.

Got some pretty weak theories everyone is trying to prove, hence why NONE of them have or ever will be proven.]

You can't just go and make such boring and incomplete theories FACT since they hold nothing of interest towards understanding ALL.

But good luck with your religious system that is sadly as confounded as the rest.

originally posted by: Dalan

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage

You presented this as fact. Like I said, it is not a fact. At least you admit to this now.

You should really look up what a scientific theory is.

The idea of what a scientific theory IS, even changes with the passing breeze....you so sure you want to be apart of such a failed system on these topics ??

Time to toss out the useless idea that it is getting us somewhere.

This has only one explanation: The commands or the info comes from one source which is CPU. You only see them move together and have a distance but they actually come from the same source code.

That one hurts...

originally posted by: belkide
I have been researching this for sometime now this year and the easiest explanation is this:

Imagine you have a PC and a game. Let it be The Sims. You have a screen and you have 2 characters (quantum entangled particels) animated on it projected by your GPU and CPU. If one character is programmed to do the same thing when the other does; they move together even though they have distance in between on the screen (space/spacetime). This has only one explanation: The commands or the info comes from one source which is CPU. You only see them move together and have a distance but they actually come from the same source code.

In addition, you only ever see what is displayed on the screen. You know there is a massive playing area (or universe, for want of a better word) which you can traverse within the game, but at any one time you can only observe whatever portion of it is actively being displayed. There's maps and zoom out functions and all that, but in terms of real live play - you only get to observe a small percentage of what there is, and it's what you're directly interacting with at that point in time. To try and display the entire playing area at once? Asides from the enormous display which would be required to make it observable, the computational power required to render everything and process interactions would be many thousand times greater. Only displaying what is needed is much more efficient.

As has been stated above, if the universe was a simulation then this behaviour is echoed somewhat by the theory of things only popping into existence when needed i.e. when we observe them.

if the universe was a simulation then this behaviour is echoed somewhat by the theory of things only popping into existence when needed i.e. when we observe them.

Very interesting point. It might also show some form of resource management in action.

a reply to: roadgravel


So the question is ................ if I was this little 2D guy, how would I know there's a big bad 3D world out there beyond the level I'm in?



My worry is that there would be no way to know. Mario is not sentient. He's programmed to follow certain actions and react to others. He can't think beyond that. His 2D world is all he will ever understand.

We are slightly different in that we consider ourselves sentient, intelligent and capable of understanding beyond our reality. But perhaps we can't. We perceive the physical universe around us, but perhaps if this is a simulation then the entities controlling it exist in dimensions beyond that universe which we can't even begin to perceive or understand. Outside of reality, outside of time, and outside of our reach.

If our universe really is just a simulation, then what are the physical properties of the real universe in which the simulation was created.

Before you say "maybe the simulation is being run in a simulated universe by someone/some being who doesn't realize 'he' is in a simulated universe", what I mean is this: ultimately there must be a real universe in which the "prime" simulation is being run. It isn't a case of "turtles all the way down".

So even if we are in a simulation, somewhere out there would be a real non-simulated universe. A non-simulated universe would in fact exist.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Dalan

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage

You presented this as fact. Like I said, it is not a fact. At least you admit to this now.

You should really look up what a scientific theory is.

The idea of what a scientific theory IS, even changes with the passing breeze....you so sure you want to be apart of such a failed system on these topics ??

Time to toss out the useless idea that it is getting us somewhere.

I would love to hear your epistemological view regarding scientific theory and why it is incorrect to base knowledge on observable data. Please explain how we are able to make accurate predictions using the scientific method, if the method is indeed flawed.

a reply to: Box of Rain

It's properties could be beyond our understanding completely. Maybe devoid of our physical laws and devoid of time. Our brains can't even process that without subconsciously trying to interpret it via our usual ways of comprehending reality (i.e. time/space).

I used the analogy of a video game above. Mario exists in a 2D universe and cannot comprehend a 3D universe (and before some smartass mentions Mario 3D .............. you know what I'm getting at!).

We exist in a universe where most of us are aware of it as being 3-dimensional. Some will say 4-dimensional depending on whether they favour the concept of time being a 4th linear dimension in a mathematical construct. The entities running this hypothetical simulation may not even be in a 5-dimensional, 7-dimensional or 10-dimensional universe, but way beyond that.

Of course, some people will say that's impossible and our current understanding of science doesn't allow for it. We have to accept that just like we were once totally oblivious as to what was beyond the Earth itself, we are probably totally oblivious as to what's beyond our physical universe.