Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

originally posted by: Greggers

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.

Exactly,

I said awhile ago that space or the wave function is like a server that stores all the information about a system and then that information appears on the spacetime screen when accessed.

This is just like the server we use today. The information about a web site that's not being OBSERVED isn't online. The information is stored on a server.

The basic function of a server is to listen in on a port for incoming network requests, and a good demonstration of this is the interaction between a Web server and browser. Although to a user the process is instantaneous, or nearly so, when he clicks a link while surfing the Web, several things are taking place behind the scenes: the request for the Web page is transmitted to the corresponding Web server, the server fetches and assembles the Web page and retransmits it using a protocol like HTTP, and, finally, the user's browser receives the data, converts it, and displays the page to him.

www.techwalla.com...

You make excellent observations.

I've been digging into this "Universe as Simulation" argument deeply, partly because I want to write a believable story on this topic as my second science-fiction novel, and partly because I am considering compiling all my thoughts on the topic into a non-fiction tome (possibly as an addendum).

One thing I am trying to reconcile:

Things that are unobserved can't remain static when unobserved. Just to provide one example, consider objects in our solar system. There is probably another large planet floating around out there well beyond pluto, and although it has never been observed, it is tugging on the orbits of things we can observe, which is why we think it's there.

Or, to use an example closer to home, let's say you open your front door during a rainstorm. The next morning, you notice water on a previously unobserved wall in your dining room. Clearly the wall was somehow "active" even though it was not observed the night before.

So, my point, I guess, is that the probability server isn't just a bunch of static database entries. It has to be tracking the probability distributions of everything. Or maybe it keeps some things in a static state until the probability of it being observed increases above a certain threshold, and then it runs some sort of batch algorithm to bring it into session on the probability server, but un-rendered on the space-time grid.

And might not the speed of light be a good way for the simulation to track the probability of observation? Granted, severe time dilation at highly relativistic speeds could throw a wrench into that idea, but so far we do not know if it's possible to develop technology that would enable conscious observers to travel fast enough for it to make a difference in this regard.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I do some Computer Programming on the side and I build websites, the world as a simulation makes more sense to me rather than the world being the result of some random physics. There's no such thing as randomness to me. Everything is governed by a set of rules, laws and values and you just get variations of these rules and laws.

More and more people are talking about the universe as a simulation. Here's a talk from Neil deGrasse Tyson, James Gates and others on the topic.

In a way, I agree.

I've had enough out-of-body experiences to know this. But where human reasoning fails is that we only have something like computers or computing to compare reality to. We have to use language to describe or detail something out of the ordinary. In our limited understanding, yes, you could compare the universe to a vast simulation. And in doing so, many people will think of the movie, The Matrix, or a video game where you can choose what you do, who you are, and what ultimately happens to you. Plus, in that video game there are a set of 'rules' just like the universe.

The thing is, that explanation is so limited. We're barely grasping it in our minds, because the idea is so terrifically magnificent, we just can't wrap our heads around it. So we have to link the idea of our universe to something we know and understand.

Maybe instead of looking at our universe as a supercomputer (which is different from a simulation), you should look at the universe as a copier. And consciousness is the supercomputer. The universe copies everything we think, do, feel, say etc. Any energy we have, never dies, and is simply sent out, so the universe is a re-enactment designed and created by us to re-create who we truly are.

I have seen this reality as simply molecules in an OBE. Those molecules are moving. When I was back in my body, those molecules had a density, a physical structure, but in absolute reality they were only shifting molecules, heaped together in some places, and denser in certain areas, and I brought them to life.

In saying that particles should be called pixels and space-time a screen, you are trying to fit this grand idea of the universe into something you know so you can understand it better. That's a human thing to do. You are putting a human construct on something that is not human as you know it.

If you were a painter, you could just as easily say the particles are particles, and the space-time is more of a canvas. But you work with computers.

What I've seen in my OBEs isn't that the particles/molecules are entangled. They're very separate, but they are . . . not clumped . . . more like denser. There's more particles/molecules where a sofa would be. They're held together by energy.

This line: The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register -- can also be compared to human beings. What can our physical systems register?

Anyway, I really enjoyed reading your OP, and I thank you for opening a dialogue about this. The subject interest me.

originally posted by: Greggers
You make excellent observations.

I've been digging into this "Universe as Simulation" argument deeply, partly because I want to write a believable story on this topic as my second science-fiction novel, and partly because I am considering compiling all my thoughts on the topic into a non-fiction tome (possibly as an addendum).

One thing I am trying to reconcile:

Things that are unobserved can't remain static when unobserved.

Basically, how does your heart beat by itself? Or how do you breathe automatically? Those are things you do while sleeping and not observing. I think I read somewhere that if making our bodies function properly was something we had to do, we would never have time to do anything else.

Even objects that look static are not. If you were to look deeper with a microscope, you would see little organisms moving to and fro. Take a stone, for instance. That appears to not move at all on the outside, yet inside of it is a different story.

I write sci-fi as well, but I find language is limited when describing or trying to explain there's a higher consciousness at work here.

Procedural generation is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually.

No Man's Sky's defining feature is that nearly all parts of the galaxy, including stars, planets, flora and fauna on these planets, and sentient alien encounters, are created through procedural generation using deterministic algorithms and random number generators from a single seed number.This 64-bit value leads to there being over 18 quintillion planets to explore within the game.

Very little data is stored on the game's servers, as all elements of the game are created through deterministic calculations when the player is near them, assuring that other players will see the same elements as another player by travelling to the same location in the galaxy

law of physics = algorithms.

originally posted by: pacific

originally posted by: Greggers
You make excellent observations.

I've been digging into this "Universe as Simulation" argument deeply, partly because I want to write a believable story on this topic as my second science-fiction novel, and partly because I am considering compiling all my thoughts on the topic into a non-fiction tome (possibly as an addendum).

One thing I am trying to reconcile:

Things that are unobserved can't remain static when unobserved.

Basically, how does your heart beat by itself? Or how do you breathe automatically? Those are things you do while sleeping and not observing. I think I read somewhere that if making our bodies function properly was something we had to do, we would never have time to do anything else.

Even objects that look static are not. If you were to look deeper with a microscope, you would see little organisms moving to and fro. Take a stone, for instance. That appears to not move at all on the outside, yet inside of it is a different story.

I write sci-fi as well, but I find language is limited when describing or trying to explain there's a higher consciousness at work here.

For the sake of conversation, we are assuming a hypothetical wherein reality is not rendered in the space-time grid until observed. The point I am making is that even if it's not rendered, it must continue to effect other things that ARE rendered, and even some things that are not.

I am trying to develop a software/hardware model of this that makes sense.

It seems to me that all the subatomic randomness of everything must be continually calculated by a massive computer we have no access to. It's not RENDERED, but the data is continually crunched.

Perhaps we're not in the simulation at all. Perhaps the simulation itself is NOT rendered -- it's just bits flipping on a machine, simulating everything in the universe except the conscious observers.

To add conscious observers to the mix, they had to add a "visualization grid." That grid, subdivided into plank-length pixels (to borrow a computer term that's not entirely fitting), is what we interface with. And the only parts that get moved to the grid are the parts observed.

originally posted by: Greggers

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.

Or another reason is that we are the creators of our reality and when we choose what we want to experience, that part comes forth in our reality. Kind of like believing is seeing. Maybe change the sentence to 'the universe behaves as though the only parts rendered are the parts we pick'. Then ask who does the choosing, picking, makes decisions. But I guess that can make people uncomfortable because it's a lot easier to believe that you are not directing your life.

Doesn't this relate back to the idea that time doesn't exist? That all experiences that were ever had or ever will be had, have already been done and those experiences/choices are sitting there in the universe just waiting for someone to bring them forth? Just like in a video game. And you get to choose from a vast bank of experiences to re-create the grandest vision you ever had about yourself.

I absolutely do not work with computers, but I am enjoying this conversation and I like discussing the ideas of the universe with others, so I hope you'll take my input as ideas from another angle, mostly spiritual with an interest in science. Thanks again for this discussion.

BTW-I think the verb "observed" doesn't fit. Maybe the greater consciousness observes everything, so nothing is never not 'observed'. But as a smaller organism, human beings cannot see absolute reality.

Sorry that I can't help with software.

originally posted by: pacific

Or another reason is that we are the creators of our reality and when we choose what we want to experience, that part comes forth in our reality.

I'm not sure this idea works. Let me explain why.

First, a few assumptions. I assume you are a real person, and not just a figment of my imagination or something I "brought into the world."

Secondly, I assume there is an external reality that exists OUTSIDE of all of us, that we all observe.

If this is true, then in our computer analogy, the observer sends a query to the probability server, and the probability selects a result randomly and passes it back.

That's not to say there couldn't been some other program tying the "hopes and wishes" of observers into the result set somehow, but I'm not even prepared to speculate about how that might work, and it's not what I was talking about, to be clear.

originally posted by: elgaz
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!).

If that were the case, then I would argue that our universe is in fact "real". That is to say, this thing people call a simulation would the actual nature of our universe and the way our universe exists in nature -- because the "nature" outside the universe is beyond anything we can comprehend.

That makes us and our universe (a universe unique in physical laws to the one in which the simulation is being run) as real as the universe in which a being (or whatever) is simulating us, because our universe would be so vastly different in nature as the one in which the simulation is being run.

I go back to the holographic universe hypothesis: If the universe is 2D holographic in nature (not a simulation, but the holographic nature of the universe being simply the way the universe naturally works), then that 2D holographic universe is just as real as it would be if our universe followed the traditional idea that we all exist in g 3D space.

A holographic universe need not be a simulation, but just the way the universe works.

originally posted by: pikestaff
So where does this simulation and hologram come from?

that would be the planet saturn,the huge 3D cube on its pole hence why cube's are rampent
in film, advetising, corperate insignea, etc and ring referances.elite saturn/cube worship.
apparently or so it goes....

cubetastic
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for bringing up one of my favorite topics
By everything I have ever seen, heard or read about the topic I fully agree that this reality is some sort of virtual reality!

Most people these days still think this idea is far fetched and crazy. Yet I think there are still a few fundamental misunderstandings about why this can be a simulation and how it works. And the following IMHO false dogma is still the main reason that this seems so incredible.

General assumptions:
- We live in an objective physical reality which can be described by a system of formulas alone (some day).
- Matter is fundamental and basically all there is.
- Consciousness is based on some yet unknown complex materialistic principles.

I strongly believe that instead the following is correct (or at least much closer to what's really going on):
- Consciousness is fundamental.
- Matter and this reality are created by consciousness alone.
- The 'simulation' is not running on any 'system' or computer but is created and experienced inside of consciousness itself.
- There are MANY realities which all 'run' at the same 'time'. Our universe is just one in very many and very different realities.

Time itself will prove this concept right some day, I believe. However - It won't change our daily lives that much right away when we can finally prove this. We still have to go through more of this stuff to see the 'next level'. It mind blowing complex on any of the very many levels and then some. But maybe KNOWING that matter is just some structured information being processed by consciousness might open up ways to alter some things a little. This will provide new tools for our existence and what we can do here. I believe some E.T.s already have mastered some of this and therefore are virtually undetectable for us as we are bloody beginners in this insanely large game

And existence as such is by far the biggest mystery of all...

a reply to: Greggers

By saying Planet Nine has not been observed so far you once more imply a geocentric world view where there are no 'others' which could also observe stuff all the time (e.g. E.T.s).

But it's an interesting and unsolved mystery whether everyone (or groups of observers) have their very own partitioned virtual environment or whether 'we' all share truely the same 'box'. At least from an information processing point of view (think collisions) it would provide much more dedication to personal growth and learning to have an individual environment for each 'state of being'. I am still on the fence whether the reality frame that my 'I' is experiencing is my very own (with many NPCs which are still virtually indistinguishable from PCs) or a full blown multiplayer game with all its crazy implications... But as a final note and to really blow away anybodys minds it might very well be true that... ... BOTH variants with individual and collective realities exist at the very same 'time'... Ouch!

a reply to: mrMasterJoe



That conclusion would imply some sort of infinite source.If the Universe is infinite which it probably is, their would be an infinite amount of possibilities.My observation for what it is. If the Universe was finite their should be nothing infinite in it. PI being an infinite number, last calculation done was a million places so it seems to suggest it might be.

a reply to: anonentity

Yeah. And to be honest - I do believe this thing is infinite in every aspect which MIGHT actually explain why it exists in the first place. Well... does it??

Some questions may be never answered at all... EVER!

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: elgaz
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!).

If that were the case, then I would argue that our universe is in fact "real". That is to say, this thing people call a simulation would the actual nature of our universe and the way our universe exists in nature -- because the "nature" outside the universe is beyond anything we can comprehend.

That makes us and our universe (a universe unique in physical laws to the one in which the simulation is being run) as real as the universe in which a being (or whatever) is simulating us, because our universe would be so vastly different in nature as the one in which the simulation is being run.

I go back to the holographic universe hypothesis: If the universe is 2D holographic in nature (not a simulation, but the holographic nature of the universe being simply the way the universe naturally works), then that 2D holographic universe is just as real as it would be if our universe followed the traditional idea that we all exist in g 3D space.

A holographic universe need not be a simulation, but just the way the universe works.

It's real to us perhaps. We can't see outside the box. We can only deal with what's in front of us; that is our reality.

But ultimately, if this IS a simulation - then it's a construct. Unbelievably complex, incredibly complicated and rendered to such a degree that billions of unique beings consider it to be real - but nevertheless, still a construct housed within the true 'reality'. Maybe housed within multiple realities, like Russian dolls.

The Matrix may be a work of fiction, but it is a brilliant example of some of these concepts we're discussing executed on a smaller scale. The vast majority of human characters living in the Matrix have no idea they're in a construct, and as far as they're concerned that is their reality. But there's another world encompassing it.

Would that make a difference to us if we knew we were in a construct rather than the one true reality (if such a thing exists)? Not day to day I guess. We'll still get up, go to work, earn enough to keep a roof over our heads and pursue our various hobbies and relationships. But it would certainly put a hugely different slant on the whole question of why-we're-here, and I think it would have a huge, huge impact on religion.

originally posted by: mrMasterJoe
a reply to: Greggers



By saying Planet Nine has not been observed so far you once more imply a geocentric world view where there are no 'others' which could also observe stuff all the time (e.g. E.T.s).

That's a good point, of course.

Keep in mind, that was just an example. The point being, that when stuff isn't observed, it still has to impact stuff which IS being observed, or at least the impact of its presence must be tracked in such a way that the entire history of its impact can be calculated whether it's observed or not.

I thought a planet was a good example because the impact of its presence is enormous and tracks over the span of billions of years. So that when a conscious observer finally arises and looks out at a planet, there's a lot of cause and effect to make up for -- perhaps a bit too much to calculate on the fly, as we're essentially talking about the history of the universe.

So, I start gravitating to the type of simulation used to reproduce cellular function. When quantum computers finally start getting a footing (I mean real quantum computers, not the D-Wave), it is thought that one of the uses will be to simulate the behavior of cells, molecules, and so forth in real time. But to look at what's actually going on inside the simulation, they will use monitors and print-outs, because they only care about certain parameters.

So give that some thought.

Perhaps we are in such a quantum computer in some higher reality, and we are viewing a 3D space-time grid VR, which is the equivalent of the monitor on a super computer.

Our reality is, in effect, this monitor. All that quantum strangeness happens in the super computer, which is beyond our reality.

We can address consciousness from just the perspective of the standard model but a problem with that is despite the emphasis in relation to conflict with SM and QM.

In fact is we as a society in general have no real deductive comprehension of Consciousness.

a reply to: Greggers

Really, in my opinion your describing the universe using words like VR (same thing as simulation) will bring you closer to actual science. Seems to me you are working your way understanding cosmos and our place in it from different end.

Real or not real..depends what do you think of real. Your senses tell you tangible objects of macro world are real and at the same time you know any object is a collection of atoms, and atoms are governed by rules of particle engagement and so on..to the point down to a particle the word 'real' becomes irrelevant.

VR you say...I made of VR stuff..stars around me made of VR...
Simulation suggests some sort of universal processing serving VR world to you as tangible. It is not true imo.

My bottom line is: The 'real' becomes such because of processing done by you, locally and the fact we all share same 'reality' means data fed row to all of life equally.

cheers) I like your notion and wording. Thanks.

Animals respond to Operant conditioning and as well Skinnerian conclusions and pretty much only if they are domesticated.

In reality training wild animals the same way one would teach a domesticated animal to conform can actually be very dangerous.

Humans are less aggressive in that sense actually under experimental conditions but the result are similar in ways.