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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

page: 13
38
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai

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



The total fly in the ointment.




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrMasterJoe
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...


VERY ASTUTE OBSERVATION!

Quantum Mechanics tells us their isn't any objective universe just experience. Look at the uncertainty principle. If a Physicist goes into his lab to carry out a measurement of spin and say he has a 50% chance he will measure spin up and 50% chance he will measure spin down, then the reality of spin up/spin down doesn't exist until he makes the choice to carry out a measurement.

Say he carries out a measurement and gets spin down, this still isn't an objective reality but a subjective experience of the Physicist measuring spin down. Minutes later he can carry out a measurement on the same particle and get spin up.

Here's Physicist Daegene Song who says conscious doesn't compute.


CHUNGCHEONGBUK-DO, South Korea, May 5, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Within some circles in the scientific community, debate rages about whether computers will achieve technological singularity (TS) or strong artificial intelligence (AI)--in other words, self-recognition or human consciousness within a computer--within the next few decades. Now, however, a Korean quantum physicist has shown that computers will never be able to duplicate human consciousness or be programmed to do so, because they lack the fundamental . . . well, humanity. And his research may finally answer questions that have long stymied brain science researchers.

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."

And therein lies the kernel of truth that could resolve two problems researchers have until now been unable to resolve: First, that no approach to brain research had ever been able to precisely represent consciousness; and second, that no one actually understood how a network of neurons, also known as the human brain, could somehow give rise to consciousness.


www.prnewswire.com...

This is very important. It shows consciousness experiencing these simulated universes. So consciousness is more fundamental than anything physical. Here's more from Song.

Non-Computability of Consciousness


With the great success in simulating many intelligent behaviors using computing devices, there has been an ongoing debate whether all conscious activities are computational processes. In this paper, the answer to this question is shown to be no. A certain phenomenon of consciousness is demonstrated to be fully represented as a computational process using a quantum computer. Based on the computability criterion discussed with Turing machines, the model constructed is shown to necessarily involve a non-computable element. The concept that this is solely a quantum effect and does not work for a classical case is also discussed.


arxiv.org...

Here's a video from Song talking about the Subjective Universe using the math of quantum theory.


edit on 27-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


Quantum Mechanics tells us their isn't any objective universe just experience.


Quantum Mechanics says observations at the quantum level are chosen randomly, based on the weighted average of its wave function. While this does say something fundamental about the nature of the universe, it's *not* that there is no objective reality.

If you and I are real people (assuming you're not a figment of my imagination), and you and I can go to the same spot in the same State Park and look at the same mountain, without ever having corroborated its existence with one another, then there is indeed an objective reality.

The only way reality isn't objective is if you're not real. As in, I'm the only real person on the planet. Which isn't a very entertaining way of looking at this, and I assume it's not true.



Look at the uncertainty principle. If a Physicist goes into his lab to carry out a measurement of spin and say he has a 50% chance he will measure spin up and 50% chance he will measure spin down, then the reality of spin up/spin down doesn't exist until he makes the choice to carry out a measurement.

That's true. This is precisely what QM says.



Say he carries out a measurement and gets spin down, this still isn't an objective reality but a subjective experience of the Physicist measuring spin down.

But it's not subjective. Because once the wave function is collapsed, it's collapsed for EVERYONE. This is a crucial point.



Minutes later he can carry out a measurement on the same particle and get spin up.

Except he can't. The wave function collapsed after the first measurement, and the particle will remain in its present eigenstate indefinitely, or until it interacts with something in its environment. In practice, there *will* tend to be interaction with the environment so the particle will start spinning again, but the point I am making is that when the wave function collapsed, it collapsed for everyone, and even if there were 10 people in the room when the measurement was taken (and half of them had their backs turned), all 10 of them would agree on the reading at the sensor. Erego, reality is objective, EVEN at the quantum level.


And reality certainly appears to be objective in the "big world" too.
edit on 27-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Again, it does say there's no objective universe outside of experience.

Like I said with the Physicist in the room will only experience an observable when he carries out a measurement. If there's 10 guys in the room then they will experience spin down when they observe the measurement that didn't exist prior to the choice to carry out a measurement.

So it's a subjective experience and not an objectiveuniverse and this is exactly what Song showed using the math of quantum theory and that's why I linked to his video and published paper.

It has to be subjective because it only exists at the moment.

It all comes down to a person's subjective first person point of view of what we call reality.

You can't show New York exists when you're not interracting with it. You have to trust that it exists. There's 7 billion points of view and each point of view is all that we can say exists.

I will never know how you experience spaghetti. To you spaghetti can taste more like fettucini and fettucini can taste more like spaghetti but your subjective truth is "reality" to you just like mine is to me.

So back to the Physicist in the room, the measurement of spin down is a subjective experience of spin down at that moment. The wave function collapsed, if collapse occurs, for the Physicist in the room. That was a subjective experience just to those 10 people in the room. Your subjective experience is reading about what they experienced.

So the wave function collapsed at all points in space but those 10 Physicist in the room are the only ones who had a SUBJECTIVE spin down experience.

Again, I didn't say there wasn't an objective reality, I said there isn't an objective universe. Those are 2 different things.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Greggers

Again, it does say there's no objective universe outside of experience.

Like I said with the Physicist in the room will only experience an observable when he carries out a measurement. If there's 10 guys in the room then they will experience spin down when they observe the measurement that didn't exist prior to the choice to carry out a measurement.

So it's a subjective experience and not an objectiveuniverse and this is exactly what Song showed using the math of quantum theory and that's why I linked to his video and published paper.

It has to be subjective because it only exists at the moment.

That's not what subjective means. Lots of things exist only at the moment -- that does NOT make them subjective.

Subjective means "subject to the interpretation of each individual," as in "there is no right answer."

Objective means, "Based on Hard data."

Objective: The relative humidity is 80%
Subjective: Humidity sucks.

Quantum Mechanics is based on hard math. The measurement of the spin produces a piece of hard data, and the experience of this data is THE SAME FOR EVERYONE.




It all comes down to a person's subjective first person point of view of what we call reality.

No, because the measurement is the same for everyone. Even for people who weren't in the room but who came in to view the sensor hours, months, or years later.



You can't show New York exists when you're not interracting with it. You have to trust that it exists. There's 7 billion points of view and each point of view is all that we can say exists.

This is a philosophical statement rather than a scientific one. That's fine, as far as that goes, but it is not supported by quantum mechanics.

The most quantum mechanics implies (but does not say outright) is that something might not exist in our reality until it is observed. But once observed, the wave function collapses, and it collapses the same for everyone. And in truth, something about the object HAD to exist even before it was observed, for reasons I have stated numerous times already.



I will never know how you experience spaghetti. To you spaghetti can taste more like fettucini and fettucini can taste more like spaghetti but your subjective truth is "reality" to you just like mine is to me.

Yep. This is a fine example of what subjective actually means.



So back to the Physicist in the room, the measurement of spin down is a subjective experience of spin down at that moment. The wave function collapsed, if collapse occurs, for the Physicist in the room. That was a subjective experience just to those 10 people in the room. Your subjective experience is reading about what they experienced.

No. The spin measured in the room was OBJECTIVE. As long as they don't reset the sensor, you can parade everyone in the universe through the door of that room to look at it, and they will all agree on the measurement. The individual does NOT determine what the value was. There is only one RIGHT answer.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You said:

But once observed, the wave function collapses, and it collapses the same for everyone.

This is wrong. Once it's measured the wave function collapses and some people say it doesn't collapse.

Secondly, you said:

That's not what subjective means. Lots of things exist only at the moment -- that does NOT make them subjective.

Subjective means "subject to the interpretation of each individual," as in "there is no right answer."

Objective means, "Based on Hard data."


What hatd data are you talking about? If we exist in a simulated universe it's just one bubble or brane out of many bubbles and brane.

So if somebody in another universe experience 80% humidity in the same way we experience 60% humidity how can our humidity be objective reality?

You're stuck in Plato's Cave and you're looking at "hard data" from an egocentric point of view and quantum mechanics tells us local realism is dead.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism


A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.


www.nature.com...

Like I said, the physicist in the room had a subjective experience of measuring spin down, the people who come in and look at the sensor will have a subjective experience of looking at the senor and trusting the Physicist in the room.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Hmm We Could be a Simulation Layered within a Simulation..
Space Timed Within Dimensional Planes ...

but if we go in that Route

Religion Comes in .. Funny The Angry Boy (GOD/S ) at the Controls of the Earth/SOL Terminal ( Old Testament )
GEts XP!


within time Matured and becomes more Relaxed Resolved His Anger Issues..
( New Testament ) Gods and Deity s Angels n Demons ..


perhaps we DO live in a Simulation..



Premonition to the Super natural
Karma, Fate, Repeats of Extreme Luck ..
From Bizarre Unfathomable ODDS ..

Are the Glitches in the Simulation...


I honestly Think For Us on this Planet ...

It Not Like the Matrix ... More Like ..............

Movies Like :

World on a Wire
www.youtube.com...


TRON ...

www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...



Or The 13th Floor

Simulation within a Layered Simulation
www.youtube.com...



Could be ?

The Galaxys, The Stars , Planets, Moons etc...

Are the Platforms of this Simulation ..
and in Our Solar System Someone is Setting the Controls to the Heart of the SUN

Or The Simulation is all in Our Head .. Wells someone else's!







edit on 22016TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago9270 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   


But once observed, the wave function collapses, and it collapses the same for everyone.

This is wrong. Once it's measured the wave function collapses and some people say it doesn't collapse.

You're wrong. I can link to some basic primers on QM if you're interested in learning about this. But yes, the value produced during any individual measurement is an empirical result that is not unique to the person who made the measurement. No one there will experience the wave function "not collapsing" unless they are delusional.




Secondly, you said:

That's not what subjective means. Lots of things exist only at the moment -- that does NOT make them subjective.

Subjective means "subject to the interpretation of each individual," as in "there is no right answer."

Objective means, "Based on Hard data."


What hatd data are you talking about? If we exist in a simulated universe it's just one bubble or brane out of many bubbles and brane.

So if somebody in another universe experience 80% humidity in the same way we experience 60% humidity how can our humidity be objective reality?


First, I never said we lived in a simulated universe. I am, however, interested in exploring the proposed architecture for such a universe, and what it would say about the nature of reality, but only to the extent that the model FITS emiprical facts. The concept that we live in a simulated universe is unfalsifiable after all.

Secondly, in previous example, both RH figures are OBJECTIVE. Obviously, one would have to actually BE in the corresponding universe to experience that particular RH percentage. But in both cases, the RH is an empirical measurement that would be the same for everyone there to experience it.



You're stuck in Plato's Cave and you're looking at "hard data" from an egocentric point of view and quantum mechanics tells us local realism is dead.

Plato's cave is a philosophical construct that says that we do not accurately perceive the nature of reality. That's all fine and well, but it doesn't change the fact that measurements of relative humidity, or particle spin, or weight, or lumens, or any other aspect of the physical world are OJECTIVE by nature.



Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism


A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.


www.nature.com...


I know what local realism means, and it has nothing to do with subjectivity. I'd like to see if you know what it means.



Like I said, the physicist in the room had a subjective experience of measuring spin down, the people who come in and look at the sensor will have a subjective experience of looking at the senor and trusting the Physicist in the room.

All you're saying is that everyone sees things with their own eyes, and sees whatever it is they are looking at. That's not what subjective means.

I'll say this again. Subjective means THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER, and that the ANSWER is up to the individual.

If I measure an RH of 80% in my living room, everyone who comes into my room to measure it with a similar device will get a similar reading. The RH is OBJECTIVE.

I don't think you understand what these words mean.
edit on 27-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You might want to watch this:




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Of course you don't because your're stuck in Plato's cave and this is why there's barely a response when you usually have these book report type of posts.

You said:

All you're saying is that everyone sees things with their own eyes, and sees whatever it is they are looking at. That's not what subjective means.

This isn't what I said and again, you have to get your head out of the cave.

For instance, gravity is an objective reality but it can be experienced differently. There could be a universe where people walk on air like it's concrete.

To them, their subjective experience is an objective reality just like you believe your subjective bubble is the sum of reality. This type of thinking is akin to the flat earthers/ If you can't let go of an egocentric view of reality, you will just stay a prisoner in Plato's Cave.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I figured you would edit your post into another long winded diatribe of nothing.

You know their losing the debate when the skeptics break out "woo."

Everything that doesn't agree with them is woo lol. So typical.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

For instance, gravity is an objective reality but it can be experienced differently.

Then why does every person or object ever measured in a gravitational field always behave as the rules of GR predict they will?



There could be a universe where people walk on air like it's concrete.

So, you're proposing there could be a DIFFERENT universe with a DIFFERENT Objective reality. I don't dispute that at all. Again, that's not what subjective means.



To them, their subjective experience is an objective reality just like you believe your subjective bubble is the sum of reality. This type of thinking is akin to the flat earthers/ If you can't let go of an egocentric view of reality, you will just stay a prisoner in Plato's Cave.


The definitions of these words are freely available online, you know.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Greggers

I figured you would edit your post into another long winded diatribe of nothing.

You know their losing the debate when the skeptics break out "woo."

Everything that doesn't agree with them is woo lol. So typical.


I edit my posts to make sure I have expressed my thoughts as clearly as possible.

Why are you taking this so personally? We are debating the meaning of the words objective and subjective. I'm trying to help you understand what those words mean.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Greggers

I figured you would edit your post into another long winded diatribe of nothing.

You know their losing the debate when the skeptics break out "woo."

Everything that doesn't agree with them is woo lol. So typical.


By the way, quantum woo is a real thing. It's when people use quantum mechanics to make claims that have no basis whatsoever in science. Since QM is non-intuitive and difficult to understand, it's an easy thing for charlatans to twist.

And here I am discussing the "Universe as Simulation" hypothesis and actually giving it some credence, because it fascinates me, and as I've said before, is a useful tool for understanding the world.

But if I made a statement such as "Quantum Entanglement PROVES we live in a simulation," I would be guilty of quantum woo.

Find me one real quantum physicist who would make such a claim outright.
edit on 27-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I posted this video a few pages back. But I will post it again, because it explains the point I'm making about the particle measurement collapsing the wave function for everyone.




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You said:

So, you're proposing there could be a DIFFERENT universe with a DIFFERENT Objective reality. I don't dispute that at all. Again, that's not what subjective means.

This is what you're having a hard time grasping. The other universe wouldn't be a different objective reality, it would be the same as ours just expressed differently. So their reality would be a subjective experience just like ours.

There's a theory that says black holes collapse into wormholes and that wormhole connects to another universe. In the area of the wormhole entanglement would get close to zero. So it would be the same space just stretched out into other universes. These universes wouldn't be an objective reality, they would be a subjective universe connected to an objective reality.

Again, you think that you're subjective experience in this universe is the sum of all that exists. Based on Quantum Mechanics, that's just silly. Here's a few quotes from Werner Heisenberg who gave us the Uncertainty Principle..

“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but
nature exposed to our method of questioning.

― Werner Heisenberg


Here's an important one that also speaks to what I'm saying.

“Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.”
― Werner Heisenberg


WELCOME TO THE SUBJECTIVE UNIVERSE!



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   


This is what you're having a hard time grasping. The other universe wouldn't be a different objective reality, it would be the same as ours just expressed differently. So their reality would be a subjective experience just like ours.

Unless each individual person in this universe was free to dream up their own laws of physics, those laws of physics would be OBJECTIVE, just like ours.




Again, you think that you're subjective experience in this universe is the sum of all that exists.

No, I don't.



Based on Quantum Mechanics, that's just silly. Here's a few quotes from Werner Heisenberg who gave us the Uncertainty Principle..

It's silly for a lot of reasons, the most compelling of which have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It's a good thing I never said I believe it.



“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.”
― Werner Heisenberg

I agree with Heisenberg. I agree with Plato too, for the record. And yet, empirical measurements remain OBJECTIVE.



We're arguing about the meaning of two words. It's a semantic argument. Subjective does not mean what you think it does. Just go look at the definition.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You're just making it up as you go. You said:

Unless each individual person in this universe was free to dream up their own laws of physics, those laws of physics would be OJECTIVE, just like ours.

What? You're not making any sense. Where did I say they would have to dream up their own laws of physics. They can have different laws of physics and their bubble would be just as subjective as ours with people like you who think their bubble (cave) is the sum of all that exists. That makes no sense.

Secondly, you said that I said:

Quantum Entanglement PROVES we live in a simulation

Show me where I said this? Did you even read the title of the thread? When people start saying silly things like quantum woo and they just flat out lie, you know their losing the debate.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Or, if you're using some non-standard definition of SUBJECTIVE, please state the definition here so we can both be on the same page.

I'm not asking for an encyclopedia entry. Just a sentence or two providing some alternate (but commonly accepted) definition of the word subjective.

I ask because so far, what you are saying does not match the definition I know.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   




Unless each individual person in this universe was free to dream up their own laws of physics, those laws of physics would be OJECTIVE, just like ours.

What? You're not making any sense.

Yes, that makes sense. Are you saying you disagree with it? If so, on what grounds?



Where did I say they would have to dream up their own laws of physics.

You didn't. I'm explaining to you what would be required to make the laws of physics in this universe SUBJECTIVE.



They can have different laws of physics and their bubble would be just as subjective as ours with people like you who think their bubble (cave) is the sum of all that exists.

The word subjective does not mean what you think it does.




Quantum Entanglement PROVES we live in a simulation

Show me where I said this? Did you even read the title of the thread? When people start saying silly things like quantum woo and they just flat out lie, you know their losing the debate.

I never said you made this claim. I was giving you an example of Quantum Woo.




top topics



 
38
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join