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.

 

Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

page: 15
38
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: Greggers

Is it accurate (or approaching accuracy) to say that human measurement does not create or influence reality, but has an effect on how reality is perceived through that measurement?



Interesting question. I'm not sure how to answer, so I'll give you one of my infamous long-winded answers in an attempt to capture the essence of it. I hope you don't mind.


I guess the simplest answer is: At the quantum level, the thing being measured actually appears to change its behavior based upon whether the "which path" information is knowable, whether it was measured or not.

Keep in mind, I don't mean "whether it's knowable to the observer who conducted the experiment." I mean "whether it's KNOWABLE to ANYONE."

Of course, if it's NOT measured, the information is not knowable. However, even if it is measured, the information may or may not be knowable (see the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser), and this alone appears to determine whether the wave function collapses.

This is incredibly strange.

This test says some very strange things about the universe, including whether the measurement of the photon was pre-determined.




edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

But photons striking a chlorophyll molecule on a leaf in a jungle canopy in South America, out of sight of a conscious observer, will cause an reaction in the chlorophyll molecule even when there is no "consciousness" round to observe it...

I mean, it's not as if the tree doesn't grow until someone is around to observe it.

The same goes for photons carrying infrared radiation in space. An unknown comet out there in deep space might have its volatile compounds excited by solar radiation, and do so without a conscious observer ever knowing that the comet exists.

Or that the interaction of particles that cause a fusion reaction deep inside the sun does not happen until 100,000 years later when a photon created from that reaction strikes the eye of a conscious observer?


edit on 2016/9/28 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
And we run it all and don't even know it!
theastronomist.fieldofscience.com...



The 109 connections in a cubic cubic centimeter of the brain is two orders of magnitude smaller than a low estimate of the number of stars in the Milky Way. No, on average there are not more connections in a cubic millimeter of your brain than there are stars in the Milky Way.




René Marois from the Center for Integrative and Cognitive Neurosciences at Vanderbilt Vision Research Center states in a recent paper [1]
The human brain is heralded for its staggering complexity and processing capacity: its hundred billion neurons and several hundred trillion synaptic connections can process and exchange prodigious amounts of information over a distributed neural network in the matter of milliseconds.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: Greggers

But photons striking a chlorophyll molecule on a leaf in a jungle canopy in South America, out of sight of a conscious observer, will cause an reaction in the chlorophyll molecule even when there is no "consciousness" round to observe it...

I mean, it's not as if the tree doesn't grow until someone is around to observe it.

The same goes for photons carrying infrared radiation in space. An unknown comet out there in deep space might could have its volatile compounds excited by solar radiation, and do so without a conscious observer ever knowing that the comet exists.



Yes, I agree! You may have noticed me attempting to reconcile this conundrum during serveral posts a few pages ago. Somewhere I gave a description of a computer architecture model I felt could account for this (since that appears to be inline with the premise of this thread), but I did a cursory search for that post and failed to locate it. If I can dig it up, I can post it again.

But in a nutshell, my point is that QM doesn't really prove that reality doesn't EXIST until observed. However, one could interpret it to imply that it's not RENDERED until observed, if we're using a computer analogy.

In my proposed architecture, I suggested a PROBABILITY server that captures the wave function of everything in the universe. Only when queried are these wave functions collapsed into a single particle and returned to the space-time Grid.

So, the light would hit the leaf even if not observed. In fact, it's stranger than that. Because the photon would hit the leaf, not hit the leaf, hit some other leaf, and every other possible result, but this would all happen outside of our reality in the SUPERPOSITION which we are never allowed to observe.

Now, it's possible that the probability server might CHOOSE one path to track. It's also possible that it's tracking ALL the paths simultaneously. This would be in agreement with many-worlds theory.

This in fact is one of the main issues I'd like to resolve with a hypothetical architecture model. I'm not really there yet. Any help is appreciated.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Well I agree... Not observed matter is virtually going through possible / probable stages to have a plausible and continous / logical state the moment it is observed again. Without ever necessarily really going through any intermediate states. In that sense it is pure virtual if such a thing happens.

However - and this is why I throw partitioning on the table - are there multiple (maybe infinite) dedicated virtual realms for everything and everyone? Because if not - How could there be something 'unobserved' if everything is virtually alive / conscious (yet on very different 'levels'). Or does this 'observeration' finally depend on the degree of evolution / understanding of the participating conscious 'cells'?

I don't think Quantum Mechanics is what really makes the Universe tick. It' s just a detectable mechanism / concept inside of Consciousness (yes, the big one). Consciousness might be the ONLY thing that exists after all. I have finally come to this conclusion. But Consciousness is so ridiculously complex that it is beyond comprehension for us conscious 'cells'. Metaphors and concepts are really all that we can comprehend - to a certain degree.
We belong to It... yet no one will EVER understand what exactly It is. Not even It understands why It exists I believe! Consciousness is the hardest of all mysteries.

So keep going, dear Consciousness... What else could you do!


edit on 28-9-2016 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
So If it is a simulation does that mean I'm in a single player game and you are all A.I or am I in a MMORPG?.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I found my earlier posts on this subject, lost in the tangle of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And

www.abovetopsecret.com...






edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrMasterJoe
a reply to: Greggers

Well I agree... Not observed matter is virtually going through possible / probable stages to have a plausible and continous / logical state the moment it is observed again. Without ever necessarily really going through any intermediate states. In that sense it is pure virtual if such a thing happens.

However - and this is why I throw partitioning on the table - are there multiple (maybe infinite) dedicated virtual realms for everything and everyone? Because it not - How could there be something 'unobserved' if everything is virtually alive / conscious (yet on very different 'levels'). Or does this 'observeration' finally depend on the degree of evolution / understanding of the participating conscious 'cells'?

I don't think Quantum Mechanics is what really makes the Universe tick. Its just a detectable mechanism inside of Consciousness (yes, the big one) which might be the only thing that exists after all. But Consciousness is so ridiculously complex that it is beyond comprehension for us conscious 'cells' and metaphors and concepts are really all that we can comprehend to a certain degree.
We belong to It... yet no one will EVER understand what exactly It is. Not even It understands why It exists I believe! Consciousness is the hardest of all mysteries.

So keep going, dear Consciousness... What else could you do!



In the model I'm developing to make sense of this (Yes, I have actual Visio diagrams LOL), I see each individual's consciousness as being a separate process. Whether physical or virtual is unclear. It could be either in this model.

Inbetween the consciousness and the PROBABILITY SERVER is the space-time grid. The space-time grid is what captures objective reality.

So the callstack goes like this:

Conscious observer-->Space-time Grid--> Probability server.

Similar to:

End-user-->Computer Monitor-->Video Game in RAM and/or Disk.

The problem is that there is another layer there, or some implementation detail, that I am clearly missing, which would be necessary to track all those unobserved changes in our consensus reality.

edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
So If it is a simulation does that mean I'm in a single player game and you are all A.I or am I in a MMORPG?.


My money is MMORPG.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Well I believe while its pretty similar to software (information, algorithms) running on a computer (Consciousness) the very big difference is that it does not run on ANY actual existing hardware
And therefore our thinking is not fully applicable if at all. What rules define Consciousness. Are there any always applicable rules at all?

I also have drawn some diagrams and stuff for getting my head around it. But I think it's rather pointless. The rules we experience are just one set of them. There might be many rulesets however and they might even change with evolution.

Time and space or spacetime when seen together are mere concepts. And if it IS true that Consciousness is all there is they might just be en vogue for a short 'while'


Edit to add:
While it's truely impossible to understand every aspect of It it's of course still fun and useful to understand what can be understood from our tiny corner of this thingy. But to expect to understand it all - as some bold statements made by some famous physicists assumed - is simply just dellusional and arrogant.

Understanding more of what makes up reality will absolutely change today's paradigms dramatically IMHO. This is what I am happily looking for...
edit on 28-9-2016 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I want to add another thought. What you are missing is the key point. This key point will ultimately lead to your model's failure. Because that's what it actually is - a model. And its a rather mechanical one. That might be its major issue...

After a long time I have come to a differnt model. And take it for what it is - a model.
In this one Consciousness is all there is. There is NOTHING else. There are not even multiple consciousnesses. There is exactly ONE. Where this thing came from? No idea. Potentially it always has been there. But It can't answer this superhard question by itsself. Thats beyond its scope. And this is one if the bitterest pills ever to swallow. There is no reason, no 'why' it exists. Causality is meaningless at this point.
Now at some point and for absolutely no reason this consciousness became what it is famous for: It became aware - of itself! For the first 'time' ever it realized that it indeed exists. That there is existance at all! But what the heck do you do when you finally realize that you are there and you are all there is??
Maybe for a very very very long 'time' you just are. You just exist. How boring.
Then you realize that this state of just being there is pointless. What follows is the next experience after awareness: action! You begin to experiment with... ... well, something! And like a child you have NO clue where it will lead to. It's trial and error. But there is the next thing you experience: Some things work better than others. I believe in this first stage there 'was' pure chaos. No rules. No goals. No idea where to go to or what to do. It (and you could also say God if you like) invented the biggest thing ever: structure! And I believe it happened accidently by trying and trying SOMETHING.
One of the key aspects and fundamental parameters of It besides being aware is intelligence! It can make decisions and judge what works better and what works not that well. This ultimately leads to: evolution!
But just for a second just imagine being It / God at the very first stage of awareness not knowing ANYTHING, not having any concept or direction at all!! There is absolutely nothing but you. No space, no time, no Universe(ses), no planets, no other beings!!
Well... But It found out that structure is the key! I believe that in the 'moment' It realized that structure leads to some interesting and useful things - some sort of ultimate 'Big Bang' happened. Well, not our infamous Big Bang. Simply the biggest Big Bang there EVER was!!! But the first structures had nothing to do at all with what we call structure today. It 'was' more like having almost total randomness / noise and suddenly - Boom - some sort of patterns emerged in the data and from there you go faster and faster and faster......

Well... I will not finish my model here. Will do my own thread some day soon about it.
But you can see where I am headed


Enjoy!
edit on 28-9-2016 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain


Like the, "Elephant and Four Blind Men".







edit on 28-9-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: mrMasterJoe

I get what you're saying, and of course it's possible you're right. Unfortunately, it's just as falsifiable a concept as the hardware/software model I'm trying to flesh out. These are just thought experiments, after all. No harm done if they are wrong, which they all most certainly are. I mean, what are the chances that a couple of guys like me or you or anyone here on this thread is going to solve all the mysteries of the universe.


What empirical evidence do you believe supports this "single consciousness model?"

Personally, I like the science fiction implications of the hardware/software universe -- I have a practical interest in this, as it's my bread and butter.

The "single consciousness" model is more metaphysical, and that's not the kind of story I write, so it interests me far less.


That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate it, however.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Thanks for your feedback

There is a lot of evidence for it and this is why I need more time to compile a thread that actually links the dots.
And its a personal story as well. It resonates extremely with me. It's like 'that's it!'
And its only the plot that I have written there - more like a teaser

And finally it answers some of the mysterous anomalies that we are still facing as human kind.

Well the story is yet to come in its full madness - no clue when I will find my time to assemble it.

I understand perfectly why you follow this computer / software approach. I am a software developer with 20+ years of experience! Been there, believe me


There is much more to it than meets the eye. Old cultures knew a lot about metaphysical stuff. We have a lot of physical technology today. Put both together and go beyond the mind walls of our times!


edit on 28-9-2016 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

What???

Now you're making up definitions. It says:

4. existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself

A 5th grader can understand what I'm saying. Like I said, you're just being obtuse or you truly don't understand this which is much worse.

The universe we live in exists only as perceived not as a thing in itself. Our universe we perceive as "reality" isn't the true nature of reality. This idea goes back further than Plato and the Allagory of the Cave.

“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


You don't respond to actual evidence presented. You just make it up as you go. You said:

I am well aware of this idea and have studied it extensively. Although I disagree with the main thesis of this article (as is typical of pop-culture articles about QM), it's not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with weather what is measured is objective or subjective.

LOL, again you make no sense. The last Physicist couldn't speak English and of course you disagree because you probably don't understand it and you can't BS your way through another long winded, meaningless response.

The fact is, a measurement in quantum mechanics is a subjective experience in this local universe. Many Physicist say there's no collapse of the wave function just an apparent collapse.

In either case, a measurement is a subjective experience. It's observers in this local universe that interact with a probable state of the wave function. We only interact with say spin up or spin down in our local universe because we can't interact with the totality of the wave function which can only be described by mathematics.

So what you measure is just one aspect or observable of the wave function.

This idea of a universe that's subjective is older than apple pie. You seem to be acting ignorant because you have no other argument. Here's a couple of quotes by Einstein.

"For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." -Einstein, The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Calaprice, Alice, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). p. 75.

"The four-dimensional continuum is now no longer resolvable objectively into sections, which contain all simultaneous events; “now” loses for the spatially extended world its objective meaning. It is because of this that space and time must be regarded as a four-dimensional continuum that is objectively unresolvable." -Einstein, Ideas and Opinions. (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954). p. 371.

edit on 28-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You're repeating yourself. We've been over this already.

In my opinion, you are using definitions which agree with everything I'm saying, and which disagree with everything you're saying. I've explained why many times now. If you cannot see it, only God (or the programmer) knows why.

You are either being obtuse or you truly don't understand. I'm not sure which is worse, but in any case, I would appreciate it if you would be content to "agree to disagree."

P.S.

There's a reason you don't get any responses to those long-winded diatribes of yours, repetitious and fallacious as they are. I'd accuse you of "making it up as you go," but you haven't said anything original in your last 10 posts, so I'd say you stopped making it up a while ago and are on auto-pilot.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrMasterJoe
a reply to: Greggers

Thanks for your feedback

There is a lot of evidence for it and this is why I need more time to compile a thread that actually links the dots.
And its a personal story as well. It resonates extremely with me. It's like 'that's it!'
And its only the plot that I have written there - more like a teaser

And finally it answers some of the mysterous anomalies that we are still facing as human kind.

Well the story is yet to come in its full madness - no clue when I will find my time to assemble it.

I understand perfectly why you follow this computer / software approach. I am a software developer with 20+ years of experience! Been there, believe me


There is much more to it than meets the eye. Old cultures knew a lot about metaphysical stuff. We have a lot of physical technology today. Put both together and go beyond the mind walls of our times!



I look forward to your thread.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


"a measurement is a subjective experience. It's observers in this local universe that interact with a probable state of the wave function. We only interact with say spin up or spin down in our local universe because we can't interact with the totality of the wave function which can only be described by mathematics."

Taking this statement for its own sake and nothing else.

What is your response to this position?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


"a measurement is a subjective experience. It's observers in this local universe that interact with a probable state of the wave function. We only interact with say spin up or spin down in our local universe because we can't interact with the totality of the wave function which can only be described by mathematics."

Taking this statement for its own sake and nothing else.

What is your response to this position?



My response is to point out that the word subjective is being used in direct conflict with the word's actual definition. Any empirical measurement, which can be obtained by taking a measuring device and generating a result which will be the SAME for all observers present to see it, is by definition objective.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


The point of the statement to me is that what we perceive of reality is limited to the capacity to observing only one or two aspects in potential for a any phenomenon in general.

For example if we could for the sake of example perceive the of the wave function of say a generic tree?

That would alter significantly the definition of the phenomenon.

In that sense our experiences in an altogether way are incomplete with respect to the common senses at the very least.

Therefore in that context observations in this vein can be understood as definitive of a subjective experience.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join