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: 17
38
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: neoholographic

I just watched this yesterday.



It's a Ted Talks with Jacques Vallee talking about a similar thing? I will be back for the videos and more reading. Thanks for the thread, I appreciate it.


Thanks for the post and the video. I just watched it and it was great. Everybody should take out 20 minutes and watch that video. It's very thought-provoking and it lines up with what I'm saying in this thread.

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




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Kashai

Good points and if we could perceive it as a whole, we wouldn't have to talk about it in terms of probability. Some people think the wave function is statistical others think it real and there's just an apparent collapse.

Here's another good video to check out:



As he says in the video, the world we think we know turns out to be a slither of a larger reality.

Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence


We propose a family of exactly solvable toy models for the AdS/CFT correspondence based on a novel construction of quantum error-correcting codes with a tensor network structure. Our building block is a special type of tensor with maximal entanglement along any bipartition, which gives rise to an isometry from the bulk Hilbert space to the boundary Hilbert space. The entire tensor network is an encoder for a quantum error-correcting code, where the bulk and boundary degrees of freedom may be identified as logical and physical degrees of freedom respectively. These models capture key features of entanglement in the AdS/CFT correspondence; in particular, the Ryu-Takayanagi formula and the negativity of tripartite information are obeyed exactly in many cases. That bulk logical operators can be represented on multiple boundary regions mimics the Rindler-wedge reconstruction of boundary operators from bulk operators, realizing explicitly the quantum error-correcting features of AdS/CFT recently proposed by Almheiri et. al in arXiv:1411.7041.


arxiv.org...

It's very important as they talk about a bulk/boundary correspondence as it relates to entanglement. Entanglement on the boundary(horizon) will be simulated in the bulk(bubble),

This is why I say the only thing that makes sense is that particles are like pixels and the spacetime screen is our bubble universe. If spacetime is one whole then anywhere on the whole, the pixels can obey the program and you can have things like "spooky action at a distance" if you look at these things in a classical sense.




The key empirical difference comes down to the question of whether consciousness might sometimes exist without having its normal role or whether something else might in some circumstances play that role. There is some evidence for the first possibility. There are unusual circumstances in which the occipeto-temporal stream is activated at the level that is correlated with experience but in which the subject says he sees nothing. For example, there is a kind of brain-damage in which if objects are presented on both sides, the subject claims not to see one side, but the part of the occipeto-temporal stream stimulated by the “invisible” object is just as active as when it is seen. (See the articles by Kanwisher and by Driver and Vuillemer, in Dehaene, 2001). It seems possible that these patients have a phenomenal representation that they cannot properly access. If so, a phenomenal state needn’t always have its characteristic behavior, and consciousness in one sense of the term—phenomenality--would not be captured by the functionalist theory.


www.nyu.edu...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Could this apparent inherence be systemic beyond the common senses?


For the sake of discussion.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrMasterJoe
a reply to: Greggers


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!!



Or It/God at the very first stage of awareness knew how magnificent It was. It knew EVERYTHING, but pure knowledge palls in the face of experience. It's the difference between knowing the rollercoaster is fun and actually going for a ride on the rollercoaster. It's knowing you're capable of amazing things, of absolutely anything, but doing nothing to experience that knowledge.

It / God had a direction then. The space to experience what It knew is relativity.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The answer is 42...

Seriously...

It was my Senior Year in high skool, life was good. Everyone survived the Y2K hysteria invented to sell me a new #ty toaster to replace my perfectly working old one... I digress, where was I... Quarter ounce of shrooms.... The out of nowhere comes "check out this new game I got...."

I played sims for ages. Time became illusion as all clocks would lie displaying whichever non-time they fancied. Then it hit me, all that mushroom tea, i really had to pee. I stand up, a bar starts flashing, How could I have ignored my bars. I envision becoming a very rude house guest in a short amount of time. I learned that my uber life skills just attained would be useless if I spontaneously left random puddles on their living room floor. Puddles is not a cool nickname to have after all. I panic then bolt for the door, luckily i had been programed how to open doors so i went on thru... Darkness all around me, the cool night air calmed me. Out of the darkness I found a tree or more like it found me. I'm not sure if I moved or the tree at this point, but either way it was a suitable place to pee. And a long one it was... One of those pisses that halfway thru, at least you hope it is at this point, because your starting to question if it will ever end. Gives you time to ponder, things like: Have I pist this long before? I think it may be a record? Do they even have a record? What about the tree? Was I its first or just one of many? What if it was someone famous? I take a step back, don't want piss on my shoes. I figured nobody is keeping record, but i imagine it was more than a few... You just get that feeling sometimes. I take a step back, not to avoid the growing lake beneath me as it has now diverted and formed a small stream trickling off into the darkness... This tree was beginning to creep me out, I didn't want to be associated with a shady tree hanging out in some dark forest which may or may not have some strange tree fetish. This tree could be very well be a Dendrophiliac, I've read about that in playboy i think. I hope its not contagious... Thats it.... Im done, in more ways than one. I turn and walk back to the house.

So I totally understand what your talking about, reality simulation... been there...



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

"Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation"
...says the simulation.

It's kind of like a computer claiming "I'm a human. My hardware is nothing but software."



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
One question I would like to ask everyone because I am interested in your replies and rationale:

If the universe is a simulation, what is the purpose of the simulation?

What I mean is, does the nature of this reality (as we know it) yield any clues about what is being tested (if anything)?

I don't have a good answer myself, but consider the true randomness that QM says exists at the quantum level. Consider the wave function itself. This is far different than the "Randomness by ignorance" that occurs at the classical level.

Why true randomness?

If the purpose of the simulation were merely to give people a realistic experience, it seems that the behavior of fundamental particles could have been far simpler than it is.

Also, I don't think the purpose is to drive out the true nature of celestial mechanics (such as The Big Bang, or planet formation, or black hole formation, etc.) because those things do not include conscious observers, and would not require the wave-function to collapse.

Earlier I proposed that maybe it was originally a simulation of everything, and conscious observers were jacked into it later. That would explain the whole "Reality as VR space-time grid" thing we've talked about earlier in this thread.

Like I said, I don't have a good answer. But I am interesting in hearing yours.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Another thing that occurs to me: If the simulation is intended to yield meaningful data about the universe as a whole (throughout its entire existence) it occurs to me that time must move very differently here than it does in the mother "reality." Obviously if the simulation is "realtime" in the master reality, data will be slow coming.

Consider Einstein's block-time universe, wherein past, present, and future are all equally real, where everything that will happen has already happened. Many philosophers will argue that GR proves a predetermined universe. I'm not saying they are right, but it's compelling.

So imagine this: The programmers wanted a way to answer every scientific question in the universe. So they figured out the math at the base of the universe (you know, the stuff we're NOT allowed to see, running in the PROBABILITY server I mentioned earlier), and then they let it run. And it ran from beginning to end for billions and billions of different outcomes. Billions and billions of different BLOCK UNIVERSES, fully realized from the beginning to the end of time.

Then they added in consciousness from outside the simulation to experience the more interesting realities in real-time, moving along time like it's a track.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This could of course just be the conclusion based on our limited understanding as of right now. Tomorrow they might think that legos are the building blocks of life, and have the math to prove it.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers



Another way of looking at it is in relation to Chaos theory in that what seems to us random is a reflection of order upon some other scale.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers



Another way of looking at it is in relation to Chaos theory in that what seems to us random is a reflection of order upon some other scale.





Yes. That is true, and I agree.

But for the sake of conversation, I assume that QM is correct about it being true randomness. Honestly, if we get a Grand Unified Theory that effectively removes true randomness (which it would, as it would peer inside the black box of QM to reveal what's actually happening), it could blow up the entire simulation debate.

So, if we assume true randomness at the quantum level, and assume we are in a sim.... What clues does the sim give us about its purpose?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan


Actually the "Legos Theorem" was debunked several centuries ago.

Sorry no link.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: AshFan


Actually the "Legos Theorem" was debunked several centuries ago.

Sorry no link.


I'm not so sure. I just received a picture from a very surprising particle experiment:



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I KNEW IT!



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


A truly random universe would remain random as long as nothing acted upon it resulting in a change.

Just my two cents.
edit on 29-9-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
On the topic of randomness there is one thought that has me intrigued.

All matter in the universe came from the same origin in the big bang theory. A reasonable and natural assumption would be that all matter in the universe was condensed into a finite size. It would have a uniform distribution of particles, atoms, quarks, or whatever might be smaller.

One would also assume that in a big bang scenario that the explosion is also uniform. All particles distributed equally throughout the universe. After all why would a perfect and uniform sphere(or maybe singularity) of matter have a different output on opposite sides of the explosion. There should be a symmetrical pattern of particles in every direction from the origin of the big bang. If we have one earth, we should actually have multiple identical earths. Evolution occurring at the same rate and many identical versions of me typing this same message on ATS.

However, we have no evidence of a symmetrical universe. In fact it appears to be extremely diverse. Either the light from the symmetrical universe has not reached us yet, or the big bang was not uniform in nature. If it wasn't a uniform and equally proportioned explosion in all directions, does that mean it wasn't random?

I've got no theory here, just leaves me thinking WTF.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: centrifugal
On the topic of randomness there is one thought that has me intrigued.

All matter in the universe came from the same origin in the big bang theory. A reasonable and natural assumption would be that all matter in the universe was condensed into a finite size. It would have a uniform distribution of particles, atoms, quarks, or whatever might be smaller.

One would also assume that in a big bang scenario that the explosion is also uniform. All particles distributed equally throughout the universe. After all why would a perfect and uniform sphere(or maybe singularity) of matter have a different output on opposite sides of the explosion. There should be a symmetrical pattern of particles in every direction from the origin of the big bang. If we have one earth, we should actually have multiple identical earths. Evolution occurring at the same rate and many identical versions of me typing this same message on ATS.

However, we have no evidence of a symmetrical universe. In fact it appears to be extremely diverse. Either the light from the symmetrical universe has not reached us yet, or the big bang was not uniform in nature. If it wasn't a uniform and equally proportioned explosion in all directions, does that mean it wasn't random?

I've got no theory here, just leaves me thinking WTF.





The cosmic microwave background radiation is consistent with the model of a big-bang expanding uniformly in all directions. And the universe appears to consist of the same basic stuff in all directions as far as our telescopes can see.

Here's an article about the CMB radiation: map.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


A truly random universe would remain random as long as nothing acted upon it resulting in a change.

Just my two cents.


Thanks for your thoughts.

If we assume (just for fun) that we really do live in a simulation, the true randomness (again, assuming QM correct) would exist only in the wave function. Which I suppose is where the programmer would want it, if his intent was to insert true randomness at the base level of everything.

I need to spend some more time thinking about how this relates to multi-verse theory. And I just had a very interesting thought about that....

It has been proposed that the wave function might spawn an infinite number of universes, one for each point along the probability distribution. However, something about that doesn't compute -- our consciousness doesn't go jumping from one universe to another after every random thing we do. We stay in the same universe, which would imply that all the COLLAPSES for our universe have already been predetermined.

This would be in line with the concept of Einstein's block universe.


edit on 29-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers



The fact that space is, by its very nature, not uniform at the smallest scales has profound implications for the Big Bang. The current leading theory for how space expanded after the Big Bang is Inflation, which basically says that in the early universe, the tiny speck of spacetime that was created in the first instant of the Big Bang stretched out very, very quickly. That tiny speck of space ultimately expanded into our universe, which is still expanding.

Now, the thing is, in the first moments after creation, the space expanded so fast that the normally invisible "quantum ripples" were magnified to the point of creating large-scale differences in temperature and density. These tiny but vital differences can be seen through a radio map of the sky, such as WMAP (which I'll link to in my sources). So it seems that the massive stretching of space, combined with quantum ripples, created the tiny differences in temperature and density that allowed our universe to form the way it is today!


answers.yahoo.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Multiverse theory originated from a problem in Chemistry and the result was the "electron cloud".



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join