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: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 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.

What are you saying, nothings real?

Is that for real?

The only people promoting the idea life isn't real are the ones trying to justify their actions. Everything we do is okay, after all it isn't real.


Even if the universe is a simulation, it is REAL. This is reality, no matter what it's made of. The idea that people want the universe to be a computer simulation so they can justify their actions is ridiculous. (Well, I suppose someone, somewhere MIGHT, but I've never encountered this mindset and I have a hard time believing it's common).

Although I understand that the simulation hypothesis is just as unfalisifiable at present as any religion, I am fascinated by the idea because there is an awful lot about the universe that makes sense as a simulation, especially the bizarre parts of quantum mechanics that don't make any intuitive sense at all.
edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

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



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Even if the universe is a simulation, it is REAL.

So why bother imposing the word simulation, implying what, exactly... its "not real"?

The whole premise is ridiculous and like I said an escape for people with a guilty conscience. Not that most people need to buy into that, just the ones who worry what they do is right or wrong, i.e., am I justified?

Phone baloney for those sitting inside their brain pan day to day staring at computer screens, pretty soon its not apparent whats real or not, since their whole existence is a computer screen.

And then one day they trip and fall off a curb while texting, break a bone and wind up in traction in a hospital. They have to have a nurse bring them a bed pan and pain meds for the terrible real boredom during weeks, if not months of slow recovery.

Oh yah, then tell me about simulations.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AudioOne

'would be nice to have a link to that post.

Not that source but-- A very good description of the 'nothingness of matter' is to be found in the film, Mulholland Falls with Nick Nolte. He plays a cop on a murder investigation that leads to the Nevada test site, interviews with a physicist who describes the smallness of atoms and electrons and the enormous distance between these tiny bits of whizzing particles that makes up what we call the 'solid universe', i.e, the chair on which you are sitting is 'mostly empty space'.

Good movie, can't find the blip I want to show you or even a full movie on line. Any way, good film, check it out...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




the smallness of atoms and electrons and the enormous distance between these tiny bits of whizzing particles that makes up what we call the 'solid universe', i.e, the chair on which you are sitting is 'mostly empty space'.


So you must agree that our reality and matter are not quite as solid and "real" as we perceive it.

I agree, simulation might not be the right word but it seems you are arguing semantics here.




The whole premise is ridiculous and like I said an escape for people with a guilty conscience. Not that most people need to buy into that, just the ones who worry what they do is right or wrong, i.e., am I justified?


The premise is not ridiculous at all and this supposed psychological motivation sounds like a contrived load of BS.

No matter what the nature of reality is, we are still in it and our actions still have consequences. I would say that if reality and existence is just the result of a physical process, it would actually matter less if you are "justified" or not, since it would be all over anyway when you die.

I could also say that this notion is "just an escape" for people who worry if they are right or wrong......

Quite the BS huh?


edit on 25-9-2016 by VanDenEviL because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: southbeach

Let me clarify.

You misapprehend the "big bang theory." Clearly.

I never mentioned the "big bang theory."let alone misapprehend it.
Happy trolling



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers


Even if the universe is a simulation, it is REAL.

So why bother imposing the word simulation, implying what, exactly... its "not real"?

To suggest that the base unit of reality is planck-length binary, and that the universe itself is running on a computer. It is a model to aid understanding of the universe and to suggest further testing and validation. That doesn't mean the universe isn't real. It doesn't make it any less real than if it's NOT running on a computer. Matter is still matter. Human beings are still human beings. It just so happens that we'd exist in a universe that runs on a CPU.



The whole premise is ridiculous

It's unfalsifiable, at present. It's not ridiculous.



and like I said an escape for people with a guilty conscience.

Lots of things are an escape for people with a guilty conscience, the "forgiveness" of a magic man in the sky being chief among them. But I'd never suggest that people who believe in God have a guilty conscience, because quite frankly it's just as silly as what you're saying.




Phone baloney for those sitting inside their brain pan day to day staring at computer screens, pretty soon its not apparent whats real or not, since their whole existence is a computer screen.

There is a reason why a number of phycisits have entertained the possibility. This goes all the way back to the "It from Bit" view of nature.

It's not just a bunch of geeks using their imaginations.

For example, the universe at its smallest scales appears to be binary, or at the very least "Discrete." Also, do some research on "It from Bit." This idea has been around for a very long time.



Oh yah, then tell me about simulations.

Why? You've already decided it's not worth talking about.
edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL

The premise is not ridiculous at all and this supposed psychological motivation sounds like a contrived load of BS.





It sounds like BS because it is BS. There has never been a study done of the psychological motivation of those who entertain the simulation hypothesis, so he has zero data.

He's just making stuff up.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AudioOne

[...] interviews with a physicist who describes the smallness of atoms and electrons and the enormous distance between these tiny bits of whizzing particles that makes up what we call the 'solid universe', i.e, the chair on which you are sitting is 'mostly empty space'.

More interesting is the physics behind those whizzing particles. They are not "real" in any normal sense of the word and exist only as Energy. Define energy and you define existence as we perceive it. What we feel when we touch something is not the thing itself, but the forces that have combined to make the thing sensible.

It's a terrible rabbit hole.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
yeah, im still waiting for something more definitive. For each piece of evidence in favor of a holographic universe, there is another against it.


The idea of a Holographic Universe is not the same as the idea that the universe is a simulation.

In the Holographic Universe hypothesis, the universe may still be completely natural, but nature itself may exhibit holographic-like qualities (using "holograph" as loose analogy). The idea of the Holographic universe states that our universe of seemingly 3D space (3 spatial dimensions) might actually be 2D information projected to appear 3D. However, there is not necessarily "alien" or "entity" running the projection -- the word it's simply the way nature works.

So you can have the Holographic Universe without it being a simulation, and instead it just is what nature is.


edit on 2016/9/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: imjack

Truth be told, I still prefer Bugs.
But, alas, Mel is no more.



Ah, but you gotta love Rick and Morty (well maybe you don't "gotta", but I think it's great).

In my opinion, Rick and Morty is the best adult animated series since Archer and The Venture Bros..



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage

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


You should really look up what a scientific theory is.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach

I never mentioned the "big bang theory."let alone misapprehend it.


You mentioned the big bang theory here:


When the Universe was the singularity.........a compact baseball size mass, all the particles were entangled and were in instant communication with one another........


Your post
edit on 25-9-2016 by Dalan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dalan

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage

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


You should really look up what a scientific theory is.


He presented it as fact so no, I don't have to look up what a scientific theory is since it was not the point. The point was that it was not presented as what it is, just a theory.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL

originally posted by: Dalan

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Phage

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


You should really look up what a scientific theory is.


He presented it as fact so no, I don't have to look up what a scientific theory is since it was not the point. The point was that it was not presented as what it is, just a theory.


A scientific theory actually is a fact.

What is a Scientific Theory?

Phage presented it as a fact, because it is a fact.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Dalan

Trolling are we?

Wanna talk about semantics? When I say theory it means it is speculation, something that is unproven, which is not a fact.

This obviously applies here.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Dalan

Trolling are we?

Wanna talk about semantics? When I say theory it means it is speculation, something that is unproven, which is not a fact.

This obviously applies here.


I don't mean to be a tool, but scientific theories can never be proven. They can only be supported or falsified.

The point being argued here is part of a larger scientific theory (the big bang, or expanding universe), so perhaps what you intended to imply was that this particular part of the theory was only tenuously supported?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




I don't mean to be a tool, but scientific theories can never be proven. They can only be supported or falsified.


Yeah so, what did I say then?




The point being argued here is part of a larger scientific theory (the big bang, or expanding universe), so perhaps what you intended to imply was that this particular part of the theory was only tenuously supported?


Please I really don't feel like playing pathetic games here. He presented something as fact. I pointed out it is not a fact.

Period.

Ffs.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL


Trolling are we?


If I joined a Christian web forum and pretended to be the anitchrist, I would be trolling.

In this instance, where we are debating one another, calling someone a troll is nothing more than a red herring.


Wanna talk about semantics?


Not really. There are basically two meanings that people use when they use the word theory. The first is the common usage of the word, when someone has an idea or hunch without much observable evidence to support it.

The second use of the word, is in reference to scientific theory, which is the exact opposite of the common usage of the word. A scientific theory has moved from being a hypothesis (a hypothesis is actually closer to the common usage of the word theory, in the sense that laymen use the word theory) to a set of facts. A scientific theory is a theory because it has evidence supporting it.

There are no semantics to squabble over. You are simply conflating the common usage of the word theory, with the scientific use of theory. They are two separate things.


When I say theory it means it is speculation, something that is unproven, which is not a fact.


Yes, that is the issue. A scientific theory is not speculation, just something that is unproven. In science, a hypothesis doesn't become a scientific theory until after rigorous testing has occurred.

The big bang theory is a scientific theory because it has evidence supporting it. Gravity is a scientific theory because it has evidence supporting it. Evolution is a scientific theory because it has evidence supporting it.


This obviously applies here.


No, you are in error.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Dalan

No one has any idea about the moment the Universe started; however, we have the Grand Unified Field Theory (GUT) which has produced verifiable predictions, namely the Higgs-Boson. Before the Higgs-Bosons formed during the intial stages of the Expansion, there were no particles. The Higgs-Bosons formed at 10^-38 - 10^-12 (Planck Time)seconds following the Big Bang. The size of the universe at this time would have been about ~10^23 m at the end of the period of inflation. During the Inflation period the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 s. Inflation stopped at around 10-32 s. The universe increased in size by a factor of 10^50. This is equivalent to an object the size of a proton swelling to 10^19 light years across.

So, at the beginning, we have a universe with NO particles and a size < of a proton.

Just keeping things straight.




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join