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: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
Yeah so, what did I say then?

You said a theory was "something that was unproven," which applies to all scientific theories, but you also said, "speculation," which implies you think they mean the same thing. Scientific theories are not speculation. They are models of reality supported by empirical evidence.



Please I really don't feel like playing pathetic games here.

This isn't a pathetic game. The distinction between secular theory and scientific theory is extremely important.



He presented something as fact. I pointed out it is not a fact.

Technically speaking, a fact in science is an observable measurement. The speed of light in a vacuum is a fact. The constancy of the speed of light in all intertial frames of reference is a fact. Relativity is a theory.

The fossil record is an enormous set of individual facts. Evolution via natural selection is a theory.

When you suggest that a scientific theory is "not a fact," the statement is, as they say, "not even wrong." It's like saying an apple is not an orange and then thinking you've made some important point.


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




posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LetsGoViking

Did you mean to reply to me?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: LetsGoViking

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.

You're getting a bunch of things terribly confused here. First, there is no empirically validated GUT (Grand Unified Theory). String theory is the most widely supported GUT, but it has scant few falsifiable predictions and so far has not produced tangible evidence in particle collisions.

Secondly, the Higgs was predicted by the Standard Model, not a GUT.



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 now you appear to be quoting Big Bang Expansionary Cosmology, which clearly states that the Higgs did not exist when the universe was still a singularity. Wasn't that your initial point? And if not, what are we debating here?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Dalan




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.


Ffs. I am simply using the common usage of the word theory, since the particular subject we were talking about, falls in that category.

This is what I responded to,




Then you misunderstand. Until a while after inflation "began" there were no particles.


This is pure speculation.


Btw, this is one of the definitions of MerriamWebster.


an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true


Like I said a theory.





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



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
This is pure speculation.

So the text you quoted previously from Big Bang expansionary cosmology -- are you under the impression scientists just pulled that out of their butts?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL


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

Yes it is.


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

Stick with the first one. Atoms and electrons aren't 'stimulated'.


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.

Thats your excuse, life ends when we die. Got proof of that?


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

You able to shut off your conscience like that? Uncle Sam wants you...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

What I responded to was presented as a fact. I said it was not fact, but just a theory and unproven.

Here's a definition of the word theory, once more,



an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true



End of story. Completely correct.


All the while you were drivelling about semantics, kinda mad that your "scientific" doctrine was, supposedly, being stepped on.

Get over it you nerds.

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



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


It just so happens that we'd exist in a universe that runs on a CPU.

I worked in computers for fifteen years as an digital hardware technician, thats as ludicrous to me as suggesting everything runs on fairy dust.

Sorry about that. The laws of physics determine the existence and motion of matter, as far as the current technology can see. Or google Hubble Deep Field(s). Theres two images of deep space now.
edit on 25-9-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Greggers

What I responded to was presented as a fact. I said it was not fact, but just a theory and unproven.

Here's a definition of the word theory, once more,



an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true



End of story. Completely correct.


All the while you were drivelling about semantics, kinda mad that your "scientific" doctrine was, supposedly, being stepped on.

Get over it you nerds.


I'm sorry, but Phage was correct. The prevailing scientific evidence from Big Bang inflationary cosmology supports the notion that particles did not exist until expansion had already started.

You even supplied a quote that says precisely this.

Since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is all "wild speculation," perhaps you can do some research and inform everyone on why scientists believe this to be true, and learn something in the process.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers


It just so happens that we'd exist in a universe that runs on a CPU.

I worked in computers for fifteen years as an digital hardware technician, thats a ludicrous to me as suggesting everything runs on fairy dust.

Sorry about that. The laws of physics determine the existence and motion of matter, as far as the current technology can see. Or google Hubble Deep Field(s). Theres two images of deep space now.


And I've worked in computer science for even longer than you did. And I still do. That's irrelevant.

As far as your claim about "Fairy Dust," that's BS. There is no empirical evidence that can be explained scientifically by a "fairy dust" model of the universe.

Would you like to have an actual conversation about the aspects of the physical world that can be explained by a simulation hypothesis, or are you just here to dismiss them out of hand?

As far as your second paragraph, I hope you don't think that makes some point counter to simulation theory. In fact, I don't think you understand the basic tenets of simulation theory, as you keep getting them wrong.
edit on 25-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Yes it is.


No it obviously is not. Do you notice that it is almost completely empty space? No you don't.




Stick with the first one. Atoms and electrons aren't 'stimulated'.


Not sure how it relates to my qoute but, and if you meant simulated or stimulated.




Thats your excuse, life ends when we die. Got proof of that?


I don't need an excuse, maybe you do since you keep bringing it up? I also didn't say that, it was a hypothetical trying to make a point that clearly went over your head.




You able to shut off your conscience like that? Uncle Sam wants you...


Again, the same thing.


Wow it's getting harder and harder to have a normal discussion here on ATS in which there is a mutual understanding of what is being said.

F hell.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm a computer scientist by trade, but I don't think working closely with computers can prove or disprove the claim that reality is a computer simulation.

Just using logic, IF reality were a computer simulation, whatever hardware were running the simulation would obviously have to be far more advanced than anything that we have now.
edit on 25-9-2016 by Dalan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: LetsGoViking


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.


So you're an energy wave camp, not particle .

I'm in the 'waves of particles' camp. Look at an ocean wave, a sound wave, a sand dune, ice flow. Everything we see in the macrocosm is particles orbiting centers of gravity, i.e., planetary systems, galaxies, galactic clusters.

When they smash atoms together they get the images of things whirling around, spiraling back to their 'center', too.

As above, so below...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think extrapolating to a conclusion that this indicates we are in a simulation is a bit of a stretch. It very well could be and I'm open to that concept, but I see it differently. Quantum entanglement to me proves the existence of a higher dimension which can access any points in our universe, without the need to travel through our space-time. A fifth (or higher) dimension upon which the entangled photos interact. This could be a purely natural process in higher dimensions without the need of any intelligent lifeforms manipulating it.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: LetsGoViking


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.


So you're an energy wave camp, not particle .

I'm in the 'waves of particles' camp. Look at an ocean wave, a sound wave, a sand dune, ice flow. Everything we see in the macrocosm is particles orbiting centers of gravity, i.e., planetary systems, galaxies, galactic clusters.

When they smash atoms together they get the images of things whirling around, spiraling back to their 'center', too.

As above, so below...



Matter is composed of particles. When they are not observed, they have a probability distribution called a "wave function" that captures it's behavior in aggregate.

In fact, this wave/particle duality provides some of the most potent evidence in favor of simulation theory.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dalan
a reply to: LetsGoViking

Did you mean to reply to me?

Hmmm, no, that was meant for intrptr.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: VanDenEviL


Wow it's getting harder and harder to have a normal discussion here on ATS in which there is a mutual understanding of what is being said.

So sorry not everyone agrees with your theories. You can go right on with your pretendorama life if you like.

And you know I meant simulation...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Matter is composed of particles. When they are not observed, they have a probability distribution called a "wave function" that captures it's behavior in aggregate.

Like I said, waves of particles. Google CME for clarity.
edit on 25-9-2016 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

It is still not a fact but was presented as fact.

Here's a definition of speculation from the same dictionary,


ideas or guesses about something that is not known



So I have been right in everything I said, according to dictionary definitions.

It is not a fact.

It is speculation.

It is just a theory.


Eat my shorts.
edit on 25-9-2016 by VanDenEviL because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


And I've worked in computer science for even longer than you did. And I still do. That's irrelevant.

"irrelevant", lol.

What branch of 'computer science'?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join