Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

a reply to: VanDenEviL

Lol disengaging again are we. Do you perceive all the empty space or not? Rhetorical question.

Missed your reply (some don't land in my in box). 'Mostly' empty space isn't empty.

Rhetorical answer: does a spinning airplane propeller stop you from entering its space?

a reply to: VanDenEviL

Please Phage we weren't talking about the big bang theory in general, we were talking about your claim of particles not existing before the inflation.

Please Van, how do you separate "the big bang" from inflation?

You said the above before our particular discussion.

Yes. And I said it in the context of particles not existing before inflation.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There may be no way to prove the simulation if we actually are the product of one.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: intrptr
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'?

I'm a solutions architect. I design integrated software and hardware solutions for a company that would be in the Fortune 5 if it were publicly traded.

They develop visions that may involve a mix of technological changes as well as non materiel solutions such as modifications to processes or procedures. These visions are documented through the use of Unified Modeling Language diagrams that depict the system’s proposed activities and how it integrates with other systems within the overall enterprise architecture. The industry standard diagrams are what development teams use to generate code or build systems.

Not programming or hardware then.

You make block diagrams others use to generate code. That lacks a fundamental understanding of the basic architecture of hardware and machine language. Not saying you don't know something about that, computers are a broad field.

a reply to: Phage

We weren't talking about inflation and the big bang itself. We were talking about particles existing at that point. I just told you this a few minutes ago.

a reply to: VanDenEviL
And, as I said, according to the theory they did not exist.

And please note the context in which I said that. It was in reply to this:

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

If that was not a reference to the theory, what was it?

I agree with the OP, also makes more sense if you look at the universe as a screen, with dimension illusions.

Looking through a screen everything is actually 2 dimensional seeing as it is on a screen, something like a 3D cube drawn on a sheet of graphing paper.

a reply to: Phage

And, as I said, according to the theory they did not exist.

According to the Big Bang theory, particles did not exist pre inflation is what you are saying?

a reply to: VanDenEviL

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To me, one of the most compelling arguments in favor of the "Universe as Simulation" is the famous double slit experiment, combined with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

Here are a couple of videos for people who are not aware of these experiments. The first is a cartoon, but it's good for providing a basic understanding of the particle-wave duality. The second is a more straightforward scientific analysis.

Between the two, here are some interesting observations:

1) The wave function collapses when the particle is observed
2) The reason the wave function collapses is NOT related to some mechanical effect of the measurement device.
3) It appears that the wave function is collapsed based upon whether the "which path" information can be known, regardless of how the measurement was taken.
4) The linearity of time is seriously in question at the quantum level





The concept is unfalsifiable and therefore has more in common with science fiction (at present) than science, but it's sci-fi with substance, since a hardware/software model is helpful for analyzing and explaining a number of empirical observations.

Imagine a massive, ultra-fast computer where the probability distributions are calculated as non-local hidden variables. Only when observed are the particles actually rendered in our reality.

I envision at least two layers to the simulation, possibly three. The first is the computer that crunches the numbers -- all the statistically random behavior at the quantum level.

The second layer is some sort of rendering engine.

The third layer is the conscious observer. It's possible the second and third layers could be combined.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, Phage, and this is something that is put forward in the Big Bang theory? Could you post any source to show that this is included in the Big Bang theory?

a reply to: VanDenEviL

www.particleadventure.org...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: intrptr
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'?

I'm a solutions architect. I design integrated software and hardware solutions for a company that would be in the Fortune 5 if it were publicly traded.

They develop visions that may involve a mix of technological changes as well as non materiel solutions such as modifications to processes or procedures. These visions are documented through the use of Unified Modeling Language diagrams that depict the system’s proposed activities and how it integrates with other systems within the overall enterprise architecture. The industry standard diagrams are what development teams use to generate code or build systems.

Not programming or hardware then.

You make block diagrams others use to generate code. That lacks a fundamental understanding of the basic architecture of hardware and machine language. Not saying you don't know something about that, computers are a broad field.

I don't know where you work, but where I work they don't let people become solutions architects without having hands on experience with both software development and network configuration.

So yes, I have hands on experience with BOTH.

If you actually want to have a real discussion about why physicists are intrigued by the idea of the "Universe as Simulation," let me know. If you just want to accuse them of having a guilty conscience and crapping all over it without really understanding it, count me out.

a reply to: Phage

Here I'll embed that pic for you Phage,




What's that after the Big Bang and before inflation? Is it a questionmark? Like, they don't know what was there? Like they don't know if there were particles or not?

Never mind that Phage. What does the second one say? A photon? A photon existing pre inflation?

But but, a photon is a particle.

a reply to: neoholographic

I like adinkras and think that we have something to learn from them. I just think that we need to formalise understandings a lot more before we get there.

a reply to: ssenerawa


Thats an interesting analogy, but remember the screen is in your own mind,its your brain that sees and hears, the percieved reality is built up from input waves.You are the only one doing the decoding.For any coherence to form,you would have to be entangled with the general concensus of what reality is pervieved to be, so everyone can compare apples with apples and not just general chaotic input.The real stuff of the simulation is in how the information is decoded, this spatial illusion,exists in an inifinite information space.

a reply to: VanDenEviL

What's that after the Big Bang and before inflation? Is it a questionmark?

Yes.

Like they don't know if there were particles or not?

Like they don't know anything about it at all. And can't. But the physics tell them when the Universe had cooled enough for particles to exist. That was after inflation began.

But but, a photon is a particle.

Or not, depending on how you look at it. Do photons become entangled?

a reply to: Greggers

I was hardware, strictly, but also in systems development, (ICE) in circuit emulators, as an engineering technician.

The programs run on hardware, more helpful to understand that when comparing the Universe to computer 'simulations'.

originally posted by: VanDenEviL

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
It's funny isn't it, that after we developed simulation, claims that the universe is a simulation, are made.

This is just another claim, made of its time.

These claims did not develop after we developed simulation, the notion has been around since way before that.

One could suggest Plato's cave?

a reply to: Phage

Enjoying this discourse...

Like they don't know anything about it at all.

Like, how do we get from red shifting of objects in space, allll the way back to a singularity?