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

Simulated universe,Why Now??

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Well gee Spider, I just took about half an hour to write it all out for you, but my active login time expired just as I as posting and it all was lost. So here I am now, logged in again. So rather than writing it all down again I will be content to say yes it is and why? Because it is time. Run with it.




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Dont be so saddened.

David Hume questioned this very thing with his skeptism. Kant had a pretty good response. We constitute our reality.

Hume said how do we know we are not just dreaming, it is impossible to prove we are not in a type of lucid dream.

Kant's reply basically was it doesnt matter the person dreaming is experiencing the dream. The observation is reality. There needs to be at least one observer.

Decartes "I think therefor I am".

The experience is still real.

Observation and experience create reality regardless of the original designer.

Basically this deeper thinking led me out of athiesm into a form of pandiesm.

There must be an observor for reality. Otherwise reality does not exist. People try to get around it but its impossible. Without an observer there is nothing. Once something can observe there is something. Nothing can be measured without an observer.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
There must be an observor for reality. Otherwise reality does not exist. People try to get around it but its impossible. Without an observer there is nothing. Once something can observe there is something. Nothing can be measured without an observer.


This breaks down when you consider that the minute no-one is observing something it would therefore cease to exist. Yet, the next time anyone looks in the same place again, it will be back exactly as it was before.

This inspired a famous problem/solution limerick pair. (For reference, a 'quad' is a square courtyard in a classical university)

1
“There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

2
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.”



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

It does not break down. Your just not thinking very hard about it.

The anthropic principle is not an easy thing to get over.

The fact that there is an observor is the key.

If there are none. It is impossible to have an observation.

Explain how a universe exists without any observors. Meaning zero. Nobody.


And in the quantum scale literally things dont exist until observation.
edit on 16-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I think we are at cross-purposes. Never mind.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Probably so.

But i have to just add not being in the location and there being no conscious beings to observe are not the same thing.


edit on 16-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

But here's the harrowing truth: I am observing my self. The observer is yourself...observing yourself.

(or not, I don't know and if I really knew I might go insane with depression and ruin existence, itself)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Truthor

Its definately a topic that can make you sweat from thinking alone.

I think the basis is that the only real proof one can have is ones own observation. There is no evidence I am not in a simulation and you exist. There is evidence I exist because I am observing.
edit on 16-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: audubon

Probably so.

But i have to just add not being in the location and there being no conscious beings to observe are not the same thing.


Someone one said just go along for the ride, and that's the best we can do, might add if there is an observer , then observe this big middle finger for your amusement , I hope you are happy introducing chaos and wanton destruction into our lives ya sick bastard.

Then again we also make and play games with lots and lots of death and destruction..sigh!..need a reboot.
edit on 17-10-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

There may not be a need for an observer anymore if we are here in the sense of a "creator".

Or a creator/programmer ceased to exist as a consciousness became the universe.

Lots of stuff still that isnt a folkloric " god" that can be imagined while still providing a necesary being so to speak.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Magick is cheatcodes in a simulation.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Maybe its not the universe thats a simulation but our minds that alter the perception we see, it's known that out eyes dont see 98% of the light spectrum. Imagine what we could see if we were able to see 100% , even 50% would be amazing!



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

"It isn't just surfacing now, thousands of us have been thinking this at least back to Shakespeare."

We have been thinking along those line far further back than the era of Shakespeare. Plato sums it up rather eloquently in his Allegory of the Cave.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 17-10-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I also think the greeks started the anthropic principle.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

"It isn't just surfacing now, thousands of us have been thinking this at least back to Shakespeare."

We have been thinking along those line far further back than the era of Shakespeare. Plato sums it up rather eloquently in his Allegory of the Cave.

en.wikipedia.org...



That's a very good example, I forgot about that one.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Plato's Allegory of the Cave isn't an ancient attempt at a 'simulated universe' theory. It's an allegory. And it's meant to illustrate the difference between our natural state of ignorance and the insights available to the wise.

It's akin to one of Jesus's parables - it's not a precise definition of a given set of circumstances, it's a fictionalised illustration of a practical principle.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

It pertains to the subject in a sense we are ignorant to reality. We are still in the cave watching shadows.

An interesting side note. 200,000 years ago human beings had the mental capacity to build cellphones. It was simply knowledge that changed. It has been said we can literally insert memories and that even an ape could be injected with memories that gave it knowledge for speech. I suppose psychological evolution comes into play.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




We can't as we are stuck inside a system


Aren't we "stuck" in matter and magnetized to the Earth?


Magnetized would be the wrong word. There are a few chains of thought on how this simulation is produced. The first of course is examined in the matrix movies, chemically and electronically interfaced into wherever we are actually located. The second is a spherical projection on the surface of a singularity, the universe being a spherical construct with boundaries. The third being the single particle theory, where all particles are an image of the initial particle but superpositioned with differences in spin, momentum, energy and charge. In any event, the problem comes down to the storage and feeding of bodies that are tethered to a simulation.

In the first case, electrochemical production of the illusion of reality would require advanced technology that had completely mapped brain function in the "real" reality. Since that is a possibility for us in the next 30 to 50 years, electrochemical induced virtual reality has a reasonable probability. Unfortunately there is also a flaw, as time progresses and technology advances, those within the virtual reality construct would discover the keys to their own prison cells.

In the second case projection from the event horizon would require at least 3 beam sources to produce every subatomic particle, at least in a physical sense. Therefore the number of projection sources becomes the number of subatomic particles times three minimum. A helluva system to try to maintain. Tethering of the brain from reality to virtual reality might also be difficult, since the laws of physics which hold the virtual reality together should reasonably apply. A problem with this type of singularity construct is that there can be only one, as multiple singularities consume each other over time which would limit a multiverse.

The third case, which I personally find more logical from an energy and control vantage is single particle multiple imaging where all particles are a ghost image of an initial particle. I suppose my experiments in Bose Einstein condensates in the cause of my considering this the most plausible explanation. Ghost particles are generated through a subspace layer where communicative portals are confined to plank length gateways. It explains our ability to communicate, in what appears to be, faster than light. The storage of brains in reality to a virtual reality construct is as always a problem. Since no singularity is involved, a multiverse is a valid concept as an infinite number of initial particles would create an infinite number of multiverses.

There are obviously more methods, but in examining what reality is, there are some tests to determine its nature. Time is one of them, can you make a system that measures absolute or system time, rather than relative time? Can you create a rational and logical thought experiment that would define the limits of the universe as a finite measurable, predictable and controllable space? The answer to both those questions is yes.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

A finite universe would help me understand the nature of expansion of the universe. I have always had trouble understanding expansion other than galaxies "moving" away from each other. I just couldnt use reason to understand an infinite universe expanding. I have never had a satifying answer. Probably my own mental capacity but, how would the universe itself expand if it is everyrhing? It just seems like empty space would gain matter. The empty space would have to be part of the universe or else we need a new definition I would think.

The fact that multiverses could exist without conscious observors also seems unimportant to conscious life. Pondering something unobservable seems pointless.
edit on 17-10-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

A finite universe would help me understand the nature of expansion of the universe. I have always had trouble understanding expansion other than galaxies "moving" away from each other. I just couldnt use reason to understand an infinite universe expanding. I have never had a satifying answer. Probably my own mental capacity but, how would the universe itself expand if it is everyrhing? It just seems like empty space would gain matter. The empty space would have to be part of the universe or else we need a new definition I would think.

The fact that multiverses could exist without conscious observors also seems unimportant to conscious life. Pondering something unobservable seems pointless.


Foam theory I believe uses a background lower dimensional null space. Imagine the universe as a bubble, one of many probabilistic universes, expanding into a pure "vacuum" of unknown properties. It would expand like a field, fields can move faster than light. Dependant on universe proximity to other universes, our universe would probably expand for a finite period of time, but due to present expansion rates, we may not be able to see the edge as it could be moving faster than light. That boundary we may never be able to get past, unless we understand the properties of the initial particle, in which case we should be able to traverse the multiverse.

It's also possible in foam theory to travel through the weakest bridge point. Eventually, as the bubble-like universes expand to the point of touching boundaries, if that can even happen, the bubbles would change geometry from bubbles to cubes. Once this happens, the weak points would be the areas furthest distant from the cube centre, or the corners. The problem is that of statistical probabilities in regards to the makeup of adjoining universes. If the laws that govern those universes are slightly different, one could end up in something extremely hostile.

Back to expansion and fields, if you have a 1000 Watt laser and move it in an arc pointed at the moon and your arc path is 6" moving at C, the speed of the laser's red dot across the surface of the moon will be many many times C. This can also be done with magnetic fields, I have an adiabatic reactor and the magnetic field can be rotated around the chamber at 1.25C, I've never taken it higher, not because I can't, but rather because of what the math predicts. So, can the universe as a field expand faster than the speed of light? Yes it can, which would mean that like a singularity, the escape velocity is greater than what physical law allows, at least until expansion stops, which it may never or may become a static construct abutted against other universes of similar expansion "pressure."

On finding a way out, alive, I would look at temporal proxies as a stepping stone to understand and initial particle that produces all other particles. You see, if you set laws governing one particle and replicate that particle, it is easier to test all probabilistic universes by slightly altering the laws of all other initiating particles. There are 4 or 5 basic adjustments that involve the strong and weak forces, gravity, etc. I could go a lot deeper into this, string theory, m theory, etc, but I think it would get away from trying to understand all of this.

So simply imagine that the universe is a sealed jar with a finite amount of particles. We have a sufficiently large computer outside the jar that can measure every particle, their energy and interactions at any given time. Because the computer is sufficiently powerful, it can perform temporally related backwards and forwards computations predicting the positions, characteristics and energy of all particles at any point in time with zero uncertainty, after all the computer is outside the jar. Ergo, the computer can predict the entire "life" of the contents of the jar, this make the contents of the jar predetermined. The system is deterministic, all future events within the jar are predictable.

If you substitute "jar" with "universe" we have literal equivalency. Scientists are beginning to gain some consensus on the deterministic nature of the universe. If it is this way, there can be no free will. If there is no free will and everything can be predicted from "outside the system" then we must be outside the system physically but operational within the system through some form of "tethering" which might be predicated on Bose Einstein like technology. Which means, we are simply as I said before, riders in meat puppet buses, with no control, we follow a script from which we may never divert.

I hope I wrote this properly, lol.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 10/17.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join