If universum is computer emulation there will never be a God proof

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: galien8

A computer emulation means as-good-as-the-real-thing,

No it doesn't. I used to work on "In Circuit Emulators" (ICE), the best emulation can do is execute blocks of code in a target system under development.

The emulator exists in the real world, the real world isn't being run on a computer somewhere.

I really typed this.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Just a thought, if a reality is a "simulation" being run, would it have a curvature to it? Would it need to?

The word simulation keeps being used but I don't think it is simulating anything, I would say it is a physical 3d reality being rendered by a "computerprogram", for lack of a better analogy, created by a consciousness that is not physical.

Not a simulation of anything.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Science is bound to what we can observe in the known universe, so it stands to reason we can't scientifically explore transcendent ideas. Whether that's religious gods or aliens from other dimensions orchestrating simulated universes.

Quantum Mechanics have already proven that our reality is being rendered before our eyes, for those who can grasp it.

This points to a higher consciousness behind it.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

Quantum mechanics suggests nothing of the sort. QM gets thrown around as justification for all sorts of woo nonsense.

a reply to: GetHyped

Like I said, if you can grasp it. I obviously was not talking about you.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

Ironic, because the people who throw around QM like it's some sort of justification for any old nonsense are either being deliberately deceptive to fool the gullible or simply do not have a clue what they're talking about.

But by all means post up some credible scientific research to support your claims.

galien8

In the picture , the 7th and 12th are both theology books , why two ?



As for the simulation argument , i think its not as relevant as arguing on the possibility of AI and brain emulation or simulation ; we are closer to find the answer about this matter then about the simulation argument.

a reply to: GetHyped

Basically every QM experiment outthere, especially the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiments.

They all show, and mention, that the availability of "which path" info is the only factor that collapses the wave pattern.

Not only that but this availability "retroactively" changes a result that was already registered in the past.

This should tell you enough. Well not you maybe.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

Then surely your claims can be backed up with actual scientific research that reaches these conclusions, no?

a reply to: GetHyped

The results and conclusions of the experiments I just mentioned back up my conclusion.

It is noted that you didn't respond to what I actually just pointed out to you.

Since you are suggesting that you know what you are talking about, maybe you can explain to me what causes the collapse of the wave function in these experiments, and how this doesn't point to a program being run behind the scenes of reality.

originally posted by: PoetryInMotion
a reply to: GetHyped

The results and conclusions of the experiments I just mentioned back up my conclusion.

No they do not. Unless, of course, you can support your specific conclusions with actual scientific research. Which, so far, you have not.

Supporting your claims means posting evidence that specifically supports your claims.

Since you are suggesting that you know what you are talking about, maybe you can explain to me what causes the collapse of the wave function in these experiments, and how this doesn't point to a program being run behind the scenes of reality.

I'm not playing this silly game with you. You made the claim, you back it up. Show me a single shred of scientific evidence that suggests that the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment has anything to do with consciousness.

a reply to: GetHyped

The problem is, like I said right away, that you are not able to grasp.

If you cannot tell me what collapses the wave function, but the availability of "which path" info, you might aswell say that you have no clue what you are talking about.

If you acknowledge that the availbility of "which path" info collapses the wave function, like these experiments show, then explain to me why and to what it matters that "which path" info is available.

If you can't do either of these, then you might aswell say nothing.

Supporting your claims means posting evidence that specifically supports your claims.

I already posted which experiments support my claim.

originally posted by: PoetryInMotion
a reply to: GetHyped

The problem is, like I said right away, that you are not able to grasp.

Yet you still have not backed up any of your claims with actual scientific evidence.

I already posted which experiments support my claim.

You posted an experiment, yes, but it does not in any way support your claims. You either misunderstand the experiment or you have been duped by woo YouTube videos that throw around QM like it's an instant validator of any old nonsense.

physics.stackexchange.com...
www.quora.com...

a reply to: GetHyped

Since you are not able to answer the questions that are directly based on the results of these experiments I can conclude that you have no clue what you are talking about and can't and won't actully discuss the results I am talking about.

You really have no idea what I am talking about do you.

a reply to: GetHyped

physics.stackexchange.com... www.quora.com...

I am talking about actual results and conclusions of experiments, you are linking to people talking about experiments.

Why don't you answer the questions.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

It's strange how you seem so sure of how you think QM validates your mystical beliefs yet you cannot post a single scientific source to support your claims. Don't try and make it out to be my fault that you cannot support your claims with scientific evidence, that lies squarely with you.

a reply to: GetHyped

What causes the collapse in wave function?

You can't even answer this simple question, because you don't have a clue.

a reply to: galien8

From that definition...

Computers: To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.

Not quite. The emulator executes taget code (in circuit) in a known good system, i.e., the emulator. Emulators aren't 'imitating' the system, it is directly executing software in the target in small blocks to isolate bugs that occur. A 'trace' is taken of the execution, bounded by breakpoints and then the code is analyzed in real time by engineers to see where the error occurred.

An emulator is not a simulation or imitation of a target system, it is a tool to find bugs in volumes of code executed in microseconds inside the system or program under development.

A simulator is completely different.

a reply to: PoetryInMotion

You can keep changing the topic and attempting to put the focus on me but it doesn't change the fact you will not post a single shred of scientific evidence to support your claims. I'm not going to ask for a 6th time so by this point I can only assume it's because you cannot provide said evidence.