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

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

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dude1
galien8

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



Semester I and II




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion


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

'Cannot grasp' is subjective. You're using it as a dodge to keep from showing the data from test results, like member keeps asking for.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: galien8

An emulator is ...



dictionary.cambridge.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I keep changing the topic? I presented to you the results of these experiments and the resulting questions that matter, multiple times, and you simply refuse to even acknowledge them and it is obvious that you have absolutely nothing of substance to say.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Why are you still rambling about programming tools when it has been pointed out you that noone is talking about emulation tools, repeatedly.

Why do you think the OP posted that dictionairy link? To show that he was refering to the other definition of emulation.

God you're slow. And nobody cares about your expertise with emulation tool.


edit on 23-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: galien8

An emulator is ...


dictionary.cambridge.org...

The definition links to "emulate", not "emulator" .

When used like you do in (four times) in the OP you're talking about a simulation, not emulation.

In-circuit-emulator(ICE)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: PoetryInMotion


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

'Cannot grasp' is subjective. You're using it as a dodge to keep from showing the data from test results, like member keeps asking for.


I wrote down the results and spelled out why they are significant. The fact that you are unable to recognise this shows that you are unable to grasp, and/or simply don't have the knowledge about these experiments or QM in general to parttake in such a discussion.
edit on 23-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion


I keep changing the topic? I presented to you the results of these experiments and the resulting questions that matter, multiple times,

No you didn't.

I read the exchange, you claimed theres tests and results but never linked them. You also keep claiming the universe is an emulation while others pointed out you really mean simulation...

Get Hyped quit trying, so do i.

intrptr out



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




I read the exchange, you claimed theres tests and results but never linked them.


I presented the results, pointed out their significance, and named the experiments. So the problem is that I didn't provide a link?

I am sorry, but I assumed I didn't need to since the guy acts like he knows what he is talking about. He obviouslly doesn't. Like you.

You really think that I am making up these results?

This just shows that you have no clue about the subject matter, at all, so why are you talking to me about this? Why are you talking period.
edit on 23-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




You also keep claiming the universe is an emulation while others pointed out you really mean simulation...


Can you get anything right? I never claimed this at all. All I claimed regarding this is that it was obvious that the OP means simulation and that noone is talking about emulation tools.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

To emulate someone is to be like them, not to simulate them. Big difference.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

To emulate someone is to be like them, not to simulate them. Big difference.



...it (emulation is perfect simulation) is poetic liberty



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: namelesss


That the best of 'virtual reality' will not feed a real stomach.

Well, no. That's contingent upon us having mortal bodies that depend on that sustenance.

Contingent upon Reality as we know it. At the moment.



It's also scientifically feasible we can transcend those needs with a new body we construct to host our minds.

Well, therein lies a sticky wicket! *__-
At this point, I doubt that 'mind/thoughts' is 'located and/or manufactured (or 'stored'!)' in that wet lump of muscle bouncing around in our skulls!
Any 'science' built upon that assumption is destined to fail.

"It is not the eye that perceives light and color, nor the ear that perceives sound, nor the brain that perceives thought!" - Book of Fudd


In fact, these fully immersive VR worlds might just coincide with our development in life-longevity / biological immortality.

I enjoy the 'metaphor' that every word that I type into a keyboard, every button that I push, uploads 'me' just a bit more completely into the planetary 'hive/mind'.
So far, it can only be a metaphor, as everything that I write is 'yesterday's news' and only I can perceive this Now moment from this Perspective.
There will be just a bit more technological advancement (120-150 years), before it will be gone forever.
Our planet-raping will finally be at an end.


...what's the difference between a 'real dream' and a 'virtual dream'? What if there never was a difference?

There is no essential difference at all!!
All within Reality is Real, and that's everything!; from 'dreams' to fishfartz! *__-



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Contingent upon Reality as we know it. At the moment.

This thread is about the future and the way tech is progressing, right?

...and it is progressing.

So you don't think the mind is a product of the brain? Genuine question.


All within Reality is Real, and that's everything!

Great! So then you agree with me!
Virtual sandwiches (which as you now say is ultimately part of a greater reality) can feed us.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
If...God can prove himself whenever he wants.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: loveofneighbor

What's he waiting for?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: loveofneighbor

What's he waiting for?


The right moment. You don't have God's mind. You can't think like him.

Type something into google. How fast was the reply? How much information searched?

Human computers and algorithms are rudimentary and barbaric in comparison.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: loveofneighbor
Human computers and algorithms are rudimentary and barbaric in comparison.


That may be the case but at least you get results when you ask google a question.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: loveofneighbor

Barbaric?

Let's hope if we do some day have AI we don't base it on your god's sense of morality. That would be the end of us.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped


This result is similar to that of the double-slit experiment since interference is observed when it is not known which slit the photon went through, while no interference is observed when the path is known.


Like I said, availability of "which path" info is the only factor that causes the wave collapse.

Why does it matter if this info is available or known? To what does it matter?



However, what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that, unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler was not made until 8 ns after the position of the signal photon had already been measured by D0.

Detection of signal photons at D0 does not directly yield any which-path information. Detection of idler photons at D3 or D4, which provide which-path information, means that no interference pattern can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0. Likewise, detection of idler photons at D1 or D2, which do not provide which-path information, means that interference patterns can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0.



In other words, even though an idler photon is not observed until long after its entangled signal photon arrives at D0 due to the shorter optical path for the latter, interference at D0 is determined by whether a signal photon's entangled idler photon is detected at a detector that preserves its which-path information (D3 or D4), or at a detector that erases its which-path information (D1 or D2).


en.wikipedia.org...-Ionicioiu2011-18


See, these are the results I was talking about.

This is wiki, I can also qoute from actual experiment papers.


Can you now explain to me why availability of "which path" info is the only factor that collapses the wave/interference pattern, and can you explain why this availability changes a result that had already been registered in the past?

You basically said that my explanation was BS, let's hear yours.


And also anyone with a basic knowledge of QM and these experiments should already be aware of these results, regardless of how you explain them.

So it is safe to conclude that any comments made by you sofar regarding these results and experiments, are garbage.






edit on 24-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join