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.

 

How is it possible that we live within an extremely sophisticated simulation?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Illumimasontruth

originally posted by: Dnied
Our world is certainly not a simulation.
Any real evidence it is not a simulation? Not being a jerk, I am on the fence here. Like most reasonable people.


Anyone who thinks our world is a simulation is delusional. Our brain can simulate reality but our brain is more complex than that. But if your brain believes our world is only a simulation, bad news you have crooked brain seek mental health as soon as possible if you want to live in the real world.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: droid56
But sub atomic particles are only particles when we are observing them, which is suggestive of this place as a simulation.


What? How? No. It's suggestive of their quantic nature.


originally posted by: droid56
Some quantum scientists actually believe we exist in a simulation. They are just not guessing. The math tells them this.
How we are ever to unfold the truth behind this mystery may never happen.


Actually it's journalists who believe that. What some scientists said is that we maybe exist in a holographic universe. And that is absolutely not the same as a simulation. It's more about it's properties. Some journalists just couldn't understand the difference and like sensationalist titles, and then the net being the echo chamber that it is, everyone copy-pasted that without actually checking anything.

Please post sources of scientists saying we live in a simulation. Otherwise it's just fake news.



originally posted by: droid56
Was God the author of this simulation, or was it highly advanced aliens enjoying the show.

Do we live in a sophisticated simulation, and if we do, who created it?


Those question are moot since we don't live in a simulation



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dnied

originally posted by: Illumimasontruth

originally posted by: Dnied
Our world is certainly not a simulation.
Any real evidence it is not a simulation? Not being a jerk, I am on the fence here. Like most reasonable people.


Anyone who thinks our world is a simulation is delusional. Our brain can simulate reality but our brain is more complex than that. But if your brain believes our world is only a simulation, bad news you have crooked brain seek mental health as soon as possible if you want to live in the real world.
That's putting it mildly! Nerdosity mindset! Too many people have been preoccupied in cyberspace for too long and it has clearly affected their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy!



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dnied

originally posted by: Illumimasontruth

originally posted by: Dnied
Our world is certainly not a simulation.
Any real evidence it is not a simulation? Not being a jerk, I am on the fence here. Like most reasonable people.


Anyone who thinks our world is a simulation is delusional. Our brain can simulate reality but our brain is more complex than that. But if your brain believes our world is only a simulation, bad news you have crooked brain seek mental health as soon as possible if you want to live in the real world.


It isn't any more delusional than other explanations for the world's essence. At the very least, it is just a contemporary understanding of it. For what it's worth, legitimate scientists have considered the possibility.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
For what it's worth, legitimate scientists have considered the possibility.


No again. This is a common misconception that is relayed on the internet without anyone checking its validity.

Please post a paper from a scientist considering this possibility.


This idea has only marginally be entertained by philosophers (up to Plato) as a thought experiment, one in particular : Nick Bostrom. Not scientists. Bostrom is also entertaining such serious ideas as downloading the mind into a computer to live forever, without even realizing the implications (you die, a digital copy of you now exists). This is not science, this is futurism.

Scientists are studying the possible holographic nature of the universe. This is completely different!


Let's try to deny ignorance and not copy paste rumors we read on some sensationalist site and that we relay without really checking or even understanding them.



e: also Elon Musk was a huge idiot to give this incorrect idea more visibility without actually checking if what he said was even true in the first place.
edit on 10-2-2017 by SpaceGoatFart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: daaskapital
For what it's worth, legitimate scientists have considered the possibility.


No again. This is a common misconception that is relayed on the internet without anyone checking its validity.

Please post a paper from a scientist considering this possibility.


This idea has only marginally be entertained by philosophers (up to Plato) as a thought experiment, one in particular : Nick Bostrom. Not scientists. Bostrom is also entertaining such serious ideas as downloading the mind into a computer to live forever, without even realizing the implications (you die, a digital copy of you now exists). This is not science, this is futurism.

Scientists are studying the possible holographic nature of the universe. This is completely different!


Let's try to deny ignorance and not copy paste rumors we read on some sensationalist site and that we relay without really checking or even understanding them.



e: also Elon Musk was a huge idiot to give this incorrect idea more visibility without actually checking if what he said was even true in the first place.


I've been interested in this before Musk came out to the public about it. And while you are correct that philosophers have entertained the idea, there have been some scientists who haven't shied away either. People like Rich Terrile, Max Tegmark and James Gates are just some of these names.

I'm not going to put myself into a box and fulfill your requests, but here are a couple of links supporting my assertion that some scientists, namely the aforementioned, at least entertain the possibility:

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.vice.com...



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFart

originally posted by: daaskapital
For what it's worth, legitimate scientists have considered the possibility.


No again. This is a common misconception that is relayed on the internet without anyone checking its validity.

Please post a paper from a scientist considering this possibility.


This idea has only marginally be entertained by philosophers (up to Plato) as a thought experiment, one in particular : Nick Bostrom. Not scientists. Bostrom is also entertaining such serious ideas as downloading the mind into a computer to live forever, without even realizing the implications (you die, a digital copy of you now exists). This is not science, this is futurism.

Scientists are studying the possible holographic nature of the universe. This is completely different!


Let's try to deny ignorance and not copy paste rumors we read on some sensationalist site and that we relay without really checking or even understanding them.



e: also Elon Musk was a huge idiot to give this incorrect idea more visibility without actually checking if what he said was even true in the first place.


I've been interested in this before Musk came out to the public about it. And while you are correct that philosophers have entertained the idea, there have been some scientists who haven't shied away either. People like Rich Terrile, Max Tegmark and James Gates are just some of these names.

I'm not going to put myself into a box and fulfill your requests, but here are a couple of links supporting my assertion that some scientists, namely the aforementioned, at least entertain the possibility:

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.vice.com...



Yet none of these scientists deemed it was interesting enough to write a paper about it. Quite telling.


Don't get me wrong. I like entertaining crazy ideas too. I also love to read about how the deeper we look into matter, the more puzzled we are, finding that matter also react according to information theory.

But a serious scientist would never make the jump and claim it means we live in a simulation. Actually, it makes sense that the phenomenon we study using computers and other electronic devices gives us data that match information theory. The opposite would be more surprising! Computers info not described by the information theory!

Scientists are like all people and some of them sometimes also have crazy unsubstantiated beliefs that can be easily proved wrong. That's why peer review is also important.


And it seems that today there are 0 scientist who ever wrote a paper about how we live in a simulation, and the scientific community in general never considered this theory as anything more than wishful thinking.


The simulation theory is not and has never been a scientific theory.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56

There are no particles. It's all an analog wave of energy. Particles only exist because of our measurements. Nature is indifferent to the language we use to represent her behavior. You have no evidence to suggest we live in a simulation. The fact we do not have hard determinism is evidence to the contrary.


edit on 10-2-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typo



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   
My player has been screwing off big time then for a bout a decade now.

COME ON BRO I KNOW YOU SEE THIS. I'm trying to ball out over here, get me some skills.

Alien God N00b.

-Alee



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Dnied

Just out of curiosity, how do you tell the difference?



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Dnied

Just out of curiosity, how do you tell the difference?


Simulations are deterministic unlike our universe.

Not even taking into account that an infinite universe simulation would need infinite calculation power.



There is so much evidence in favor of the simulation hypothesis being false VS the opposite, that you have to reject it under the principle of parsimony governing the scientific method.

This hypothesis will thus forever remain outside of the domain of science and inside the domain of imagination like unicorns, leprechauns and god.
edit on 10-2-2017 by SpaceGoatFart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56

www.abovetopsecret.com...


One "theory" is that a race called the Archons (greys) set it all up.

That guy Tom Delong's book is apparently about this overall. Sekret Machines. Have not read it though.
edit on 10-2-2017 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: droid56

www.abovetopsecret.com...


One "theory" is that a race called the Archons (greys) set it all up.

That guy Tom Delong's book is apparently about this overall. Sekret Machines. Have not read it though.


More distorted info.

"Archons" are said to have devised the world as a "prison for souls". Not a frigging computer simulation.

It's baffling the amount of disinfo found on here.
edit on 10-2-2017 by SpaceGoatFart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
There is an ARTICLE that claims that Donald Trump is PROOF that we are living in a computer simulation.




To understand why I think Trump is all the proof we need that we are living in a simulation, we have to begin with one of the most fundamental questions of religious thought, theodicy; if there is a god, why does it allow evil and suffering to exist? Why not create a world of perfect harmony and happiness? Why would god subject its most faithful and righteous of servants, as in The Book of Job, to immense anguish? In Job’s tale, it is essentially to settle a bet with Satan—to prove that Job’s faith does not come from the blessings and wealth bestowed upon him, and will remain strong in the face of loss and sorrow.



The explanations for theodicy range throughout history. Polytheistic peoples saw human suffering as the result of squabbles and power grabs among the gods. The Abrahamic traditions cite original sin and the folly of Adam and Eve. Later religious scholars argued that, in order for humans to be made in the image of god, they must be granted free will, which opened the door to sin. Even the deists explained the problem of theodicy by arguing that god had merely created the universe and then left it to its own devices, thus never intervening on behalf of “the good.”



The simulation argument offers a much more straightforward answer: we’re an experiment. Or, an investigation of sorts, a mode of trying to understand causality and the factors that give certain civilizations some characteristics over others. Some simulations may strive to create the happiest civilization possible, others the most efficient, and still others the most self-destructive. Maybe we just got unlucky. Maybe, in some other file folder on some other hard drive, there is a happy little simulation where everyone gets a free puppy that never grows up and there’s orange soda in all the water fountains.



But we didn’t get the puppy-orange-soda universe. Nope, we got Trump.



Perhaps Trump was introduced into the simulation to see how the current conditions would interact with this phenomenon. Perhaps our coding overlords took the experiment to the extreme, making the intervention as ridiculous as possible to see the effects. Maybe they’re having a bit of sadistic fun, blissfully ignorant to the fact that it is all too real to us. Or, perhaps, something further back—mass media or reality TV—was introduced, and Trump is a (il)logical conclusion of that earlier experiment.


I think this is an example of creative writing, but it might be interesting to some.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: seattlerat
There is an ARTICLE that claims that Donald Trump is PROOF that we are living in a computer simulation.




To understand why I think Trump is all the proof we need that we are living in a simulation, we have to begin with one of the most fundamental questions of religious thought, theodicy; if there is a god, why does it allow evil and suffering to exist? Why not create a world of perfect harmony and happiness? Why would god subject its most faithful and righteous of servants, as in The Book of Job, to immense anguish? In Job’s tale, it is essentially to settle a bet with Satan—to prove that Job’s faith does not come from the blessings and wealth bestowed upon him, and will remain strong in the face of loss and sorrow.



The explanations for theodicy range throughout history. Polytheistic peoples saw human suffering as the result of squabbles and power grabs among the gods. The Abrahamic traditions cite original sin and the folly of Adam and Eve. Later religious scholars argued that, in order for humans to be made in the image of god, they must be granted free will, which opened the door to sin. Even the deists explained the problem of theodicy by arguing that god had merely created the universe and then left it to its own devices, thus never intervening on behalf of “the good.”



The simulation argument offers a much more straightforward answer: we’re an experiment. Or, an investigation of sorts, a mode of trying to understand causality and the factors that give certain civilizations some characteristics over others. Some simulations may strive to create the happiest civilization possible, others the most efficient, and still others the most self-destructive. Maybe we just got unlucky. Maybe, in some other file folder on some other hard drive, there is a happy little simulation where everyone gets a free puppy that never grows up and there’s orange soda in all the water fountains.



But we didn’t get the puppy-orange-soda universe. Nope, we got Trump.



Perhaps Trump was introduced into the simulation to see how the current conditions would interact with this phenomenon. Perhaps our coding overlords took the experiment to the extreme, making the intervention as ridiculous as possible to see the effects. Maybe they’re having a bit of sadistic fun, blissfully ignorant to the fact that it is all too real to us. Or, perhaps, something further back—mass media or reality TV—was introduced, and Trump is a (il)logical conclusion of that earlier experiment.


I think this is an example of creative writing, but it might be interesting to some.


The whole article assumes the universe has a meaning.

But I agree it was a funny read



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Human Beings do not have the proper tools or even the brain power to fully comprehend and understand reality let alone come to a definite conclusion of reality is.

Our brains can only perceive from our 5 senses which equals to less than 1% of the full Universal Spectrum. Meaning all the energy, frequencies, etc. Only amounts to 0.1%-1% of all reality.

I feel as if Humans are equivalent to an ant trying to understand how a computer works, the ant simply does not have the proper tools/brain power to understand.

I personally feel as if this reality is constructed and controlled by a much higher intelligence/entity for us to experience.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
A simulation won't save your physical body, you just go onto the next level without it if the body is no longer sustainable.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
No need to get stupid or angry over this thread. The question is the title, and you can find physicists who entertain the possibility. Why be ignorant and rude trying to derail a speculative post about a theory that is not disproven. Most here are entertaining the possibility. Sheesh lol. Move along if you can't be mature about it. This isn't the General Chitchat Mudpit.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: droid56

Was God the author of this simulation, or was it highly advanced aliens enjoying the show.

Do we live in a sophisticated simulation, and if we do, who created it?


Yep!

Jesus fed 5000 people with two fishes and five loaves of bread.

People who didn't actually witness that event say it's impossible.

But, today, we can understand how this is possible. If we create a 3D virtual reality simulation, and put on the 3D helmets and walk about in our simulated world, then all it takes to feed 5000 people in the simulation, is to hit the "copy" button on the computer program to duplicate the fish and the loaves to get enough food for all these people.

So, if you believe in Jesus, then you believe the world is a simulation, and Jesus had the keys to access the keyboard.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: droid56

Was God the author of this simulation, or was it highly advanced aliens enjoying the show.

Do we live in a sophisticated simulation, and if we do, who created it?


Yep!

Jesus fed 5000 people with two fishes and five loaves of bread.

People who didn't actually witness that event say it's impossible.

But, today, we can understand how this is possible. If we create a 3D virtual reality simulation, and put on the 3D helmets and walk about in our simulated world, then all it takes to feed 5000 people in the simulation, is to hit the "copy" button on the computer program to duplicate the fish and the loaves to get enough food for all these people.

So, if you believe in Jesus, then you believe the world is a simulation, and Jesus had the keys to access the keyboard.



So do you think "Jesus" would be a hacker or computer programmer?

The latest news on the Holographic universe, I believe, mentioned that they weren't so sure about the holographic universe being made by a creator aka an anthropomorphic being.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join