We Are Living In A Simulation - New Evidence

a reply to: mOjOm

Well right I 'feel' that they are on the right track and I also feel that the fundaments of reality presented to us by CERN aren't the fundaments at all (they are much deeper). What turns out to be the ultimate truth only time can tell I just hope that people keep open minded enough to accept that Truth.

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

Thanks for the link much appreciated.

But I think if Simulation theory is true space and time is part of the simulation too. So eventually physics has to be redefined. Eventually there will be a mathematical model that is describing how the simulation works , complete with 'laws' of physics and it's many ad hoc constants.

a reply to: intrptr

Ah right... understand the Plato rap now... But simulation , doesn't mean an illusion (at least for me) it's more in mathematical terms that this world is a subset of possibilites , and in plato's terms (the superset is out of the cage). Our souls however are part of that superset.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I loved this movie.

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: intrptr

Ah right... understand the Plato rap now... But simulation , doesn't mean an illusion (at least for me) it's more in mathematical terms that this world is a subset of possibilites , and in plato's terms (the superset is out of the cage). Our souls however are part of that superset.

Imo, math ruins it.

it tries to figure it out, place limits, make equations of everything to better define the 'real' world.

Nothing like coming out of the cave for the first time, feeling the suns warmth, seeing its brilliance, the blue sky , clouds, green grass, hearing and feeling a cool breeze, the gurgling brook...

everything else back in the cave becomes immaterial. All that-- means nothing.

Agree with what else you said.

Personally, I don't like this "we are living in a simulation" theory, despite what evidence there may be that points towards it.
It raises a lot of further questions, such as "who made the simulation?" , and "what made the creators?".
More importantly, it asks: "who are the other human beings? Am I the only one in this simulation and everyone is an NPC?"

Furthermore, it raises a whole #load of moral dilemmas, such as the value of life.

For an extreme example (I love extremes), imagine that this theory is widely adopted in a country. It could be easily used to argue that human life really isn't worth anything as it's simulated. It could be used to justify genocides on unimaginable scales, or the taking away of human rights from certain demographics (poor people, most likely, as opposed to those who have the weapons.)

It's a theory that can never be proven, just like most existential theories, as it cannot be falsified.

originally posted by: StonedPidgeon
Personally, I don't like this "we are living in a simulation" theory, despite what evidence there may be that points towards it.
It raises a lot of further questions, such as "who made the simulation?" , and "what made the creators?".
More importantly, it asks: "who are the other human beings? Am I the only one in this simulation and everyone is an NPC?"

Furthermore, it raises a whole #load of moral dilemmas, such as the value of life.

For an extreme example (I love extremes), imagine that this theory is widely adopted in a country. It could be easily used to argue that human life really isn't worth anything as it's simulated. It could be used to justify genocides on unimaginable scales, or the taking away of human rights from certain demographics (poor people, most likely, as opposed to those who have the weapons.)

It's a theory that can never be proven, just like most existential theories, as it cannot be falsified.

I disagree. Only douchebags would use ST to justify inflicting pain.

Within this reality it doesn't matter if there is a layer above. Let's say there is a creator. Yeah so?

As to proof, I think that entanglement is at least evidence.

originally posted by: StonedPidgeon
It's a theory that can never be proven, just like most existential theories, as it cannot be falsified.

Pretty much. The fundamental problem will always be that we can't really know anything for sure because we are very limited by our perceptions, memory and reasoning. Even if we managed to somehow attain a view of reality that is both true and outside our usual reality, we can never tell if it's an illusion, any more than we can tell that the reality we're living in is an illusion.

We still have to live in the world we apparently perceive. So in many ways it really doesn't even matter if this is an illusion. It's all we have, and we still have to go to work and buy food.

originally posted by: StonedPidgeon
Personally, I don't like this "we are living in a simulation" theory, despite what evidence there may be that points towards it.
It raises a lot of further questions, such as "who made the simulation?" , and "what made the creators?".
More importantly, it asks: "who are the other human beings? Am I the only one in this simulation and everyone is an NPC?"

Furthermore, it raises a whole #load of moral dilemmas, such as the value of life.

For an extreme example (I love extremes), imagine that this theory is widely adopted in a country. It could be easily used to argue that human life really isn't worth anything as it's simulated. It could be used to justify genocides on unimaginable scales, or the taking away of human rights from certain demographics (poor people, most likely, as opposed to those who have the weapons.)

It's a theory that can never be proven, just like most existential theories, as it cannot be falsified.

I think it would be more acurate to say who observed the system. A creator wouldn't really exist but an observer would. Here is a video discussing simulations and what may be possibilities.

pretty ####ty simulation if you ask me. i prefer my dreams.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
pretty ####ty simulation if you ask me. i prefer my dreams.

But what if you can influence it because it looks internally for data? See my post in this thread about space time voxels.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
pretty ####ty simulation if you ask me. i prefer my dreams.

But what if you can influence it because it looks internally for data? See my post in this thread about space time voxels.

For the universe to back a simulation would require everything to be information. So looking internally for information wouldn't really make sense

a reply to: dragonridr

Unless of course the information comes from an external source or even an internal source as of yet undetectable, possibly something to do with the dark matter and energies that comprise 95% of the rest of our universe?

Chances are our universe is not even the simulation but a simulation of a simulation if indeed it does turn out to be holographic, talk about going down the rabbit hole.

a reply to: QueenofWeird

Human beings have used anything and everything to justify inflicting suffering on others. Only douchebags would fly missiles into the Twin Towers to kill thousands of people and justify war, but it happened.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: frenchfries

Could you give a brief synopsis of the "new evidence" in the video?

I'll give you a brief synopsis of it. The company who produced the video has a very science sounding name, Quantum Gravity Research. It isn't owned by a man named Klee Irwin. He's much more famous for his infomercials though when he was hawking a product called "Dual Action Cleanse" a so called natural remedy. He has had credentials revoked by the SEC for fraudulent business practices, subject to multiple lawsuits and in 2011, several district attorneys filed a civil lawsuit and Irwin Naturals was ordered to pay $2,650,000 for unfair business practices, false and misleading advertising, and charging for products that were never ordered and failing to reimburse customers. Irwin Naturals sold products like "10 Day Hoodia Diet" & "Fast Action Hoodia Diet" that, contrary to the information on the label, did not contain Hoodia gordonii. Several of their products contained an illegal amount of lead, in one case (Green Tea Fat Burner) over fourteen times over the legal limit, but the products were not marked with the warning labels that are required by law.

His new venture, Quantum Gravity Research has taken a page out of the YEC playbook used by Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research where he hires actual physics graduates and engineers to utilize their credentials but if you watch his videos he talks over them with his woo filled pseudoscience. Like any other pseudoscience promoter, you can discern the legitimacy of their work by comparing the amount of published output to that of their straight to YouTube and for sale DVD's. In this case, there is zero published science in the public domain subject to peer review but lots of stuff available for purchase on their website. In short, he's a con artist and a notorious fraud who has had the Securities and Exchange Commision revoke registrations on several companies in his name and the FDA fined and sent letters rebuking his false advertising and dangerous practices which led to him switching to his new venture, Quantum Gravity Research. To be blunt and to the point, the only thing this video is evidence of, is the gullibility of people and their refusal to engage in the most basic due diligence because they want to believe in sa merging so badly that confirmation bias wins the day.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: StonedPidgeon
It's a theory that can never be proven, just like most existential theories, as it cannot be falsified.

Pretty much. The fundamental problem will always be that we can't really know anything for sure because we are very limited by our perceptions, memory and reasoning. Even if we managed to somehow attain a view of reality that is both true and outside our usual reality, we can never tell if it's an illusion, any more than we can tell that the reality we're living in is an illusion.

We still have to live in the world we apparently perceive. So in many ways it really doesn't even matter if this is an illusion. It's all we have, and we still have to go to work and buy food.

Agreed: We don't know nothin.

All of these wildly contrived machinations, feel more like entertainment than getting to any sort of "truth".
We just don't know.
And why do we still think that we are on the way to knowing, and we're almost there?
Perhaps it's all just ego-traps.

More simple, seems to resonate deeper, than more complicated.

So we go to work, to buy food, and to pay for entertainment, that stimulates us into creating our own entertainment.
Perhaps it ain't real: but most of us are still stuck in it.

(Also interesting point brought by Peter Vlar. Hmmmm...)

i enjoyed the video thanks for posting it.

not sure why there is so many negative responses...

i find stuff like this interesting and empowering. if you have the perception you are stuck or trapped in the reality regardless of what you know then you always will be. i on the other hand will enjoy creating my reality with unlimited possibilities.

life is fun

I just have a bad feeling Rick Sanchez made it all.

originally posted by: StonedPidgeon
a reply to: QueenofWeird

Human beings have used anything and everything to justify inflicting suffering on others. Only douchebags would fly missiles into the Twin Towers to kill thousands of people and justify war, but it happened.

Yes but than it doesn't matter that ST raises moral questions.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dragonridr

Unless of course the information comes from an external source or even an internal source as of yet undetectable, possibly something to do with the dark matter and energies that comprise 95% of the rest of our universe?

Chances are our universe is not even the simulation but a simulation of a simulation if indeed it does turn out to be holographic, talk about going down the rabbit hole.

Vlatko Vedral argues that entropy can come out of nothing.

Anyways a hive of computer voxels with ingrained behaviour options use each other for cues. But don't know if what I said earlier is possible, all change at the same time without external input.

I noticed that people have a huge problem with understanding a hierarchy of realities. Like how could anyone not immediately understand that the sentence "this sentence is a lie" doesn't refer to it self.