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.

 

We Are Living In A Simulation - New Evidence

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: QueenofWeird

I think you don't understand what "this sentence is a lie "is it creates a paradox how could a sentence be a lie if it tells us. It means it would have to be true but of course it's a lie.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: frenchfries

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: stormcell
But the tricky thing is that to store all the attributes of every particle in the universe requires all sorts of data to be stored somewhere; velocity; location, orientation, entanglement, spin and so on. So then that information becomes the fundamental level of the universe.

As I said above, it wouldn't be necessary to store every bit of information about the entire universe in a computer memory. All you need to do is be able to create what an individual perceives or "experiences." That automatically cuts way down on the amount of information you have to present to the experiencer to a workable level. It's not actual reality, it's only what somebody perceives to be reality.


Interesting ... That's like rendering out reality on demand for every observer. A paradox .The amount of info needed to do this is far less that the amount of suggested info in our universe.... Even current day internet surpasses the amount of data needed.


I think everyone misunderstands what scientists are trying to say. They done believe their is some computer somewhere creating everything. What they believe as a possibility it our space being 3 d is the illusion. We are seeing the shadows of higher dimension objects. So for us reality is simulated because we don't actually see the cause and it exists elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

I think everyone misunderstands what scientists are trying to say. They done believe their is some computer somewhere creating everything. What they believe as a possibility it our space being 3 d is the illusion. We are seeing the shadows of higher dimension objects. So for us reality is simulated because we don't actually see the cause and it exists elsewhere.


Plato said the same thing over 2000 years ago.

According to superstring theory, matter as fermionic and bosonic states of the E8xE8 heterotic superstring exists in one of two parallel 10-d space-time sheets that are separated by a narrow gap extending along the 10th spatial dimension predicted by M-theory, which unifies superstring and supergravity theories. Minkowski space-time is merely a 4-dimensional hyperplane in this 11-d space-time. Only gravitational forces can act across the gap. This means that there exists in the second space-time sheet an entire universe of invisible matter (including its inhabitants) - all occupying the same space as ordinary matter (and its inhabitants). So-called "shadow matter" confined to the invisible, co-existing universe can be made to materialize in the universe of ordinary matter because so-called ‘T-duality’ states that the winding mode particles predicted by one string theory compactified on a circle of radius R are the same as the vibration modes predicted by its T-dual version compactified on a circle of radius L2/R, where L is a constant with the dimensions of length. SO(32) and E8×E8 heterotic superstring theories are T-dual to each other, having the same energy spectrum. SO(32) heterotic superstrings exist in a universe where the 10th dimension is a circle, not a segment.
No scientist (or anyone else, for that matter) has yet explained how the cause of a hypothetical 3-dimensional simulation can exist in some reality OUTSIDE of space-time yet can transfer information into space-time that has some mechanical effect. It is not enough to suppose that this traceless cause only exists in higher dimensions of space, because string theory requires all such higher dimensions (whether 6, 7 or 22) to be compactified. They do not extend over a macroscopic scale, and the suggestion a few physicists recently made that they do have have been confirmed by experiments that were designed to detect them, although research on this issue is ongoing. We can imagine unobservable causes all we like because it appeals to our philosophy or world-view. But it is grounded in metaphysics (the science of believing what you want), not in sound scientific research.
edit on 25-8-2017 by micpsi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

You're actually wrong about a bunch of stuff in your dissection of why they're wrong ROFL...

BTW you're both wrong, and i blame all this on all the crap that's been deemed a science of this or that which is nothing of the sort!

That, the matrix, pop philosophy books, pop quantum 47th antispin strange quark cisnormal particle misogyny and you books, and pbs/npr/epa/nsf and others eschewing real science to help stupid people feel less stupid, for the feelz, and on a blatantly pay for chunks of my integrity basis...

Btw it's been proven in an exhaustive groundbreaking 53 year 50,000 man study that people who sneer at tesla have tiny junk and can't satisfy themselves let alone a woman bwahaha



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

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.

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.


Sheepishly is the first to raise hand: Always thought: "this sentence is a lie", referred to itself, in order to contemplate the liars paradox, which leads to a contradiction.

So if that's not what it refers to: Please enlighten this dummy. (And others whom were too shy to admit it).



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

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.

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.


Sheepishly is the first to raise hand: Always thought: "this sentence is a lie", referred to itself, in order to contemplate the liars paradox, which leads to a contradiction.

So if that's not what it refers to: Please enlighten this dummy. (And others whom were too shy to admit it).



I will gladly do so. All the words together make a sentence. Let's call this level A. The actual word sentence is a level down, say level B. In other words it's a statement about another statement. Statement A about statement B



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: QueenofWeird

I think you don't understand what "this sentence is a lie "is it creates a paradox how could a sentence be a lie if it tells us. It means it would have to be true but of course it's a lie.


See my answer below.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

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.

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.


Sheepishly is the first to raise hand: Always thought: "this sentence is a lie", referred to itself, in order to contemplate the liars paradox, which leads to a contradiction.

So if that's not what it refers to: Please enlighten this dummy. (And others whom were too shy to admit it).



I will gladly do so. All the words together make a sentence. Let's call this level A. The actual word sentence is a level down, say level B. In other words it's a statement about another statement. Statement A about statement B



No it doesnt and thank god your not a teacher. You don't seem to understand even basic ideas.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

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.

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.


Sheepishly is the first to raise hand: Always thought: "this sentence is a lie", referred to itself, in order to contemplate the liars paradox, which leads to a contradiction.

So if that's not what it refers to: Please enlighten this dummy. (And others whom were too shy to admit it).



I will gladly do so. All the words together make a sentence. Let's call this level A. The actual word sentence is a level down, say level B. In other words it's a statement about another statement. Statement A about statement B


Yeah... Nope. Still not seeing it.



posted on Aug, 26 2017 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: QueenofWeird

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.

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.


Sheepishly is the first to raise hand: Always thought: "this sentence is a lie", referred to itself, in order to contemplate the liars paradox, which leads to a contradiction.

So if that's not what it refers to: Please enlighten this dummy. (And others whom were too shy to admit it).



I will gladly do so. All the words together make a sentence. Let's call this level A. The actual word sentence is a level down, say level B. In other words it's a statement about another statement. Statement A about statement B



No it doesnt and thank god your not a teacher. You don't seem to understand even basic ideas.


Please explain! If you can't then please shut up.

Even better, take it up with Alfred Tarski.
edit on 26-8-2017 by QueenofWeird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join