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.

 

The Universe is not a computer simulation

page: 4
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
This seems to be an argument that the universe cannot be a simulation based on the facts of a universe that mankind doesn't completely understand.


What would the evidence have to be to support the idea the Universe is a simulation?

Because the evidence we have now is contrary to the assertion the Universe is a simulation.

I'm not asserting the Universe is NOT a simulation. I am asserting the evidence we have does NOT support the assertion the Universe is a simulation based on what a computer is in reality. The burden of proof is not on me but the people asserting the Universe is a simulation. What evidence do people have to support the assertion?

The Universe is round and blue from the 8th dimension and God's real name is Hank.


edit on 12-9-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: roadgravel
This seems to be an argument that the universe cannot be a simulation based on the facts of a universe that mankind doesn't completely understand.


What would the evidence have to be to support the idea the Universe is a simulation?

Because the evidence we have now is contrary to the assertion the Universe is a simulation.

I'm not asserting the Universe is NOT a simulation. I am asserting the evidence we have does NOT support the assertion the Universe is a simulation based on what a computer is in reality. The burden of proof is not on me but the people asserting the Universe is a simulation. What evidence do people have to support the assertion?

The Universe is round and blue from the 8th dimension and God's real name is Hank.



The best paper I've read on the Simulation Hypothesis is no longer available online because the website bottomlayer.net crashed a year or more ago and the author didn't have things properly backed up. It basically presented some of the most compelling facts that could be explained by a "Simulated Universe" theory. Obviously there is no proof that the universe is a simulation, and the theory is not well supported because, well, it's right there at the edge of what can/can't be proven with emprical evidence. But there is some compelling food for thought.

If you browse bottomlayer.net you'll find some of this stuff.

Unfortunately, the most compelling argument isn't there anymore -- not unless he's reconstructed it within the last month or so.

EDIT: The website is BOTTOMLAYER.COM, not .net
edit on 12-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The universe is slightly HUGE. Man hasn't seen enough of it to know what it really is. I do believe it is a created thing however. The universe has life, that we know for certain. And for it to be able to support something as amazing complex as a living cell or a man IMO, is impossible for me to believe without an outside force of intention. Sub atomic particles, atoms, molecules, chemistry, nuclear reactions, planets, suns, light, gravity etc is a whole lot of coincidences to line up to support life. And even with all that, the simple fact that the inanimate became alive, is whole other set of impossible chances. And the fact that it is created, could certainly make it resemble a simulation.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Now if they can just explain why the constants are the values they are then they would be onto something.

If you measure the speed of light with mass and energy then have you actually said anything meaningful about reality?

The philosophical discussions around limitations of measurement have no single conclusion. They certainly do not have one that is computer-like or discrete in nature.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Once we begin to understand the dark matter and energy that comprise the other 95-96% of our universe we may come to a better realization of why the constants are such(cosmological constant, phi, pi), we might even discover a few more. Or even an underlying code that shapes the reality we think we experience.

edit on 12-9-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Nothin

There's no contradiction at all. If green codes start flashing before my eyes like in the movie the Matrix I will not ignore them.

My main point in the OP of this thread is the fabric of reality is a much different animal than computer memory which is discrete and predictable to perfection. I was just being open minded to the evidence of the wave nature of reality not being discrete and perfectly knowable.

And on top of that there's just not enough time in the Universe to make enough measurements to accurately represent what is going on in reality.



Only thinking computer memory as we know it, is the only/ultimate type of memory, is an ego-trap.
We cannot even assume that any kind of a simulation, would HAVE to run on any kind of computer, as we know it.
That just seems to me to be seriously lacking of imagination, and an inability to accept that there are possibilities way beyond our capability of thought.

What about an organic computer, that runs on electrical pulses, with an imperfect, yet adequate memory?
Meet the Human species.

"Not enough time in the Universe to make enough measurements...".
Again: Using restrictions of how we understand things, to say that it couldn't be done another way.
Thinking: 'We know the limitations of operation A: therefore operation B can never be done better, forever and ever'.

Sorry: but that is ego putting-up a roadblock, proclaiming to be Master and Commander, and none shall pass.
While Bugs-Bunny tunnels underneath...

What's up Doc?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin

I imagine any machine or computer by our understanding of the word that had the ability to govern, for all intent and purpose, a universe reassembling our own, would have to process billions of petabytes of information a second(probably more like Nano/Peta seconds) hence would be rather different from anything we understand as a computer.

To be honest i imagine our universe is rather more simplistic than that or at least operates along the lines of self-governing process so as to somewhat limit the seemingly infinite amount of computations required to facilitate such a simulation.

Let's take it further through, imagine the machine that could simulate the multiverse theory. The complexity of such would be quite frankly beyond our ability to comprehend in our current Human condition.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
We don't understand the laws of the universe completely but enough to say what it isn't, positively. Doubt it.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Something else to keep in mind is that if we are in a simulation, we are seeing only what the simulation is designed for us to see, or rather "what is rendered". In much the same way that a person playing a first-person shooter sees the game world as it is rendered, but sees no direct evidence of the CPU, RAM, or other internal workings of the computer, except to the extent that they are sufficient to execute the game.

Any evidence of the simulation would be indirect.

That's one reason why I find the wave function such a compelling argument in favor of the Simulation Theory. We cannot see it because the act of observing it causes it to be "rendered" as a singular reality rather than a probability distribution, which exists in the CPU/RAM because it represents the bottom most layer of processing.
edit on 12-9-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: frenchfries
Good post !

Well Yes and no , of course isn't the universe a (von Neumann) 'computer' simulation.

First people thought universe was created by God then it was a clockwork then a matrix and now a computer. See the pattern technological advancement is projected on what is assumed the universe is.

Yep, the whole simulation fad is just the creator concept in disguise. And it is just as stupid.




Well just read between the lines and it becomes clear that this universe is a simulation done some kind of Device. And the whole gist of the message is that we all are 'in' it (),

Our bodies just like avatars experiencing the universe and it's simulated space and time whilst our 'souls' are connected to a higher reality.

Believe it or not 'computer' or not is not really important , but knowing that this show is simulated is.


But you don't know. You can not know. All you can do is pretend that you know to make yourself feel more special...


And you don't know, and cannot know that it is not, because none of us do.
He has his beliefs, and you have yours.
Beliefs: not knowledge.
Because of your beliefs: you called him stupid, and insulted him further.
Who's feeling special?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
This seems to be an argument that the universe cannot be a simulation based on the facts of a universe that mankind doesn't completely understand.


That sums-up the OP, and this thread quite well, IMHO.
We just don't know.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
A simulation would open the possibility of apparent time travel due to a failure or error in the simulation.

And of course it could allow for the discovery of a time travel method.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nothin



Nobody knows, nobody knows.


And if we ever did, what then?

Somehow i imagine the answer might be more than our feeble minds in their present condition could ever comprehend.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Apparently, Black holes can theoretically facilitate time travel of sorts if you could get close enough and maintain position.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Have you ever looked into Milo Wolfe and his space resonance theory? Some say crazy, some say it could explain much.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Agreed that some sub-systems could potentially be left alone, to sort themselves-out, running on some kind of chaotic sub-routines.
Like the animal kingdom: each individual, and every sub-species, struggling daily for survival. It is estimated that upwards of ten thousand species become extinct every year.
It interacts with other aspects of a potential simulation, but why believe that everything needs to be controlled by a CPU?



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius




But you don't know. You can not know. All you can do is pretend that you know to make yourself feel more special...


Feeling , not knowing and then pretending I see your logic ...
Yes everyone is special we are all beings from a higher reality I Know !



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Nothin

Nobody knows, nobody knows.


And if we ever did, what then?

Somehow i imagine the answer might be more than our feeble minds in their present condition could ever comprehend.


Hey! Watched that classic last night on Moviechannel.

Indeed: Nobody knows nothin'. (Col.)

Nobody know for sure what the lyrics of this song are about, with the possible exception of the author, and anyone he may have sincerely explained it too:




posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

I don't believe i have, might have come across him/his theories and not realized it all the same, names have never been my strong point.

The crazy stuff generally turns out to be the most interesting and possess more questions than answers, which is how it should be i suppose.

As to explanations, well we need to design and build the tools to facilitate our understanding of the universe never mind the quantum realm/foam and how it relates to our own macro verse and/or our own conscious experience of such before any definitive explanation will ever materialize.



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen



Maybe what bugs me the most is the idea that in this simulation, and quantum science (I think) there is the idea that every possibility is computed. That grates me, for it is a closed world that runs in an endless cycle.


maybe this will make sense to you...

Well indeed everything is computed in this reality but also the information in this reality comes from that higher reality. Therefore this Information makes this reality unpredictable (free will within the clockwork of this reality).

The analogy is that everything in computer memory can be predicted once the initial state is known that information of the initial state comes from physical processes (like typing , a soundclip etc).

So not a closed world but an open world and we (our conciousnesses) all are part of this higher reality.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join