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.

 

If we really are living in a computer simulation is there anything we can do ?

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Here is a Wikipedia entry about the Observer Effect.
en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

"An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] The "observer" in this experiment — a sophisticated electronic detector — wasn't human. And yet, possibly because the word "observer" implies a person, such findings have led to a popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[3][4][5]"
The Wikipedia entry also gives references you may be interested in.

Here is an article about The Weizmann experiment.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Careful the observer they are talking about is an electronic detector not a person with a mind.

I'm not sure how I could have worded my response to make it appear not-snotty to you.





edit on 22-3-2018 by Deluxe because: Adding more.




posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Scrubdog

Here is a Wikipedia entry about the Observer Effect.
en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

"An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] The "observer" in this experiment — a sophisticated electronic detector — wasn't human. And yet, possibly because the word "observer" implies a person, such findings have led to a popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the "observer" to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[3][4][5]"
The Wikipedia entry also gives references you may be interested in.

Here is an article about The Weizmann experiment.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Careful the observer they are talking about is an electronic detector not a person with a mind.

I'm not sure how I could have worded my response to make it appear not-snotty to you.






Here is an article from 2002 in which John Wheeler takes on the big questions regarding consciousness's impact on the universe, and I stand by my statement given that I just two weeks ago watched a panel discussion involving Tedmark, Greene, Susskind and everal others from 2015 and they all still very much believe consciousness plays a role - I would posit that the measuring equipment in the article you reference simply acts as a "stand-in for the delayed choice experiment, at some point, a conscious had to have designed the machine to make the observation.

Given that this article that I am referencing is from 2002, I am pretty sure that John Wheeler (of all people) would well have known the implications of the experiment you're referencing, and still believed conscious observation mattered. discovermagazine.com...

Last, there have been psychology experiments that demonstrate a precognition effect in experiments that also demonstrated that consciousness itself impacts reality.

I realize that modern physicists are terrified of having to speak of consciousness itself having an impact on reality, and would much rather call it the "measurement problem" - but the ACT of measuring requires consciousness. The delayed-choice experiment has shown that even a decision to measure in the future impacts the past, I am not sure why it would be an issue to say that the consciousness required to design the measruing device allowed the collapse of the wave.

To me, the big big principle seems to be that concrete reality cannot exist until it is interacted with - to me that sounds a lot like a computer program where most remains either "dormant code" unused, or infinite choices until interacted with.

I suppose that I found the response to sound snotty bc I had just watched this long panel discussion with some of the world's best physicists still very much bothered by the need for consciousness in a universe that they more and more often describe as based upon "information" - and "information" needs "interpretation" to be "anything."

At least that's how I see it. I see much of physics in the quantum (and perhaps the big - we aren't actually out IN the other galaxies) acting like "unused" code.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Deluxe

The problem bringing consciousness into the equation is nobody knows what it is and how it works.
So I tend to stay away from interpretations of Quantum Physics that rely on consciousness.
That leaves Quantum Physics open to a lot of interpretations.
I do not know which is interpretations are correct or if any are but I do have a bias towards interpretations that do not involve human consciousness.

It seems to me that the universe would still exist even without conscious beings observing it. But I can't prove that because I have no acceptable definition of consciousness in the human sense.

I do know however when I'm in deep sleep I am not conscious in a sense I am not aware of my inner self. But I do wake up and the universe is still there in the morning.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I wonder if it might be possible to look for the seams in a manufactured reality by trying to detect the patterns created by the built-in error correction protocols. There must be some. If not, the errors would build up over time and create all kinds of chaotic nonsense within the program, possibly leading to it freezing or crashing.

Not quite sure what they would look like. "Deja-vu," like in The Matrix? Or maybe deja-reve, where you find yourself doing something you remember doing in a dream. Maybe there's some way to isolate these things and link them to an activity of the underlying program.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

www.youtube.com...

"Working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry, Dr. James Gates Jr., discovered what he describes as the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles."



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Deluxe

Don't you hate when that happens





posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deluxe
a reply to: Deluxe

The problem bringing consciousness into the equation is nobody knows what it is and how it works.
So I tend to stay away from interpretations of Quantum Physics that rely on consciousness.
That leaves Quantum Physics open to a lot of interpretations.
I do not know which is interpretations are correct or if any are but I do have a bias towards interpretations that do not involve human consciousness.

It seems to me that the universe would still exist even without conscious beings observing it. But I can't prove that because I have no acceptable definition of consciousness in the human sense.

I do know however when I'm in deep sleep I am not conscious in a sense I am not aware of my inner self. But I do wake up and the universe is still there in the morning.



It is strange, isn't it?

The delayed choice experiment, the one where they didn't let the particle "know" whether they would look at it until AFTER it had gone through the "slits" - and yet it STILL knew what they were going to do is just so "hair on the arms raising" a proposition. They say that if you aren't "bothered" by quantum dynamics and the measurement problem, then you don't understand quantum mechanics. That article on Wheeler is interesting. The delayed choice experiment implies that the universe we see "knew" 14 billion years ago that we would be "seeing it" - and he thus theorizes that there are HUGE sections of the "universe" beyond our ability to see that are unformed matter, just "probability waves" OR "see" by other intelligent and conscious beings.

The other thing about the universe that makes me think "simulation" - is that it's just so damn big.


It seems like a giant waste of space unless someone was almost intentionally sending a message. One "coincidence" that I find rather jolting (and perhaps indicative), if you look at the "measurable" - meaning the smallest units - Plank scale, versus the largest distance across the universe, our bodies are literally about halfway in-between. IOW - from the plank scale of things, our body looks as big as the entire universe, and we look like "plank size" when compared to the rest of the universe" - or something like that.

The psychological experiments where the mind recognizes a pattern BEFORE it is placed on a screen is one of the big flashing red lights in my mind that something is going on that looks very much like "simulation theory."



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Very strange.

Even with the delayed choice experiment there are different interpretations of whether it proves retrocausation or not.

As for the simulation hypothesis I have always felt in my gut we were part of a simulation.
Bosons with integer spin and fermions with half integer spin, positive/negative charges, complex quantum wave functions, constants of nature that are fine tuned. It seems very computer like and programmed.

What I find amazing is that so many other people feel the same way.
It's almost absurd to think we are part of a simulation yet a lot of people believe it or at least don't discount it.

Anyhow I respect your interpretation of quantum phenomena. I can't prove you wrong or right.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: freedom7

By simulation do you mean a test world?


Or a world that is a reflection of another world, therefore, is dependent on that unknown world--PREDESTINATION



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I can't speak for freedom7 but If i created a simulation if would be to prove a hypothesis. Predestination would defeat that purpose.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Control
Alt
Delete



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join