It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
reply to post by Moduli
You are correct that digital computers cannot represent all real numbers. But why do you assume that the simulation is running on a purely digit computer?
In addition the Berkenstein Bound shows the amount of information required to perfectly describe a finite system to the quantum level. And in finite systems this bound is finite, hence computable.edit on 24-3-2012 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Okay I've watched the interview .. or whatever you might want to call it .. from beginning to end.
Can someone - in his own words - explain to me what precisely these theoretically constructed formulas and equations are and where precisely the "self correcting code elements" have been discovered ?
I seriously tried to grasp what he is saying but it's all very vague and I fail to get the full picture. In my understanding these equations have been theoretically introduced - by human beings - in order to explain abstract theories about even more abstract and theoretical filaments that the universe is SUPPOSED to me made of ( There has never been any evidence for the existence of strings or superstrings as of 2012 ).
So now he claims these equations - that have been introduced by said theoretical scientists - do contain self correcting source code that is exactly the same code as you would find in modern browsers. That doesn't make the slightest sense. Duh.
Originally posted by andersensrm
what in the hell would the "real" universe look like. The one that created the simulations in the first place. ????
Originally posted by Moduli
Because arguing otherwise leads to a nonsensical ill-defined argument of assuming of "well maybe there's something else" that you assume can simulate us, which, by the assumption that it can simulate us, can simulate us. The only way to have a good, meaningful discussion about this is to have technically precise definitions, which don't exist, because there are no notions of what other required kinds of computability would mean.
It is also the case that classical deterministic computers based off of continuous numbers cannot represent reality either (which is easy to understand when you think about quantum mechanics).
You can see this clearly leads to the discussion "does reality simulate reality" which is clearly meaningless, or "is there something else better than reality which simulates reality," which is also meaningless.
Originally posted by Moduli
This is a misunderstanding of what the Bekenstein bound is. An infinite universe (or a multiverse of universes) can still have an infinite amount of information in it. The correct interpretation is that regions (as technically defined) have entropy related to the boundaries (technically defined) of the regions. But you cannot use this to argue anything about the total amount of information, or anything about "computability" because it is not sufficiently strong (and, as a theorem, cannot be sufficiently strong) to do so.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Do any of you people work in telecom and recognize the significance of an All Ones Signal? AIS? 111111111?
Yellow Alarm ?edit on 3/24/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)