cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So your assertion that the simulation theory is wrong, is based on quoting verses from the Bible? I'm not seeing the connection. I love how Christians always take a verse or two and then interpret simple/vague text to apply to absolutely... anything.


Actually, my premise was in support of the thread by showing the elements of creation found in scripture. I am constantly amazed how some people are blinded to scripture from bias. I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all. That amazes me.


I'm sorry but I don't buy it. How are supposed to debate with you when you say stuff like
"I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all."
I think you need to learn a thing or two about denying ignorance.




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see how the conclusion backs up the theory,,,, when 130 years ago ( or so) and today,, the limits of technology ( like the limits of our senses) give us a hazy view of micro reality? there has to be a difference between the idea of reality being a computer ( which it is) and the concept of simulation ( which would mean/entail?)...

what would what be simulating? are you only implying determinism with the idea of simulation?


The "convenience" of this proposition is that time and technology are irrelevant. If this reality is simply a simulation, the "real" year, outside of the simulation, could be now, a billion years in the past or a billion years in the future. Outside of the simulation, there might be no such thing as time, and it's merely a variable in our simulation.

Because we rely solely on our senses to define reality, if we accept the proposition that everything that we sense can be artificially induced through electrical stimulation of the neurological system, we can no longer claim that reality is NOT a simulation. All that's left to do is to prove that it is, which is what is being claimed.

These are not new ideas, of course -- see The Brain in a Vat” Argument, for example. But the notion that we might be able to positively determine whether we exist in a simulation is new.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by mideast
 



Originally posted by mideast


cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation


Stick a pin in your hands and you will see it is not.

Or

Maybe some thing more intense will show you it was not.



I can see from quoting that you, Mideast, view this thread to be idiotic...judging by the "stfu" emoticon you used. Allow me to set you straight - politely, of course.

There is probably a code for inducing pain in living creatures - we have methods of electrical stimuli that generate false sensations, chemicals that do the same thing, and this suggests there is indeed a mathematical formula that quanitifes pain.

In fact, everything in the universe can be quantified. Unfortunately, quantification takes the meaning out of everything. Math is the language of the universe, geometry is its poetry, but for beings who use a completely different language, it removes all meaning and beauty. There is something to be said for seeing something with your heart and not your brain.


In the meantime, if you view OP's premise to be ridiculous, prove to me that this reality isn't simply the result of stimulus provided by curious alien scientists prodding our brains as they float in jars.


Mathematics is the language of the universe? Geometry is its poetry? This is just not the case. Let's not fill our friend's heads with such nonsense.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Of course reality resembles a simulation. We model our simulations off of reality after all. Any simulation we've ever thought of or conceived is based as close as possible on reality.

Calling reality a simulation is simply backwards logic.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


That is probably part of the equation.

The more distracted we are, rather it be with war, hate, lust, greed, fear, .........; you name it, the less likely we will find the source code and inevitably the truth.

Some believe we are not ready for the truth and the knowing will destroy us. I think we are too busy destroying ourselves to recognize or accept the truth, which may be right in front of us.

It is way too seductive to believe we are unique, special, better than even one more person in our world.

How disheartening it is for most to believe or accept that we may be no more than a flea on the backside of a giant ass or a genetic mass of complex carbon based material functioning as a cog in the wheel of progressive neural simulation.


Maybe we are just a dream or just dreaming.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by dominicus
 


That is probably part of the equation.

The more distracted we are, rather it be with war, hate, lust, greed, fear, .........; you name it, the less likely we will find the source code and inevitably the truth.

Some believe we are not ready for the truth and the knowing will destroy us. I think we are too busy destroying ourselves to recognize or accept the truth, which may be right in front of us.

It is way too seductive to believe we are unique, special, better than even one more person in our world.

How disheartening it is for most to believe or accept that we may be no more than a flea on the backside of a giant ass or a genetic mass of complex carbon based material functioning as a cog in the wheel of progressive neural simulation.


Maybe we are just a dream or just dreaming


I think you just touched on something relevant, the egocentricity of humanity. It is known that narcissism is a functioning practicality of design for self survival, possible because of humans being born before they are ready, due to the size of the head to birth canal ratio, and that it is likely that a certain amount of narcissism remains. However, the extent of the egocentricity of the average human, as well as collectively, combined with the almost complete denial to comprehend that there are truly greater powers than that of man, is like watching an entire planet of blindfolded people that are just too oblivious and conceited to even comprehend such greatness.

Perhaps this is a design feature or, a protection mechanism. Perhaps to comprehend such greatness involves some sort of atomic assimilation, a certain resonance that the level of consciousness average humans are tuned to doesn't reach. Perhaps it requires certain brainwave patterns or interactions at the level of particle physics to enable this higher communication and then again only attainable by some.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see how the conclusion backs up the theory,,,, when 130 years ago ( or so) and today,, the limits of technology ( like the limits of our senses) give us a hazy view of micro reality? there has to be a difference between the idea of reality being a computer ( which it is) and the concept of simulation ( which would mean/entail?)...

what would what be simulating? are you only implying determinism with the idea of simulation?


The "convenience" of this proposition is that time and technology are irrelevant. If this reality is simply a simulation, the "real" year, outside of the simulation, could be now, a billion years in the past or a billion years in the future. Outside of the simulation, there might be no such thing as time, and it's merely a variable in our simulation.

Because we rely solely on our senses to define reality, if we accept the proposition that everything that we sense can be artificially induced through electrical stimulation of the neurological system, we can no longer claim that reality is NOT a simulation. All that's left to do is to prove that it is, which is what is being claimed.

These are not new ideas, of course -- see The Brain in a Vat” Argument, for example. But the notion that we might be able to positively determine whether we exist in a simulation is new.


what are you talking about accepting that everything we sense can be artificially induced,,..,.,.,

you take the universe being a simulation to mean,,, that the universe does not exist as it does in relation to us?

you take the universe being a simulation to mean,,, the rest of the universe may be fake,,, and earth is a holographic matrix?

I must ask you hypothetically...... what in infinity and eternity can potentially be real? besides this universe besides any others that can be or simulations,.... what would it take for something to be real?

if only your awareness existed in infinite nothingness,,, what would constitute as creating a real reality?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wongbeedman

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


So your assertion that the simulation theory is wrong, is based on quoting verses from the Bible? I'm not seeing the connection. I love how Christians always take a verse or two and then interpret simple/vague text to apply to absolutely... anything.


Actually, my premise was in support of the thread by showing the elements of creation found in scripture. I am constantly amazed how some people are blinded to scripture from bias. I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all. That amazes me.


I'm sorry but I don't buy it. How are supposed to debate with you when you say stuff like
"I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all."
I think you need to learn a thing or two about denying ignorance.


Essentially, those verses are saying (CLEARLY) that we are made of information (Word) and inside an image of Time, Space, Matter and Energy. It can't get much closer to what science is saying apart from showing you the better stated version from the Bible. Science and the Bible are finally starting to match. The two are mirror images of each other when compared without bias. This video from Stanford demonstrates all the theory and implication that opens the verses up to understanding. The reason you cannot see it is possibly a lack of knowledge regarding quantum entanglement, collapsing wave function and the nature of particle physics. The theory parallels the verses perfectly. It's a hologram of information and energy. IMAGE!

You minimize the verses as if there is no connection. This may be true if you do not know what quantum physics actually suggests currently. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics demonstrates clearly that matter cannot create consciousness. Consciousness creates matter. At the center of all existence is Word (Information), just as the Bible states.



edit on 12-10-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are you talking about accepting that everything we sense can be artificially induced,,..,.,.,


Sight, as an example, is simply electrical signals between your optic nerve and your brain. Your eyeballs gather in a picture, it's converted to electrical impulses, and shunted back to your brain, which reconstructs it as an "image". Scientists are currently working on retinal implants that can restore sight to some blind people by using a camera to collect the picture, and then pipe it back to the brain as it normally would be. (See this article)

With that in mind, pretend that you are a brain in a vat, with an electrical wire connecting on that same passageway, but the source at the other end is neither an eye nor a camera, but rather a computer, which is capable of generating images in real time. How would your brain know that the source of what your brain thinks you are "seeing" is a computer, rather than an eye or camera? It couldn't, assuming that all other senses, like touch or hearing, are simultaneously being simulated by this computer.

That's what I mean -- if all of that was possible (and, the argument goes, it will, by necessity, be possible at some point) how can anyone say that they are not a brain in a vat, or some other existence that is really just a computer generated simulation.


I must ask you hypothetically...... what in infinity and eternity can potentially be real? besides this universe besides any others that can be or simulations,.... what would it take for something to be real?


Under the terms of what I just laid out, nothing. It is entirely possible (and some would say likely,) that nothing that we experience is "real," in the sense that most people apply that term.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mideast
 


When playing gta, the choices you make in-game are all yours. Be it running a pedestrian over or just stand still and admire the sunset. Your choices, sure, but only within the boundries of what is allowed within a computer SIMULATION. Does this apply to our "real" world? How about the law of physics? You feel you are truly unbound, free and can make any choice? Dare you to jump out a window and fly.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are you talking about accepting that everything we sense can be artificially induced,,..,.,.,


Sight, as an example, is simply electrical signals between your optic nerve and your brain. Your eyeballs gather in a picture, it's converted to electrical impulses, and shunted back to your brain, which reconstructs it as an "image". Scientists are currently working on retinal implants that can restore sight to some blind people by using a camera to collect the picture, and then pipe it back to the brain as it normally would be. (See this article)

With that in mind, pretend that you are a brain in a vat, with an electrical wire connecting on that same passageway, but the source at the other end is neither an eye nor a camera, but rather a computer, which is capable of generating images in real time. How would your brain know that the source of what your brain thinks you are "seeing" is a computer, rather than an eye or camera? It couldn't, assuming that all other senses, like touch or hearing, are simultaneously being simulated by this computer.

That's what I mean -- if all of that was possible (and, the argument goes, it will, by necessity, be possible at some point) how can anyone say that they are not a brain in a vat, or some other existence that is really just a computer generated simulation.


I must ask you hypothetically...... what in infinity and eternity can potentially be real? besides this universe besides any others that can be or simulations,.... what would it take for something to be real?


Under the terms of what I just laid out, nothing. It is entirely possible (and some would say likely,) that nothing that we experience is "real," in the sense that most people apply that term.


addressing your last sentence first,.,.,. can you creatively imagine,,, what would ever constitute as real,,, once again i am not talking about this reality or universe.,.,.,. i am saying,, in the history of history of anything ever always and forever,,,,, what would make ,, something real?

your beginning stuff,, ,, i dont think the brain in the vat arguments are good,, because i think physics does a good job of showing that the external universe exists in some manner and dimension of physical expression governed by physical law,,,,, there is space,, there is distance,,, you and i and every galaxy are not overlapped right now in 1 dimension... I really dont think we are,,,,,i think that is what is so impressive about the universe,,, its actual expansiveness relative to its near infinite and infinitesimal parts.,,.,. i understand there could be who knows what surrounding the universe,,, but i believe the universe does exist in the manner it exists in,,,
the human mind and senses function in the manner that they do because they are a computing mechanism,,, when we recall memories we are simulating "reality" in the holographic theatre of our minds,, i think physically,, the world is the size it is relative to our sun,, and we are the size we are relative to the earth,,, to make the complex elemental biological system we are function in these ridiculous conditions and realms,,we needed to naturally adapt,,, from a long time ago on earth nature was inspired to innovate complex technology such as vision and brain, and organs and bones,,,, the mind and its way of encrypting external information and translating it for the internal consciousness to understand and recall, is the system it came up with,, this communication with electricity,,, on a more macro scale we kept the ball rolling with the telephone and internet,.,.,.,

so once again i am hung up on the word simulation and its meaning,,,
it is certainly a creation,,, it is certainly a computation of physical information,,,
but it doesnt seem to be as controlled as you imply.,,.,.
there doesnt seem to be moderators,,,
it seems to be a world wide web,,,
were viruses can evolve,,, and self correcting systems can learn and grow,,

So yea im still confused what is meant by simulation...... is it that it is all preprogrammed and every micro moment is destined from the beginning?

is what is meant by simulation,, that a programmer,, created the universe exactly the way it was to allow a real time,, long long time,, habitat of creativity and potential and probability play out,, to give essence and opportunity to exist in physical form,,, to turn nothing into something and give it a computer for a mind to process infinite eternity with,,,, or to figure out how its predecessor might have possibly came about?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

You talk about the size of the universe, its "expansiveness", relative to our perception of it.

I submit to you that what we perceive is predetermined by how our brain is designed to process input. What we "see" is merely impulses interpreted by the brain.

We may all be standing on the head of a pin and have no perception of it. The universe may be no more than the size of a thimble.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

You talk about the size of the universe, its "expansiveness", relative to our perception of it.

I submit to you that what we perceive is predetermined by how our brain is designed to process input. What we "see" is merely impulses interpreted by the brain.

We may all be standing on the head of a pin and have no perception of it. The universe may be no more than the size of a thimble.


it can be the size of a thimble in relation to an external reality,,,,, but what are you comparing the size of the universe as a thimble too? a thimble? now that doesnt make sense,, becasue the universe as we know it can fit
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^99999999999999999999999999999999
thimbles as we know them,, in it....



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Sorry, you're still not getting it. (By the way, what's with all the extra commas in your posts? It's very distracting.)

You can't say "physics shows this or that," because physics is a sensible discipline -- you use your senses to measure things, or read a meter or study a cosmic red shift. If you are a "brain in a vat", anything that you use your senses to determine (and that's everything, apart from intelligible things -- stuff that's just in your mind, like imagination or ideas) can be faked, and so is not a reliable basis for determining reality.

In other words, when contemplating whether we live in a simulation, science is of no help, apart from demonstrating that we do.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Sorry, you're still not getting it. (By the way, what's with all the extra commas in your posts? It's very distracting.)

You can't say "physics shows this or that," because physics is a sensible discipline -- you use your senses to measure things, or read a meter or study a cosmic red shift. If you are a "brain in a vat", anything that you use your senses to determine (and that's everything, apart from intelligible things -- stuff that's just in your mind, like imagination or ideas) can be faked, and so is not a reliable basis for determining reality.

In other words, when contemplating whether we live in a simulation, science is of no help, apart from demonstrating that we do.



dont hate on my commas,,, its just how i type to pause for my thoughts,,, they shouldnt be distracting because the words are whats important,,

you still havent defined what a simulation could possibly be,,,, you still havent mentioned what "ever" could possibly be real.. Did you read any of my questions,, I hate wasting my time thinking out those questions and then you dont answer them... What does real mean? how can something ever be real? what would it take for something to be established as real?

where would our brain and every other living thing thats ever lived brains on this planet and every other one be located? ( please bring on the solipsism
)

wouldnt it be must easier for reality to be how it seems,,, the brain develops from cells,, and this planet is the size it is in relation to ourselves,, and atoms and molecules exist,,, we are made of bones and blood,,, and we can use language and video segments of image to playback to comprehend the laws and mechanisms which govern this realm we find ourselves in,,, and this activity since birth, paying attention ( its called learning ) is what creates the mind,, and how our physical entities maintain our existence and move about and interact...

whatever you choose to do,, please dont respond to me unless you give me an answer to these,.,.,.

What does real mean? how can something ever be real? what would it take for something to be established as real?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
"Computer" sounds too technical. I recently entertained the concept that the entire universe as we know it exists as a single point, and spacetime is merely a perception inside a complex thought matrix that our individual consciousnesses make up, like neurons, but existing in the exact same space as each other because space and time actually don't exist but are illusions within the thought matrix.

Our consciousnesses are like individual atoms in one larger thing that is... very consumed with thought, I guess.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

He's right. You DON'T get it.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

He's right. You DON'T get it.


oh the proof you just provided that i dont get it is overwhelming,,,, I heard the brain in a vat concept when i was 13,,,,

i understand we have no way of observing reality besides using reality.,,.,

that does not mean everything in this seemingly observed reality is not exactly as it is in this seemingly observed reality..,,. we may view it subjectively,, but we are viewing something,,.,,

what is your proof,..,,.

tell me if it is this..,.

we exist in a simulation...

did you answer any of my last questions to you>? no you didnt? ok then,,,,,

ohhhhh ok,,, your the one who said the universe could be the size of a thimble,,, and i said that doesnt sound right can you clear it up,,,, and so now you will side with the other member who is "against me"...

edit on 12-10-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

The answer to that question, how do we establish what is real, is we can't. We have no alternative reality with which to compare our current reality.

For now, the here and now is the standard for real and that itself is in question because of how we process information.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

The answer to that question, how do we establish what is real, is we can't. We have no alternative reality with which to compare our current reality.

For now, the here and now is the standard for real and that itself is in question because of how we process information.


ok,,, ok,,,, so for now we will call A=A..... and deal with the only reality we can examine,, and the only reality we are made of...

now onto my other question.....

what would it/can it possibly take,,, for something to ever be real?

what does real mean?

and if real makes something,,, is that thing it is making real as well? wouldnt anything that ever exists be real in the exact objective deffiniton of what exactly it is? so we would be a "simulation",,, that has a potential of freewill,,, a freedom to simulate in our minds whatever "reality" we want to and come up with?

the original reality could be infinite eternal infinities ago,, and we are a simulation in a simulation simulating a simulated simulation of a simulated simulation that was simulated by a simulated simulation etc.etc.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join