Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Our DNA is a unique numeric code that gives us our build or defines the shell we exist in in this reality, but most of us know that there is another us that communicates from what we believe is within, but may indeed lie elsewhere.

Awesomely written

Originally posted by LiquidAsh
ETA Maybe we are the simulator?

Maybe! Our brains are phenomenal parallel processors.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
With respect to the size of the computer, there only need to be so many files. One file for every element in the periodic table. Everything in the universe would be rendered from just a handful of files and a few .exe's.

Hmm. I doubt it's Windows. We'd of blue screened halfway through this thread.

Originally posted by ooYODAoo
my question to this "simulation" theory is WHY?



why would someone want to "play" as me and go through a boring un fulfilling life filing and shredding papers in a gray office cubicle? why?

why not use "cheat" codes and make me rich with fun exotic cars, and all sorts of women?:...why not make it a fun simulation,

if i were playing a simulation of my life...i would have turned the game off and got my money back...

can anyone answer this?

Ever used cheat codes in GTA? Fun at first, but shortly a new level or boring emerges. Also... perhaps we are to learn lessons in this life within the rules/confines of the simulation. Seems to me that higher-level beings might have a lot of power/influence (maybe even the capacity to change the world with thought alone). Would be unwise to trust that kind of power with just anyone (vs. souls who have shown themselves to be compassionate/fair/ethical/uncorruptable/etc.).

And p.s. no refunds, you opened the box!

Originally posted by ooYODAoo
my question to this "simulation" theory is WHY?



why would someone want to "play" as me and go through a boring un fulfilling life filing and shredding papers in a gray office cubicle? why?

why not use "cheat" codes and make me rich with fun exotic cars, and all sorts of women?:...why not make it a fun simulation,

if i were playing a simulation of my life...i would have turned the game off and got my money back...

can anyone answer this?

Also... we have cars and women. It's your player choice to work In a cubicle.

So because electrons seemingly don't obey locality with some of their physical interactions and processes, the Universe cannot be real? Just physics. If you think you understand quantum theory...

As far as I understand non locality, the Aspect test, and a holographic universe are not the same per se. It's the holographic plate that contains all info not the projection in other words the hologram produced.

Non locality according to Bohm suggest an underlying reality which we can't access and which is the source of all.

Anyway Aspect showed non local action within our reality which you might also see as a quality of the holographic plate and thus the projection we live in.

itresting....but i dont think it is a literal computer simulation, maybe more of an energy based computer

Originally posted by AkumaStreak

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Our DNA is a unique numeric code that gives us our build or defines the shell we exist in in this reality, but most of us know that there is another us that communicates from what we believe is within, but may indeed lie elsewhere.

Awesomely written

The question would then be... If you are given a choice upon the start of this "game" or "simulation", why choose shells with "defective" code that cause the simulation to end early?

Or could it simply be that you don't have a choice in regards to shell, other than overlying traits such as parental background, maybe haircolor.... social status etc.

Or maybe, it could be as simple as us as controllers sign up for a specific amount of gametime like you would in an internet café and the shell then dies at the end of that time.

I hope I stacked up on gametime

Originally posted by Ghost375

under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them.

I'd love to see how they did this experiment...(rolls eyes)
It sounds nice and all, but I doubt they did it. What does it even mean for electrons to "communicate with each other?" and how would you measure it?
It's impossible with our technology. If someone would care to show me the details of the experiment and prove me wrong, go for it.

I'm almost not sure whether to be more astonished, or amused. You "skeptics" never fail to do either, for me.

What you are here, trying to eye-rollingly debunk, is called "entanglement" and has become accepted among mainstream physicists. Just because you may not be well-read or intelligent enough to have heard of this before, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Awesome job, though, trying to debunk accepted science. If you want to keep going, I know a big scary windmill that needs some slaying.

"skeptics"

To be fair, your questions about the technology required are not bad ones. They're good, in fact, IMO. But your lack of understanding does not invalidate it. If you're curious, perhaps looking up the information might be better than making derisive-sounding comments.

And on a more serious note, another experiment was done, where one single particle could be seen in two separate points in space. Physics seems very strange, the more we learn and experiment. But I'm sure you would consider that "nonsense" since you've neither heard of it, nor seen it. Perhaps you should look it up-- it's interesting stuff.

Originally posted by Aleister
What happens if it's tested and they find out that yes, we do live in a computer simulation. I say someone could then go in and do a hack job, fixing the Chicago Cubs, getting Anne Hathaway the Best Actress award she deserves, and making everyone vegan so we can finally save the simulated planet. Viva la simulation.

An interesting thought, but if all the animals are simulated, does it really matter as much? Likewise with any death, or all of life's tragedy, etc? Is it truly meaningful in any way other than the symbolic, or temporary (in this theory, simulated) emotions?