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.

 

Is reality real? Simulated Universe and Holographic Reality (VIDEO)

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Could String Theory be a proof of the Holographic Universe?
If the strings could be considered to be binary code. Each string is a 1 or 0, in turn being combined into different kinds of quarks, etc etc.
Perhaps I am thinking to much "inside the box", using binary code as the basics of it all...
But still something alike.
edit on 19-5-2013 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)


WELL, actually, Leonard Susskind- father of string theory- demands just that.

he is one of the largest and loudest names behind the holographic model.

In the box? Dunno...but if so, you are in the same one with me and Leonard...HEY! BOX PARTY!

MM




posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
reply to post by Mr Mask
 



ha I know, I like the theory, and it makes sense, and then, as I was watching the video I realised I was attempting to remove a hair from my ear, whoever made my reality must be smoking something


LOLOLOL!

Imagine the jerks who programmed that hair there...I mean seriously. Don't they have anything better to do!?

lol.

Dude, thanks for commenting. Hugs homie.

WE ARE SO IN THE SIM TOGETHER! (I got hairy ears...sad boosh).

MM



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Haha box party all the way!!

Hmm so he says the same thing. Interesting.
That was the first thing that came into my mind, in a way it seems like a logical conclusion.
I am happy that I was not totally crazy having the thought. Or perhaps I am, but non the less in good company

I think it is time to visit Ebay and buy me a book from Susskind. Any one you can recommend?
edit on 19-5-2013 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Haha box party all the way!!

Hmm so he says the same thing. Interesting.
That was the first thing that came into my mind, in a way it seems like a logical conclusion.
I am happy that I was not totally crazy having the thought. Or perhaps I am, but non the less in good company

I think it is time to visit Ebay and buy me a book from Susskind. Any one you can recommend?
edit on 19-5-2013 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)


Susskind has written two books.

"The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
and
"The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics"

Both I have not read. I love his lectures mostly and his published works.

But those are his books. He is currently writing a compendium to go with his lectures I hear.

Hope that helps?

MM
edit on 19-5-2013 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BruceEFury
A. Our past, present, and future was coded and planned.


You can rule this one out. Such an implementation is a near impossibility due to the scope/complexity of our universe's permutations over space/time. Not to mention that such a deterministic reel would be of next-to-no interest compared to an emergent simulation. Emergence and causality can exist hand in hand -- it's the tweaking of the starting conditions/governing laws that would yield different/fascinating results.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
reply to post by Mr Mask
 



ha I know, I like the theory, and it makes sense, and then, as I was watching the video I realised I was attempting to remove a hair from my ear, whoever made my reality must be smoking something


LOLOLOL!

Imagine the jerks who programmed that hair there...I mean seriously. Don't they have anything better to do!?

lol.

Dude, thanks for commenting. Hugs homie.

WE ARE SO IN THE SIM TOGETHER! (I got hairy ears...sad boosh).

MM


They wouldn't have programmed the hair there. Or even hair. The starting ether/universal laws/this universe's parametric values -- most definitely.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkumaStreak

Originally posted by BruceEFury
A. Our past, present, and future was coded and planned.


You can rule this one out. Such an implementation is a near impossibility due to the scope/complexity of our universe's permutations over space/time. Not to mention that such a deterministic reel would be of next-to-no interest compared to an emergent simulation. Emergence and causality can exist hand in hand -- it's the tweaking of the starting conditions/governing laws that would yield different/fascinating results.


Tho I don't disagree with you, this is a very heated debate in science today. Is there or is there not free will or probability, or are all things destined and allowed only one outcome.

There is mainstream physicists on both sides of this argument and both sides have very much to say.

So...tho I don't go against your assumptions, I must say this is not ruled out by science at all. Far from.

PS-Love the avatar!

MM



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
reply to post by Mr Mask
 



ha I know, I like the theory, and it makes sense, and then, as I was watching the video I realised I was attempting to remove a hair from my ear, whoever made my reality must be smoking something


LOLOLOL!

Imagine the jerks who programmed that hair there...I mean seriously. Don't they have anything better to do!?

lol.

Dude, thanks for commenting. Hugs homie.

WE ARE SO IN THE SIM TOGETHER! (I got hairy ears...sad boosh).

MM


That's where I find problems with the simulated universe theory. Or simulated reality.

Ear hair. There is ear hair. Why? To serve as a point of reference when discussing the improbability of itself, thereby actually validating itself within the theory?

I don't see it, it's a random variable, one of an infinity filled with random variables that do nothing to maintain the simulation. If the intent of the simulation is to create absolute reality to the level we have ear hair being plucked while watching a video of the simulation theory, it makes me ask why.

Why do I stub my big toe on tables, it doesn't reveal any knowledge to an external observer, it may imply their nature, but it serves the simulation no purpose. Why do I notice the slight smell of my fermenting nasal snot? It's not .. well never mind that.

But it reminds me of a scene from Life on Mars, when Sam was asking himself, if this is all fantasy, why do I feel the sand between my fingers?

So we either have an infinite amount of reality that means nothing, to present the facade of a complete reality, simply to fool us completely and this means to question it is pointless - it is as it is - or we lose ourselves completely at various points in our time, which erase the fluff from the entirety of it all, to allow the illusion of continuance, but really more like a continual dream.

I can't see either.

I do get the holographic universe theory, in that everything in this reality is represented in a 3D illusion on the outside of a black hole, which contains all the data of the 3D reality inside it. I don't see how it can relate to the interaction at the level we do daily, but in essence I can get it.

But simulations. That requires god. Or an entity that serves the same purpose as god. Who coded it all, who created the namespace. If it's all random and we are simply whispers of the same voice over the course of time in this reality, then we're left in the same position we are now. What is the point of it all.

I see reality as a complex arrangement of many levels. Far more than we can perceive. Far more than we can test. And by witnessing things that we cannot explain, in a scientific field, we are seeing the shadows of the entirely of it all.

The tesseract, is an example I often think of. It's a 3D representation of a 4D object. It's convoluted and twisted in all of it's forms in our reality, but in the 4th dimension, it is unified and singular. We cannot comprehend the 4'th dimension so we interpret the data and form a representation tat we can comprehend. It's not the thing however, it's a slither, a shadow, projected into our reality.

I think of reality is completely like that, and what we perceive as reality, is simply a slither or shadow of the entire thing.

Like shining a torch into a dark dusty room, the light will catch on 'reality' and make it visible, tangible.. but it does not reveal the entire room with all the dust inclusive.


edit on 19-5-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mask

Originally posted by AkumaStreak

Originally posted by BruceEFury
A. Our past, present, and future was coded and planned.


You can rule this one out. Such an implementation is a near impossibility due to the scope/complexity of our universe's permutations over space/time. Not to mention that such a deterministic reel would be of next-to-no interest compared to an emergent simulation. Emergence and causality can exist hand in hand -- it's the tweaking of the starting conditions/governing laws that would yield different/fascinating results.


Tho I don't disagree with you, this is a very heated debate in science today. Is there or is there not free will or probability, or are all things destined and allowed only one outcome.

There is mainstream physicists on both sides of this argument and both sides have very much to say.

So...tho I don't go against your assumptions, I must say this is not ruled out by science at all. Far from.

PS-Love the avatar!

MM


Thanks for the reply. I wasn't ruling out determinism/causality, just the notion that the architects planned things to the granular level of

Event #1,637,647,885,357,743: Mark will now scratch his ass



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
If what we sense is just the interpretation of various forces stimulating our brains in certain ways than what we see isn't what is there but what our brain tells us is there. Our brain takes in outside stimuli and turns it into something manageable so it can be sensed as something which can be related to much like our minds can make shapes out of cloud forms or ink blots. If this is the case than sensing/observing what is out there isn't really observing what is out there at all but what our mind tells us is out there and wouldn't that mean that the reality we perceive is actually just a fabrication of our minds? That almost sounds like a holographic universe to me



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
lol gosh where to start with all this! First let me say you rocked the game in so many ways. Kudos for you. I used to play AA so good game play as well. I also have no doubt you do make money with that voice.

Now that I have all that out of the way, I cant count how many times this thought has crossed my mind being a sims player myself, I dont think it is really that far of a reach, If I can play them, someone can be playing me on their super computer. I wouldnt know the difference anymore then the characters I play.. Heck, maybe our so called Guardian Angel is our controller. Maybe ghost are glitches in the game.

I cant help but think with space and time or none time we probably have advanced ourselves far enough to have done this at some point. Maybe this is where reincarnation comes in. Heck my silly player died, guess I need to start over, lets give them a new name.... yada yada...

For me, my bottom line thought usually ends up as, "If you can think it, it is real somewhere."

Again, good job



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Reality = data.
Data = computer simulation.
Computer simulation = software/source code with extremely complex algorithms.

Computer source code is written by computer programmers.
So who are they? God(s)? So is 'God' an alien who has written the program for this universe within the matrix of countless other universes?

What happens if He hits the 'Pause' button? Or Ctrl > Alt > Delete?!!!


Isaac Asimov’s blockbuster short sci-fi story: The Last Question….

Question from humanity to Multivac, a super computer: How can the threat to human existence posed by the death of the universe be averted?"

Multivac: "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

The story jumps forward in time into newer and newer eras of human and scientific development. In each of these eras someone decides to ask the ultimate "last question" regarding the reversal and decrease of entropy. Each time, in each new era, Multivac's descendant is asked this question, and finds itself unable to solve the problem. Each time all it can answer is an (increasingly sophisticated, linguistically):

"THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."

In the last scene, the god-like descendants of humanity (the unified mental process of over a trillion, trillion, trillion humans that have spread throughout the universe) watch the stars flicker out, one by one, as the universe finally approaches the state of death.

Humanity asks AC, Multivac's ultimate descendant, which exists in hyperspace beyond the bounds of gravity or time, the entropy question one last time, before humanity merges with AC and disappears. AC is still unable to answer, but continues to ponder the question even after space and time cease to exist.

Eventually AC discovers the answer, but has nobody to report it to; the universe is already dead. It therefore decides to show the answer by demonstrating the reversal of entropy, creating the universe anew. The story ends with AC's pronouncement,

And AC said: "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light!


Now the question arises: Is God a super advanced alien? Or an extremely advanced stand-alone super computer which exists beyond the realms of space and time?

God knows!!!

edit on 20-5-2013 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I've always liked the simulated universe theory. Just gonna put my post here so I can find it later and read the thread, when I have more time



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


When I first replyed to this thread, i didn't watch the whole video, which was awesome. Your a man of many talents.

It did remind me of my very first post on ATS.
www.abovetopsecret.com... You are living in a computer simulation.


1 Almost all civilisations at our level of development become extinct before becoming technologically mature.
2 The fraction of technologically mature civilisations that are interested in creating ancestor simulations is almost zero.
3 You are almost certainly living in a computer simulation


www.simulation-argument.com...



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Thank you very much, though I was hoping to read something little more specific about the holographic theory.
I got a feeling these two books are not about that.
Well, Google is thy friend



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


I used to play a Flight Sim called Falcon 4.0, and it had dynamic campaign generator in it...w/out rambling on and on at length about it, which I could because I was really into, I wonder now if those little sim people I'd see on the ground doing their jobs in this war were people trapped in a sim and here I was dropping bombs on them. Not that I feel bad about that, they shot me down a LOT. lol.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Wino, you are one of my favorite posters I see around these boards, and its no shock to see you bring good points.

But I would speculate that IF this Universe was a sim, that all these things we decide are complex and impossible, or unnecessary within the sim can't be argued logically from within it.

Small examples- Imagine my Moder Warefare solider saying things like.

-"Dude if this is a video game, why the hell are we dying?"

-"Dude if we are in a simulated reality, explain why some of us scratch our butts or rub our noses every few mins for NO REASON, I doubt our makers would add that level of realism".

-"Dude, I know outside of our reality, our makers must ALSO be at war, and I KNOW they bleed money when you shoot them. So what kind of dollar bills do you think fly out of our creator's body when they die?"

And various levels of all this. I mean, we suggest ear hair is too random or too much of a detail to add, or that our universe is just too complex. I picture Mario from 1980s demanding that his makers couldn't EVER simulate his world, cus there is like 16bit detail here! NOTHING inside Marios world can simulated all that! Not even a Goomba or DONKEYKONG HIMSELF! Impossible!

But out here these things are trivial matters of nothing but code that Mario couldn't even begin to consider.

I can think of a billion reasons why the sim adds ear hair to some. From things like "well the players make their appearance pre-play and they somehow choose or get handed ear hair"- to thoughts like-"all mammals in sim are given hair based on coded law in sim...some get it in the ears".

Point being, I can't argue inside the sim my views of what is too complex and what is not. Zelda could argue all day that his life is too complex to be a sim, or too gruesome (why would anyone give me this life!?) or dangerous.

I am simply saying that, speculation or not, it wouldn't be hard to avoid or escape any logical question based on in-sim logic by simply saying "this is in-sim" and "out-sim" is far beyond our 16bit ideas on reality.

The way insects know nothing of our technological laws and complex patterns of interaction, we may be too limited to even grasp the simplest logic or pattern of our simulators.

And that is only if our simulators are outside our reality on a different pattern than our own.

I dunno...I love you anyways we look at it. lol.

HUGS!

MM



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by Mr Mask
 


Thank you very much, though I was hoping to read something little more specific about the holographic theory.
I got a feeling these two books are not about that.
Well, Google is thy friend


Books on the holographic model do exist if you are looking for technical jargon and scientific jibjab. There is also lots of less scientifically based books on the matter that deal with the philosophical ramifications.

The holographic principle-mind you- has very little directly to do with a simulation argument. And Susskind does a great job of explaining it clearly in this lecture below.




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
WHOA!!! HAD TO TELL SOMEONE!!!

Ok...thanks to this thread and ABOVETOPSECRET the video in the OP ended up on front page of ebuamsworld, then got tweeted and shared by big names in the video-game commentary circle, and even got tweeted with a positive review by Josh Olin.

Josh Olin, also known by his username JD_2020, was Treyarch's Community Manager. Any official information regarding Treyarch's games in the Call of Duty franchise was released through him.

He is pretty big in CoD (call of duty) circles, and an ex developer of the games.

The video is currently now over 35,000 views, gaining lots of subscribers, fans, haters, trolls, lovers, hugs and attention. I hear people warning me of it going viral...that's I do not accept as possible.

BUT! it is very popular now, and I need to thank ATS with all my heart, and its members, for being here and for being what/who they/it are. I love you guys!

MM




top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join