"Proof" that the universe is a simulation

reply to post by intrptr


i am having a difficult time discerning your tone....and not sure it's on topic.

nevertheless, it should be noted that there is not only physical/external in and out, but also conceptual/internal in and out. and that those directions are different from up/down, left/right, and front/back.

perhaps THIS is what you refer to as 'dimension'?

"Restrictions to the simulation" - like.. Well.. The speed of light?

I mean, what kind of sense does a maximum bareer in speed make? If I recall correctly, it is only the speed of light in the vacuum and so even particles going faster than light in a medium (tcherenkov-radiation) aren't causing any trouble like going *boom* or such.


Or another restriction, after we excluded possible infinite velocity.. What about the Planck Length? A minimum size of space? What for? What would happen if this wouldn't exist? Nothing, as far as I can see.


This is a capital step for the quest of prooving an universe to be simulated - finding the bareers to see where the simulation is being kept to a practical limit.
Well, if you could say something like that about a simulation of 10^80 particles and an unknown but very vast space..

reply to post by winofiend

Show me this computer. Or it's all 'heaven' and 'god' as the programmer and as such, utter bollocks.

It will be possible for us in the future, so not its not utter "bollocks". You can realize that if you just look at computers and how powerful they are getting. In about 30 years we will all be using quantum computers. By then I'm pretty sure the elite or whatever you want to call them will have a quantum super computer so powerful that it could design a brain on a character in a video game so complex that it would gain consciousness.

That's all we are, a thought inside a brain. Your conscious is what tells you I am me, the universe is this...it would be no different to a video game character who has a conscious in some fictional fantasy world. Now if you had enough computer power to make a brain gain consciousness, you could create your own universe. This is not a theory this will be possible in the future and by knowing it will be possible for us shows that we could be in one also.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


30 years if nobody nuke each other.
The way it is now. I'm not sure if it will happen.

peace.

reply to post by LordOfArcadia


If we manage to create a simulation of our universe in a computer, and say for arguments sake the simulated universe produces a living entity and proves we are also a simulation.... Would we then have a morale obligation to keep said sim on? Thus turning off simulation, result in murder????? Just a thought .

Interesting thread... I haven't read through all the comments yet, but I'll share my initial reactions; the first thing that struck me is how similar looking his first two pictures (in the video) are to what we commonly think of as UFO's, and secondly, it's good to see that there are scientists out there that can blow De Grasse Tyson's mind.

I was really intrigued by the Adinkra symbols that Dr. James Gates talks about, and I was able to find pictures of a few, but I'd really like to find more, if anyone knows where some might be found, I'd be quite interested!

Adinkra Symbols

dodol
reply to post by Evanzsayz

 

30 years if nobody nuke each other.
The way it is now. I'm not sure if it will happen.

peace.

edit on 3-12-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

Ummm....perhaps that's why we seem to be so "alone", in this universe....given all of the recent earth-like, Goldilocks planet discoveries.....and nary a bandwidth of communication from them. Perhaps as simulations discover their simulated natures...they access those cheat codes and remove themselves from the simulation...Or...proceed to the next level. Voila.......thus we also have the explanation for Gnosis/Nirvana/Enlightenment and thus... reincarnation/re-life/reboot/re-spawn.....

YouSir

reply to post by winofiend

We're programs. Right. The matrx is real, there is a Wizard of Oz. Right.

Sheesh, I for one prefer not to believe we are living in a simulation, but your sarcastic tone is very ignorant imo. There is a boat load of circumstantial evidence which indicates that the universe is a simulation. For one thing all energy is quantized into discrete units of energy, all particles can be expressed as an abstract wave function and only behave as normal particles when measured, and quantum entanglement violates the law of locality. All of this strongly hints at the conclusion that reality is a digital simulation. I personally think there are other explanations for why reality is the way it is, but I dare not laugh at the idea of a simulated reality because based on the evidence there's quite a high probability that we are living in a simulation.

reply to post by LordOfArcadia

That is exactly what the scientists at the University of Bonn are proposing. They have found limits (they think) on which a simulation could not be extended further into deeper complexity. So by creating this simulated universe and testing those limits, they hope to discover if said limits also exist in our universe. They don't know if they are correct. That is why they will run the experiment.

They find the limits but then those limits do extend into deeper complexities, Infinity, this is the infinite virus protection or system security code that keeps the programs extending and expanding the simulation.

these are fascinating concepts that one can loose their mind in, I have multiple times and keep finding myself.

There are limits to the simulation that expand so one can keep finding themselves when they seem lost or vice versa, get lost when one seems to have reached their destination.

I respect these scientists who are attempting to approach the unreachable in our current scientific understanding from my philosophical view.

I don't think we will reach that type of understanding with the mind set of humanity that makes today's world go round.

tgidkp
reply to post by intrptr

i am having a difficult time discerning your tone….and not sure it's on topic.

Sorry, your probably right.

nevertheless, it should be noted that there is not only physical/external in and out, but also conceptual/internal in and out. and that those directions are different from up/down, left/right, and front/back.

What I meant has all our perception is limited by our senses in this dimension. And they only see so far in, out, etc. Even though we know space is unbounded and like the electromagnetic spectrum, our knowledge of what lays beyond the Universe and all known spectra is nill.

perhaps THIS is what you refer to as 'dimension'?

Yes. But only one. From your link..

The depth dimension is physically real and extends from the bottom micro-level to the ultimate macro-level of the Universe. The depth dimension, or the scales axis, complements the standard three spatial dimensions.

Physical dimensions are bound by our ability to detect them with our senses and instruments. But all we see is still "physical" . Outside of our senses (but still right here and all around us) are further "physical" "dimensions" outside our scope of detection.

Well, there has to be. Man thought the world was flat, then the center of everything, then the speed of sound barrier, then speed of light. Now the Hubble Deep Field. Each time we find a 'barrier' we improve our ability to see beyond it. Still, all this is limited by our ability to detect with our physical senses. We are looking "in" and "out" but not right here all around us. Because we don't "see" anything there.

So the "4th dimension" is there all around us, we just don't see it with our limited senses. Well I have seen things "over there", but science won't allow for that because it can't be proven (yet). Just like the speed of sound and light.

If you want to look for a program or the programmers, try developing a camera that films in the "fourth dimension", which we can't do. Just like "flatlanders" can't see "up".

Sorry, I am less educated than you and find it difficult to put into words what I am trying to convey. Its in there somewhere, just not organized. Thanks for reading.

Dear programmer, please hit reload button

Great thread, S&F

ExquisitExamplE
....if anyone knows where some might be found, I'd be quite interested!

complex symmetry is, no doubt, one of the fundamental principles of reality.

here are some enhanced photographs of a compounded rhombic dodecahedron that i made using the ZOME tool several years back. i do not know if they qualify properly as 'Adinkra symbols', but they may be satisfying nevertheless. some additional photos at the thread linked below....










overlay with a custom designed nonlinear complex mathematical system (fractal):



more here....

I think the math behind what this guy is saying pretty much suggests that we do indeed exist within a simulation. However Its one think to being able to observe the code, influencing said code however is a whole other matter. Now there would be a trick indeed! You could create your very own pocket universe!

While I love this topic, I have a question...or a quandary. What would be the difference between "reality" and being part of a simulation? We believe we are biological but only based upon our definition of biological. Much like we call the color red...red. Its just something we call it. At the core of everything, are the same things. We seek out biological beings because we call ourselves biological. But there could be electrical beings or beings of something we have never discovered or experienced.

So...does it matter? I could just as easily "prove" that dreams are reality and reality is a dream.

Maybe not a simulation but a replay , there is a theory that all matter contains information and that information can't be destroyed , our reality is information stored and replayed from the edge of the observable universe which may be the event horizon of a black hole .

Since the physical processes we witness, as well as those by which we’re governed, seemingly take place within the region, it’s natural to expect that the information those processes carry is also found within the region. But for black holes, we’ve found that the link between information and surface area goes beyond mere numerical accounting; there’s a concrete sense in which information is stored on their surfaces.

Physicists Leonard Susskind and Gerard ’t Hooft stressed that the lesson should be general: Since the information required to describe physical phenomena within any given region of space can be fully encoded by data on a surface that surrounds the region, then there’s reason to think that the surface is where the fundamental physical processes actually happen. Our familiar three-dimensional reality, these bold thinkers suggest, would then be likened to a holographic projection of those distant two-dimensional 
physical processes.
discovermagazine.com...

Fascinating and mindboggling subject

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


"What would be the difference between "reality" and being part of a simulation?"

Simple answer is perspective, complicated answer most lightly resides in quantum mathematics/equations that we have not yet discovered.

That just blew my mind... very interesting stuff... Seems like there's no way to really find out we are in the matrix as when we get close the makers will complex it even more... better wait for the "One". Neo help us!

On a less silly note... this sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing what more this guy has to say. S&F

To me this seems to suggest that "the real" universe wouldn't have these kinds of equations present in its basic.. structuring?
It makes sense for a simulated universe to be built using codes like that, but why can't the real one also be based on them? If I'm wrong/on the wrong track, don't hesitate to school me!

Funny how you are mistaking the concepts derived from describing the universe with the things that make up the universe itself, PLEASE READ SOMETHING ABOUT SEMIOLOGY, you are doing crazy talk