It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does the simulated universe update itself?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 12:35 AM
When I first read this thread I thought about the Twilight Zone episode "A Matter of Minutes." It could show how this idea of entities messing with reality could work. I think the thing that really made me think of the episode is how the original post references car keys and the explanation of how the world works from the episode also references car keys:

Question: "You're saying that the house that we woke up in this morning is not the house we went to sleep in last night?"

Answer: "No, it is not the exact same house. But, made to look identical to the other house. And, if I and my crew do our jobs well, you'll never know the difference."

Question: "And you do this for every minute? You build everything?"

Answer: "Makes you want to stop taking your minutes for granted, doesn't it?"

Question: "How do you do all that?"

Answer: "Well, I've got quite a few workers. And, we work quite a ways in advance."


Question: "Do you ever make mistakes?"

Answer: "Have you ever gone to where you swore you left your car keys or your tie tack or your earrings and they weren't there? You look everywhere and then you look again and they're right back where you though they were in the first place?"

Here's the crucial part of the episode for those who want a synopsis:

Full episode:
edit on 4-4-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 02:47 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, I hear earth 3.0 patch will come soon. I hope they release it for free because many people will not have money to play it.

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 03:47 AM

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Peeple

Francis Crick, one of the Scientist of DNA even proposed at one time that DNA was seeded by intelligent space travelers through a process called Directed Panspermia.

That was a cop-out to not have to deal with the fact that he and those who were thinking like him could not provide a single logical reason to believe that 'nature did it'. So you just move your burden of proof into outer space and claim 'we don't know yet' and it's too hard to prove or observe (because it happens somewhere where we can't make observations, this time, outer space, in the case of so-called "macroevolution", it's over a too long a timeperiod to observe or properly experiment with, same trick, promoting the philosophy of agnosticism and using arguments from ignorance for their sometimes hidden claim that 'Mother Nature did it').

Quoting you:

He later changed his mind...alien...

Perhaps he realized or someone reminded him that God qualifies as an alien (as in a being not from this earth, an extraterrestrial being). So he and others went back to denying any sort of intelligent involvement in the process while playing the 'We Don't Know Yet'-God of the Gaps card at the same time (contradictory regarding their denial of a fact/reality, pretending or feigning ignorance, they know, they just don't like this reality, so they say 'we don't know' appealing to the philosophy of vagueness and embracing agnosticism while continuing to claim the supposed fact according to them that 'nature did it', continuing the promotion of philosophical naturalism as true/factual/absolute/certain/conclusive, adj.: correct, without error, while contradictory claiming nothing is certain or this particukar subject isn't certain/absolute, i.e. still unclear and vague).

Btw, Dawkins does it too (as in "proposed", using your words. Btw, 'we don't know yet' also comes in the form 'nobody knows', that would be a lie and misrepresentation of established facts):

Notice the usage by Dawkins at 1:28 of the following propaganda technique (also stay on your guard regarding the incorrect usage of the phrase "nobody knows" by Dr. Wells later on in the video, he doesn't get to speak for everyone any more than Dawkins. And he has fallen for the agnostic trick of denying established facts and correct general conclusions drawn from them using inductive reasoning, or talking the wrong way about it, I wouldn't have shared the video if the slip-up wasn't relatively minor compared to some of the other views and opinions out there):

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and [sometimes] moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.
The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.
Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
Propagandists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.
THERE is a difference—a big difference—between education and propaganda. Education shows you how to think. Propaganda tells you what to think.

sources: The Manipulation of Information and Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!, between [...] was added by me for dealing with possible distracting thoughts when reading that sentence.
edit on 6-4-2016 by whereislogic because: addition

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:05 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

To put it simply: just because information and entropy are formally similar does not mean they are identical. The universe can be treated as though it were a hologram. That does not mean that's what it "really" is.


posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 04:40 AM
Here's something which may be of interest:

2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate with Host Neil deGrasse Tyson: Is the Universe a Simulation?

What may have started as a science fiction speculation—that perhaps the universe as we know it is a computer simulation—has become a serious line of theoretical and experimental investigation among physicists, astrophysicists, and philosophers.

On April 5, watch live as host and moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium, and a panel of experts hold a lively discussion about the merits and shortcomings of this provocative and revolutionary idea.

2016 Asimov Panelists:

David Chalmers
Professor of philosophy, New York University

Zohreh Davoudi
Theoretical physicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

James Gates
Theoretical physicist, University of Maryland

Lisa Randall
Theoretical physicist, Harvard University

Max Tegmark
Cosmologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The late Dr. Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific and influential authors of our time, was a dear friend and supporter of the American Museum of Natural History. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate — generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work — bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.

Right at the start error correction codes are mentioned by James Gates in his intro.
edit on 6/4/16 by JAK because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in