About Simulated Reality 'Theory'.

a reply to: Peeple

I will stop observing your nonsense hopefully it will go away. A theory is not a fact.

Well that is original , I never said it was a fact... it's just a 'theory'.
btw.. I percieve you as very hostile and I cant see any reason for that.

Greetings...

a reply to: frenchfries

You titled the pdf as fact. It's just a theory. And you can't see why I am hostile, dude?
Gee how could that be dude?
My very first post here explained that, didn't it, dude?

Since you like to imagine things, think about that:
All on a quantum level is not observable. 2008 was the very first time we actually saw an electron.
What ever causes the wave to collapse doesn't necessarily have to be super fancy.
And it surely doesn't mean the macroscopic world is just a simulation.
All it means is that quantum mechanics has a different set of laws we still have to work out.
It's equivalent to "I don't know why the sun rises each day must be a god", you basically say the same thing "I don't understand quantum mechanics must be the device".

I guess I can't blame you for that as well paid highly intelligent people also still are trapped by a stone age mindset.
Sorry it just annoys me to no end, if someone expects me to believe in a multiverse, simulation, or any of that crap, while it is just obvious we are facing a new area of physics we know nothing about.
The key could be something very profane like interacting quantum systems. And I am pretty sure they do that all the time observed or not. Just that they interact from one wave particle to another, while we keep throwing massive particles in the pond.

a reply to: Peeple

You guessed right I'm a dude ,Lady we should date

I get you point , but that is why I posted at the meta(means above)physics forum.
Tell me what do you expect in that forum ?

You call a lot of scientific theories just crap (Hilbert-space) and frankly your language is very annoying and you are Ad hominem and then you edit posts. Really ???

I ask you again don't fight or be condesending you accepted the metaphysics forum that's a start now accept my post/theory. I'm new on ATS and I didn't expected to get insulted I just wanted to post my theory...

a reply to: frenchfries

Sure, it is metaphysics so I bet you can use your almighty conscience to change the construct. That's how you think it works, so do it.

a reply to: Peeple

I already made you into a Lady

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: frenchfries

You titled the pdf as fact. It's just a theory. And you can't see why I am hostile, dude?
Gee how could that be dude?
My very first post here explained that, didn't it, dude?

Your posts are making me sick. Logic without love will drive you crazy.


a reply to: frenchfries
But anyway, Plato surmised something similar regarding our present home. He likened earth to a receptacle for soul's to be assimilated into the world of Form - which is the epitome of Virtue, Love, etc. The Essenes believed something similar, and called this our Earthly Mother, in which we develop, like a child in a womb, until we are ready to venture into the realm of Spirit in the Father's Kingdom.

So yes, I do think our contemporary condition is like a simulation, simulating the world to come so we can be familiarized with real life, as opposed to this Babylonian nightmare.

Frenchfries,

VERY interesting thread. Keep it coming and welcome to ATS!

a reply to: frenchfries

Nope. You made me a troll.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: frenchfries

Nope. You made me a troll.

I think that's a self-inflicted wound.

a reply to: Restricted

How am I suddenly topic of the thread?

I already got a rant dedicated to me...

So Why don't you explain how exactly this is VERY interesting? You like the idea of a "ruler" behind the chaos? Issues to accept life just is, without your mind being the centre of all existence?

a reply to: frenchfries

What would be the purpose of a simulated reality in your opinion ?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Restricted

How am I suddenly topic of the thread?

I already got a rant dedicated to me...

So Why don't you explain how exactly this is VERY interesting? You like the idea of a "ruler" behind the chaos? Issues to accept life just is, without your mind being the centre of all existence?

I know from personal experience that we are not in control.

There is only the illusion of free will.

a reply to: Restricted

Here is another rather interesting CamperKillerCommentary on that very subject.

a reply to: kibric

Maybe whomever or whatever is simulating our reality is doing so because there own universe has reached the stage where entropy has almost prevailed and the last of there stars are ether to far apart or all burned out.

If you think about it there could be a multitude of reason regarding the simulation of what ever reality constitutes.

From my perspective, we seem to be heading at warp speed into absolute chaos.

Nothing makes sense anymore.

a reply to: Restricted

still keeping the 'spirits' I hope there comes a time the world make sense again

a reply to: kibric

I actually dont know why Reality is simulated. perhaps is it to protect Zoo hypothesis the rest of the Existence from the Humanrace.

As everything else it is just speculation although for me The Construct (Simulated Reality) seems very likely.

First -- the Copenhagen interpretation is only the most popular (the one most people have heard enough about to make their thinking dangerous) interpretation of quantum physics. It is not the only interpretation of quantum physics.

Second -- the big bang didn't bang at all, it simply doubled in mass, exponentially, per Einstein, according to a very popular equation. It no more "came from nothing," than any other concept, idea, or particular bit of matter in our universe.

Finally -- Inflation (the theory) has attained primacy due to how elegantly it answers three very interesting problems:

1) The Horizon Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Magnetic-monopole Problem

If you don't understand why those are problems, you will never understand ANYTHING about physics or cosmology.

If someone could conceptualize another theory of "how it banged" that was better at answering the multiple problems of observed spacetime, they would do it. So far, --no dice.

Beyond that: it is apparent that inflation did not occur only during a period of fractional "time" 13.9 billion - 13.7 billion years ago. Our universe certainly did (from our point of view) but--

Rapid inflation occurred for us, and is observable from our perspective, at the center of a sphere (made of opaque background microwave radiation) extending 13.9-13.7 billion years in all directions, with earth as its center (naturally, as "we" are the observers of the phenomena) and appears to have ended. However, as the remaining cloud of relatively uniform gas cooled, it began to coalesce around very tiny fluxes of quantum perturbation (naturally -- as their initial structures were almost infinitely small) creating tiny structures of interference which were acted upon by gravity, collapsing that gas into stars, planets, galaxies and other large intergalactic structures which we can observe and are-- in fact -- often more than a billion light years in diameter. This structure, or framework, were-- during inflation --incredibly minute, but have grown through initial inflation to be (almost) impossibly large. The explanation that works to describe their creation is quantum fluctuation that occurred when our universe was still in the very earliest intervals of inflation, and were still subject to quantum rules and laws. The fact that we can observe them now, and that they give structure to our universe on a large scale is precisely due to their (growing) interaction with gravity, at ever larger scales, once the initial inflation ended, and the universe as we know it had begun to cool. The (observable) universe is still doubling in size, once every 8 billion years. Inflation never ended, it simply slowed down.

Locally, we inhabit an area of spacetime where inflation seems to have stopped altogether (the Milky Way Galaxy). The slower inflation is still occurring, however, in the spacetime between the galaxies, and has been observed in the redshift mapping of our observable universe (i.e. the large scale structures seem to be growing "apart from one another," at roughly the rate of double their observable "size" every 8 billion years.

Meanwhile, there is no scientific rule or law which prevents "new" bangs from occurring, outside our bubble of what is observable to us in our own "universe." Hence, many cosmologists believe that not only have other "bangs" occurred but they ARE occurring, creating universes which vary in size and overall structure, depending on "when" they banged, and tiny quantum perturbations, later influenced by gravity, over spacetime as they cooled.

Finally, there is no known mechanism or law, which would preclude new bangs from occurring locally, say-- "inside" the event horizon of a nearby black hole --which, frankly, could inflate to infinite size from the perspective of any observer "inside" the new universe, while remaining finite, from the perspective of any observer "inside" our own universe (it's just a black hole, Jim!).

There are no known mechanisms that preclude new inflation, anywhere, nor are there any which preclude the creation of parallel universes. Further, there are likely at least four kinds of parallel universes, conveniently named types 1, 2, 3 and 4. These are not just woo woo science fiction: their inevitability is a feature of inflation, and they are just as likely to "exist" as we do, so long as inflation remains our model.

None of this even begins to address the notion that all of this is simply a hologram, or reality simulation, but it does NOT preclude it either. Therefore, as a feature of a theory (inflation), a simulated multiverse remains viable at this time. The question is really: is such a feature falsifiable? I would argue that it either *is* or will soon be.

originally posted by: Restricted

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Restricted

How am I suddenly topic of the thread?

I already got a rant dedicated to me...

So Why don't you explain how exactly this is VERY interesting? You like the idea of a "ruler" behind the chaos? Issues to accept life just is, without your mind being the centre of all existence?

I know from personal experience that we are not in control.
There is only the illusion of free will.

Tell me more about that personal experience of subservience and why just an illusion of free will and not the REAL DEAL allowed us?

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: kibric

I actually dont know why Reality is simulated. perhaps is it to protect Zoo hypothesis the rest of the Existence from the Humanrace. As everything else it is just speculation although for me The Construct (Simulated Reality) seems very likely.

Is the construct a being or a paradigm? What is everything else (that is speculation)? Is this an information gathering system ONLY by a creator that defines itself and all else through a binary number form. You are just a bi-product of that focus to supply any information whether good or evil. What is the point of a creator (to create) does it necessarily have to love or care about its creations? NO. What is the point of a simulation? It is not "REAL"; are you saying NONE of this; our perceived existence in this play acting drama (you are the star of) is real? Are you sure from your perspective you are driving your own concept (none of the rest of us have any skin in your game play as is entirely personal).