Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

a reply to: intrptr

So sorry not everyone agrees with your theories. You can go right on with your pretendorama life if you like.

See this is what I mean.

I didn't say anything about agreeing with theories, I was talking about people simply not getting what was said, which you just proved once more.

a reply to: VanDenEviL


Thats just your way of disengaging without loosing face. Thats twice now you did that.

Edit: to Point that out, you said:

Do you notice that it is almost completely empty space? No you don't.

I was the one said that in the beginning of this 'conversation to nowhere', when I mentioned the movie Mulholland Falls.

Now you're saying I didn't notice space was 'almost' empty...

a reply to: intrptr

Loosing face? Over something you said? Right.

I already showed how your comments were BS, and you know it. That is the reason you act like you didn't get it.

Disengagig much? Projection much?


I think I'm done with this thread now, the level of pathetic is very high here. Wallow in it guys, you love it after all.

a reply to: intrptr

I was the one said that in the beginning of this 'conversation to nowhere', when I mentioned the movie Mulholland Falls. Now you're saying I didn't notice space was 'almost' empty...

So daft......

I said that reality is not as solid and "real" as we perceive it.

Then you said, "Yes it is."

Then I said, knowing that you mentioned the empty space, "do you notice the empty space?"

Since you don't, we obviously don't perceive reality in a real way.

Ffs man.

a reply to: VanDenEviL

Appeal to Definition

Definition: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term.

As has been pointed out, there is more than one meaning attributed to the word theory. The context that Phage used the word was the scientific context of the word--meaning a system of ideas proven by facts, not speculation.

a reply to: intrptr

You sound ridiculous. You said:

So why bother imposing the word simulation, implying what, exactly... its "not real"?

You know nothing about science and you haven't refuted anything that has been posted. You're just going on these diatribes without a clue as to what you're talking about.

Simulation is exactly the right word. Here's the definition of simulation.

imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.

This is exactly what will happen. We will simulate the universe on a quantum computer. We already SIMULATE the universe on supercomputers. Here's a few articles and maybe you will get your head out of the sand.

Supercomputers Simulate the Universe in Unprecedented Detail

The amazing supercomputer simulation in the video above takes you through 13 billion years of cosmic history, modeling the violent and dynamic processes that created the large-scale structure of our universe.

Illustris needed to model the characteristics of many different elements including: the life and death of stars; the dynamics of gas and dust heating, expanding, and cooling; the creation of new elements through fusion; and the accretion of matter onto supermassive black holes. The details of almost all these processes are not known with high accuracy, making it remarkable that the simulation ended up with a model universe that looks an awful lot like our own.

www.wired.com...

Here's a couple of videos since you don't have a clue as to what a simulation is or means.





The simulations will get even better as we get more powerful computers.

Here's a paper from Oxford Professor Nick Bostrum.

ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?

www.simulation-argument.com...

Here's another paper by Physicist Silas Beane.

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

arxiv.org...

Here's Astrophysicist and Nobel Prize winner George Smoot talking about the universe as a simulation.



So serious and intelligent people are discussing and debating this as a serious possibility.

You don't provide a shred of evidence to refute or support anything you're saying. It's just a diatribe of NOTHINGNESS that doesn't have anything to do with the thread or any of the evidence presented in the thread.

a reply to: VanDenEviL

I said that reality is not as solid and "real" as we perceive it.

Then you said, "Yes it is."

You need to hear it again?

"Solid and real" aren't good descriptions anyway. Water isn't a 'solid' is it? Clouds, solid?

a reply to: neoholographic

Blah blah, I already know where you're coming from with this. You're a programmer, everything looks like instructions executed by difference engines. Yes, computers simulate life, not the other way round. Yes: if, then this or that.

What you premising is straight out of Hitchhikers Guide... but lacks the inclusion of life, which is the key and at the heart of the matter.

You want to reduce everything to bits of binary on or off. Thats mans invention. Like religion, its misguided.

Show me this super computer Universe for real. Otherwise, you're pissing in the wind.

a reply to: Dalan

The context that Phage used the word was the scientific context of the word

You are too much.

He never used "the word".

I used the word "theory". Are you now going to tell me which meaning I actually intented.


He presented information as fact, and I said it was not a fact, speculation and just a theory, and I was completely correct the whole time.

What is wrong here is your interpretation of my words.

Have a wonderful evening.

a reply to: intrptr

Lol disengaging again are we. Do you perceive all the empty space or not? Rethorical question.

a reply to: intrptr

Again, your post is meaningless and you add nothing to the debate.

You're on a diatribe about religion and you need to go debate religion if you hate it so much. This is a Science thread and you haven't provided one piece of evidence to refute or support anything you have said.

You're just taking up space in this thread with meaningless nonsense that has nothing to do with the Scientific debate.

You talk about "for real" give me the scientific evidence that shows you're "for real." Science can't even show that volume exists.

Like I said, you don't know anything about Science. If you want to debate this in the context of Philosophy, there's a forum for that.

A thought provoking subject. The Hindus believe reality is maya, the great illusion that is fortified by limitations of our minds and senses, but if its so, how come our illusion can be expressed mathematically, which seems a bit odd, if it is an illusion. But our current scientific understanding is that aether doesn't exist, yet light is saved by breaking universal speed limits, by time itself (perhaps a screen refresh rate limitation). Even stranger is the oddity that all the forces of nature, are set at precise strengths, that allows life to exists. If gravity was a mite stronger, or the strong nuclear force a mite weaker, stars couldn't form, so no-one could witness reality, in all its grandeur.

So its a head scratcher any way you want to look at it.

a reply to: Greggers

I was attempting, poorly this morning, to show that, as far as we know, the origin was "not the size of a softball" loaded with particles. Just examples.

And, again poorly stated, I was using GUT as in GUT Era, the points in time between which a Unified Field Theory would be the only operational set of rules, as it were.

No debate with you, mate!

But I see the OP has wandered off into AD Hommes and other flights of fancy...but just a thought. If the universe is merely a simulation, why was there a Big Bang at all? Wouldn't have all just sprung into existence the moment the program was run?

a reply to: LetsGoViking

But I see the OP has wandered off into AD Hommes and other flights of fancy...but just a thought. If the universe is merely a simulation, why was there a Big Bang at all? Wouldn't have all just sprung into existence the moment the program was run?

You mean why the "simulation" looks like there was some sort of Big Bang?

a reply to: VanDenEviL

Yes. Using the standard definition of "Simulation"
I except wikki's definition as functional: "Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.[1] The act of simulating something first requires that a model be developed; this model represents the key characteristics or behaviors/functions of the selected physical or abstract system or process. The model represents the system itself, whereas the simulation represents the operation of the system over time."

a reply to: neoholographic

I said show me one click of proof of what you claim... Neo

Hint: life is not the Matrix. The 'Matrix' is the lies we are taught from youth to believe about the world in which we live, the official story is a lie. Those lies. Not some movie version of Platos Cave, where we all live in a computer... simulation... lulz.

a reply to: VanDenEviL

He never used "the word".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

And I've worked in computer science for even longer than you did. And I still do. That's irrelevant.

"irrelevant", lol.

What branch of 'computer science'?

I'm a solutions architect. I design integrated software and hardware solutions for a company that would be in the Fortune 5 if it were publically traded.

originally posted by: LetsGoViking
a reply to: Greggers

I was attempting, poorly this morning, to show that, as far as we know, the origin was "not the size of a softball" loaded with particles. Just examples.

And, again poorly stated, I was using GUT as in GUT Era, the points in time between which a Unified Field Theory would be the only operational set of rules, as it were.

No debate with you, mate!

But I see the OP has wandered off into AD Hommes and other flights of fancy...but just a thought. If the universe is merely a simulation, why was there a Big Bang at all? Wouldn't have all just sprung into existence the moment the program was run?

Fair enough.

A couple of thoughts on your last paragraph. First, I would never say the universe was "just" a simulation, as this implies that it is "less than real." Whether it's a perfect simulation of the "mother reality" is one point of debate, but without a doubt it is a 100% perfect depiction of our reality, as it is all we know.

As to why there is a Big Bang -- I would gather that it's because there was a Big Bang in whatever this simulation is designed to simulate (pardon my redundancy), or for some other reason the idea of a big bang is important to whatever the programmers are attempting to test.

a reply to: Phage

You mean this?

You misapprehend the "big bang theory."

Please Phage we weren't talking about the big bang theory in general, we were talking about your claim of particles not existing before the inflation. I said your claim was just a theory.

You said the above before our particular discussion.