We Are Living In A Simulation - New Evidence

a reply to: saadad

True and the ME shows it
The best ones imo are found in the bible. I am checking the King James one on Google books. And as someone has said, indeed the word couch now appears. In stead of bed according to said person. I am going to check if also references about lactating men are true

a reply to: Mike Stivic

Aye ive seem most of Mr Siff's videos shame he has not made some recent ones to do with science the universe and everything else.

Think the guy is actually a member here on ATS although i have never seen him around the boards, might use a different handle all the same.

Well, according to the Gnostics, Jesus Christ confirmed that this reality is the product of the false god Saklas (Yadalbaoth), a powerful being that thinks it is the Creator of all Things, but is obviously not since that Creator -- if it exists -- is beyond time and space and human comprehension. So Jesus basically said that this reality a "simulation" of sorts, and a bad one at that.

It makes me wonder, though, just how much memory would be required to create a reality for a single person such that they could not tell the difference between it and "real" reality. I bet it's a smaller amount than you would think, since you could set it up like a stage, with a lot of it being simply fronts and empty areas behind what can be sensed. Certainly anything outside the immediate range of your senses can be compressed and stored, with changes made to simulate the passage of time.

Maybe that's what dreams are. The equivalent of a reboot in order to reset and realign the program updates.

a reply to: frenchfries

If you're up for it - Chuck Missler describes the same.

Fascinating listen. Really.



Regardless your belief system I encourage you to listen to this in depth study and the summary.

peace

originally posted by: WorShip
a reply to: Shuye

It's actually somewhat ironic, they make a point of mocking people, reputed scientists and theorists, for not having the answer... That their simulation theory is the "TRUTH". Problem is, who is running the simulation? And then the problem arises, consciousness in a reality that cant explain its origin. So the people who simulated us, are also a simulation? Not much of an answer in simulation theory.

In terms of simulation, the idea is that the universe is like a giant cellular automata system like John Conway's Game of Life, or reaction-diffusion equations, or a physics simulation like fluid dynamics running on a universiputer. Each simulation requires some kind of information to be stored; whether a cell is alive or dead, the amount of chemicals in each grid square, or the state of gas pressure, temperature, velocity.

But the tricky thing is that to store all the attributes of every particle in the universe requires all sorts of data to be stored somewhere; velocity; location, orientation, entanglement, spin and so on. So then that information becomes the fundamental level of the universe.

You can simulate the surface of an ocean wave by modeling it mathematically, because it follows the rules of physics. That saves on storage space. But in real life there is no "wave", simply lots of little water and salt molecules bouncing off each other based on the rules of physics and being in a particular equilibrium point at any time (surface tension, velocity vs gravity and wind direction).

Wait a minute....
If this is a sim, who´s playing?

God?!?

If this is a sim, what´s saying that the one playing
ISNT in a sim of it own?!?!?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?!?!!?!??!?!

a reply to: WorShip

So the people who simulated us, are also a simulation? Not much of an answer in simulation theory.

According to "The 13th Floor", you would be right.

a reply to: frenchfries


Don't let Richard Hoagland know that the universe is built from tetrahedrons!


Video games are based on polygons so why not simulate reality with a more complex shape...

a reply to: stormcell

What if the voxels on the Planck scale change every Planck scale time solely based on the surrounding voxels? All at the same moment just as if every moment were a slide. So there is No one big computer but a hive of voxel computers.

Great video thanks.

Here is an article about another group - the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton -modelling reality using tetrahedrons that have greatly simplified some calculations that require a mass of Feynman diagrams

Futurism

I personally believe that it is most probable that our universe is a simulation and that all is required are the laws of physics and a huge amount of hydrogen, as per the quote in my tag line.

We can already run simulations of very small universes with less than 100 years of computers, what will we be able to simulate in 1000 years?

originally posted by: stormcell
But the tricky thing is that to store all the attributes of every particle in the universe requires all sorts of data to be stored somewhere; velocity; location, orientation, entanglement, spin and so on. So then that information becomes the fundamental level of the universe.

As I said above, it wouldn't be necessary to store every bit of information about the entire universe in a computer memory. All you need to do is be able to create what an individual perceives or "experiences." That automatically cuts way down on the amount of information you have to present to the experiencer to a workable level. It's not actual reality, it's only what somebody perceives to be reality.

a reply to: frenchfries

Fascinating video. Just a week ago, I came to the conclusion that reality is a 4D Time Crystal, in which the future is interacting with the past, and vica versa. I came to this conclusion independently through my study of basic Quantum Field Theory, so its nice to know that I share a common opinion with some real scientists. Can't wait to see what new developments are made.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
a reply to: stormcell

What if the voxels on the Planck scale change every Planck scale time solely based on the surrounding voxels? All at the same moment just as if every moment were a slide. So there is No one big computer but a hive of voxel computers.

That's where it gets interesting. If something is travelling fast, time slows down, as if the local computing nodes are no longer idle. Same with massive objects like stars and planets. Time slows down the larger the mass. But mass doesn't come from protons or quarks directly, but from the interactions between particles.

I did "lazy evaluation" with some simulation systems. Just set a bit around those cells that changed, and only update those cells that had a neighbor that changed. Even with something as simple as Life on a VGA board, that's was a great speedup. "Lazy evaluation" doesn't calculate results until they are actually needed. Like ray-tracing, the system doesn't calculate the color at a point on an object until actually needed. If you were to draw a time/calculation/position graph, it would look like future events affected past events.

Is it safe to say this knowledge isn't new.. and most of our ancient ancestors knew about this?

originally posted by: luciferslight
Is it safe to say this knowledge isn't new.. and most of our ancient ancestors knew about this?

They didn't frame it exactly the way we do now, since they didn't have computers and VR. But it's not surprising that many of our ancestors developed some kind of vague cosmology that our existence is a kind of test or game or in any event some kind of temporary thing that will only be revealed as such once we die and discover the "true" nature of reality. Can't blame them. It gave them hope that their horrific reality was only temporary and better things await in Heaven or wherever.

Pretty hard to prove, though.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Millions of Peta bytes would probably be at play by our reckoning but DNA storage as a medium or even storing information in lattices of light itself could possibly accommodate the memory requirements of such a simulation.

a reply to: frenchfries

I'm sure they still have a ways to go and many more things to iron out, but I think they're on the right track.

The reason I say this is because there are certain elements of what they're talking about that do in fact turn up every single time you go looking for these answers. They are inescapable and have been found since we started looking for these answers eons ago. There are a million different ways to find them as well. And even ways to experience them for yourself in a variety of ways.

That can't all be coincidence. You can actually feel and grok the truth of it. But good luck trying to grasp it all at once or explain what little bits you do get to experience as words and concepts fall apart quickly at that level.

But what a ride!!!

a reply to: stormcell

a reply to: stormcell

I did "lazy evaluation" with some simulation systems. Just set a bit around those cells that changed, and only update those cells that had a neighbor that changed. Even with something as simple as Life on a VGA board, that's was a great speedup.

Same is true if simulating classical Mechanica. Subframes are needed to check if 'particles' do not go to other planes/objects.

That bug was solved by setting a maximum speed for frames of one voxel , and calculating the position within the subframes. Calculations were already done in the subframes and the position in the frames was corrected by them (if an object goes through a wall calculate backwards (like casting a pickray))

With some imagination one could say future events affected the past in that simulation like you already wrote... Also introducing a maximal speed for objects/pixels/voxels sound a lot like 'lightspeed' , and one needs this to correctly introduce a classical mechanical system in a simulation.


If so (reality simulated) lightspeed limit is needed to accurately simulate Classical Mechanical systems.

QM is subframes and CM the normal frames ? Who knows , at least it keeps miss Croft from going through the walls

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: stormcell
But the tricky thing is that to store all the attributes of every particle in the universe requires all sorts of data to be stored somewhere; velocity; location, orientation, entanglement, spin and so on. So then that information becomes the fundamental level of the universe.

As I said above, it wouldn't be necessary to store every bit of information about the entire universe in a computer memory. All you need to do is be able to create what an individual perceives or "experiences." That automatically cuts way down on the amount of information you have to present to the experiencer to a workable level. It's not actual reality, it's only what somebody perceives to be reality.

Interesting ... That's like rendering out reality on demand for every observer. A paradox .The amount of info needed to do this is far less that the amount of suggested info in our universe.... Even current day internet surpasses the amount of data needed.