The Universe is a Simulation of information

There's no evidence that matter and energy give rise to information. In fact matter can be destroyed by a black hole but information can't. Information is preserved.

So when matter falls into a black hole, it's essentially playdough without information to give it instructions on how to behave and form. That information is spread out across the event horizon of the black hole and can't be destroyed.

THE UNIVERSE IS A SIMULATION!

It has to be!

It's a quantum computer that processes vast amounts of information.

What we call subatomic particles are akin to pixel's on the spacetime screen. The information encoded in the very fabric of spacetime at Planck scales is decoded by the quantum computer universe and information gives rise to everything we see. Everything is a construct of information.

Here's a video of Scientist talking about the illusion of the 3rd dimension.



This is very important because Scientist can't even prove that volume exits beyond our perception of it.

The universe has to be a simulation that can process quantum error correcting codes which shield quantum information or the quantum state. Here's a talk by Susskind talking about how information is conserved.



Here's another talk by Physicist John Preskill that asks Is Spacetime an Error Correcting Code.



THIS IS SIMPLY HUGE!!

This means everything is a construct of quantum information. Here's an analogy.

Say you have a quantum vacuum that's filled with the codes for every website on the internet. You would have this sea of information but you wouldn't see any websites. You need a computer to process this information and now you will see this website, Amazon and Facebook.

It's the same with us. We're all quantum code being processed on a vast universal quantum computer. This is why I think we exist in billions of other universes and will always exist in some universe. It's because we're not flesh and blood biological systems but quantum code.

So I can only say this is the part of the code that constructs a version of me is having a me experience in one part of the simulation.

So the question really is how can the universe not be a simulation of information?

Pretty big leap beyond the event horizon, considering nobody as ever viewed this mass storage , ever.

But I can pretty much guarantee it is smashed beyond all resemblance to anything we call information.

That stuff; events, data, experience is already stored somewhere in the next dimension. Your soul is one repository, you are connected to it right now, it is already there.

Down a rabbit hole comes to mind!

a reply to: neoholographic

Until we can explain and understand how the Universe started all options are on the table , Big Bang theory and Inflation could easily be describing the initializing of the hologram rather than explaining how everything came from nothing , which is kinda the same thing really.

a reply to: neoholographic

No it is not-there was a thread based on scientific fact that just covered this.

I explained this in said thread-the scripting of getting out of bed would take a hell of a lot of time to write given the near infinite variables, and that's for one person let alone the hundreds of billions of creatures on this planet alone.

I ask you this-if this universal 'CPU' had a source it would leave a signature-so where is it? Computation generates heat and requires cooling. So where is the heat? and generated that heat? was the big bang just a boot up of windows universe? and where is the evidence of a coalescence between hot and cold on a massive scale? there is none, dark energy maybe but the that maybe contributing to the heat death of the universe as well so that's a strike one. If the universe was a simulation the CPU would stick out like the proverbial's, if you extrapolate then the source would be the size of the universe.

And don't get me started on quantum computers-if they are not possible on a human scale how do you expect these creators to create variables on a Googolplex scale at a whim?

I'm sorry if i'm standoffish but it doesn't seem plausible, and the fact that this is coming from scientists makes the theory more disheartening-these guys can't detect dark energy but can claim they know the universe is a sim? nope.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Your post doesn't make any sense. I said the universe is a quantum computer but you're trying to debate a classical computer. You said:

I explained this in said thread-the scripting of getting out of bed would take a hell of a lot of time to write given the near infinite variables, and that's for one person let alone the hundreds of billions of creatures.

Again, you're using an old, outdated debating tactic that doesn't work. You're trying to debate one thing to refute something that's entirely different.

Yes, a classical computer would have to calculate every variable in linear steps but a quantum computer would calculate these things simultaneously.

Quantum computers exist and it isn't about theory anymore. Right now, it's just a question of scale.

Russians Lead the Quantum Computer Race With 51-Qubit Machine

Mikhail’s team, including Russian and American scientists, have built the world’s most powerful functional quantum computing system, running on 51 qubits.

edgylabs.com...

You also look at the things we're learning about information, entanglement and error correcting codes.

Here's MIT Professor Seth Loyd saying the universe is a Quantum Computer.



Here's a guy who has built and worked with quantum computers not a person on a message board who can't accept reality.

How about quantum theory, where a particle can exist in 2 states.

The 1st state is the Matrix simulation that we see now, everyday.

The 2nd state is the Spiritual World running parallel in real-time to this one, that is hidden by The Veil.

-the scripting of getting out of bed would take a hell of a lot of time to write given the near infinite variables, and that's for one person let alone the hundreds of billions of creatures.

That was a really poor example anyway. No where even close to how computing would be applied even in our time.

I will agree that something like a Windows batch would not be what creates a simulation.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So I can only say this is the part of the code that constructs a version of me is having a me experience in one part of the simulation.

That's fine, except what accounts for the exclusivity? Why do we only experience one of potentially billions of other possible realities? After all, this one seems pretty solid, and when I go to sleep and wake up, it's still here.

Why don't we perceive other realities?

a reply to: neoholographic

You basically just said what most ancient religions have been saying for thousands of years.... in more scientific terminology.

a reply to: combatmaster

Exactly and Science has really confirmed what the ancients have said with quantum mechanics. Here's a quote from Werner Heisenberg:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

― Werner Heisenberg

a reply to: Blue Shift

Simple answer.

We see exclusivity and experience variation because of the design of the code.

The reason you have things like the Mandela effect or just some cases of simple coincidence is because we're experiencing different possible realities. So I go to sleep and set my keys next to my bed, I wake up and my keys are on my TV stand. We will call that a coincidence and even though we say "I could have sworn I left my keys next to my bed" we eventually say we must have been mistaken.

I look at it differently. Maybe I'm not mistaken and I went to bed in one possible reality where I set my keys next to my bed and woke up in another possible reality where I left my keys on my night stand.

Now we see these small variations because the designers of the code highly preserved certain features of our universe and that why you experience what you perceive to be exclusivity.

We see this in things like DNA. Certains parts of our Genome are highly variable and subject to rapid mutations while other parts are preserved and see very little if any variation over the years.

We see this on our computer. There's certain things on my computer I can change everyday but if I start to go into files that maintain the core of the system, I get warnings.

We see this in the laws of physics and the constants of nature. You will see a feature like the Cosmological Constant that's fine tuned to 120 decimal places. This gives you exclusivity. Something that fine tuned will not experience variations. After this fine tuning, you see more randomness.

A computer Scientist gave a talk about this and I will have to look it up because I saw this awhile ago but he said this would be a feature of the universe if it was a simulation. Certain features of the code would be highly preserved so people will not see Mars where the Moon is but certain features are open to more variation like some people experiencing a reality where Mandela died in jail or leaving your keys on the side of the bed but waking up and seeing them on the TV stand.

a reply to: neoholographic

A star of sufficient mass collapsing to a black hole creates a big bang event a newly created space-time dimension.

If you believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then every possible quantum state MUST be realized.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: combatmaster

Exactly and Science has really confirmed what the ancients have said with quantum mechanics. Here's a quote from Werner Heisenberg:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

― Werner Heisenberg

I think it is just the opposite. Reality is many more times complex than we are willing to accept. And the mathematics we have to represent how nature behaves gives us a false delusion that we've actually achieved something. Unless your standard model can explain the source of experimental errors then what's the point?

People have a bias in only believing what is comfortably knowable.

a reply to: neoholographic

The argument is simply this:

1. Reality is computer
2. We have blob of reality we call a quantum computer
3. Therefore, quantum computers can simulate reality

It's controversial because the term "computer" in quantum computing is NOT being used in its normal meaning. A blob of mass spinning about representing every possibility does not equal a computer. Whatever function is used to sift out meaningful results will be the next bottleneck.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I keep watching video after video on quantum computing but as far as I can tell none of them ever say anything more than we know reality behaves in certain ways according to quantum mechanics and we can use that to synthesize meaningful results. But they never talk about the synthesizers in their computations!

Quantum computer seems like the very definition of junk science.

a reply to: neoholographic

If everything we perceive and conceive of is a simulation, what makes us think there is any such thing as information? What makes us think actual reality bears any resemblance at all to our perceived reality?

It's all a game, bro.

PLAY it well...

Try to unsubscribe from email spam and be told it takes up to 10 business days.

i want a sim where computers work faster than that time frame. Maybe it has to search 10,000 floppy disks.

a reply to: neoholographic

Again, you're using an old, outdated debating tactic that doesn't work. You're trying to debate one thing to refute something that's entirely different.

So using science to refute a claim is wrong? well we better start burning copies of the origin of species.

Stay a while, and listen. Quantum mechanics is very flipping confusing, but what we all know is that excitation of molecules generates friction which generates heat-that's how a microwave works. So for a quantum computer to create an entire universe, that's a helluva lotta heat that should be created by said computer and should have been detected. And then you would need an equally big superconductor like a giant ball of something like a Bose-Einstein condensate to form a somewhat cohesive molecular structure. Then there is the manipulation of the atoms to-

Okay I'm not going any further down this rabbit hole. If you can find this 'computer' or whatever that created this simulation then prove it instead of of throwing youtube videos around like confetti. If you can prove it then Planck, Einstein, Bohrs, Kelvin and Swartzchild are all wrong. If you can't then you'll have to wait a while to progress to level two in the game of science.

I'm agnostic but I can't believe the universe is a simulation.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

This is just a lack of understanding on your part. You keep talking as though we're talking about a classical computer. Again, there's a reason why Professor Seth Lloyd and others who build and work with quantum computers says the universe is a quantum computer.

You want to blindly believe what you believe but that just means you haven't taking the time to actually study why Seth Lloyd and others are saying this.

The universe as a quantum computer would mean it's doing computations in parallel universes. So there wouldn't be a lot of heat that you could detect. This is why I say you need to study these things. You act like a quantum computer universe would be limited to our observable universe and that's just asinine.

Here's a video that explains this and it's an older video but the end with Oxford Professor David Deutsch is just riveting.



Again, quantum computers would be doing more calculations simultaneously than there's particles in the universe.

The problem is, people can't accept things like a multiverse. A multiverse has to exist because we know space expanded faster than light. Therefore there's parts of this space that we can't see. We only see our observable universe but our observable universe isn't the sum of all space that went through faster than light expansion.

Matter was not spread out in a uniform way, so pockets formed. Some pockets had enough matter to overcome expansion long enough for matter to clump together and form stars, planets and us. Some pockets didn't.

You keep talking about a classical computer and I suggest you take the time to actually study what a quantum computer is and how it works. In an earlier post, you talked about the need for a computer to calculat every movement and it would take years to do this. Again, that has nothing to do with quantum computation but with a classical computer that would have to calculate things in a linear fashion.