QuantumT

I appreciate the reply!

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-exotic-physics-phenomenon.html Since English isn't my native language, I have a hard time understanding what this means, practically. Could someone kindly explain it? Thanks!

Should you one day find yourself with too much time in spare, and wanting to try out something difficult and extraordinary, why not build a wormhole? https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-published-instructions-for-diy-wormhole Warning: Gaining the tools and parts for this garage project, might be impossible, so arm yourself with lots of patience and optimism!

According to Scott Denning, prof. of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, we don't need to worry about the world's oxygen supply, despite of the thousands of wild fires in the Amazon and other places around the world. https://theconversation.com/amazon-fires-are-destructive-but-they-arent-depleting-earths-oxygen-supply-122369

Back in the days (80's) we had dynamo lights on our bicycles. Small turbines that rubbed against the front tyre, producing a small current, enough to make light. They stopped making them, because they don't work when you stop your bike. So in a badly lit area, you could get hit by a car. But the general concept is still equally valid.

There you go again. Being absolute. It is not my belief, just my favorite ontology. Or ToE if you will. That quote is not about Strange or anyone here. It is about bias.

Solipsism is an ego-based version of a virtual reality. Just because the idea exists, it should not be used as an excuse to dismiss VR. Using an extreme to exclude the main issue is too easy. Last-Thursdayism is kinda the same, but with an extra layer of problems. Coding false memories in billions of people? Naah... Let's just stick to the basics. What would we do? None of the above!

Science has never, nor will ever be about absolutes. What is considered unthinkable or unfalsifiable today, may not be in the future. I have no problem with your stand and opinion. Just don't cast a verdict. Let's agree to disagree. For now.

Maybe if you read it, instead of just skimming it, you'd draw a different conclusion? Just saying... You must be careful not to be biased, just because you don't accept or like an idea. You seem a little like an opponent, who has decided to declare war.

Whitworth is not the only mathematician who came to such a conclusion. This is a 1-hour lecture by Ron Garret. He doesn't say it flat out, but he sums up the universe to be a "zeroverse" Note: I do not support the uploader's use of the word "conspiracy", or the indication that there could be one. Neither does Ron Garret at any point imply so. It is solely used by the uploader as click bait.

That was my initial approach too. That's why I made this thread. To check if that idea was valid.

I think all possible evidence is important, if a theory/hypothesis is to be taken serious. So the line is drawn where the relevance ceases.

Back. I claimed to have logical evidence, but gave you an analogy. My bad. I'm so used to using analogies to explain my POV, that I apposed them with logical arguments. My predictions was a regular mistake, and they were very poor. Should never have attempted that. My circumstantial evidence was also rejected as "goddidit" arguments. I must ascertain that I don't have the academic weight behind my persona to appear credible to you guys. Besides, arguing in another language is hard. Luckily I've stumbled onto people who has what I don't, and are better at arguing. You probably already know Bostrom's statistical arguments, Gates Jr.'s supersymmetry computer codes and Campbell's "digital consciousness theory", but the guy who really impresses me is the mathematician, Brian whitworth, with his mathematical evidence and physical inconsistencies: Mathematical evidence: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf Other evidence / physical inconsistencies: https://brianwhitworth.com/qr-1-3-1-fifteen-physics-findings-that-suggest-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

It's true. They did. But they were ignorants. I was not implying you are. Just comparing this to my experiences. Sorry if it seemed like that. Please dont judge me based on a the bad choices I've made in this thread. You are many people arguing against me at once, so I find myself on the defense. And people on the defense often make bad choices. If I didn't feel caught between a rock and a hard place, I'd probably think more clear. I'll leave this for now. I have a busy weekend ahead. I presume I'll be back on Tuesday, next week. Until then I wish you all a good weekend!

I'll have to dig deeper then. But don't give up. It always comes to me at some point. That'd be a horrible waste of processing power. You only need to process the stuff people see, hear and touch.

In my many many many discussion online, over the years, I've argued in a similar way to what you do here. People called that hand-waving.

With the same logic that they are looking for mirror matter, by shooting neutrons towards an impenetrable wall, to see if some of them appear on the other side. They have decided that that could be evidence of particles switching between mirror universes. In my thought experiment, they decided that matter reacting to observation could prove it has a computational on-demand nature. The result of discovering duality decades before inventing the computer, is that duality is considered as "just the way it is". They had nothing to compare it with back then, so it just became natural law. You assume wrong. It is to me. But I blame myself for not using better arguments and examples. Imagine you are driving on a highway. You then pass a sign that says: "The city that never sleeps - 150 miles" Later you pass a huge sign with a big apple on it, saying: "100 miles" And finally you pass a sign saying: "Not Old York - 50 miles" Where are you heading? And is it logical to assume that? I will not be online the following days, so don't think I quit, just because I don't reply.

Have you ever thought about being to close to something, to see it, for what it is? You seem to take the role of judge and jury, of what is genuine science, and you question my logic. Could we at least agree to disagree for now? Without insulting each other?

It's easy to attack a thought experiment, but what if it really happened that way? You say it can't predict anything? Let me at least try. I predict that no evidence of mirror matter will be found. Because it is not needed in a simulation. I predict that dark matter will never be detected. Because it isn't matter, it's a setting. Like gravity. I predict that we will never get in contact with aliens, because we are alone. Those were just off the top of my head. Did you have something else in mind?

Dammit! I hate the God concept! God, as the religious see him, is divine and eternal, and he does not need equipment! The simulators are nothing like that! Logic is my compass. So if I see logic, I know evidence will follow, sooner or later. In this case probably later. But meanwhile I advocate.

Doesn't QFT do a better job? The only reason that the simulation hypothesis is worth pursuing is that it eliminates all problems in physics elegantly. Should a hypothesis be excluded because it's "too easy"?

Anyway, I just needed to get this off my chest. It has bugged me for a long time, that some theories are mistreated (in particular the one mentioned in this thread). I don't think it deserves it. That was all I was trying to say. Sorry if I stepped on some toes. And to make it clear: I am a proponent, but not a believer! Belief is not a part of my reality.

No. I just pushed the discovery of duality forward 100 years. Nothing else.

I'm sorry you can't see the logic in it. Scientists have many ways to test their theories. I sometimes find it hard to see their logic too. I think it's a matter of axioms.

Let me answer that with a thought "experiment". Let's say duality was never discovered. No one ever thought of making the double slit experiment. Then let's say that we did invent powerful Turing machines. Powerful enough to make "indistinguishable from life" graphics. Then one day, a scientist suggests that reality could be run by a Turing machine, and the way to test that, would be to see if particles reacted to observation. After many attempts they finally invent the double slit experiment, and indeed, they see that particles react to observation. In that scenario, duality would be considered evidence of a simulated reality. The only reason it's not, today, is because it was discovered too soon.