Strange

How would Americans feel about having the Queen as their head of state!? (I'm sure there are plenty of Canadians who aren't crazy about it)

! Moderator Note This is a discussion forum. What do you want to discuss?

Maybe in Moreno's language there is no difference. Like Russia "unifying" the Crimean Peninsula. Or Britain "unifying" its Imperial territories.

Today I learned that Buzz Aldrin's mother's maiden name was ... Moon ! Evidence for the epigenetic effect of nominative determinism?

I was just googling exactly those words to see what came up. Glad to see it is a real thing. Overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_interferometer No doubt this will be dismissed because we "observe" the results. But I don't know how scifimath expects to know what happens if we don't observe. "If a tree waves in a forest and there is no one there to see it ... does the forest even matter?"

No ... It may be related, but I remember reading about some research that looked at how people saw themselves in relation to the outside world. Some people had a very clear "this is me, that's the world" view, while others had a more holistic "I am part of the world and there is no clear dividing line". These (perhaps not surprisingly) related to all sorts of things like empathy with others, beliefs (whether spiritual, religious, aliens, etc), interests, etc. (I have tried to find it again since, without much luck.)

Similar questions arise when people talk about things like uploading their mind to a computer. Is that still the same person? It reminds me of an old Steve Wright joke: "Aliens broke into my apartment last night, stole all my belongings and replaced them with exact copies." There is a mental disorder called Capgras Delusion where a person thinks that a friend, spouse, parent, or other close family member (or pet) has been replaced by an identical impostor. I don't actually feel like that. I wonder if different perceptions of our self changes our views on what "consciousness" is.

! Moderator Note Quite. You have your own threads. Keep it there. This is also not the right place to comment on the forum rules.

Of course. Why not? Have you heard of an electron microscope? Do you know how it works? So are you looking for an experiment where the wave nature of whole atoms is observed? (You didn't say that.) If it is unobserved, you won't know what happens! (But if the atoms interact then that is what is known as an "observation".) I can't imagine what that means. Could you draw a diagram of what you have in mind? I don't see why not. The atoms in the surface will have matter waves and so will the electrons. And yet ... electron microscopes. Atoms constantly hit each other at high velocities. Most of these are unobserved. Does that satisfy your requirements? You seem to be rejecting all the suggestions without making it any clearer what you are looking for.

So why can we see galaxies that are billions of light years away? Why not simulate one galaxy? Why not just simulate one planet around one star? Those would be far more "logical" approaches in any reasonable thought experiment. Why did they decide to have the universe expand? Why did they decide to accelerate the expansion a few billion years ago? Why did they come up with a form of gravity that requires years of post-graduate study to fully understand when they could have got almost exactly the same results with a simple force-based model? If the rotation curve ("dark matter") is just a "setting", then why is it there? Why does it exactly mimic the presence of matter? Why not just let the stuff in the galaxy rotate assuming normal Newtonian gravity? Why are protons and neutrons composite particles? Why do the quarks have 3 values of colour charge? Why do neutrinos exist? They don't do anything much (except act as dark matter). Why can't gravity be quantised like the other forces? Why aren't space and time quantised if it is a simulation? I can give you precise dates for the development of the computer and the theory of computable functions if you like. And compare those with the development of quantum theory. Then you can explain how that would be different if the universe were not simulated.

It is a very ugly font.

I agree that the double slit experiment doesn't seem relevant as (in the quantum version) it involves a single particle rather than two independent ones. You might find something here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065029/meta Or here: https://www.nature.com/articles/474586a Or here: https://arxiv.org/search/?query="matter+wave+interference"&searchtype=all&abstracts=show&order=-announced_date_first Or here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=matter+wave+interference

There is a direct, logical connection between the premise (it may be possible for neutrons to switch to mirror matter and back) and the conclusion (detecting neutrons in unexpected places). If you can't see the difference between this and "if the universe is simulated then<arbitrary conclusion that has no connection to simulation>" then I don't know what to say. Also this is a measurable, objectively testable hypothesis. No neutrons implies no mirror universe (or, at least, no neutrons switching between them). Therefore it meets the scientific requirement of falsifiability. Unlike your "predictions." If one of those were found to be wrong, you could just change your assumptions about the nature of the simulation. In my thought experiment they didn't. Do you see the problem? It is just an arbitrary assumption. The computer predates quantum theory by a hundred years or more. The theory of computable functions was developed at about the same time as quantum theory. You might be better off claiming that the fact that it is quite common for multiple people/teams to develop the same theory at the same time (eg. Darwin and Wallace both developing the theory of evolution by natural selection at exactly the same time) is evidence for simulation (new ideas are seeded into the simulation at regular intervals). Or the fact that mathematicians or scientists doing cutting edge work often die young and in strange circumstances. Just as they might uncover the evidence of the simulation. (Someone, probably Asimov, wrote a story based on this idea.) So be careful where your speculation leads you! Another bizarre non-sequitur.

! Moderator Note OK. That's enough. If you are not able to explain you idea or answer questions, this thread is closed. Do not bring this up again.

! Moderator Note You need to stop asking questions and explain your idea.

This has been discussed quite a few times on the forum, so you can probably find some other opinion about it if you search. (Although the search function on the forum is not great.) My opinion is that this view is hopelessly naive. At least they limited it to anything that "can" happen. Too often, people just say "anything can happen (possible or not)." But it isn't guaranteed that everything possible will happen. Take the similar claim that the infinite decimal expansion of Pi must, at some point, contain all the works of Shakespeare (or whatever). That is not necessarily true. It would require Pi to be "normal" for one thing. It is quite easy to create an infinite, non-repeating series of numbers. It is also quite easy to define such a series such that some number will never appear (or only appear once). And, then, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not. But we are fairly sure that it will not last forever (at least not in a way that is conducive to more humans existing). And, finally, if there were an exact copy of you somewhere, would that actually be "you"? Would it count as being born again if you have none of the motorise or experience of the first "you"? And (finally, finally) you could never know. So does it matter! I suppose it is one of those ideas that is fun to play around with. But there isn't much value in it, in my opinion.

I would say definitely philosophy. My view has been described as "naive realist" by a philosopher on another forum. In other words, I think what we see is pretty much how the world is. (I also understand, from that same philosopher, that this is not a logically defensible opinion, just a belief.) 'Fraid I am not able to recommend any good sources. Eise probably could if he sees this. Or Google ...

The bit about swans comes from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability It is an excellent example of why one should not rely on Wikipedia as a primary source. There is some quite good discussion on the Talk page, some of which clarifies what is there. (But I haven't read enough of it to be sure I would trust it, either.)

Logic requires that a conclusion can be derived from the premises. You know the sort of thing: Dogs have four legs. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido has four legs. Your arguments are not based on logic because there is no logical connection between the premise (the universe is a simulation) and the conclusion (no dark matter). You are just dressing up your opinion (guess) as if it logically followed from the premise. It is equally logical to say: If the universe is a simulation then dark matter will turn out to be something we already know about (because that minimises simulation resources). If the universe is a simulation then dark matter will turn out to be something new (because The Simulators have always used a different fundamental particle for each phenomenon we observe) If the universe is a simulation then dark matter will turn out to be both a new type of matter, normal matter and a change to the rules gravity (because, well why not) (I can only assume you think "logic" means "it makes sense to me") I don't think that pointing out that you are not using logic is an insult.

Smolin has been working on these ideas for at least 30 years. It is not possible that the ideas were stolen from you because you have not provided the necessary mathematical detail. On the other hand, it sounds like you have absorbed some of the philosophical conclusions of Smolin and others.

Just to be clear, I only locked one thread. I did not / could not have locked the others because I was participating. You can find a lot of Smolin’s work here: https://arxiv.org/search/?searchtype=author&query=Lee+smolin&abstracts=show&size=200&order=-announced_date_first Almost certainly not. It will have an inaccurate headline, some dubious analogies, and probably a few errors A good review of the book here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01101-0

Then you would need evidence. What if it happened that way? What if it didn't? How do we decide. Oh yes: evidence. That is how science works. That is why it is not a scientific hypothesis: because it is impossible to come up with an objective test. What if the universe was created last Thursday but exactly as if it were 13.8 billions years old? Or because it just doesn't exist. A simulation does not require that it doesn't exist. If it is discovered, you will say, "ah but they decided to simulate it because ..." I predict that if the universe is simulated then tomorrow will be Thursday. I predict that if the universe is simulated then there is no visible colour beyond red. I predict that if the universe is simulated then black holes will have event horizons. We have already detected dark matter. But even so, simulation does not require that it does or doesn't exist. If the nature of dark matter is discovered, you will say, "ah but they decided to simulate it because ..." And this highlights the complete failure of the idea as an explanatory principle. Can it answer these questions: Why does this "setting" exist? (Because the Simulators felt like it) Why does the setting have this value? (Because the Simulators felt like it) No. It can't. Therefore it is not a scientific explanation. Even in a simulated universe, the scientific answer to "what is dark matter?" is "we don't know (yet). But we do know a lot about it and can build models and test them against what we observe." All your hypothesis can do, for any observation, is say "well, it is what it is because that is what it is." Again, absolutely nothing to do with simulation. A simulation could have aliens around every star. Or one in a million stars. O just one star in each gravity. Or just here on Earth. But so could an entirely natural universe. None of these are predictions of simulation. They are guesses. They are non sequiturs. There is no logical connection between the premise (simulation) and the conclusion. Just sticking the word "because" in there does not make it a logical argument. Apparently not.

! Moderator Note You have had several threads on the same thing. All have been closed because of your inability to present any evidence or math to support your ideas. Do not bring the subject up again.

That's the trouble with this hypothesis. You can come up with a thought experiment to justify any observation being support for a simulation. Or be a contradiction of simulation. That is the trouble with post-hoc rationalisations: they are not scientific. If you could actually predict things that (a) could only be true in the case of a simulation and (b) could be tested, then you would have a scientific hypothesis. But (a) is impossible, so ... You haven't. I don't think. (Although the Simulators might be after you. Watch out for white rabbits and black cats.) The rationalisation is identical though. Doesn't explain (or even work with) gravity. It eliminates them in the same way a frustrated parent does when asked too many "but why" question by a child. "Just because." It has no explanatory or predictive power. If you somehow confirmed the universe is simulated, it has negative predictive power because you would forever wonder if they might just arbitrarily change the rules one day.

Yep. That is exactly what makes the sentence falsifiable. (Even before any non-white swans had been seen.) I’m not sure what you are struggling with. If you want to test a statement about the colour of swans then the minimum requirement is to see the colour of swans. (Testable = falsifiable) Nice example. This does remind me of when I was studying logic and some of the other students could not get theirs round the concept that an argument could be logically sound but still not be true. That article is just badly worded. Get over it. I note you are still not able to provide a reference.