Digital Science

[QuantumT]

Digital Science is based on the concept that reality is virtual. Made by a computer.
DS does not attempt to explain what kind of computer it is, who built it, or where it's located, it simply states that reality is virtual.

Nobody in their right mind would accept that, without some kind of proof. The closest we can get to that is circumstantial evidence. And there's plenty of that. If you look.

To me personally, quantum mechanics is a look behind the curtain. But there is much much more. Let's discuss it! 

I'll start.

Don't you find it peculiar that we live in a quantum fluctuated universe of pure energy, where only the Higgs Boson makes things solid? It's almost like a hologram we're made to believe is solid, and the only little thing that tells us this is the Higgs. Like a tiny code.

Edited December 17, 2018 by QuantumT

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Don't you find it peculiar that we live in a quantum fluctuated universe of pure energy,

We do? What, exactly, is pure energy?

Quote

where only the Higgs Boson makes things solid? 

The Higgs makes things solid?

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We do? What, exactly, is pure energy?

Information might be a better word.

Quote

The Higgs makes things solid?

Yes.

[Strange]

42 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

only the Higgs Boson makes things solid?

And there’s me thinking it was a combination of color confinement, the strong nuclear force, electrostatic repulsion, quantised energy levels, Fermi-Dirac statistics and maybe a few other things (but not the Higgs mechanism). 

46 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Don't you find it peculiar that ...

Subjective judgements of “peculiarness” are not evidence. 

[Eise]

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

To me personally, quantum mechanics is a look behind the curtain.

Do you think that is according the 'Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation' of quantum physics? Why?

Edited December 17, 2018 by Eise

[swansont]

 

10 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Yes.

That was an opportunity to explain your claim. Isn't that the whole point of posting here? To explain your conjecture?

[QuantumT]

On 17/12/2018 at 11:38 AM, swansont said:

That was an opportunity to explain your claim. Isn't that the whole point of posting here? To explain your conjecture?

Thank you all for your feedback. I will address it all sooner or later. Probably later.

The reason I don't reply so fast/frequently is mainly because I don't have much spare time, but also because English is not my native language. I'm Scandinavian. It takes more effort for me to give a detailed explanation, than it would take someone who speaks and thinks English every day (since birth). And I am a "slow" person. I prefer to take my time and ponder, rather than bursting out with whatever comes to mind first.

That is also the reason I find some of the replies here in this thread shallow. They represent views that I have moved past long ago, after long deep considerations.

So, please be patient with me.

Thanks!

[QuantumT]

On 17/12/2018 at 7:20 AM, Eise said:

Do you think that is according the 'Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation' of quantum physics? Why?

Well, Bohr and Heisenberg had nothing to compare it with. That's probably why they used descriptions like:

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts”
~ Werner Heisenberg

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”
~ Niels Bohr

Modern physicists disregard this, and use math as hand waving, but nothing has changed since then. In fact the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment from 2007 has confirmed it.

I'm not saying that we live inside a computer, that would be unscientific. I just don't understand the opposition. It's a valid model of reality. And it makes a lot of sense.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Modern physicists disregard this, and use math as hand waving

Math is the exact opposite of handwaving.

Quote

I'm not saying that we live inside a computer, that would be unscientific. I just don't understand the opposition. It's a valid model of reality. And it makes a lot of sense.

It is not science. It is impossible, by definition, for there to be any evidence for it or against it.

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Math is the exact opposite of handwaving.

Not if you use it to defend a preferred ontology.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not science. It is impossible, by definition, for there to be any evidence for it or against it.

For you maybe. But for me impossible is mediaval.

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Not if you use it to defend a preferred ontology.

Maybe you don't know what "handwaving" means. 

Quote

attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while actually doing nothing effective or substantial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving

Now, one could throw some pretence of mathematics into a discussion to try and disguise the fact that it is handwaving. But a mathematical description of something is not handwaving.

41 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

For you maybe. But for me impossible is mediaval.

It is nothing to do with "me". It is like solipsism impossible to prove or disprove. If you think that there is a way of providing evidence for a belief like this, then you need to explain what that is. So far, all you have is a subject sense of peculiar. That is not evidence.

[John Cuthber]

42 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

But for me impossible is mediaval

OK, 

I contend that it is impossible to find two integers a and b with no common factor, such that a^2 /b^2 = exactly 2

That impossibility was old in medieval times.

But you, presumably, can find them.

Come back when you have them.

[QuantumT]

I love science truly, madly and deeply. But this is not the place for me.

The premises here is not consistent with my nature.

I am sure you are all good people. Sorry for wasting your time.

If you want to discuss anything, PM me. I will not participate in this open forum anymore.

Edited December 19, 2018 by QuantumT