QuantumT Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) Oh no! Not another simulation thread! There, it's been said. No reason to repeat it Most of you here possess advanced scientific knowledge, so I won't even bother to elaborate the following 10 points in this OP. You should know what I mean. But I would like to discuss and elaborate any of them in this thread, if you want me to. 10 Reasons Why We Are More Likely To Live In A Computer Simulation Than In A Genuine Physical Universe. 1) Quantum Fluctuation 2) The Holographic Nature Of Matter 3) Duality 4) Non-locality 5) Bostrom's Argument 6) C 7) Sommerfeld's Constant 8) Universal Mathematical Structures 9) Computer Codes In String Theory Equations 10) DNA/RNA And The First Living Cell Let's argue! Note: I have limited time, so please be patient when you ask me questions. I will try to answer within two days! Edited February 3, 2019 by QuantumT
Mordred Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) And nothing on that list requires us to be living in an simulated universe as much of that list describe methodologies pertaining to developing simulations to describe our real universe. Much like the useful N-body codes. Our ability to make mathematical predictions and develop codes to aid us in doing so doesn't mean we live in a simulated universe. Some of the items on that list are so poorly understood that without you posting further details on the connection to it being a reason we live in a simulated universe makes it difficult to determine if you properly understand the item on that list. One example being non locality. Needless to say quantum entanglement is so poorly understood one can readily surmise its not being applied correctly to a thread of this nature. Another one that is far too often misunderstood is the dimensional compactification of the holographic principle. (any infinite quantity contains a finite portion (this process is literally what is meant when you compactify a dimension.) the Holgraphic principle uses this and gauge group symmetries to reduce the effective degrees of freedom for the number of required dimensions which is accurately described as the number of independent variables required to specify a coordinate. Edited February 3, 2019 by Mordred
QuantumT Posted February 3, 2019 Author Posted February 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, Mordred said: And nothing on that list requires us to be living in an simulated universe I am not trying to say that we are. They are just hints IMO. 14 minutes ago, Mordred said: Some of the items on that list are so poorly understood that without you posting further details on the connection to it being a reason we live in a simulated universe makes it difficult to determine if you properly understand the item on that list. Just ask me to elaborate. 17 minutes ago, Mordred said: One example being non locality. Needless to say quantum entanglement is so poorly understood one can readily surmise its not being applied correctly to a thread of this nature. I disagree. I think non-locality is a key element in the simulation ontology. 19 minutes ago, Mordred said: Another one that is far too often misunderstood is the dimensional compactification of the holographic principle. The holographic principle is not included on my list. What I am referring to in my 2nd point is "matter = energy". That particles are unreal (like Bohr/Heisenberg said).
Mordred Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) Ok lets start with quantum entanglement so lets test your knowledge. 1) describe Einstein locality 2) How does Einstein locality apply to the statistical correlation function in the Bells experiment ? When you entangle particles they gain a correlation function. 3) how does that correlation function relate the conservation laws in particle physics ie conservation of spin as one example If you can properly answer these questions you will find that it has nothing to do with being in a simulated universe I will get to your matter=energy statement next (hint define those two terms) Edited February 3, 2019 by Mordred
swansont Posted February 3, 2019 Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, QuantumT said: Oh no! Not another simulation thread! ... Let's argue! ! Moderator Note More like “oh, no, another thread that doesn’t live up to the level of expected rigor” You have to provide support for your contention. Not just mention a topic and expect other people to defend. If you do that, you may try again. But only if you defend your position. This is closed. 1 hour ago, QuantumT said: Just ask me to elaborate. ! Moderator Note Elaboration is expected as part of the price of admission 1
Recommended Posts