Physics Study uncovers evidence of holographic universe, scientists say

[CM86]

The difference being that light changes its behaviour based on whether or not it is observed. The cat doesn't, it's only both alive and dead theoretically or philosophically, nothing in that thought experiment suggests that observing the cat changes the outcome like it does for light in the double-slit experiment

It's a bit complicated for a sod like me.

But, The cat does change it's behaviour based on our observation.
The cat is both alive and dead, and it isn't until we open the box that we create the outcome of the cat being alive or dead.
As in, we kill the cat, by opening the box to find that it's dead.

I understand what you mean, that we create a set outcome by observing light.
I've always thought of Schrodinger's cat as an easy explanation of QM, and the double slit experiment, so I'm having a hard time understanding how they aren't conflated.

 

[Long Live HFC]

One in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation,pretty straight forward odds in my book.

you wouldn't recognise probability if it was up you with an arm full of chairs.

VR has already reached the point that is starting to show there is a higher chance we are simulated than not.

uh huh. that 1080×1200 resolution is just like real life

 

[darthbards]

Musk's approach was that given the recent rate of improvement in technology, he believed that one day we would be capable of creating such a simulation ourselves. If we got to that point, it would show that the world we live in is possible to create in a simulation, and we may be able find a way to tell whether our world is the same as a simulated one

I think Musks assumptions are very fair,while not scientific it's hard to ignore the rate technology is advancing and to what levels this will eventually lead. The possibility that we will be able to create a simulation ourselves is certainly feasible which will naturally create questions of its own.

With Quantum Machanics I'd strongly suggest that all of Wave Particle Duality,The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser,Quantum Zeno Effect,Quantum Entanglement and Superposition could all be used to argue we are living inside a simulation. These could be answers to thing's we otherwise do not completely understand, but inside a simulated world make perfect sense.
I believe that having what appears to be a cosmic speed limit to be further evidence.

 

[darthbards]

uh huh. that 1080×1200 resolution is just like real life

Hence why the comment you have hastily replied to used the word starting,as in beginning.
Do you strongly feel we have reached our maximum in resolution capabilities?
I would suggest there is one in a billion chance that belief is correct,similar to the odds we are not living inside a simulation.

 

[bontshow]

I think Musks assumptions are very fair,while not scientific it's hard to ignore the rate technology is advancing and to what levels this will eventually lead. The possibility that we will be able to create a simulation ourselves is certainly feasible which will naturally create questions of its own.

With Quantum Machanics I'd strongly suggest that all of Wave Particle Duality,The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser,Quantum Zeno Effect,Quantum Entanglement and Superposition could all be used to argue we are living inside a simulation. These could be answers to thing's we otherwise do not completely understand, but inside a simulated world make perfect sense.
I believe that having what appears to be a cosmic speed limit to be further evidence.

Total Power raises some valid points, you can imagine some very sophisticated Virtual Reality or computer generated simulations, but the physical nature of our world is another level

 

[bontshow]

But, The cat does change it's behaviour based on our observation.

Shrodinger doesn't suggest that. The double-slit experiment shows that light does something different based on whether we observe it or not. Shrodinger doesn't demonstrate that the Cat lives if we don't check on it but dies if we do, or vice-versa. He focuses on the theoretical multiple realities that exist before they are observed from a philosophical perspective

 

[Total Power]

I could use the same argument to say we'll all be on hovercraft by 2030, just because technology is improving so quickly. It does need a much more thorough justification to be believable

Yes cause hoverboard is already available and with existing technology hovercars might also be available in the next 20 to 40 years. It is a "possibility" Now that possibility might be wrong, but have some basis to construct a hypothesis that a hovercraft might be made available in 20 to 30 years from now. Possible. But what evidence do we have that we are in a simulation? i meean real genuine scientific evidence. Elon Musk claiming we are in a simulation doesnt prove anything. Elon made lots of ridiculous claims recently. People misuse QM so much, specially the terms Quantum Entanglement, its scary. We cannot even find stuff smaller than a Planck unit.

But here is the point. How would you have expected a "real" universe to behave? seriously even assuming this world is a simulation, what would you expect to find in the "real" universe that houses our universe, when you examine smaller and smaller to try to delve into the mystery of what particles are made of? It doesnnt make sense to say our universe is a simulation just because some things resemble what we do with computers. Maybe the digital way is the most natural way to represent things.

The truth is there is absolutely no veritable difference between "real" stuff and a perfect simulation of stuff. It is in fact meaningless and irrelevant to find out whether our world is "real" or simulated -- in any case, all real information exists only within your own mind.

Our brain will find or project known patterns at all times on visual or abstract input. Relating potentially almost any idea to another. Example: finding animals shapes in clouds and numerology. I have worked in the finance industry long enough to know that technical analysis is a total *. Then things like astrology, numerology, believing in cults, organised religion etc etc. But the point is ull never know when you're in a "real" universe.EVEN if you escape your simulation and wake up in the universe above us which happens to be more complex, there is no such thing as a "defining attribute of realness" that allows you to say "this is reality and not just another simulation".

However this is more Philosophy than science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

 

[Total Power]

Total Power raises some valid points, you can imagine some very sophisticated Virtual Reality or computer generated simulations, but the physical nature of our world is another level

If everyones life is a chessboard with a billion different combo's choices and outcomes, then multiply a billion by 7 billion (and counting), and that's the processing power needed for our world alone. Then what about animals? what about insects? what about bacteria? there are trillions of animals living in this planet, many without a purpose, what about them? and i am not even going outside the planet. Then there is rest of the solar system, then galaxy and universe. Why create the solar system with 10 planets and billions of space rocks floating around aimlessly? why made 9 dead planets? thats a waste of processing power. I just cannot see it as a simulation where the energy required can match the output. How far does the simulation go? 10 billion people? 12 billion people? how can it run for 14 billion years without a glitch? its just impossible and why would a infinite being need a computer and AI anyway?

Then comes stars and all the other stuff in the rest of the universe. About 4 billion of such galaxies and 4 trillion solar systems like us. Simulation argument is far from convincing unless there is an infinite energy source and a perfect computer.

 

[Total Power]

It's a bit complicated for a sod like me.

But, The cat does change it's behaviour based on our observation.
The cat is both alive and dead, and it isn't until we open the box that we create the outcome of the cat being alive or dead.
As in, we kill the cat, by opening the box to find that it's dead.

I understand what you mean, that we create a set outcome by observing light.
I've always thought of Schrodinger's cat as an easy explanation of QM, and the double slit experiment, so I'm having a hard time understanding how they aren't conflated.

In QM, the act of observation seems to create the properties that the quantum system did not have prior to observation, because the conditions for observation to be possible, necessitates that the underlying reality be forced to conform to our a-priori intuitions, ...our 'forms of thought', ...or conceptual structure,.... dependent upon the way the mind synthesis experience at the macroscopic scale.....

The result is that QM does NOT tell us about 'Independent Reality', but rather of our Experience of reality, since we add or force the wave-function to collapse into conceptual values. So for people quoting QM to support their simulation argument is a bit rich.

I believe There IS an objective reality existing independently of us,... it is just that it is unknowable 'as it is in itself',... Because it lacks conceptual form. It has not been conceptualised for knowledge. Once the mind synthesizes experience (brings together elements of sensibility into the mould of conceptual forms of thought), .. it becomes 'phenomenal reality' or 'empirical reality', which must have a component that is mind dependent.

I do find this article very interesting in relation to SC.

 

[SwampCreature]

Total Power I'd like to run you through the logic of a sim universe.

I'm not sure if it has been discussed already as I refuse to read this thread as I'm lazy and I doubt anyone has offered the quality of insights I will anyway, as let's face it, I'm smarter than all of you.

Again, I'm not suggesting we live in a computer, just that logic suggests we do - whatever that means.

It's just a simple series of yes or no logic questions really. Are you keen? If so, the first Q is:

1. Do you agree modern technology can create life-like experiences?

 

[bontshow]

If everyones life is a chessboard with a billion different combo's choices and outcomes, then multiply a billion by 7 billion (and counting), and that's the processing power needed for our world alone. Then what about animals? what about insects? what about bacteria? there are trillions of animals living in this planet, many without a purpose, what about them? and i am not even going outside the planet. Then there is rest of the solar system, then galaxy and universe. Why create the solar system with 10 planets and billions of space rocks floating around aimlessly? why made 9 dead planets? thats a waste of processing power. I just cannot see it as a simulation where the energy required can match the output. How far does the simulation go? 10 billion people? 12 billion people? how can it run for 14 billion years without a glitch? its just impossible and why would a infinite being need a computer and AI anyway?

Then comes stars and all the other stuff in the rest of the universe. About 4 billion of such galaxies and 4 trillion solar systems like us. Simulation argument is far from convincing unless there is an infinite energy source and a perfect computer.

I get that, but it's probably easier to simulate a world like ours than it is to physically create it, and yet the world exists

 

[cannot]

I get that, but it's probably easier to simulate a world like ours than it is to physically create it, and yet the world exists

the big bang theory seems problematic

 

[darthbards]

the big bang theory seems problematic

Good point cannot.
The Big bang is another one of those complicated questions that become easier to answer when looked at from a simulation perspective.
Going from a point of singularity to an infinite universe is hard to understand but in a simulation not so much.

 

[SwampCreature]

It's a shame the science board had attracted the weirdos from the weirdo board.

Total Power cmon dude, I'm trying to explain to you my position.

I'm not taking the piss, I really do find this quite interesting from a logical perspective, even if it is fantastical bunkum that attracts the likes of cannot not not right now.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Hence why the comment you have hastily replied to used the word starting,as in beginning.

there is absolutey nothing in the recent VR push that remotely suggests, implies or otherwise indicates that we are living in a simulation (anymore than any other technology has). there is nothing you can infer from VR about the nature of our universe. technologically speaking, there is little notably different between VR vs 2 screens stuck to your face with mouse-look enabled, other than the obvious differences in dimensions (length, breadth and depth FYI, not HAARP's or CERN's portals to hell )

Do you strongly feel we have reached our maximum in resolution capabilities?

well, i was just taking the piss but since you asked...VR struggles to reach the (single screen) resolutions available to PC gamers ~20 years ago. why you feel today's VR somehow tells us something new about the universe is puzzling, given its fidelity ("reality") is still so low in comparison to non-VR graphics.

most of the improvements in computation in recent years has come via an ever-shrinking die size, to fit more transistors on chips. but we're approaching a point where further reductions in nm will pose serious obstacles. absent an immediate chipset revolution what we'll most likely see in the near future is the smallest components available being stacked together, in the same way CPU cores have evolved. so while im certainly not saying we've reached "maximum capability" re video resolution, it's still so far from actual reality (or even other virtual options) that the comparison is ludicrous.

I would suggest there is one in a billion chance that belief is correct,similar to the odds we are not living inside a simulation.

as noted your probability "calculations" are irrelevant.

 

[bontshow]

most of the improvements in computation in recent years has come via an ever-shrinking die size, to fit more transistors on chips. but we're approaching a point where further reductions in nm will pose serious obstacles. absent an immediate chipset revolution what we'll most likely see in the near future is the smallest components available being stacked together, in the same way CPU cores have evolved. so while im certainly not saying we've reached "maximum capability" re video resolution, it's still so far from actual reality (or even other virtual options) that the comparison is ludicrous

Slightly off topic, I've heard that they've made a serious advancement in hard drive technology that is about to make RAM obsolete

 

[darthbards]

as noted your probability "calculations" are irrelevant.

As previously noted,the probability calculations are not my calculations.

I'm happy enough to go with the one in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation. If you dislike those calculations that's fine,but once more,the calculations are not mine.
If you believe these calculations have been formulated by me I'd suggest you need to do far more research on the topic. The announcement of these calculations gave the simulation theory a lot of new and widespread interest amongst the greater community.

 

[darthbards]

Slightly off topic, I've heard that they've made a serious advancement in hard drive technology that is about to make RAM obsolete

That's great news.
Again this is only an assumption but I think in the next 10/20/30 years it's possible we can make advancements in all manner of technology that to some might seem unimaginable.
If we ever manage to scale the the heights of SI,the sky is certainly the limit from that point forward.

Physical or virtual,it's a fascinating question.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Slightly off topic, I've heard that they've made a serious advancement in hard drive technology that is about to make RAM obsolete

yeah, do you remember the details? i don't pay a huge amount of attention til products hit the market but i think i saw a headline on PC gamer not too long ago.

 

[Long Live HFC]

As previously noted,the probability calculations are not my calculations.

uh huh. how about your 1/billion earth is a sphere calculations? did you copy-paste those or are they the work of an even more impressive numpty?

I'm happy enough to go with the one in a billion chance we are not living in a simulation. If you dislike those calculations that's fine,but once more,the calculations are not mine.
If you believe these calculations have been formulated by me I'd suggest you need to do far more research on the topic. The announcement of these calculations gave the simulation theory a lot of new and widespread interest amongst the greater community.

exactly nothing in this pathetic sophistry addresses anything i said about VR technology.

 

[Total Power]

As previously noted,the probability calculations are not my calculations.
.

They are not "calculations". At all! Elon Musk just said it. He also said many other ridiculous things. You are reading too much into it. Which mainstream physicist agree with those odds and what are the calculations behind it? There is no math behind it, none. You are just a parrot. Tell me what you read into Musks calculation about aliens? oh wait, right.

 

[Total Power]

I get that, but it's probably easier to simulate a world like ours than it is to physically create it, and yet the world exists

Easy? define easy? you are talking about any infinite being, not a human being. Anyone who can create the universe and trillions of galaxies just like that cannot create a world like ours? why does he need a computer anyway? A computer is needed for us humans who are imperfect and finite. Why would an infinite omnipotent omnipresent being need help from a "finite" matter?

 

[Total Power]

the big bang theory seems problematic

Actually big bang works well for simulation believers. First there is was nothing then bang! simulation started. If everything has always existed then simulation theory runs into a problem

 

[darthbards]

They are not "calculations". At all! Elon Musk just said it. He also said many other ridiculous things. You are reading too much into it. Which mainstream physicist agree with those odds and what are the calculations behind it? There is no math behind it, none. You are just a parrot. Tell me what you read into Musks calculation about aliens? oh wait, right.

The other dude called them calculations,I just parroted his word and said they weren't mine,read the posts. I think I called them odds.
I don't have to believe everything Musk says by the way,I don't think he's a saint. And no,I don't follow him on Twitter.
At least you have some idea who actually said it now though.

Anger isn't going to prove we are not in a simulation.

 

[Total Power]

The other dude called them calculations,I just parroted his word and said they weren't mine,read the posts. I think I called them odds.
I don't have to believe everything Musk says by the way,I don't think he's a saint. And no,I don't follow him on Twitter.
At least you have some idea who actually said it now though.

Anger isn't going to prove we are not in a simulation.

I asked you the question, which mainstream physicist said it? if someone said it, what are the maths behind it? are you willing to believe someone without looking at the calculations? there are many proposed theories for multiverses, parallel universes, time travel etc etc. Recently hawking said time travel is also possible, doesnt make it real. These are nothing but speculation. You are willing to believe some predictions cause it fits your confirmation bias but not others and call them ridiculous? the fact is scientists are allowed to "believe" what they believe is true as well. So you are right, its now a religion of science these days as well. But ONE scientist claiming one of billion odds makes it all true? where is the consescious in the scientific community? theres none.