on whether we are computer simulations or real

[nullnor]

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix

the first thing you want to do is remember the name Zeeya Merali. this chick, is like the best scientific journalist out there. so treat yourself to her when ever you want to read the best stuff. whether you wait a few months or years, google her stuff when you want the stuff.

..so as a child watching the flintstones i thought what if fred watched himself on tv? wouldn't he keep watching himself.. over and over and over? so it an old question.



what bothers me is the quantum measurement problem. it's a dead giveaway. why have real things in a semi-real state? unless you need to conserve power or energy. why have reality not exist until you need it too? the greatest minds like Neils Bohr said the question was out of bounds. and he pissed a lot of ppl off. but whats scary is what if he was right. that no matter how hard you tried, you could never know the answer to the most fundamental aspect of reality...it's like the data on your hard drive. it's there but unless you are calling it up it stays in reserve. it's like when you're playing the game grand theft auto. other sections don't materialize until you enter them.

so why have reality behave like it's sometimes in a wave form, but other times a particle one? this is a serious problem. and it's not a very old problem. .. the theory of the holographic universe has something to do with black holes. how they encode their entropy in their event horizon. im not sure what that means, but you've all seen artistic pictures of black holes. you've got your surface, and area. all you get is a is a 2D picture. it's a lot more mathematical than that,

the clues aren't meant to be hidden. i've always believed that God is not out trying to trick you. whatever your purpose for being here, you have the tools and the means to get to the bottom of it. there is no deception. and it doesn't make it any less vital. whatever the answers you seek, there are no limitations. you can find them as long as you're willing to work for them.

so yeah...

The team calculated that the motion of particles within their simulation, and thus their energy, is related to the distance between the points of the lattice: the smaller the grid size, the higher the energy particles can have. That means that if our universe is a simulation, we’ll observe a maximum energy amount for the fastest particles.

The simulation’s lattice has another observable effect that astronomers could pick up. If space is continuous, then there is no underlying grid that guides the direction of cosmic rays — they should come in from every direction equally.

so the evidence of whether we are real or not, is testable. and it was meant to be. there are no lies. there's only the truth.

i think we are freaks. i look at this planet and see such intelligence from some of the living things here like dolphins and elephants and i see that really confuses the problem. both of them evolved before us. so on this planet, as far as the first intelligence goes, we where not evolutionarily chosen first. .. but i also think, no way are they even close to recognizing a quantum measurement problem. and that makes us freaks. ..any kind of intelligence can emerge on habitable planets, and many have. but only one kind does that looks into the vagaries of reality.

so like i said the answers are here. you don't have to look far. it's as simple as being able to be able to create artificial intelligence? if we can then we are living in the matrix. it comes down to biology, not chemistry or cosmology, quantum physics. in our present aptitude is comes down to philosophy. .. and i don't think we can. i think quantum physics puts limitations on our ability to create artificial consciousness. if not we'd be able to create ourselves. which would be redundant.

it's occam's razor, we are the first and only. we are freaks.

[Gregg]

Nully,

When you say we are freaks, are you talking about all creatures, or just mankind?

[rhd]

Fascinating stuff and I dont really understand much of it. The part about the "simulators" of the universe creating just enough of it to fool us made me recall a thought that I used to have when I was a kid. I thought that the world, or universe, might be only partially built, w the constructed part being only that part of it that I actually experienced, and that everything else was just "made up" until right before I was getting ready to experience it. E.g., I had heard about Niagara Falls for a long time, but I didnt actually go there until I was about 13, so right before I went the universe simulators could have actually created it, along w everything else along the way between my hometown and it. Of course this is about the most ridiculous thought that anyone could have because why would anyone be concerned enough about me and my belief in the reality of the universe to create fantastically large and complex illusions in order to keep me deceived, even if they had this ability? Likewise I think that the idea that there are universe simulators to be seemingly equally ridiculous. The alternative would seem to be that if I'm important enough for some super-intelligent and super-powerful creatures to so deceive, then I must really be super-important myself, in which case does it really make a difference whether the universe and existence are real or not? In which case, why be overly concerned about it one way or the other? But like I say my understanding of this stuff is pretty limited.

[TranaGreg]

damn, rhd is getting close ...

[TranaGreg]

Nully,

When you say we are freaks, are you talking about all creatures, or just mankind, or those of us here in the Sports Bar?

fixed.

[nullnor]

i think that we are freaks. our brain has evolved as far as it can. that the connections are as small as they can. that the smallest switches are already too small, and that quantum effects would screw them up. http://www.grochbiology.org/BrainLimits.pdf

It sounds like a horrible evolutionary design flaw—but in fact,it is a compromise. “If you make the spring on the channel too loose, then the noise keeps on switching it, (and you get too much noise) If you make the spring on the channel stronger, then you get less (not enough) noise

the same problems arises when doping transistors that are too small. and we are getting very close to that limit. any further and just one atom of boron makes them unreliable.

so why do i think we are freaks? .. you know, i'd much rather talk out why i think baby elephants are special. the beautiful part of existence is in all of it's examples. but even more important is all of it's diverse examples in just one location like this planet; which is correlated to our position. every infant, gets along with every other infant; before their evolutionary genetics set in. elephants in india, before knocking a house over, literally remove the human babies before they demolish it. (Elephant pulls down house in Bengal, then rescues 10-month-old baby trapped under debris) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/31860512.cms and sometimes they remove young ones in front of the way first. and their brains are inefficient. they have to think before they walk, not like us. but they think. thats why babies are special. lions and tigers get a long even after they are adults. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4374091.html thats also why elephants also accidentally roll over in their sleep or step on their friends.

im sort of drunk tho. but it's fun.

there's another problem tho. and it's a lot more intricate than anyone ever has tried to connect. it involves all the sciences at once. it's your perception. no matter how hard you try to empathize, you'll only see what what is related to yourown experiences. and this isn't quantum but cosmologic. or it's coherence.

on a planet with so much life. more life in one place than perhaps any other planet in the universe, cam't you use that to your advantage? how many earths do you really think are out there? ones with more than one type of intelligence? i really doubt there are more. and thats a cosmological question. sure there is intelligence. but they are not freaks like us.

i always kind of liked that episode of Lost. where Libby proved to Hugo that she was real. the first part of the video.



even with all the flaws, with bells theorem, with the quantum measurement problem, each perspective to every living thing is unique. and thats complex.

[nullnor]

do you want to know why spiders have a 6th sense? it's because when you look at them, they can see of feel the quantum effects. or they probably can see the wavelength of the photons redirecting from your eyes.

[mjl]

Fascinating stuff and I dont really understand much of it. The part about the "simulators" of the universe creating just enough of it to fool us made me recall a thought that I used to have when I was a kid. I thought that the world, or universe, might be only partially built, w the constructed part being only that part of it that I actually experienced, and that everything else was just "made up" until right before I was getting ready to experience it. E.g., I had heard about Niagara Falls for a long time, but I didnt actually go there until I was about 13, so right before I went the universe simulators could have actually created it, along w everything else along the way between my hometown and it. Of course this is about the most ridiculous thought that anyone could have because why would anyone be concerned enough about me and my belief in the reality of the universe to create fantastically large and complex illusions in order to keep me deceived, even if they had this ability? Likewise I think that the idea that there are universe simulators to be seemingly equally ridiculous. The alternative would seem to be that if I'm important enough for some super-intelligent and super-powerful creatures to so deceive, then I must really be super-important myself, in which case does it really make a difference whether the universe and existence are real or not? In which case, why be overly concerned about it one way or the other? But like I say my understanding of this stuff is pretty limited.

I think you're making unreasonable assumptions about the cost of computing power. Consider that in the last 50 years we've developed computers, gene sequencing, the supercollider, and any number of other technologies that would help us run a simulation like that. We can trivially run simulations of large-scale physical events that are indistinguishable from the real thing now - as far as the physics, anyway, and assuming that you aren't looking at it with any particular scrutiny. But when you see a tree branch fall, are you assessing it to see if it behaved exactly how you expected, if the tree tore in the precisely correct way, or do you just say "oh, that tree branch fell"?

I don't think you're important enough to be deceived. You might be important enough to be simulated along with everyone else though. Given what we've learned to do in the last 5000 years, I'm not willing to say with any certainty what "someone else" could do with a million years.

[rhd]

I think you're making unreasonable assumptions about the cost of computing power. Consider that in the last 50 years we've developed computers, gene sequencing, the supercollider, and any number of other technologies that would help us run a simulation like that. We can trivially run simulations of large-scale physical events that are indistinguishable from the real thing now - as far as the physics, anyway, and assuming that you aren't looking at it with any particular scrutiny. But when you see a tree branch fall, are you assessing it to see if it behaved exactly how you expected, if the tree tore in the precisely correct way, or do you just say "oh, that tree branch fell"?

I don't think you're important enough to be deceived. You might be important enough to be simulated along with everyone else though. Given what we've learned to do in the last 5000 years, I'm not willing to say with any certainty what "someone else" could do with a million years.

Not saying that this isnt possible. But if one accepts this idea that some super-intelligence has created a "simulated" universe, then the next question is for what purpose? This is the part that could strike one as "ridiculous", similar to my childhood thoughts. It makes more sense to me to think that all this stuff we observe really does exist at least in some sense than it is to think of it as a "fake" simulation created and maintained for who knows what reason. And what difference would it make to us even if the universe isnt "real"? We use virtual operating systems and if they are reliable and fast enough they behave just like a real operating system. What do we care as long we can do what we want to do? It would seem to make a difference only if we find that somehow we cant really do everything we want to do.

[mjl]

oh, sure, I don't see any reason to care, so I don't think about it much.

[nullnor]

my thing about the flintstones was if we can create artificial intelligence, than artificial intelligence can create more artificial intelligence. and then it becomes endless. where is the prime intelligence? and in the real world if we can create another real universe, if we can somehow manipulate space and cause another child inflationary bubble universe to expand. i do think we can manipulate space. and then it becomes a question of whether or not you want to play god. do you want to just live your life and enjoy everything? do you want to change things? do you want to go back in the past? do you want to resurrect the dead? do you want to accept that all of that can't be changed? do you want to rely on something that might not be the prime creator to do it for you? or should we accept our fate? it would be a lot easier if we knew whether or not we are prime. if we can say that we aren't being interfered with.

there's a purpose here. although im not sure what it is.

the thing is that something that is able to create everything, can see anything. are we supposed to fight for our consciousness or just accept and appreciate it?

i do not think we can create consciousness. but that is debatable and testable. i don't believe in quantum computers being able to do what ppl think they can.

[nullnor]

i think Hugh Everett figured it out. and i think it drove him to excess.

[Midnight Otter]

Don't know about Fred Flintstone, but Superman can handle the infinite:

[nullnor]

so why would something that can't die, create things that can? thats why i look at pets. when my cat died, it was the worst thing that ever happened to. for years i knew it was coming. and she knew it too. her biggest concern was that i was going to be angry about her dying on me. and i was never angry about her ever. but to have this thing you care about so much die in your hands, and there's nothing you can do about it. it makes you feel like your a warden or something. like a protector.

you know with all the whole evolutionary survival thing, which sucks, why would a being that can't die create things that can! whether it's a person or a pet, why would something that can't personally experience it create things that can? thats why i think pets are important. thats why when i see simple ducks on the side of the road looking out for their ducklings, it amazes me.

it's not out in some far off universe, it's not in some telescope, it's inside of you. maybe it's in your genetics. maybe it's in your heart. it's in the laws of physics. it's in the symmetry.

[nullnor]

symmetry is important guys. it just doesn't mean confusing stuff like super symmetry, but that the laws all around you are the same everywhere.