Simulation Theory

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

S G R
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:05 pm

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by S G R »

Here's another from about two and a half years ago
Freewill and Determinism
i blame blame
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:26 am
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by i blame blame »

S G R wrote:YScience by its nature is based upon reproducible evidence – if you can’t produce it then your original claim was bullshit.
Uh, I'm not a biochemist.

S G R wrote:Arguments from authority – whether you call them neutral or not – are fallacies.
Correct. I have however not made an argument from authority. I have merely suggested a communications protocol, namely using dictionary definitions. If you wanna be a dick about it and make up your own definitions of words to obstruct meaningful discussion, then by all means go ahead. We'll continue the discussion with your definitions if you insist.
If you want the meaning of a word to be, say, 'the x that implies y' merely using the word doesn't mean that x implies y.

i blame blame wrote:
S G R wrote:It is the lack of support and gravity which starts the boulder falling and the ground which stops the boulder – neither of these things are the boulder.
It is the presence of nutrients which and its metabolism which causes the bacterium to multiply. The metabolism arose after an as yet unknown complicated chemical reaction occurred between ribonucleic acids, proteins and their friends.
S G R wrote:And again.
You couldn’t argue against what was said so you change the subject.
Let's recap:
S G R wrote:I consider choice to be the ability to start or stop an action and I think that choice is synonymous with life so – freewill is what makes life possible.
i blame blame wrote:You claim that choice is the ability to start or end an action.

Then a falling boulder makes choices. It starts to fall and then stops. A star makes a choice. It starts nuclear fusion and then stops.Every specific arrangement of matter makes choices: It begins to exist and then stops.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/action
Noun
action (plural actions)
Something done so as to accomplish a purpose.
A way of motion or functioning.
Knead bread with a rocking action.
A fast-paced activity.
an action movie
A mechanism; a moving part or assembly.
a rifle action
(music): The set of moving mechanical parts in a keyboard instrument which transfer the motion of the key to the sound-making device.
(slang) sexual intercourse.
She gave him some action.
The distance separating the strings and the fretboard on the guitar.
(military) Combat.
He saw some action in the Korean War.
(law) A charge or other process in a law court (also called lawsuit and actio).
(mathematics) A homomorphism from a group to a group of automorphisms.
One of the earliest uses of groups, according to lore, was the study of the action of S3 on the equilateral triangle.
S G R wrote:What action does the boulder take that starts and stops the falling?I haven’t any experience of stars starting or stopping or of matter coming into being or ceasing to exist – but then neither have you.
i blame blame wrote:It breaks off the rock and impacts the ground.
I have seen a stellar nursery with my naked eye (the Orion nebula). Astronomers observe supernovae from time to time. 1000 or so years ago, Chinese astronomers and the Anasazi recorded the explosion of a star whose remnants we now call the the Crab nebula.
John wrote:This statement might have helped me understand where you're coming from, or maybe not so let's see.

Would I be right in thinking that you view the bacteria as being different to the boulder because the bacteria is alive and can act, consciously or otherwise, in an independent fashion. I.e. it doesn't need someone to start it rolling down a hill?

If this is the case is it what leads you to claim that the bacteria has free will?
i blame blame wrote:But the boulder doesn't necessarily need someONE to roll it down. It might break off of the mountain due to water in fissures freezing or soemthing. The bacterium also needs another bacterium to "start it", and that one in turn needs another and so on until that first cell which needed proteins and ribonucleic acids coming together in an as yet unknown mechanism.
S G R wrote:It is the lack of support and gravity which starts the boulder falling and the ground which stops the boulder – neither of these things are the boulder.
i blame blame wrote:It is the presence of nutrients which and its metabolism which causes the bacterium to multiply. The metabolism arose after an as yet unknown complicated chemical reaction occurred between ribonucleic acids, proteins and their friends.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/action
the process or state of acting or of being active: The machine is not in action now.
2.
something done or performed; act; deed.
3.
an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity: a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4.
actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct: He is responsible for his actions.
5.
energetic activity: a man of action.
6.
an exertion of power or force: the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7.
effect or influence: the action of morphine.
8.
Physiology . a change in organs, tissues, or cells leading to performance of a function, as in muscular contraction.
9.
way or manner of moving: the action of a machine or of a horse.
10.
the mechanism by which something is operated, as that of a gun or a piano.
11.
a military encounter or engagement; battle, skirmish, or the like.
12.
actual engagement in fighting an enemy; military or naval combat: He saw action in Vietnam.
13.
Literature . the main subject or story, as distinguished from an incidental episode.
14.
Theater .
a.
an event or series of events that form part of a dramatic plot: the action of a scene.
b.
one of the three unities. Compare unity ( def. 8 ) .
15.
the gestures or deportment of an actor or speaker.
16.
Fine Arts . the appearance of animation, movement, or emotion given to figures by their attitude, position, or expression.
17.
Law .
a.
a proceeding instituted by one party against another.
b.
the right of bringing it.
18.
Slang .
a.
interesting or exciting activity, often of an illicit nature: He gave us some tips on where the action was.
b.
gambling or the excitement of gambling: The casino usually offers plenty of action.
c.
money bet in gambling, esp. illegally.
19.
Ecclesiastical .
a.
a religious ceremony, esp. a Eucharistic service.
b.
the canon of the Mass.
c.
those parts of a service of worship in which the congregation participates.
–adjective
20.
characterized by brisk or dynamic action: an action car; an action melodrama.
—Idioms
21.
in action,
a.
performing or taking part in a characteristic act: The school baseball team is in action tonight.
b.
working; functioning: His rescuing the child was bravery in action.
22.
out of action, removed from action, as by sudden disability: The star halfback is out of action with a bad knee.
23.
piece of the action, Informal . a share of the proceeds or profits: Cut me in for a piece of the action.
24.
take action,
a.
to start doing something: As soon as we get his decision, we'll take action.
b.
to start a legal procedure.
If the boulder breaks off the cliff because water in fissures froze and expanded the fissures so that the boulder would no longer be supported by the cliff, then electrostatic forces of the outer electrons of the ice crystals and electrostatic forces of the outer electrons of the molecules and ions and metals of the boulder act against one another. The boulder falls because the planetary body's gravitational force pulls it down. It doesn't fall straight down to the body's center of mass because the electrostatic forces act repellingly against the electrostatic forces of the outer electrons of the slope. The net force resulting from gravitational attraction and electrostatic repulsion causes it to roll down the slope. The water, boulder and rest of the earth all "act" in this scenario.
S G R wrote:I keep on telling you that Wikipedia is not the font of all knowledge. If you want to know what Hume said you may have to look elsewhere.
Then why did you link me Hume's wikipedia entry? If you criticize me for not quoting relevant passages from genetics and biochemistry journals, why do you not bother quoting relevant passages from Hume's work?

S G R wrote:
i blame blame wrote:That's precisely what choice is. A cost-benefit calculation in relation to some predefined goal.
No, that is an aspect of value, the subject matter of ethics – premised upon freewill.
Whether a course of action is congruent with a set of ethics usually weighs in a cost benefit analysis. What evidence have you that ethics is premised on free will?

S G R wrote:
i blame blame wrote:A redundant idea, because those words already have definitions. Here's a better idea: Make up your own words for your new definitions rather than taking pre-existing ones.
So now you’re arguing from your own claim to authority – bullshit all the way down.
Again, I have merely offered you a suggestion on how you could improve communication with others. It seems that you haven't understood what an argument from authority actually is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
I have never said the definitions of dictionaries are "true". I have suggested that since those are the definitions with the largest consensus, it eases a conversation to use those, whereas making up one's own definitions and later telling conversation partners what those definitions are, hinders the course of the debate.

S G R wrote:
i blame blame wrote:Not every definition is meaningless. Here's a possible, somewhat meaningful one:
That’s quite funny because you didn’t finish the quote:
SkepticWiki wrote: When someone demands that in order for his will to be free, it must be free of his brain, his mind, or whatever he imagines instantiates his will, what he is asking is that his will should be so free that it's free of his will. He is chasing after a chimera.
You do realise that this argument applies to you? That it is your demand about the definition of freewill that is the chimera?
Are you serious? Did you not read the very quote you quoted in which points out a definition that ain't a chimera? Many who believe in free will do however claim that it is not determined by physical reality (or, if you're an idealist monist, determined by whatever determines the physical reality) i.e. the brain and thus believe in a chimera. I've still not heard a precise and concise definition of "free will" from you.

S G R wrote:But your criticisms are based upon bullshit and your ridicule is ad hominem, another fallacy – bullshit upon bullshit.
I suggest you learn what logical fallacies are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise
I have not argued that your claims are wrong because they are ridiculous.
If my criticisms are based on bullshit, I expect you to refute them with logic and evidence.
S G R wrote:Well maybe you should – given the evidence of what you’ve put forward here.
Actually, I wasn't being entirely truthful. The fact that I am almost certain you won't let go of your ridiculous assertions, yet I keep replying to you makes me kinda dumb. Also, I fell for your simple trick of ensnaring me further into a discussion I believe to be pointless after I replied with the facepalm.
User avatar
doolhoofd
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:43 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by doolhoofd »

Typist has made some really good points in this thread.
User avatar
doolhoofd
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:43 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by doolhoofd »

Baudrillard - Simulacra & Simulations
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudril ... mulations/
The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth — it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
- Ecclesiastes

Representation starts from the principle that the sign and the real are equivalent (even if this equivalence is Utopian, it is a fundamental axiom). Conversely, simulation starts from the Utopia of this principle of equivalence, from the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign as reversion and death sentence of every reference. Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum.

These would be the successive phases of the image:

1.It is the reflection of a basic reality.
2.It masks and perverts a basic reality.
3.It masks the absence of a basic reality.
4.It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.
volatileworld
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by volatileworld »

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by HexHammer »

This isn't knowledge per se, and defiantly not philosophy! This is pure nonsense and babble most likely asked from a skitzo mind.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by Ginkgo »

HexHammer wrote:This isn't knowledge per se, and defiantly not philosophy! This is pure nonsense and babble most likely asked from a skitzo mind.
At least his title got it pretty right. "Our Cognitive Framework as a Quantum computer"

This idea is better expressed in terms of the "Orchestrated objective reduction" proposal.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction

Early research has confirmed that microtubules do carry out a quantum function.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by HexHammer »

Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:This isn't knowledge per se, and defiantly not philosophy! This is pure nonsense and babble most likely asked from a skitzo mind.
At least his title got it pretty right. "Our Cognitive Framework as a Quantum computer"

This idea is better expressed in terms of the "Orchestrated objective reduction" proposal.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction

Early research has confirmed that microtubules do carry out a quantum function.
WTF are you talking about?!?!?
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by Ginkgo »

HexHammer wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:This isn't knowledge per se, and defiantly not philosophy! This is pure nonsense and babble most likely asked from a skitzo mind.
At least his title got it pretty right. "Our Cognitive Framework as a Quantum computer"

This idea is better expressed in terms of the "Orchestrated objective reduction" proposal.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction

Early research has confirmed that microtubules do carry out a quantum function.
WTF are you talking about?!?!?

Didn't you read the wiki article?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by HexHammer »

Ginkgo wrote:Didn't you read the wiki article?
I like pizza and I think all Concords should belong to me!
Ginkgo you owe a million dollars!
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by Ginkgo »

HexHammer wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:Didn't you read the wiki article?
I like pizza and I think all Concords should belong to me!
Ginkgo you owe a million dollars!
I also like pizza.

The Concord has long since gone out of service.

Would you like that million is small or large denominations?


Come to think of it... what does this have to do with the topic?
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by HexHammer »

Ginkgo wrote:Come to think of it... what does this have to do with the topic?
I answerd to OP, then suddenly you brought up something arbitrary to me. :shock:
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by Ginkgo »

HexHammer wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:Come to think of it... what does this have to do with the topic?
I answerd to OP, then suddenly you brought up something arbitrary to me. :shock:

I am suggesting there is an element of accuracy contained within the OP.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by HexHammer »

Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:I answerd to OP, then suddenly you brought up something arbitrary to me. :shock:
I am suggesting there is an element of accuracy contained within the OP.
Eeeeh?
Jace
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:21 am

Re: Simulation Theory

Post by Jace »

My take on Simulation theory and time travel - I believe that not only it can be done but that it already has been done for as long as we have known time.

To come to this conclusion I have been researching a range of topics like;

simulation theory,
Hologram theory,
What is gravity & how it affects time and space,
Black holes,
Dark matter,
Particle accelerators,
Particle physics,
The double split experiment,
String theory,
Quantum theory,
Quantum physics,
Mathematics & infinity,
Quantum entanglement
And quantum computing.

While writing this I haven’t looked back on any of my research so I will probably have my explanation of the details & information a bit wrong but the end priceable is still the same. As my conclusions from what I have researched are only my own thoughts.

My search for the truth started with the simulation theory, that we all live in a computer simulation of our own making at a point in the future, when future technological advancement would see computers that can run simulations that are so realistic that we would not be able to tell them apart from reality and in any one simulation a person or millions of people could be running more simulations and so on and on and on. This would mean that there were literally billions or trillions of simulations running simultaneously with each simulation having around 8 billion brains. So 8 billion X trillions = a lot. The theory goes that with that many brains, for us to not be in a simulation and be the ones living in base reality would be something like a 1 in a billion chance, therefore it is more likely than not that we all live inside a computer simulation and don’t know it.

So a lot of people set out to disprove this but so far can’t. One of the ways was to look at how computers today work for the purposes of building a realistic simulation and it’s said that all the parameters of what we know to be reality are the same as what would be needed in a simulation but a computer to run a program like that would hold so much data that it would need to be the size of a planet to work thus making it unlikely.

In the 1720s the question was asked that if we close our eyes dose everything still exist outside of our heads. Which started since on the path to find out what everything is made of and it was found that everything is made up of atoms so small that we can’t see them with the naked eye but they make up all matter in the known universe. Then these atoms were dissected and inside were smaller particles, then using particle accelerators the particles were broken apart to find that there was even smaller neutrons and electrons inside.

Some of these particles moved about as waves and others as matter. Knowing this enhanced our technology with the harnessing of radio waves and much more. Science took a huge leap forward and research in genetics and physics brought about more questions than answers and new theory’s to be proved or disproved using mathematics.

Bare with me here, everything I’m talking about all ties together to make a point.

So mathematicians while proving and disproving new theories also made there own discoveries and predictions. In fact mathematics has been at the heart of everything always. Anyway this brings me on to crystals and qwazy crystals. A crystal is a crystal because the way it is held together, the tightly packed molecules have a mathematical symmetry in 3 dimensions. If you hold a crystal up to the light and have a look at the shadow it makes, the shadow of a 3 dimensional crystal becomes flat and is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object. So realising that you can view something in more than one dimension was taken even further and by calculating the changes from 3D to 2D it was used to also calculate the same in the opposite direction to make a 3D object mathematically possible in 4D and 5 and 6 and so on and on and on. It was then discovered that mathematics of an 8 dimensional crystal was the perfect fit for all mathematics concerning this and was aptly named E8.

Ok now I can move on to something mind boggling and unexplained but proven by the double slit experiment. Radio waves, light waves, all waves even waves in a pond all travel in an expanding outward direction but particles ie light particles all travel in a straight line. Now picture a light then a few feet away a wall with two slits down the middle and a few feet behind that another solid wall. When the light is switched on you would expect to see two bright lines on the back wall but what you get is several lines on the back wall (a wave pattern) thus proving that the light particles are traveling in wave form. They now wanted to know which of the two slits the wave particles were going threw so set up an observation camera aimed at the back of the two slits and ran the experiment again but the results were different, this time on the Back wall there were two distinct bright lines. This discovery proved that light travels in wave form until it is being observed then changes to particle form changing the outcome. This baffled scientist because it would seam that the light waves or particles move in a way that suggest they know when they are being observed. This backs up the simulation theory in that nothing actually exists except in wave form until you look at it similar to how a simulation in a computer game works.

So a few years ago it was suggested that the experiment was done again but with a delayed observation putting a camera in a position just before the light waves or particles hit the back wall after they have already passed threw the double slits then deciding only at the last second whether or not to observe them and the findings were astonishing. Now bringing into question time and space itself. What happened was the light traveled threw the two slits as waves and at the point of observation changed to particles but changed all the way backward in time to before they traveled threw the slits in the first place as if they were always particles to start with. So by observing them it changed what happened even before deciding to observe them. To this day this has been proved but can’t be explained.

This is not the only experiment with particles that can be proven but not explained. Another is quantum physics exploring time and space where two particles put close to each other start to mimic each other. This is described as quantum entanglement or as Albert Einstein put it “spooky action at a distance” Once these two particles become entangled you can move them away from each other and they still behave like one particle moving simultaneously. This experiment has been done over thousands of miles but is said that no amount of distance between them separates them once they have become entangled, with no way possible to send a message across a vast distance in no time it effectively is eliminating the use of time itself.

Now for what we know about time travel. It has been proven that time travel is possible in a forward motion, in that time is relevant to perception, mass and speed. The larger something is and the faster it moves, the slower time passes when compared to the perception of others. The simplest explication I’ve found for this is if your in a large room on a stage with an audience, you sit a person on a chair on stage facing the audience and directly in front of that person you put a light on a pendulum to represent time and mark two points. When the pendulum swings out to the left mark point A and when it swings out to the right mark point B. When the person sitting on the chair views the light it’s traveling to his eyes at the speed of light so you can then make a note of how long it takes for the pendulum to travel from point A to point B using the the reference point of his eyes seeing it, now at the exact same time using the exact same pendulum you can measure the time it takes from point A to point B but this time from the perspective of the audience who are sitting 30 feet away. As we know the speed of light and can calculate that it will take longer to travel to the people further away, then measure the distance traveled between the points A & B we know that although it’s the same distance, it took longer for the audience to travel the same distance in time than it did for the person in the seat meaning the person in the seat has moved threw time faster than the audience. However the scale is so small that it would never make any kind of difference. Just recently an American female astronaut returned from 64 days in space orbiting the earth and it was proven that she aged 2.5 seconds slower than all of us. So if you were to goto outer space and travel round the planet as fast as possible and stay there for 20 years, when you returned you would be 20 years older but everyone els would have aged more than you thus traveling you into the future.

Nothing about backwards time travel has ever been proven although there are many theories using dark matter, black holes and even time crystals where you can trap particles into a crystal but none of that has ever been proven.

My Theory that time travel is not only possible but has been happening since the start of time comes from the new invention of Quantum computers.

A Quantum computer is being worked on as we speak. With our current computers, the chips that run them use bits ie 0s and 1s zero having a meaning of yes and one having a meaning of no and using electricity can open and close a string
of 0z and 1s like opening and closing gates in an order than can make very fast calculations. However there are limits to the amount of calculations it can make and how much electricity it takes to make them as well as the time it takes to proses large amounts of information. An example is if you had 16 people in a room and you were asked to arrange them into as many different combinations as possible, like John = 1 combination, Peter = 2, Hellen = 3, Hellen & Peter = 4 and so on. By the time you get to the end there are 2.4 trillion different combinations and if you add a 17th person it becomes un-computable.

But as we have discovered particles can have more than one value while occupying the same space simply by choosing to observe them or not observe them and arranging them in a mathematical crystal to the 8th dimension E8 can hold enough information and create more pathways like the computer bit using 0s & 1s could even calculate. This is currently in development stages now and called the quantum processor to be used in quantum computing.

So using everything I’ve just said my conclusion is that we as a people using science and mathematics are advancing our technology and solving problems that would not even exist if we hadn't already solved them in the future. By solving and making this type of technology we are creating the foundation from where the problems to solve came from in the first place meaning that future time travel has already been done and is all around us and behind us as we know it. Proving that we are here now but have been to the future and are gathering information from the past that could have only came from the future.

Simulation theory and all that comes with it has led me to the discovery of what wave particles do when being observed, leading to the invention of quantum processing which could lead to the possibility of simulation theory being real threw the enhancement of technology. Meaning that we are studying something that dose not exist yet and there in lies our inability to understand it. Time and space would seam irrelevant and relevant at the same time and becomes the fabric of everything with and without time. I believe that time dose exist because we are moving threw it but our perception of it as a line with a start a middle and an end is where my belief stops. I don’t think it is a line and more that it’s all around us everywhere and that we live in it but don’t yet know how to comprehend it and that simulation theory is a real possibility in a world with infinite possibilities.


Food for thought 👍👍
Post Reply