cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
The universe is just a pretty picture orbiting the earth, doh!. Simple minds (meaning everyone) can't comprehend what might be beyond that pretty picture.
Physicists may prove we exist in a computer simulation
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
dennis777
Posts: 285 +33
OMG!!! what we will do if they pour coffee on their keyboards? its the end of the world
If this article seems nuts go ...buy/rent or borrow a DVD called SOLARIS.
2002 staring Geoorge Clooney and a group of brilliant and creepy people on a space ship. The main female is a woman called Natacha McEchome..... Every man needs to experience one truly crazy, scary, evil women like her once in his life. I mean, once is enough..been there,...never going back.
This article maybe not so nuts.
2002 staring Geoorge Clooney and a group of brilliant and creepy people on a space ship. The main female is a woman called Natacha McEchome..... Every man needs to experience one truly crazy, scary, evil women like her once in his life. I mean, once is enough..been there,...never going back.
This article maybe not so nuts.
G
Guest
" But im not saying that God has to exist based on first cause-im saying that God is just as possible as two atoms existing, as science was defined by humans, which are not a flawless creature."
It is possible I will grant you that, however the probability of something incredibly complex like god coming into existence from nothing, as opposed to something far more simple such as 2 atoms, is so ridiculously small and contradicts everything we see in nature (ie things getting more complex over time) it seems unnecessary to bother with until there is legitimate evidence.
In regards to the rest of your response on something having to have a permanent existence you might be interested in this short clip from Cosmologist Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series on that very topic:
It is possible I will grant you that, however the probability of something incredibly complex like god coming into existence from nothing, as opposed to something far more simple such as 2 atoms, is so ridiculously small and contradicts everything we see in nature (ie things getting more complex over time) it seems unnecessary to bother with until there is legitimate evidence.
In regards to the rest of your response on something having to have a permanent existence you might be interested in this short clip from Cosmologist Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series on that very topic:
G
Guest
This is wonderful stuff because it means that if this is so, whoever created the simulation would be the creator of our universe, and therefore would be God, at least far as we are concerned. And so science and religion are at once reconciled.
G
Guest
Somebody has been watching the movie, "The Thirteenth Floor".
G
Guest
No one can prove nor "disprove" God. String theory, the most mathematically dense scientific theory, suggests there are an infinite number of universes. Anything we could do or IMAGINE could, and as far as we know, SHOULD exist somewhere. Fairies are inevitable. So let's leave the "know" out of one exact thing existing or not, and leave it to a belief or lack thereof.
It has been experimentally proven that our observation influences reality. I'm not saying the tree never actually did fall in the woods BECAUSE no one was around, but one could even go so far as to say our "reality" doesn't exist until our observations/awareness makes it so. To me, someone who chooses to believe, it's like saying we might just be made in someone... or something's image.
As for a simulation, should existence get more "fuzzy" the more fundamentally we look at it? Recent experiments have already begun to suggest Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle could actually be wrong. To me we are far from proving anything about the universe being a simulation or not.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004121638.htm
To me it's like the the quantum world is a function that gets infinitely closer to 0, but never touches it.... at least as far as definite or direct observation goes.
It has been experimentally proven that our observation influences reality. I'm not saying the tree never actually did fall in the woods BECAUSE no one was around, but one could even go so far as to say our "reality" doesn't exist until our observations/awareness makes it so. To me, someone who chooses to believe, it's like saying we might just be made in someone... or something's image.
As for a simulation, should existence get more "fuzzy" the more fundamentally we look at it? Recent experiments have already begun to suggest Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle could actually be wrong. To me we are far from proving anything about the universe being a simulation or not.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004121638.htm
To me it's like the the quantum world is a function that gets infinitely closer to 0, but never touches it.... at least as far as definite or direct observation goes.
G
Guest
"To me it's like the the quantum world is a function that gets infinitely closer to 0, but never touches it.... at least as far as definite or direct observation goes."
I would like to point out that's more of a concept than anything mathematical.
I would like to point out that's more of a concept than anything mathematical.
G
Guest
They should patch this security hole asap........
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
LOL
G
Guest
Hey this is all true guys, its amazing. Btw, 42 is also the answer to the universe...
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
What the hell does 42 represent? I've seen it mentioned at least twice now.
I believe it's from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. See here: wikipedia
G
Guest
Perhaps this lattice work is simply the time-space fabric often written about in sci-fi, but made science by Einstein and others. Perhaps our ability to discover the limits of the lattice-fabric will provide insights into how to manipulate the fabric which makes one think of "warp" travel concepts. Fascinating.
Tygerstrike
Posts: 827 +93
I only need to point to the Quantum state 2 particles exhibit. The math not only bears this out but they are developing quantum computing/computers that rely on the very principle. How can two particles instantly transmit information across vast distances? Where is the mechanism that allows this process to occure? Some would spout, "Its proof of God!", others would say its the natural state of matter in our universe. Either way, which ever way YOU chose to look at it, makes it a truth to YOU. No amount of arguing is going to change anyones mind on the subject. Be it "God", Intellegent design, or random chaos forming a complex pattern, its all about how YOU percieve it.
Doctor John
Posts: 200 +15
G
Guest
What is real? "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain"
I just wanted a reason to quote the matrix tbh
I just wanted a reason to quote the matrix tbh
Ranger12
Posts: 625 +125
I think that violates the law of non-contradiction [FONT=Noteworthy]ಠ_ಠ [/FONT]
Of course I guess you could say that the law of non-contradiction is true for me but not true for you...lol
G
Guest
"How can two particles instantly transmit information across vast distances?"
This can be done at will in a lab.
"Where is the mechanism that allows this process to occure?"
Naturally, if it does happen this way, I have no idea. But again, scientists do something with high power lasers and the particles they wish to entangle.
What's more interesting is how our observation alone influences reality. The question is, do we need to not only be aware, but capable of observing the difference in particles/waves themselves and how they "act" when we observe them and when we don't. If we couldn't measure these particles, would simply looking at a flashlight beam with your eyes change it's behavior? Either way, to me this proves consciousness.
This can be done at will in a lab.
"Where is the mechanism that allows this process to occure?"
Naturally, if it does happen this way, I have no idea. But again, scientists do something with high power lasers and the particles they wish to entangle.
What's more interesting is how our observation alone influences reality. The question is, do we need to not only be aware, but capable of observing the difference in particles/waves themselves and how they "act" when we observe them and when we don't. If we couldn't measure these particles, would simply looking at a flashlight beam with your eyes change it's behavior? Either way, to me this proves consciousness.
G
Guest
Unfortunately, a scientist trying to prove we don't really exist says more about the scientist than the simulation.
Doctor John
Posts: 200 +15
Are you looking at the same text as me? I can't see any mention of scientists trying to prove we don't really exist!
,also!Zoltan Head
Posts: 245 +27
Are you looking at the same text as me? I can't see any mention of scientists trying to prove we don't really exist!
Yes, it's frustrating when "Guest" posters drop an anonymous comment, then don't follow up if you ask a question!
If I understand correctly, we all exist either way (else I don't know who's typing this!), it's just another potential model of the universe, which can then be tested experimentally for better or worse (just like the "many worlds" theory or indeed the "flat Earth" theory!).
So I have no idea why Guest should think anyone says they don't exist.
Unfortunately, someone posting anonymously then lacking the information to deal with questions about it says everything about that person.
TechMancer
Posts: 56 +2
It doesn't make much sense, but if you really think about it, it MIGHT be true. But, personally, I think it it's a highly fabricated theory. There is no way that we, being as advanced as we are, could ever be created by supernatural creatures. We have done so many unique things and gone through so many scientific breakthroughs that it virtually eliminates the possibility of being a simulation. These events could not have been programmed or constructed, we as people have constructed them ourselves.
~100th post on the topic!
~100th post on the topic!
Similar threads
