Are we in a simulation or not?

[Hawkstein]

The more I learn about QM and general relativity, it seems to be the case that we are in a simulation of sorts or is my logic flawed because I'm not really an expert?

For example:
-The light speed limit of the universe seems more like a cpu processing limit/constraint
-To the same effect, the bending of spacetime due to mass is an indication of the simulation adjusting to render massive amounts of matter (data)? i.e. like a computer getting sluggish when there are too many micro processes.
-Furthermore, quantum particles only having a state (wave function collapse) when they are measured/observed seems like something a well-designed computer game would do... i.e. to only render what's on the screen.

Am I displaying an obvious logical fallacy here? Perhaps correlation/causation fallacy or hasty generalization fallacy?

Welcome your input and happy to be proven otherwise.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Maybe we are just a phase of a black hole.
Right now expanding, then at some point back to the original universe sized black hole.
That would explain the projector /flat look of the universe.

 

[rod]

FYI. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity - are not married to each other at this time. That is why there is string theory, quantum gravity, and inflation in the Big Bang model. GR says extrapolating the redshifts backwards - leads to a singularity where science breaks down. Whatever folks propose as a model to explain the origin of the universe and *we are in a simulation of sorts*, should be as rigorously tested as the debate between the geocentric universe with immovable Earth vs. the heliocentric solar system with Earth moving according to Kepler's planetary laws and gravity - my thinking.

 

[Hawkstein]

FYI. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity - are not married to each other at this time. That is why there is string theory, quantum gravity, and inflation in the Big Bang model. GR says extrapolating the redshifts backwards - leads to a singularity where science breaks down. Whatever folks propose as a model to explain the origin of the universe and *we are in a simulation of sorts*, should be as rigorously tested as the debate between the geocentric universe with immovable Earth vs. the heliocentric solar system with Earth moving according to Kepler's planetary laws and gravity - my thinking.

I never said or even implied that they're married or even connected. I was simply looking at the behavior of each separately, in which coincidentally IMO I see hints at "simulation" in both. This is pure postulation and nothing more.

I was hoping to have a conversation about the individual examples I made, to either persuade or dissuade my opinion.

 

[rod]

I never said or even implied that they're married or even connected. I was simply looking at the behavior of each separately, in which coincidentally IMO I see hints at "simulation" in both. This is pure postulation and nothing more.

I was hoping to have a conversation about the individual examples I made, to either persuade or dissuade my opinion.

Okay, from my read here, it seems the model of *How the Universe Works* presented, involves a simulation universe view to interpret nature and science with no limits on the simulation or how many different simulation universes there could be. In a simulation universe - if that is what we live in, how can science determine that the Earth is round vs. a flat earth in another simulation universe where people live on that flat earth? The same holds for the geocentric, immovable Earth simulation vs. the heliocentric solar system simulation where the Earth is moving around the Sun.

 

[Hawkstein]

Okay, from my read here, it seems the model of *How the Universe Works* presented, involves a simulation universe view to interpret nature and science with no limits on the simulation or how many different simulation universes there could be. In a simulation universe - if that is what we live in, how can science determine that the Earth is round vs. a flat earth in another simulation universe where people live on that flat earth? The same holds for the geocentric, immovable Earth simulation vs. the heliocentric solar system simulation where the Earth is moving around the Sun.

Sorry I didn't understand your first sentence, specifically "no limits on the simulation" can you elaborate as if I were a 10 year old?

I'm not convinced of "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM... it's possible we are the only simulation (50/50 is my current stance on MW). For the purpose of discussion no need to extrapolate on MW, I think.

 

[rod]

Sorry I didn't understand your first sentence, specifically "no limits on the simulation" can you elaborate as if I were a 10 year old?

I'm not convinced of "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM... it's possible we are the only simulation (50/50 is my current stance on MW). For the purpose of discussion no need to extrapolate on MW, I think.

Hawkstein, in my thinking you are approaching reality in our universe and all that determines reality solely on the basis of quantum mechanics as the authority that defines reality - at least this is what it appears to me. If this is your concept about QM and a simulation universe, this suggests that the scientific method breaks down and no tests can determine what is true and what is false concerning How The Universe Works? Am I correct here?

 

[Hawkstein]

I'm not sure how the scientific method breaks down. Except that it has a limit and that is whatever the basis of reality allows.

 

[rod]

I'm not sure how the scientific method breaks down. Except that it has a limit and that is whatever the basis of reality allows.

That is my problem with your position, does a simulation universe define *the basis of reality*? It suggest strongly to me that there is no definition of reality using quantum mechanics to define the sum total for the universe, thus we live in a simulation universe. A good example - how can you determine that the Earth is round and not flat, as many teach today? If we live in a simulation universe, the flat earth teaching could be true too. It seems your approach using QM and simulation - must allow for this.

 

[Hawkstein]

That is my problem with your position, does a simulation universe define *the basis of reality*? It suggest strongly to me that there is no definition of reality using quantum mechanics to define the sum total for the universe, thus we live in a simulation universe. A good example - how can you determine that the Earth is round and not flat, as many teach today? If we live in a simulation universe, the flat earth teaching could be true too. It seems your approach using QM and simulation - must allow for this.

Flat earth? Not sure why you're going off on a tangent... simulation still has laws... universe still follows the laws of physics... just like a game has laws and limitations.

 

[rod]

Flat earth? Not sure why you're going off on a tangent... simulation still has laws... universe still follows the laws of physics... just like a game has laws and limitations.

In your simulation universe based upon quantum mechanics that governs your simulation universe, how do *these laws* show the Earth is round vs. flat?

 

[Hawkstein]

In your simulation universe based upon quantum mechanics that governs your simulation universe, how do *these laws* show the Earth is round vs. flat?

Why does it matter?

 

[rod]

Why does it matter?

Excellent question. A recent report indicated there is no objective reality - at the quantum level, Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist

How is objective reality determined in your simulation universe if you cannot determine the Earth is round vs. flat? A problem for a court system too. In the simulation universe, how can you convict someone of murder if the murder is a simulation or convict a crimnal of a bank robbery when the robber is a simulation like a game?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Some days i think i am a simulation, but then i check my empties and can figure
why

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Excellent question. A recent report indicated there is no objective reality - at the quantum level, Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist

How is objective reality determined in your simulation universe if you cannot determine the Earth is round vs. flat? A problem for a court system too. In the simulation universe, how can you convict someone of murder if the murder is a simulation or convict a crimnal of a bank robbery when the robber is a simulation like a game?

Sort of like that if you don't see it then it didn't exist idea.
I think it existed all along and we didn't see it yet.

Sure could be a simulation but then to what end is the simulation?
Got to be far better things to simulate than what we do day to day.

 

[rod]

Sort of like that if you don't see it then it didn't exist idea.
I think it existed all along and we didn't see it yet.

Sure could be a simulation but then to what end is the simulation?
Got to be far better things to simulate than what we do day to day.

Okay, I find this thread very interesting and a simulation universe too During June of this year, I made numerous observations of Jupiter using my telescopes and observed various Galilean moon events like transits and shadow eclipses and occultations. I could even resolve some of the moons as moons, e.g. Ganymede, Io at high power, 200x or more. I also enjoyed some very good views of the Great Red Spot rotating by in the field of view. The timing predictions for the Galilean moon events were all very accurate too, e.g. Sky & Telescope calculators, Starry Night simulations, Stellarium. What I observed using my telescopes and checking the times I observed the events, sure looked like objective reality astronomy and not a simulation universe

 

[Hawkstein]

Okay, I find this thread very interesting and a simulation universe too During June of this year, I made numerous observations of Jupiter using my telescopes and observed various Galilean moon events like transits and shadow eclipses and occultations. I could even resolve some of the moons as moons, e.g. Ganymede, Io at high power, 200x or more. I also enjoyed some very good views of the Great Red Spot rotating by in the field of view. The timing predictions for the Galilean moon events were all very accurate too, e.g. Sky & Telescope calculators, Starry Night simulations, Stellarium. What I observed using my telescopes and checking the times I observed the events, sure looked like objective reality astronomy and not a simulation universe

The common belief of a simulation universe is most likely you would not know if you were in one - astronomical observations is no different. However the original points I was trying to make, which seems to have been lost, is maybe in our universe we can extrapolate from some of the constants, limits, and behaviors of the universe... to theorize why these things are the way they are.

 

[Hawkstein]

Somewhat ironically I was rewatching the Matrix last night...

 

[rod]

The common belief of a simulation universe is most likely you would not know if you were in one - astronomical observations is no different. However the original points I was trying to make, which seems to have been lost, is maybe in our universe we can extrapolate from some of the constants, limits, and behaviors of the universe... to theorize why these things are the way they are.

I am glad to see this now and things are becoming very clear for me. I note your comment "The common belief of a simulation universe is most likely you would not know if you were in one - astronomical observations is no different." During the scientific debates in astronomy between the geocentric teachers and heliocentric solar system - the common belief was that the Earth was immovable and everything in the universe moved around the Earth. This *belief* was falsified by the scientific method (otherwise we should still teach geocentric doctrine. How can the scientific method test to show as true or false this belief about a simulation universe? Remember, the scientific method worked to falsify the geocentric teachers, it should work the same I feel for belief in a simulation universe too.

 

[rod]

Hawkstein, I found this report about simulation universe. Prior to your discussions - I never heard of this This is Wikipedia report, Simulation hypothesis I note that the report basically indicates science may not be able to show the simulation hypothesis view is true or false. "The simulation hypothesis or simulation theory proposes that all of reality, including the Earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation. Some versions rely on the development of a simulated reality, a proposed technology that would seem realistic enough to convince its inhabitants the simulation was real. The hypothesis has been a central plot device of many science fiction stories and films."

If folks accept such a view of the universe - then there is a computer designer too implied in it. Brings back memories of the original movie, Tron

 

[Truthseeker007]

The more I learn about QM and general relativity, it seems to be the case that we are in a simulation of sorts or is my logic flawed because I'm not really an expert?

For example:
-The light speed limit of the universe seems more like a cpu processing limit/constraint
-To the same effect, the bending of spacetime due to mass is an indication of the simulation adjusting to render massive amounts of matter (data)? i.e. like a computer getting sluggish when there are too many micro processes.
-Furthermore, quantum particles only having a state (wave function collapse) when they are measured/observed seems like something a well-designed computer game would do... i.e. to only render what's on the screen.

Am I displaying an obvious logical fallacy here? Perhaps correlation/causation fallacy or hasty generalization fallacy?

Welcome your input and happy to be proven otherwise.

I think we are consciousness experiencing a 3D physical illusion. This may well be a simulation much like a cpu.

 

[sward]

Are y'all saying we're still in the holodeck?

 

[rod]

Are y'all saying we're still in the holodeck?

FYI, Rod is not saying this I did point out after reading the Wikipedia report, "If folks accept such a view of the universe - then there is a computer designer too implied in it."

Okay, if the universe is a holodeck simulation - there is a grand designer and controller in charge just like Star Trek, Next Generation series. Appling to astronomy, when the debates raged between the geocentric astronomy teachers like Tycho Brahe and others, eventually the heliocentric solar system astronomy won the debate. Q: Did this happen because the holodeck controller switched the simulation? Did someone/something start running the heliocentric solar system that allowed astronomy to determine the validity of heliocentric solar system vs. geocentric? Another example. Did someone/something change the simulation and start running the round Earth simulation vs. the previous edition, the flat earth version? I could go on and on here with examples like this in science.

 

[Truthseeker007]

FYI, Rod is not saying this I did point out after reading the Wikipedia report, "If folks accept such a view of the universe - then there is a computer designer too implied in it."

Okay, if the universe is a holodeck simulation - there is a grand designer and controller in charge just like Star Trek, Next Generation series. Appling to astronomy, when the debates raged between the geocentric astronomy teachers like Tycho Brahe and others, eventually the heliocentric solar system astronomy won the debate. Q: Did this happen because the holodeck controller switched the simulation? Did someone/something start running the heliocentric solar system that allowed astronomy to determine the validity of heliocentric solar system vs. geocentric? Another example. Did someone/something change the simulation and start running the round Earth simulation vs. the previous edition, the flat earth version? I could go on and on here with examples like this in science.

If you look into some of the Gnostic writings I think they had a very interesting grasp of this. If I remember this correctly this original universe was infected by what were called the Archons. Kind of like a negative AI virus.

Which is why the powers that be are pushing for AI so hard and the 5G technology. I am not sure if you ever looked into any of that but rather interesting to say the least.

 

[rod]

If you look into some of the Gnostic writings I think they had a very interesting grasp of this. If I remember this correctly this original universe was infected by what were called the Archons. Kind of like a negative AI virus.

Which is why the powers that be are pushing for AI so hard and the 5G technology. I am not sure if you ever looked into any of that but rather interesting to say the least.

What is the extant text you reference for *Gnostic writings* and who translated this from the extant text? From what little I know about Gnostic writings, most are in koine Greek language, perhaps from the 2nd-3rd centuries A.D.