Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation

This idea looks to me like an attempt to generate a new "proof" of the existence of God.

If our universe is a 'simulation', then presumably there's an ontologically more real realm that it's a simulation of. A higher plane of reality. Heaven.

And if our universe is merely a 'simulation', then presumably some cognitive and intentional agent exists that created the simulation, an agent who would effectively be omnipotent within the bounds of our universe, since he wrote its rules and can presumably violate them with miracles whenever he chooses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm inclined to agree with that.

If science is a naturalistic and empirical pursuit by its nature, and if the scientists within a hypothetical 'virtual' universe are limited to acquiring empirical information about the natural order that they perceive around them, then I'm not sure how they could ever determine that their universe was fake.

Every observation that they make and every experiment that they perform would only provide them with more knowledge about the contents of the 'simulation'. Their beliefs might seem to them to be entirely consistent with theory and well corroborated by experimental experience. Only observers outside that 'simulated' universe, observers living on a higher plane of being, would be aware of the enormity of their error.

These kind of 'Matrix'-style 'what if everything is a dream' or 'brains-in-a-vat' scenarios seem to really be thought experiments about universal skepticism. What are the implications if we choose to doubt, not just particular ideas that we have reason to think might be mistaken, but absolutely everything that has been or possibly could be experienced?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't you all think that the fact that all physical phenomena reduce down to math and algorthms and laws suggests we are living inside some sort of holographic simulation? I mean if physical reality really were REAL then it'd just reduce down to some irreducible physical stuff. But it doesn't. Far from it. The further we go down to the quantum level the more indistinguishable the real becomes from the conceptual and abstract. This is exactly what we'd expect if reality was a programmed simulation. Whoever created it, call them the Outsiders, they did so based on mathematics and statistics.

Also note this strange phenomenon called emergence--where phenomena arise suddenly out of elements they cannot be reduced to. The whole always being more than the sum of its parts. Synergy! Wouldn't this be an ingenious way for the cosmic computer to slip some novelty into it's simulation without giving away it's own existence? Scientists certainly can't explain emergence. It remains a mystery that defies all attempts to logically quantify reality down to discrete units. Qualities, properties, universals--stubbornly present and irreducible aspects of reality even for philosophers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quanta is the result of scientists finding descreete units. Holograms are projections of matter which have transformed from their original compositions dozens of times. The matrix is a best an example of how history and huminity replaces it's knowledge after a more simple form arrises from either experimentation or observation. Equations are examples of truth. We have equalities, inequalities, and even equations summed to zero which add measures as time passes. If scientists are trying to prove reality is a simulation it just begs the question of who's imagination is doing the simulating? This idea is so old and been stated so frequently through history, philosophy, and religion it's hardly worth a second glance.

 

It begs the question of why scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation ?

 

That's hardly a question now is it? Let me put it like this, if you were to be in a simulation and it was possible to tap into the simulation, then things can be altered and changed. For instance why do we currently grow old? If we were in a simulation then we don't technically have to, which means ageing could actually be rewritten.

 

24 triangles = 14 faces of the VE/Cubo-octahedron( 20 triangles )

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/telomeres/


There conclusion was 3 other factors along with telemores.

My recollections of telemores from some 15 years ago, where that were based on two sets of 3 codons at each end of the a string of nucleotide. So that was 6 on each of a total of 12 codons.

If "we are 2D creatures having an illusion of 3D"...Jacob Bekenstein, then the mathematics of black holes are invoked ergo black hole association is inferred/implied.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate31.html

The zero-volume tetrahedron defines the 4 hexagonal great/equaltorial circle-like polygonals which in turn define the cubo(6)-octa(8)hedron, with additional 12 triangles--- sets of 3( think telemores ) ---externally bouding the cubo-octahedron.

With a true spherical Vector Equlibrium/cubo-octaedron, the surface area of the 4 hexagonal planes are equal to the surface area of the VE sphere being defined by the 4 planes. There is not other polyhedron or set there of that comes more closely to being representative of whats inside a black hole being expresssed on its surface.

r6

 

I wondered about that too.

My opinion was that it looks like an effort to generate a new 'proof' of the existence of God.

We still don't know how many scientists are involved in such an effort, or whether they are representative of scientists as a whole. My guess is that most scientists would think that the whole idea sounds crankish.

 

Not entirely sure where you are going with your reasoning, however I will state that I considered using the volume of a Dodecahedron for the base volume used in simulation.

The reason for using such a volume was the consideration of the inversed partnership of pentagonal faces (Consider mapping a Cartesian grid to one face based upon it's orientation, you'll find vertices partnered with a negative version on the other face), the fact that you can stack many dodecahedron together without spacing (and the stacking only works one particular way, cubes could be stacked irregularly) and the fact that dodecahedron's can have many different types of cross-sectioning that can be used alone or together with other symmetrical cross-sections to generate symmetrical objects. (It would make more sense when looking at 3D modelling, like for instance creating a lamp from a polar axis and using one 2D cross-section or the process of "translating" an object)

 

First part was in reference to question of "why do we age".

I jumped from a total of 12 codons to 12 close-packed spheres by way of numerical association.

Codons = a threeness( triangulated association ), and 6( hex ergo hexagon of which the VE has four ) on each end of the chromatoid/nucleotide total to 12.

The 12 relates to the VE/cubo-octahedron ergo the basis of cosmic/generalized holographi scenario, that I believe is related to black hole phenomena and the basic blueprint for all complex biologicals( see more on that below )

I did not mention a "dodecahedron", but you appear to have gone off on a numerical association to 12 spheres association--- relates to partial-space set --- to that of all-space close-packing that relate to a the close-packing of Rhombic-Dodecahdra.

However, you then go off on 2ndary tangent by stating "pentagonal" so I think your perhaps confusing two differrent kinds of dodecahedra;

1) rhombic-dodecahedron( Archimedes polyhedron ) = 12 stable diamond/rhombic faces--all-space filling and more directly related to my stated VE/cubo-octahedron,

2) pentagonal dodecahedron( Platonic polyhedron ) = 12 non-stable pentagonal faces

Again, you appear to be convoluting/confusing two kinds of dodecahedra above. Rhombic( not stated by you) "dodecahedron" and "pentagonal".

Sure both are related to numerical 12 by association, but do not have the more cosmic/generalized significance that a Vector Equlirbrium/cubo(6)-octa(8)hedron does.

The Euclidan( less spherical ) version of the VE/cubo-octahedron can be contructed using a wooden dowel and elastic tubing and since it has both regular squares it is both transformable and has a stable configurations as well.

This latter toy-like model is called a by its inventor( Bucky Fuller ) a 'jitterbug' and will fold into many spatial configurations;

1) Euclidean version of double-sine wave as commonly used to expression of EMRadiation,

2) negative saddle-shape space also found on torus,

3) from the above double-sine wave, the jitterbug will easily transform into basic quadra-pedic-like pattern of whales( mammals ) and fish;

..whales have their side appendages( fins? ) parrallel to their tail flukes orientation,

..fish have there side fins( appendages ) perpendicular to the tail fins orientation

..double-sine wave orientation is a combination of both of these above,

the list goes on for more spatial configurations that jitterbug will transform into, but these above are were of most significance in associations with biological patterning aspects. imho.

As for 2D graphing of 3D volumes, the 5-fold icosahedron and another polyhedron--- I forget the name of ---more efficiently transform 3D to 2D mapping.

However, niether of these have the inherent set of bisecting planes whose area is equal to the surface area equal to the sphere they define as does the VE-cubo-octahedron I mentioned originally.

Area quantity simulation via inherent geometries that define the polyhedron is best if not only possible via the VE/cubo-octahedron.

Least distortion of shape is in going from 3D to 2D mappiong, is best via icosahedron and one or two others I forget the names of.

r6

 

I once saw a video where a famous author orated a diatribe on a topical subject, during a round table discussion populated by numerous celebrity types. After the diatribe, Lou Reed (of Velvet Underground/Sweet Jane/Walk on the Wild Side fame) commented to the author;" If you write like you talk, nobody reads you."
The last statement from the above post;

"Least distortion of shape is in going from 3D to 2D mappiong, is best via icosahedron and one or two others I forget the names of."

Try, as I have, I fail to find a definition for a word "mappiong" - also you seem to state that you "forget" numerous things.
At this point, at risk of insulting Lou Reed, I am going to have to say that if you talk like you write, no one listens.
I visit this forum only to learn and hopefully open myself to new ideas/thoughts/ways of thinking. When I read posts (arguments!!) by "self-acknowledged experts" who obviously fail to re-read/spell check their posts prior to clicking the "post" button, I am reminded of a few unique "geniuses" I have met in my life. A couple of them have told me, flat out, that they were the "most intelligent person they had ever met!". One fellow even stated to me that he was "so intelligent that he did not have to think before he spoke!".
The title of this thread is : "Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation". Dodeca - Shlomodeca - cubo-octa - icosa - whatever-ahedron ( intentional mis-spelling, on my part - thought it might make me seem more inteeligentlierey!?!) has not, will not, can not prove the "existence" of "THE COMPUTER GENIUS" who wrote the program that manifested this "simulation" , anymore than it can prove the "existence" of "THE OMNIPOTENT DEITY" who used words such as "let there be" to create this reality.
How about you use your skills to figure out why we saw pictures of the new Royal Prince a few days after his birth, but have yet to see pictures of the Kanye West/Kim Kardashian offspring 4 or 5 or ever how many weeks it has been since her birth.
I do not actually find that all that important - but you could possibly "sell" your research/equations to numerous magazines - and from what I have been told, great thinkers enjoy getting themselves published in great publications.
Later, dmoe

 

mapping i.e. drop the o. Previous poster referred to cartesian grid or something like that. I thought he meant kinda of like a 2D mapping.

I stated I forgot couple names, your exaggeration makes you appear to acting out troll-liek behaviours. When you find a human who does not forget most of their experiences in life, then maybe you have found the 'rainman'( See Dustin Hoffmans portrayle(SP) of the rainman, and yes I forget his real name.

Hope you can handle it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ok, then no need for you to reply either bye!

Maybe, maybe not. When you can begin to grasp even the simplest of concepts i expressed maybe then we can have a rationally logical conversation.

I think not of sincere heart, and really have no desire to understand any of my comments. Fine, so goodbye again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

R6

 

Mr. rr6, okay;
"mapping i.e. drop the o." - spell check or edit?
"exaggeration" - numerous = more than one
"Rainman" - fictional Hollywood movie
"Hope you can handle it..." - what "it" are you hoping I can handle?
"Ok, then no need for you to reply either bye!" - Do you comprehend a "rationally logical" difference between the words "talk" and "write" or between the words "listen" and "read" ?
You state;
"When you can begin to grasp even the simplest of concepts i expressed maybe then we can have a rationally logical conversation."

"I think not of sincere heart, and really have no desire to understand any of my comments. "

It would appear, from your statements, that you are trying to infer:

1. I do not have the ability "to grasp even the simplest of concepts".
2. I lack the ability to "have a rationally logical conversation.".
3. I am "not of sincere heart".
4. I "really have no desire to understand any of" your comments.
5. I "appear to acting out troll-liek behaviours".

Have I "grasped" any of that correctly? If not, please feel free to enlighten me - because I sincerely would like to have a "rationally logical conversation" with you.
And, by the way, I am not entirely sure that a truly "rationally logical conversation"can be had on "Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation", but if you are game, I am more than willing to give it a shot.
Later, dmoe

 

Move Along Dude--Information Content In This thread---Mind/intelligence At Work

Dumb Earth, You have given no evidence that you have understood anything I've stated, but yet you were quick to go to bottom my reply post to Stryder and point out misspelling and then went on to infer nobody is listening, so goodbye for 3rd time, cause if nobody is listening then no need for you to reply.

Troll-like behaviour on your part.

In reagard to most of stated that is true. Youve addresse little to none of it except for spelling error and other troll-lie comments

ditto all of my comments above. Your one of the nobodys listening yet you want to waste bandwidth on this nonsense above, instead of all of informative comments i've made ergo yes your exhibit troll-like behavior. so goodbye for a 4th time.

Ditto all of the above. Disscuss the info I or others are giving and not your or move on dude. We don't need more troll-like behaviour at sci-forum. imho

Yeah your focus not conducive to the others enlarging the intellectual capacities. I corrected the spelling for you. No you need to move your focus from troll-like behaviour and onto the information sharing aspects.

Yeah, you found a extra letter in last sentence of post. I fixed it for you and now your head is still lingering in troll-like land instead of focusing on the information content. Move along Mr. troll-like attitude or address the informational content of messages.

Youve addressed none of the information I've given and that is further I've given regards to the topic and most recently as a reply to question of why do we age.

This is 2nd post I've addressed your lack luster content and youve addressed none I've given. I belive your a troll so move along Mr. troll, or address the info I or others have given as stated, or actually add something of intellectual stimulating content to this thread. Please

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Goodbye for 5th time. Maybe you need to go back to even one of my posts here and begin by addressing those with information content.

Maybe maybe not. I don't like responding to trolls and this is 2nd time I've addressed your specifics. You've addressed a spelling error in all of my comments previous to responding to a mostly troll like attitude from you. Move along dude.

Your appear to have nothing of significance to offer in my regards--- if to this topic or others ---other than the extra o in the word mapping misspelled.

Your mostly a waste of bandwidth is my best guess, from you two posts directed at me. imho

r6

 

Mr. rr6, after you quoted Jacob Bekenstiens black hole mathematics in your post #9 of this thread, I had the impression that you took the whole topic seriously.
I then posted my serious feelings on the topic of this thread in post #13. In my eyes, trying to prove we are living in a computer simulation is nearly the same as trying to prove the existence of "GOD", and have stated as much.
I have read and re-read all of your postings in this thread - and honestly can admit that I have not fully completely understood them all. I get the impression, at times that ether:
1. English may not be your first language - or:
2. Your obviously higher education in the Geometries (Plane, Euclidean...etc) and your mastery of the English Language is far and away beyond my own.
Whichever it may be, what I have not done is resorted to Accusations or Name Calling. I leave traveling those roads to more accomplished people than myself.
By the way, telomeres have not been conclusively, definitively defined as the ONLY aging segment in dna/rna. Not to mention that age has nothing to to with proving whether we are living in a simulation!
You stated that you supposedly addressed my specifics - but you have never addressed my specific QUESTIONS (some directly to you) or STATEMENTS. But, then again, as you have repeatedly, and so eloquently phrased it - I am insignificant/I have nothing to add to the discussion/I am a dude?/I am a troll/I am mostly a waste of bandwidth/and evidently have no "Mind/intelligence At Work" !
I am sorry that you, Mr. rr6, obviously had to waste your time in a battle wits with an unarmed person, such as myself. Even though it appears it took umpteen times for you to say it, I guess, finally, "I CAN handle it".
I would like to ask if you can handle it, but I would have to read another of your posts to have you NOT answer that question - and that would , undoubtedly from you point of view - be just some insignificant dude trolling.

I will leave you with this; Real Eyes Realize Real Lies.
No Later, dmoe

 

agreed

and rr6 seems to be a phony

further the presentation is purposely esoteric

 

Mr. river, if by saying agreed,you are saying that you agree with my post, then I must say, thank you.
As to whether Mr. rr6 is a "phony", I do not know.
As I have stated before (many times in many posts!!), I do not consider myself Highly Educated or Highly Intelligent. Because of my limited intelligence and limited education, I must humbly admit that I do not understand what "...further the presentation is purposely esoteric..." is intending or the meaning of that statement(?). Sorry, but if you would not mind, could you possibly clarify that for me, please - if it is not too much to ask?
Again, thank you, sorry and please.
Later, dmoe

 

when you come across a word you don't understand just look it up in the dictionary , I have an electronic dictionary and book of course, but the book takes so much longer to find the word

look up the word " esoteric " , knowledge restricted to a small group , and/or speciality

 

Mr. river, I understood the word "esoteric" - I guess from being a lifelong audio reproduction enthusiast - and possibly from being a Metrologist, also.
When you stated "...further the presentation is purposely esoteric..." - I had not intentionally meant it to be so, and was not sure whether or not you were opining that what I had posted to Mr. rr6 (my "presentation"?), was indeed, esoteric because I (dmoe), purposely meant it to be as such.
Mr. river, I assure you that I was NOT trying to be "purposely esoteric" and I am truly sorry if my limited skills in vocabulary or writing, in some way led you to believe that I was. I am not even sure that what I just typed made much sense!
Mr. river, if you have read any of my other postings, you have probably read me state that I constantly spell check and re-read my posts multiple times before actually "clicking" on the "Post Quick Reply" button - even then, I find myself later having to edit those same posts because of spelling or grammatical errors.
At any rate , it is getting quite late in the day for me, so I am going to close for now.
Once again, Mr. river, thank you for your response and sorry if I misled you.
Later, dmoe

 

later