Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation

7 > Cosmos > Black hole > Complex human > ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=MSI...thly.com%2Fwhat-is-the-tcpip-stack%2F;691;438

OSI( Open Systems Interconnections )
..Operating System Interface aka OS-jitterbug i.e. Fullers toy-like model...

7) application----
....humans central nervous system/black hole internal cross sectional area( if not also structure )....
... Euclidean 4320 degree's........

6) presentation--
...our outward innate( primitive? ) self expressions visual, auditory and olfactory /event( surface ) horizon
....720 minimal degrees of 3D Euclidean surface angles...
....Euclidean OS-jitterbug has 3600 surface degree's...
....Riemann( positive curved sphere ) OS-jitterbug has 5040 degrees....

5) session----
...specific language( coding ) for specific set of environmental circumstances......

4) transport----
...substance/crystal/ ex water, air, electronics, electrical, sound, automobile(?)

3) network--
..molecules simple substances ex pure carbon Fullerenes.....

2) datalink--
...atoms/elements 92 + 92 = 184....

1) physical---
..sub-atomic fermions, bosons/----gravity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I took a pill and I know I'm in a system. Its corrupt most of the time. But I'm there and can't get out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Try another pill..."better living through pharmaceuticals"...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ya I know.
If this one has this side effect you take this one.
Then if your unlucky you got so many your in the poor house. Or addicted.

 

Maybe that is the "simulators" plan.!??!.
Must be somebody's agenda, at any rate!

 

IMO, rather than saying we live in a Simulation, which begs the question simulation of what? Was the BB a simulation or a physical event?
I prefer to use the term Implication. A universal potential field, where potentials combine and suggest (Imply) a probability of becoming reality. When sufficient potentials combine and reinforce each other, the Implication becomes Explicated in reality.

If there is a simulation it occurs in the Implicate, the dreamlike vision (vagueness) of that which is to become reality.

I believe this presentation explains the process but in order to visualize the Implicate become Explicate one must look at the presentation in reverse starting at the end. While the iterations do not approach Planck scale, we can see the Implicate vagueness of physical existence at that level become Explicate in a most exquisite way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o5FMTHkLQg

 

Explicated...sure...that makes it clear or explicit (something obscure or implied); explains it fully...yeah...thats the ticket...

 

The Implicate (of what is to become real) springs from pure universal potential and may become Explicate (manifest) in Reality.

The fundamental definition of potential is "a latent excellence which may become reality". The beginning of the tape starts with the Explicate (in reality) and works backward to the Implicate vagueness of potential at Planck scale.

Please do not get hung up in semantics. These terms were coined by David Bohm in his work "Wholeness and the Implicate order".

FYI, http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/David Bohm

 

Like I said...sure...springs from PURE universal potential and MAY become Explicate (manifest) in Reality...starts with the Explicate (in reality) and works backward to the Implicate vagueness...sure...thats PURE...makes it even clearer or more explicit...explains it even more fully...yeah...like I said...thats the ticket...wait...you are not trying to implicate that...err...trying to explicate that...wait...fully clear...now, that its uncomplicated...yeah...thats the semanticket...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I got lost! Explicit! Wait, that's bad right? Explicit!
Your scientific approach and Jargon has lost the wee kiddies at the marry go round! And its explicit!

 

Just adding I was lost because I was looking for the kiddies that got lost and left behind.

 

...look R1D2, Write4U implic it to me...for sure...fully clear...earned my semanticket...
...if R1D2 want semanticket two...may have too wait...until Write4U explic it 2 ewe...

 

Obviously you have not read the link I provided and do not understand the scientific foundation in physics on which these terms were founded.

But here is a synopsis, that may help you in understanding the thrust of the argument, in context of the thread title "living in a simulation", a premise which apparently is acceptable to you.

http://www.insightcenter.net/where-psychology-meets-physics/the-implicate-order/

And if you are truly serious about this subject, here is another link,

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:

 

I rest my case re semantics.

- Potentially this might be an interesting avenue to explore (Einstein did), but your answers Imply that you have not read or understood what I wrote. But it has become Explicitly clear that your objective is to ridicule, which is odd, because in doing so you are ridiculing David Bohm and from your posts I can Infer that your qualifications do not entitle you to ridicule the lifetime work of an eminent physicist and neuro-psychologist.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/David Bohm

Formulate a coherent question and I'll do my best to explain my interpretation about the subject matter.

I'll begin with Potential.
The term potential has many definitions with a common fundamental premise of "A latent excellence, which may become reality".
(considering the energy contained in the universe, its inherent potential must be staggering and afford a near infinite range of possible, if not probable futures).

Implicit in that statement is that all reality past, present, and future, was, is, and will be preceded by Potential (even as not all potential becomes reality).

Thus, regardless of ANY form, properties, or number of universes in reality, it was always preceded by Potential. This is my interpretation of the fundamental causality and function of conversion from pure energy, the infinitely subtle, to gross reality as we experience it.

To answer the OP question; a qualified yes, reality as we experience it is Implied (simulated) because the potential for an event exists before the event materializes to observation. Of course this happens at quantum level and is never at rest (Bohm's Holomovement).

But I suspect that the OP begs the question if there is a "motivated simulated world", which would require an operator (or programmer).
In that case; naaaah, who does the simulating?

 

Write4U, I read the links, I read most of David Bohm's writings before he passed on in '91 or '92, was it?
At any rate, have you read this whole Thread?
Have you read and understand, fully and completely understand, the theory put forth by David Bohm.
Do you fully and completely understand the "Big Bang" theory?

Obviously, what is not so obvious to Write4U, is that a.) - I DO understand the scientific foundation in physics on which these terms were founded, and b.) - although obviously the Theory of a very accomplished and intelligent man, I do not fully nor completely accept that theory.
Also, I do not fully nor completely accept the "Big Bang" theory, or any theory "that hope(s) to prove we are living inside a simulation"

Obviously, what is not so obvious to Write4U, who, OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT read this WHOLE Thread or would NOT have stated :
- quote - "But here is a synopsis, that may help you in understanding the thrust of the argument, in context of the thread title "living in a simulation", a premise WHICH APPARENTLY IS ACCEPTABLE to you." - unquote

Write4U, I am truly serious about the subject of this Thread being a mindless and inane exercise in pure conjecture - not unlike the "Big Bang" - in that it is just another misguided or disguised attempt to prove the existence of a "Simulator" or "Creator" or "God".

Are you, Write4U, acceptable to the premise that the whole of the universe is indeed a "simulation" that "we are living in"?
Would it not, at the very least, create a paradox in that : a.) Existing as a "virtual" being inside a "simulation" is not actually "living". - or - : b.) Absolute proof, or even "virtual proof" of that "simulation" could never be produced from "inside" the "simulation"?

Do you have any more "OBVIOUSLY" SPOT ON perceptions as to what I have or "have not read" and what I do or "do not understand" in "the scientific foundation" of "physics", or my seriousness about the inane and mindless premise of this Thread?

 

Thank you for responding . I apologize for any wrong assumptions on my part. They were an emotional response to your dismissive posts.

Actually, as you can see from the last sentence of my previous post, we are in agreement regarding a "simulated" universe.

I brought up David Bohm, because he envisioned a "holographic" aspect to the universe, but not in context of a simulation.

I agree with your remarks regards the OP question, if the intent was to establish a form of ID.

 

I was just reading the article. It's a cool idea and I don't blame anyone for entertaining the idea, but I don't think it's true. I think this is as real as it gets. If this were a simulation, I would expect whoever is running it to "play God". Wouldn't you if you could?

 

Write4U, you Posted :

- quote "I rest my case re semantics.

- Potentially this might be an interesting avenue to explore (Einstein did), but your answers Imply that you have not read or understood what I wrote. But it has become Explicitly clear that your objective is to ridicule, which is odd, because in doing so you are ridiculing David Bohm and from your posts I can Infer that your qualifications do not entitle you to ridicule the lifetime work of an eminent physicist and neuro-psychologist." - unquote

- quote "Thank you for responding . I apologize for any wrong assumptions on my part. They were an emotional response to your dismissive posts.

Actually, as you can see from the last sentence of my previous post, we are in agreement regarding a "simulated" universe.

I brought up David Bohm, because he envisioned a "holographic" aspect to the universe, but not in context of a simulation.

I agree with your remarks regards the OP question, if the intent was to establish a form of ID." - unquote


Write4U, had you, indeed, read the WHOLE THREAD, PRIOR to Posting?

If you, honestly, HAD NOT...then I, dmoe, say, meh!

Write4U, If you, honestly HAD...then ...emotions...assumptions...inferences...semantics...implications...qualifications...entitlements...ARE, to use your word, "OBVIOUSLY" YOUR problems and NOT MINE...and so I, dmoe, still say, meh!

After all, the title of this Thread is "Scientists hope to prove we are living inside a simulation"...!!!???!!!???!!!

...so...regardless...meh!

 

I have read only the last page of this thread, but have a strong POV that the "physical world" does exists, is NOT a simulation, in part because the simulation requires a simulator, much bigger / more powerful than just having physical laws govern the behavior of all matter in the universe. For example, just consider the dynamics of each grain of sand on the world's beaches - i. e. the simulation would need to model the motion of EACH grain of sand in precise agreement with physical laws as they are moved by waves breaking on the shore, and as it collides with others and is dragged by the moving water, the force of gravity and surface tension acting on it, etc. Simulating only a cubic centimeter of beach sand accurately IN REAL TIME is trillions of times more complex than all the world's computers could do in a month of calculations for each second of simulated time.

I do, however believe that human brains (and other higher animals) do run an adequate, but not precise, simulation of the physical world their bodies have sensors following. - For example the retinal cells sense or can following a portion of the EM spectrum we call visible, but not the portion we call micro waves etc. I. e. my model of perception is quite different from that accepted by main stream cognitive scientists. They think perception "emerges" after many stages of neural transforms of the input sensory signals. That is nothing more than hand waving non-sense with zero explanatory power as says nothing about the neural mechanisms creating the perceptions that emerge. Also it strongly conflicts with well established neurological facts.

For example, the information in the sensory input signals is deconstructed into different characteristics that are further process by other neurons in widely separated parts of the brain and never again reassembled in any part of the brain, yet we perceive a unified world. To give a specific example, consider this very simple visual stimulation field:

A yellow tennis ball rolling towards a red cube of about the same size on a large green table (so large no other light is coming to the retina). After the continuous visual field has been parsed into these three objects* mainly in the visual area called V1, the three colors are set to V4 and their movement (speed and direction) to V5. In V1 and V2 their shapes are determined. So the three characteristics (shape, color & motion) are separated decomposed characteristic that never come together again in the brain; yet we correctly perceive them - as they are in the physical world. Not the seven other ways these three could be perceived. I. e. not as a stationary red table, a rolling (or sliding) yellow cube and a stationary green tennis ball.

My parietal tissue, Real Time Simulation, explains this unified perception AND why the visual field objects were decomposed into their "characteristic" (more than eight are known, thing like surface texture, etc. and all processed separately in different neural tissue, never to come back to any common brain tissue.) It is supported by dozens of known facts that the accepted "perception emerges" can not explain, or even contradicts. One quick example: How does a visual experience / perception "emerge" in dreams with eyes closed in a dark room?

For more but still very partial evidence and some brief discussion read this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Nonexistence&p=2899438&viewfull=1#post2899438

There you will see a link to about eight pages (if printed) of discussion and much more supporting evidence from many different fields of knowledge, but the focus of that link is to show how the RTS makes it possible than Genuine Free Will , GFW, to NOT be in conflict with the physical laws that control the firing of every nerve in your body, especially those in the brain. (Not a proof that GFW exists, only that it could. I tend to think GFW is the most universal of all illusions.)

* In the published paper the longer link on GFW is derived from, I also explained how the parsing in V1 is done using known properties of how neurons in V1 interact with near by neurons .- I. e. that they reinforce (have mutual stimulation) for like oriented "line detectors" (which Hubel & Wiesel discovered and got a 1962 Nobel Prize for their work)** but a mutually inhibitory influence on the near by line detectors with the orthogonal orientation and several of the Gestalt laws by using know properties of neurons, not hand waving.

** BTW their cells are not "line detectors" but more like Fourier filters (more precisely Gabor function filters). The stimulus they showed to the monkey with in dwelling electrodes in V1 was a large field of parallel uniformly spaced high contrast lines (mainly so it did not matter where the monkey looked). If you do a Fourier analysis on that parallel line grating it is strongly spiked at one special frequency and one orientation. - That is why they found cells sensitive to the rotation of their line grating pattern. Just like the response of a complex electrical circuit is easier to understand after it is resolved into Fourier components, so too the Brain seems to work in a "Fourier like transformed space." One advantage of this is where in the visual field an object is, is not important for identifying it - the 2D Fourier transform is independent of location of the object.

 

One thing that could throw a wrentch in the possibility of this all being a simulation is the possibility that there are fundamentals to this universe which are not integers, all simulation must use integers for all value: there is only so many decimal points of accuracy.