Scientists find evidence that we are living in a computer simulation

[YoungMasterGold]

not necessarily....according to the Copenhagen interpretation, which is not only the theory propagated by Neils Bohr and Heisenberg which were the fathers of quantum mechanics but it is also the most accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics by physicists today.......according to this view, before an observation is made, the question of where the particle is can't be asked.....why?......because the particle/wave does not exist......it is simply a MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY......

No. That isn't the Copahagen interpretation. It isn't that the particle doesn't exist prior to being measured, it's that a particle - very much in existence - may be in a varying number of positions prior to measurement. It's the state of the particle that is a mathematical probability, not it's existence.

thus this fits in perfectly with the simulation theory because the wave function is simply the code by which the physical world gets rendered by the computer......before an observation is made all that exists is the software code of where the particle could be.....it never exists until an observation is made thus saving power

for those without a physics background it is important to understand that when physicists say a particle behaves like a wave, they don't mean it actually becomes a wave like you see in the water......they only mean that its a mathematical distribution of where the particle could be......the highest point in the wave marks the most likely location of the particle while the bottom of the wave marks the least likely location of the particle

there are other theories like the many worlds interpretation which hold that the particle exists at all points on the wave function and its the universe that splits into different pieces when an observation is made......this interpretation would be consistent with your point about a computer operating this type of world requiring more power than one that operates a world according to the Copenhagen interpretation

To reiterate the earlier point, the particles already exist, they are just in a number of states, thereby ensuring the uncertainty principle isn't violated.

Do they behave like computer codes? In my opinion, probably not. Over the years, the Universe has been declared a well manufactured watch, the poetic verse/book of gods, and an anvanced mathematical equation. It is a testament to human advancement that it is now analogous to a computer.

 

[((ReFleXioN)) EteRNaL]

If this is a simulation, imagine what the graphics look like in the real world


the Ass & Titties

 

[Swagnificent]

No. That isn't the Copahagen interpretation. It isn't that the particle doesn't exist prior to being measured, it's that a particle - very much in existence - may be in a varying number of positions prior to measurement. It's the state of the particle that is a mathematical probability, not it's existence.

To reiterate the earlier point, the particles already exist, they are just in a number of states, thereby ensuring the uncertainty principle isn't violated.

Do they behave like computer codes? In my opinion, probably not. Over the years, the Universe has been declared a well manufactured watch, the poetic verse/book of gods, and an anvanced mathematical equation. It is a testament to human advancement that it is now analogous to a computer.

You might technically be right about how most people view the Copenhagen interpretation. I'm not a physicist just someone who likes to read about physics. If the particle's existence before measurement isn't in dispute, then how do you explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

That experiments seems to leave us with one of two choices. Either particles can break the laws of relativity and travel back in time so as to become particles only when measured and act as waves when not measured OR they don't travel back in time but rather don't exist until a measurement is made.

I personally find the second choice more likely because the first would require a more compelling explanation.

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

difference is there is evidence for the simulation theory while there is no evidence for your man in the sky god

in a couple of decades we will have the computing power available to create these simulated worlds which will look indistinguishable from our reality to observers within it.....all this theory says is that maybe we've already done it and we are currently in one

God requires belief in something outside the current laws of physics while the simulation theory is perfectly in sync with everything we currently understand about our world.

actually NO, there is no evidence

You will believe anything a scientist tells you that you can't prove yourself

this is based on FAITH in what they tell and try to show you(just like Faith that God exist)

I swear you dudes are some of the biggest hypocrites

when you can see those pixels with your bare eye come find me genius

 

[beezy]

this shyt too advanced for coli nyggas to understand

 

[#1 pick]

It's so complex!

I go down the rabbit hole all the time! Sacred geometry, genes, chakras, sound waves, etc....

I haven't finished this doc yet. I like to play them and fall asleep watching them :D BUT! Just the first 20 minutes or so had me so intrigued! They was showing how everything in the world moves in patterns at the waves of sound. Like if you watch a glass shattering in slow motion from high sound waves, it'll morph shape first and create a wave pattern. Then explode!

They showed the patterns that sand and particles create impacted by sound waves. Explained how it was Sacred Geometry and that's how they came up with all those ancient tapestry designs and paisley prints....... This stuff is sooo interesting!

Ancient Knowledge full movie - YouTube

 

[YoungMasterGold]

You might technically be right about how most people view the Copenhagen interpretation. I'm not a physicist just someone who likes to read about physics. If the particle's existence before measurement isn't in dispute, then how do you explain the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment?

Entanglement and a micro-world that don't follow the macro-world's supposed linear passage of time. My two cents, of course.

That experiments seems to leave us with one of two choices. Either particles can break the laws of relativity and travel back in time so as to become particles only when measured and act as waves when not measured OR they don't travel back in time but rather don't exist until a measurement is made.

I personally find the second choice more likely because the first would require a more compelling explanation.

We already know that particles can affect each other in such a way that at first glance suggest they are contravening the laws of relativity. Hell, Einstein, as we know, had a problem accepting how the behaviour of the quantum world made a mess of GR. Since we know that particles that were previously "entangled" can cause an effect on each other even at distances and rates that are beyond the scope of the speed of light, it isn't a stretch to tentatively surmise that the same may be happening here.

Anyhoo, the particles have to exist prior to the experiment. There'd be nothing with which to experiment otherwise.

 

[Swagnificent]

actually NO, there is no evidence

You will believe anything a scientist tells you that you can't prove yourself

this is based on FAITH in what they tell and try to show you(just like Faith that God exist)

I swear you dudes are some of the biggest hypocrites

when you can see those pixels with your bare eye come find me genius

Alot of ignorance in this post to dissect. First, I don't believe what science says on faith alone. I believe it because I find the evidence compelling. Its quite retarded to say that you only believe in something if you can see it with your bare eyes. Science tells us the world is made of atoms yet there is no way to see that with your bare eyes. I don't accept the atomic theory simply because scientists say so. I accept it because there is tangible evidence supporting it. Like you know that little thing known as the atomic bomb.

Faith is believing in something without any evidence. Science requires evidence that can be independently corroborated or falsified. You are right that the simulation theory isn't accepted as science fact because we don't have sufficiently compelling evidence for its truth. But there is MORE evidence for the simulation theory than one requiring a supernatural God. Remember the simulation theory does not assume anything outside what is currently known to physics.

FACT: We will have computing power in the next 50-100 years that will allow the creation of a virtual reality that is indistinguishable from this reality.

FACT: Nothing in the current laws of physics disproves that we could be living in a virtual reality.

All the theory extrapolates to is saying maybe its already been done and we don't know that we're in it.

Belief in a God on the other hand requires belief in the supernatural which is outside what is currently accepted by physics. Also we can create crude virtual realities right now like the Sims and it isn't a stretch to extrapolate about how much more realistic it can get in the next 100 years. There isn't a crude version of God that already exists which we can then extrapolate out to make into a credible theory.

 

[Swagnificent]

Entanglement and a micro-world that don't follow the macro-world's supposed linear passage of time. My two cents, of course.

We already know that particles can affect each other in such a way that at first glance suggest they are contravening the laws of relativity. Hell, Einstein, as we know, had a problem accepting how the behaviour of the quantum world made a mess of GR. Since we know that particles that were previously "entangled" can cause an effect on each other even at distances and rates that are beyond the scope of the speed of light, it isn't a stretch to tentatively surmise that the same may be happening here.

Anyhoo, the particles have to exist prior to the experiment. There'd be nothing with which to experiment otherwise.

My point wasn't that the particles don't exist prior to the experiment but that we can't say they exist when not being measured which is during that interim period between being released and hitting the detector.

I agree that quantum weirdness doesn't necessarily prove that we live in a virtual reality. It does however make it possible to create virtual worlds in future computers that would look indistinguishable from our world to the virtual inhabitants.

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

Alot of ignorance in this post to dissect. First, I don't believe what science says on faith alone. I believe it because I find the evidence compelling. Its quite retarded to say that you only believe in something if you can see it with your bare eyes. Science tells us the world is made of atoms yet there is no way to see that with your bare eyes. I don't accept the atomic theory simply because scientists say so. I accept it because there is tangible evidence supporting it. Like you know that little thing known as the atomic bomb.

Faith is believing in something without any evidence. Science requires evidence that can be independently corroborated or falsified. You are right that the simulation theory isn't accepted as science fact because we don't have sufficiently compelling evidence for its truth. But there is MORE evidence for the simulation theory than one requiring a supernatural God. Remember the simulation theory does not assume anything outside what is currently known to physics.

FACT: We will have computing power in the next 50-100 years that will allow the creation of a virtual reality that is indistinguishable from this reality.

FACT: Nothing in the current laws of physics disproves that we could be living in a virtual reality.

All the theory extrapolates to is saying maybe its already been done and we don't know that we're in it.

Belief in a God on the other hand requires belief in the supernatural which is outside what is currently accepted by physics. Also we can create crude virtual realities right now like the Sims and it isn't a stretch to extrapolate about how much more realistic it can get in the next 100 years. There isn't a crude version of God that already exists which we can then extrapolate out to make into a credible theory.

oh really?

thanks for proving my point genius

 

[Non Sequitur]

This thread and this article is a prime example of

 

[awkwardblackgirl]

omly belief in god could inspire music like this
D'ANGELO HIGHER - YouTube

My husband

 

[The_King_of_Everything]

that would be such a crazy ass movie

Truman show

And it's actually a mental disorder

 

[The_King_of_Everything]

How would you explain ESP with these theories?

 

[Kalik]

Not like this.... Not like this