Here's more evidence that our universe is a Quantum Computer

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage

everything is being computed down to you putting on your socks in the morning to driving home from work at night.

Ok.
Now what? Have you started working on modifying the code? How does one go about doing so?

Is this notion fundamentally different from the ancient idea of predestination?

Surely such deep code, governing such an intricate complexity, is self modifying and (compared to us, its constructs,) hyper-intelligent.

Perhaps we have just to 'appeal to it' and it will do as we ask?

It does seem to favor our conscious attention when we test physics at a low level.

Or maybe it doesn't care about anything at all and it simply...functions.

I never understood why people think the universe cares about humans or human existence. Humans and the Earth are infinitesimally small pieces of near nothingness when compared to the size of the universe. Compared to the time of our universe, human existence is a mere fleeting moment; we've existed for a tiny tiny tiny fraction of time.

If humans and Earth instantly ceased to exist, the universe would not even notice. In fact, the universe was doing its thing long before Earth existed.

Why do they exist at all?

First matter was created out of the energy of the universe, once the universe cooled a bit...but that's another story.

That matter fused into larger elements, those larger elements bonded to make chains of elements, which eventually became mixtures of simple organic molecules, multiplied through catalyzed reactions and an external source of energy, and eventually those molecules by chance began to bond in such a way that replicated other organic compounds, then self replicate...

and, voilà, life!

If that life had a nice home, it could have the time that it would by chance mutate in such a way that it would have an advantage over its immediate competitors and/or predators so it would reproduce more of its own kind that by chance mutated in such a way that it, too would have a biological advantage, and so on until one branch of that life found that intelligence gave it an advantage over its immediate competitors and/or predators until that advantage turned into humans.

I know it seems so reasonable to you, but we can't seem to do any of that, even intentionally.

That is the crux, that string of scenarios may be possible but each actual step is stupendously improbable.

a reply to: mazzroth

Your first experience of this holographic universe comes in your life when you have a Déjà vu thats the one glitch that either has not been fixed or it was a warning to us to let us know what's going on.So even if people don't believe this...believe your Déjà vus and if you can't believe yourself...ok!

I never really wanted say this but Déjà vu are like uploads of some type even your dreams are uploads and the one thing they both have in common is,the future.

Either I think we are in a bunch of simulations on how earth was destroyed or experimenting on the right way to go once they actually create us all. What Ever you might think I want you to think of this, how did your dreams come true, and why when you had a Déjà vu you felt you had been here before.

It's plain and simple, we were here before and know matter what we do or what road we take, it is always going to end up at the same spot. You cannot dream of the future nor have a Déjà vu moment with out the future already existing in the first place.

about free will and 'predestination' and so on.

I think we certainly do have free will.

The question becomes moot if this digital simulation we call reality already knows the ending(s) to the story(s) of our lives. If time doesn't matter, if the future can be known then did we really have free will? As far as WE are concerned, yes, but if we knew how every decision would play out then... did we?

This is also playing along with the idea that every decision we make creates an alternate timeline/universe. We have free will but there are better choices than others. Perhaps the quantum computer knows every possible scenario. If my understanding of how OUR primitive quantum computers work is correct, it does.

We have free will because we are not omniscient. No I'm not saying free will is an illusion, that's a cop out.

Time for some Moodys

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phage

everything is being computed down to you putting on your socks in the morning to driving home from work at night.

Ok.
Now what? Have you started working on modifying the code? How does one go about doing so?

Is this notion fundamentally different from the ancient idea of predestination?

Surely such deep code, governing such an intricate complexity, is self modifying and (compared to us, its constructs,) hyper-intelligent.

Perhaps we have just to 'appeal to it' and it will do as we ask?

It does seem to favor our conscious attention when we test physics at a low level.

Or maybe it doesn't care about anything at all and it simply...functions.

It is possible, but not likely.

Consider your own personal computation and simulation device, your brain. Does it simply function or does it care about its environment?

We are talking about something that simulates your (and billions of others) brain.

How might it just be a calculator without higher function? Is that likely? Where did its program come from? Who pushes its buttons?

more than your concern for a single cell expiring in your toe, or its concern for you.

what higher function does a calculator have?

Free will, does anybody really have free will?

I mean, our decisions effect the lives of those around us right?

This is a scary thought if the universe/multi-verse was governed by a quantum computer and we were heading on a pre-destined path, and what we believe is free will isn't, and that no matter what decision we make, another person makes the opposite decision and heads us onto the same path because we all balance each-other out, like light and darkness kinda thing, so technically there is no possibility of an alternate timeline because it's all been decided for us.

originally posted by: zGrimReapah
Free will, does anybody really have free will?

I mean, our decisions effect the lives of those around us right?

This is a scary thought if the universe/multi-verse was governed by a quantum computer and we were heading on a pre-destined path, and what we believe is free will isn't, and that no matter what decision we make, another person makes the opposite decision and heads us onto the same path because we all balance each-other out, like light and darkness kinda thing, so technically there is no possibility of an alternate timeline because it's all been decided for us.

predestination robs us of our right to choose. theres a certain security in knowing - or believing - theres nothing you can do to avoid your fate. it spares you the pain of choosing your final chapter and committing to the journey, but sometimes pain is good. that's where character comes from. you may not be great, but at least be bold enough to go out on your own terms.

a reply to: zGrimReapah

Do you even know why you make the choices that you do?

How much of that is based on your genetics – which for all intents and purposes – is a code.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So the DVD player and how you play a DVD would be governed or computed by the laws of physics but if you choose to watch Wedding Crashers or The Godfather it's a choice made by free will.

I see.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So I think it's similar to a video game. The game designer controls what can occur in the gaming environment but the individuals make choices as to who to fight, which way to go and which weapons to use.

But we are not the ones playing the game ("the individuals"). We are the characters in the game, unknowingly being directed to make the choice (like super mario).

originally posted by: neoholographic
So the laws the govern the environment control how potato chips are made but they don't control whether you buy Barb-Q or Sour Cream chips.

I understand this point of view, but isn't there something that controls my choice to buy BBQ or sour cream? (and I think I know what you're going to say here)

a reply to: TzarChasm

In a Newtonian Physics view of the universe (and assuming the big bang happened) we have no free will. Everything is predestined.

All of the particles that make up everything in the universe (including the ones in your brain) were set on their initial trajectories by the big bang. Every particle could be tracked from those initial trajectories, and you could theoretically calculate out the future trajectories using Newtonian physics, including the outcome of particle collisions and the changes in trajectory due to those collisions.

You would get to a point that you would know ahead of time what every particle in the universe is doing, and what every particle in a person's brain is doing. It is those particles that make up our neurons and brain chemicals and make us think and do everything that we think and do. In this Newtonian scenario, you may believe that you have free will, but all of those particles and atoms that make you think that have been heading towards making you think that from the big bang.


Of course, that's just a Newtonian Physics view. In Quantum Theory, there is a thing called the "Uncertainty Principle" that MAY add a little randomness to the universe. I say "may" because maybe there is no randomness, but we just haven't yet pinned down the underlying mechanism of QM that makes some things just appear random. In actuality, there might be a yet-to-be discovered predictable principle behind that apparent randomness.

Just where is that huge (universe sized) computer that is running everything, down the the billions of blades of grass and billions of snow flakes?

originally posted by: pikestaff
Just where is that huge (universe sized) computer that is running everything, down the the billions of blades of grass and billions of snow flakes?

It's on the back of a turtle.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

In Quantum Theory, there is a thing called the "Uncertainty Principle" that MAY add a little randomness to the universe. I say "may" because maybe there is no randomness, but we just haven't yet pinned down the underlying mechanism of QM that makes some things just appear random. In actuality, there might be a yet-to-be discovered predictable principle behind that apparent randomness.

I'm not sure why so many people still cling to this idea when it's been disproven robustly thanks to Bells Theorem. We can postulate what would happen if there were hidden variables and then do experiments which disprove those postulates and prove there is no classical mechanism which can explain how particles behave. In other words there is no possible hidden variable theory which can explain quantum behavior, excluding super-deterministic non-local mechanisms.

Here's an article Neo posted a couple of months ago:

Only last year the world of physics celebrated the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem, a mathematical proof that certain predictions of quantum mechanics are incompatible with local causality. Local causality is a very natural scientific assumption and it holds in all modern scientific theories, except quantum mechanics.

Local causality is underpinned by two assumptions. The first is Albert Einstein's principle of relativistic causality, that no causal influences travels faster than the speed of light. This is related to the "local" bit of local causality.

Now, the long wait for a loophole-free Bell test is over. In a paper published today in Nature, a consortium of European physicists has confirmed the predictions required for Bell's theorem, with an experimental set-up without the imperfections that have marred all previous experiments.

The universe really is weird, and a landmark quantum experiment proves it

The only "classical" mechanism which can work is one in which every particle in the universe can communicate instantaneously with every other particle, although I'm not sure it would be correct to call such a system classical. For example our universe doesn't necessarily need to be running on a quantum computer, it could be a classical computer which allows any particle stored in memory to communicate with any other particle. From our perspective inside the simulation those communications could seem instantaneous.

But I don't really buy into any super-deterministic ideas, I think the simpler answer that the universe is truly random in certain respects is the correct answer. The universe is simply non-causal and non-local in some respects. Of course that's very weird and it's why people like Einstein rejected such notions. Quantum mechanics is also in conflict with Einsteins theories of relatively precisely because of non-locality, the Universe Einstein described cannot allow anything to interact faster than light, even if those signals are totally random.

Seeing that a very strong confirmation of gravitational waves was recently announced, there is clearly something very important about the way the universe works which we haven't yet discovered. While it seems to follow the rules set out by Einstein very precisely, it also breaks some of his rules, the universe does things which shouldn't happen if Einstein was 100% correct. Personally I'm 50/50 on the idea of living inside a computer simulations. The laws of QM seem to give a strong indication we are in a simulation but there are good reasons to doubt it.

a reply to: neoholographic

As Professor Seth Lloyd said, the universe may compute when you pour a glass of orange juice but there's no evidence that says the universe computes when you decide to pour that glass of orange juice. So the act is being computed but there's no evidence that say the choice to pour a glass of orange jusice is being computed.

So we're living inside a simulation where everything is the result of an algorithm but human consciousness is excluded from that process? How convenient for you. If you want to push the idea that we're living inside a computer then you need to fully accept the consequences of such a notion. You cannot just pick and choose what is a computation and what isn't, living in a computer simulation suggests absolutely everything we experience is the result of an algorithm, including our decisions. If it's a quantum computer then it could be programmed in such a way that humans have truly unpredictable behavior, you can't just say it's all non-computable magic.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I think this could be explained as karma...in a way?

Algorithm would be designed to so that everything develops to its potential.

And there are no limits to "its" expression. No good or bad, right or wrong. Just natural flow of desires, thoughts and emotions behind the veil, controlling our thoughts to a point.

We can think what we want...for some time at least. This is a question of concentration.

So therefore with full one pointed concentration. we could eventually get to a state of no thoughts whatsoever ... that means no karma...that means .. ?

sound familiar?

this is a bit of what mystics, yogis and other spiritual masters are saying from the past in a nutshell.

Just some food for thought.

: )

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This is sort of the point I was trying to get at too.

If we're to accept the universe a computer, then everything, including consciousness and the decisions we make must all be computations ( I would think)

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Yes but there are probably unlimited loops of if then commands. That why the life and world is so complicated.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:

If it's a quantum computer then it could be programmed in such a way that humans have truly unpredictable behavior, you can't just say it's all non-computable magic.

First, the fact that you call it non computable magic shows the weakness of what you're saying. It has nothing to do with magic and many Scientist say Consciousness is non computable.

So there's no way you can say consciousness would be controlled by the simulation unless you have evidence that shows the nature of consciousness is both physical and computable. Here's more:

Non-Computability of Consciousness

arxiv.org...

In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

www.prnewswire.com...





The Brain Is Not Computable

Miguel Nicolelis, a top neuroscientist at Duke University, says computers will never replicate the human brain.

“The brain is not computable and no engineering can reproduce it,” says Nicolelis, author of several pioneering papers on brain-machine interfaces.

www.technologyreview.com...

So when you come into a thread talking about magic it makes no sense and it shows you have no argument.

So at the end of the day, until this debate is solved on whether Consciousness is non computable, there's no logical reason to say the simulation could or would need to mimic consciousness. So if consciousness is non computable, a quantum computer would contain elements of this non computable consciousness.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: saadad

Every program has bugs.

Or agent Smiths.

Cool thread, good discussion from all angles.

Good links, sources and information from those providing.

Thanks

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm not sure why so many people still cling to this idea when it's been disproven robustly thanks to Bells Theorem...

Oh, I agree that the implications of Bell's inequality is that there is no "hidden" underlying classical (Newtonian, for example) definition of how QM works. Maybe I should have prefaced my post with a disclaimer of it being wild speculation

....The only "classical" mechanism which can work is one in which every particle in the universe can communicate instantaneously with every other particle, although I'm not sure it would be correct to call such a system classical.

I'm glad you said that, so I can wildly speculate even further. The instantaneous communication that you mention could be due to a holographic universe, where all of the information for the entire universe is all stacked together "somewhere", and that what we perceive is a projection of that information.

To be clear, I'm not talking about some "man behind the curtain" operating this hologram. Instead, it could be that this is the nature of the universe itself.