Hard Evidence for Simulation Hypothesis Uncovered! COMPUTER CODE Discovered Hidden in Superstring Eq

reply to post by maryhinge


When it finishes rebooting all the natural resources will have respawned ready to be plundered once more maybe ?

reply to post by Restricted


My point was to at least check stuff out before saying 'Nuuuuuu'. It makes for more informed debates. A general idea, relevant but not specific to this thread.

reply to post by Ajax84


I have to say its like infinite regression. Even if we are in a "simulated" universe, what is the nature of the "real" universe? Is it just a simulation in yet another universe?? Does it go on ad infinitum? And if we are in the simulation, what are we REALLY? I think the old adage of "looking therein lies madness" can apply to this. Because in a way madness is the loss of all reference points to "reality".

openminded2011
reply to post by Ajax84

 

I have to say its like infinite regression. Even if we are in a "simulated" universe, what is the nature of the "real" universe? Is it just a simulation in yet another universe?? Does it go on ad infinitum? And if we are in the simulation, what are we REALLY? I think the old adage of "looking therein lies madness" can apply to this. Because in a way madness is the loss of all reference points to "reality".

I think a lot of this simulation talk is madness. It fits the modern idea that reality is an illusion; much madness follows from that. People believe than humans create their own reality - this simulation talk involves often the idea that our minds can perturb and control this simulation or illusionary reality. 'mind is everything' etc. all that junk.

There is also the fact that, due to nature of our brains, and the way our minds learn about reality and use this to create consciousness - people conflate this type of simulation with the creation and simulation of physical laws. But really, the mind has no control over physical laws. Our minds are participants in and students of reality, they do not create it.

I think we are living in a real physical universe, with physical laws which are unchanging over billions of years. Exactly as modern science teaches us. But there is no reason that this particular universe could not have been instigated by intelligent beings just like us, who simply learnt the laws of their own universe - then went out into the middle of nowhere and created a new one. And since it's our job to understand *our* reality, not any possible reality, wouldn't it be best to focus on that?

Now say an intelligent species did create this universe, billions of years ago, in some very scifi way. Where might they store some easter eggs to show 'we were here'? How about in the structure of numbers? Why aren't we looking there for signs of intelligent origins?

I feel obliged to show these images once again:
(I realise only a small percentage will see what I'm seeing in these mathematical renderings) -

But there is no reason that this particular universe could not have been instigated by intelligent beings just like us, who simply learnt the laws of their own universe - then went out into the middle of nowhere and created a new one.

I don't see much difference between that and what is being referred to a simulation, especially if they can vary what laws exist in that universe.

reply to post by roadgravel


It buys you 14 billion years of stability - something simulation theory never offers.

Maybe they did change the laws. Maybe they learnt from their own structure, and tried to inject a little bit of their own structure to improve things? -- they obey their previous laws because they work, and they are beyond ancient and go off into infinite history, and they provided us with a copy of those stable laws -- but maybe they added their own little tweaks to hopefully reduce suffering for whatever evolves in this universe?

The simulation can only exist in the specification of the laws at the start of the universe, but what we live in and evolved in, is a physical and long lasting reality. There is no switch, or changing the rules after the simulation is started. And the universe grows in real space, as did the one they copied the laws from?

Like I said, it is not our job to explain where the original set of laws comes from. What good does that do us? where would we even start? That is a true metaphysical task.

It's our job to understand the physical laws that create our reality. So many of these simulation theories are just attempts to dodge the task of genuinely modelling and understanding the laws of physical reality. They also frequency dodge the task of understanding how our brains create consciousness.

It's our job to understand the physical laws that create our reality. So many of these simulation theories are just attempts to dodge the task of genuinely modelling and understanding the laws of physical reality

Either way, it is beneficial to understand the laws no matter how they can about. Mankind is working toward it but whether it is possible is something else.

Are you a proponent of the multi universe theory?

roadgravel

It's our job to understand the physical laws that create our reality. So many of these simulation theories are just attempts to dodge the task of genuinely modelling and understanding the laws of physical reality

Either way, it is beneficial to understand the laws no matter how they can about. Mankind is working toward it but whether it is possible is something else.

Are you a proponent of the multi universe theory?

I haven't been convinced by any multi universe theory I've seen. Generally they seem to be attempts to avoid properly modelling physical reality - replacing it with fancy, free floating mathematics designed to bypass normal scientific procedure.

Multi universe theories exist to say 'anything can happen, at any time'. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we are genuinely living in a full and complete universe which exists on its own, without any interface with other dimensions (whatever that would really mean).

I am proposing a very long chain of universes deliberately created by intelligent beings, but I'm not proposing infinite possibilities existing around our universe.

I would agree that it is possible. But, how did the first one originate, the one with the life creating the others?

If one can be spontaneous, why not all of them? That would be back to no need for life to create them.

roadgravel
I would agree that it is possible. But, how did the first one originate, the one with the life creating the others?

If one can be spontaneous, why not all of them? That would be back to no need for life to create them.

I think you could apply the theory of evolution to universal origins too. From simpler universes to more complex ones. We just happen to exist at a phase where some universes deliberately spawn others. It's right to ask questions about ultimate origins -- but speculations about origins are not the task of physics or mathematics for us humans. And Western science is a long long way from being able to efficiently explain the structure of the basic phenomena we have observed in this current reality.

Plenty of these multi universe/simulation people are using their theories as an excuse to avoid real mechanical models of the phenomena we observe in this universe.

This is the case of the two halloween costumes. I got my costume idea from, and based the design on, that of a friend of mine. Let's call him Fred. But when people see us together, they often assume he got the design from me. Couldn't that be what's happened here?

We based our equations on the universe because the universe is clearly the most successful example of mathematics we have yet discovered, just like my buddy Fred's costume is the most appealing costume I have discovered this year. So the universe isn't based on our algorithmic parameters, our algorithmic parameters are based on the universe.

By the way, Fred isn't real. He's an example. But my case stands.

AfterInfinity
So the universe isn't based on our algorithmic parameters, our algorithmic parameters are based on the universe.

I agree! I'd like to know how patterns in numbers get there. Like, when you do say, a rendering of a sierpinski triangle - you are not creating that pattern, that pattern naturally unfolds for anyone who performs that algorithm, anywhere, at any time.

How does that work? These patterns are rediscoverable. If we forget how to make them, then another being on another planet can still discover exactly the same patterns. The same cannot be said for anything humans create (like religion, fiction, art etc)

I might be that since we are part of the universe (this one), we may not be able to completely understand it.

See Godel's Incompleteness theorem

roadgravel
I might be that since we are part of the universe (this one), we may not be able to completely understand it.

See Godel's Incompleteness theorem

Godel was a lightweight. Real playas demand mechanics.

reply to post by yampa

i don't think very many would say that.

reply to post by yampa


Which is exactly why many of our "discoveries" are in fact "rediscoveries". We consistently underestimate the ancient civilizations whom we assume were just a few short steps above being Neanderthals in comparison to ourselves, only to turn around and realize that they knew a lot of what we do now, but the information was lost. Perhaps they even knew how this universe began, but that was lost too. You never know.

But you know what I do know? Time will tell. It always does.