Welcome to our Virtual Reality Universe

I contend that our universe is a simulated universe. It's a virtual reality and this is what science shows.

What you will hear from most scientist is quantum mechanics is incomplete or quantum mechanics can't be a description of reality. Richard Feynman said,"... I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics"

The reason why scientist say these things is because quantum mechanics tells us an objective physical reality doesn't exist. The reason why they're having trouble unifying quantum mechanics and classical physics is because they start with the assumption that an objective, material reality exists therefore there has to be some yet undiscovered physics that will show this.

So if you say quantum mechanics gives us a complete description of reality, you will probably be looked at with scorn. When you look at the universe as an informational construct, it makes perfect sense.

What I call the Quantumverse holds the code and the classical universes are the execution of the code. Subatomic particles are pixels that illuminate different coordinates of the spacetime grid. This quantum information gives us choice.

Quantum information can calculate a window or a closet in the spacetime grid. We can either open the window or hang up a shirt in the closet but we can't do both at the same time. This is because on the classical level we can only process one bit of information at a time.

The laws of phyisics govern how information is processed. What's the speed limit on the transfer of information? How much information can be stored in an area of space? The mistake many scientist make is they say the laws of physics govern matter and therefore quantum mechanics has to be incomplete because it says matter doesn't exist and that can't be true.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Ermm... Quantum physics does not say matter doesn't exist. It actually deals with how subatomic matter behaves and shows how it behaves differently than macroscopic objects.

reply to post by sirnex


Yes it does. This is one of the reasons Einstein had a problem with it and introduced the EPR Paradox. Quantum Mechanics clearly tells us matter doesn't exist. Subatomic particles can be in two places at once, they can communicate over vast distances(Einstein called it spooky action at a distance), particles are also waves, space, time and the laws of physics break down at Planck's Constant.

This is why many people will say Quantum mechanics is incomplete. It's because to them there has to be some yet undiscovered physics that will bring everything back to a materialist reality. This is just wishful thinking.

Quantum mechanics tells us the classical universe is processing information from the Quantumverse. The laws of physics govern information processing not anything called matter.

Subatomic particles don't just behave differently, there isn't any resemblence to what we call matter on a classical level. Some subatomic paricles are massless others are point particles meaning they don't take up any space.

So you try to say a subatomic particle is matter, yet you can't show that a subatomic particle takes up any space. I'm looking at my basketball now and it's taking up space, yet the particles that make up the basketball doesn't take up any space.

These things don't need some yet to be discovered physics to explain what's going on. Scientist want this because many of them are materialist. Materialism is just another ism like Judaism or Catholicism.

Just think about this. A quantum computer laptop will have more processing power than the entire classical universe. At the end of the day if we just accept what quantum mechanics tells us about the universe we will learn and advance even more.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

This is one of the reasons Einstein had a problem with it and introduced the EPR Paradox. Quantum Mechanics clearly tells us matter doesn't exist. Subatomic particles can be in two places at once, they can communicate over vast distances(Einstein called it spooky action at a distance),

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.

en.wikipedia.org...

I suppose they didn't really have that big of a problem with it after all. Yet it's just one of many interpretations. None have been proven as of yet to be true though.

particles are also waves, space, time and the laws of physics break down at Planck's Constant.

You're still hung up on that one huh? I'll quote it again.

No experiment current or planned will allow the precise probing or complete understanding of the Planck scale.

en.wikipedia.org...-Planck_physics

This is why many people will say Quantum mechanics is incomplete. It's because to them there has to be some yet undiscovered physics that will bring everything back to a materialist reality. This is just wishful thinking.

So you're the end all of all knowledge of physics? Are you telling me there is nothing more to learn at all?

Quantum mechanics tells us the classical universe is processing information from the Quantumverse. The laws of physics govern information processing not anything called matter.

I can find no scientific evidences supporting this concept nor any mention of something called a "Quantumverse".

Subatomic particles don't just behave differently, there isn't any resemblence to what we call matter on a classical level. Some subatomic paricles are massless others are point particles meaning they don't take up any space.

A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object.

en.wikipedia.org...

Take the time to read the rest if your interested.

So you try to say a subatomic particle is matter, yet you can't show that a subatomic particle takes up any space. I'm looking at my basketball now and it's taking up space, yet the particles that make up the basketball doesn't take up any space.

Please read above link.

These things don't need some yet to be discovered physics to explain what's going on. Scientist want this because many of them are materialist. Materialism is just another ism like Judaism or Catholicism.

Yet you believe ideal-ism to be unequivocally valid without argument.

Just think about this. A quantum computer laptop will have more processing power than the entire classical universe.

No it won't.

At the end of the day if we just accept what quantum mechanics tells us about the universe we will learn and advance even more.

Scientists do accept what quantum physics shows us about subatomic behaviors, one reason we're working on quantum teleportation or quantum computers for example.

reply to post by sirnex


Another one of your long winded post that don't say anything.

First you don't understand what a point particle is so you go an google it then look at Wikipedia and quote something out of context.

A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealized object heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space.[2] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object.

It goes on to say:

In quantum mechanics, there is a distinction between an elementary particle (also called "point particle") and a composite particle. An elementary particle, such as an electron, quark, or photon, is a particle with no internal structure, whereas a composite particle, such as a proton or neutron, has an internal structure (see figure). However, neither elementary nor composite particles are spatially localized, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Once again your link supports what I'm saying.

Your whole post can be summed up with this quote:

So you're the end all of all knowledge of physics? Are you telling me there is nothing more to learn at all?

I'm not saying it's the end of all knowledge in physics, on the contrary it should be the beginning of seeing the world through the eyes of idealism instead of materialism.

You just like any other materialist hope and wish for a material universe when all the evidence says there isn't one.

If your're going to create these long posts try refuting something I said if that's your position. Please stop running to Wikipedia and start quoting things out of context that you don't understand.

For instance, what you quoted about the EPR Paradox supports exactly what I'm saying. You said:

While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists. We believe, however, that such a theory is possible.

This is exactly my pointt. Einstein and others were disturbed by what Quantum Mechanics is saying. Many people still are today and my point is there isn't a need to be disturbed if you look at it through the eyes of idealism vs the fantasy of materialism.

I wish you would have took the time to understand the Genesis of the EPR Paradox before you started quoting things out of context. This is from your Wikipedia link:

Einstein struggled to the end of his life for a theory that could better comply with causality, protesting against the view that there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement interpreted in terms of quantum mechanical formalism. However, since Einstein's death, experiments analogous to that of the EPR paradox have been carried out, starting in 1976 by French scientists at the Saclay Nuclear Research Centre. These experiments appear to show that the local realism theory is false.

This is exactly what I said.

Lol. OP was a good read, but the rest of what you two posted kinda wasted space for what could've been good info, anyways.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Hi Matrix Rising. I'm not in-depth as yourself, but I have to agree with your opening statement: "I contend that our universe is a simulated universe. It's a virtual reality.."

Not to over-simplify but I feel that statement sums up the Internet, or a part of it.