Quantum Physics itself may be proof of a simulated universe

reply to post by tetra50

I still stand by what I said about your continual use of the word, render......

I used the word "render" because the OP used it in the sense of computer animation. I do not think reality is a rendering.

and am not in existence for the RENDERING of ANYTHING or ANYONE.

Congratulations. You too are part of reality.

If we are in a Computer Program, then who wrote the programme, and who created them? Are they in a Program too, and if so who created their Program?

And if it's true, would it really change anything? It seems pretty damn real and amazing to me and I feel alive, regardless of what reality is.

reply to post by Phage


I agree, the "objects" are there, in some superposition of states with some probability attribute associated with each state. The act of observing, measuring, rendering - whatever you want to call it - collapses the wave function to a single state.

At least I remember something like that.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal

 

Physical reality does seem to be rendered from subatomic particles based on what we know about them.

Yes. And those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.

That is just complete scientific bias. There is no way if knowing if you don't measure, in any way, in any time frame.

Not only that, results that should've been formed in the past adapt to what the experimenter finds out about the experiment at a later time. It can only mean that the correct reality is rendered based on the parameters we are aware of, next to a fixed set of rules, namely the Laws of Physics.

reply to post by Tribunal

That is just complete scientific bias. There is no way if knowing if you don't measure, in any way, in any time frame.

Fair enough.

How about this then (though I don't like repeating myself), since the OP is basing his hypothesis on quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.

Originally posted by grantbeed
If we are in a Computer Program, then who wrote the programme, and who created them? Are they in a Program too, and if so who created their Program?

And if it's true, would it really change anything? It seems pretty damn real and amazing to me and I feel alive, regardless of what reality is.

This is the age old question that can never be solved on this plane of existance.

Maybe a single consciousness made this construct in order to entertain its schizophrenic self, maybe it is all a karmic cycle machine by a higher power, who knows.

Quantum Physics aside, everyone in tune with the spiritual knows the physical world is just a realm.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal

 

That is just complete scientific bias. There is no way if knowing if you don't measure, in any way, in any time frame.

Fair enough.

How about this then (though I don't like repeating myself), since the OP is basing his hypothesis on quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.

But isn't this, really, the whole point, that scientific bias?

And again, I raise empiricism, because it is what that scientific basis entirely exists upon.....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal

 

That is just complete scientific bias. There is no way if knowing if you don't measure, in any way, in any time frame.

Fair enough.

How about this then (though I don't like repeating myself), since the OP is basing his hypothesis on quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.

That is your interpretation, but they are always "observed", be it indirectly. There is either a wave pattern or a particle pattern on the detector screen when they check it, even though they didn't directly check the path, so there is always an observation.(correction, when they don't check the path there always is an interference pattern off course, but this still means the particle(s) have been observed. They made the interference pattern.)

Without observation there is no data and you don''t know if these particles are there.

As i have explained before, experiments even show that only one reality is rendered at the spot, breaking time barriers, only to adapt to the available knowledge of an event that is being observed after it took place.

Originally posted by Tribunal

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tribunal

 

That is just complete scientific bias. There is no way if knowing if you don't measure, in any way, in any time frame.

Fair enough.

How about this then (though I don't like repeating myself), since the OP is basing his hypothesis on quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics those subatomic particles exist whether or not they are observed.

That is your interpretation, but they are always "observed", be it indirectly. There is either a wave pattern or a particle pattern on the detector screen when they check it, even though they didn't directly check the path, so there is always an observation.(correction, when they don't check the path there always is an interference pattern off course, but this still means the particle(s) have been observed. They made the interference pattern.)

Without observation there is no data and you don''t know if these particles are there.

As i have explained before, experiments even show that only one reality is rendered at the spot, breaking time barriers, only to adapt to the available knowledge of an event that is being observed after it took place.

edit on 31-5-2013 by Tribunal because: (no reason given)

Oh, i hate repeating myself, as well.

but, yawn,

umm, gentlemen, observational=empirical......
and everything being used to argue with at this point is solely empirically based......
And seeing it is no longer believing it....sorry for the cliche....just trying to get someone to address the basic assumption there, even scientifically, for it means EVERYTHING, in terms of what you are discussing, assuming and basing your theorums, math and theoretical arguments upon.....

algebraically expressed, x, y and z have become the very same thing......because we are trying to express life forms in a theoretical, observational and metaphorically based systematic operating quotient that FAILS IN TRANSLATION......
You can make numbers add up any way you wish.....but there are some things not represented by a number, stuck in an equation, and manipulated, empirically, or otherwise, however you wish.......

And that, truly, is the miracle of life, and God help us all if we lose that unknowable, unseeable, unobservable, and therefore, undetermined, unestimated and uncontrollable thing, for if we lose that, I pose to you, we are all, lost forever.
Don;t worry. I will cease in trying to engage at this point.
Tetra50

Even in the OP's assessment of computer code, simulation, and game theory, THIS simple ONE fact is all important in interpretation......
And confratulations to you, too, Phage, for you may not be real, after all......

come on, I've been laughed at for years....where is everyone else's senses of humor......

In fact, though the OP may not even realize this, that single one fact about abservational and empirical reliance even challenges the "perception" of code, as well..... It is simply what you think you are looking at......

reply to post by genma


It's pretty weird, your OP is basically the exact thing I said to a buddy of mine when we were having a discussion about this. He was claiming that every possible scenario exists in a paralel universe but I was arguing that QP suggests that physical reality is what we are observing, rendered based on some sort of computer like coding that always makes sure that reality is "correct" in relation to how we experience it, while being subjected to a fixed set of rules.

reply to post by genma

At humanities current state of development only a small faction of that would be needed. Wouldn't it make sense to implement the concept of quantum physics in their computational algorithms?

I would say from that perspective, that Quantum Physics, would in fact be a description of the workings of those algorithms.

I think what Phage is saying is that the OP is wrong because the OP is basing his/her argument on the idea that subatomic particles do not exist until observed. This is wrong because subatomic particles do exist irrespective of observation. But their existence is tricky because we can't know both momentum and position. I don't know how much the subatomic world matters to the macro world, but the quantum world hints that there'll always be things we cannot predict about our future.

I think I've seen shows where the expert on QP will say something like "The odds of walking untouched through a cement wall are unthinkable, but maybe not impossible."

I don't know if tha'ts true, but is that an admissions that there's a connection between the subatomic and the macro? Doesn't this mean that quantum funkiness can infect the macro.

I found this link that explores the idea more about walking through walls:
www.physicsforums.com - Probablity of Walking through a Wall...

And this:
news.sciencemag.org - Walk-Through-Wall Effect Might Be Possible With Humanmade Object, Physicists Predict...

...........
So why can't you use quantum tunneling to walk through a wall? Quantum mechanical calculations show that for something as big as a person, the probability is so small that you could wait until the end of the universe and most likely still not find yourself on the other side.

So it's 'possible', but it's just shy of impossible.

reply to post by jonnywhite

I think what Phage is saying is that the OP is wrong because the OP is basing his/her argument on the idea that subatomic particles do not exist until observed. This is wrong because subatomic particles do exist irrespective of observation. But their existence is tricky because we can't know both momentum and position. I don't know how much the subatomic world matters to the macro world, but the quantum world hints that there'll always be things we cannot predict about our future.

It is hard to accept but there is simply not possible to prove that anything exists outside of our perception, on the other hand we know for sure that everything we know, exists within our perception.

This may seem like an oversimplification of reality but it is a simple truth to think about.

Sub atomic particles or any particles only exist inside of our observation, we can't say they exist outside of our observation.

I don't know if tha'ts true, but is that an admissions that there's a connection between the subatomic and the macro? Doesn't this mean that quantum funkiness can infect the macro.

Hell jeah, atoms are made up of subatomic particles so it makes perfect sense.

So it's 'possible', but it's just shy of impossible.

"There is no spoon/wall"

reply to post by Tribunal

It is hard to accept but there is simply not possible to prove that anything exists outside of our perception, on the other hand we know for sure that everything we know, exists within our perception.

Solipsism? Or a close cousin.
A pointless philosophy which has nothing to do with the OP. The OP does not deny existence.

reply to post by Phage

Solipsism. A pointless philosophy which has nothing to do with the OP. The OP does not deny existence.

As expected you have no response to other points I made about certain quantum experiments.

You were arguing against the claims that QP shows that particles are rendered because of observation as opposed to them existing in a perpetual physical state. You were saying that these particles exist when we don't observe them. This view is a fallacy, simple as that.

You can call it whatever you want but accepting a simply reality is more productive than being in a state of denial about an inescapable conclusion.

As pointed out, the only conclusion of the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment can be that the observed end result materialises only after we look at the path info, even though the detection happened at a time when the path was still unknown. Yet it always corresponds to the later findings.

This is statistically impossible by random chance. There is a direct correlation between later findings, and an event that ook place in the past.

Please respond to the claims.

Btw, I don't deny existance, I deny your definiton of existance.

I find this to be an interesting read:
en.wikipedia.org - Principle of locality...

Quantum entanglement violates one or the other:
1) Principle of locality
2) Physical reality (the measurement that shows quantum entanglement to exist)

So either there's some form of interaction between particles that's instantaneous across any distance or the observation of entanglement is false (the physical reality is invalid).

This is what einstein said about violating the principle of locality:
(en.wikipedia.org...)

...........
Einstein assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it. He said:
"(...) The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space, A and B: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible.
..........

Originally posted by Tribunal

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by genma

 

Quantum mechanics says that the particle is there. It is "rendered" all the time. It is the quantum state of that particle which cannot be determined until it is "executed", not its existence.

Your hypothesis has no basis from a quantum mechanical standpoint.

On the other hand, QP has also shown us that the state of a particle can be changed by the act of observing the event, the results of these experiments depend on wether the information of the detections is available or not, the results even adapt to the experimenters future findings backwards through time.

Particles seem to adapt their state when we are observing them, so this says something about our reality.

And don't say it is because of the classical "observer effect" because it has been proven it is not the detector that is causing the state change of a particle.

Argh! No.

The act of looking interferes with the experiment. You have to interfere with the thing you are testing, to test it.

You don't have things going "Oh hey, he's looking, lets all be a wave. Ok guys, safe now, he's not looking, back to particles."

It says nothing about the reality we're in, it was everything about our inability to observe it without interfering with it.

Imagine a big dark room. And the only way you can tell if the cup of tea in it, is hot or cold, is to go in and have a sip.

You've changed the tea by drinking it. You didn't make it change by thinking about it.

reply to post by jonnywhite


Imo, the observation of entanglement is false.

It only seems like information is traveling FTL between particles, like they are in direct communication with each other, even though there is no physical way they could be communicating.

It only works when point B knows that point A manipulated their particle.

When point B checks their particle they already had the info from A so in reality there can be only be one outcome which seems to have been transmitted FTL, but actually materialised after the info from point A was known.

This is opinion,but the way I see it. Again, it is the only explanation that actually factors in the only known variable there is, our observational power.

reply to post by winofiend

Argh! No. The act of looking interferes with the experiment. You have to interfere with the thing you are testing, to test it.

Argh no indeed.

Like I said, experiments like the Quantum Eraser and Delayec QE prove that is not the measurement itself that collapses the wave function, but the availbility of the information.

If the info of detection is erased, the interference pattern is restored by erasing the info in a way that does not affect the experiment. Even though a physical detection took place, the interference pattern is still there, the only that is a factor is the availability of the info.

Please read up before you make your ignorant, outdated statements.

It says nothing about the reality we're in, it was everything about our inability to observe it without interfering with it.

Like I said those experiments prove just that, you can observe a particle with a detector without disturbing it and collaping the interference pattern, if you erase the info that was gained by the detection.

reply to post by Tribunal

As pointed out, the only conclusion of the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiment can be that the observed end result materialises only after we look at the path info, even though the detection happened at a time when the path was still unknown. Yet it always corresponds to the later findings.

Really? The only conclusion? There seem to be several interpretations of the experimental results.

The first thing to notice is that two complementary interferences patterns, called "fringes" and "antifringes," are being selected. Their sum is the no-interference pattern obtained before inserting the polarizer. The polarizer simply selects one of the interference patterns out of the mush of their merged non-interference pattern. Thus instead of "erasing which-slit information," it selects one of two interference patterns out of the both-patterns mush.

philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...

Interesting that the "erased" interference can actually be recovered...even if there was nothing there to recover at all.
proceedings.aip.org...:30 PM 5/31/2013


But in any case, it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the particles. It concerns entanglement and causality and the transfer of information.