Uncovering a Simulation

Entanglement cannot be used to transfer information faster than the speed of light. For the explanation see paragraphs 5 and 6 of my Message 56, the ones that followed the one you quoted.--Percy

Hi Agobot,Just after I posted the previous message it occurred to me that perhaps you think that when the second particle's wave function collapses that that represents the communication of information. Perhaps you're thinking that you could transmit information to a colleague by telling him to wait until his particle's wave function collapses, and then he'll know that you must have observed your particle at exactly that moment in time, and this information would have been communicated to him faster than the speed of light.The reason this isn't possible is because your colleague has to continually check his particle to see if it's wave function has collapsed yet, but the first time he does so it will collapse anyway. There's no way for him to tell if it collapsed because he observed his particle or you observed yours.The bottom line is that entanglement cannot be used for the transmission of information. When the wave functions of entangled particles collapse there is no communication of information. Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" captures what's going on pretty well.--Percy

No no, i am not saying it's possible to transmit information through quantum entanglement. I am saying that the 2 particles are exchanging information at FTL speeds when for instance one partcle's
spin changes. Something has to account for that "interconnection" and logically my mind tells me the particles are communicating information about the other particle's state through some means in a FTL fashion.Anyway, science seems currently unable to explain why the "spooky action at a distance" occurs.Back on topic, since i was the one who raised questions whether reality is what we think of it, let me delve further into another potential hot topic:Is there time between 2 Plank time units?
Is there reality between 2 Plank time units?If nothing exists between Plank time ticks, wouldn't it mean that we perceive the ticks as continuos, but that they are physically not and that we have a very incomplete(and possibly fake) picture of reality?Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of "physical" reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience?
“The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”Could our minds and what we experience as reality account for what we experience as time?I am sure people will misunderstand what i am posting but I am not here to raise scandals. My aim is to dig deeper into the controversy of the unknown and for that i am not sticking to common sense and human intuition. I've thrown them out the window the moment i heard that the Universe came from a walnut-size ball.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi Abogot,I'd say The better of the current unifying theories seem to be going this route. A few reasons I believe.

• 1. A simulation is a man made concept. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that yes, God created something along the lines of a simulation. However, since it is God who built it it's not going to be something like a human created-simulation, it's going to be something much more comeplex...like our current reality. SO if God created a simulation, since it is the only thing we know that exists, it is real in every sense of the word...Gods simulation is the reality and there is NO need to call it a simulation because it is the only one. The definition of simulation is: 'the imitation of some real thing'(wiki). SO by that definition there has to be a real reality somewhere to imitate from...why can't we just be the real thing and a simulation exist somewhere else? But then again this brings me back to the first point, and that is, simulations are a man made concept because we use them to imitate what we see. What is God seeing that he created us as an imitation of it? Another reality somewhere? If you say that he is not imitating anything else and this is the only simulation there is, then by definition you are not describing a simulation, you have described a single creation. Are you saying that you are a creationist Abogot?
  ​
• 2. It removes free will. Not in the spiritual sense, or some other philosophical sense, I just mean in our ability to choose what we want for our futures, what we want to work in, what dreams one may have and have the free will to pursue it, or not. I mean free will in that the mechanical fuction of our brains are independant from anything else in the universe.
  ​
• 3. It would require an intelligent designer. Intelligence is the by-product of evolution and natural selections applied to a planet for 3.5 billion years, whoever created the simulation had to have undergone some kind of similar evolutionary process and now you run into the same old argument of, 'who created the designer?', and NOW the added new one of 'is that designer also in a simulation? How would HE know HE was not in a simulation HIMSELF?'. It becomes one of those dreaded on going, never ending philosophical questions that I believe are un-necessary.
  ​
• 4. Specifically for the scenario I choose, (Eternal universe with infinite number of Big Bangs), alot of physicist seem to be agreeing with this one. However, it would not remove the simulation paradox, but the above 3 reasons were good enough to do that, IMO.
  ​
• 5. The last reason I believe is simply that you are making a giant leap in speculating what is factual about QM. I think your simulation paradox requires alot more from QM than we know about it.

Abogot, we don't know anything about reality, we experience our own particular brand of reality, and we have made sense of it. We do NOT live in the quantum world, we cannot see the quantum world, we do not go in and out of a quantum state of reality...so to focus on a quantum mechanical world and that be how you base your understanding or your reality seems, again, un-necessary. Enjoy understanding your reality, it's complex enough.Your paradox reminds me of RAZD's signature, I don't know if he made that up himself but, it's very profound and seems to fit the theme of the topic. We as conscious beings have been able to understand a large portion of whats going on in our wolrd and universe, but we seem to never be satisfied with just knowing almost enough, we have to conjure up amazing scenarios just to quench that curiosity. However, I do admit that it makes for great conversations over a couple of drinks.Edited by onifre, : spellingEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

You bring up good points onifre, i agree to all of them. I think i am an atheist creationist and i think this is the future religion of science. I don't believe 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms(8 billion billion billion) that make up a human body, combined with high precision completely by chance over the course of 600 mln. years, out of 10^7882 atoms that combined in a way that made the Universe and our existence possible. While still a possibilty, I don't believe in that 1:10^7882 chance, unless I assume your Loop Quantum Gravity and the eternal universe with infinite numbers of BBs.I don't believe we have free will, as we are not the authors of our bodies/ourselves. If we accept the No God scenario, then Nature is your owner as it created you the way you are and it created the environment you are in. You'd think you are something with free will, but a closer look will reveal that you are a product of something/someone and that you are not the author of yourself, thus you don't really possess your body and you have no free will(your body was given to you along with your brain). At the time you accept that you don't have free will, the obvious question arises - am I truly living? Or am i merely participting as a puppet on strings in a game?Reality doesn't make sense to me, it appears impossible without free will. And this is without me taking into account the fact that the sub-structure of the whole material Universe is made of energy, or the fact that time at its smallest scales doesn't make sense with regard to what we perceive as reality. I lack the skills to write eloquently like Einstein, so let me quote him one more time:"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one".While he's not really saying that we live in a simulation(simulation is not the right word but close), I believe he's telling us we are living a beautiful dream. I know he's right, evidence is mounting that this whole thing is a mind-game whether it's made by a god or a highly developed(alien?) civilisation or another cause.Here is my favourite quote of Einstein's:"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself." (this is subtle and i believe he means he wishes to look beyond the illusion)Albert Einstein:
Now he has departed from this strange world(dead?) a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.I'd definitely rather discuss this with you over a few drinks and some russian chicks, but that damn stupid ocean of dihydrogen monoxide is compelling. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

The particles are obviously still connected in some unknown way, but they aren't communicating information. That would be a violation of Einsteinian relativity.--Percy

That's truly a great thought(we are limited by being limited) but let me add something very subtle:"People do not grow old no matter how long we live. We never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we were born."-A.Einstein

You've made this assertion multiple times in the thread, and you've never once supported it. The fact that reality is not as "simple" as we perceive in our everyday lives is not evidence of a "simulation" or dream or creator or anything else.It's time for you to support your assertion, Agobot. Why does the added complexity and counterintuitive nature of QM lead you to believe this is a simulation? because so far all I've seen is empty words and the personal incredulity of Agobot.

I don't have the time and nerve to give you again multiple links how QM means goodbye to reality. Go a few pages back(you can use other threads in which i've brought up this topic) and read them. IMO your thoughts seem skin-deep that's why you don't see the unexisting sub-structure of your world(how it exists in a quite different form, unless you are looking through your body apparatus - brain and eyes). Maybe you should ask cavediver why he thinks reality does not exist outside of our minds, or maybe you should read some of Einstein's books where he says on several occasions that reality is an illusion.You are a true hard-core atheist and I have no illusion that i can convince you in any way that there could in fact be a creator(unless i bring the creator/s/ in your home before you, and i am still not convinced you'd accept that as proof). It'd be as futile as you trying to convert OpenMInd to atheism. But maybe you should think why:1. Steven Hawking
2. Albert Einsten
3. Niels Bohr
4. Max Plank
5. Michio Kaku
6. Nikola Tesla
7. Werner Heisenberg
8. Enrico Ferminiall believe that there is a creator of the Universe.You believe in that completely self-organising human body of 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms(8 billion billion billion) in an environment of 10^2778 atoms structured to support life. Well, I don't, and so don't the above reveared physicists which happen to be the brightest men of the Earth.
When and if you shake off your hardcore atheism you'll see that De Broglie is right - light and stones is one and the same. Dust and water is one and the same, at its most fundamental level everything that our eyes able to see(our reality) is one and the same. We just don't see it that way because we lack the apparatus and thank god for that(illusion).
But don't take this as an attept to convince you in anything, I know that even if you find that you are made of ice-cream, you'd say - that doesn't change anything. Hardcore atheism rules.PS. I see that hardcore atheism is slowly vanishing from this board. I am not against atheism, I don't believe in any religion, I am however against hardcore atheism and closed-mindedness. Maybe I am wrong, maybe Einstein is wrong, maybe all the above scientists are wrong and you are right that there is no Creator. But we still don't know and it doesn't seem like it will change any time soon. Keep an open mind, anything is possible, atheism is far from being the only available description of reality.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

While simulation and life being just an illusion are still just a possibilty(one of many), I like the way of thinking of this greatest physicist of all time*(i.e. thinking out of the box):Albert Einstein
"The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead."This thought of Einstein is probably totally incomprehensible to anyone who is not immersed into the controversy of reality. And it gives a pretty astounding picture about his thoughts on God, reality and our existence.* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/541840.stmEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein

I think it would be appreciated if you would address the topic. The question before you concerns the evidence for reality being a simulation. Appeals to authority, expressions of astoundment, and criticisms of atheism are not evidence.--Percy

I've read what you call "evidence," and none of it lends support for your assertion that reality is some sort of simulation. If you don't have the "time or nerve" to express your evidence in your own words, then why are you posting here? No, I understand that reality is far more compelx than what I can see with my own eyes. I understand that everything we see, right down to our concepts of matter, energy, time, and distance, are all just the cumulative result of perturbations in the quantum field, and that reality has more to do with probability and wave functions and less to do with absolute certainty.Your comment is an ad hominem, and irrelevant. Cavediver never said that. You did. Illusion != simulation. Reality is not only what we see and intuitively comprehend. It's true structure is far more complex and counter to anythign we would imagine on our own. You could call the overlying reality on top of the complexity of quantum mechanics "illusory," but that doesn't have anything to do with a simulation.So this is both a non sequitur and an appeal to authority. Way to poison the well. You clearly haven't read any of my posts here. I'm an atheist because I see no reason to believe in any deities. If evidence were presented that strongly suggested the existence of a deity, I would believe in them. I follow the evidence. It's no fault of mine that there is no evidence of any creator. 8 appeals to authority all at once, with no actual support for the assertion that any of them believed in a creator, let alone presenting their actual arguments. Way to go. This is a strawman of the type I usually only see from diehard Creationists. Been hanging out at AnswersInGenesis much lately, Agobot? The human body didn't simply spring into existence spontaneously, self-arranging from some primordial soup into a fully-formed human being. We're the cumulative endpoint of one branch of millions of years of life's evolution. There is no randomness, only natural selection and the laws of chemistry. Argument from personal credulity and a repeat of your appeals to authority. Great job! We've known that long before we knew about QM (well, perhaps minus the light part). All baryonic matter consists of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. Does that change the fact that complex arrangements of these particles result int he matter we see around us? This is one of the least intelligent things I've ever seen. Even above the QM level I'm composed of the same compounds as ice cream. It has nothing to do with anything. The fact that the entire Unvierse is simply the cumulative expression of the quantum field doesn't mean the Universe is a simulation. I don't claim to know there isn't a creator. I claim to have no reason to believe there is one. There's a rather large difference. Further, it's irrelevant. You're dodging the topic, Agobot. You still haven't presented any evidence that the Universe is a simulation.It's wonderful that you've become a master of logical fallacies. It's unfortunate you've become a master of using them instead of identifying and avoiding them.

I am addressing the topic but it appears you want me to present a "Certificate of Simulation" stamped and duely signed for and on behalf of the the creator.
You have presented no evidence that the universe started off by chance to counter my argument, did you? There is no Theory of everything yet, all we can do is speculate, based on the little evidence we have about the very beginning of the universe. Is that news to you?

That's your die-hard atheist opinion. I've expressed at least 5 times in this thread why I, Einstein and other scientists think reality does not exist. Whether you agree is irrelevant, since you are not the authority to decide what qualifies as evidence. No, it's not irrelevant. We know practically nothing about reality, existence and little about the underlying quantum world. The little we know does not preclude a creator at all. In fact the brightest scientists in the world think that all the evidence we have from science points to the conclusion that there must be a creator. False again: http://EvC Forum: What is matter? -->EvC Forum: What is matter? Simulation is the not best word, if you want you could replace it with what you call "illusiory reality" or my favourite "percepted reality". I have no objection to that. There is no evidence that there is no creator. In fact, there is no theory of everything and we don't know what caused the universe to appear. Keep an open mind, the top scientists of the world do have a reason to believe in a creator. Evidence that they believe in a creator is everywhere on the net. Do a small google search, i've given you links on half of them here:http://EvC Forum: Missing Matter -->EvC Forum: Missing Matter No i don't know that website, i have too little in common with most creationists. I never tried to disprove evolution, quite to the contrary i think it's completely right. But evolution doesn't preclude a creator, can you point me to a paper on evolution that states that there is no creator? What's wrong with that? I do believe those physicists are way smarter and more knowledgeable than you and in the abscence of evidence about the cause of the start of the universe, i'd take their words over yours any day of the year. No, there could be no creator at all. But based on my personal observations, the knowledge i have and the opinions of the top physicists of the world, I find it less likely. My mind is open, I am not a die-hard creationist nor a die-hard atheist. I find both positions pretty childish. What are you talking about? Molecules are part of the quantum world. Above the quantum world there is our classical world. So you believe your blood is the same as cow milk!? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make the two links message specific.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

I think you are mis-interpreting the Big Bang model as claiming there is no creator. You are wrong and one of its most prominent proponents Steven Hawking says in his "Brief History of Time", page 128, English edition:"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size.
The general theory of relativity, on its own, cannot explain these features or answer these questions because of its prediction that the universe started off with infinite density at the big bang singularity. At the singularity, general relativity and all other physical laws would break down: one couldn’t predict what would come out of the singularity. As explained before, this means that one might as well cut the big bang, and any events before it, out of the theory, because they can have no effect on what we observe. Space-time *would* have a boundary - a beginning at the big bang.

​

Science seems to have uncovered a set of laws that, within the limits set by the uncertainty principle, tell us how the universe will develop with time, if we know its state at any one time. These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it. But how did he choose the initial state or configuration of the universe? What were the "boundary conditions" at the beginning of time?

​

One possible answer is to say that God chose the initial configuration of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand. This would certainly have been within the power of an omnipotent being, but if he had started it off in such an incomprehensible way, why did he choose to let it evolve according to laws that we could understand? The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.""No Creator" is just one of the scenarios of the Big Bang model, and while it is possible(though unlikely IMO), the most prominent scientists do think a creator of the Universe is mandatory. My opinion does not differ significantly in this respect.Here is what Hawking says about reality:"He's a Platonist and I am a positivist. He's worried that Schrdinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half dead and half alive. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I do not know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I am concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully. It predicts that the result of an observation is either that the cat is alive or that it is dead. It is like you can't be slightly pregnant; you either are or you aren't."Stephen Hawking - WikiquoteI am not writing this to "correct" your views of how the Universe started. I am not here for the debate either, i want people to see the other side of the coin, that there exists another possibility. When you have information you make a better judgement and it was sad how this message board was so predominantly hard-atheistic just a few weeks ago and people did not take into account the full controversial nature of the recent findnings of science that lead some of its most prominent physicists to believe in a creator.
But i do believe that reality is what we make of it. It's our reality because we were given certain apparatus to see it that way, but the underlying reality is much different. Even light is just electromagnetic waves. A very very tiny portion of the whole spectrum of EMR. We call it light, but it's no different than the waves in your microwave oven or the waves your sattelite dish receives. We think it's Light, but technically it's NOT. It's just EMR, whether you see it as "light" or not. How could you not see that we see things in a very twisted way, a way that's limited and determined by what we have as a means for observation(our human bodies)?I suggest you read Einstein, he's very subtle about reality, existence and nature.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
-Albert Einstein