Uncovering a Simulation

So can you show me a paper which shows that the concept that 'we have a distinct role in defining the world around us' is a fact?

I did already - the double slit experiment proves that we(the observers/measurers) have a distinct role in defining the "world" around us. It's a fact proven in multiple experiments, not just one. The relevant question that you should have asked is what are we(the observers)? I'd say we are a peculiar state of mind, for lack of a closer term."Upon measuring the location of the particle, the wave-function will randomly "collapse" to a sharply peaked function at some location, with the likelihood of any particular location equal to the squared amplitude of the wave-function there. The measurement will return a well-defined position, a property traditionally associated with particles.""Moreover, since there exists no microscopic reality independent of observation(it says we have a distinctive role in defining the world around us), the realistic motion picture of the particle passing through the two slits does not exist in essence."http://www.quantummotion.org/dse.htmlEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Cavediver, from your previous posts in "What is matter" thread I am aware that you fully understand what the observer and reality really constitute. Wouldn't you say that "Simulation" is the closest term to describe the state(realm) we are in, from a human being's perspective?
San Goku what do you think on the above question?

Life and reality being just a perception of the human mind, how does it not point to everything being a simulation? What else it could it be? I see there are questions posed in the faith and belief section, but how could anyone answer them when we have not tackled the most fundamental question - Is there any evidence that our "physical" world exists/extends beyond our minds? So far i haven't seen any, quite to the contrary, under closer scrutiny "matter" simply vanishes.

I long pondered on this last sentence of yours and i admit i got lost and heed help. What is an "external observer"? External to what? Our realm of existence? An observer that could see the quantum world? If so, why is it necessary that we isolate our world from all external interactions.
Or did you mean "other observers" when you said "external interactions"? If so, wouldn't the world behave in the same it does now, taking into account that there will in fact be at least one observer?

Agobot, how is this, in any way, evidence towards our world beeing a simulation? Im not really shocked, but then again, i watched the 2girls1cup video, i dont get shocked easily after that. And what does it have to do with simulation?Have you given this any real thought? OR did you just read some physics you did not understand and then went ahead and watched the Matrix?

What are you talking about? Where in that sentence did i mention anything about a simulation???
That sentence was an answer to a question by onifre that had nothing to do with simulation. It's the same as me asking you:How is "...but then again, i watched the 2girls1cup video" proof that we are not living in a simulation. You don't make sense.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I submit that your wording was inaccurate. 'We' implies 'us humans'. The double slit experiment is not a paper (that is: the standards you expect off your opponents is greater than the standards you hold yourself to: I even gave you two papers on request), and it does not show as a fact that us humans have any particularly interesting role to play at all. You cannot sensibly discuss this topic whilst ignoring decoherence, which you ironically must do if your thesis is to stand at all.I'm not so ignorant of quantum physics that I am unaware of the measurement problem, but you place significant weight in your own understanding of quantum physics. You sound like me when I was 14 and I had just read about this stuff for the first time. It might be an idea to keep an open mind about it at the moment, ask questions from the experts and avoid throwing your weight behind things so much. Did you read the next paragraph? Where it says 'there exist two unnoticed deadly flaws in the demonstration.'?There are basically two types of reactions when confronted with quantum mechanics:1. Holy Crap, then that means there is no objective reality, consciousness is key, time travel is possible, we are gods in our own minds, blink and its all gone!2. Wow, that's crazy. What does that mean? What do you mean we don't know? Are you telling me that this is just the way it is? Hmm, oh well - why did I expect to understand what the underlying nature of the cosmos actually means?Some people start at 1, and move to 2. I don't think there are many people doing 2=>1 though.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I did not see the links you provided yesterday, but now i did. Sorry, i'll reply shortly.

Nice descriptions there Modulous, I'm more of the:kind myself, except that I do think we can understand what the underlying nature of the cosmos actually means. The lack of understanding in that area is due to a lack of education, not due to a lack of capability, I think.As for people that think like this: I remember a movie that kind of dealt with it in that way, it was called "What the bleep do we know" and frankly, I found it very stupid in the things it claimed. But for those that are interested, I'm sure it can be found somewhere.

OK i see your point although it takes quite a bit of knowledge in Decoherence till a short sentence like this starts to make sense to a non professional.

Modulous, i'll be frank, after reading those very detailed papers I don't feel comfortable to comment them. After reading it i get the idea that the enviroment is the states in which all observed objects can be at one point in time. This means something similar to MWI, although i get the feeling that the authors assert that all the states of the objects are within our world, but are unaccessible to us because we lack the sensory apparatus to take notice of them. Instead we only notice the final macro world states they occupy because... (and this is where my English starts to fail me):"Reduction of the state vector, c ’r, decreases the information available to
the observer about the composite system SD. The information loss is needed if
the outcomes are to become classical and thereby available as initial conditions to
predict the future. The effect of this loss is to increase the entropy H = -Tr lg
by an amount
H = H(r) - H(c) = - (||2 lg||2 + ||2 lg||2) . (12)
Entropy must increase because the initial state described by c was pure,
H(c) = 0, and the reduced state is mixed. Information gain”the objective of the
measurement”is accomplished only when the observer interacts and becomes
correlated with the detector in the already precollapsed state r."The only thing I could make out of this is that they are talking about pre-collapse, a sort of determinism that helps, together with the leaked info, in deciding the final state of the collapsed particles. Is that so?
What constitutes the information that is "leaked out" onto the "collapsed" environment? The states in which the other particles had collapsed?I am not qualified to decide which should be the clear winner between CI, Decoherence or Many Minds Interpretation in desribing the wave particle duality at the macro level, so i'll take caverdiver's word for it and let physicists do the battle. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

You just need a more powerful microscope. Yes, changing observation distance and angle tends to produce odd illusions and effects, as any football fan in the country will tell you. What is your point? Non-sequitir. If your phone obeys every single law that applies to matter, the fact that you cannot 'see' beyond a certain scale is absolutely irrelevant. "I am almost sure" never weighed-up heavily as evidence for anything, sorry. Your argument appears to be a mixture of the 'argument from incredulity' fallacy and 'God of the gaps' type-of reasoning. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we live in a simulation. If something appears to be odd doesn't mean it's made-up or fake.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I don't have the time to reply to your whole post now but i suggest that you read up on what makes it possible that reality appears from the quantum fields.

How is that irrelevant? Explain, what are your arguments that the building blocks of our "reality" are irrelevant?
QM tells us reality is not what we think of it. Of course in our classical world reality is well defined and predictable, but under closer scrutiny, scientists are faced with a different reality. Decoherence says what you percieve as reality is just a very very small, tiny fragment of all there is, you just don't have the apparatus to see all the states of matter/particles.
Then, the theory that i'd like most(which seems scientists are running away from) says that we as observers become entangled with the object we are measuring. Just like when you take the temperature of a person you lower the temperature insignificantly of the measured body, so are our eyes and brain entangled with the object being measured by them.
There is a third theory - the many worlds interpretation - where there is one copy of you in an endless sequence of worlds.
Then there is a fourth theory - the Many Minds interpretation, and even then none of these 4 theory talks of the reality, the way you see it.
But don't worry, as long as you are sticking to the apparatus you've been given by nature for observing reality, your reality is as good as it can get.
One day people will possibly have portable quantum world viewers, it will be fun to watch their reactions to the underlying reality.If you do a search on the terms "entanglement" or "quantum mechanical entanglement" you will discover that there are experiments which support the proposition that entangled particles "know" each of the others is present even when the distance separating the two is further than light can travel in a given time. There is a lot to be discovered but if QM and scientists are telling us that reality is not what we think of it, why would you go head against the wall and claim they are not right?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.