Uncovering a Simulation

My theory is that we're talking to a wall and that mentioning once again that QM no more undermines the reality of our macro world than atoms will continue to have no effect. For you responses are only useful because they have the little reply button for you to click.--Percy

I was commenting on your conclusion that QM undermines confidence in reality, and I predicted, correctly as it turns out, that you would again ignore any mention of the fact that QM no more has this effect than the earlier discovery of atoms.Misinterpreting Einstein and the Copenhagen Interpretation is not evidence that the universe is a simulation. Your basic argument is, "Hey, science could be wrong, so I'm free to make stuff up."--Percy

Well, it seems like you've never met a sentence you couldn't misunderstand, and since that seems likely to continue I'll try to provide as little additional fodder as possible.The topic of this thread, your thread, by the way, is that the evidence points toward the universe actually being "part of a simulation." Care to describe any of this evidence?--Percy

Information cannot be communicated using entanglement, and so there is no known method for information to travel faster than the speed of light.--Percy

Fox News and other news outlets at the time implied in their reporting that Dr. Nicolas Gisin and his team at the University of Geneva believe that entangled particles may actually "communicate" with each other not instantaneously, but just at speeds much greater than the speed of light.I don't know whether Gisin and his team actually believe this, or if it's just that the reporting is inaccurate, but by separating entangled particles by a greater distance than had ever been done before (seven miles) they were measuring the minimum speed that such "communication" must occur if it indeed does occur at a finite speed rather than instantaneously. The speed they measured turns out to equate to the accuracy with which their atomic clocks could be synchronized and their measurements made, and so the instantaneous "communication" postulated by quantum theory has not been overturned.Whether the collapse of the wave function of one entangle particle is followed by the collapse of the other's simultaneously or just very, very quickly cannot be uncovered by any experiment since the "communication" could always happen at speeds greater than any experimental error could rule out.I've been putting quotes around "communication" because the entangled particles do not actually communicate information. When one entangled particle's wave function collapses so does its partner's, but this phenomenon cannot be used to communicate information. This is because the state that a particle collapses to cannot be controlled.Imagine that you and a colleague agree upon a code whereby positive polarity means "1" and negative polarity means "0". You create an entangled particle pair and give one of the particles to your colleague, you keeping the other, then your colleague goes to the other side of the earth and awaits your message.You decide you want to send your colleague a "1". This means you have to send him positive polarity. Since the particles collapse with opposite polarity, you have to cause your particle to collapse with negative polarity. How do you observe your particle in such a way as to force it to collapse with negative polarity?If you can answer that question than you have solved the problem of faster than light communication, but as of yet no one's been able to supply an answer.Note that this is irrelevant to the question of whether the entangled particles collapse simultaneously or just nearly simultaneously. No matter which is the case, no information can be communicated.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, clarity.

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

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

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

Hi Agobot,Let me try to repeat your argument back to you so you can see how it looks to everyone else: Nobody can see any actual evidence in that argument, and it doesn't help that you not only keep repeating the fallacy of argument from authority, but if by Creator you mean a supernatural God Creator then you are misrepresenting the views of most of those scientists.So go ahead and have a philosophical discussion on quantum weirdness, but you shouldn't keep arguing that there's evidence that reality is a simulation unless you can actually present some.Your recently mentioned clarification that it might be more accurate to instead characterize reality as illusory has much more promise. Calling reality a simulation is problematic in the extreme because even before noting the lack of evidence it implies that while our reality isn't real, somewhere there's a reality that is running our simulation. This just introduces the conundrum of an infinite regression: Is the reality that is running our simulation the ultimate reality, or is it itself just a simulation, and so on and so on...--Percy

Except that I'm not a die-hard atheist, and your argument that I should see empty space when I look in a mirror makes no sense because there's plenty of non-empty space for EMR to interact with. Your problem isn't atheists, it's that you really do have no evidence.This thread is in one of the science forums. There's another set of forums for religious discussions, and there are a couple forums where the interplay between science and religion can be discussed: [forum=-11] and [forum=-12]. If you'd like to discuss the impact of atheism on science then you should find another thread.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix link.Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.

Addressing the on-topic portion of your post: Approaching this classically as you seem to be doing, it doesn't matter that most of the volume of an atom is empty. The size of an atom is far, far smaller than the wavelength of light. For example, the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 1 angstrom while the wavelength of light ranges between 4000 and 7000 angstroms. Light's wavelength is orders of magnitude too large to pass through the empty space in an atom.The separation between atoms is also correspondingly small. It varies widely across all substances, but a separation on the order of no more than a few angstroms is pretty realistic, not counting gases. Again, light's wavelength is orders of magnitude too large to fit between atoms.What you're suggesting would be like an elephant fitting through a soda straw without touching the sides.AbE: A better analogy occurs to me. Light passing through and by atoms in a solid would be like trying to tunnel through sand without touching any sand grains.So your argument has too problems:

• It's wrong.
  ​
• Even if it were actually astounding that light reflects off matter instead of passing through its empty portions, astoundment is not evidence that reality is a simulation.

--PercyEdited by Percy, : See AbE.

You originally said that we should see empty space when we look in a mirror, so you were talking about visible light. And you said that the fact that we don't see empty space is astounding and represents evidence that we live in a simulation. Now you're saying that visible light is only a tiny, tiny portion of the EM spectrum and that it doesn't matter if some of it reflects off certain atoms.I suspect that your shift of argument in midstream was inadvertent. If we stick with the visible light portion of the EM spectrum as per your original argument, then you are incorrect that only a "very, very tiny portion" of the light is "reflected off of certain atoms." Virtually no light passes through any everyday-world solid, not even glass. All light striking a solid is absorbed. This excites the individual atoms that absorb the light's energy, and some proportion of those atoms reemit that energy as EMR, much of it in the visible light spectrum. It is this reemitted light that we see as reflected light.So it isn't just that photons occasionally strike atoms. All photons fired at solids strike atoms. Virtually none of it passes through the empty space of atoms. The atoms electron cloud prevents this. It's like a beach ball, where you can't get at the air inside the beach ball without going through the ball's plastic shell. The light hits the electron shell and causes electrons to rise to higher energy levels before it can ever reach the empty space inside that shell.And virtually none of the light passes through the empty space between atoms. Just as you can't push a broomstick down through a carton of oranges without hitting lots of oranges, in solids the atoms are packed together too thickly for light to just pass through without striking any.So your argument about the mirror is based upon a misconception. There's no surprise that light reflects back from solids, because there is virtually no space large enough for light to pass through. I don't know why you would say this. When people talk about the macro world and the micro world, do you actually believe they're talking actual real worlds, real and distinct planes of existence, different realities? They're not. They're just talking about different perceptual levels. You can look at the universe at the highest levels and see galaxies and groups of galaxies. You can look at the lowest levels and "see" (if the theory pans out) superstrings. You can look at intermediate levels and see planets, rocks and atoms. It's all the same reality just examined at different scales. You actually believe Einstein would agree with you? Interesting.In any case, I'm not discussing this with Einstein, whose views you don't seem to understand, I'm discussing this with you. It's you I disagree with, not Einstein.--Percy

Trying to understand Einstein's position on various scientific issues by reading through his notable quotes is the wrong way to go about it. Even if your Einstein sound bites did accurately communicate his undoubtedly very nuanced views on these issues (they don't), you're committing the fallacy of appeal to authority, not once but numerous times. So in your view reality is composed entirely of energy while the world of perception is composed entirely of matter? Are you sure you meant to say this? But I didn't call the classical world reality. I said there is only one reality, but many perceptual levels. I think change is pretty much a constant at all perceptual levels.--Percy

Okay so far. Sound isn't EMR, so... ...this is nonsense. Makes sense to me.--Percy