Uncovering a Simulation

Evidence points heavily towards us being a part of a simulation. What are our options of unraveling the next level of the mystery? I have an idea that might shed more light on the source of the simulation, and since there are more than a thousand of us here, maybe we could work out a full detailed path to the computer/god. As I see it, we are basically stuck with 2 options:1. The simulation is run by highly advanced human/alien race. This IMHO is our best bet. If it's a man/alien made simulation, all the universe MUST conform to mathematical equations(software programming). The WHOLE of it. That would mean that a Theory of Everything describing every single interaction in the Universe is possible and likely to be forged. I wonder if that's what motivates the scientists working behind the TOE who are aware that reality is a bluff.2. God or God know's what, let's call it the UNKNOWN. The worst case scenario for unraveling the mistery - The Lord moves in mysterious ways and being our sheppard, we are meerly sheep who would know only what they are being fed. This scenario is also less likely than the former, as the chances of us discovering that we are part of a simulation designed by god would not be good at all.In this case, the theory of everything will easily have the desired inch long equation:U=Ob+Mgwhere U stands for the Universe
Ob stands for the observer
and Mg stands for the mind of godI am willing to work under such a project without pay even if i have to travel abroad. Probably, there are already organisations or at least teams working in that direction.It's a moral question more than anything else but critically important. Would we allow the participants in a simulated reality to find out who they are?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Actually there is. That's what prompted Einstein to believe that quantum theory is wrong(and he happens to be the father of that theory). I think it will eventually be proven incomplete(or possibly wrong) and it's obvious something's missing in it, that has to account for what reality is. And since this debate has already taken place in Copenhagen(Interpretation) by physicists that were more "versed" into the nature of reality than both of us, i'll quote A.Einstein:"The more success the quantum physics has, the sillier it looks. ... I think that a 'particle' must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. ... God does not play dice with the cosmos. (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics)" Unbalanced? You could say so but a better word would be "shocked".
As Niel Bohr said "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it." You seem to think like Einstein and he was proven wrong in the 70's. But this is science(=what we know or rather think we know), Einstein can be UN-proven wrong. Science is just our futile human way of trying to understand the complex nature of reality.
It can be wrong. The observational data in QM was right, but it could have been wrongly interpreted. There could be some other laws and phenemena at play that scientists are not aware of. If you religiously believe in science you have to accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of wave particle collapse and the theory that your computer is currently both switched off and switched on at the same time. It's so fucked up that i don't believe anything of what scientists are trying to feed me about our world. Call me nuts and everything but I think QM is totally screwed up. My mind cannot accept these interpretations and these interpretations are almost brain-washing and shocking. They are not real, I do believe what I perceive is more real than their stupid, utterly ridiculous findings. I'm just waiting for the day when it will all come crushing to the ground.After all My reality > a bullshit scientific interpretationI'm a big fan of Einstein and think he's right - the QM is totally screwed up. Now someone better prove this whole QM nonsense is wrong and give us back the confidence in reality.These "findings" and interpretations have far reaching consequences. They have the power to almost ruin this message board. They are totally screwed up and unreal.Cavediver, what's your say?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

WTF are you saying? The quantum world is not related to our world? How so? So Einstein is wrong? All quantum physicists are wrong? You don't understand QM but it's ok, most people don't anyway. What science currently thinks in terms of its findings might well be wrong. Sorry?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

You shouldn't be talking about stuff you don't comprehend at all. QM has tremendous effects on our reality:Page not found – Physics WorldThe fact that scientists still don't know what to make of the CI, does not mean QM does NOT play a role in our everyday lives. It just means that scientists still don't know what exactly is going on. There is good chance that their preditions could be correct - that the Moon is there(exists) only when you try to observe(measure) it(AKA simulation - it does not exist unless the human mind thinks it exists).The fact that you compare the discovery of the atom to the discovery that particles could be in 2 or multiple places at the same time, break the speed of light, etc. just shows your ignorance of the QM and the implications of its discoveries. Oh give me a break, you have no idea what the CI means. I misinterpreted it? You are implying to know how the wave-particle collapse should be interpreted. Why don't you let all scientists know what the "correct" interpretention is? You could win the Noble Prize because no human being currently knows why the wave-particle collapse works the way it does and what it's implications in the macro world are. Scientists have unearthed something that defies human logic, they even speak of devising a new level 1 way of human thinking to comprehend the way things are happening in the quantum world.
I may have misinterpreted the wave-particle collapse, there are other possible scenarios- many world interpretation - where there are infinite numbers of you's in every world in a different state, etc. I just don't believe it, it might be correct, I acknowledge that i don't know. But saying "you misinterpreted" the CI when the CI say the Moon is there only when we look at it, just shows how "well" you understand QM. You are way out of your depth here. You better write about god and the bible in the Faith & Belief section.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Nobel prize winner physics Niels Bohr: "Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum physics cannot possibly have understood it".But i am happy that most seem to be doing quite well with the findings and interpretensions of QM experiments. It's really good. Nothing of this could really influence our daily lives, in fact i think we don't even need to know about QM. But since we are discussing the possibility of God, we have to look at our existence first and what it really constitutes.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

The idea that there is no objective reality that arises out of the CI in QM is somewhat shocking(that what we perceive as classical mechanics is just a perception). The fact that QM states that we are not made of physical particles but of energy and waves is also shocking. Is it not?

This is just an empty assertion, there is no eveidence or proof behind your statement. You should have said - IMHO and your response would have made sense. If we are of the same opinion, what difference does it make? I do think the moon is there when we are not observing it. How did you prove me wrong? Where is your argument? You are basically saying - "prove QM wrong". How nice of you to think that i have the capabilities to do it at home or in the office. I think QM theory incomplete in as much as its observations are not part of our macro world. There is no clear cohesive explanation for that yet. The simulation argument stems from the CI as much as it works on our macro level(many explanations, and experiments, none really convincing). And if my opinion is the same as that of Niels Bohr or Einstein in the quotes i put forward, that means you consider their arguments incohesive. What arguments did you provide that those quoted scientists were wrong? You are just asserting they are, but where is the evidence? There is such a great controversy about QM that you comparing its building blocks to a building just shows that you haven't got a clue about QM. What contriversy is there in building construction? Evidence, links? Oh you just want to assert. Take deep breaths all you want. The above paragraph just shows that you have never heard about the God's dice argument between Einstein and Bohr, an argument that lasted 30 years. God does seem to play dice and it was proven in an experiment in the 70's. That's my argument, read up on it - it's the EPR paradox. Why do you think that your computer being completely black and completely white at the same time is not fucked up? That you are dead and alive at any moment in time? How is that not fucked up? That what i write is fucked up and not fucked up at the same time? Where is your argument that this is logical? How about some common sense? Personal experience? HAHA, that was a joke right? You are aware that that personal experience is shared by no less than 6.65 billion people and probably 1 bln species of animal. Personal? LOL, wouldn't you say private or discrete?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Point me to a paper that says that decoherence is a done deal. Or that it solves the "observation/measurement" problem. It'd be appreaciated if you could point me to a site that states that the physics community has accepted decoherence as the definitive reason for the measurement/oserver problem.
This theory simply tries to disprove the observer's role in determining the state of the universe. QM tells us something peculiar about the nature of our reality and that we have a distinct role in defining the world around us. Get used to it, it's a fact. What is not clear is what is an observer. Since the observer does not exist as an observer at the quantum level, how does it influence the quantum world(making the moon appear when we are observing it)? But experiments in QM shows that you are wrong. You cannot avoid the observer's role because it's well defined and proven beyond doubt. There are many theories trying to explain why this is so, but none is successful so far. Just another controvery in the life of QM.

Pick something - a mobile phone. Have a look at it - it exists physically. Put it under a scanning tunneling microscope and have a look - you'd see individual atoms. Zoom in and it disappears. There is no more phone, no building blocks of matter. Move the phone around under the miscroscope, there is still nothing to be seen. Now pull it off the microscope and it's still there, but if you return it under the microscope - there is no phone. If you put yourself under the same microscope you'll see there is no "you", you don't exist. What exists is the perception your mind creates. A perception i am almost sure is created by a simulation - i.e. there is nothing physical in a simulation, just a perception of "physicalness" that fades away under closer examination.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

The double slit experiment that proved the wave-particle collapse:Wave—particle duality - WikipediaDouble-slit experiment - Wikipedia

Thanks for taking the time to correct me. Could you tell me how is the observer's role solved? What makes it possible? Many worlds interpretation?
Could you accept two worlds, one in which there is a Moon, and one in which there is no Moon and you living in one of them? Does it make more sense than we(observers) causing the wave particles collapse in the object "Moon"?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

By done deal I meant "fact" and whether that fact is resolved by Many Worlds interpretation or superimposing the role of the observer is irrelevant.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

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.