Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
the_engineer

Do We Live In A Simulation?

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, drol said:

Oh, the double slit experiment... if only I had a penny... I'll try to explain it simply. We have a double slit where the distance between the single slits is very short. We send to the slit electrons, one by one. We put a screen behind the slit and when an electron hits the screen it leaves a sign. If we send only one electron it seems to behave like a bullet and hits the screen in a random point. We send an infinite number of electrons. Surprisingly we will find on the screen behind a whole interference figure typical of waves and not of particles. Bullets would distribute on the screen with a simple (double) Gaussian probability. So electrons are waves, we think. Now we want to know which of the two slits was crossed by the electron. We put a simple measurement system, a lamp that lights the electron (physically it sends a photon to the electron) whenever it passes through a slit. Well we use the goddamn lamp and obtain a Gaussian curve, exactly as if electrons were bullets! So we think it's the energy of light that changes the system. We use a low intensity lamp. If we do that we obtain the interference pattern but can t say where electrons passed because there are not enough photons. So we try to keep intensity constant and use a large wavelenght (red for example) for the lamp. We do obtain the pattern but now d<<wavelenght with d distance between slits so we can't distinguish slits anymore as the detector sees them as an only slit. Conclusion: we can see only the pattern (wave aspect) or from which slit they passed (corpuscolary) but never both together. This is because the measurement system changes the system! You may know measurable properties of a quantic system are associated to Hermitian operators known as Observables. The eigenvalues of this observables are the possible result of a measurement. The system is not usually prepared in an eigenstate but in a linear combination of the eigenstates as they are a complete (and orthonormal) base. Every eigenstate will have a coefficient Ci that expresses its contribute to the complexive state. Ci^2 is the probability to obtain the eigenvalue related to that eigenstate |i> of the observable. Sum of Ci^2=1 if the state is normalyzed. Now we can imagine electrons are the combination of two states |wave> and |particle > with ci= √2/2 obviously for both. Measurement will NEVER restitute the complexive state but only one of the two states (in form of the eigenvalue). That' s the exact point. Measurement makes the system collapse into a single eigenstate. And after the system collapses if you repeat measurement you only obtain that eigenvalue. I don't introduce the concept of expectation value but I hope you at least understood why the double slit experiment does not fucking means things behave differently if you watch them.

 

Can I have the eli5 explanation  of this and how it's at all relevant to this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deathray said:

becoming a homeless ex-con burglar in Glasgow would be worth nothing.

 

 

Depends on whit you do after......

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/glasgows-safebreaker-and-war-hero-honoured-by-film-maker-8366.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, charon said:

 

Quote

Despite being awarded the Military Medal and a Royal Pardon for his bravery, Ramensky returned to crime after the war, and inevitably prison. However, Ramensky escaped, and was recaptured, from Peterhead prison, Scotland's most secure jail, no less than five times, including three in 1958.

 

Not so much what you do after as "what you do when it's in your interest and your country's interest, even as a lifelong crook" given he went back to robbing after the war. Not to discredit his achievements, I also appreciate the moral code of not robbing people's homes  just business properties. As the article says, clearly someone who could have done something with his life if it wasn't for a shit career choice at 11. 

 

You've got to wonder how shit his post-war treatment was that he felt the need to return to crime. Government should have employed him on foreign missions for secret service, although I suppose as an ex-crook he'd never pass the vetting process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deathray said:

I wonder what were actually scored on if life is some sort of simulation game.

 

I'd imagine some sort of advanced technological race would be behind this so maybe we as a person would be a fusion of the person who is playing our character and then "us" as the character. The photo-realistic world around us would be the bounds of the world. You'd imagine it would be a sandbox style world rather than an open world game and there'd be a few hard-coded limitations (you can't grab a gun and shoot everybody on the planet unless the game has reached a post-apocalyptic stage), but you can work scientifically towards that goal and create a nuclear weapon capable of destroying a few countries). Maybe you'd be scored on your progression as an individual throughout the lifespan of the game  - if you'd player spawned as an orphan in the middle of the DR Congo and managed to get to be a US billionaire tech business man that could be worth 5bn points - whereas being born to do lawyers in London and becoming a homeless ex-con burglar in Glasgow would be worth nothing. Or maybe you're given a specific mission, but the character can't know what your mission is; and you have to conceal it from them and make them view it as there own decision or they won't pursue it. Or maybe your scored on how well you live your life according to the values of the society, maybe in the opinion of the game-creator the entire Earth is some kind of hell and you're just being thrown into it to see how long you can survive. What prize could you win for "winning" the game? Whatever that is (maybe living to 100 or managing a exceptional level of success), maybe the society has immortality rings they give out to high achievers in the game, or enough money to set up five or six generations of the player's family?

 

Comes back to the worlds a stage and everyone plays a part. Like some think if we live a good life we'll get into heaven,maybe heaven is the bonus stage before we go again. Maybe if you lived a good simulated life you're reborn as a millionaire or someone in a position of power or and influential figure. Same if lived a bad life you'll be punished with a short amount or time and suffering in the simulation. People always said how could god allow suffering etc maybe there's the answer. Maybe is isn't a god but a human or Ai and let's be honest some humans are perfectly ok to allow suffering and Ai's would be indifferent.

 

It would also explain were the concepts of reincarnation, karma, heaven,hell and deja vu  come from. Of course there's more people than there were hundreds of years ago maybe the computing power and the updates to the simulation allow for more people . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Deathray said:

 

Can I have the eli5 explanation  of this and how it's at all relevant to this thread?

1)The double slit experiment was brought forward by OP as an example of how things act differently if we observe them.

2)This is not true. The problem with the experiment is that every possible measurement changes the sytem's state as we take it. But no one gives a fuck if we "are watching"! It's only measurement can only, by definition, give us a specific value and not the totality of the system (wave or particle here, never both).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we live in a simulation. I can prove that in a minute. What we call the universe is a brain construct, in other words, a model. It has to be a model because the brain has no direct contact with reality. All real events are transformed into neuronal signals on which the universe simulation is based. Case closed.

The flip side of the coin is that "we" are also models that are based on neuronal signals. "We" consist of those neuronal signals that do not belong to the universe simulation. Hence we are simulations too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Life Is Beautiful said:

Oh, so that explains why Bracknell isn't dead yet.

What Bracknell? There's no Bracknell. She is a feature of the simulation. Physical bodies are simulations too. Space and time aren't real

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/mar/17/templeton-quantum-entanglement

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/11/2018 at 06:59, charon said:

 

Impossible to prove one way or the other.

 

Same as religion I suppose.

 

Interesting concept tho.

 

 

 

14 minute audio/podcast on the religion comparison.

 

http://pca.st/b1oT

 

 

From the article

 

https://junkee.com/living-simulation/189734

 

Which premise is

 

  1/ Humanity will go extinct before we reach the technological capacity to manufacture a human simulation.
  2/ Humanity will develop the technologies necessary to design and run a simulation, but will have no interest in     doing so.
  3/ Humanity will develop the technologies necessary to design and run a simulation and will do so – if this is the case, it has probably already been done and we almost certainly live in a simulation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, charon said:

 

 

 

14 minute audio/podcast on the religion comparison.

 

http://pca.st/b1oT

 

 

From the article

 

https://junkee.com/living-simulation/189734

 

Which premise is

 

  1/ Humanity will go extinct before we reach the technological capacity to manufacture a human simulation.
  2/ Humanity will develop the technologies necessary to design and run a simulation, but will have no interest in     doing so.
  3/ Humanity will develop the technologies necessary to design and run a simulation and will do so – if this is the case, it has probably already been done and we almost certainly live in a simulation.

 

 

I think number 4 would be: Humanity keeps collapsing into earlier technological age and can't reach anything too advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, runebomme said:

I think number 4 would be: Humanity keeps collapsing into earlier technological age and can't reach anything too advance

Former Environment Minister of France says that we have to stop making cars in order to manufacture horse-drawn yokes. That's because the world collapses certainly by 2030.

https://www.institutmomentum.org/the-next-thirty-three-years-on-earth/

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

10/10 for the new avatar :lol:

 

 

AATU.thumb.jpg.5f3fc71f7b86da088ea81096acf65d0d.jpg.8fd07e929ec7ce8e2c8de7457eb3d405.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use