Recent Forum Posts
From categories:

In order for us to percieve the world as stable, particles need to "agree" on the same position. We can't have objects with different internal positions. That would make the world seem flickering or transparent.
So in order to make an object seem solid, all particles must assume the same position. They do that instantly via quantum entanglement.

That means entanglement is a neccessity to make the world appear solid.

Entanglement does not get spooky, unless you seperate individual parts, while keeping both under observation, and then change the position of one of them. The observation itself will then force both parts to act the same, because the observation prohibits them from acting independent. Observing locks the common position so to say.

Observing only one of them, will untangle them. Observation is paramount.

To make an every day example, we could assume walking down a narrow street on a harbour. At the end, you can see the tip af a large ship. The collapse of the wavefunction says there is only the tip. But if you add entanglement, the whole ship is there, because the particles of the ship share information!

Quantum Entanglement Solved! by QuantumTQuantumT, 16 Feb 2018 22:31

Just read an interesting article on hplusmagazine about emotions in AI's, but unfortunately the system will not allow me to post a link.You can google it yourself, with these words: "will AI ever feel emotions"

So the summary is that AI (robots) cannot feel complex emotions, because they don't

- Need food
- Propagate
- Get sick
- Grow old
- Die

But what if they were tricked into thinking that they did?

Thereby goes the only arguement I had against the simulation hypothesis…

Re: Feelings and pain by QuantumTQuantumT, 06 Jan 2018 18:05

Even as a supporter of the simulation hypthesis, I find it a bit troubling that there is no critical arguements on this site. I will try to make some.

Emotion. Feeling. The things in your stomache. The things that can drive you mad. Can that be computerized. Made into code? Love? Hate?

I think about that alot. And it is perhaps the weakest link in this hypothesis.
Can we do it now? Most certainly not. Or atleast I don't think so. Is it possible to create such an advanced code, that it immitates feelings? I don't know. I can't see how.

One feeling is also pain. It can drive you mad. Like the place that hurts is possesing your brain. You are helpless. Pain is so dominant, that you can even forget breathing.
Can pain be simulated? I don't know.

Being in love. A possesion of your mind. The person of your affection is beyond perfect. Godlike. You feel intoxicated by the presence of her/him. Can that be coded? I don't know.

So we can agree that feelings and pain are doubtful things to be able to code. But we don't know. Yet. The future might show.
If there is no positive advance in this field of coding AI's, it might tell us, that our universe is real. Dispite all the facts.

Feelings and pain by QuantumTQuantumT, 06 Jan 2018 00:00

If you combine all 3 branches of physics + math, the simulation becomes obvious.

1: Basic old shcool

Lets start with the oldest and most basic. The atom. It's almost completely void. Some say the protons, neutrons and electrons are solely energy. Positive in the middle, negatives sourrounding it, and vast vast empty space between them. The atom is hollow. The atom is pure information. The total of all mass in the universe combined, is the size of a marble. Estimated! (Maybe it's less. Maybe none. Maybe only when needed?)

2: String theory

String theory equations tells us 3 imporant things:

A: The universe is holographic. At the edge of the universe, all events from within are displayed in holograms. (Might as well call it a monitor.)

B: Buried inside the equations are genuine computercodes, that corrects errors in graphics.

C: Ten dimensions is what string theory tells us there are. In a 5th dimension, our universe would just be a single point. Or maybe a singe unit. A single computer.

3: Quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics shows us that reality (matter) adapts to us. We (the observers) turn potential matter into solid matter, just by observing (sensing). It's the most proven fact in physics. We do!

4: Math

Math tells us that we either live in a multiverse or a zero-verse. Most likely the latter.

Unified field by QuantumTQuantumT, 27 Dec 2017 00:13

First the human angle.

When we have "alot on our plate" we get stressed. To much stress can cause breakdown or depression. When depressed we are paralyzed. Can't process anymore.

The simulation/processor angle.

When your computer has to many programs to open on startop, it feels like eternity before it's finally ready. Adding more programs and processes to this, will make it slow in performance. If you keep adding work to it, it will eventually stall so much, that you can't use it for several minutes. Sometimes it even freezes.

Depression is a freeze. Stress is very slow processing.

It makes sense.

But we can't restart, like a device. We need to shut down processes ourselves, or with help from professionals. We only got this session.

So the next time you feel stressed. Halt! Don't allow it! Let your processor rule the speed of events. Say no! Disconnect. Take control of your life!

Simulation Psychology by QuantumTQuantumT, 24 Aug 2017 22:30

The direction of the wind adapts to the mountain, that does not mean that the wind is simulated for the sake of the mountain. It does mean that there is a relation between the two, understood or not.

You can't compare wind on a mountain to the collapse of the wavefunction (CotWF). Wind and landscapes respond to electromagnetic forces. The one with the weakest force, must change path when colliding with a bigger. (Simplified)

The CotWF is the biggest mystery in the universe (besides the time before the big bang). The proven fact that matter changes form/behavior due to observation, has nothing to do with electromagnetism. They are two very very different things.

I don't claim that the CotWF is proof of a simulation. I just ask if people can find a better explanation.

To avoid more misunderstanding, I edited proof to 'proof'.

Math concludes that we either live in a multiverse, or in a zero-verse. So if you trust math, you have two choices.

If we can "never know" then why bother with it? ;-)

When has the impossible ever stopped mankind? ;-)

Re: The game by QuantumTQuantumT, 18 Aug 2017 16:33

So, what more proof do you need?
You are part of a system that adabts to you.
Do you have a better explanation to this, than a computer?

The direction of the wind adapts to the mountain, that does not mean that the wind is simulated for the sake of the mountain. It does mean that there is a relation between the two, understood or not.

Likewise, lack of a better explanation does not mean that reality is a simulation. This is a shifting of the burden of proof. To be fair, (and I'm all about being fair) the burden of proof still lies with those making the claim, not the listener to provide a better explanation. And until then, the argument from ignorance fallacy remains with the list of other fallacies.

But why would he make the universe mathematical?
He is omnipotent, so why make it technical?
Would a God need math and science?
Unless God is a scientist.

I think you're speaking of one specific god as worshipped by one specific group. Why make it mathematical? Why technical? Does he need math and science? Unless?? That is not an argument I can accept because 1) there is no proof of "god" (much less a specific god) and 2) One can be mathematical, technical and scientific without being a "scientist". And 3) What is wrong with being all of these things and still being a "god", if there were a "god" why couldn't s/he have a set of tools to facilitate the management of creation. But this is just an added dimension to already complex enough dimension; one cannot use one unproven thing to prove another unproven thing.

One thing is for sure. We can only imagine why. Never know.

If we can "never know" then why bother with it? ;-)

Re: The game by Whane The WhipWhane The Whip, 17 Aug 2017 21:09

The border between science and philosophy is getting thinner.
More and more research results show, that the mind itself influences reality.
Particles change behaviour when observed. It's a fact.

So, what more 'proof' do you need?
You are part of a system that adabts to you.
Do you have a better explanation to this, than a computer?

Perhaps you think God is the architect.
7 day creation, garden of Eden, the flood.
But why would he make the universe mathematical?
He is omnipotent, so why make it technical?
Would a God need math and science?
Unless God is a scientist.

I think he is. Or rather "they".
You don't make something as complex as this alone.

So why make it?
Maybe it's a game. The game of chances.
If you had seemingly real live characters to control,
wouldn't you find that exiting? Exhilerating? Mindblowing?

Maybe you are such a character. Maybe you should play along.
One thing is for sure. We can only imagine why. Never know.

The game by QuantumTQuantumT, 16 Aug 2017 22:35

If you haven't seen the latest chapter in the Alien movie series, called "Covenant", read no further! Spoilers ahead!

The movie touches the nerve of the simulation hypothesis consequence. That we are AI's. Artificial Intelligent beings, and what it means to be that. The choice of good and evil, or if we even have such a choice. Are we preprogrammed from birth?

In the movie there are two AI androids. One, Walter, is a newer model. Stable, relieable, safe. The other, David, is an older model with more freedom of choice and creativity.

David chose to use his freedom and creativity to make a weapon: the alien. He bread if from a fierce creature to a super destructive monster. He even used the body of his only companion (at that time), a human female, to do so. In the end he goes as far as to impersonate Walter, to get onboard the Covenant spacecraft. He cuts off his hand, and acts like Walter. All to complete his task: spread his perfect creature. His creation. The alien monster.

David is the complete psycho / mad scientist. And he is so without a shred of remorse. He totally lacks conscience. Like some people in our world!

Walter on the other hand is obedient and harmless to humans. He has no choice.

No doubt we are closer to being David than Walter, due to choice. Most people avoid hurting others at almost any cost, but nearly noone is safe from being pushed over the edge. If pressure and desperationen gets high enough, most of us will kill.

So the question is: Are most of us Walter, with the option of turning into David? Is altruism (self sacrifice) our version of Walter?

Walter & David by QuantumTQuantumT, 12 Aug 2017 19:57

All things macro in the universe, is based on mathematical models.
If we dive into the micro parts of it - the quantum mechanics - we see the collapse of the wavefunction, which can be best explained as processor priorities.

In short by QuantumTQuantumT, 08 Aug 2017 18:53

So you accepted, that you are virtual? Welcome to a very exclusive club!

It must be a chock to realize, that you don't really exist though. That you are in a freaking computer. But it should also comfort you to know, that you are not alone. Although most people think they are physical and real, they are neither. So, there are billions of us! We all share the same experience you do! It all seems real to us, as well as it does to you!

And what difference does it make, if you are physical or artificial? Nothing has changed, except knowing. All is still the same. You love, hurt, hunger and feel like you did before "knowing".

All this really means is, that we now have an answer to some of the ultimate questions:
How did all this start, where do we come from, and what is consciousness?

I never expected to find an answer to those questions, when I first started studying physics, so I consider it a triumph, to have reached a plausible and logical conclussion, that makes sense throughout. Even if that makes me artificial.

Personally I'd rather be a self aware AI, than a clueless physical entity, in the endless vastness of space.

"The pale blue dot", as Carl Sagan described Earth, when the Voyager 1 probe left the solar system, is not insignificant after all. It plays a major part in this universe. Maybe even the lead part!

Don't feel bad or fake! by QuantumTQuantumT, 26 Jul 2017 18:30

The "why".

It can't be answered. It's impossible to know their reason. But we can make probable guesses. Here are a few.

1. The science test.

Does their theories about their universe work? Will it pan out like they see in their nature? Testing it with a super-computer seems like a good way to get closer to the truth of their own origin. Our existence could be their 'thumbs up', that they got it right.

2. Entertainment v.1.0 (private)

If we are their entertainment, we should expect some degree of interaction with our "user". But there seems to be none.
But! The computer that contains us, could be located in the bedroom of some kid, who left it running, while in school. When he/she get's home, we might have self-destructed, or maybe we've become an intergalactic species…?

3. Entertainment v.2.0 (public)

Maybe they do interact, we just don't believe it, when people tell about the "supernatural". But to explain divinity and supernatural interaction on a global scale takes alot of descission-making. Perhaps we're some sort of advanced Reality-show…?

4. The digital guinea pig.

They could be facing a major crisis, and run many simulations simultaniously to quickly find the best solution.

It is critical to such a simulation, that people act and feel like real people, and critical not to interfeer, thus the lack of compassion or communication from their side.

Their crisis would occur in our world sooner or later.
The simulation would end when the best possible solution has been found.

Possible crisises could be global warming, a pandemic or even an alien invasion.

The simulation with the best solution (could be ours, could be another) might be allowed to continue as some sort of guide for their own future.

5. The mortal ancestor.

Tens of thousands of years from now, humanity has become androids in the attempt to defeat death. Now they want to know what they once were, and what mortal life was like.

Motives - or - the "why"? by QuantumTQuantumT, 11 Jul 2017 20:02

True science exhausts all doubts or false data to get to the true core.
So must we do. We do have an immense amount of circumstancial evidence, but we must be ready to throw it all away, if evidence says we are wrong.

When that is said, I am totally and utterly pro! But also open to be wrong.

Einstein and Bohr never knew the concept of a computer, neither did Heisenberg or Schrödinger. But they saw what they saw, and reported it, despite its weird behaviour. I admire their stamina not to turn religious, despite lacking a physical explanation like we have from knowing computers.

I will continue to contribute to this place/site. Do let me know if it is nolonger wanted!

(I am not a gamer. Not since I was a kid in the 80's. I see games as pointless action towards nothing.)

Re: Pros & cons by QuantumTQuantumT, 07 Jul 2017 22:39

Hi QuantumT,

Thanks for posting. I was so surprised to see it, in fact I forgot that I had a forum on this site. I wanted to go ahead and reply now otherwise it would be a few days…

The nature of the universe itself is mathematical.

This one statement, is so full of possibilities. In my news feed I have a math and science section and I often see articles about the math behind <topic x>, the flow of fudge on a hot fudge sunday for example. The quote I tend to borrow is: "Perhaps the reason why everything can be explain with math, is because everything is math."

- The atom is almost completely void. All real matter in the universe would fit into a marble.
- Particles pop in and out of existance, like and old TV screen with no signal.
- Particles are only there when you force them to be, by observing/measuring them.

All of that reminds me of video games. It seems like there is substance, but there is not. When you turn and face a direction, the program behind the game fills the screen (if a tree falls in the forest…). The pixels appear only when you turn to observe them, because before then, there are no pixels.

I feel. I hurt. I lust. I hate. I love. Computers can't do that.

But what are these things? Electrical impulses in the brain? Chemicals? A feeling can't be trusted to convey the truth.

I suck at math, so how can I be an AI?

If bots, then bots have AI, and that AI can be throttled forward, or back.

Reality is far too complex to be simulated.

We as a race are already simulating it, in many complex forms. Talk to any gamer that plays MMO's and you will be surprised at the level of detail many have. Eve Online for example. Another one coming up called Chronicles of Elyria, includes aging to the point of death and a community quite deep and involved. Should I even begin to describe the complex world of Minecraft, even though it's not quite an MMO, it is essentially a pixelated world and every pixel (called blocks) can be edited, just like every object in the real world. Users can then take those blocks and make anything that they can imagine. A big question is, why are real-life simulator so popular? We are already busy bodies, so why be so busy doing mundane tasks like collecting dirt (minecraft) in a virtual realm, isn't this pointless? Or is this where people feel at home?

At the time of this post, there are 26,331,683 downloaded copies of Minecraft for PC/Mac and roughly over 121 million copies have been sold across all platforms including xbox live and the pocket editions that people play on their mobile devices.

Are you a gamer? I am, and it's lent quite a bit to my understanding of the simulation hypothesis.

Re: Pros & cons by Whane The WhipWhane The Whip, 07 Jul 2017 21:08

To begin with, I must ask you to keep in mind, that english is not my first language, so there will probably be some phrases that sound wrong to persons born and raised with the english language. I am danish, like Niels Bohr (he who startet this ado).
I thought about putting this thread in the Supportive Arguements section, but since I don't have a fancy title (education) to make my words bare weight, I figured it would be better to put it here.

Now for the content. Let's start with the most interesting stuff, the pros!

Pro simulation:

- The nature of the universe itself is mathematical.
- The universe is pure energy in the shape of information.
- Light has a dual property, depending on how it's measured/observed. Wave and matter.
- The universe has a speed limit, although it is practicly endless.
- Our brain percieves everything from electrical signals.
- The atom is almost completely void. All real matter in the universe would fit into a marble.
- Particles pop in and out of existance, like an old TV screen with no signal.
- Particles are only there when you force them to be, by observing/measuring them.
- I get migraines sometimes and see an "aura". It looks like a pixelated rainbow. Why would my brain make pixels?

The last point was personal. I had those migraines long before I considered this simulation theory. Yet still it was pixelated, so the pixels came prior to my sim-thoughts.
I have more points, but they won't come to mind right now as I write. I will update this thread when/if I remember them.

Con simulation:

- I feel. I hurt. I lust. I hate. I love. Computers can't do that.
- I suck at math, so how can I be an AI?
- Reality is far too complex to be simulated.

Again, I will update if I remember more later.

Now it's out there/here. I could begin to answer the points myself, but then this would take weeks or months to finnish, so I'd rather make a discussion of it, and answer along the way.

Pros & cons by QuantumTQuantumT, 07 Jul 2017 20:03

I started this site a few months back as a catalog for everything relating to the Simulation Theory. Since then I have not been as active in adding content that I would like to be. So today I took some time to add more content and provide a means for users to add content too. You can submit articles, post here on the forum, or leave comments directly on article pages.

This site is not nearly popular enough to constitute a community forum but if you would like to carry on a conversation or post some thoughts then I'm happy to read your posts. Articles will appear on the main page for a while until bumped off by newer articles. However your article will always remain on the site and be found via browsing or searching. There is also a chance that I will post a link to your content in the side bar, especially if it is well written, informative, or thought provoking. As you can see by the menu, there are still quite a few write-ups that need to be completed.