|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Uncovering a Simulation | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: I'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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: What's more, quantum entanglement and its faster than light travel of information... Information cannot be communicated using entanglement, and so there is no known method for information to travel faster than the speed of light. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: Here is a test from Switzerland that finds that "signals" could travel at least 10 000 times the speed of light(or maybe it's that they don't really "travel" through what we think they do?): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403382,00.html 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. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar, clarity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: Yep, the measurement problem cannot be avoided currently and information is impossible to be sent but still the entangled particles appear to conflict with the property of relativity that information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: No no, i am not saying it's possible to transmit information through quantum entanglement. I am saying that the 2 particles are exchanging information at FTL speeds when for instance one partcle's spin changes. Something has to account for that "interconnection" and logically my mind tells me the particles are communicating information about the other particle's state through some means in a FTL fashion. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Agobot,
Let me try to repeat your argument back to you so you can see how it looks to everyone else:
Because we cannot prove there is no Creator, and because the world's greatest scientists believe the universe had a Creator, and because reality in the small bears no resemblance to reality in the large, and because QM is shocking and disturbing and "totally screwed up" (Message 4), therefore reality must be a simulation. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: No, that's not true. That's how a die-hard atheist would interpret my words. 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. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix link. Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Addressing the on-topic portion of your post:
Agobot writes: Yep there is plenty... like 0.00000000001% or less of the volume. 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:
--Percy Edited by Percy, : See AbE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: It doesn't matter if a certain very very tiny portion of the EM spectrum is reflected off of certain atoms. 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.
You fail to see that quantum theory tells us there is only one world. 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.
In a sentence, Einstein is right and you are wrong. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: Where did i misunderstand Einstein? That reality does not exist? How could you misunderstand such a blunt statement? 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.
No there are not different perceptual levels of one reality. There is only one reality and one preception. One of them is composed entirely of energy and the other of matter. 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?
Whereas, as soon as life dies out on this planet, the classical world(or what you call reality)... But I didn't call the classical world reality. I said there is only one reality, but many perceptual levels.
...will disappear but the quantum world will remain unscathed because it's not a perceptional world. I think change is pretty much a constant at all perceptual levels. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agobot writes: Yep, the real fundamental non-perceived world is an energy field, the other classical world is both matter and energy. Our senses perceive that energy in different forms - part of the EMR spectrum is light for us,... Okay so far.
...part of the EMR spectrum is sounds for us,... Sound isn't EMR, so...
...that same small part of EMR can be human speech for us,... ...this is nonsense.
We perceive some of the energy in the energy field as energy and some as matter. Makes sense to me. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024