Uncovering a Simulation

Although I agree with Percy and cavediver that the two "differences" were very strange aspects to highlight, I did find this portion of the source very helpful in amplifying the difference between light and sound in my mind: [bracket-thoughts added by me]I especially like how it talks about the difference of increasing/decreasing velocity in various mediums. That shows a distinct fundamental difference between light and sound. Although, I suppose it certainly lacks describing what that fundamental difference specifically is Or is there anything in there that's also very wrong?

I stand corrected on the EMR spectrum, thanks to everyone who noticed the minor glitches in my posts. Can we now go back to the topic of matter, energy and "reality"(or maybe i should say "energy reality" or "energy existence") that we were discussing and which are topic of the thread?Would anyone take a guess who/what causes the energy fields to become aware of their energetic existence through a perceptional existence of a ridiculously highly sophisticated energy field entity(e.g. Einstein)? Inevitability? Emergent properties? Randomness?Didn't the father of Evolution theory - Charles Darwin a few years before his death state:"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into futurity, as a result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." From The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882.Wasn't the father of the Evolution Theory saying what Einstein said a few decades later:"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous"Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

After your Message 94 it appeared to me that we were in agreement. First you said there's only one world, and I agreed and said there are just different perceptual levels. You replied saying that what is actually just energy fields at the QM level is variously perceived by ourselves as either energy or matter, and I agreed again.--Percy

You made significant additions to your post while I was replying. When I wrote my reply there was only the first paragraph.Are you ever going to provide any evidence for your position, or are you just going to keep repeating the fallacy of argument from authority with famous scientist sound bites?Anyway, about your Einstein and Darwin quotes and your claim that they're saying the same thing, I doubt that anyone but you can see any similarity, and how in the world they support your claim that reality is a simulation or an illusion or non-existent or whatever it is your claim has now morphed into is anyone's guess.--Percy

What evidence? That matter is energy compactified in atoms, which make up matter? How about you show me which of the "particles" that make up an atom are really particles? The quark? The electron that can be in multiple places all at once or that's proven to move at 99.9999992% of the speed of light? You can call black white for as long as you are alive, but white is white. QFT proves that the universe is an energy field and that you are interpreting the fields as something different through your body apparatus.Now where is the evidence that I am wrong? That the universe is not composed entirely of energy? That what we all 6.6 billion people experience as life and reality is not just a perception arising somehow off the fields(and percepted allegedly by a self-constructing and self-designing body of energy)? Just saying I am wrong means NOTHING, unless you can back up your claims.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

You are constantly alleging that I am misinterpreting scientists. I do sometimes, but would you tell me what in your opinion the following statement means:"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous"Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Hi Abogot,Do you feel you should be reading into these quotes so deeply?

I think you might have a point there, because after all, that quote was left by just another one of those self-arising, self-designing and self-conscious energy fields.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

First, nothing is self-arising, nothing is self-designed, energy fields are not conscious. It just seems that you are using these quotes as definative evidence of something existing other than the reality you are conscious of.I'd like to know a bit more about what you feel QFT suggest about reality. I cannot believe that you think it means nothing is real, do you?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

QFT states that the universe is made up of fields composed of point particles with zero dimensions. To the best of our current knowledge in QT, the universe is entirely composed of energy. I don't really mean nothing is real, however i do think that our classical world is real only to our peculiar body apparatus, and if there was no life, say 4 billion years ago, the classical world would simply not exist. Why life formed to "see" what we call a classical world from the fields of a quantum world is beyond me. I don't think this perception is uncaused, deep down we are still a part of these quantum fileds, we are nothing but energy that somehow acquired an air of existence and "intelligence"(I am not even sure what this means any more, looks like something given and directed to us). What does intelligence means in the quantum world of energies vibrating in atoms or energy flows between fields? Intelligence means nothing, it's part of our perception, of our reflection of how we see the quantum world. It's a good topic - how is nothing self-arising and self-designing in the quantum world? If you could take a look at your body in a quantum world fashion, you'd see an astonishing level of complexity of the arrangement of energy. Your body exists in the quantum world - it's probably the most sophisticated arrangement of energies found anywhere in the universe and that same arrangement falls apart after 75 years, or after certain number of movements within the quantum world. If this most sophisticated arrangement of energy fields is not self-arising and self-designing, what/who brought to its current state of arrangement that permits it to have an air of existence and reality? Luck? Coincidence? Well, at least acknowledge that I am not quoting Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton, but the greatest physicist of the 20th century. And it's not only the quotes, i am leaning on most of the findings of QM and QFT, how else would i believe in some quotes and not in others? I think Einstein was as close to the creator(whatever that means or might be) as it's currently possible. I think he pursued him through science through most of his life(i think that's why he says he's a deep believer and wrote the book "Religion and Science"), that's how i believe we can unravel the mystery into which we were born. See what he says about religion and reality:“If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” -Albert EinsteinBuddhism on reality:Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma, part of the process of impermanence, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya.

​

Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations.
Different schools and traditions in Tibetan Buddhism give different explanations of the mechanism producing the illusion usually called "reality".Reality in Buddhism - WikipediaEinstein did comment that Buddhism "contains a much stronger element of [the cosmic religious feeling, by which] the religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished."Erwin Schroedinger, David Bohm, Niels Bohr, etc on Buddhism and science:Buddhism and science - WikipediaEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : spellingEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

double post deletedEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I wrote about it in this topic but appearantly it didn't get the attention of cavediver. I know that time is something that is still not very well understood, but is there evidence that what we perceive as reality is (or is not) a motion picture with a refresh rate of N Planck times per second. I used the word refresh rate only figuratively so that most folks would understand the question.
I know what we perceive as space is the energy quantised only in certain kind of potentials, and that the allowed energy states depend on the potential of the particles. But this quantisation is not exactly discrete quantisation, it's a mathematical model that fits the most our current understanding of the physical world(I can be partly wrong on that, but this seems what scientists are doing to reconcile QM and GR).So is time quantised or is it quantised only mathematically via the Planck time unit? If time is not quantised, how does the world move from one Planck time unit to the next(and would there be a meaning to a Planck time at all, when it'd suggest that there is a smaller unit than the Plank time)? If it's quantised - we'd have a definite "refresh rate" for our "reality" and that'd be something interesting for this discussion.Sorry for the edits, but when the most prominent scientists of our time are talking about our universe emerging from the singularity after 10^-43 seconds, don't they strongly suggest that our "movie" has a definite refresh rate of N times the Planck unit per second, where N is a real number but i don't have the necessary calculator to calculate it? (this would probably be enough to warrant me another ban if the whole of physics didn't stand behind this question).Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : spelling - quantized vs quantisedEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein

Last night i got acquainted to a blonde girl and she asked me about my name. Then we proceeded with small talk over a few drinks and she asked me about my age. I thought i could apply quantum theory in a funny pick up line and said I'm 13.7 billion years old and she said "Whaaat?". I didn't really want to get into the quantum physics and explain to her my quantum speak and that proton decay has never been observed, that when an atom(say carbon) decays its energy just changes states and gets different energy levels, bla bla bla... I bet she's telling her friends now how drunk i was or how crazy I am, poor girl has no idea she's 13.7 billion y.o. too, in a "fairly" second-hand and old body, whose constituent elementary particles travelled through most of the universe and were present in the Singularity. Bottom-line - quantum theory seems to be incompatible not only with GR but with Blondes as well, hence a Grand Unified Theory between Blondes and Quantum Theory is impossible.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind""I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"-Albert Einstein