Uncovering a Simulation

It does? What evidence?Agobot, you seem to be a little...unbalanced...after your physics discussion with cavediver about the nature of reality. Everything from matter to the very concept of distance may just be different perturbations of the quantum field, but that doesn't mean the world we observe is any less real. It's no different from discovering that your body is actually made up of atoms - the end result is still really you.It's not so much that the Universe is illusory, it's more that we humans have a limited range of observation.As for the Unvierse "making sense," well, we did evolve to fit the Universe. It rather makes sense that the unvierse makes sense to us, don't you think? I would imagine that, in a Universe where, say, the laws of thermodynamics don't apply and yet life somehow still exists in some fashion, the sentient species of such a Universe would find that their laws of physics make sense to them as well.

None of that had anything to do with evidence that our reality is some sort of simulation. It was completely unrelated to anything even remotely relavent.Further, it was an appeal to authority withotu any sort of argument. Quoting Einstein doesn't magically make you right, Agobot.How any why do you believe Quantum Mechanics will be proven wrong? In what specific way do you think ti is "incomplete?" Why? Simply saying that "Einstein thought it must be wrong" is not an argument at all. How does this mean that our reality is a simulation? How does it even support that idea? No, after reading your other replies so far here and in other threads, I think "unbalanced" was a good word choice. You aren't making cohesive arguemtns, Agobot, you're quoting various physicists without actually making an argument of your own.Quantum physics is certainly counterintuitive to human beings, who don't directly experience reality on the quantum scale. Our reality is made up of conglomerations of molecules (and even those we typically can't see, certainly not without technological aid), which are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles, which are made of still smaller quarks and gluons, and the smaller the scale the less intuitively the Unvierse appears.That doesn't mean that our reality is an illusion, just that we don't see the whole picture. A building is no less real simply because it's made of bricks. Our reality is no less real simply because it all boils down to disturbances in the quantum field. The atoms that make you up are really there, they just aren't the final building blocks of the Universe. This doesn't make any sense. You haven't said in what way my quote was similar to what Einstein thought. You haven't said what specifically was proven wrong in the 70's. There's no argument here, just a series of noncohesive sentences. Take a deep breath and try again.How is noting that objects made of atoms are still real despite their reality as structures of simpler particles similar to what Einsten thought? What did Einstein think? How was it proven wrong? Make your actual argument, Agobot. I wouldn't say that sceince is "futile." The scientific method has proven to be an incredible method of ensuring accuracy in understanding reality. I assume you actually mean our current scientific understanding of the Universe, and if that's the case, I agree - there certainly can be additional "laws and phenomenon at play" than what we've uncovered so far. That's a basic fact of all scientific research ever.But then, noting that we can always be wrong, especially if new data is eventually uncovered, doesn't mean that we are wrong. So far as we can tell, Quantum Mechanics is an incredibly accurate set of theories. It may be that, like Newton's law of gravity, we may find that our current models break down at a certain scale and a more accurate model is developed, but that doesn't make our current models any less accurate for the scales and phenomenon we've observed. ...wow. That was quite a rant. It's unfortunate that there wasn't anything more cohesive than "I don't understand it so I don't accept it, scientists are just full of bullshit." Congratulations, Agobot, you've just shown that Creationists aren't the only ones whose personal ignorance and incredulity can somehow count as authoritative on science. Perhaps you could try making sense next time? Perhaps posting an argument? A reason you think "QM is fucked up?" Careful. Counting personal experiences and observations above careful objective analysis of nature lies the way of madness. It may be "more real" to you, but that doesn't make your understanding of reality any more objectively accurate. You're human, subject to ignorance, misunderstanding, and emotion, just like the rest of us. I have full confidence in reality. I still don't see how yours was shaken by the notion that physical reality is the result of perturbations in the quantum field. It doesn't make my desk any less solid, it doesn't make water any less wet. I view that information in the same way I view the revelation that matter is comprised of atoms. Even general atomic interactions and chemistry are counterintuitive to anyone who hasn't taken a chemistry course. Again, learning about chemical bonds, elements, electron shells, and the fact that matter is almost entirely empty space didn't change the objective reality of life at the human scale. It simply provided additional information as to the nature of the Universe. Quantum mechanics is the same. What specific findings? What consequences? How can they "ruin this message board?" How are they "screwed up and unreal?"You aren't posting compelte thoughts here, Agobot. Please respond with something of substance. 10 imaginary internet dollars says cavediver's initial reaction to this thread (assuming it garners a response at all) is one of either mockery or a request that you seek help.

...what?What relavence did your post have, Agobot? How did your Einstein quote have anything whatsoever to do with our reality being a simulation? I don't see any relavence at all. Perhaps you could illuminate us? ...I never said the moon was not there when we don't observe it. I simply pointed out that quoting Einstein in teh absence of any actual argument is meaningless. I can't refute your argument if you don't even post one. What does this have to do with reality being a simulation? You're the one who explicitly stated that you believe that QM is "incomplete." You surely must have some reason, right? Or is it just personal incredulity? Because that's utterly meaningless. So far as I understand it (and I'm certainly no physicist), we wouldn't expect to directly observe quantum mechanics at our scale. We can't see those interactions, any more than we can directly observe the structure of galactis clusters unaided. It doesn't make either QM or astronomy wrong to note that they aren't necessary to accurately model the classical world we exist in. QM just gives a higher level of resolution, to use an analogy, and reveales a more subtle and complex part of teh picture that we don't see on our own. Well, thanks for still not explaining your argument. You think the Universe may actually be a simulation because of some unnamed "explanations" and experiments that you don't find very convincing? It would very much help if you would describe the experiments and explanations that lead you to think that the universe may actually be a simulation. I didn't say that any argument is wrong, Agobot, becasue no argument has been presented. I said that your posts are incohesive because they consist of a string of quotes from physicists with nothing that connects them to the topic of this thread. I have absolutely no idea what your actual position is or what your reasoning behind it is because you haven't stated it yet outside of the OP's assertion that "there is evidence that the Unvierse is a simulation." My replies have primarily consisted of requests for you to describe exactly what evidence supports that assertion, and your responses have included Einstein quotes that have nothing to do with the Universe as a simulation.I'm not arguing against any position becasue you haven't presented a position compelte enough to argue for or against it. I'm asking you to post a complete thought. Describe why you think the Unvierse is a simulation. Explain how all of those physicist quotes tie into your argument. I'm frankly tired of playing Indiana Jones with your point - I shouldn't have to look for it, you should simply and comprehensibly state it. You aren't tesla, but you're starting to bear a stronger and stronger resemblance to his "nothing exists outside of existence" posts. Please start making sense so that I can reply properly! ...controversy in building construction?This just doesn't make any sense at all, Agobot. I cannot understand your reply. Please rephrase.Perhaps you could also explain the "controversy in QM" and how it applies to your assertion that the Universe is a simulation?My point was that gaining a better understanding of the overall reality of the Universe, whether that's understanding that matter and energy and dimensions are the result of fluctuations int eh quantum field, or understanding that molecules are comprised of atoms, or that a building is made of bricks, doesn't change the objective reality we observe around us. Again, my desk is still solid. I'm still typing on a keyboard. The keyboard may actually be a specific series of distortions in the quantum field that behave as quarks and gluons which combine into subatomic particles which form atoms which form molecules which are arranged in a human-designed fashion at a still larger scale to function as a computer interface device, but the end result is still a keyboard. Understanding that every aspect of our reality is affected by our perspective as temporal entities at a specific scale soesn't mean that our reality is somehow an illusion - it's jsut an incomplete picture. As I said before.Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you believe that the keyboard in front of you doesn't exist because at the most basic scale we are aware of it's simply a nearly infinitely complex series of quantum interactions? I have heard of that argument, Agobot. But most typically when I see the "God doesn't play dice" quote from Einstein brought up, it's by a Creationist trying to show Einstein believed in God. You didn't provide any surrounding statements of your own to tie the quote into your point. I had no context to go on.But given the convoluted nature of this thread, I'd rather not look to my own sources to determine your argument, and besides, that violates the forum rules. Please state, in your own words, what your argument is. I assume it will ahve something to do with the Unvierse as a simulation as that's the topic of the thread, but I'm not going to ask anyone other than you to state your argument. So you have a problem with the uncertainty principle. I might be starting to understand some of your argument, though not why it makes you think the Universe might be a simulation.
What specifically is your problem with the uncertainty principle? Simply that it's counterintuitive to entities that exist in the classical realm like us? I certainly agree that the uncertainty principle and things like Schrodinger's Cat make my head hurt to think about for too long, but then, that's because I live at the classical scale and my experiences are built around that level of detail. Perhaps if I could have directly experienced the reality of teh uncertainty principle as an actual aspect of my life it would be less counterintuitive, but, well, them's the breaks. Personal experience is personal. As in, it's only ever experienced by an individual. If those experiences are verified outside of the individual, we'd call them objective observations. Your statement that "My reality > a bullshit scientific interpretation" implied that you would count your own personal experience above the conclusion of a body of multiple scientists after analyzing a set of objective data and testing their model against reality. In other words, if you hallucinated that you saw, say, a flying spaghetti monster, you would count that hallucination above the objective analysis of local camera footage and independant observer interviews that say no such monster was present. When you accept your own personal experiences as less fallable than everyone elses, and especially as less fallable than the conclusions of the scientific method which is designed compeltely to eliminate personal bias and illusory interpretations by objectively verifying all data, you're stepping dangerously close to crazy-land.But then, given your inability to make sense and your overly-defensive insistence on taking every post adversarially rather than comprehending a simply request for a better explanation of your point, perhaps you're not just dangerously close any longer. If you see tesla there in your visit to looney-world, please tell him that we don't miss him, but I do hope you return to the land of making sense soon.

Non sequitur. "Oddness" in reality does not imply that the universer is a simulation. In fact, in siumlations we do create, we tend to target the simulation around the scale of what's being simulated. Space shuttle simulators, for example, use classical Newtonian mechanics and gravity, not quantum mechanics, because the classical equasions are more than accurate enough for the scale of the simulation. Similarly, the simulator does not model individual molecules or atoms or subatomic particles, as they are irrelevant to the simulation.If we're talking about a computer simulation, adding that extra detail costs significant computing resources in terms of computational power and memory. When there's no real reason to add that detail because the simulation is targeted at a scale where quantum mechanics is not required to accurately model existence, it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to add it in.You seem to believe that if the Universe does not behave intuitively at every scale, this must be evidence ogf a simulation. That's not the case. The uncertainty principle no more supports the notion that the Universe is a simulation than it supports the idea that the universe is all a dream, or that the Unvierse simply exists, or that it was created by a deity. It's simply not relevant to any of those questions.This, of course, is even without addressing your misunderstanding of uncertainty. I'll leave that to cavediver, but as it is, even if your conceptual model of the implications of quantum mechanics were dead-on, I still haven't seen you provide evidence to support the idea that the Universe is a simulation.

You've made this assertion multiple times in the thread, and you've never once supported it. The fact that reality is not as "simple" as we perceive in our everyday lives is not evidence of a "simulation" or dream or creator or anything else.It's time for you to support your assertion, Agobot. Why does the added complexity and counterintuitive nature of QM lead you to believe this is a simulation? because so far all I've seen is empty words and the personal incredulity of Agobot.

I've read what you call "evidence," and none of it lends support for your assertion that reality is some sort of simulation. If you don't have the "time or nerve" to express your evidence in your own words, then why are you posting here? No, I understand that reality is far more compelx than what I can see with my own eyes. I understand that everything we see, right down to our concepts of matter, energy, time, and distance, are all just the cumulative result of perturbations in the quantum field, and that reality has more to do with probability and wave functions and less to do with absolute certainty.Your comment is an ad hominem, and irrelevant. Cavediver never said that. You did. Illusion != simulation. Reality is not only what we see and intuitively comprehend. It's true structure is far more complex and counter to anythign we would imagine on our own. You could call the overlying reality on top of the complexity of quantum mechanics "illusory," but that doesn't have anything to do with a simulation.So this is both a non sequitur and an appeal to authority. Way to poison the well. You clearly haven't read any of my posts here. I'm an atheist because I see no reason to believe in any deities. If evidence were presented that strongly suggested the existence of a deity, I would believe in them. I follow the evidence. It's no fault of mine that there is no evidence of any creator. 8 appeals to authority all at once, with no actual support for the assertion that any of them believed in a creator, let alone presenting their actual arguments. Way to go. This is a strawman of the type I usually only see from diehard Creationists. Been hanging out at AnswersInGenesis much lately, Agobot? The human body didn't simply spring into existence spontaneously, self-arranging from some primordial soup into a fully-formed human being. We're the cumulative endpoint of one branch of millions of years of life's evolution. There is no randomness, only natural selection and the laws of chemistry. Argument from personal credulity and a repeat of your appeals to authority. Great job! We've known that long before we knew about QM (well, perhaps minus the light part). All baryonic matter consists of the same protons, neutrons and electrons. Does that change the fact that complex arrangements of these particles result int he matter we see around us? This is one of the least intelligent things I've ever seen. Even above the QM level I'm composed of the same compounds as ice cream. It has nothing to do with anything. The fact that the entire Unvierse is simply the cumulative expression of the quantum field doesn't mean the Universe is a simulation. I don't claim to know there isn't a creator. I claim to have no reason to believe there is one. There's a rather large difference. Further, it's irrelevant. You're dodging the topic, Agobot. You still haven't presented any evidence that the Universe is a simulation.It's wonderful that you've become a master of logical fallacies. It's unfortunate you've become a master of using them instead of identifying and avoiding them.