Is our Universe a Computer Simulation?

[ExomatrixTV]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Kc39iIRkt4

~recent scientific study undertaken by the University of Bonn in Germany suggests that the universe could be one giant computer simulation: http://goo.gl/D4bvz

Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation -- http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2...

'The idea we live in a simulation isn't science fiction' -- http://goo.gl/gVlwT

The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation: http://goo.gl/120rO

Plato's Allegory of the Cave -- http://youtube.com/watch?v=smm7E66yhL0

[KiwiElf]

Think this topic may have already been posted
Hmmm, STAR TREK's 'Holodeck'??

[CD7]

Interesting topic... he speaks about the theory of a lattice or matrix type structure being behind everything, which is just a theory (not actually observed). So it seems to b an assumption of how the universe is constructed?

[Flash]

can be linked with Vivek's thread The technological revolution: Artificial Intelligence and the Invisible Plague, both seem to complement each other

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...visible-Plague

[ExomatrixTV]

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...nes-Radio-Show...

[Carmody]

We do know, from the analysis of testing for psychic sensitivity, that one can make a case for the universe responding to concentration, attention and stimulation.. as a form if interaction and expression of will, or expression of interaction and intelligent drive. Ie, "thine will be done." (I ain't religious, it's just a good reference in this issue of 'realization of the nature of the universe--and expression/connection within it')

[Freed Fox]

Posted by Carmody (here)
We do know, from the analysis of testing for psychic sensitivity, that one can make a case for the universe responding to concentration, attention and stimulation.. as a form if interaction and expression of will, or expression of interaction and intelligent drive. Ie, "thine will be done." (I ain't religious, it's just a good reference in this issue of 'realization of the nature of the universe--and expression/connection within it')

Quantum mechanics makes this assertion, though it is framed a bit differently. The quantum theory includes the idea that the act of observation collapses wave functions, thereby actually having somewhat of a deterministic effect on reality. Here is a video which explains it better than I, provided originally by Rahkyt in a different thread;

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9lOWZ0Wv218

It's funny, back in middle school my friends and I played a game, without realizing that there was a psychic dynamic at work. We called it the 'Stare-Down'; during lunch we would quietly choose someone else in the cafeteria (often someone sitting several tables away, with their back turned) to stare intensely at. We would be absolutely quiet, and focus right on them. Within moments this person would often have a jerking reaction and quickly turn around, like someone had tapped them on the shoulder. We did this for years, to the point that the other people at the subject's table would know what was going on, so they would ignore us so as not to tip the subject off (by not drawing attention to the fact they were being stared at). We confirmed time and again that it worked. It was hilarious (and not done in any sort of bullying fashion, either).

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
Quantum mechanics makes this assertion, though it is framed a bit differently. The quantum theory includes the idea that the act of observation collapses wave functions, thereby actually having somewhat of a deterministic effect on reality. Here is a video which explains it better than I, provided originally by Rahkyt in a different thread

The "spooky action at a distance" "wave collapse" described in this video (and in many other places) has never seemed right to me.

Yes, the mathematics of quantum mechanics accurately predicts experimental results to a fine level of accuracy (so I'm told), but the popularized explanation of it seems more to instill awe in the unfathomable mystery of it than to provide a better understanding of the physics of our universe.

Now I think I see what's wrong with this action at a distance explanation. Imagine one has two pennies, differing only in a minor detail, say the little mark the mint puts on coins to indicate which mint coined it, or say the year marked on the two coins. To be specific, let's say one penny is stamped with the year 2000, and the other with the year 2001. Put each penny in a well shielded metal box, and shuffle the two boxes.

Ship one box to Chile and the other to Afghanistan, which are on roughly opposite sides of the earth, about 8000 miles apart on a straight line through the earth's center. Light takes about 43 milliseconds (msecs) to travel 8000 miles. At exactly the same time, to within an accuracy of a few msecs, open both boxes and observe which penny is there. A quick thinking human observer, or a slow witted computer, observing this in Chile or Afghanistan could know, in less than 43 msecs, which penny is in the other location. It's simple -- the other penny is in the other location.

How does this differ from a demonstration of quantum wave collapse? It doesn't ... except in one detail.

Quantum mechanics claims that the various binary properties, such as spin, which are used in such demonstrations are not determined until observed. It would be as if you said those two pennies were each oscillating between having dates 2000 and 2001, randomly, willy-nilly and rapidly. It's worse than that actually; it's claiming that the penny is in both states, 2000 and 2001, simultaneously, at all times, with some statistical probably of either state being detected, once observed. Maybe you have some pennies that do that; I don't. My pennies each have a specific date, and that date doesn't change to some other date unless you pound them really hard in just the right way.

So what changes in the quantum mechanics experiments supposedly demonstrating wave collapse? What changes is that, once the experimenter observes one of the separated particles or waves, they can no longer deny that the other particle/wave does have some specific property. If they see an up spin, they know the other one must have a down spin (or whatever these quantum properties are called.)

Their knowledge changes.

Their insistence that such a property is not determined until it's observed is what collapsed, not some mythical waveform at a distance. They can no longer pretend that the remote particle/wave is randomly, willy-nilly and rapidly oscillating between two states, unknowable until observed. For now they do know exactly what state that property will be in, for the remote particle/wave, if and when observed.

These demonstrations of "action at a distance" are not demonstrations that the real physics of the universe is incomprehensibly mysterious. These demonstrations show us that their insistence on the inherently non-specific statistical nature of the elementary properties of waves and particles is an artifact of their model, not an inherent property of the energies and matter of the universe itself.

[Freed Fox]

Well, I am far from being an expert, but here's my two cents;

The analogy of the pennies is not exactly applicable. The pennies are observed at the time of their creation, and their properties are concrete. Making them unobservable by placing them in metal boxes, shuffling them at random, and sending them to disparate physical locations does nothing to change what has already been determined. This is unlike particles which cannot be observed by the naked eye.

Again, though, I lack a lot of understanding in this field. A professional who actually studies quantum mechanics (forgot who precisely) once said that anyone who claims to understand quantum physics doesn't actually understand quantum physics. I don't mean to refute what you're saying Paul, nor did I mean to provide the theory above as absolute fact. Merely another concept for consideration...

Edit - Just came across this quote by Rupert Sheldrake... Not necessarily about quantum entanglement precisely (as it may very well be a flawed conclusion, as Paul suggested);

“The sense of being stared at works because our minds reach out to touch what we’re looking at and sometimes we can feel that, or animals can feel it, so we can effect what we’re looking at, simply by looking at it. So, there’s something coming out of our eyes, as well as going in.”

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
This is unlike particles which cannot be observed by the naked eye.

How would whether it can be observed by the naked eye matter?

And by the way, quantum entanglement has been observed for photons, molecules as large as buckyballs, and even small diamonds, some of which I presume can be observed by the eye (photons for example.)

Here's an experiment in which both the entangled items and the observed effect were visible to the naked eye: Two Diamonds Linked by Strange Quantum Entanglement.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Paul (here)
So what changes in the quantum mechanics experiments supposedly demonstrating wave collapse? What changes is that, once the experimenter observes one of the separated particles or waves, they can no longer deny that the other particle/wave does have some specific property. If they see an up spin, they know the other one must have a down spin (or whatever these quantum properties are called.)

Their knowledge changes.

Their insistence that such a property is not determined until it's observed is what collapsed, not some mythical waveform at a distance. They can no longer pretend that the remote particle/wave is randomly, willy-nilly and rapidly oscillating between two states, unknowable until observed. For now they do know exactly what state that property will be in, for the remote particle/wave, if and when observed.

The above is the key observation, and worth restating in a different way.

I claim that the "observer effects" that most of us likely accept have been stretched too far in quantum mechanics.

Most of us would accept that observing something can effect it, and most of us would accept that somethings we can't know until we observe them (say the result of a fair coin toss.)

However I claim that quantum mechanics has extended this "observer effect" to also mean that some things are not physically determined until we observe them.

That I don't agree with.

I'm claiming that the paired properties of entangled objects is physically determined before that property is detected in either object, but we just don't know which value the property takes until observing at least one of the two objects. Quantum mechanics on the other hand would claim that the mere act of observing that property in either one of those objects instantly and at arbitrarily far distances collapses some "field" and causes the same property in the remote object to become determined.

I'm claiming that this is just quantum theoreticians refusing to admit that that property was already determined in the remote object, just not yet observed.

[cuitlahuac]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Kc39iIRkt4

~recent scientific study undertaken by the University of Bonn in Germany suggests that the universe could be one giant computer simulation: http://goo.gl/D4bvz

Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation -- http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2...

'The idea we live in a simulation isn't science fiction' -- http://goo.gl/gVlwT

The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation: http://goo.gl/120rO

Plato's Allegory of the Cave -- http://youtube.com/watch?v=smm7E66yhL0

Here is an explanation in lay man's language to make this easy. I hope it helps.

Here's what it means in layman's terms
Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen

.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_un...t_design.html#

[Guish]

I have recently been explaining to senior students the importance of Mathematics as a means to protect them from exploitation or manipulation. The case of the NSA hacking the mails of people and the use of Maths algorithms which constantly tempts people to buy by generating ads were discussed(Facebook, youtube and Google). We finally ended on an article by Frenkel, a university professor and he talks about the possibility of the universe being a simulation. He uses the simulation of particles collision done by Physicists using a 3D grid. The physicists discovered anomalies while simulating their mini universes. They argue that if the same anomalies are discovered in our reality, the universe might well be a simulation created by a superior being. It's very scientific and interesting. I'm linking the article below. Immediately, I thought that's an article for Avalon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/op...tion.html?_r=2

[meat suit]

yes, more than likely...

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...y-Tom-Campbell

but knowing that changes little... we are in it to be in it...that simulation pretending to be real..whatever that may be...

[Shezbeth]

Posted by Guish (here)
They argue that if the same anomalies are discovered in our reality, the universe might well be a simulation created by a superior being.

Okay, lets keep going with this.

IF its a simulation, WHAT is it simulating?

[WhiteLove]

Posted by Guish (here)
I have recently been explaining to senior students the importance of Mathematics as a means to protect them from exploitation or manipulation. The case of the NSA hacking the mails of people and the use of Maths algorithms which constantly tempts people to buy by generating ads were discussed(Facebook, youtube and Google). We finally ended on an article by Frenkel, a university professor and he talks about the possibility of the universe being a simulation. He uses the simulation of particles collision done by Physicists using a 3D grid. The physicists discovered anomalies while simulating their mini universes. They argue that if the same anomalies are discovered in our reality, the universe might well be a simulation created by a superior being. It's very scientific and interesting. I'm linking the article below. Immediately, I thought that's an article for Avalon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/op...tion.html?_r=2

The anomalies they found I am sure is because they are bumping against the limitations of their own intelligence, at least that is much more likely than the universe being a computer simulation. Saying that the universe is a computer simulation, is similar to saying that the universe is a chair - as if a simulated world would be more valid than any other aspect in creation. That early in the reasoning you can already see this reasoning/explanation of the universe breaking down. My idea of what the universe is, is that it is an intelligent being with a unique vibration not found anywhere else in creation, a being that we cannot even imagine what it is like and what kind of form/shape it is. From our point of view I am sure we should best describe that being as being infinitely intelligent. You can have almost infinite amount of almost infinite beings, each being a discrete being, within an infinite creation. From this point of view it becomes extremely unlikely that the particular being we are within, is a computer simulation. Following any kind of logic, in that case it would be more likely that we would be robots as well, but we are not. We are human beings. LOL

I think a universe is a soul. Just like we are intelligent beings with a certain form and mind, so is the universe. The thing that is different between the two of us, is the amount of energy within its dicrete shape. It is probably a being out of love, containing huge amounts of soul fusions coming from huge amounts of various creations. Within its fundamental frequency are all of the beings with their unique fundamental frequencies. Within it, souls are merging to form new fundamental frequencies, hence are also changing the fundamental frequency of the universe being. In doing so, the infinite creator becomes infinitely greater, forever. This is a kind of miracle we simply cannot grasp, the idea is too big.

What is mind blowing in this is also the idea that within something so infinite, is someone like you - someone so unique - so special - so beautiful. It is easy to take people for granted, but when you think of the fact that every day when you meet people, you meet someone there is just a single one of in the entire infinite structure of creation. Just having 2 persons ever meet with an identical frequency but of opposite charge, is a miracle being almost impossible. Then think of the fact that this world does not contain only a single soulmate couple, but several, in fact quite many. This shows how powerful creation is at creating miracles and the fact that two particles - identical without charge/unique with charge - are not constantly at a random distance between each other but are gravitating towards each other and eventually couple, that's fantastic considering how infinite infinity is. That miracle could happen for you tomorrow, just like it did today for X number of beings on this planet. It's a miracle beyond imagination...

[wnlight]

Whitelove, You have quite an imagination. I like what you write with the exception of "the universe is a soul". I believe that the universe that we live in is soul-driven, but find it extremely difficult to characterise that soul/creator.

My wife and I are soul mates. We were also a married couple in previous lives. How did we find each other in this lifetime? There must have been some unconscious guidance in effect. Oddly, before we met, I spent a year teaching very near Naperville where she lived, then she attended the university in Normal very near where I lived. It is clear that Spirit was attempting to close the 120 mile gap between us.

[WhiteLove]

Posted by wnlight (here)
Whitelove, You have quite an imagination. I like what you write with the exception of "the universe is a soul". I believe that the universe that we live in is soul-driven, but find it extremely difficult to characterise that soul/creator.

My wife and I are soul mates. We were also a married couple in previous lives. How did we find each other in this lifetime? There must have been some unconscious guidance in effect. Oddly, before we met, I spent a year teaching very near Naperville where she lived, then she attended the university in Normal very near where I lived. It is clear that Spirit was attempting to close the 120 mile gap between us.

Great great stuff to read!

[rgray222]

Posted by wnlight (here)
Whitelove, You have quite an imagination. I like what you write with the exception of "the universe is a soul". I believe that the universe that we live in is soul-driven, but find it extremely difficult to characterise that soul/creator.

My wife and I are soul mates. We were also a married couple in previous lives. How did we find each other in this lifetime? There must have been some unconscious guidance in effect. Oddly, before we met, I spent a year teaching very near Naperville where she lived, then she attended the university in Normal very near where I lived. It is clear that Spirit was attempting to close the 120 mile gap between us.

That is really not that hard to explain, we all resonate with a particular frequency. Many of us have heard that we all vibrate but few of us understand what that really means. It is very simple and easy to understand. What is actually vibrating is our soul, our inner being. Your soul is your essence and it is on earth for purpose. The vibrating aspect of life that so many talk about is one of the most important forms of communication for your soul.

Your frequency has attracted you to people with whom you resonate at a soul level. When you met these individuals you felt a strong and undeniable connection with them, like if you had met them before (from a past life). If these connections are healthy and feel right, keep them in your life. Together you can accomplish things that are unimaginable and start to understand your purpose for being.

Many people have strong connections to people but they are toxic connections, in other words not for this life time. You would be well served to listen to your soul and not connect with those people. If you have a toxic marriage, lover, friend or acquaintance cut that tie and move on. Many people have toxic family relationships and that is a bit harder to understand and not for this post.

Your purpose (as a human) is to provide for your soul and to see that it accomplishes and fulfills its purpose. This may seem a bit bizarre but your human form is really nothing more than a "storage locker" for your being, your soul. I hope this makes sense. There is a lot more on this topic and it's not that difficult to understand.

I have been wanting to start a thread on this but have not found the time to do it just yet!

[Demeisen]

This reminds me of a novel by Ianin M. Banks. Advanced races were capable of creating whole virtual universes inside their computers. They were used to solve problems, to calculate probabilities for possible outcomes. To get accurate results every inhabitant had to be simulated perfectly - meaning fully conscious and self aware. Some of the races that used such simulations faced moral problems as what to do when the simulation was complete. Should they leave it running? Shutting it down would kill billions living sentient beings. While some other races didn't see any moral implications pull the plug off.
Somehow that is a very scary thought.