Jump to content

If you don't want someone to see something ..you scramble it


pittsburghjoe

Recommended Posts

Couldn't the Uncertainty Principle behavior be seen as a means to scramble the atomic scale from intelligent beings?

That idea would require someone or something who did the scrambling.

Do you have any evidence for such an entity?

(Hint: no there is no scientific evidence for such a being)

 

Could someone move this to the right forum? It's not quantum mechanics.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare I ask something that questions QM.

 

Why is QM so dismissive to the notion that we are in a simulation? Is QM unable to accept new angles of unifying classical to local?

 

 

No one criticised you for asking questions about QM. You were simply asked if there was any evidence for "someone" who is scrambling things to hide them from us.

 

QM says nothing either way about the possibility that we are in a simulation. That is one of those undecidable/uprovable (and therefore uninteresting) philosophical questions like solipsism or "what if the universe was created 15 minutes ago and just made to look really ancient"

 

 

There is no logical reason for weirdness at the atomic scale.

 

You seem to be using "logical" in the strangely unscientific sense of "it makes sense to me". That is not what "logical" means, and science works hard to get away from those sort of errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare I ask something that questions QM.

 

Why is QM so dismissive to the notion that we are in a simulation? Is QM unable to accept new angles of unifying classical to local?

There is no logical reason for weirdness at the atomic scale.

How come you were so dismissive of my question?

"That idea would require someone or something who did the scrambling.

Do you have any evidence for such an entity?"

 

It's your job to answer it, or this will be a very short thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is weirdness not evidence of a simulation? What more do you need?

 

We are not allowed to know both the position and velocity of a particle. The best we can do is probability wave? That's pathetic.

A particle can be anywhere ..including two places at the same time?? That sure seems like it's being scrambled on purpose.

 

If you were to build a simulation, would you want your drones discovering how to receive root access? No, you would attempt to block them from understanding the framework to their world.

 

The cosmic ray cutoff also seems suspicious of a limit to our simulation.

Edited by pittsburghjoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is weirdness not evidence of a simulation? What more do you need?

 

 

How is it evidence specifically for that. How is it not evidence for clumsy invisibly pink nano-unicorns that keep knocking things out of place?

 

Or, how is it not evidence for the universe just being like that?

 

 

 

That sure seems like it's being scrambled on purpose.

 

"Seems like" is not evidence.

 

 

 

If you were to build a simulation, would you want your drones discovering how to receive root access? No, you would attempt to block them from understanding the framework to their world.

 

That is just a supposition. If I were building a simulation, I would make it as accurate and complete a model as possible so that the entities inside could not distinguish it from reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is weirdness not evidence of a simulation? What more do you need?

 

We are not allowed to know both the position and velocity of a particle. The best we can do is probability wave? That's pathetic.

A particle can be anywhere ..including two places at the same time?? That sure seems like it's being scrambled on purpose.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Argument from personal incredulity is also pathetic. This is a science site. Step up your game (i.e. cite actual evidence and science), or the discussion will be over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the issue is that I need one of you smart guys to investigate my claims for me as I'm a hipster doofus.

That's not how this works. If you have questions, ask them. If you have an alternate model, present it. But presenting WAGs and asking that they be debunked doesn't fly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, the issue is that I need one of you smart guys to investigate my claims for me as I'm a hipster doofus.

 

"Sorry, the issue is that I need one of you detectives to investigate my claims that we exist in a simulation."

 

"What evidence do you have to support these claims?"

 

"None at all, but I suspect I'm right."

 

"Without evidence, you could claim anything you want. Which makes the claims meaningless without it."

 

"My claim is possible, therefore it should be considered."

 

"Without evidence, you have no claim. Without extraordinary evidence, you have no extraordinary claim."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, try this one on for size: What if anything capable of going into a superposition state moves along it's probability wave 100x faster than we realize due to freakish gravitational time dilation of the atomic scale?

 

This thread is in the speculation sub so I'm allowed to ask this, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, try this one on for size: What if anything capable of going into a superposition state moves along it's probability wave 100x faster than we realize due to freakish gravitational time dilation of the atomic scale?

 

This thread is in the speculation sub so I'm allowed to ask this, right?

You can feel free to ask it.

 

It's complete and utter nonsense, not even comprehensible enough to be evaluated as right or wrong, but you can feel free to ask it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The free particle is in such a timeline that can make it appear as though it is in two places at the same moment.

 

 

That still does not appear to have any basis in physics. What is a "timeline"? How can a particle appear to be in two places? How does it then split into two particles?

 

Some detail would be nice ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really odd. There are a lot of people who talk about the 'deep mysteries' of the universe which you cannot understand with mundane thoughts. You have to expand your mind, man; there must be something more. But then you show them some theory and results that elude a 'mundane' interpretation and they reject it out of hand because it does not correlate to anything in our everyday experience.

 

The macroscopic world 'makes sense' to us because we have evolved within it. The microscopic world is under no obligation to conform to this sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really odd. There are a lot of people who talk about the 'deep mysteries' of the universe which you cannot understand with mundane thoughts. You have to expand your mind, man; there must be something more. But then you show them some theory and results that elude a 'mundane' interpretation and they reject it out of hand because it does not correlate to anything in our everyday experience.

 

The macroscopic world 'makes sense' to us because we have evolved within it. The microscopic world is under no obligation to conform to this sense.

 

Very well put. It's like insisting we figure out how to leap over the forest while ignoring a map that shows a path through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is weirdness not evidence of a simulation? What more do you need?

I agree with you that it is evidence of a simulation. Unfortunately it is, at best, circumstantial, and is also evidence for many other possible explanations. Put another way, the weirdness is consistent with what we might expect from some forms of simulation and therefore, simulation is not ruled out, but it is not strongly supported either.

 

 

We are not allowed to know both the position and velocity of a particle. The best we can do is probability wave? That's pathetic.

A particle can be anywhere ..including two places at the same time?? That sure seems like it's being scrambled on purpose.

Or it could be a way of saving bandwidth/storage capacity. The programmers could be indifferent to our interest in simulated sub-atomic particles.Given that possibility it tends to undermine your insistence that "it looks like it's being scrambled on purpose".

 

 

If you were to build a simulation, would you want your drones discovering how to receive root access? No, you would attempt to block them from understanding the framework to their world.

Since I haven't built, do not plan to build and am incapable of building a simulation, my attitude to drones would seem to be irrelevant. I suggest it is very risky to project what you think would be your approach onto the alien intelligences who you suspect established the simulation. (The clue is in the word alien.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That still does not appear to have any basis in physics. What is a "timeline"? How can a particle appear to be in two places? How does it then split into two particles?

 

Some detail would be nice ...

 

We don't notice the hyper timeline (time dilation) at our scale (until now as I am pointing it out about the atomic scale). I think this will be an explanation for Retrocausality. I believe this will allow us to refine the probability wave formula as it currently is not taking into account this hyper timeline of the particle. A free particle (one capable of superposition and is not being measured) is in it's wave state with the bulk of its essence wizzing around all the areas that a probability wave describes. The spots where the probability is high is analogous to the lanes that the bulk of the wave loops the most. It does this so incredibly fast that, to us, it can appear at two places at once. When the double slit experiment has the probability wave going through both slits ..the bulk of the wave actually does go through both at this hyper speed and can even interact with itself.

It's really odd. There are a lot of people who talk about the 'deep mysteries' of the universe which you cannot understand with mundane thoughts. You have to expand your mind, man; there must be something more. But then you show them some theory and results that elude a 'mundane' interpretation and they reject it out of hand because it does not correlate to anything in our everyday experience.

 

The macroscopic world 'makes sense' to us because we have evolved within it. The microscopic world is under no obligation to conform to this sense.

 

I'm not leaving this site until I win a Nobel Peace prize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, try this one on for size: What if anything capable of going into a superposition state moves along it's probability wave 100x faster than we realize due to freakish gravitational time dilation of the atomic scale?

 

This thread is in the speculation sub so I'm allowed to ask this, right?

You can ask how much gravitational time dilation there is inside an atom (it's tiny). That's a legitimate question , which should be asked in the physics section. But if you assert something is true, it is incumbent on you to back it up with evidence. Being in speculations does not remove your burden of proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.