Mordred

I misapplied that last statement you must have volume or area to have a geometry descibed as a field. Thanks for the catch Didn't realize I mistyped that last sentence. Bells locality to nonlocality is certainly defined under fields however. In order to understand those two terms you have to examine how local is defined as a field. (local) is always a boundary confined field. Local fields can be embedded onto our arbitrary global fields.

excellent

Simply put you cannot have a field if you have no volume. Or technically volume or area for 2d fields

Yes expansion is governed by fields. a field can be described as a distribution of any arbitrary values. So one cannot state volume causes fields. The volume simply defines the volume of whatever values the field is describing.

Yes but a further caveat fields can be smaller system states. ie the region of measurable influence. So the strong force from a single particle does not extend to infinity as per electromagnetic or gravity. In this sense we can confine the strong force from each particle by measurable "action" which under QFT is your operators describing system state wavefunctions under field treatments. This is where the distictions "local and global becomes defined

Understood on the cross post. Glad to help. (I did add an edit on above on x post)

Anytime you are able to assign more than one geometric location. (object, event, coordinate) You can treat any set of values to the coordinates under a field treatment. That is really the only requirenent to have a field. A field is any collection of values described via coordinate/geometry. Glad you enjoyed this thread by the way. Space is just volume, fields are not required to have space. However once you have volume you can describe that volume as a field. A field is an abstract device that abstract device allows us to "map" variations. The term spacetime is a field treatment. Its one describing changes with our 3d volume by adding time as a vector to track different rates of information exchange between coordinates or events.

HUP is the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. In the virtual argument its categorized as complementary uncertainty in this arxiv. There is a chart on how different measurements, physical laws have been in essence worded to support the VR reality hypothesis. One primary distinction surprise surprise is our universe arises from nothing according to this paper. Also a multiverse must exist for VR to be possible https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337&ved=0ahUKEwj50bycvfzUAhXo44MKHUzSBrw4ChAWCCswAg&usg=AFQjCNGChmNY9GJ5GU0fshkAL-6NuE4BsQ As this is philosophy I am positive there is counter arguments to the arguments used in the paper

Good answer there is a counter argument here that applies in your last paragraph but let me dig that up after work.

Good to see someone hit the mark. The HUP is one of the arguments between objective vs virtual reality. Though Its been some time since I last read how the argument went. So I will have to check how they used the HUP in their arguments after work. From memory it was a supportive argument for objective reality but will have to check if a good counter argument is involved since I last looked at this. You might want to actually read the paper on this. It is the main proposed test for virtual reality. I will dig up the paper for everyone after work. As far as I understand it is the only test I have seen proposed to test between the two

Recall my post about significant difference between a program that follows instructions to the letter. Without deviations ? I can quarantee I don't lol. In all seriousness though the amount of data to simulate a universe is one of the open questions. This question led to a particular property of QCD called lattice spacing. Which is rather tricky to describe. (Rather complex mathematics) but certain aspects of this lattice spacing is one of the key searches to Test if we are a simulation. (Uh oh back to that whole testing argument I proposed earlier). If anyone is interested I can probably dig up the details. Science does look at every possibility. Even ones that seem absurd. However physics is placing constraints on this possibility. Based on guage theories of particle physics. Trust me on this one. Do not trust any pop media coverage on this theory. They all get it wrong. Under philosophical arguments the two main categories is objective reality vs virtual reality. I'm not much on philosophy as I favor the hard science. I pointed these out as the arguments under philosophy and model under physics do exist. (so it might be a good idea to research the arguments and model) with regards to the debate going on in this thread. Yeah I'm positive my mother agrees

What do you mean "used to" lol j/k cool vid. I have to agree some are nuts in that vid

Well I for one know I have made so many mistakes in life that the programmer who wrote the algorithm for me must be an idiot lol

Sounds like a good topic for a seperate thread. How would one test if something is real or a simulation ? If our universe was a simulation that would be our reality. So if our universe is a simulation. How could we possibly test gor it? The only answer I can come up with would be based on our understandings of how programs work. Hence the repeatability test. Its the only possible method I can come up with.

Easily done. However it does demonstrate a key difference between philosophy and scientific methodology. When you apply a mathematical model. Ypu specify the conditions that model is valid for. So its more difficult to get "caught up into...". Where a verbal debate is far easier to get sidetracked.

I saw that, here is the thing. The OP Isn't asking us to define reality. His OP specifies what is the better methodology to define reality. Science or philosophy.

In a sense being a programmer as one of my many talents I have an excellent handle on how computers and automated equipment works. This includes highly advanced robotic systems. I even studied animatronics for a while. There is a huge difference between how chemical vs electronic signals. However that aside the human mind has capabilities we have never been able to even simulate. Intuition being one exanple as well as true emotion. Yes we can simulate emotion but were a long ways away from true emotion Guessing what we might one day be capable or what our AI may or may not be capable of in the future is guesswork plain and simple. Even then one just has to identify the differences between real and simulation then develop a test. There will always be some differences. With todays understanding repeatability is a valid test. Will we get greater mistakes simply because the machine has AI. Seems counter productive to program greater errors due to tiredness and emotion.

Isn't this talk about AI computer simulation etc off topic for the OP of this thread? Isn't this thread not suppose to be about philosophy vs science? Secondly everyone should keep personal slurs to themselves. As we have no AI computer, we really do not know how consistent its responses would be. Ie when its tired or emotional. In humans the last two induces a greater chance of making mistakes. However as that is off topic. I will not continue to discuss the simulation aspects on this thread.

It is quite possible both in philosophy and science to have endless and yet equally sound debates. Keep in mind I stated a good philosopher ie one that knows which arguments are equally sound and valid until tested. I also did not state there is no room for philosophy both philosophy and science has their roles.

Well then you agree there is a methodology to test a simulation vs reality. One based on logical science not philosophy. After all philosophy rarely "tests". That alone places science a step above philosophy in determining reality. The testing requirement. Also in order to test how well a model understands or describes reality will depend on the ability to make predictions. (making predictions of course being the mathematics). Which also implies a greater level of understanding of the dynamic than a philosophical debate. The testing aspect will often favor one model over another. This can sometimes end a philisophical debate. A philosophical debate based strictly on philosophy without applying science would never end. Two good philosophers can always find counter arguments to any argument presented. "The tests of what we understand of reality is the strongest form of argument" The tests will tend to favor a particular model or philosophical debate. Without tests the arguments can be endless.

Think about that automated car. Every single time that car encounters identical conditions. It will follow its programming and arrive at the same decision. A self aware human won't always arrive at the same decisions regardless of identical stimuli. If your looking at to test if something is a simulated program. Look for consistent repeatability. A simulation must always follow its programming.

Wouldn't a programmed simulation not follow identical responses to repeated identical stimuli? I would think that could be one test.

lol let me fix that done lol

All forms of energy or fields attribute to curvature. Mass being resistance to inertia change. Any binding force or other field interactions induce delays in signals or information exchange between particles. Higgs field interacts with only certain particles. w+, w-, z boson. Through their mediation quarks gain a mass term. Even if you isolate every field and still look individually at each fields interactions you will always have a energy/momentum stress tensor influence upon spacetime curvature. It does not matter what field you use. Each field has an effective equation of state that gives us a potential energy to kinetic energy relation. [latex]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/latex] pressure is also a term in the stress tensor. (force per unit volume). I always found the expression " spacetime curvature is the sum of delays due to interparticle interactions" a handy way to make sense of time dilation itself as well as the curvature term. A handy method to make sense of that expression is under action. In this post for example I show the relations between e=mc^2 etc to force and action. The principle of least action also defines your null and spatial freefall geodesics for your curvature term. Apply the above for the standard model of particles including the Higgs field under action via [latex] \stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higgs}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yukawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}} [/latex] and voila you just incorporated every SM field into your spacetime curvature using action. Every field contributes in some fashion.

The reason I used space as opposed to spacetime is that the most common misconception is trying to apply some substance like property to volume. The typical question is "what is space or spacetime made of and how does it curve?. They do that to try to understand what curves, which is reflected in your time coordinate under 4d. Obviously there is no curvature under 3d Galilean. So I figured it was better to stress the 3d Galilean relativity first, then add the time component. After all the only change is the addition of the time coordinate. So if you define a 3d Space as volume filled with SM particles. Why would adding a time coordinate change what space is comprised of ? Obviously it doesn't Spacetime by definition is "any metric system describing space/volume with the addition of the time coordinate as a vector". Though at some point I will be rewriting the first post to include several of the suggestions on this thread.