QuantumT

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Nice

1 Follower

About QuantumT

  • Rank
    Molecule

Recent Profile Visitors

885 profile views
  1. It's true. They did. But they were ignorants. I was not implying you are. Just comparing this to my experiences. Sorry if it seemed like that. Please dont judge me based on a the bad choices I've made in this thread. You are many people arguing against me at once, so I find myself on the defense. And people on the defense often make bad choices. If I didn't feel caught between a rock and a hard place, I'd probably think more clear. I'll leave this for now. I have a busy weekend ahead. I presume I'll be back on Tuesday, next week. Until then I wish you all a good weekend!
  2. I'll have to dig deeper then. But don't give up. It always comes to me at some point. That'd be a horrible waste of processing power. You only need to process the stuff people see, hear and touch.
  3. In my many many many discussion online, over the years, I've argued in a similar way to what you do here. People called that hand-waving.
  4. With the same logic that they are looking for mirror matter, by shooting neutrons towards an impenetrable wall, to see if some of them appear on the other side. They have decided that that could be evidence of particles switching between mirror universes. In my thought experiment, they decided that matter reacting to observation could prove it has a computational on-demand nature. The result of discovering duality decades before inventing the computer, is that duality is considered as "just the way it is". They had nothing to compare it with back then, so it just became natural law. You assume wrong. It is to me. But I blame myself for not using better arguments and examples. Imagine you are driving on a highway. You then pass a sign that says: "The city that never sleeps - 150 miles" Later you pass a huge sign with a big apple on it, saying: "100 miles" And finally you pass a sign saying: "Not Old York - 50 miles" Where are you heading? And is it logical to assume that? I will not be online the following days, so don't think I quit, just because I don't reply.
  5. Have you ever thought about being to close to something, to see it, for what it is? You seem to take the role of judge and jury, of what is genuine science, and you question my logic. Could we at least agree to disagree for now? Without insulting each other?
  6. It's easy to attack a thought experiment, but what if it really happened that way? You say it can't predict anything? Let me at least try. I predict that no evidence of mirror matter will be found. Because it is not needed in a simulation. I predict that dark matter will never be detected. Because it isn't matter, it's a setting. Like gravity. I predict that we will never get in contact with aliens, because we are alone. Those were just off the top of my head. Did you have something else in mind?
  7. Dammit! I hate the God concept! God, as the religious see him, is divine and eternal, and he does not need equipment! The simulators are nothing like that! Logic is my compass. So if I see logic, I know evidence will follow, sooner or later. In this case probably later. But meanwhile I advocate.
  8. Doesn't QFT do a better job? The only reason that the simulation hypothesis is worth pursuing is that it eliminates all problems in physics elegantly. Should a hypothesis be excluded because it's "too easy"?
  9. Anyway, I just needed to get this off my chest. It has bugged me for a long time, that some theories are mistreated (in particular the one mentioned in this thread). I don't think it deserves it. That was all I was trying to say. Sorry if I stepped on some toes. And to make it clear: I am a proponent, but not a believer! Belief is not a part of my reality.
  10. No. I just pushed the discovery of duality forward 100 years. Nothing else.
  11. I'm sorry you can't see the logic in it. Scientists have many ways to test their theories. I sometimes find it hard to see their logic too. I think it's a matter of axioms.
  12. Let me answer that with a thought "experiment". Let's say duality was never discovered. No one ever thought of making the double slit experiment. Then let's say that we did invent powerful Turing machines. Powerful enough to make "indistinguishable from life" graphics. Then one day, a scientist suggests that reality could be run by a Turing machine, and the way to test that, would be to see if particles reacted to observation. After many attempts they finally invent the double slit experiment, and indeed, they see that particles react to observation. In that scenario, duality would be considered evidence of a simulated reality. The only reason it's not, today, is because it was discovered too soon.
  13. In my humble opinion it solves a lot, including: - "universe from nothing". - duality and nonlocality. - the arrow of time. - the dimensionless constants. - dark matter and energy.
  14. You are right. My choice of word could have been better. It is, if you take the dive and fully investigate it seriously. It's not a question of ability, but of necessity. It would be totally unnecessary, and make no sense.
  15. Criticize and question are synonyms. It looks like you are making this personal, by attacking my approach, for no good reason.