QuantumT

If the results of this experiment holds - if it can be reproduced with even higher certainty - does it not mean that a particle's superposition returns, after the measurement stops?
In other words: That the particle only has a fixed spin direction, when it's measured?

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Two of the premises are probably wrong.

 There is most likely no reality we can all agree on, as we base 'reality' on the experiments/measurements we perform, and these are subject to the constraints outlined in the OP. As for freedom of choice, I would think Heisenberg turns that on its head; some things we just cannot know.
( Can't throw out the idea of locality though; that would cause even more problems with 'reality' )

that leaves the choices that there is no 'actual' reality, or that we are forbidden to realise what it is.

Basically it just means that Schrödinger's Cat's life depends on who's opening the box.

If it's dead when Alice opens it, it will be alive again when Bob does it shortly after.

Good for the cat, bad for objective reality.

Quote

The idea that observers can ultimately reconcile their measurements of some kind of fundamental reality is based on several assumptions. The first is that universal facts actually exist and that observers can agree on them.

But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.

If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.

But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.

Full summary: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

Love is a description of the feeling best defined as "yes".

Yes, I accept you.
Yes, I want you near me.
Yes, I like what you do.

Sex is the the most intimate version of yes, but not the strongest.

I wouldn't call them crises, but disasters. And IMO WW3 started in 2001. We call it the war on terror. It's global.

3 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Can you explain further?

My knowledge is not sufficient enough to elaborate on the Higgs yet.

1 minute ago, Vexen said:

Can you explain further?

Science can only "see" back to the point immediately after the BB.

43 minutes ago, Vexen said:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Probably because of the Higgs Boson.

Only nobody knows.

No, they're relative.

The ISS is mainly a place for space research. If they added artificial gravity, they could not do it. It would be pointless.

Artificial gravity would only be beneficial for long term space travel.

Just now, Strange said:

Doesn't that mean that the idea of god could evolve again, if a group of people started out with no concept of god? So I think your "no" should be a "yes"

Concur.

Although the majority of today's theists are more bound to religion by tradition than lack of knowledge.

I always thought I was more or less an average semi idiot. Someone who could understand little and achieve less.
But then the internet came and after a few years I built a business. By 2002 it had turned into big business. Apparently I was smarter than I thought.

But science was still not a thing I considered within my reach. One day I decided to watch the docu series 'Cosmos - A spacetime odyssey' with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Much to my surprise I understood it all, and it gave me an urge to learn more. So I watched 'Through the wormhole'. Very enjoyable, educational and thought provoking.

They left me with a desire to learn the sciences behind the facts and amazing stories. And that is where I am today. Trying to get the details straight.
It sometimes gives me a headache to try to grasp especially the math behind the facts, but I am beyond being the hopeless fool I once thought I was. Now I believe I can learn it. That I am capable. It might take a while, but I will eventually get there.

You asked the exact same question 9 days ago:

On 3/14/2019 at 2:17 AM, QuantumT said:

And to make it all even more obvious, the massive BH in the center of our own galaxy sends out a signal, a narrow one, that only a very small part of the galaxy can receive. And we just happen to be among the very few to be receiving it? C'mon. "They" are grooming us to think we are real!

I hereby withdraw the above statement. It implies a notion that I regret. Besides that, "grooming" is an awfully poor choice of words.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Citation needed.

https://news.sky.com/story/black-hole-radio-jet-pointed-almost-directly-at-earth-11614684

59 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Strictly speaking it is gone, but will effectively come back in the form of Hawking radiation as the Universe further cools/becomes less dense.

Conceivably with expansion though one could get away with not simulating everything all at once. There is that.

Theoretically.
It's just math and presumptions.
What we really see is just a dark circle with stars disappearing into it.

And to make it all even more obvious, the massive BH in the center of our own galaxy sends out a signal, a narrow one, that only a very small part of the galaxy can receive. And we just happen to be among the very few to be receiving it? C'mon. "They" are grooming us to think we are real!

Mods, please don't move this to speculation. We are just exploring the philosophical prospects.

9 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

It is impossible to disprove, though you can set some limits on what might be possible based on various assumptions.

We can't assume anything really. But I consider black holes as a possible sign of limitations to their technological capacity.
From our perspective, they (BH's) take a lot of matter out of the equation. Almost like deleting it.

But that's speculation of course.

9 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

The underlying physics of our reality would ultimately be the same as theirs.

Are you saying that the hypothetical makers of this simulation also have quantum mechanics?

If so, research has determined that you can't simulate a quantum based universe from a quantum based universe.

They attempted to make their finding disprove us being simulated, but all it proves is that they (the makers) do not themselves have QM.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You don't get a pass pushing unsupported speculation just because you put this in Philosophy. If you want to make assertions like this, you're going to have to defend them in the right setting, Speculations.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like a fact. I have just been thinking a lot about how quantum phenomena and the simulation conjecture can fit each other, and wanted to explain some of those thoughts.

I have edited the mentioned statement.

If however you choose to move this thread to speculation (not that I agree!), I am ready to defend it.

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

But it doesn't really explain QM (or anything). It just says, "things behave that way because the programmers want them to". It is like using gods as an "explanation"; it doesn't explain anything.

Yes, it explains why the wave collapses, and why there even is a wave.

A quantum computer could be explained by it actually tapping directly into the CPU that runs our universe. That is how it becomes crazy fast.

I also have a theory about entanglement, and what relevans it has in the simulation.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Wikipedia has a longish list of interpretations. Simulation doesn't appear there.

On wikipedia science is strictly physics. No philosophy or existentialism is included.

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

But is the simulation hypothesis an interpretation of QM? If thought it was just a bit of pseudo-philosophical waffle indistinguishable from solipsism or  "what if the universe was created 15 seconds ago but made to look 14 billion years old".

Yes, it explains matter (particles) as holographic voxels. When the GPU is handling data, and sending it to the "screen" (our mind), the wave function collapses. Technically it means that when matter "knows" it will be seen/measured, it becomes "real" and tangible.
Does that mean everything not seen is halted? No. But it only happens in the processor, not on the holographic screen. Like a movie running on a DVD player, but with the screen turned off. 

Although I find solipsism silly, I do think that they (whoever made the simulation) did fast forward most of the universes span, to get to the interesting stuff, here on Earth.

Note: This is not my conviction. But I favor the concept a lot. It makes so much sense to me.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That's the thing about interpretations — they depend on the person's preference. They are a tool to help understand the science, but are not actually part of the science. You use the one that best suits your needs.

If you don't like an interpretation, it doesn't make it less valid, since validity isn't the issue. It's less useful to you, and therefore not preferred. 

True dat. But if you ask me, it's an emotional, and not a rational preference.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Then I guess it is safe to say that not only is forward time travel possible, but that it happens every day for anyone at low elevations vs those at high elevations?

The more gravity you are exposed to, yes. But on Earth it's a matter of milliseconds at best.

Just now, zapatos said:

Can you expand on that please?

You just need to be near a black hole. Then your local time freezes.
You will not feel the difference, but a distant observer will see you as frozen. You will see them a moving rapidly.

When you go away from the black hole, after maybe hours, many years will have passed for everyone else.