QuantumT

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

I wouldn't worry: the problem is not your English language ability!

I don't understand it either.

I appreciate the reply!

Quote

An exotic physical phenomenon, involving optical waves, synthetic magnetic fields, and time reversal, has been directly observed for the first time, following decades of attempts. The new finding could lead to realizations of what are known as topological phases, and eventually to advances toward fault-tolerant quantum computers, the researchers say.

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-exotic-physics-phenomenon.html

Since English isn't my native language, I have a hard time understanding what this means, practically. Could someone kindly explain it?

Thanks!

Should you one day find yourself with too much time in spare, and wanting to try out something difficult and extraordinary, why not build a wormhole?

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-published-instructions-for-diy-wormhole

Warning: Gaining the tools and parts for this garage project, might be impossible, so arm yourself with lots of patience and optimism!

According to Scott Denning, prof. of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, we don't need to worry about the world's oxygen supply, despite of the thousands of wild fires in the Amazon and other places around the world.

https://theconversation.com/amazon-fires-are-destructive-but-they-arent-depleting-earths-oxygen-supply-122369

Back in the days (80's) we had dynamo lights on our bicycles. Small turbines that rubbed against the front tyre, producing a small current, enough to make light.
They stopped making them, because they don't work when you stop your bike. So in a badly lit area, you could get hit by a car.

But the general concept is still equally valid.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

is unprovable (and unfalsifiable) by definition

There you go again. Being absolute.

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Isn't that just what your Simulators are doing? 

It is not my belief, just my favorite ontology. Or ToE if you will.

Quote

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.

—Albert Einstein 

That quote is not about Strange or anyone here. It is about bias.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Some things are just impossible. For example, proving or disproving solipsism or Last-Thursdayism. That is not an opinion it is an inevitable consequence of the concept.

I can't see any way in which a simulated universe is any different from those. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though.

Solipsism is an ego-based version of a virtual reality. Just because the idea exists, it should not be used as an excuse to dismiss VR. Using an extreme to exclude the main issue is too easy.

Last-Thursdayism is kinda the same, but with an extra layer of problems. Coding false memories in billions of people? Naah...

Let's just stick to the basics. What would we do? None of the above!

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Because there isn't, and cannot be, any evidence.

Science has never, nor will ever be about absolutes. What is considered unthinkable or unfalsifiable today, may not be in the future.

I have no problem with your stand and opinion. Just don't cast a verdict. Let's agree to disagree. For now.

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

I just skimmed through that. It is a hot mess. 

It is so full of errors that it would probably take an equally long paper to dissect them all. I don’t have time for that at the moment...

Maybe if you read it, instead of just skimming it, you'd draw a different conclusion? Just saying...

You must be careful not to be biased, just because you don't accept or like an idea. You seem a little like an opponent, who has decided to declare war.

Whitworth is not the only mathematician who came to such a conclusion.

This is a 1-hour lecture by Ron Garret. He doesn't say it flat out, but he sums up the universe to be a "zeroverse"

Note: I do not support the uploader's use of the word "conspiracy", or the indication that there could be one. Neither does Ron Garret at any point imply so. It is solely used by the uploader as click bait.

36 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Dark matter HAS gravity.  That doesn't mean they are the same thing.

That was my initial approach too. That's why I made this thread. To check if that idea was valid.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

How do you draw a line what to explain and what to not include?

I think all possible evidence is important, if a theory/hypothesis is to be taken serious. So the line is drawn where the relevance ceases.

Back.

I claimed to have logical evidence, but gave you an analogy. My bad. I'm so used to using analogies to explain my POV, that I apposed them with logical arguments.
My predictions was a regular mistake, and they were very poor. Should never have attempted that.

My circumstantial evidence was also rejected as "goddidit" arguments. I must ascertain that I don't have the academic weight behind my persona to appear credible to you guys. Besides, arguing in another language is hard.

Luckily I've stumbled onto people who has what I don't, and are better at arguing.
You probably already know Bostrom's statistical arguments, Gates Jr.'s supersymmetry computer codes and Campbell's "digital consciousness theory", but the guy who really impresses me is the mathematician, Brian whitworth, with his mathematical evidence and physical inconsistencies:

Mathematical evidence: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

Other evidence / physical inconsistencies:
https://brianwhitworth.com/qr-1-3-1-fifteen-physics-findings-that-suggest-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

Quote

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

People called that hand-waving.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

That's the power of making stuff up. Eventually it will come to you, and it will seem absolutely perfect.

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 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't logic, and it shows that Strange was right, that you're mistaking logic with "this makes sense to me". 

If anything, this is closer to deductive reasoning. But it's not even that, since it assumes I know about New York in the first place, as well as some of its nicknames. It also assumes the vehicle isn't going to turn in the next 50 miles, AND that New York is my destination (I could be headed to New Rochelle).

I'll have to dig deeper then. But don't give up. It always comes to me at some point.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's ask a question here, how much raw data do you think it would require to simulate an entire universe with all the relevant probability functions and wave functions of every particle.

That'd be a horrible waste of processing power. You only need to process the stuff people see, hear and touch.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a direct, logical connection between the premise (it may be possible for neutrons to switch to mirror matter and back) and the conclusion (detecting neutrons in unexpected places). If you can't see the difference between this and "if the universe is simulated then<arbitrary conclusion that has no connection to simulation>" then I don't know what to say.

Also this is a measurable, objectively testable hypothesis. No neutrons implies no mirror universe (or, at least, no neutrons switching between them). Therefore it meets the scientific requirement of falsifiability.

Unlike your "predictions." If one of those were found to be wrong, you could just change your assumptions about the nature of the simulation. 

In my thought experiment they didn't.

Do you see the problem? It is just an arbitrary assumption.

The computer predates quantum theory by a hundred years or more. The theory of computable functions was developed at about the same time as quantum theory.

You might be better off claiming that the fact that it is quite common for multiple people/teams to develop the same theory at the same time (eg. Darwin and Wallace both developing the theory of evolution by natural selection at exactly the same time) is evidence for simulation (new ideas are seeded into the simulation at regular intervals).

Or the fact that mathematicians or scientists doing cutting edge work often die young and in strange circumstances. Just as they might uncover the evidence of the simulation. (Someone, probably Asimov, wrote a story based on this idea.) 

So be careful where your speculation leads you!

Another bizarre non-sequitur.

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.

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I'll try a more general question in this context; How would a group of scientists, working according to scientific methods, come to such different conclusions because of the order of discoveries? How does it logically follow that the timing of a discovery would support very different views in the long run? I can see that various short lived conjectures and hypothesis could emerge and disappear. But fundamentally different worldviews?

Or is duality something so special that my general question above is not applicable?

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.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

(I can only assume you think "logic" means "it makes sense to me")

You assume wrong.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think that pointing out that you are not using logic is an insult.

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.

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

None of these are predictions of simulation. They are guesses. They are non sequiturs. There is no logical connection between the premise (simulation) and the conclusion. Just sticking the word "because" in there does not make it a logical argument.

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?

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

That's the trouble with this hypothesis. You can come up with a thought experiment to justify any observation being support for a simulation. Or be a contradiction of simulation. That is the trouble with post-hoc rationalisations: they are not scientific.

If you could actually predict things that (a) could only be true in the case of a simulation and (b) could be tested, then you would have a scientific hypothesis. But (a) is impossible, so ..

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?

Just now, koti said:

I know you don’t think that but...God eliminates all problems in physics too doesn’t it?

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!

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I suspect that the reason you see bias is because you have a bias toward 'Simulation Theory' and it doesn't get equal time with ideas such as String Theory. Similarly, if I think Trump can do no wrong (i.e. I am biased toward him), then I will tend to feel there is a bias in the press against him, and that people are suddenly demanding to see evidence that he really is doing a good thing for this country. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but it could explain why this bugs you so much.

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.

2 minutes ago, koti said:

String Theory is attractive to many physicists mainly because gravity emerges from it as something inevitable and not a forced feature that has to be cramped in unsuccessfuly as in other attempts which try to mary QM and GR. This is the reason physicists pursue strings despite the fact that experimental data is more or less impossible to obtain at our current state of technology. I'm not familiar with the "we are simulated" or the Simulation Theory enough for that matter, what scientifically attractive features do these offer or at least what indirect signs they are giving us that theyre worth pursuing? 

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"?

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.

31 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Is this the same kind of scenario as yours?

No. I just pushed the discovery of duality forward 100 years. Nothing else.

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, I don't follow. How would scientists be convinced that if particles are reacting to observation then that would be evidence for reality running in a Turing machine?

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.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It only solves them by saying “why do these things exist?” “Because the simulators wanted it that way”. So not really any better than creationism (“goddidit”).

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you give an example? This is exactly the sort of thing the scientific method would rule out in peer review. Personal bias is pretty easy to spot, and evidence usually doesn't have a lot of leeway in its interpretation.

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.