swansont

Moderator NoteYou have a thread for this. That’s the only place it should be discussed. Advertising it in someone else’s thread is considered hijacking

I am asking that if you post arguments from anyone from other than yourself that there be a citation/link to it. If you can’t do that, don’t post it.

Well, to be fair, there’s no reason everyone has to be getting the same simulation in some versions, e.g. The Matrix. They could each have a unique universe, but that increases the demands on the system.

If they want to participate anonymously they are free to register accounts and do so. What you can do is present your arguments and cite any outside sources you use. Otherwise this is a violation of our rule on soapboxing (it does not promote open discussion, since we’re no able to engage with these people) and is arguably not compliant with our rule on posting in good faith.

I’m not arguing about computing power, but no. I don’t think a human brain, by itself, could do the math needed.

Moderator NoteLet me be clear: this is not a request that can continue to be ignored

Our brains process information. Why would a simulator evolve with nothing to process?

Code means nothing without the data. How does code do anything with no arguments in equations or matrices that are filled with zeroes? We’re arguing, it seems, because you don’t recognize this rather obvious point.

1.8 x 10^19 Less than a part in 10,000 of Avogadro’s number. For each particle in your simulation, how many bits do you need to encode the information about it? You have identity (some kind of label), mass, charge, position, velocity, angular momentum. To the extent you can, at least, owing to QM limitations. 18 quintillion might get you memory for the data for the particles in a small puff of hydrogen.

In an undetermined state, like spin, the odds of getting one result is 1/2. If I measure one particle and get a result and then measure another, it will be in a given spin state half the time But in entanglement, the odds of getting the result is 1 or 0, depending on the correlation you have in how you prepared the entanglement.

Shorter bat means smaller moment of inertia (proportional to ML^2) thus a greater angular acceleration for a given torque. The torque you exert on contact with the ball is reduced (r x F) since the r is reduced https://www.justbats.com/blog/post/why-choke-up-on-a-bat/

Which is blame-shifting, since the forecast was accurate. The alert efforts are what fell short.

The thing is, when you understand why mainstream theories work and are familiar with the evidence, you can tell when some proposals are not going to work. You mentioned the Planck density (is that an energy density?) at one point but I don’t see where you calculated what this is. It’s not going to be a large value because the planck volume is quite small - ~10^-105 m^3, so the planck energy density is around 10^-95 J/m^3 An IR photon with an energy around 10^-19 J with a 1 micron wavelength has an energy density of somewhere around 10^-37 J/m^3. Any visible photon is going to be even higher. Photons from any light source would be collapsing all over the place with that criterion.

For pie crusts, this site claims that a combo of butter and shortening gives the best flakiness https://www.thekitchn.com/best-way-to-make-flaky-pie-crust-23605563 (Interesting that getting the dough drunk with vodka gives good flakiness, too)

What others? Do you have a link? Posting arguments from others without citation is a copyright violation (unless the material is not copyrightable, but a reference is still required)

In addition to studiot’s critique, you talk about microphotons with explaining the distinction between them and photons. One moves in a straight line but the other in a wavy path, with unexplained density difference of the microparticles. And you talk about the structure of microparticles but how can they have structure unless they’re built of something smaller? This is all narrative and no rigor, with all the appearance that you’re making it up as you go. That doesn’t fly here. We have expectations of what get discussed here, and this does not meet them.

After a fashion. It details his forays into opening safes at Los Alamos. What we would call social engineering, plus some technological insight

They aren’t thought-out predictions. It’s the equivalent of clickbait, or (in Sci-fi) it’s just something to move a plot along. Colonizing the moon, or Mars, are pie-in-the-sky ideas but not things that stand up to scrutiny when you start looking at it realistically. All the technological details, the motivations, the economics, the politics, and so on.

I won’t worry about Skynet as long as I keep getting notifications offering to sell me more items like what I just bought, like I’m going to binge-buy vacuum cleaners.

IIRC, it’s included in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean, or how it answers my question. You promised answers in your next post in your previous post. Stop stalling.

The Cretaceous loses points for presiding over the fall of the dinosaurs, which is not a trivial shortcoming for a golden age.

Concur - belief is not science, and we;re a science discussion site. Got a mathematical model that can be compared with evidence? We’ll be happy to discuss.

There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types, and those who don't. Unfortunately, what you believe doesn’t count as science, and there are plenty of examples of things that don’t fit into this kind of sorting. (e.g. Animal, vegetable, mineral) Categorizing is something we impose on nature to try and simplify and understand it, but nature is not bound by it.

Moderator NoteWithout a reasonably precise definition of purpose, there is nothing to discuss. Too much hand-waving. If such a definition is provided, and proper evidence is included, a discussion is possible in a new thread.