studiot

The thing is that if you actually know what you are talking about then it should be the simplest thing in the world to produce a (short) derivation of just one of the several claims you have made that you can prdecit/calculate. Let us say Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Then I would have more confidence in following this thread further.

Methinks this whole thing is a giant leg pull.

This is a complete non answer. Further it is your hypothesis not mine so it is up to you to make it work. Observer ? what observer ? Are you saying that the universe and its host computer are not all there is ? Is 'the observer' part of the computer or the universe ? You claim speed is important. So demonstrate a calculation where this is so. TheVat obviously understood both points clearly. I have tried to explain my second point with a simple example. Have you ever designed a circuit board or do you know anything about them ? You need to consider all of my questions, not just a selected few to demonstrate that you hypothetical computer is even theoretically feasible under ideal conditions, let alone a practicality. I asked you how big is it. Therefore how far apart are the first and last cells holding the data ? Therefore how long does it take for the 'ready' or other clock signal to propagate from one to the other ? You can't just say "A computer can calculate it" any more than you can say "A six digit calculator can calculate Pi accurately to sixty places"

In the UK we call the combination of Chemistry and Engineering - Materials Science. But it is up to sweepysheep to tell us more detail and us to encourage that.

It is a valid question and the you, as the OP, should be prepared to address it. Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with speed. If you don't understand this please ask. You clearly have some idea since you mention 'common simulation speed'. Since my earlier reply I have also thought about a non relativistic point in relation to this issue. A simple internal combustion engine has to be fed oil. water , fuel, air and sparks at the appropriate times and in the appropriate order or it will either not run well or maybe even not at all. Even today's computers are now facing similar, but much greater, requirements so that designers have to correct for the time propagation time differences between the various connection pins of a chip. Contemplating a computer capable of calculating every action in the universe begs the question. How big is that computer and what does that mean for data transit times ?

Although I don't accept the premise, it is an interesting idea that is not untrue either. However you have several thousand years of catching up to do since most religions already have a pecking order of Gods.

Excellent question +1 I don't see a response that pzkpfw's excellent question. We do, howevr, definitely see much experimental evidence of the effect he describes. This would have a dramatic effect on any simulation hypothesis.

Did you ever meet a farmer that wasn't always moaning about the weather ?

My apologies that poor Author is Henry Gee, not just Henry.

There's lots of help available here, but it would be a good idea to tell us where you are coming from since Engineering Science is a very large subject. Do you have any specific questions in mind?

Here is a plug for cyanobacteria and stromatolites as they have spanned the entire geolical epochs from the biginning of life to the present day. Source Henry (Ed nature) A (very) Short History of Life on Earth

Sure that's true it just depends upon your simulation algorithm

I think it is worthlooking more deeply into the words superposition, entanglement ,collapse and measurement The key to this is understanding how these work and the fact that the maths contains solutions that are always there but are not or can never be implemented. Comparison with non quantum superposition is also helpful.

Unfortunately that is not a good answer. Blaming a phenomenon on 'the big bang' is really no different from saying God did it, or that our model doesn't explain it or simply we don't know. If you are going to propose gravity as an emergent phenomenon you need to offer the mechanism (and maths) to say how this conversion occurs. You can't just pull in myhtical event ant woo because you hypothesis doesn't work without them.

If the energy is not gravitational, where does it come from ?

Interesting POV. +1

Agrreed in that there is a self reinforcing aspect. The LLM returns something as an answer Others then quote the LLM So the next time a similar question is asked the LLM weighs into account a quote of its previous statement. Und So Weiter.

LLM's are hopelessy bottom of the class in Mathematics. One problem with this is if you ask a mathematical question in words it has no way of discerning what the actual maths is. I think this is because it trawls more respectable sites (such as Wikipedia) for the words, without the mathematical understanding. Here is an example of an utterly incorrect declaration from Google AI The moral of this is do not use a language based construct to do or check your maths homework. ( in this case Wiki also has it wrong)

This morning's bake

Yeah I forgot to mention that. +1

There are many sorts of 'pastry' Some are deliberately crumbly which also means a bit crunchy as in apple or other fuit crumble. Some are 'flaky' as in strudel, creamash, etc Some indeed crumble to fine(ish) powder as in shortcrust od shortbread. Some 'puff up' on baking. and so on. Part of the difference is the amount of liquid, part is the way the shortening (oil or fat) is mixed with the dry ingredients.

I'm sorry I have had enough of Wonderland, Alice. You have started with space 'filled' with 'microparticles', then grudgingly added with perhaps some empty space left over. the 'microparticles' can apparantly vary in size and perhaps other properties. We do not yet have a proper definition of microparticles. How would i recognise one If I met it in the street ? Further these microparticles are being pushed about by forces unnamed created by agents unknown. Since all space is filled with microparticles ( or perhaps nothing) where do the force generating agents reside ? Then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, red rings appear round the 'microparticles' and we are told these are electrons. Suddenly atoms appear. Where do the come from and where do they and the electrons reside ? Added to these suddenly electronmagnetic forces are involved. Again where do the come from and how are they distributed ? What new wonders will appear next in this universe of no spare space and no source of energy or agents of force ? I will leave you to ponder these questions and suggest you wait until you have solved them before proceeding further with your fairy tale.

I explained to you almost a year ago that your story is historically completely wrong Indeed so but it is presented as a work of fiction and like most, if not all fiction, there is good, bad and indifferent within the alternative histories category. For instance I liked the Philip Pulman Dark Materials trilogy. I can't imagine anyone confusing the various 'histories' of Oxford portrayed.

You seem to have answered me twice, so did you miss my reply ? anyway in response to your caveat - if that is correct - How big is the Koh-i-Noor diamond? Because technically is is one single molecule created by natural causes.

So what % would you put it at and why ? Bear in mind what I said about every living thing, past and present having to be the overall base to estimate this %.