Hypothesis discrimination?

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Where did they get these values?

The only way to learn about state of an atom is continuous beam of e.g. photons and electrons toward particle at examination (aka "observation", "measurement").

If you don't observe/measure ("send electrons/photons toward it"), it can get any undefined state (i.e. randomization routine could be called, the next time somebody tries to examine it). If you can randomize almost everything, you don't have to store almost anything.

Apply probability functions involving 26 electrons in a finite spacetime region.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Then consider further the entropy association to the effective of freedom

Edited August 22, 2019 by Mordred

[MigL]

I assume you mean Bekenstein bound or limit, Mordred.
Jacob Bekenstein, of Bekenstein-Hawking Black Hole entropy fame.

[Mordred]

That's correct but it has been conjectured in applications beyond blackhole entropy. Though it lost popularity to Shannon entropy. 

Anyways the question still stands how many bits would one need to simulate the observable universe and all the quantum information it would contain.

If the OP wants to restrict this to observation then ask the question how many bits of information does a single human process in a second just in visual sight.

There is theoretical limits to how much information that can be packed within a finite volume. I mentioned some of the involved theories. So the gist of the question is

How much information would one need to simulate an entire universe and using these theoretical limits how much space would one need to store that information to run said simulation ?

Those are the kind of questions the OP should be asking...

 

 

Edited August 23, 2019 by Mordred

[QuantumT]

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.

 

[Ghideon]

Second link:

Quote

4. Quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling occurs when an electron suddenly appears outside a field barrier it can’t pass through, like a coin in a perfectly sealed glass bottle suddenly appearing outside it. That quantum theory permits this in no way explains how a physical “thing” can move to where no intervening path is possible. In contrast, a virtual reality can easily “cut” between one frame and another

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

I'll try my own*:
There are individuals who have reported that they have memories from earlier lives. Mainstream science has not accepted these claims and no evidence supporting reincarnations exists as far as i know. Hence these reports are evidence that we are simulations and that interesting personalities are reused in later iterations. As with all digital systems where care is not taken, copy pasting sometimes leads to copying too much information from source to destination. 

My "explanation" of course is not anything I believe in and it is not testable and not scientific. But how do you choose to include or not to include the type of "idea" I created? Again, how do you draw the line?

 

 

*) Hope this does not count as a straw man, intention is to show an example that there are lots of possibilities to include all kinds of stuff in a VR scenario. I find the topic interesting. And Matrix is one of my favourite movies (but not as a source of explanations of physics). 

[QuantumT]

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.

Edited August 27, 2019 by QuantumT

[Strange]

Where that quote says “That quantum theory permits this in no way explains how a physical “thing” can move to where no intervening path is possible” I assume what they mean is “no way explains in a way acceptable to me.”

Because, of course, the fact that quantum theory permits it is the explanation of why it can happen. 

In other words, just an argument from incredulity (a well-known fallacy).

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Hence these reports are evidence that we are simulations and that interesting personalities are reused in later iterations.

That is one possible hypotheses. There are many others. Many based around the fact that memory is known to be extremely unreliable. It is trivially easy to change people’s memory of past events or create false memories. 

So one needs to look at all the evidence related to a hypothesis, not just pick a few that could be  consistent. 

Then there is Occam’s razor, which tells us to reject the hypothesis that adds extra things when we have another which uses only that which is known (also known as the principle of parsimony).

[QuantumT]

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.

Edited August 27, 2019 by QuantumT

[Strange]

4 hours ago, QuantumT said:

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

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...

[QuantumT]

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.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

“no way explains in a way acceptable to me.”

That is probably a better way to express it, than my example.

I'll try to expand the reasoning: It seems to me that one could put various loosely related topics into groups. For example a group of physics concepts including quantum phenomena and a node group with religious concepts such as reincarnation. And it seems that individuals could use very similar arguments to find support for concepts in one of the groups, or both. And also to argue why VR* does not explain concepts in the other group. Paraphrasing your note; "VR is an explanation of physics acceptable to me" or "VR is an explanation of reincarnations acceptable to me". It seems hard to make a scientific model out of that. If the same arguments could be used for explaining reincarnations and quantum phenomena, how could a rigorous scientific treatment emerge? I do not say it is not possible, I do not see how. 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

So one needs to look at all the evidence related to a hypothesis, not just pick a few that could be  consistent. 

Yes, good point and that is one of the issue I have with VR used as an explanation. brianwhitworth.com states "When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." after looking at VR as a possibility and not much else. 

 

*) VR=the idea that universe is a virtual reality or a simulation

[Strange]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

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

I doubt it. The errors I spotted were so egregious, they were obvious when just skimming it. A more detailed reading might show up even more problems.

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

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.

This is not something I have a strong feelings about either way. Because there isn't, and cannot be, any evidence. So there is no reason to have an opinion about it.

[QuantumT]

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.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

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

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.

[QuantumT]

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!

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

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.

I'm not doing that though. As I say, I don't have an opinion on it. (I have an opinion on believing it, but that's another matter!)

I am just pointing out that it (solipsism, virtual reality, Last-Thursdayism, etc) is unprovable (and unfalsifiable) by definition. So there can never be objective, scientific evidence for it.

You are, of course, free to consider that deja vu, coincidences, past lives, entanglement, or the Mandela effect are evidence for it. But someone else can equally validly believe that it is not evidence for that (but that it is evidence for mind control by our lizard overlords, or whatever).

11 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

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

Isn't that just what your Simulators are doing? 

[QuantumT]

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.

Edited August 27, 2019 by QuantumT

[swansont]

8 hours ago, QuantumT said:

 

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

 

His understanding of physics is insufficient to make the claims he’s making. Also a bunch of unsupported assertions about what an objective reality would be like.

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

There you go again. Being absolute.

Yep. Some things are absolute. That is the post I am making.

Just because "some things have been proved wrong in the past" does not mean that everything may be wrong. Mathematical and logical proofs are absolute, for example.

26 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

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

You still seem to think that I am saying your idea is wrong. I am not.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

His understanding of physics is insufficient to make the claims he’s making.

That is a vey kind assessment.