|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
|
Jim,
Also consider that quantum entanglement is a glitch that is a necessary result of the programmed reality. Try to write a simple algorithm for the behavior of two particles in reality that doesn't have some form of entanglement.
for all particles (i)
for all particles (j)
if Nodistance(particle.i, particle.j) < NoEntanglementThreshold then
NoSynchronize(particle.i, particle.j)
else
end if
next j
next i
The particles cannot coexist in one reality! i.e. in order for any particle to interact with another, there must be some threshold level of entanglement. The Great Programmer(s) had to set the entanglement threshold part of the program somewhere; why not put it in at a micro subatomic level where the players will have a really difficult time finding it?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
Many good thoughts here. One is that considering particles as programmable objects certainly makes more sense than way I write pseudocode!  And clearly, by definition, matter must be entangled. In fact, maybe that's why our trillions of living cells hang together so well as a human rather than just a pile of independent cells. Still, I could imagine a subatomic physics experiment where two nuclear reactions separated in space by great than the entanglement threshold generate particles that can be contained and yet are not entangled, potentially for eternity. But if they are brought together to a proximity less than the threshold, and then separated again, contained, and studied, and shown to be entangled, then would you say that their initial state was truly "unentangled." Or were they still connected via the holographic construct, or the Matrix, or whatever, but just behaving independently, according to those programming rules?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
|
But I like the way this is going. Gong beyond quantum entanglement to causality, i.e. what is the base "cause" for one particle to interact with another? What is the "cause" for anything to interact with other things? -- interacting in this forum for example.
pseudocode is fine, because every "program" is after all -- just an algorithm (or effective method).
Maybe this is where we can show the naysayers that "The Universe - Solved" book is "proof" that a programmed reality is the nature of our existence. Now, what would the "code" "program" or "algorithm" for reality look like?
I do not think you can write one. Therefore we really don not physically exist. You can, however, write a program for pseudo-existence.
Take the internet, for example, it is just a service that runs on central processing units, hard drives, flash memory, wires, fibers, and signals in the air. Does the "internet" really exist physically?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
|
So now let's consider these particles called Marge and Norm (M&N). If you think of M & N as sentient quantum measuring devices, they can be imagined as an entangled pair of particles that have interacted and then separated. But since they are also sentient, now we can also imagine asking these objects if they would personally agree with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (the notion that observation alone changes the outcome), which is one of the most fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics.
The Marge particle agrees with Heisenberg, but the Norm Particle doesn't. Marge says particles exist in space, but Norm doesn't believe in space. Marge says All that we know comes from the senses. Norm says his senses can fool him.
A piece of wax, for example, is a thing. Yet when placed by the fire, it melts. No thing has a constant shape, smell, color, figure, or size. All things are in a constant state of change. Yet the question remains, whether our perception is the least bit necessary in order for the corporeal world to exist, i.e. the age-old adage, "if a tree falls alone in the woods, will it make a noise?"
We do not even need quantum physics to know that this reality is a simulation. It is my program interacting with yours and you interacting with mine by reading this post on this forum.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
Not sure I fully follow your direction here.
True, the Internet only exists as a concept in our minds. What is physicality ultimately? Information, right?
And I agree that "things" are in a constant state of change. You are not the same person you were five minutes ago. You've lost and gained a bunch of cells, for example. But there seems to be a continuous stream of consciousness to that continuously changing shape of yours. I wouldn't say the same for an "agent" of the program, such as a particle. Would you?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
|
jim wrote:Not sure I fully follow your direction here. Yes, I can drift sometimes, but I'm just trying to brainstorm this thing. Although there are few naysayers here, in other places where your book (your work) shows up, the main criticism is the Universe is not solved and a programmed universe is only one possibility. To me, it is the only workable possibility, but how do we scientifically prove the the programmed nature of the universe is the only correct one. jim wrote:True, the Internet only exists as a concept in our minds. What is physicality ultimately? Information, right? In the "programmed" universe, by definition all physicality is only information. But most "non-quantum theory" science still supports only "local" reality as the only workable solution. i.e. as mankind, we prefer to cling to our notions of physical existence. The reason I compare this discussion to the "internet" is because lately "broadband" seems to be defined as the "telecommunications" infrastructure -- and the internet is just a service. So, is reality a service? Or is reality an infrastructure? jim wrote: And I agree that "things" are in a constant state of change. You are not the same person you were five minutes ago. You've lost and gained a bunch of cells, for example. But there seems to be a continuous stream of consciousness to that continuously changing shape of yours. I wouldn't say the same for an "agent" of the program, such as a particle. Would you? Yes, that is why I proposed thinking of the quantum particle as a sentient being. It's just a thought experiment. So, if you are a quark or a lepton (electron or neutrino) wondering if you are really nothing more than a Boson (wave, string?) then I can ask you some questions and then you would have to answer me as best you can. -- but hey! you are probably no more inclined to know anything more about your own nature of existence then I would. And you tell me "those waves and strings vibrating out there -- they are just the services; I am an infrastructure." And I tell you, "you are only what your perceptions show you. The only way you will ever know if you are the service or the infrastructure is to create a "sentient" service of your own (AI). Then and only then will you know for sure whether or not you are the infrastructure for your creation." Now the monkeys start smacking themselves up against the large rectangular obelisque (monolith).
|
|
|
Guest |
