well a couple things.

The big question as far as who made it, to me is somewhat meaningless. Not that I don't constantly try to ask it. But ultimately we are here in what ever this is. The goal is to survive and experience. Basically to me there is 2 routes.

Is all the struggling and constant learning\evolving meaningless when we die? Or is there some type of purpose to it all? If this is some type of soul producing and training simulation, then who is running it? That all gets into faith and stuff.

As far as Jim goes. He always says "he's entertaining the idea" I don't think he would tell you he is convinced of anything. I don't see a problem with that way of thinking personally.

Also, you obviously didn't read the book because he does actually lay out how such a scenario could exist. If you would read the book, you would find out that with Jim's background in computers and production, coupled with his interest in more the paranormal. He is able to work his ideas out. He gives a few different takes on the idea of a simulation and lays out how each could be done.

If you take all the simulations we are making. Think of T.V. and video games. Visually they are pretty legit and convincing. Think Avatar, world of warcraft. We only lack a brain to game interface. In 30 years we may very well be able to log in and out of universes. We will make thousands and thousands of them. If you believe we will do this. The odds you are in the 1 and only true universe is absurd. Even if you think the game sucks and is hard and would rather be in something else. Add in the ability to not know your in a simulation and it would become very real indeed.

Hello Rational Inquirer, and welcome to the forum. We appreciate all opinions here, even dissenting ones relative to the main focus of the site. All we ask is that people be respectful and refrain from insults or personal attacks. Your "obscene" comment is borderline, especially considering that Merriam-Webster defines "conventional wisdom" as "the generally accepted belief, opinion, judgment, or prediction about a particular matter," which materialism certainly is amongst the scientific community.

I do, however, appreciate your fervor and point of view. I was also once so convinced of my beliefs that I would get angry at books that presented alternative points of view that I considered BS; writing exclamatory comments in the margins, for instance. However, that was a long time ago, as I have learned that I have very few answers - therefore everyone else's opinion is valid. Some of those books, such as "Many Worlds" by Paul Davies, or Frank Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" ended up having the biggest impact on me.

I am currently reading Thomas Campbell's book "My Big TOE." In it, he provides an excellent warning about belief traps. To quote page 128, "be careful that your intellect does not trick you into believing comfortable and seductive conclusions that are primarily designed to reduce your anxiety, reassure your ego, and maintain your current self-satisfying worldview." Beliefs are pseudo-knowledge. True knowledge is what you "know" personally, but it can not be ascribed to others, inasmuch as we all create our own reality, subjectively and objectively. Science does not deal with truths, facts, proofs, or beliefs. It deals only with evidence. For that reason, I try to be really careful about saying that I believe ANYTHING. You will find that in all of my radio interviews, if the topic of belief comes up, I am very careful to say that I don't necessarily believe in the theory that I talk about in the book. Likewise, there shouldn't be anywhere in the book where I claim any sort of conviction or belief in programmed reality. There might be a tongue and cheek comment or two, but nothing serious. So, I am afraid that you have misinterpreted what you have read thus far, as Techne also points out.

A couple other comments of yours that I must address…

It it not true that only loop gravity theorists say that time and space are discrete. There has been a significant debate about that ever since the early 1900s, long before loop quantum gravity was theorized. It might be fair to say that discrete space-time is a requisite of LQG, but you can't say that only LQG supports the idea. Einstein himself said the following in 1916:

"But you have correctly grasped the drawback that the continuum brings. If the molecular view of matter is the correct (appropriate) one, i.e., if a part of the universe is to be represented by a finite number of moving points, then the continuum of the present theory contains too great a manifold of possibilities. I also believe that this too great is responsible for the fact that our present means of description miscarry with the quantum theory. The problem seems to me how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling upon a continuum (space-time) as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory as a supplementary construction not justified by the essence of the problem, which corresponds to nothing “real”. But we still lack the mathematical structure unfortunately. How much have I already plagued myself in this way!"

Bohr said reality was both continuous and discrete (standing waves). Physicist Victor J. Stenger declares space and time discrete without invoking LQG, as do many other physicists, like Craig Hogan. Not all physicists. I didn't say all physicists, just "physicists", which implies some physicists.

All of the items that you claim are not evidence for a simulation are indeed evidence for a simulation. There are many types of evidence. Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion, which I am careful not to make. I tend not to believe that "truth" is attainable, when speaking of the nature of reality. My book only deals with evidence, which IS actually the domain of science - hypothesis, evidence, and theory - that's it. I don't attempt to address the nature of a "more real" universe - many other books have done that.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires an inference to connect it to a conclusion. As such, every bit of evidence that exists out there in the scientific world is circumstantial, since they never lead to a fact. All of my evidence is similarly circumstantial. By logical inference, one can say that the fact that UFO's CAN be easily explained by programmed reality is evidence for the programmed reality hypothesis. But that doesn't mean that they are any sort of proof. Just like cosmic background radiation does NOT prove the big bang theory. That's why it is called a theory. Yes, there may be many other hypotheses that can explain any particular anomaly that I identify in the book. But I challenge you to find any single framework that explains them all other than the programmed reality framework. It covers all quantum anomalies and all metaphysical ones. Doesn't mean that it is proof, just that it is the best fit anyone has ever found (that I know of, anyway) to the evidence.

By the way, regarding the fine tuned universe evidence - that rather implies a designer. Not just programmed reality (which also presumes a designer), but any designer-centric theory would count the finely-tuned universe as evidence. To consider the alternative - the anthropic principle, implies a near infinity of universes to work - a concept that I personally find ridiculous.

On a final note, I don't yet fully count James Gate's computer codes as evidence, mostly due to ignorance on my part - I don't understand the argument yet. However, I have noted that apparent complexity can arrive in nature due to simple underlying processes. Error correction could conceivably be a result of evolutionary forces.

I find it puzzling that my comment would be so misinterpreted by both you, Dr. Elvidge (or is it Mr.?), and Techne. I am not at all a dissenter concerning the focus of this site. I find there is a preponderance of evidence for the simulation hypothesis. Notice my user name is Rational Inquirer not Skeptical Inquirer. Rational and skeptical r 2 very different things. And I was always very open to alternative views n was always a believer in the paranormal but not all of it.

To say that amazing coincidences, the solar system, fine-tuning, and UFOs are evidence for simulation is just plain wrong. UFOs r no more evidence for simulation than rocketships or airplanes. They use anti-gravity propulsion. Is anti-gravity an anomaly? Ufonauts commit crimes. Are criminals explained by simulation? Is interstellar travel possible only in a simulation? What ur saying is yes to all these questions. Not all anomalies can be explained by simulation.

The M-W definition of conventional wisdom is obscene because it is saying that known fallacies accepted as absolute truth by officialdom and defended with Inquisitional fervour is wisdom.

The code discoverd by Gates in supersymmetry, for those who might not know, is a block-linear, self-dual code invented by Claude Shannon in the '40s. I doubt this would be a natural phenomenon.

And the many-worlds theory is not at all anthropic but is erroneously considered as such in some quarters.

About discrete space-time it was always my understanding that matter is considered discrete but not space-time. This very question was in a physics forum n the answer was that it was only in LQG that space-time is considered to be discrete.

---

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Mr. Elvidge,

I did not look further into Victor Spenger as he is with a pseudo-science group (although there are things I agree with him on--atheism, n his views on fine-tuning n the anthropic principle), but I did into Craig Hogan and he does speak of the "quantization of space-time" so I stand corrected on this point. It does not appear to be a mainstream view, however, although this does not necessarily say very much, n it is certainly a line or point of evidence. Thanks for the missed information.

---

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

You should probably read the book to understand what is meant by anomalies as evidence for simulation. For example, it is not UFOs themselves, but the inconsistent behavior with respect to observers that a simulation easily explains and nothing else does (consistently). Ditto for quantum anomalies. I stand by all of my assertions.

I am well versed in Shannon's error correction codes as Digital Signal Processing was my concentration in school. I also stand by my assertion that it could be natural. The fact is that no one knows for sure. There simply isn't enough evidence to the contrary. Stating a belief is pseudo-science. For an example of error correction in nature, see: http://www.dna.caltech.edu/Papers/dna-crystal-evolution.pdf (I didn't research this, just found it with a simple search)

Scratch the surface and you'll find many more physicists who believe in a discrete spacetime. I would be very careful about applying the term pseudo-science to anyone (Spenger) whose ideas don't fit in with your worldview. Ohm's Law was once considered pseudo-science by the German Minister of Education. George Zweig was called a charlatan for his theory of quarks in the 1960s, which is today part of the standard model. Meteorites were pseudoscience in the 1800s. Cold Fusion was crackpot science in 1989 - CERN announced a few months ago that it is a legitimate effect and warrants further study. Yesterday's anomalies are today's science. Today's anomalies require brave scientists (e.g. Daryl Bern) to investigate. Many people on the physics forums you reference are closed-minded individuals with tiny comfort zones who fail to appreciate the scientific method. Frankly, I'm much more impressed with the free thinkers that are on this forum!

For the anthropic principle to make any sense at all, it requires multi-worlds from which to self-select. I stand by that assertion.

What a great thread this is, please keep it going.

Rational Inquirer, do you have a link to that supercluster (or filament) that resembles a human figure? I did a search but nothing turned up.

As for the error correction codes, who believes these occur naturally?

And, is there any other strong evidence to support the simulation hypothesis?

EKUMA1981,

I had seen it probably on Wikipedia but I don't see it anymore. It might not be a specific supercluster or filament but it's also in Astronomy by John Fix p. 612, 2 figures: Slice of the Universe and Map of the Universe. It's a survey 12 degrees by 120 degrees and 180 Mpcs. Now that I look at it again it maybe could be taken as coincidence, but there's the head, arms, and legs.

---

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Mr. Elvidge,

I imagine u know about details of the error-correcting codes--that's why I said "for those who might not know".

Advances in science like the examples u give r denounced by groups like CSI to which Spenger belongs. It promotes a close-minded, ultra-conservative, dogmatically skeptical belief system--that's why I call it a pseudo-science group.

---

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

ebb101,

"I've been too fucking busy – or vice versa."

This is a good, if somewhat flippant, example. But Mr. Elvidge's point that we understand what he means is well taken.

---

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

that through the wormhole episode was kinda stupid. I felt to a certain degree that it made it seem silly with the images of brains in jars like something out the matrix movies.