Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400281 > unrolled thread

Do we live in a simulation?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Do we live in a simulation? "Edgar L. Owen" <edgar@edgarlowen.com> - 2016-11-30 04:38 -0800
    Do we live in a simulation? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:50 -0800
    Re: Do we live in a simulation? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 10:08 -0600
      Re: Do we live in a simulation? Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-01 13:46 +0000
        Re: Do we live in a simulation? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-02 05:54 +1100
    Re: Do we live in a simulation? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 03:31 +1100
      Re: Do we live in a simulation? Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-01 22:18 +0000
        Re: Do we live in a simulation? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-02 20:46 +1100
          Re: Do we live in a simulation? Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-02 13:05 +0000
            Re: Do we live in a simulation? "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-03 04:55 +1100
              Re: Do we live in a simulation? Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-12-02 18:20 +0000
              Re: Do we live in a simulation? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-02 15:50 -0800
          Re: Do we live in a simulation? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-02 15:47 -0800
            Re: Do we live in a simulation? HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-05 06:38 +1100

#400281 — Do we live in a simulation?

All,

It is true we are all living in a simulation of reality. However that simulation is produced in our own brains not by any alien programmers.

This is quite clear and confirmed by cognitive science since the world as we experience it most certainly exists only as neural data in our brains. Only the basic logical structure of this simulation approximates the logical structure of reality, the appearances of the world around us (qualia) are produced entirely within our simulation.

I explore this in detail in my new book Realization, Experiencing Reality in a World of Illusion available on Amazon under my name Edgar L. Owen in both a paperback and Kindle edition. This book explains in detail how actual reality differs from our simulated reality, the actual nature of reality that is revealed when we subtract what our mind adds to it, and how to experience this true nature of reality in our daily lives.

Edgar

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#400287

No
The universe is simulating ITSELF

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400324

On 11/30/16 11/30/16 - 6:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> It is true we are all living in a simulation of reality. However that
> simulation is produced in our own brains not by any alien programmers.

I disagree. Our THOUGHTS are confined to a simulation produced in our own brains 
(each of us individually), but our BODIES exist in the real world.

> This is quite clear and confirmed by cognitive science since the world as we
> experience it most certainly exists only as neural data in our brains.

Yes, with the caveat above. Our THOUGHTS are limited to models (simulations) of 
the world. But our BODIES are quite different and are not thoughts at all -- 
they exist in the real world. Humans have evolved a manner of survival that is 
based on mentally MODELING the world and using the model to manipulate our 
bodies to manipulate objects in the world to our personal advantage.

	For instance, you cannot go to bed at night without
	mentally exploring your personal model of your domicile
	to determine how to find your bed. EVERYTHING we do
	consciously involves such models of the world.

> Only
> the basic logical structure of this simulation approximates the logical
> structure of reality, the appearances of the world around us (qualia) are
> produced entirely within our simulation.

Yes. Our mental model/simulation only approximately corresponds to the real world.

> I explore this in detail in my new book Realization, Experiencing Reality in
> a World of Illusion available on Amazon under my name Edgar L. Owen in both a
> paperback and Kindle edition. This book explains in detail how actual reality
> differs from our simulated reality, the actual nature of reality that is
> revealed when we subtract what our mind adds to it, and how to experience
> this true nature of reality in our daily lives.

But since our brains process only thoughts, it simply is not possible for a 
human to what you claim. You CANNOT "know how the world really works", you can 
only know how your mind MODELS "how the world works".

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400452

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/30/16 11/30/16 - 6:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> It is true we are all living in a simulation of reality. However that
>> simulation is produced in our own brains not by any alien programmers.
> 
> I disagree. Our THOUGHTS are confined to a simulation produced in our
> own brains (each of us individually), but our BODIES exist in the real
> world.

You both are wrong. Not the "body", since you don't own a body. Which 
would be part of the Simulation. But the sensors, the inputs. A good 
Physicist would have been seeing this distinction immediately, since it 
relates directly to Laboratory experiments, Math Modelling, Algorithms and 
such. I am kind of depressed. Now you will come back saying that you did 
not say that.

Anyway, this matter of fact leads towards my Divergent Matter theory, 
surprisingly, and very funny indeed.

>> This is quite clear and confirmed by cognitive science since the world
>> as we experience it most certainly exists only as neural data in our
>> brains.
> 
> Yes, with the caveat above. Our THOUGHTS are limited to models
> (simulations) of the world. But our BODIES are quite different and are
> not thoughts at all --

Noo! Plus that you just contradict yourself.

> they exist in the real world. Humans have evolved a manner of survival
> that is based on mentally MODELING the world and using the model to
> manipulate our bodies to manipulate objects in the world to our personal
> advantage.

This is correct, apparently.

> 	For instance, you cannot go to bed at night without mentally 
exploring
> 	your personal model of your domicile to determine how to find your 
bed.
> 	EVERYTHING we do consciously involves such models of the world.

Does not matter. Anything at all. The whole circus, 3d,4d orientation is 
STILL model/simulation inside THAT brain. Which again, IT SELF is part of 
that simulation. Very funny indeed. You give the right answer and still 
don't understand. Excellent post. Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400503

On 02/12/16 00:46, Julian Alewine wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:

>
>> 	For instance, you cannot go to bed at night without mentally
> exploring
>> 	your personal model of your domicile to determine how to find your
> bed.
>> 	EVERYTHING we do consciously involves such models of the world.
>
> Does not matter. Anything at all. The whole circus, 3d,4d orientation is
> STILL model/simulation inside THAT brain. Which again, IT SELF is part of
> that simulation. Very funny indeed. You give the right answer and still
> don't understand. Excellent post. Thanks.

That's too hard for poor old Tom...even the optics of our eyes are just 
mental simulations. ...and there is no reason to believe that my 'red' 
sensation is the same as yours. We can only assume that it is because of 
our common genes.

I'm also pretty convinced that other lifeforms view the universe in very 
different ways.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400333

On 30/11/16 23:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> All,
>
> It is true we are all living in a simulation of reality. However that
> simulation is produced in our own brains not by any alien
> programmers.
>
> This is quite clear and confirmed by cognitive science since the
> world as we experience it most certainly exists only as neural data
> in our brains. Only the basic logical structure of this simulation
> approximates the logical structure of reality, the appearances of the
> world around us (qualia) are produced entirely within our
> simulation.

This is correct. Our minds receive electrical signals and create 
Euclidean space along with all its shapes and colours. The true form of 
the universe might be purely mathematical...like the signal to your 
computer screen.

I wont be buying your book because it seems to accept Einstein's stupid 
theory....but I think you should add a chapter pointing out that the 
human sensory system can directly detect only space and time and not any 
of those other dimensions that are involved with fields and 
consciousness itself.

> Edgar
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400517

HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> This is correct. Our minds receive electrical signals and create
> Euclidean space along with all its shapes and colours. The true form of
> the universe might be purely mathematical...like the signal to your
> computer screen.

Not quite. What you need is a Randomizer as well, without which you have 
no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't have 
Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial intelligence etc, if not 
all, are lacking Randomizers. In any case, make a pure Randomizer is one 
of most difficult task, (un)achievable in Computing/Programming. You 
realize it when you try to implement and embed it by yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400551

On 02/12/16 09:18, Julian Alewine wrote:
> HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
>> This is correct. Our minds receive electrical signals and create
>> Euclidean space along with all its shapes and colours. The true form of
>> the universe might be purely mathematical...like the signal to your
>> computer screen.
>
> Not quite. What you need is a Randomizer as well, without which you have
> no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't have
> Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial intelligence etc, if not
> all, are lacking Randomizers. In any case, make a pure Randomizer is one
> of most difficult task, (un)achievable in Computing/Programming. You
> realize it when you try to implement and embed it by yourself.

That's not right. The universe actually exists. It is the general form 
and shape of the universe that we create mentally. Randomness also 
exists so we don't have to simulate it because it isn't physical.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400557

HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> On 02/12/16 09:18, Julian Alewine wrote:
>> HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>>> This is correct. Our minds receive electrical signals and create
>>> Euclidean space along with all its shapes and colours. The true form
>>> of the universe might be purely mathematical...like the signal to your
>>> computer screen.
>>
>> Not quite. What you need is a Randomizer as well, without which you
>> have no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't have
>> Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial intelligence etc, if
>> not all, are lacking Randomizers. In any case, make a pure Randomizer
>> is one of most difficult task, (un)achievable in Computing/Programming.
>> You realize it when you try to implement and embed it by yourself.
> 
> That's not right. The universe actually exists. It is the general form
> and shape of the universe that we create mentally. Randomness also
> exists so we don't have to simulate it because it isn't physical.

You mix things together, like your friend Dr. Tom did. You are the one 
relativng "computer screens" into the equation. Go back and see. Ass said, 
there is no Randomizer present into such one.

Bot you do an even larger error. There are no proper Randomizers, not even 
inside the entire Universe. I suspect transcendental markers, but the 
problem here would be that you can't possibly prove.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400598

On 03/12/16 00:05, Julian Alewine wrote:
> HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>> have no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't
>>> have Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial
>>> intelligence etc, if not all, are lacking Randomizers. In any
>>> case, make a pure Randomizer is one of most difficult task,
>>> (un)achievable in Computing/Programming. You realize it when you
>>> try to implement and embed it by yourself.
>>
>> That's not right. The universe actually exists. It is the general
>> form and shape of the universe that we create mentally. Randomness
>> also exists so we don't have to simulate it because it isn't
>> physical.
>
> You mix things together, like your friend Dr. Tom did. You are the
> one relativng "computer screens" into the equation. Go back and see.
> Ass said, there is no Randomizer present into such one.
>
> Bot you do an even larger error. There are no proper Randomizers, not
> even inside the entire Universe. I suspect transcendental markers,
> but the problem here would be that you can't possibly prove.

Well that is another big issue. Does randomness actually exist or is
there a direct physical reason for every action?
For instance, what legitimizes the concept of 'half-life'? Why do some 
radioactive atoms decay before others?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400604

HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>> Bot you do an even larger error. There are no proper Randomizers, not
>> even inside the entire Universe. I suspect transcendental markers, but
>> the problem here would be that you can't possibly prove.
> 
> Well that is another big issue. Does randomness actually exist or is
> there a direct physical reason for every action?
> For instance, what legitimizes the concept of 'half-life'? Why do some
> radioactive atoms decay before others?

Good question, we need a particle PhD. But no, since the probability is 
much smaller than the median, that is pretty much predictable. Not a good 
Randomizer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400635

HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> 
> On 03/12/16 00:05, Julian Alewine wrote:
> > HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> 
> >>> have no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't
> >>> have Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial
> >>> intelligence etc, if not all, are lacking Randomizers. In any
> >>> case, make a pure Randomizer is one of most difficult task,
> >>> (un)achievable in Computing/Programming. You realize it when you
> >>> try to implement and embed it by yourself.
> >>
> >> That's not right. The universe actually exists. It is the general
> >> form and shape of the universe that we create mentally. Randomness
> >> also exists so we don't have to simulate it because it isn't
> >> physical.
> >
> > You mix things together, like your friend Dr. Tom did. You are the
> > one relativng "computer screens" into the equation. Go back and see.
> > Ass said, there is no Randomizer present into such one.
> >
> > Bot you do an even larger error. There are no proper Randomizers, not
> > even inside the entire Universe. I suspect transcendental markers,
> > but the problem here would be that you can't possibly prove.
> 
> Well that is another big issue. Does randomness actually exist or is
> there a direct physical reason for every action?
> For instance, what legitimizes the concept of 'half-life'? Why do some
> radioactive atoms decay before others?

Randomness does not exist. Every star has it's place.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400634

HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> 
> On 02/12/16 09:18, Julian Alewine wrote:
> > HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> >
> >> This is correct. Our minds receive electrical signals and create
> >> Euclidean space along with all its shapes and colours. The true form of
> >> the universe might be purely mathematical...like the signal to your
> >> computer screen.
> >
> > Not quite. What you need is a Randomizer as well, without which you have
> > no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't have
> > Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial intelligence etc, if not
> > all, are lacking Randomizers. In any case, make a pure Randomizer is one
> > of most difficult task, (un)achievable in Computing/Programming. You
> > realize it when you try to implement and embed it by yourself.
> 
> That's not right. The universe actually exists. 

Does it exist if you're not looking at it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400777

On 03/12/16 10:47, The Starmaker wrote:
> HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>> Not quite. What you need is a Randomizer as well, without which you have
>>> no decision maker, aka observation. Computer display doesn't have
>>> Randomizers. Most of the electronics, artificial intelligence etc, if not
>>> all, are lacking Randomizers. In any case, make a pure Randomizer is one
>>> of most difficult task, (un)achievable in Computing/Programming. You
>>> realize it when you try to implement and embed it by yourself.
>>
>> That's not right. The universe actually exists.
>
> Does it exist if you're not looking at it?

yes. But in what 'form' I dunno....



-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web