The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[sarkeizen]

I'll assume then that you agree with my statement that a calculation must be shown in the paper and the calculation must be > 0.5

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved.

You're almost right.  A well-defined theory can be proven or bounded in probabilistic way.  Saying a theory can not be proved but can be disproven is nonsense as it places an arbitrary constraint on what can be a theory.  It's like the "you can't prove a negative" nonsense people say.

The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences.

Not exactly.  A constraint is, pretty much what it sounds like.  It's something that restricts the theory.  A constraint is often the output of an experiment but can also be an assumption.  For example the authors of this paper assume that the simulation is happening on a classical machine.  Worth noting that constraints hopefully tell you where to direct your research but the do not necessarily alter the probability of a hypothesis being true. 

The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation,

More correctly they propose something that could be a signature under specific assumptions.

The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.

Please state where this was done, on what hardware and software and where in the paper it specifically mentions a simulation being done by the paper authors.

The title of the paper, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.

So when we strip away where you've lifted text directly from the paper what we have is this statement.  Some commentary:

i) You have failed to show where the paper PRESENTS statistically strong evidence.  A title is not a statistic.  So it can not be statistically strong evidence.  What would be at least statistical evidence would be a survey of all papers on Arxiv which contain the words "Constraints on <some hypothesis>" and how frequently that pattern references a paper where the theory has been proven (or has a strong statistical bound).  Even so, that statistical evidence would actually be PRESENTED in a different paper.
ii) You have failed to show what if any statistical calculation of the universe being a simulation was done by Beane, Davoudi and Savage and have not shown how it arrives at a value > 0.5.
iii) You have failed to show any simulation done by Beane, Davoudi and Savage
iv) Constraints are orthogonal to the probability of a hypothesis being true.  i.e. If I perform an experiment to determine the likely location of my car keys in the house.  Finding the constraint that they must be somewhere on the couch if they are in the house does not alter the probability that they are in the house.
v) "strongly suggestive" isn't the same as "proves flawlessly" because of this even if we believe all your bullshit about magical words in the paper title meaning a probability of the thesis being true of > 0.5.  We would clearly have to look at the probability of the theory being correct overall as conditional on the likelihood that the work is correct P(CW) and the strength of the suggestion.   P(S|CW)  Thus even a P(CW) of > 0.5 can still mean an overall probability of the theory being true of < 0.5

So again.  Where is the calculation showing the likelihood is > 0.5.  If you can't show me.  If not, then I think the better term is that you are "strongly convinced" as there is no statistically strong evidence.

[gravityblock]

Don't forget, Creationists believe the Universe was created within literally 7 (seven) days and that happened somewhat ten thousand years ago. It must be true because The Bible say so.

Qwert,

You bring up a good point, but I am way ahead of most Creationists.  There are two places in scripture that say a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.  Scripture also says that there still remains a day of rest for God's people.  Further, we have been told that God rested on the seventh day and likewise He promised a day of rest for His people.  The seven day theory is based on a thousand year week model that has 7000 years from creation or from Adam until the eternal kingdom (some believers say 7000 years from creation and others say 7000 years from Adam).  Experts differ on the date and the year that Jesus actually was crucified. Therefore good arguments exist on dates from 30 to 35 AD.  If Jesus comes back to rule in the start of the Sabbath 7th day and the thousand year day can be taken literally, then that would indicate that Jesus will come to set up His kingdom between 2030-2035 AD, assuming of course our calenders are correct, which they may be slightly off. 

I find it interesting how mankind is now within the reach of completely simulating the universe as we approach the 7000 years (7 days of creation).  Remember, a quantum computer is now available to the general public, which the military branches and governments of this world probably had at least 30 - 40 years ago, so the idea of creating synthetic quantum environments and simulating the entire universe is more than likely already a reality.  The original sin of Adam and Eve, eating from the tree of knowledge is what put them and their offspring into a fallen state of existence.  They literally trapped and enslaved their Spirit/Consciousness into a computer simulation through the knowledge in which they gained by eating from the tree of knowledge.  As knowledge increases, mankind will once again enslave themselves into a simulation of the simulation of their ancestors.  The resurrection may be nothing more than us escaping from this false reality of a computer simulation in which our ancestors (Adam and Eve) created through their knowledge and desire to be like God.  In the end of days, the original Sin of Adam and Eve will be repackaged and presented to all of us.  We will no longer be able to use them as an escape goat for our fallen state.  Daniel 12:4 -  But you, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end.  The seals are being broken!

Genesis: ³but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" ⁴The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! ⁵"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."...

Genesis: ²²Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-- ²³therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken....

[MarkE]

Face palm.  In all of that you are not even consistent in your units.

ETA:  My mistake, you're using 1000 years for a "day" and 7000 years for a "week".  Of course the silliness requires that people who had an average lifespan of under 30 years somehow were able to keep track of 1000 years in each of their "days" with whichever Middle Eastern deity it was that they spent their time serving.

[gravityblock]

Face palm.  In all of that you are not even consistent in your units.

Please show me the inconsistencies in the units, instead of wrongly asserting!

Gravock

[MarkE]

Actually it was my mistake.  I misread you using a thousand years for a day in one place and a week in another. 

Good luck with using myths created by primitive goat herders as your guide for what's beyond your understanding.