The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[sarkeizen]

It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".

Look, if you've never read a paper involving a simulation.  Then just say so.  That's not how you write it up.  You would specify the hardware and software you used.  It's about replication. He may be running lattice QCD simulations however that doesn't mean he has run any simulation concerning determining if the universe is a simulation.

The abstract paper

No such thing.

They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!

The paper simply does not say that.  MarkE and myself have corrected your poor understanding of English.

If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.

A paper, almost by definition should stand on it's own.  It will reference other work but the paper should bring a specific and novel conclusion forward (replication of prior experiments count as specific and novel).  I realize this is ArXiv which is sometimes a legitimate place for pre-publication comment but it's also a White Elephant sale of the research world.

and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.

So a) Please stop using "abstract" like that.  It's moronic and doesn't characterize the paper you provided and b) If you say a PAPER PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE then I would expect to find the STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE in the paper.  Nothing surprising about that.  As I said earlier this comes down to what is meant by "presents strong statistical evidence".   All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked three-times now:

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then you are now saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  Please withdraw this paper and submit one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and you have chosen some non-calculation definition of STATISTICAL then clearly there exists a problem when you state that the probability is > 0.5

Why is it so easy to find problems with your arguments.  Ones where you have to hole-up and hide behind all sorts of nonsense just to avoid getting destroyed?  Seriously you have so little evidence for your position you have to argue about the word "performed"?  If a paper did a simulation and had a real conclusion it wouldn't be so hard for you to point it out.
 
Out of curiosity do any of your friends think you're any good at this science stuff?  My advice: Get new friends.

[gravityblock]

I'm Happy Video!

MarkE and his minions found a way into this Happy video.  However, the minions found in this Happy video is based on the movie "despicable me".  It is despicable for them to portray themselves as Happy, when Happiness is the truth and the truth is not in them!

des·pi·ca·ble
diˈspikəbəl/
adjective
adjective: despicable

    deserving hatred and contempt.
    "a despicable crime"
    synonyms:   contemptible, loathsome, hateful, detestable, reprehensible, abhorrent, abominable, awful, heinous; More

Gravock

[MarkE]

What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Gravock

If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.

Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:

"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

[gravityblock]

If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.

Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:

Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored.

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above.  You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement.  You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article.  You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work.  You and your minions are not for the Truth!  You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth!  You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!

Gravock

[MarkE]

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above.  You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement.  You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article.  You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work.  You and your minions are not for the Truth!  You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth!  You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!

Gravock

You present yourself as completely unable to read and comprehend at even a fifth grade level.  The sentence:

"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".

Says that they explored consequences.  The consequences that they explored were of a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is that "the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid".  They did not say that they or anyone else performed such a simulation.  Do you really wish to present yourself as completely unable to comprehend what they wrote and you cited?