The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

So for the fourth time..."What is statistically strong about the information presented in that paper?"

The simulation was motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamental fields and interactions of nature in femto-sized volumes of space/time, and by the simulation hypothesis of Bostrom.  The simulation itself mirroring the GZK cut off as found in the universe is statistically strong.  Do you not understand all that goes into a simulation?  Do you not think it is statistically strong for a simulation to mirror a GZK cut off pattern as found in the universe?  You can not say I didn't answer the question.  It is more like you do not understand the answer.  I am confident an informed reader will agree the question has been answered.

Gravock

[MarkE]

LOL

[sarkeizen]

The simulation was motivated by the progress in performing lattice QCD calculations involving the fundamental fields and interactions of nature in femto-sized volumes of space/time

The paper you are referencing doesn't appear to have performed any simulation.  What they are talking about is a scenario which could, to some unspecified probability differentiate between real and simulated universes under some set of assumptions about both. 

The simulation itself mirroring the GZK cut off as found in the universe is statistically strong.

Which simulation?  On what hardware was it run?  What was the positive-predictive value of the test? Or the software used for that matter? None of those things, which you normally find in papers about simulations are there.  By contrast if you've been tracking any of the papers arguing against entanglement in D-Waves adiabatic quantum computer.  In some cases they will simulate a quantum machine using a classical machine.  In most of those papers you'll find a number of the things I mention.   Hence there is nothing to suggest statistical strength by any metric.

Do you not think it is statistically strong for a simulation to mirror a GZK cut off pattern as found in the universe?

That would depend on the likelihood of that happening and of course that would require a simulation to actually have been run.

You can not say I didn't answer the question.

Well you're answer appears to be "because something happened".  However that appears to be without knowing the probability of it happening or if it happened at all.   So if you recall the question is: "What makes this statistically strong" and you can't tell me anything about the probability of an event or even if it happened.  So I'd say the question you've answered is: "Are you convinced?" which is fine but not what I asked.

It is more like you do not understand the answer.

I confess that when someone provides no information about the probability of an event.  I do not understand how they construe something to be "statistically strong".   Can something be statistically strong but also unlikely in your (simulated) universe?

I am confident an informed reader will agree the question has been answered.

So first you argue from assertion and now you seem to appeal to anonymous authority (or popularity)?

I'll rephrase the question a bit for it's fifth asking: Please tell me how the paper measures the probability of the event you claim they observed and to what the calculated the likelihood of their conclusion to be.

[MileHigh]

Well I personally believe in linear motion and curvilinear motion.  Any theoretical discrete steps in time and space are so far below our threshold of detection that we don't and can't factor them into our reality.  That is separate and distinct from all the quanta stuff.

And you can make parametric equations for lines and curves as a function of time!  The distance measured still works out.

Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin.

[minnie]

    I was wondering, in my pixelated world, would the tangent to my circle have to be
pixelated, then I thought probably most straight lines would be too!
                                           John.