The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[MarkE]

Our Creator comes from outside of this false reality in which we have been enslaved and imprisoned in through our ancestors desire for knowledge and to be like God.  The universe you believe in is nothing but an illusion!  You believe in an imaginary universe that doesn't exist.  It's ironic how the unbelievers accuse us of believing in an imaginary God, when it is them who believes in an imaginary universe.  This is another psychological projection by those who are not interested and not for the truth.  They have inverted all Truths!

Gravock

And of course when someone asks you the obvious question:  "Where is your evidence to support your claim?".  What will you tell them?  Will you refer them to stories concocted by primitive goat herders?

[gauschor]

The problem with the creator myth is:  "Where did the (vain, vengeful, angry, capricious) creator come from?"  There are no more satisfying answers to that then there are satisfying answers as to where this universe originated.

The fundamental nature of this crazy world we live in is something that we do not comprehend and may never develop the capability to comprehend.

Eventually this is true. How and why does anything exist at all ... Even if there are 1000s of interdimensional parallel worlds in different wavelengths and frequencies we can't answer the question where the first wave came from... unfortunately.

[sarkeizen]

In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation.

So now you've changed your assertion from: "This paper shows that the universe is a numerical simulation to be more likely than not" to "Somewhere something shows the universe to be a numerical simulation is more likely than not".  Without admitting you were wrong about the paper?  That's a little dishonest.  Don't you think?

That said, do you agree that there needs to be a calculation for evidence to be STATISTICALLY STRONG or not?  If not, then answer the question: "How is this the evidence STATISTICAL?"...and if there DOES need to be a calculation then answer the question: "Where the FUCK is it in that paper?"

You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have.

How is this a matter of opinion?  Do you agree on what qualifies as statistical evidence or not?  If not, what makes your evidence statistical?

It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding.

So far all I've seen of you is that you can't answer a straight question in a useful way.  It seems reasonable that this is a reflection of your internal process.  Which is, at least in my opinion stretching the definition of "thinking".

What's the point of thinking if you can't eliminate beliefs you prefer?

It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.

Do you really find this discussion interesting?  All you've done is make a grand assertion.  Then spent days trying to fabricate something to support it and then weasel out in a way where you don't have to admit you were wrong.   In other words you have managed to assert something and learn nothing.

Just like what happened to you showing me WHERE the simulation was done?
Just what happened to you showing me a machine intelligence equal to a humans?
Just like showing me which parts of the Mathis diagram which parts are Euclidean and which parts are not?

I wouldn't be surprised if you're getting off on this but "interesting"?  Really?  The closest thing I find to interesting in this discussion is how quickly someone like you glues an idea to their head, how easily that becomes something you're significantly attached to and how much of your rationality you will sacrifice to keep it that way.  No idea what brought your psyche to this point but you really need to learn to fail you. fucking. failure..

(or for all I care spend your time jumping from topic to topic and learning nothing, complaining about some small aspect of peoples posts...or their language...or making vague, incorrect summaries...or making some quip....obsess on all that.  It will help you learn nothing for the rest of your life.  Meanwhile the rest of the world plays damage-control for your unexamined idiot ideas)

[gravityblock]

So now you've changed your assertion from: "This paper shows that the universe is a numerical simulation to be more likely than not" to "Somewhere something shows the universe to be a numerical simulation is more likely than not".  Without admitting you were wrong about the paper?  That's a little dishonest.  Don't you think?

"The more likely than not" is in reference to what you posted and was only used to meet your qualifications, "iii) b) The probability is > 0.5 - i.e. it is more likely than not."

That said, do you agree that there needs to be a calculation or not?  If not, then answer the question: "How is this the evidence STATISTICAL?"...and if there DOES need to be a calculation then answer the question: "Where the FUCK is it in that paper?"How is this a matter of opinion?  Do you agree on what qualifies as statistical evidence or not?  If not, what makes your evidence statistical?So far all I've seen of you is that you can't answer a straight question in a useful way.  It seems reasonable that this is a reflection of your internal process.  Which is,a t least stretching the definition of "thinking".

In the paper it says, "Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".  How was it performed, a simulation?  What was it performed on?  A cubic space-time lattice.  I will allow you to form your own opinion of the language used in the paper.  However, you put conditions and constraints on how I could answer your questions, and one of them was not to go outside of this paper in question, which is actually only an abstract of their work.  You wrongfully shackled and put chains on me in how I could answer your questions.  You did this intentionally! 

Also in the paper it says, "With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), the fundamental force in nature that gives rise to the strong nuclear force among protons and neutrons, and to nuclei and their interactions. These simulations are currently performed in femto-sized universes where the space-time continuum is replaced by a lattice, whose spatial and temporal sizes are of the order of several femto-meters, and whose lattice spacings (discretization or pixelation) are fractions of fermis.  This endeavor, generically referred to as lattice gauge theory, or more specifically lattice QCD, is currently leading to new insights into the nature of matter."  In other words, They used QCD to simulate the space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice, as previously mentioned.

In addition to this, the paper says "Therefore, there is a sense in which lattice QCD may be viewed as the nascent science of universe simulation, and, as will be argued in the next paragraph, very basic extrapolation of current lattice QCD resource trends into the future suggest that experimental searches for evidence that our universe is, in fact, a simulation are both interesting and logical."  Once again, they make reference to "lattice QCD" which is the nascent science of universe simulation, and this was used to simulate the cubic space-time lattice which they speak of.

sarkeizen,

In my opinion, there is statistically strong evidence for the universe being a numerical simulation.  You are more than welcome to have a different opinion than I have.  It is obvious we have a different way of thinking and have a different understanding.  It would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.

Gravock

Do  you really find this discussion interesting?

Where did I say I find this discussion interesting?  I said it would be a boring world if everyone agreed on everything.  I did not say this would be a boring discussion if everyone agreed on everything.  This is a good example how you read things out of context and put it into a completely different meaning.

Just what happened to you showing me a machine intelligence equal to a humans?

I didn't know I was to show you a machine intelligence equal to humans.  However, when I have more time I will.  I strongly suspect you will say it is human, and won't be able to differentiate the synthetic human from the real human.  You will say it is human, so why should I waste my time?

Gravock

[MarkE]

English Grammar 101: 

Diagram the following 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".

What is the subject of the sentence?

A. consequences of the hypothesis

What action occurs?

A. The consequences are explored.

Does the sentence say that a simulation occurred?

A. No, the hypothesis, the consequences of which are explored is the idea that the universe is a simulation.  The sentence does not express any action against the hypothesis. 

Thank you for your participation in English Grammar 101.