The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!

[gravityblock]

sarkeizen,

There was a real computer simulation.  I'm off to work now, and will provide more details when I get back.

Gravock

[LibreEnergia]

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.

It is not often I am drawn away from the accepted tenets of Newtonian of Einsteinium physics as they provide adequate approximations of reality, but I do have time for theories based on QCD.

If the universe is 'discrete' at the smallest scale then the whole idea of calculus with its concept of infinite series and limits as the basis of the analysis can not possibly  be used to fully describe it.

Even time itself becomes no longer continuous and with an unchanging arrow of direction. Indeed, if the 'matrix' of QCD space remained unchanged then it is reasonable to posit that time itself would not exist. Time only arises out of a change of state of the matrix. This gives rise to all sorts of problems when analysing quantities that are the derivative of time using calculus based on infinite limits.

One thing is to me is certain though. Attempting to apply the rules and equations that may hold femto scale to our normal temporal and geometric reality is currently futile. We just do not and cannot see these quantum effects influencing our 'normal' existence.  This will be the case until we develop the tools that would allow us to do so.

Who knows what those tools will turn out to be, but I suspect the riddle of consciousness may provide some clues.

[sarkeizen]

There was a real computer simulation.

Before you provide something stupid and we have to have the same argument again.  Here's what YOU posted.

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.

So you asserted:

i) That this specific paper exists.
ii) That this specific paper itself reveals evidence of our universe being a computer simulation.
iii) That this specific paper's evidence is statistically strong.

To me iii) means:
iii) a) The evidence involves a probability.
iii) b) The probability is > 0.5 - i.e. it is more likely than not.

So far I agree on the following:

i) This specific paper exists.

And so far you have provided no evidence of ii) or iii)

will provide more details when I get back.

There's a first time for everything.  Based on your prior behavior you will likely do one of the following:

1) Misconstrue some other evidence. i.e. You will read about some simulation run somewhere else and project it onto this paper and assume that makes your point.
2) Stomp off because of some imagined slight.
3) Stop answering this question. i.e. be silent, make indirect claims of having answered it, make claims that there's something wrong with the question.

Anyone want to guess which one gravrock-the-great will do?

[minnie]

  sarkeizen,
                my guess is option 3,
                                John.

[sarkeizen]

                my guess is option 3,

My money is on 1.

Incidentally, while I have no idea about gravityblock's views on this matter.  I find creationists often opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal (in that respect) to humans.  Which if this is the case for gravityblock then it's funny because that's probably an outcome of this paper being true.