You're living in a computer simulation, and math proves it
50 posts
• Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Techblog => http://eclectriq.blogspot.com
also this is very relavent to this thread tjahzi
I love the part when the scientist ask do you understand and the interveiwer replys yes in witch he says no you dont nobody does lol
your friend theoracle
I love the part when the scientist ask do you understand and the interveiwer replys yes in witch he says no you dont nobody does lol
your friend theoracle
Peace and love theoracle
unitb166er wrote:Excellent Point 99socks.
And under both examples there would be a Consciousness operating for a purpose?
Creating a Creation for a Purpose that the creator cannot create itself?
An emergent Creation...?
There are some answers on these problems  see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
It is possible that some comments to the paper (and to this thread also) can be useful:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/1025473t.php (the thread is spammed, so it's enough to read posting SSDZ – Guitarist  DrRocket), and
http://personalitycafe.com/sciencetech ... roves.html
Cheers
 Unitb166er
 Posts: 950
 Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:52 pm
Thank you Ssdz01!
Is ``the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?
Max Tegmark (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton)
(Submitted on 3 Apr 1997 (v1), last revised 1 Dec 1998 (this version, v2))
We discuss some physical consequences of what might be called ``the ultimate ensemble theory'', where not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain selfaware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ``real'' world. We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. The predictions of the theory take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes it testable. In addition, it may be possible to rule it out by comparing its a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with what is observed.
Comments: 29 pages, revised to match version published in Annals of Physics. The New Scientist article and color figures are available at this http URL or from max@ias.edu
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (grqc)
Journal reference: Annals Phys.270:151,1998
DOI: 10.1006/aphy.1998.5855
Cite as: arXiv:grqc/9704009v2
Submission history
From: Max Tegmark [view email]
[v1] Thu, 3 Apr 1997 21:43:57 GMT (132kb)
[v2] Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:41:29 GMT (133kb)
Souce;http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9704009
To define if we are living in a Simulation,we must acquire models that articulate multiple simultaneous reality levels and interactions that can predict phenomena in our reality.
Is ``the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?
Max Tegmark (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton)
(Submitted on 3 Apr 1997 (v1), last revised 1 Dec 1998 (this version, v2))
We discuss some physical consequences of what might be called ``the ultimate ensemble theory'', where not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain selfaware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ``real'' world. We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. The predictions of the theory take the form of probability distributions for the outcome of experiments, which makes it testable. In addition, it may be possible to rule it out by comparing its a priori predictions for the observable attributes of nature (the particle masses, the dimensionality of spacetime, etc) with what is observed.
Comments: 29 pages, revised to match version published in Annals of Physics. The New Scientist article and color figures are available at this http URL or from max@ias.edu
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (grqc)
Journal reference: Annals Phys.270:151,1998
DOI: 10.1006/aphy.1998.5855
Cite as: arXiv:grqc/9704009v2
Submission history
From: Max Tegmark [view email]
[v1] Thu, 3 Apr 1997 21:43:57 GMT (132kb)
[v2] Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:41:29 GMT (133kb)
Souce;http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9704009
To define if we are living in a Simulation,we must acquire models that articulate multiple simultaneous reality levels and interactions that can predict phenomena in our reality.
Designed To Give A Damn!
unitb166er wrote:Thank you Ssdz01!
Is ``the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory?
Max Tegmark (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton)
(Submitted on 3 Apr 1997 (v1), last revised 1 Dec 1998 (this version, v2))
We discuss some physical consequences of what might be called ``the ultimate ensemble theory'', where not only worlds corresponding to say different sets of initial data or different physical constants are considered equally real, but also worlds ruled by altogether different equations. The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain selfaware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ``real'' world. We find that it is far from clear that this simple theory, which has no free parameters whatsoever, is observationally ruled out. ...
Journal reference: Annals Phys.270:151,1998
DOI: 10.1006/aphy.1998.5855
Souce;http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9704009
....To define if we are living in a Simulation,we must acquire models that articulate multiple simultaneous reality levels and interactions that can predict phenomena in our reality.
Yes, this Tegmark's paper resembles somehow on the paper "The Information as Absolute" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 ), further "IasA". As well as the discussed here the Bostrom's one resembles , though the last is some science fiction, of course. As well as , e.g., the Margolus's 2003 "Looking at Nature as a Computer"and a lot of others.
Nevertheless, the papers are quite different. First of all  if Tegmark's paper (and tacitly any others) is grounded on the postulate " that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically", i.e. is grounded on some belief, in the IasA the fact, that all that exist (and " that doesn't exist") exist in reality as some informational statements, is rigorously indeed proven. Every things are members of the fundamental absolutely infinite Set "Information", when this Set is very interesting mathematical object. It contains everything; in the Set everything have happened, at that  somethings happen and evolve  what we can observe, e.g., in our Universe; when for any other set its empty set is introduced by a special rule and is "outside" the set, the empty set for the Set is a member of the Set and (as any other member) contains full Set, etc., etc., etc.
The informational conception lets to put forward some physical model ( which resembles somehow on the Weizsacker's "Urtheory") where, e.g., it becomes be possible to build the version of the special relativity theory (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 ) which doesn't contain self contradictions in contrast to the standard version.
Etc...
Cheers
 Unitb166er
 Posts: 950
 Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:52 pm
Then would you agree that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would be the outer boundary for these Conceptional models multiplied by Cantors Infinite Sets Theory Structure?A sort of Prime Division between The Infinite Manifest and The Infinite Unmanifest ?
What do you think Ssdz01?
What do you think Ssdz01?
Designed To Give A Damn!
 Santaownsyou
 Posts: 1012
 Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:49 am
99socks wrote:But why does it have to be "computer"? How about, we're in a physical simulation of the spiritual?
Because of the pixelation, As in a computer simulation matter is pixelated if you look small enough. Also in quantum mechanics matter only exists when it is observed.
Start at 00:30 before that it is just a commercial for the show.
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is probably just a tool of the conspiracy.
 Tertiusgaudens
 Posts: 2768
 Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am
Unit,
this is a nice and interesting post complex I very much enjoy...
Every math proof is dependent from axioms where all started. And we come again to beliefe systems. This is Gödel`s approach  the axiomatic structure of every math and every deductive mind system.
In this regard we must also find some clearance on what infinity means. The essence of infinity is not capable but structures of it, Math tools work with it. That is strange, but a real understanding is more than difficult.
Anyway. You may find mathematical proof of our "simulation status". You may also find nothing claiming all is real. What we know or not is at least not that important  you don`t really know why you see some things and why not. Why you believe some points and why not others.
This is one important reason the God thought always is vivid serving as everlasting concern, often an ultimate concern keeping you moving in what direction ever. This knowing and not knowing has both it`s season, and you really don`t know why and when.
And both answers are vivid too coming from your question whether we are a simulation  yes and no are both right in it`s frame and context according time, space anf ability you are in.
Take my greetings!
this is a nice and interesting post complex I very much enjoy...
Every math proof is dependent from axioms where all started. And we come again to beliefe systems. This is Gödel`s approach  the axiomatic structure of every math and every deductive mind system.
In this regard we must also find some clearance on what infinity means. The essence of infinity is not capable but structures of it, Math tools work with it. That is strange, but a real understanding is more than difficult.
Anyway. You may find mathematical proof of our "simulation status". You may also find nothing claiming all is real. What we know or not is at least not that important  you don`t really know why you see some things and why not. Why you believe some points and why not others.
This is one important reason the God thought always is vivid serving as everlasting concern, often an ultimate concern keeping you moving in what direction ever. This knowing and not knowing has both it`s season, and you really don`t know why and when.
And both answers are vivid too coming from your question whether we are a simulation  yes and no are both right in it`s frame and context according time, space anf ability you are in.
Take my greetings!
Hope is the thing with feathers...
Emily Dickinson
Emily Dickinson
unitb166er wrote:Then would you agree that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would be the outer boundary for these Conceptional models multiplied by Cantors Infinite Sets Theory Structure?A sort of Prime Division between The Infinite Manifest and The Infinite Unmanifest ?
What do you think Ssdz01?
 I’m a physicist, not a mathematician or a Rosicrucian and cannot answer more then as some common remarks.
As to “the Godel's Incompleteness Theorem” – it seems as rather reasonable, that this Theorem is some corollary from the fact that the Set “Information” is absolutely infinite (what is impossible in the standard set theory); it is possible that such a hypothesis will be proved sometimes.
As to “Infinite Manifest/ Unmanifest” – those conceptions indeed resemble somehow on the informational conception; though as well as the conceptions of “Tao”, “Shunia” (in Veda and Buddhism), etc., resemble also – there were a lot of people who intuitively (by going out the subset “usual humans’ Consciousness” in the subset “our Universe”) got such an information.
Cheers
Now a next paper relating to the informational conception appeared:
(Space and Time) http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
Cheers
(Space and Time) http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003
Cheers
50 posts
• Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

 Related topics
 Replies
 Views
 Last post

 You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it
by demobe » Mon May 09, 2011 11:51 pm  7 Replies
 566 Views
 Last post by temps13
Tue May 10, 2011 4:06 am
 You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it

 A nice math page  math and beauty
by Tertiusgaudens » Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:00 pm  0 Replies
 156 Views
 Last post by Tertiusgaudens
Fri Aug 20, 2010 12:00 pm
 A nice math page  math and beauty

 The New Math
by spock » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:20 pm  9 Replies
 420 Views
 Last post by stone069
Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:03 pm
 The New Math

 The Simulation Hypothesis
1, 2by Giovanni » Sat Nov 07, 2015 11:34 pm  14 Replies
 805 Views
 Last post by Giovanni
Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:38 pm
 The Simulation Hypothesis

 Strange world of addicions  on Math addicted
by Tertiusgaudens » Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:16 am  2 Replies
 723 Views
 Last post by Nik418
Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:08 am
 Strange world of addicions  on Math addicted