Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!  (Read 209022 times)

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #390 on: June 11, 2014, 12:23:14 PM »
sarkeizen,

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

Gravock

Offline LibreEnergia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #391 on: June 11, 2014, 12:33:25 PM »
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.


Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #392 on: June 11, 2014, 02:43:26 PM »
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)

Quote
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?

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #393 on: June 11, 2014, 04:36:34 PM »



  sarkeizen,
                my guess is option 3,
                                John.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #394 on: June 11, 2014, 04:50:24 PM »
                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.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #395 on: June 12, 2014, 06:47:44 AM »
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.

I am not opposed to the idea of man-made intelligence equal to humans.  In fact, I believe this has already occurred and has greatly exceeded the intelligence of humans beyond our wildest dreams.  I believe they have synthetic telepathy (mind control) devices, also known as v2k, connected wirelessly to a quantum computer with a synthetic brain via fiber optic cables and a brain-computer interface.  The D-Wave Quantum Computer is the world's first commercially available quantum computer.  In summary, Skynet is real!  Imagine a quantum computer interfaced with the minds of the entire world's population while exploiting the human intelligence of every individual on this planet and running it through it's AI program.  You must remember, we are not in our original state as first created.

Transhumanist movement (video): To merge man's biological thinking and existence with technology to the point where there is no distinction between human and machine.  This was prophesied in the ancient manuscripts, as shown in the following verses.  Also, we have achieved immortality, and the immortality of man is prophesied in Revelation 9:6.  So, I wouldn't expect anything less than these things to occur, along with other things.  In the following verses, the iron represents technology, and the clay represents flesh.  Iron mixed with miry clay: Mark of the Beast being welcomed in (video).   X Marks the spot of the Beast! (video).

 Dan 2:41   And whereas thou saw the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou saw the iron mixed with miry clay.

Dan 2:42   "And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken".

Dan 2:43   "And whereas you saw iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay".

We were made in the "Image of God", and the adversary of God is out to destroy this Image through transhumanism, which is the de-evolution of mankind into a beast.  Do not worship "the image of the beast" or take "the mark of the beast".  This will lead to a total enslavement of mankind, and will lead to a spiritual death.

Matthew 24:37  "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man".

Go get your own dirt!

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

Gravock

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #396 on: June 12, 2014, 06:52:41 AM »
I am not opposed to the idea...
But you sure are opposed to the idea of answering simple straight-forward questions.

Option 4) should have been - blather about something entirely irrelevant to the point.

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #397 on: June 12, 2014, 06:58:53 AM »
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.

The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans is probably an outcome of this paper being true?  You have just inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strong and inadvertently admitted the outcome of this paper as probably being true.  God will catch the wise in their own craftiness.

Gravock 

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #398 on: June 12, 2014, 07:20:46 AM »
The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans is probably an outcome of this paper being true?
More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes.  Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.
Quote
You have just inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strong
Probably not.  Because the expectation is not exclusive to the idea that the universe is simulated and there is no machine intelligence which is demonstrably equivalent to humans.
Quote
inadvertently admitted the outcome of this paper as probably being true.
Why do you think that?
Quote
God will catch the wise in their own craftiness.
Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot.  :-)

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #399 on: June 12, 2014, 08:12:38 AM »
1.)  The authors of this paper would not take seriously the possibility that our universe is a numerical simulation if it was not statistically strong (see simulationProof.png in the image below).

2.)  You inadvertently added evidence for this paper being statistically strong and inadvertently admitted the outcome of this paper as probably being true.

3. )  Modifications that exhibit cubic symmetry, would be suggestive of a structure consistent with an underlying discretization of space-time (see simulationProof3.png in the image below).

4.)  Footnote #4 says, "there are a number of peculiar observations that could be attributed to our universe being a simulation" (see simulationProof4.png in the image below).

5.)  The discovery of the string landscape, and the current inability of string theory to provide a useful predictive framework which would post-dict the fundamental parameters of the Standard Model, provides the simulators (future string theorists?) with a purpose: to systematically explore the landscape of vacua through numerical simulation.  Why would the authors of this paper suggest the discovery of the string landscape provides the simulators with a purpose to systematically explore the landscape of vacua through numerical simulation, if their isn't strong statistical evidence?  If it is indeed the case that the fundamental equations of nature allow on the order of10500 solutions, then perhaps the most profound quest that can be undertaken by a sentient being is the exploration of the landscape through universe simulation (see simulationProof5.png in the image below).

6.)  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  (see simulationProof6.png in the image below).  Why would it be interesting and logical if there wasn't strong statistical evidence?

7.)  Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences (see simulationProof7 in the image below).  Why would they assume our universe is an early numerical simulation using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide,  if this isn't strong statistical evidence?

8.)  Rotational-symmetry breaking operator that is consistent with the lattice hyper-cubic symmetry (see simulationProof8.png in the image below)

There are more, but this is more than enough to answer your question once again.  The paper taken as a whole provides strong statistical evidence!

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #400 on: June 12, 2014, 08:37:34 AM »
More formally: If the universe is simulated in the way the paper presumes.  Then it seems reasonable for people living in this simulated universe to create machine intelligences at least equal to humans.

More formally as it is written:  The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true.  Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.

Gravock

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #401 on: June 12, 2014, 08:43:38 AM »
Apparently the stupid are just allowed to avoid the question a lot.  :-)

In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.

Gravock

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #402 on: June 12, 2014, 02:20:26 PM »
I'll assume you were (for once) at least attempting to answer my question: What in the paper makes the hypothesis of a simulated universe more likely than not (statistically strong) and as entertaining as it was to watch you go through and attempt to shoehorn a paper to conform to your prejudices.  Let's see if I can clarify something for you:

Do you agree that "strong statistical evidence" is presented only when someone shows you a probabilistic calculation which is greater than 0.5 in favor of the hypothesis. If you disagree please tell me what you standard of evidence is for something to be considered "strong statistical evidence".  i.e. Why would it be "strong" if it is less likely than not and why would it be "statistical" if you have no probabilities?

It's worth pointing out that most of your above reply is of the form: "Why would someone say X if there's wasn't strong statistical evidence".  So my response would simply be: This can not be "strong evidence" in and of itself and it's definitely not "statistical".  Since it fails to meet the definitions I provided.  If you want to provide your own definitions then you can answer the question I asked in bold above.
 
The idea of man-made intelligence being equal to humans would probably be an outcome of this paper being true.  Or, this paper is probably true if man-made intelligence being equal to humans ever becomes a reality, which it has already become a reality.
No.  Just because A -> B that does not necessitate B -> A. That's the logical flaw of "affirming the consequent".  Also what man-made intelligence equal to humans exists.

Also I notice that you didn't produce the information you said you would about the simulation actually being run.  Can't depend on you for anything can I?

Quote
In the latter days, the smart will be called ignorant, and the ignorant will be called wise.

As it was written in the Booke of Ricke. Thereth will be those who were called stupid before the lateness of dayes and will continue to be called stupid in the latest of dayes because..yea it was found...that this was the rightest name for them...and it cameth to passeth that of those so called gravrock deservedeth it most!

Amen!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 10:15:17 PM by sarkeizen »

Offline gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #403 on: June 13, 2014, 06:06:13 AM »
sarkeizen,

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources.   The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.  With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).  Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated.  Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales.  The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.  Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it.  This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013.  I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.

Gravock

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #404 on: June 13, 2014, 06:52:34 AM »
sarkeizen,

Theories can never be proven, but they can be constrained or disproved. The first step toward constraining or disproving a theory is to make predictions from it and establish its consequences. The authors work is an attempt to identify signatures that are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation, focusing mainly on the impact of constrained computational resources.   The signatures mentioned in the paper have been simulated through a computer, and these signatures are consistent with the universe being a numerical simulation.  With the current developments in HPC and in algorithms it is now possible to simulate Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD).  Presently, only the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism can be reliably simulated.  Any numerical simulation has to be extremely sophisticated and rich to result in the wide range of complex phenomena, starting from sub-atomic length scales all the way through cosmological length scales.  The title of the paper itself, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation'' by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, and Martin J. Savage should be highly suggestive to you that the probability of the universe being a numerical simulation is > 0.5.  Also, at this time, there is more evidence pointing towards the universe being a numerical simulation, than away from it.  This information can be found in a talk presented by Zohreh Davoudi, one of the authors of the paper, at the Art Institute of Seattle in January 2013.  I'm attaching one of the slides as presented in the talks by Zohreh Davoudi.

Gravock
Probability values are not the result of suggestion.  Basically, what you are saying is that you find the idea that they propose appealing.    The likelihood that an idea is true does not stem from it's appeal or lack thereof.