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 208992 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #420 on: June 13, 2014, 12:33:09 PM »
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?

Offline gauschor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #421 on: June 13, 2014, 01:34:11 PM »
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.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #422 on: June 13, 2014, 01:56:43 PM »
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?"
Quote
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?
Quote
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?
Quote
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)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2014, 10:05:01 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 #423 on: June 14, 2014, 06:40:12 AM »
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

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #424 on: June 14, 2014, 08:33:37 AM »
English Grammar 101: 

Diagram the following sentence-

Quote
"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.


Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #425 on: June 14, 2014, 10:46:12 AM »
You can already simulate, for example EM fields propagation using FDTD (Finite element in Time Domain) to analyse waveguide, antenna and so on. It use discrete cube (Yee cells) to compute maxwell Eq.
Computational fluid do the same things with well... fluid. Computational chemistry, software that help you to conceive drugs and chemistry also.
Same things in engineering when they calculate force, torque, constraint, heat flow for example in an ICE.
When meteorologist predict weather they use also simulation with discrete cube, it take a supercomputer do to calculation in order to have the result in a decent time...
It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #426 on: June 14, 2014, 03:16:23 PM »
How was it performed, a simulation?
Where is it explictly stated that the authors performed a simulation.   This really shouldn't be such a hard question to answer if the paper PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE and where explicitly does it say they did a probability calculation and where specifically is the result posted.
Quote
What was it performed on?  A cubic space-time lattice.
What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located?  Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.  If you had read enough papers where the cornerstone was a software simulation you would see they list the software (often the version number if it's a stats package) or the source code (or link to further information if the source is long).  So either this paper fails a basic tenet of science - the ability to replicate the experiment preformed or no experiment was preformed. 
Quote
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!
Intentional, yes.  Wrong, no.  Either this paper you stated PRESENTS evidence or it doesn't.  If it does then the EVIDENCE should be in the paper.  If some other paper presents evidence then you should have cited that other paper instead.  Now the question falls to what qualifies as evidence.  You said the evidence which is IN THIS PAPER is STATISTICAL.  Which in my usage of the term means that a probability calculation was done.  Futhermore you said the evidence was STRONG.  Which again in my usage would seem to mean that the outcome is more likely than not. i.e. P(x) > 0.5

You said all these things. These are your claims.  All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked about twice now:

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then you are now saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  Please withdraw this paper and submit one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and you have chosen some non-calculation definition of STATISTICAL then clearly there exists a problem when you state that the probability is > 0.5

Quote
In other words, They used QCD to simulate the space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice, as previously mentioned.
All that says is that people do simulations of this nature.  Not that the authors performed any.   It also doesn't necessarily mean that those simulations performed by others have anything to do with demonstrating the universe is a simulation.
Quote
Where did I say I find this discussion interesting?
I really should learn that you won't actually answer questions.  The point was that you are just trolling. 
Quote
I didn't know I was to show you a machine intelligence equal to humans.
So you're allowed to accuse me of supporting an argument but allowed never to show me the evidence?  Isn't that an argument by assertion?  Seems like those are ok for you but not for anyone else. :D
Quote
However, when I have more time I will.
You have to admit this is pretty unlikely.
Quote
I strongly suspect you will say it is human, and won't be able to differentiate the synthetic human from the real human.
Are we still talking about a computer program or is this more bait and switch?  If there's a link to this human simulator then please produce it.  How much work can that take?  Or did you feed that one question into some chatterbot?

It make me sense that we can live in a simulation, but a simulation so powerful in term of resolution and complexity that it would need an enormous computer power.
Especially since this paper demands a classical machine.  The short short version for most of this stuff is: Classical simulators are probably unfeasible but the best choice for coming up with a detection method since we already know a lot about classical machines.  Non-classical quantum machines are not something which is easily detectable but perhaps are more feasible.  Non-classical non-quantum machines are probably the most feasible to run a simulation but would probably be entirely undetectable as you are really only guessing at the physical laws that are governing them.

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 #427 on: June 15, 2014, 02:30:58 AM »
English Grammar 101: 

Diagram the following sentence-
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.

What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Gravock

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #428 on: June 15, 2014, 03:14:23 AM »
What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.
Is English not your native language?

"that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid"

Is a noun-phrase.  Which means nothing needed to be performed for the statement to be true.  I'm not a grammarian but I'd label "performed" as being in the subjunctive mood. i.e. We all discussed the hypothesis that the dog actually performed the operation.

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 #429 on: June 15, 2014, 03:26:20 AM »
What equipment and if it's specialized equipment owned by another institution where was it located?  Science requires replication and the ability to replicate.

sarkeizen,

Below is a snapshot taken from one of the home pages of Silas Beane, an author of the paper.  It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".  The abstract paper heavily makes reference to lattice QCD!  They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!  If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.  You know the paper was based on performing a computer simulation of a cubic space-time lattice, and you also know the paper only makes indirect references to this computer simulation, and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.  This is WRONG of you to do, for it hides the TRUTH and gives you a way out!

Gravock

Offline sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #430 on: June 15, 2014, 04:31:58 AM »
It says he's "running lattice QCD simulations of various quantities of interest on all hardware at his disposal".
Look, if you've never read a paper involving a simulation.  Then just say so.  That's not how you write it up.  You would specify the hardware and software you used.  It's about replication. He may be running lattice QCD simulations however that doesn't mean he has run any simulation concerning determining if the universe is a simulation.
Quote
The abstract paper
No such thing.
Quote
They "performed" lattice QCD simulations of a space-time continuum with a cubic space-time lattice!
The paper simply does not say that.  MarkE and myself have corrected your poor understanding of English.
Quote
If you want to confine yourself to a small abstract or summary of the various author's work, then you won't have all of the information to know what the paper is all about.
A paper, almost by definition should stand on it's own.  It will reference other work but the paper should bring a specific and novel conclusion forward (replication of prior experiments count as specific and novel).  I realize this is ArXiv which is sometimes a legitimate place for pre-publication comment but it's also a White Elephant sale of the research world.

Quote
and this is why you intentionally and wrongfully confined me to only a small abstract of their work.
So a) Please stop using "abstract" like that.  It's moronic and doesn't characterize the paper you provided and b) If you say a PAPER PRESENTS STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE then I would expect to find the STRONG STATISTICAL EVIDENCE in the paper.  Nothing surprising about that.  As I said earlier this comes down to what is meant by "presents strong statistical evidence".   All that's left to discuss is exactly how crazy your use of the words: presents, statistical and strong are and these depend on you answering some questions that I've asked three-times now:

i) If PRESENTS means the actual work is in some other paper by this set of authors.  Then you are now saying that this paper contains no work that can be meaningfully discussed as STRONG AND STATISTICAL.  Please withdraw this paper and submit one that we can actually discuss.

ii) If STATISTICAL does not involve a calculation of probability in this paper (or the real paper that we should be discussing) then exactly what does it mean?  If evidence does not shift the likelihood of a hypothesis then what is it's purpose?  Why call it evidence?

iii) If STRONG does not mean a probability > 0.5 then doesn't that mean the hypothesis is weaker than all mutually exclusive hypotheses?  If STRONG does mean a probability > 0.5 and you have chosen some non-calculation definition of STATISTICAL then clearly there exists a problem when you state that the probability is > 0.5

Why is it so easy to find problems with your arguments.  Ones where you have to hole-up and hide behind all sorts of nonsense just to avoid getting destroyed?  Seriously you have so little evidence for your position you have to argue about the word "performed"?  If a paper did a simulation and had a real conclusion it wouldn't be so hard for you to point it out.
 
Out of curiosity do any of your friends think you're any good at this science stuff?  My advice: Get new friends.

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 #431 on: June 15, 2014, 04:32:19 AM »
I'm Happy Video!

MarkE and his minions found a way into this Happy video.  However, the minions found in this Happy video is based on the movie "despicable me".  It is despicable for them to portray themselves as Happy, when Happiness is the truth and the truth is not in them!

des·pi·ca·ble
diˈspikəbəl/
adjective
adjective: despicable

    deserving hatred and contempt.
    "a despicable crime"
    synonyms:   contemptible, loathsome, hateful, detestable, reprehensible, abhorrent, abominable, awful, heinous; More

Gravock

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #432 on: June 15, 2014, 04:44:39 AM »
What was "performed"?  If it wasn't a computer simulation performed, then what was "performed" and how was it "performed"?  You conveniently left out a keyword.

Gravock
If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.

Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:

Quote
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

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 #433 on: June 15, 2014, 05:16:04 AM »
If you are incapable of understanding the quotes that you cite, there is little I can do to help you.

Once again, here is what your quoted from the authors:

Quote
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored.

They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.

You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above.  You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement.  You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article.  You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work.  You and your minions are not for the Truth!  You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth!  You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!

Gravock

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The Holographic Universe and Pi = 4 in Kinematics!
« Reply #434 on: June 15, 2014, 07:23:21 AM »
Quote
They say that they:  Explored observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation.  They did not state in their quote that they made any attempt to evaluate the likelihood that the hypothesis was true.  They did not state that they ran any computer codes of any kind.


You once again left out the keyword "performed" and everything after "performed" in your sad analysis of what they say, as shown in the highlighted bold portions above.  You are forming your conclusion on only half of their statement.  You also can't put this statement into context with the rest of the article.  You are also forming your conclusion by confining yourself to only a small abstract of their work.  You and your minions are not for the Truth!  You will hide the Truth, suppress the Truth, mix false-hoods with the Truth, and invert the Truth!  You will oppose the Truth in every form and in every way possible!

Gravock
You present yourself as completely unable to read and comprehend at even a fifth grade level.  The sentence:

Quote
"Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored".

Says that they explored consequences.  The consequences that they explored were of a hypothesis.  The hypothesis is that "the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid".  They did not say that they or anyone else performed such a simulation.  Do you really wish to present yourself as completely unable to comprehend what they wrote and you cited?