₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Rather it reveals how shallow you are. In a videogame all characters and npcs can be reset and can be brought back. Increase your depth of thinking, you are still in the kiddie pool.

+
Are you aware of the video game angle which argues that our reality is only spawned as observed. In other words, in a video game, the next room only spawns when you open it.

LordReed:
It isn't. That would be like saying the earth is flat because maps are flat.

+
Nah. I will explain why. There are other areas to this including the pixelation of reality. Several other angles.

I will play you several Zidane bicycle kicks you will see. Get a good goal keeper on your side.

LordReed:
Bring it on bruv!

+


On the morrow!

*Gallops off

LordReed:
The comments provide more context. And by his own admission it is not fundamental code he found rather code he was using to describe the universe.

+
In a sense it is the same thing. I will explain in my thread.

LordReed:
Yes instruments. You realise that the only thing that changed was the introduction of the instruments, humans were present in both experiments.

+
This issue is interesting enough to warrant a thread especially as this is not the only angle I will come from.

Pick thy sword and shield, and meet me on the meadow tomorrow, come with honour and prepare to be slaughtered.

LordReed:
You can do that but it won't change it. Dr James used equations that were made by humans. I found an elaboration of the method he used and some interesting comments. The last one is just like this discussion I am having with you.

+
I think you need to watch the full video rather than rely on comments.

LordReed:
Dude listen again to Dr James from 1:28. He says in response to Tyson's question: "Into the equations that we want to use to describe the cosmos." This is not an admission the matter is made up of code. He saying the equations that were used to decribe the cosmos has those codes. Listen properly and don't jump to unfounded conclusions.

+
If you can't watch the full video, why not Google the actual conclusions?

I gave you an extract from Gemini which summarises. You know very well the clip I gave you for brevity ended mid sentence. So just Google the conclusions yourself.

LordReed:
It only changed when detectors were introduced. Just provide what I asked for.

+
Hang on a second. When you say detectors, are you referring to instruments of observation? And if so, observation by who?

LordReed:
LoLz. Please provide a peer review science paper that says double slit experiment is affected by human consciousness. I am waiting (but not holding my breath).

+
Hian!

Oga this sounds like you don't know of the experiment at all oh.

I will do a thread.

LordReed:
But you cannot provide me with any evidence that the calculations are wrong or that such energy production is possible or even provide any idea of the amount of energy required. At this point you are on trust me bro level. LoLz.

+
Oh no!

I am not that guy.

I have already resolved to open a thread with my arguments on this issue laid out step by step just for you my guy.

DeepSight:
+
I did. It's completely misplaced. Completely. Also those behind it are either not wearing their thinking caps or what they are saying is simply different from what I am saying.

+
LordReed, sorry, here I am referring to the attachment on your other post.

As regards the slit experiment, are you not aware that it went through stages of human observation first?

LordReed:
Read the screenshot I just added.

+
I did. It's completely misplaced. Completely. Also those behind it are either not wearing their thinking caps or what they are saying is simply different from what I am saying.

LordReed:
Dude listen again to Dr James from 1:28. He says in response to Tyson's question: "Into the equations that we want to use to describe the cosmos." This is not an admission the matter is made up of code. He saying the equations that were used to decribe the cosmos has those codes. Listen properly and don't jump to unfounded conclusions.

+
I only gave you this clip to save your time. Do you want the full video? And then YOU listen properly.

LordReed:
It isn't. Take a look at this casual calculation.

+
You are wildly wrong in this matter and I repeat, no human can ever calculate the level of kind of energy involved outta simulation.

LordReed:
The observation is not by conscious humans directly. They use detectors which collapse the wave nature of the electrons. It has nothing to do with consciousness. The reason the observation causes it is because the electrons receive energy from the detector not because there is a human being looking at it.

+
Are you sure you really know this experiment and all the stages it went through from Inception? Because if you did, you would not say this, because there was observation by humans as well and when that was surprising in terms of the results they started trying other forms of indirect observation.

+
Its not just that, the truth is that it should be automatically conducted at birth universally.

LordReed:
Still waiting for the evidence that matter is code.

+
Here - had to get Gemini to dig ot up for me as I recall watching this discussion -

Gemini said
The expert you are thinking of is Dr. James (Jim) Sylvester Gates Jr., a theoretical physicist who specializes in supersymmetry and superstring theory.

The moment you're describing occurred during the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson at the American Museum of Natural History. The topic of the panel was "Is the Universe a Simulation?"

The "Binary Code" Discovery

While studying Adinkras (graphical representations of supersymmetric mathematical formulas), Dr. Gates discovered something startling. Deep within the equations that describe the fundamental particles of our universe, he found sequences of doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes.

What that actually means: These aren't just random numbers; they are a specific type of mathematical structure used in computer science to ensure information is transmitted correctly without being corrupted by "noise."

The Connection: Specifically, these codes (known as Hamming Codes) are the exact same type used by modern web browsers to correct errors during data transmission.

The Implication: Gates famously remarked that finding these codes in the fabric of space-time was "mind-blowing" because it suggests that the "operating system" of our reality might share the same structural logic as human-designed computer software.
-----
+
LordReed, please see the less than three minute clip here which highlights the key point -
The discussants, as you know are famous and very serious scientists.

You can google the entire discussion and you will quickly find that you should drop the mocking word "magic" and approach this discussion with a little more openness, and dare I say, respect for what is being proposed.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMUe6OWGZCE

LordReed:
So it you who has a problem with inference. These are things that were infered and calculated but you dismiss it. It isn't even that hard an inference to make and the subsequent calculation would just be elaborate not difficult.

+
No you are not getting it. It is impossible for any being within a simulation to calculate the level of the energy required for that simulation, much less even know the kind of energy. This I assert with finality.

Secondly it really made me smile that you say not even the energy of the big bang is enough. You gatta be kidding me.

LordReed:
The outcomes of the double slit experiment have nothing to do with consciousness. Look it up.

+
It shows that observation tends to change outcomes, how does that have nothing to do with consciousness?
Are you saying observation has nothing to do with consciousness?

LordReed:
LoLz. I am glad you acknowledged that it is has to be by magic.

+
That is not magic, there is science to the power of consciousness. Surely you have heard of the double slit experiment which shows the effect of observation on outcomes?

LordReed:
Not even the energy of the big bang would be sufficient to power such a simulation. You don't understand the magnitude of energy required. From what I heard about the calculation just to simulate sub atomic particles at the level of fidelity our reality has will require all the energy of the universe. These are such astronomical energy requirements which is why I keep saying you will have to pivot to magic to explain how our reality is a simulation.

+
There is not one single human being who can make such a supposition. Not one. No human being can either determine what level of energy it will take to simulate this reality nor ever imagine what kind of energy powers it from without.

Not one. Never. That is an absurdity of the highest proportions and will necessarily entail assumptions that the simulators outside this reality are working with similar levels of understanding and technology which we have within the simulation.

LordReed:
I know. I just wanted to use it a point of comparison. A typical nuclear plant produces 1 giga Watt while AI uses 50 giga Watts. So a nuclear power plant can't even power AI yet you imagine that some entity is just casually simulating our reality.

The only way to escape this is to pivot to magic which is why you'll never have evidence for it.

+
I am surprised that you will compare energy supposedly within to what we are saying about causal energy without. This is like comparing the energy of a nuclear plant to the energy of the big bang.

LordReed:
Nope that is nott what I am asking for. There are ways to present evidence that don't require you to go physically fetch them. Here are some: recorded observations using instruments, mathematical equations that can lead to a discovery, photographic evidence, etc. I would accept any verifiable evidence you present.

Again inference is not a difficulty and pointed out why.

Newton worked out the mathematical equations can you present any such for your argument? I am not even saying it has to be you doing the equations, just present them from a verifiable source.

Where is this evidence?

+
I did mention that such things as dark matter and dark energy were first deduced by logic. Are you seriously asking for recorded evidence such as photographs of that which I say is outside this reality?

At all events and as for math, there is evidence that matter is code.

LordReed:
BTW do you know how much energy a typical nuclear power plant produces?

+
No and that is not necessary, it was just an analogy as you know.
But if I may guess where you are going, you wish to say that the energy required to spawn this reality is so large that it is inconceivable.
Is that where you are going?

LordReed:
Not really. Logical inference should lead to pathways to evidence gathering. If you are going to stop at logical inference then no.

+
Then there is a problem here. Because you will be asking me to physically show you something outside of this our reality. I should go fetch it and bring it to you. Be reasonable: you and I know that many elements that we know exists even in the universe were first known by logical inferences - such as dark matter and dark energy, etc.

If the word "inference" is your difficulty (and I am surprised that it should be), would it suffice to say by logic?

Please remember that even with something like gravity we started from elementary reasoning such as asking why everything falls down, such as an apple from a tree, a thought which is said to have crossed the mind of one of the greatest thinkers in history, Alhaji Newton.

I would like to ask what evidence in this matter of simulation will look like to you.
There is evidence that matter consists of codes you know.

LordReed:
What I need is evidence of the nuclear plant powering the simulation.

+
Will you accept logical inferences?

LordReed:
I know the energy will come from outside the simulation. I am saying the hardware needed to run the simulation needs energy and that energy will be on orders of magnitude beyond anything we can imagine.

+
Of course one in the simulation can NEVER imagine such energy any more than a video game character can imagine a nuclear plant powering the video game.

So unless you are going to claim some form of magic then the energy requirements preclude this reality from being a simulation. I heard recently that someone did a paper stating how much energy it would take, I'll try to find it when I am more disposed.

+
Nothing like magic, if the world is a computer program (and there is some evidence that it may be), then whatever computer spawning this simulation will be outside it and being powered perhaps, for example, by some socket which some kids video game is attached to outside the simulation.

There will be a base reality which is not a simulation, but everything shows that it is not this one. This world is fake.

LordReed:
When I use it it includes non physical things as well such as concepts and thoughts.

LoLz. I know you don't but I think it makes sense if you think about.

+
This is a hard saying.

LordReed:
It verily does rebut it. A simulation is run on computing hardware which needs energy. Unless you are going to pivot to magic then there is no way to escape the energy requirements.

Video games have to have very simplified fidelity so that they can run with the minimum energy the developers can get away with. Compare the energy requirements for a PS5 (200w) with that of a PS1 (10w), that is a 20x increase in just 4 generations of compute hardware and PS5 are no where near what a typical modern gaming PC would use (300 ‐ 800w). Then compare that to what AI uses (50 Giga watts). And this not even close to the fidelity of RL.

+
Oh no one is saying that there is no need for energy of course. Rather one is saying that the need for energy does not rebut the possibility that this reality is a simulation.

If it is, it simply means that that energy comes from outside the simulation in terms of an open as opposed to closed system.

LordReed:
Until it is evidenced that there are infact other universes that is how the word is used.

+
I understand that but that's not the way I use it and I am not alone in that. Also there is the nuance that that word when used the way you speak about mostly refers to all physical matter and not everything that exists simpliciter.

I don't even want to go near our old debate about what the universe is expanding into because you will say such a question does not make sense, even though I firmly believe it does.

DMCA:
if she cook snail serve u, u no go chop?

+
Igbin is not for children.

HeadNigga:
Omotola over Genevieve as far as family/marriage is concerned. Genevieve should please get married. I care about her

+
Marriage is not for everyone.