₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
+
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.

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.

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:
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.

DeepSight:
+
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.


+
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.

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

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

+
Will you accept logical inferences?

DeepSight:
+
Will you accept logical inferences?

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

DeepSight:
+
Will you accept logical inferences?

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

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:
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?

DeepSight:
+
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?

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.

DeepSight:
+
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.

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?

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:
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.

DeepSight:
+
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.

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.

DeepSight:
+
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.

Not just by logic there were mathematical calculations backing the inference.

You the one positing such a possibility so it is up to you to produce the evidence for it. I am NOT saying it HAS to be photographic. It has to be verifiable is all I require.

Still waiting for the evidence that matter is code.

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.

This simulation is simply powered by consciousness
Consciousness is the magic
Nothing can create consciousness rather consciousness creates everything
The simulation was only quantized therefore it seemed to have finite mass and energy

Kayouzka:
This simulation is simply powered by consciousness
Consciousness is the magic
Nothing can create consciousness rather consciousness creates everything
The simulation was only quantized therefore it seemed to have finite mass and energy

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

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:
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?

DeepSight:
+
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?

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

DeepSight:
+
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.

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.

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:
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:
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

Magic is real, don't dabble into it

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

Yes everything is an illusion

This world is only a great hallucination

DeepSight:
+
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

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.

Kayouzka:
Yes everything is an illusion

This world is only a great hallucination

Yeah right. Jump off a 16 storey building unaided by any safety device, walk away unhurt then I'll believe you that this world is an illusion.

DeepSight:
+
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.

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

DeepSight:
+
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?

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.

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.

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.