- #1
silvercats
- 60
- 0
Are we living in a simulated(computer) reality?is that true until we observe things,they are not there?
if so,any proof?
what do you think
if so,any proof?
what do you think
jedishrfu said:In favor of this is the pixelated nature of the universe at the Planck length or the encoding of information limit on the surface of a black hole.
silvercats said:......is that true until we observe things,they are not there?
ex: if everybody is sleeping and no one is looking at the moon. moons doesn't exist there unless somebody actually aware of it ? is this true?proof?
DaveC426913 said:No. Very simplistically, it was a thought experiment, based on QM and wave function collapse. The implication is simply that, in principal, particles have a non-zero chance (like one in a zillion) of being "elsewhere" if they're not being observed. You can extrapolate that to the bajillion particles that make up the Moon.
Problem is, that it applies to single particle systems at the basis, and every time you add a particle, the odds that all the particles in the system are "elsewhere" drops. So, multiply that by one bajillion, and you have a one-in-a-zillion-bajillion chance of it happening.
For objects even as large as a microbe, this works out that you could wait for the life of the universe till it dies without it happening.
But it's not a zero chance...
silvercats said:does this mean, superposition doesn't exist when it comes to objects bigger than a single particle?
silvercats said:are you telling me that nature/universe being similar to a computer simulation/mathematical pattern, doesn't means that IT IS a computer simulation.right? some people would argue IT IS though but nobody really knows?
silvercats said:here is a simple example. Let's say I told my little brother to close the window in the other room that is far(sometimes he obey me sometimes doesn't). So I don't know if he did or not. but he did something. even thought he did something; until I observe it, is the window at a neither shut or open(in superposition) state?
or it is either shut or open ,not in the superposition, regardless of my observation of it.it is just I do not know the state but it is in one state BECAUSE it is a big object. so it doesn't have the superposition mysterious behavior. Case 1(it is in superposition until i observe) or case 2 (it is either open or closed ,my observation doesn't matter coz it is a big item) . OR neither?
the time has passed. so something must have happened.
is my question clear?
silvercats said:here is a simple example. Let's say I told my little brother to close the window in the other room that is far(sometimes he obey me sometimes doesn't). So I don't know if he did or not. but he did something. even thought he did something; until I observe it, is the window at a neither shut or open(in superposition) state?
silvercats said:it is either shut or open ,not in the superposition, regardless of my observation of it.
Yes.silvercats said:my problem is that, Do normal objects in our day to day life behave like this?simple yes or no answer please.
JPBenowitz said:Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.
San K said:No.
the window is either shut or open. its never in superposition.
it just that you don't know but your lil bro does and even if he did not know it still would not be in superposition.
the above is the correct one.
DaveC426913 said:Yes.
However, as noted, the effect is inversely correlated with the complexity of the object. If you have to wait 10^80 years for a microbe to spontaneously exhibit QM phenomena, the chances are as good as zero.
The point being made is simply that 'as good as zero' is not 'zero'.
This is indeed very convincing, but I believe the opposite: computers are derived from universe.explanation : computer simulations don't create an object unless a character interacts with it because it is a waste of resources. We we turn really fast in a game ,and our VGA is slow we can see trees and stuff are forming as we look real time.but they were not there before (not generated) .
http://fqxi.org/data/articles/Schwab_Asp_Zeil.pdfsilvercats said:Normal objects means big thins that we interact daily. like that windows talk.
san, told that the windows is not in superposition.
JPBenowitz , told that it is not for macroscopic things.
but
DaveC426913, told me that day to day objects DO behave like this. I am . did you mean, day to day(big) objects/macroscopic stuff do actually behave like how small particles behave(superposition) , or their particles behave like that ,but not the object? :O
silvercats said:Normal objects means big thins that we interact daily. like that windows talk.
san, told that the windows is not in superposition.
JPBenowitz , told that it is not valid for macroscopic things.
but
DaveC426913, told me that day to day objects DO behave like this. I am confused. did you mean, day to day(big) objects/macroscopic stuff do actually behave like how small particles behave(superposition) , or their particles behave like that ,but not the object? :O
Macroscopic objects by definition are larger than atoms. Heck, microscopic objects are larger than atoms.JPBenowitz said:When a Particle Physicist says macroscopic objects can exhibit quantum behaviors like superposition they mean something on the scale of an entire atom
scijeebus said:Strictly speaking, you don't ever observe objects in reality, you observe electrical impulses sent to your brain. But, it doesn't really makes sense how we got here in the first place without a universe before our existence, and this "computer" may somehow need infinite processing power since we can't observe a boundary to the universe. I think in order to have a chance of saying "reality is a computer", we need to first recreate reality in one of our own.
It is valid in principle, yes. There is no boundary between atomic-scale object behavior and macro-scale object behavior. In reality, the effect is essentially zero, as mentioned.*silvercats said:1. Does superposition thing also valid for macroscopic things? (except buckyballs) .
They are there.silvercats said:2. When we are not looking at the objects, are they really there or not? (if yes,are there proof?)
JPBenowitz said:Superposition doesn't happen on such macroscopic levels because the object is not isolated from its environment.
The concept of a simulated reality refers to the idea that our perceived reality is actually a computer-generated simulation. This means that our existence and experiences could potentially be controlled and manipulated by a higher intelligence or advanced technology.
There is currently no definitive way to prove or disprove whether we are living in a simulated reality. However, some scientists and philosophers have proposed theories and experiments that could potentially provide evidence for or against this concept.
If we are indeed living in a simulated reality, it could have significant implications on our understanding of the world and our place in it. It could challenge our beliefs about free will, consciousness, and the nature of reality itself.
While the concept of a simulated reality has been explored in science fiction, there is ongoing research and debate in the scientific community about its plausibility. Some physicists and philosophers argue that advancements in technology and our understanding of the universe make the idea of a simulated reality more likely.
If it were proven that we are living in a simulated reality, it could have a profound impact on our daily lives and the way we interact with the world. It could raise questions about the meaning of our existence and what it truly means to be human.