What are the chances that we are living in a simulation?

Quantum Jake

Banned
Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
747
Reaction score
0
My girlfriends father is a famous and very well-respected writer. (Wont say his name due to his request) he has written a few books on quantum mechanics, though experiments, and physics in general. I came across an article of his pertaining to the simulation hypothesis. For those of you who arent aware of the theory, it is the concept that our reality is a computer simulation created by a programmer(s). I asked him about this concept the other day, he essentially told me that he is almost certain we are living in a simulation. Seeing as how particles only exist when we observe or interact with them, he stated that this would make sense as a programmer would want to save space. Making our environment only visible to the products of the program is something a space conscious programmer would do. He continued by saying that a programmer would make sure that we do not escape the boundaries of the program. But also must conserve space. We can not travel at or faster than the speed of light and if we miraculously achieved that ability we would become so dense it would destroy us. Thus thwarting our attempt to escape our boundary but at the same time creating an setting where the boundaries are so impossible for us to cross, that it becomes seemingly infinite. Any thoughts or contributions on this concept? Forgive my spelling/grammar, i am typing this off of my phone
 
Last edited:
0.0; but I like playing civilization as much as the next guy. Great game.
 
About as low as the chances of you not being a pothead.
 
Interesting. What is this writer's physics background?

Also, isn't the whole thing about particles only existing when observed/interacted with seems kind of like a fancy way of saying "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" How would you go about proving a particle doesn't exist when you don't observe it without having a mechanism for observation? It seems like any attempt to prove that would defeat the purpose.
 
Interesting. What is this writer's physics background?

Also, isn't the whole thing about particles only existing when observed/interacted with seems kind of like a fancy way of saying "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" How would you go about proving a particle doesn't exist when you don't observe it without having a mechanism for observation? It seems like any attempt to prove that would defeat the purpose.
 
You think that's air you're breathing?

morpheus-is-pleased-o.gif
 
there is no chance this life is a simulation.

it would be nice if it was a test run for like a ideal generation 100 years later to weed out all the shit heads over history such hitler, bin laden and co. and then create a nice little utopia that can not get mucked with later down the track.
 
there is no chance this life is a simulation.

it would be nice if it was a test run for like a ideal generation 100 years later to weed out all the shit heads over history such hitler, bin laden and co. and then create a nice little utopia that can not get mucked with later down the track.
Neil degrasse tyson, elon musk, and other engineer/scientists say otherwise. That this theory holds merit.

And then we have your credentials
 


I find that very interesting, but I don't necessarily understand how collapsing a wave function through observation means a particle doesn't exist when you don't observe it. It would seem to me like it has a wave-particle duality when not observed, and a particle nature when observed i.e. it behaves differently when observed rather than only measured. I'm having trouble tying that concept with the idea that particles don't exist when not observed. I'm not trying to be argumentative because, frankly, my physics knowledge doesn't go any further than special relativity and I'm rusty as fuck. And I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't see how that phenomenon ties into non-existence.
 
I find that very interesting, but I don't necessarily understand how collapsing a wave function through observation means a particle doesn't exist when you don't observe it. It would seem to me like it has a wave-particle duality when not observed, and a particle nature when observed i.e. it behaves differently when observed rather than only measured. I'm having trouble tying that concept with the idea that particles don't exist when not observed. I'm not trying to be argumentative because, frankly, my physics knowledge doesn't go any further than special relativity and I'm rusty as fuck. And I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't see how that phenomenon ties into non-existence.
Yeah youre right. All these physicists are incorrect. Youve debunked years of research on sherdog. Good show
 
Neil degrasse tyson, elon musk, and other engineer/scientists say otherwise. That this theory holds merit.

And then we have your credentials

So you're related to Bill Nye, he was the only well known physicist that wasnt on your list. Tell him I miss his show!

Bill!
Bill!
Bill!
 
Yeah youre right. All these physicists are incorrect. Youve debunked years of research on sherdog. Good show

Um ok? I asked for an explanation because I'm curious. I'm not trying to debunk anything. I just want to know how that experiment ties into a particle not existing when unobserved. You're just being a dick now.
 
Back
Top