Well, you mean like in the movie: The Matrix?

Or are you saying we are NPCs in a video game?

Don't assume my playability.

Did he just assume you're Bender?

https://media.tenor.com/images/6353ea57b46e24ddea8399c86a1fbfdd/tenor.gif

now we have VR that looks so realistic

No we don't.

VR doesn't look any better than games that are currently out.

As it stands right now VR is nothing but a tech demo...

I'm balls deep in Arizona Sunshine and Batman...while not full length 8+ hour games...they are both incredibly satisfying, and much more than demos.

So because technology has advanced quickly you think we're in a simulation? You can easily understand the development of gaming

You can easily understand the development of gaming.

That actually points more towards it being a simulation. I don't even think most game designers even create things, they just reinstantiate various peices found in other levels/contexts. There is still creativity in that process, but it's never completely free, always a variation on the thing itself.

What? Just do research into how it developed...

I am. If we're in a simulation, the development of video game technology is simulated too. And it looks exactly way.

I've no clue how that works, what is this logic?

Impossible to live in a simulation in our frame of reference. A simulation is a facsimile of reality. Our best efforts to create a representation of reality which is where we exist. Our reality is our reality.

For us there is no simulation or could there be. The universe could be holographic (not necessarily a simulation) but when we create simulations its no surprise it reflects reality because we are attempting to recreate reality as we see it - and the universe has set laws and functions.

If you want to think of the world as a simulation think of it like a divine one.

Plant a random seed. If it doesn't come out as the plant you want, it's not a simulation.

Probability says we're more likely simulated beings than a theoretical original simulator. I'm a little conflicted. It makes about as much sense as anything else to explain our finely tuned universe, but it feels like a religious answer that isn't even all that satisfying. If we live in a simulation, it's an ultimately meaningless distinction, unless 'God' decides to start sending us emails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

We live in a simulation in a sense that almost everything in our realities is manufactured. The news, most science, pretty much any type of information out there aimed at mass consumption is deliberate and meant to program you down specific paths.

Everybody has an opinion. But opinions are formed from someone's breadth of knowledge on any given subject. What happens when those breadths of knowledge are all bs and specifically set out for public consumption on TV, internet etc. We get programmed robots basically.

Everybody is living in a manufactured reality or simulation.

This really needs to be higher up. This is the "real" simulation that besets us all presently. In 1999 no one I knew discussed politics with any regularity because 99% of all human interaction was face to face. Now in 2017 all conversation is dominated by politics because 99% of all human interaction is done via a machine/computer program. It is literally technology communicating with other technology.

Pretty sure people talk about politics in person, and that they have done so throughout human history.

Not to the degree that is dominates current conversations.

It's possible, and Elon Musk seems to think it is a billion to 1 odds we're living in base reality.

The idea is that one day we will be able to simulate a reality so convincing, you'd never be able to detect that it was a simulation. And if within that simulated reality they could in turn simulate a reality, and so on and so on, the odds of us being the very top level above all the simulations is vanishingly small.

But will these sub-realities provide power for our car batteries?

I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN

Well you are here now, so enjoy the ride.

Thing is it doesn't matter which reality we live in as long as the rules still apply to us the same way. If we could devise a test to check this reality to see if it's a simulation then maybe. But barring any digital artifacts in analog systems or something like that I'm not sure how we'd do that. Maybe we could hack the simulation and remove the requirement for humans to have to eat to stay alive or something.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

To say we live in a simulation is just an analogy meaning that the universe is made out of only information.

In Any case You are better off understanding that the entire Universe is conected, and we are all ONE.

Thats a better way to understand it.

My gut says this whole topic is ammunition against Nassim Haramein et al who are coming up with a unified model of physics. One that destroys much of our understanding of WHY things happen.

Learn more in /r/holofractal.

Except that his base premise is that protons are spinning at the speed of light giving them a ridiculously enormous mass which we somehow can't detect is absolutely laughable.

I take it you've never heard of the Vacuum Catastrophe

Just because there are issues in our current model doesn't mean we should ditch all observed phenomena in favor of something that ignores reality.

The Vacuum Catastrophe exists because our observations don't match our theory. Nassim would wave this away and say that it doesn't matter, or that we just don't see it, much like he has with the proton spinning at near the speed of light to make his theory work.

It's not changing observations, it's a different explanation for those observations.

He says the proton is spinning at near the speed of light giving it a relativistic mass many magnitudes more than what we observe. When asked why this doesn't match observation, his answer is that it's 'too small to see', when in reality, we would notice a number of different effects coming from a proton spinning at the speed of light.

At least he's making millions a year and charging people thousands to view his new 'technology'.

we would notice a number of different effects coming from a proton spinning at the speed of light.

Like?

Like?

Show me experimental proof that protons are spinning at near the speed of light first.

When you treat the proton as a black hole spinning at c it rids the need for the strong nuclear force and in fact models confinement perfectly as simply gravity at.the quantum scale.

This obviously lines up with all observations that protons stick together despite being immensely positively charged.

It's simply replacing an invented force that we 'thought would have to be there' of which we have no solution for (lqcd).

Show me experimental proof that protons are spinning at near the speed of light.

Show me experimental proof that protons are spinning at near the speed of light.

Show me experimental proof that black holes become black holes when their radius is equal to it's Schwarzschild radius with the black hole's mass.

Huh? If you don't believe in the Schwarzchild radius for black holes then why are you claiming the proton could be one? You seem to have the burden of proof backwards here ...

My point is that we have absolutely no experimental evidence that it's the case, yet you would say a mass in a given volume is a black hole, because the math works and engenders a model.

Yeah, and the mass of a proton is 1.6726219 × 10^-27 kg, which doesn't make it a black hole considering it's radius.

Glad we settled that.

And where does the force that binds protons together come from?

One of these models can show confinement from first principles. The other is a whacked out attempt to backwards-fit something we have zero evidence for because we assumed that's how it would work.

It's no wonder we have no solution to the strong nuclear force. That's because we invented it.

Let me ask you -

You understand the holographic principle and that you can calculate a black hole's entropy by dividing it's surface area by planck areas?

Why can I count # of planck areas on the proton surface (sphere with proton charge radius), divide the volume by planck length diameter sphere volumes, take the corresponding number of planck spheres on the surface and divide the volume and multiply by 2* planck mass for the exact mass of the proton?

10⁴⁰ fit on the surface. 10⁶⁰ in the volume. Dividing these and multiplying by the planck mass just so happens to yield the proton mass?

Further, if this is 'an accident' why does the value get orders of magnitude closer when we substitute the proton's radius with the latest values from proton accelerator experiments?

Why does working backwards with a mass to deduce a radius practically zero in on these latest charge radius measurements?

The fact that these numbers are getting more accurate as our measurements get more accurate is absolutely evidence that Nassim's approach as a holographic black hole is correct - not to mention the astronomical chance that these numbers with 40-60 zeroes multiplied by the planck mass happen to yield anything close to the proton rest mass at all.

I'm sure you've heard of entropic gravity. This is a working entropic gravity model.

So you have zero observational or experimental evidence that a proton is spinning at near the speed of light. Why not just say that? I'm not interested in your mathemagical numerology, just point me to an experiment or observation that shows the proton spinning at near the speed of light.

Failing that, I'll stick to the theory that has given us nuclear energy and (for better or worse) the atomic bomb over the one which is paying it's founder millions of dollars while simultaneously forcing people to pay thousands to access his supposed "technological breakthroughs".

So you have zero observational or experimental evidence that a proton is spinning at near the speed of light. Why not just say that?

There is experimental proof in his prediction of the proton charge radius - which has been confirmed within one sigma.

You want proof protons spin at c, you need to look at the model. I want proof masses become black holes at their Schwarzschild Radius? I look at the model, because we have no experimental proof.

There is experimental proof in his prediction of the proton charge radius - which has been confirmed within one sigma.

How does this prove protons are spinning at near the speed of light?

You want proof protons spin at c, you need to look at the model.

No, I want experimental or observational proof that they do so.

I want proof masses become black holes at their Schwarzschild Radius? I look at the model, because we have no experimental proof.

We have observational proof that points to the existence of black holes ... where is the observational proof that the proton is one?

There is experimental proof in his prediction of the proton charge radius - which has been confirmed within one sigma.

Still waiting for how this proves the proton is spinning at near the speed of light.

But we do see this. We simply call it the strong nuclear force, the immense attractive power that protons have to stick together though they are immensely positively charged.

Using a black hole proton spinning at c would provide the perfect mass dilation to keep protons stuck together, while at distances even a planck length away the dilation drops to the regular rest mass of the proton.

We get nowhere close to the planck length when measuring a proton, so we're not missing any mass Nassim derives.

It's certainly possible, the question is, what does it matter?

Well, if you DO, in fact, believe that then you must also believe that there is a Creator. Not sure most of you would be willing to go that far.

Maybe Jesus figured out how to hack the system.

If Bank of America thinks it might be true, you know it can't possibly be so.

Also, Jean Baudrilard is rolling in his grave at hyperspeeds.

Blips and Chits man... Roy: A Life Well Lived!

But I wonder like what Setting my Simulation is on? I'm fairly poor but kinda happy, so I feel like IF I am playing a game on a simulation I'm on like Normal mode. I often think about what setting my simulation would be on.. lol

Yes.

From what I've read, Tom Campbell seems to have it figured out, as well as Sylvester James Gates. Tom has his "My Big T.O.E." (Theory of Everything), which is a fascinating idea as we all know. Essentially that everything is information, as mentioned in this thread. He goes into detail about the double slit experiment and its implications. Sylvester Gates only adds to this in that he mentions in a video online that Claude Shannon invented computer code in the 1940s that is also found in sting theory - basically that there is quite literally computer code, a series of 0's and 1's, found in string theory. Just like what one would find in a browser online. Google "Theoretical Physicist Finds Computer Code in String Theory" and watch him explain it to Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Did he just assume you're Bender?