Some theory about simulated reality and the Doubleslit Experiment

I have made an observation (or at least read of one) and interpreted it. I didnt want to know if this theory is absolutely right and if we are definitely in a simulation, just wanted to know if it contradicts the current state of science

Thank you for this post. It is good.

OP, you probably should have done more research on Young's double slit experiment. While it's commonly performed with light, you can do it with any waves, such as water waves. You could even do his experiment yourself; buy a cheapo laser pen (5mw @ 650nm works in a dark room) and buy a diffraction grating from amazon.

Another problem I have is the very notion that we could be brains in a vat. It's equivalent to believing in god, ie, it's an unfalsifiable claim.

I never said we entered the simulations at one point, maybe we never existed in a higher reality. Maybe we are selfaware AIs. Or we even did create a simulation. In that simulation they created another one, in that there maybe was an AI that did create a universe, and so on. Maybe we are the base reality though.
Also redoing the same experiment wouldnt do any great, as we have those information already. I/we would need tonfind another experiment to proof it

>The reason we percieve them as particles is to make it easier to compute for the system

This is nonsense.

The "system" is already computing all manner of atomic and subatomic particles in the entire observable universe yet for whatever reason it's having problems computing electrons?
Nonsensical.

Rather than go through all the trouble of simulating an entire universe of particles it's much easier to simulate a "brain" and have all the input be manufactured, for instance everything you currently "see" is rendered, the rest isn't. Far less computing power and it doesn't have to deal with things you're not able to perceive.

As far as the simulation argument in general goes just look at how much simulated realities have advanced even if we just take gaming into account.

We got from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

to GTAV in a span of a couple of decades.

Now imagine how advanced "entertainment" simulations will be in 50 or a 100 or 200 years.

Now imagine a thousands years from now.

>We got from
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
>to GTAV in a span of a couple of decades.
Pretty nonsensical. Conway's Game of Life has more procedural content than GTAV.

Huh.
Enemies in Banjo Kazooie don't move when they aren't on screen for the player to look at--to save processing power and the such. It's a shortcut.

Kinda applies to your theory here. We simulation.

Imagine the electron blob going woth speed of lied, no he deforms itself by stretching out to the front. Then the peak of it would break the speedlimit of the universe, by quite a a lot assuming its morphing really fast to the front. The center of mass would stay in the same speed as if it werent the speed of the whole electron would change. (Like the front stretches to the front, while other part has to automatically has to go to the back) that way it would render it as a particle so the wobbling wouldnt break the speed of light, but computes it as blob thus breaks the limit which we shouldnt witness

talk about missing the point.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8&feature=youtu.be

prove that the earth is not round and you'll find that the simulation theory to be the most sound argument of reality against randomness big bang theories.
Furthermore, if you can convince the entire world that the earth is round and life came from non life, then rigging presidential elections is just child's play.

>it's a schizos containment thread episode

So guys, OP goes to sleep, thanks again for everyone who read theough it, even more thanks for everyone who contributed or will contribute something constructive.
Keep discussing pls, i will read everything when i wake up. Good night/morning/day/whatever

Suppose we do live in a simulation
what point is it to apply current-year computing knowledge/sensibilities to whatever is running this simulation? Surely, it is more complicated than just your average intel processor but with bigger numbers. If something is capable of simulating an entire universe as complex as ours, we can be safe in saying that it is lightyears above our wildest dreams in terms of its mechanistic operation.

Furthermore, isn't the double slit experiment slightly fallacious, because "observing" a particle involves interacting with it? I don't really remember the specifics and can't be arsed to look it up

There are known knowns and there are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

This would probably be the known unknown

How about "Bug One" as name since the theory is right it would be the first percieved and recognized bug

Whoever made that image is mixing up his amplitudes and eigenvalues

Did the picture myself,bwith my awesome MS-paint skills. But i dont really get what you mean. Can you explain in laymans terms?

idk how much QM you know but here we go

Quantum states are in superpositions of basis states, these basis states are usually chosen as eigenstates of relevant operators. Eigenstates are states which are only multiplied by some scalar (eigen)value by an operator rather than being changed otherwise. Easy example is spin, a spin state is a superposition of up and down eigenstates:
[eqn]|\psi\rangle=\alpha|\uparrow\rangle+\beta|\downarrow\rangle[/eqn]

The values [math]\alpha[/math] and [math]\beta[/math] are the amplitudes of the up and down states. They can be complex and are constrained by
[eqn]\alpha^2+\beta^2=1[/eqn]

The up and down states are defined as eigenstates of the [math]\sigma^z[/math] operator. The eigenvalues are +1 and -1 respectively:
[eqn]\sigma^z|\uparrow\rangle=|\uparrow\rangle,[/eqn]
[eqn]\sigma^z|\downarrow\rangle=-|\downarrow\rangle[/eqn]

What you've done in your drawing is mix up these two concepts, you've got the 1 person/5 person as eigenvalues for the lever operators but you're also requiring that they be normalised for some reason. Also you have a nonzero commutator of the two lever operators even though they both share eigenstates (although I like the hbar made of tracks).

Well, as i said im not an expert, so i really have trouble understanding it. But i take it my theory is nonsense?

I'm talking about your trolley problem meme m8

Simulation theory has nothing to do with brains in vats. Its the idea that every atom in our entire universe is just a virtual rendering on some insanely advanced program running on a supercomputer beyond all comprehension. Also, contrary to what you may think, it is falsafiable. In fact, most evidence points to this being the case, the plank distance, the double slit experiment, and a few other expiraments that i cant name off the top of my head right now, seem to indicate the universe has a minimum "resolution" of sorts for lack of a better term. Through studying the properties of quantum mechanics we should be able to one day say with almost 100% certainty whether or not the universe is a simulation.

Falsifiable*

I believe the results still show even if you observe the electrons AFTER they pass through the slits. Unless you believe there is some reverse causality going on thats a pretty solid result. Also, they have gotten the double slit experiment to work with entire molecules. Google "bucky balls double slit" i promise you this is not pornography despite what it sounds like.

you're not grasping an understanding of what he's saying.
remove yourself from the conversation.

there's talk about the particles being disrupted from the photons maybe hitting them.

Thats the definition of observing something. The entire reason the double slit experiment works is because of total isolation of the particles involved. They dont interact with anything which allows them to be in a state of multiple positions based on probability. Once it is observed, or interacted with in any way by any other particles, the wave function is collapsed into a single possibility and the particle-wave duality that applies to just about everything in the universe shifts to the particle side. In a way, the entire universe only exists because of it interacting with itself. In a state of complete isolation (no light, no interactions with any other particles) you could probably get the double slit experiment to work with planet sized objects. However, if the objects were interacted with in any way, their position in the universe would be confirmed by that interaction and the interference pattern would go away.

So, is there any major scientific reason this cant be true? Or is it just that it cant be prooven and is just some hypothesis?

>the plank distance
Planck distance is just a unit of length defined using physical constants, there's no reason to believe that it's the minimum length of anything.

>not knowing what the plank constant is
>2016
Get out.

I know what the planck constant is

I don't think you know what the planck distance is

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence, just not a proof of absence.

You cannot measure or observe anything smaller than the planck distance because the act of putting the amount of energy required to do so into that small of a space creates a black hole. For all intents and purposes it is the resolution of the universe because nothing, in the observable universe, can ever be smaller than that.

Horseshit. Your "evidence" is popsci nonsense and you didn't even explain how it's falsifiable.

>You cannot measure or observe anything smaller than the planck distance because the act of putting the amount of energy required to do so into that small of a space creates a black hole. For all intents and purposes it is the resolution of the universe because nothing, in the observable universe, can ever be smaller than that.
Damn bro, those are some pretty wild claims. You got any sources for that? Like actual papers where they determine this to be the case?

Because I'm pretty sure that the Planck distance, like all Planck units, is just a unit of measurement defined with universal constants as part of a system of units not based on arbitrary amounts. Planck mass is about 2x10^-8 kg and that certainly isn't the smallest mass, what makes the Planck length so special?

"According to the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity), the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could change that."

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

Forgot where i got the black hole forming part from but i know its fact, and ive already proven part of my claim. Too lazy to disprove you further, do some googling you will see im right.

So the universe having a maximum resolution would hint towards simulated reality as well right?

Minimum resolution, and it would hint at it yes. However, there could be another explanation for it, its just the the simplest explanation that we currently understand seems to point towards simulation. That may change as we learn more about the universe.

Really minimum? I would have thought maximum because when the resolution gets higher the deteils you can see usually get smaller as the pixel on a screen, meaning the higher the resolution the smaller he particles get you can perieve, and since at some point you cant go any more into the details it should be limited at the upper end. But well, guess i have to believe you.

And so it is just a matter of how you interpret it again so you just cant be sure wether it is that way or not if i got it right

Well yeah if you explain it like that maximum resolution. I say minimum resolution because it is the smallest possible length that can be resolved or observed.

To clarify further i would say the maximum resolution would be the sum total of planck lengths in the universe. Like how 1080p has nothing to do with the size of the pixel, just the total number of them on the screen. But the whole area of conversation is getting kind of pedantic. We both understand its the smallest unit of length.

No, you don't have a theory, you have a hypothesis

what does the text in your pic say?

>the generalized uncertainty principle (a concept from speculative models of quantum gravity)
>speculative
Mate, that's not helping your case. Other models of quantum gravity don't have anything like that and we have no idea if any of them are even valid.

The same page you got that from says "there is no known significance of the Planck Length", read more than what you're looking for.

>Forgot where i got the black hole forming part from
If it's even a real idea it's also going to be entirely speculative with nothing to actually back it up.

>but i know its fact, and ive already proven part of my claim
You haven't, speculative models of quantum gravity don't mean shit until we can test them properly.

I get it man, it's a cool idea for there to be a minimum length and everything, I bought into the idea for a while myself but then I decided to
>do some googling
and I found out that there isn't anything real that actually suggests that to be the case. What probably happened is that some popsci source read that some quantum gravity models have that idea and took it as gospel.