Woo Time.....

Real or fake woo? Whoo can tell me?



No, I am not suggesting we live inside a computer

That's pretty interesting, weird, but interesting!

This video is less woo and more science, but even then, not completely free of it. That last video was put together by someone who wanted to promote the idea of our living inside an artificial reality running on some kind of super computer millions of years more advanced that what we can build, I guess. What else could it be if he believed that?

Alaskan said:

Real or fake woo? Whoo can tell me?



No, I am not suggesting we live inside a computer

Click to expand...

Not woo. This experiment is also known as the "delayed choice" experiment.

Woo to me but in a good way, I like it. The implications are astounding. For myself it shows consciousness is as much a fundamental aspect of the physics of the universe as anything else, if not more so.

Edit 03 Nov: Adding this youtube video

So what they are saying is if a tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear it the tree didn't even exist until we observed that it had fallen and at that point it popped into reality and when we study how it fell we then can determine if in fact it made a noise.

It gets pretty complex, when we hypothesize at what can actually count as an observer. I believe we are a simulation. Our 4D existence exists in a matrix, with limiting factors and constants that help to keep this dimension and the others stable. For example, matter traveling faster than light, requires more energy than the universe itself. As matter is a 4D concept, this limits it existing in 5D and beyond. Whereas photons are multidimensional. There are ways of breaking out of the matrix, but it's like breaking through the pixels on your screen. You need to warp space-time to the point of it forming a black hole. This is also a limiting factor, otherwise the energy density at the point would also exceed the universal limit. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics leads to some weird but amazing perspectives on our existence.

On the Tame Side:

At its base the universe is digital, it is part of nature, get used to seeing this more and more. How or why? I don't know, but my wild side has some crazy speculations.

On the Wild Side:

The more I look at this, the more I think that our universe is a kind of computed reality, humanity advancing to the point of building computers is thus part of the natural progression because that is the nature we are in, computers not just a machine we came up with, but how the physics of the universe works and thus why we were lead in that direction to build our own. In time, I expect we will advance to be able to immerse ourselves within another computed reality which our so called senses cannot distinguish the difference from, if not already. We are already beginning to create artificial realities now, just that we haven't figured out how to immerse our biology into them yet to make them seem real, but I think we will.

Maybe we will find the world is resting on turtles all the way down, ad infinitum, digital turtles and that this is what consciousness does, creates, and we co-creators within it.

What I really know: Not much.

What I dream about: A whole lot.

Regardless, I really enjoy this kind of subject, doesn't matter to me so much what the right answer is, but trying to find it is fun.

Edit: Seems I always come back to add more, forgot to remark about the tree falling in the woods and whether without our presence a sound is made. I've thought long about that silly little psychological puzzle and have an answer; since "sound" is something WE hear, no, we don't hear the tree fall and thus no "sound" as we know it without our presence. Sound is a human experience (as WE know it) but I still think vibrations are made in the air regardless and that something feels those vibrations, be it a tiny bug... So, the real question of the falling tree is whether reality is rendered when there isn't an observer. So, what is an observer, can a bug alone qualify and cause reality to be rendered? I don't see why not and if a bug, why not a microbe which can react to vibration? If a microbe can why not a molecule which can also react to vibration or atoms which also can vibrate? Where do you draw the line? Some are so deep into the artificial reality theory that they believe only what is necessary to exist (due to a high enough probability) is rendered, saving on computational power, otherwise the whole universe could not be rendered. Not so sure about that idea, but I do believe we are living in a computed reality, but perhaps not what we currently understand a computed reality to be, or how they come about.

I would like the double slit experiment to be done where a bug registers the photons (or whatever) to see if an interference pattern remains, or whether the photons fall into just two lines. Is a bug conscious? I think so.

This is interesting, I have always thought of our virtual reality be a low tech version of our perspective on life. I am currently working up the dimensions, figuring out their role in the multiverse one at a time. They are a bit like building blocks, to a 'multichoice' like existence.

0D - Single Node, possibly a single qubit resembling the job of a voxel within our Cartesian world. Imagine a voxel with a side length of 1 planck length, but with qubit like properties, that take the form of a particle but behave like a wave. Sound familiar?
1D - Stack of Nodes that help to create timeless vectors.
2D - Stack of 1D to form a 2D vector plane.
3D - Stack of 2D to form a volumetric field.
4D - Finally our state of existence. 3D fields stacked in time like that of stop-motion animations. Imagine that 1/planck time is equal to the frame rate. This frame reference is very rigid, and only allows one possibility for both the outcome and how the outcome is to happen. Superposition could be regarded as proof of this, as when one outcome is observed, no other can be realised. Multiple states are known to exist, but only one can exist in our reference. It is like watching a standard YouTube video. It is linear in fashion, and no matter how many times you play it, it will always happen exactly how it played the first time.
5D - Again a stack, but is the dimension that allows multiple probabilities to exist simultaneously. The best way to visualise the 5th dimension is to watch a 360 degree video on YouTube. The start and finish always has the same result, but the path taken to get there can be completely different. The same video can be played back, but with each time, the views will be different based on your 360 degree observations.
6D - The best way to explain this dimension, is to think of a video game with a story line. You have the illusion of free will, based on the way you can freely make choices about your navigation through time. You can choose whether or not to go into one room or the other and have completely different outcomes for both. One route might take longer to complete for example. But the story ends the same regardless.
7D - Feels very similar to the 6th, but different outcomes can be achieved for different 6th dimensional choices. Almost the win or lose scenario in the game, depending on the choices you apparently make for yourself only much more complex and plentiful.

And this is where I have got up to so far. Every dimension seems to get harder to visualise as to do so I have to think deeply about how we exist, and how the multiverse has to function. Just a day at uni for me

Very cool, I have never seen these things stacked up this way before. The reference you made to choice, whether to enter one room or another, or how we navigate through it reminds me of a book I read some years ago by M. Franks titled The Universe and Multiple Reality. He has a theory that all of reality is really static and the thing which makes it seem to have time, or for things to happen, is by consciousness frame hopping through it, that our consciousness moves through the frames in accord with our choices, that we can have completely different realities played before us, depending upon our choices to jump into one frame or another, akin to jumping from one movie reel to another where things play out quite differently. There is a lot in this little book to ponder, this was a very small example of some of the theories presented.

Sounds like a cool book. The movie reel part sounds reminiscent of the 6th dimension to a degree. It is interesting that he thinks the consciousness is responsible for the actions of the temporal dimensions. I tend to visualise in terms you mentioned here.

The more I look at this, the more I think that our universe is a kind of computed reality, humanity advancing to the point of building computers is thus part of the natural progression because that is the nature we are in, computers not just a machine we came up with, but how the physics of the universe works and thus why we were lead in that direction to build our own.

Click to expand...

Hence the reason I was able to give man-made examples that are comprehend-able for analogies. We are what we are, sort of thinking. We can only think of what exists, not what doesn't. And the inventions are never new, but preexisting in some form or another.

There is a good movie you might enjoy, it isn't really about what we are talking about, but then again is... Just a good movie:

The Thirteenth Floor:

Thank you for sharing. It is restricted on the computers at uni, so will have to have a look when I get home. But I did just read up on its plot, and looks good.

Alaskan said:

...but I do believe we are living in a computed reality, but perhaps not what we currently understand a computed reality to be, or how they come about.

I would like the double slit experiment to be done where a bug registers the photons (or whatever) to see if an interference pattern remains, or whether the photons fall into just two lines. Is a bug conscious? I think so.

Click to expand...

I don't believe this. You are all just a figment of my imagination. You are not real. :na:

Or perhaps the bug is just a sprite. Sprites in a game don't exist until observed my the end user. Now we get into what qualifies as an end user? Is it only me? Am I the only end user in this reality/dimension? Is your reality and my reality separate until we both enter into the same "frame"?

I am the only one that exists in my universe. But seriously, no-one can conclusively prove their own existence to others, so we have to settle for the fact we both exist and don't exist. Quantum superposition all over again. I personally believe the multiverse is a collection of conscious environments (universes).

I don't know but M. Franks postulates we are each alone, for the most part, but every once in a while we meet another truly self-conscious human being who happens to be in the same frame of reality. Reading his book was interesting to me, but I couldn't decide which of the theories were likely true or not. However, I do accept our reality is computational, that at a fundamental level the universe is digital.