- Jan 11, 2018 at 6:24 am #3511799
The below is not a scientific, peer reviewed paper, but a nice, holistic overview of the various different over arching physics theories, with focus on the virtual reality theory. Virtual reality logically addresses and explains well, all the seeming contradictions and paradoxes that we are aware of in physics.
Btw, if we’re using the metaphor of playing a computer game, like say a RPG one, the avatar/character you play isn’t objectively real, but YOU certainly are. And even if reality is a virtual one, it doesn’t mean that the choices we make here are unimportant or meaningless. If it’s a VR designed for growth/evolution of consciousness, then the choices you make while playing your avatar (body), are indeed important.
You/we just might be akin to kids in a well crafted VR playpen of sorts, waiting until the day we’re grown up enough to step outside of the playpen and join the adults who make more kids and playpens. Word on the street is that some have already stepped outside of it, but came back to help out the other players, to help the kids to grow up.Jan 11, 2018 at 2:29 pm #3511815
I look forward to reading this over the weekend. Thanks for posting it!Jan 12, 2018 at 10:11 am #3512002
Your welcome Kat. Yeah, it’s a bit long.Jan 13, 2018 at 12:05 am #3512111
Daryl and DarylBPL Member
@lyrad1Locale: Pacific Northwest, USA, Earth
Is natural selection alone powerful enough that humans might have evolved to a point where they share a common view of a virtual reality? Those who don’t share that view are simply seen as crazy and dismissed.Jan 13, 2018 at 3:34 am #3512131
That is profound Daryl, I’m having to ponder that…
Natural selection is all powerfulJan 13, 2018 at 3:36 am #3512132
I often wonder if “people” on the internet are real or just bots
I’ve seen a few people in the flesh, but maybe the bots hired the humans just to fool meJan 13, 2018 at 5:37 am #3512151
I’m totally a bot Jerry. A viral bot even.Jan 13, 2018 at 6:11 am #3512160
Your mind went to a strange place there Daryl…
Anyways, the below is an excerpt from the above PDF (to be honest, I don’t understand the last part of 15. and why there would innately or naturally be anti processing):
“1.3.1. Fifteen physics facts that suggest we live in a virtual reality
Physics tells us that our universe:
1. Began. All distant galaxies are receding from us at known rates, so we can calculate back to say our
universe started up12 about fourteen billion years ago. This first event began not only our universe
but also its space and time. Yet a complete physical universe can’t begin as by definition there is
nothing outside it to create it. And to create itself, it would have to exist before it began. So physics
speculates on D-branes, alternate universes, wormholes, teleporting worlds and big bang oscillation
theories. In contrast, every virtual reality has a boot up that creates its pixels and its space-time
operating system, based on nothing within itself (see 2.5).
2. Has a maximum speed. In our world, a light shone from a spaceship moving at almost the speed of
light still leaves the ship at the speed of light, which is impossible in an objective reality. Einstein
proved that the speed of light is a maximum but gave no reason for it. The equations work but don’t
explain why. In contrast, a photon as a screen pixel can only move point-to-point as fast as the
screen refresh rate allows. The screen cycle rate defines a maximum “speed” for the pixel (see 3.2.4).
11 In contrast, an objective reality exists in and of itself and is not contained by anything.
12 Colloquially called the “big bang”, as if it were an explosion in an existing time and space, which it was not.
3. Is digital. At the quantum level, everything is quantized including time and space. Field theory needs
continuity but avoids the infinities it implies by a mathematical trick called renormalization. We
pretend our world has no gaps but actually Planck length and Planck time are the irreducible pixels
and cycles of our reality (see 2.2.2).
4. Has quantum tunneling. In tunneling, an electron suddenly appears outside a field barrier it can’t
pass through, like a coin in a perfectly sealed glass bottle suddenly appearing outside it. Quantum
theory permits this, which is objectively impossible, so again it is called “unreal”. In contrast, a
digital reality can “cut” between one probabilistic frame (quantum state) and another (see 5.3.1).
5. Entangled entities. Entangled photons maintain opposite spins no matter how far apart they are but
an objective reality limited by the speed of light can’t do this, so Einstein called this spooky action
at a distance. In contrast, a program can instantly change any pixel anywhere on a screen. So for
the screen of our universe, all points on it are equidistant to a quantum server (see 3.6.5).
6. A space that curves. According to Einstein, the sun keeps the earth in orbit by “curving” the space
around it, but what can space curve into? It needs another dimension to do this, but string theory’s
extra dimensions are “curled up” so they don’t allow it. In quantum realism our space is a 3D
“surface” that can curve into a fourth dimension (see 2.3.5).
7. A time that dilates. In Einstein’s twin paradox, one twin who travels the universe for a year returns
to find his brother on earth an old man of eighty! Relativity tells us that in our world time slows
down when you travel at high speeds. In an objective world time doesn’t vary like this but in our
world it does. Yet every gamer knows that when the computer is busy the frame-rate drops, giving
a slow-motion screen, i.e. game time slows down when the server is busy (see 2.4.1).
8. Randomness. In our world, radioactive atoms emit alpha particles randomly, i.e. in a way that no
prior physical “story” can explain, implying caused beyond physicality. The many-worlds fantasy
of a multiverse was invented solely to deny quantum randomness. In contrast, in this model quantum
randomness is attributed to quantum server choices (see 4.3.1).
9. A non-empty space. An objective space should be nothing but our space exerts a pressure! In the
Casimir effect, flat plates close together in a vacuum experience a force pushing them in. Current
physics explains this as virtual particles but quantum processing is a simpler explanation (see 2.5.5).
10. Waves are particles. In Young’s two-slit experiment, one electron goes through two slits, interferes
with itself to give an interference pattern, but still always arrives at one screen point. A particle can’t
do this but a processing wave can spread to interfere with itself like a wave but still reboot at a point
(quantum collapse) to arrive like a particle in one place (see 3.3.5).
11. Identical electrons. In our world, every photon, electron and quark is indistinguishable from every
other one, just as if the same code generated all of them (see 3.3.5).
12. Quantum superposition. In quantum theory, currents can simultaneously flow both ways around a
superconducting ring (Cho, 2000) and electrons spin both up and down until observed. This is not
physically possible so in current physics quantum states don’t exist, but in quantum realism copies
of one quantum program can explore all possible options (see 3.6.1).
13. Non-physical detection. Imagine a bomb so sensitive that even one photon will set it off. It should
be impossible to detect, but a Mach-Zehnder interferometer does just that (Kwiat, Weinfurter,
Herzog, Zeilinger, & Kasevich, 1995). Current physics predicts this by quantum acts it says don’t
occur, but in quantum realism they do (see 3.6.4).
14. Retrospective action. If the future can affect the past, causality fails and with it physics. Yet in
delayed choice experiments, an observation made after a photon takes a path defines the path it took
before the observation. This has led some to speculate that all time, like all space, already exists,
allowing time travel and all the paradoxes it implies. In quantum realism, processing spreads to take
all paths until an observation picks a physical event, so there is no time travel (see 3.6.3).
15. Anti-matter. Quantum equations predicted anti-matter, but no reason has ever been given why matter inherently needs an inverse of the same mass but opposite charge. In contrast, matter created by processing inevitably implies anti-matter created by anti-processing (see 4.3.6).”
Jan 13, 2018 at 9:03 am #3512169
- This reply was modified 6 months ago by Justin W.
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
If I understand what you have written (which is not guarranted) your ideas about ‘objective reality’ and other aspects of physics in the above are interesting, but they mostly lack any sort of objective reality.
If you really don’t believe in tunnelling, you should hand in your mobile phone.
CheersJan 13, 2018 at 4:38 pm #3512196
“Physics tells us that our universe:
1. Began… ”
Physics or science doesn’t tell us anything.
It’s just a series of people coming up with a theory, then taking data in an attempt to disprove. After a while people give up trying to disprove and it’s provisionally accepted until proven otherwise.
You can tell how far away something is by brightness. They “know” that a certain type of nova has a known absolute brightness, so the dimmer it appears, the farther away it must be.
You can also tell the speed relative to us by looking at it’s spectrum. If something is moving away from us faster, it’s spectrum is shifted more. When you look at the spectrum of those novas, you can see that further away, they’re moving away from us faster.
That’s the pattern you’d get in an explosion from a central point – objects further away from each other will be moving faster apart.
There are a bunch of assumptions there. Some new data or idea could come along and blow up this idea there was a “big bang”. That name was chosen by someone making fun of the idea as being crazy.
That would be funny if “they” decided the big bang wasn’t because there are so many people that believe this. But it’s unsound foundation that could shift. The person that comes up with a new theory that enough people accept will get a Nobel prize.Jan 14, 2018 at 4:10 am #3512335
“If I understand what you have written (which is not guarranted) your ideas about ‘objective reality’ and other aspects of physics in the above are interesting, but they mostly lack any sort of objective reality.
If you really don’t believe in tunnelling, you should hand in your mobile phone.”
Hi Roger, I’m a bit confused by the last sentence in the above. The article (which is not mine), says that tunneling exists, but it’s essentially saying it’s one of the strange phenomena of which Quantum physics seems to have plenty of. And referring to aspects of Q.M. as strange, seemingly irrational, and the like is nothing new or fringe–some noted physicists that have worked and done research in this field have used similar adjectives.
The point in the article is that tunneling becomes less irrational and less strange, if we understand that the physical reality is akin to a projected, virtual reality holographic one, where everything is purely information and processes based and nothing truly particle state exists, except in a probabilistic data set/interference pattern kind of way (interaction with perception/observation of consciousness). Did you read the entire piece or just the excerpt? Brian says a couple times in the gaming/virtual reality analogy, that pixels are real enough to other pixels within their interaction/perception, just not ultimately and objectively real.Jan 14, 2018 at 4:12 am #3512336
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
CheersJan 14, 2018 at 4:27 am #3512337
If you can Roger, explain to me exactly what is the cause and mechanism behind the medically observed phenomena called placebo effect?
How and why should belief/mind influence health and body changes in measurable ways?
Mainstream physics tied in with determinism/materialism, which is essentially handed down from Aristotle’s physicalism (what we observe in the physical world, is literally and objectively real) , doesn’t seem to have a good way to not only, not explain this, but even to allow for it’s possibility in the first place. Yet, a virtual reality model certainly can, especially one based on the understanding that consciousness is primary and what processes/projects the virtual, physical perception experience.
If the latter is all just streaming data/code flowing in various degrees of probability, and if consciousness is primary, than consciousness could directly “hack” that “code” through processes like will/intent and belief, thus changing the appearance/state of the projected/virtual level and perception. In the case of placebo effect, belief/mind facilitating measurable physical changes in the body via it’s primacy over same.Jan 14, 2018 at 4:28 am #3512338
Good points Jerry.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.