#### JustLeb

##### Legendary Member

**Orange Room Supporter**

first he can't argue against SIMULATION, which at the end states that the world is created by an intelligent entity,

now he is no more sure about the existence of God.

Watch the 30s to 60s

first he can't argue against SIMULATION, which at the end states that the world is created by an intelligent entity,

now he is no more sure about the existence of God.

Watch the 30s to 60s

where did all the stardust go??

every carbon atom in your body was made in a star’s belly, you’re the offspring of stars’ self-lovewhere did all the stardust go??

very l8 teply but the solution to the simulation hypothesis is the mere fact that infinite/irrational numbers, exist. such a simulation would require huge amounts of energy to sustain such calculations.

first he can't argue against SIMULATION, which at the end states that the world is created by an intelligent entity,

now he is no more sure about the existence of God.

Watch the 30s to 60s

i dont remember where i read/watched the explanation i’ll try to find it maybe it’ll get u back amongst us

stardust is the is the sparkling english word that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth, there is no such thing as stardust. the universe is made from atoms, including stars. these atoms are as colorless as can be, and so is the universe, cold, silent, dark. it is only our mind that adds layer upon layer of information to make sense of the world, including colors, sounds, warmth, etc..every carbon atom in your body was made in a star’s belly, you’re the offspring of stars’ self-love

continuously transforming millions of electromagnetic waves at once, determining their sources, and translating that into what we commonly refer to for instance as sight, which we take for granted. but what sight in reality represents is the triumph of meaning over matter.

now let it be noted, this is my own theory, in case there was a nobel prize in the horizon.very l8 teply but the solution to the simulation hypothesis is the mere fact that infinite/irrational numbers, exist. such a simulation would require huge amounts of energy to sustain such calculations.

i dont remember where i read/watched the explanation i’ll try to find it maybe it’ll get u back amongst us

the back and forth transition from rational to irrational numbers could be interpreted as another level of abstraction, not much different from the electron acting as a particle instead of a wave when observed.

to understand the concept further, think of it as the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its radius. in a world based on units of Pi, the circumference is rational, but the radius is not. however in a world based on integer digits, the radius is rational, but the circumference is not.

so keeping in mind that any real number can be represented as the sum of two irrational numbers, it follows that the infinite energy hypothesis may just be an illusion manifested in one domain, but not the other, which maintains the possibility of finite granularity in the simulation interpretation of quantum physics.

L

Irrational numbers are abstract concepts. They don't "exist" in a way that a simulated world would exist. I could take your brain, simulate it in Minecraft or some other very crude simulation where it would be obvious to the simulated you that you are, in fact, in a simulation, but you would still know everything you know about irrational numbers or the relationship of a circle's circumference to its radius.very l8 teply but the solution to the simulation hypothesis is the mere fact that infinite/irrational numbers, exist. such a simulation would require huge amounts of energy to sustain such calculations.

There is no way to empirically prove you are

L

What is "the inifnite energy hypothesis"?now let it be noted, this is my own theory, in case there was a nobel prize in the horizon.

the back and forth transition from rational to irrational numbers could be interpreted as another level of abstraction, not much different from the electron acting as a particle instead of a wave when observed.

to understand the concept further, think of it as the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its radius. in a world based on units of Pi, the circumference is rational, but the radius is not. however in a world based on integer digits, the radius is rational, but the circumference is not.

so keeping in mind that any real number can be represented as the sum of two irrational numbers, it follows that the infinite energy hypothesis may just be an illusion manifested in one domain, but not the other, which maintains the possibility of finite granularity in the simulation interpretation of quantum physics.

you cannot represent the infinite number of digits of the irrational number in a computer simulation without requiring an infinite amount of energy to do so, some people use that argument to disprove the simulation interpretation of quantum mechanics, which suggests that the universe and everything in it is a simulation ran in an extremely powerful simulation. and assimilating the finite quanta to computer bits. (intended for the general audience since you are obviously familiar with the subject).What is "the inifnite energy hypothesis"?

now with regards to your previous post, Pi does appear in nature, in all equations that describe waves. in addition there are physical constants that do indeed appear to be irrational, (plank law, first and second radiation cosntants)

L

Equations aren't nature. They are descriptions of nature. Or, to put another way, if you take it as an axiom that those equations are real, then you are already assuming you are not in a simulation (at least not in a simulation that cannot handle such equations with precision).Now with regards to your previous post, Pi does appear in nature, in all equations that describe waves. in addition there are physical constants that do indeed appear to be irrational, (plank law, first and second radiation cosntants)

In nature, we can't really tell if the equations we've concocted correspond with nature exactly. We can just make measurements and say that they match he theory to some degree of accuracy. We can never reach a point where we measure an

What is the ratio of it's circumference to its radius? No, it's not two times pi, it's four. Because the image consists of pixels and if you look closely enough, it's not an ideal circle. Same might be true if we live in an elaborate simulation... the equations and wave forms look like they contain pi, but if we "zoom in" close enough, we'd find out that they are in fact just a close approximation.

at the end of the day all circles are made out of particles, let's say atoms, and while these particles do not form the perfect circle, they may very fall on the circumference of one, the same goes for the hydrogen electron which travels in a spherical cloud.Equations aren't nature. They are descriptions of nature. Or, to put another way, if you take it as an axiom that those equations are real, then you are already assuming you are not in a simulation (at least not in a simulation that cannot handle such equations with precision).

In nature, we can't really tell if the equations we've concocted correspond with nature exactly. We can just make measurements and say that they match he theory to some degree of accuracy. We can never reach a point where we measure anactualpi anywhere, because all our measurements are imprecise. As an analogy, take this shape:

What is the ratio of it's circumference to its radius? No, it's not two times pi, it's four. Because the image consists of pixels and if you look closely enough, it's not an ideal circle. Same might be true if we live in an elaborate simulation... the equations and wave forms look like they contain pi, but if we "zoom in" close enough, we'd find out that they are in fact just a close approximation.

the uncertainty principle, might also be interpreted as another validation of what i stated earlier, the abstraction that exists between the rational and the irrational and the different mappings that follow, for instance you can only know either the exact position of the electron or its exact momentum, but never both. this is also materialized in the double slit experiment with the electron acting as a particle in one set, but as a wave in the other, and you can switch the electron from one set to the other. the description and the wording are very simplistic, but you get the idea.

additionally irrational Pi does indeed appear elsewhere in the nature, particularly in the equations of electromagnetic waves, and is not necessarily restricted to circular or spherical geometrical shapes.

my good man i know, i am talking about modeling them into the simulation. the technical overhead and energy requirements are not feasible.Irrational numbers are abstract concepts. They don't "exist" in a way that a simulated world would exist. I could take your brain, simulate it in Minecraft or some other very crude simulation where it would be obvious to the simulated you that you are, in fact, in a simulation, but you would still know everything you know about irrational numbers or the relationship of a circle's circumference to its radius.

There is no way to empirically prove you arenotin a simulation, but it is possible to try to detect possible rounding errors or other artifacts that a simulation might have and in that way try to prove that wearein a simulation.

L

Oops, I meantAs an analogy, take this shape:

What is the ratio of it's circumference to its radius? No, it's not two times pi, it's four.

- This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.

By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.