Thursday, February 7, 2013

Is the Universe a Computer Simulation?

Youtube

A recent scientific study undertaken by the University of Bonn in Germany suggests that the universe could be one giant computer simulation.


Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2...

'The idea we live in a simulation isn't science fiction'
http://www.newscientist.com/article/m...

The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/...

Plato's Allegory of the Cave
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smm7E6...



BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

All those signals and electromagnetic processes are the result of being in an "Electric Universe"(of which there are many models), not because the universe is a "computer simulation".

Mainstream science has been fighting against the Electric Universe paradigm for over a century and 99% of their "fight" is based on unscientific computer simulations and mathematical abstractions and such, not observed empirical data.

I guess now they can claim all their BS computer simulations and models are based in reality simply because the whole universe is a "computer simulation"?

Easier to ignore the empirical models that oppose the 'standard model' and 'Quantum physics' if everything in the universe is just a simulation. They have become very good at simulating reality over the past century, it's too bad actual reality is far different than their simulations.

Mainstream views of Plasma are the perfect example, as the 'godfather of plasma physics" Hannes Alfven put it -

"...when, by an immense number of vectors and tensors and integral equations, theoreticians have prescribed what a plasma must do, the plasma — like a naughty child — refuses to obey"

~ Hannes Alfven -- Keynote Address "Double Layers Symposium" - Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings, NASA Huntsville, Alabama March 17-19, 1986.


Note: I can agree that the universe is an illusion assembled by the human mind(s) in various ways, but not the absurd notion of it being a "computer simulation".

There may be "quantum computing"(FTL signals) aspects to the universe but to claim the universe as a whole is a computer simulation is retarded.

Almost as retarded as having the field of Quantum Physics be dedicated to explaining everything that the 'standard model' says isn't possible... rather than fixing the standard model so it doesn't make false claims that are proven wrong by empirical "quantum" observations.

Quantum physics is the primary "fudge factor" of modern theoretical science, now it seems this "computer simulation" universe will be the next fudge factor.

It makes me wish the 'establishment' was a single entity/individual just so I could smack it across the face and tell it to "wake up" to empirical reality.

Peace,
Jonny

Anonymous said...

On a side note an interesting question to ask mainstream scientists is "what scientific advancements have come from 20th century science?"

They will most likely begin talking about personal computer technology or wireless technology and such.

At that point they should be informed that those things are technological advancements that originally stem from 19th century science, not 20th century scientific advancements.

Then ask the question again and see if they can come up with anything other than theoretical mathematical models and simulations expanding on 19th century sciences.

Contrary to popular belief although theoretical understanding of 19th century sciences had been expanded on quite a bit both in positive and negative manners in the 20th century there are few if any actual scientific advancements from the 20th century.

Even so called "directed energy weapons" have their scientific foundations with the likes of Nikola Tesla and others' works from the late 19th century and earlier.

Even Einstein's relativity theories were just expansions or alterations of prior relativity theories dating back to the 1700's.

20th century science was stagnant and dogmatic and only served to take the simplistic science that was poorly understood in the 19th century and overly complicate it to make it even less understandable to everyone except the mainstream PHD holders(they still don't understand it usually, but they know how to talk about it like they do understand it).

Right now in the 21st century we have the perfect opportunity to get science moving in the right direction again, away from theoretical fantasy and back to empirical science.

Instead we are going backwards and turning reality into a "computer simulation".

They should get back to reality as I'm still waiting for an adequate explanation of why the Sun's Corona exists, never mind their desperate attempts to explain the extremely high temperatures of it - it should not exist according to their theories AT ANY TEMPERATURE.

Most of the observations of the Sun in the 'space age' completely contradict(falsify) the theory they uphold to this day about a nuclear fusion core.

PS - The nuclear fusion model was developed in the 1920's when there was no other known option for how a star could be "powered" for millions or billions of years - but even then a "casual observer" could find many holes in the theory according to the creator of the theory Sir Arthur Eddington(see - "The Internal Constitution of the Stars").

In the 1920's a "casual observer" could poke holes in the theory, today after 90 years of rigorous scientific study and experiment the "holes" no longer exist - because the entire theory has been shredded by observations.

But still they uphold the dogma, at least partially due to the multi-billion dollar fusion research industry.

Modern theoretical science can be summed up with 2 letters - B.S.

End rant.

Peace,
Jonny

HereAmI said...

Good posts Jonny.
You are so right. The virtual computer-friendly universe is not directly visible by definition, so the deluded ideas it enables become simply a tool for imposing the Kabbalah's version of the Creation onto the gentile world. Rabbi ha Kana in the first century was already talking about a big bang. He it was who first achieved the feat of defining the age of the universe by conjuring the 42 letters of the name of God; he arrived at 15 billion years, which is now the orthodox viewpoint. You will understand therefore, if you are still awake, that science so-called is not actually scientific at all, but ultimately a Judaic myth, with Judaic heroes, ( Einstein anyone? )and designed to support that satanic deception with the help of a fully-funded "academia". This is astrophysics' and evolution's dirty little secret.
It may also interest you to know that the Heliocentric Theory, again Kabbalically-derived hundreds of years before Copernicus came along in 1543, is based upon 9 interdependent assumptions. Assumptions, note, not facts. Sir Fred Hoyle noted that the theory cannot be proved relative to the geocentric alternative.
The simple reality, which will be productive of dyspepsia in all who lack a love of the truth, is that the sun orbits the earth, as God has so clearly informed us at Ecclesiastes ch 1 v 5.
Just one brief point of empirical evidence; if earth were spinning at 1000 mph at the equator, the seas would turn into a global maelstrom of destruction as they would be subjected to a constant acceleration, not a velocity. Do one of that fraud Einstein's Thought Experiments; you will be shocked at the results.
EU theory is now beginning to bite; it can no longer be relegated to the fringe of the realm described as conspiracy theory.
In view of all this, we should no longer wonder at the Biblical statement,
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day..."
The word "down" is not in the Hebrew. Therefore God will cause the sun to "go" at noon. This is entirely commensurate with a theory / reality which sees the sun as effectively a light bulb in a universal circuit of plasma, and not as a nuclear furnace. Even Arthur Eddington could see the flaws in his nuclear postulate.
Tim Webb.

Anonymous said...

This proposed experiment is highly unscientific. Save the money. No need for expensive measurements. Simple logical thinking dictates that the results will be meaningless. The experiment’s true purpose is to feed highly-paid researchers whose egos are large enough to make them think they transcend that simulation. They are Sims (a video game simulating human life) like the rest of us.

It is striking to me that, even as we stretch the limit of our imagination and reduce the size of our egos enough to contemplate the possibility that we might, after all, be little more than just a “simulation” or a virtual reality, we continue to apply the concepts and logic of our own world (which I could call a “cage” if I fell prey to the same trap I describe here) to this scenario, and thus limit our vision of what this could all really mean.

Think about it. The very notion of time and space could be native to our simulation. The notion of a computer, or even that of a simulation, could be as well. What of our principles, logic and laws of physics would apply beyond our simulation?

I wrote the rest of my thoughts at http://zenest.com/2013/04/the-experiment-to-test-whether-the-universe-is-a-computer-simulation-is-unscientific/#more-49

Post a Comment