I came across this video, thought that it was well put together, and I figured that some here might enjoy it.

Tag for later

Tag for now.

tag for skience

If a tree falls in the woods with no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Well I guess not.. Huh.


And bears don't shit in the woods after all unless it's being watched?

Is the tree even there before you interact(or not) with it.

This gives me an idea for an experiment.

BRB, need a keyboard and not an iPad.

It's better than the big theory. Statically something really strange is going on in creation. For instance life should be everywhere in the Universe but math said we are the only one. We are living in a dead universe. Life should not be possible yet we are here. With that said we should know some answers soon. The holographic project data should come out in the coming years.





http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427101633.htm



 

He does a really shitty job explaining the big bang and how it is theorized to have worked. His explanation is so bad as to be wrong. Sorry but he lost me but then again I think the whole idea is more than a little silly. The time dilation explanation also makes no sense. Either there is a computer or contraption analogous to a computer capable of processing all the data in the universe or there's not. What difference would it make if there's a bunch of data close together? It's already all being processed at once anyway.

Logically the big bang theory doesn't make sense. Infinity small singularity containing infinity mass create a finite universe is illogical. What is another word infinity small? Nothingness. This nothingness contain infinity mass yet created a finite universe. That itself is a red flag. A virtual simulation make more sense and explain a lot of stuff that have confused scientist for a long time.



Albert Einstein pointed out two very important things.

1. Time does not exist.

2. We are living in an illusion.



I believe he is right in both.

So, my idea is for an Earth-Lunar double slit experiment.

It is a variation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The basic layout of the apparatus is as follows:

The photon emitter, beam splitter and detector zero are located here on earth. At the lunar end are detectors one through four. However detectors three and four are rigged to an input device that controls when they are active or inactive, being observed, or not being observed. The controlling device for observation would be a microphone and digital encoder that flips detectors three and four on and off in a standard On/Off Keying modulation. The Earth end turns on their coherent photon beam, points it at the Lunar end and then an astronaut at the Lunar end just starts talking, about anything, randomly. Detector zero would be rigged to a decoder that would translate the pattern changes back into sound. At the same time that the astronaut is chatting away, a standard radio would be transmitting his speech back to Earth at the same time.

With a 1.3 second light-speed travel time between the experiment end points I'm curious if we would hear the astronauts words coming 1.3 seconds ahead of their conventional speed-of-light-limited radio communication. More over, would we hear it 2.3 seconds early, 1.3 seconds before the astronaut even spoke (the photons would be hitting detector zero near instantly, the photon pairs would still need 1.3 seconds to get the moon and encounter the encoding detectors three and four).

Now what happens if we set up two of these experiments in a feedback loop? Does the Earth side experiment detect what the astronaut says 1.3 seconds before it is said, and then relay that back to the Lunar side experiment adding another 1.3 seconds, and letting the astronaut hear themselves speak 2.6 seconds before they actually speak?

ETA: *facepalm* Sorry, completely missed certain aspects of detector zero (discovered upon further reading of the experiment). Disregard above I guess, or not? Hmm. What I need to know is during the standard DCQE experiment, does detector zero show both patterns, and if by switching off detectors three and four does it reduce detector zero to a single displayed pattern? If it switches between both patterns simultaneously, and just an interference pattern alone, then my above experiment would be feasible.

Either way, we need to go back to the moon.

More info
On biocentric universe

What blows my mind is that intangled photons separated by miles of distance of fiber optics collapse at the same time when one is observed.
My conclusion is that I don't have enough ammo.

Has some interesting implications, doesn't it?

This stuff is so cool...

I've always wondered if we are just a big simulation, WHO is running it???

We are, if IT = Consious

Tag

Why? No one knows how easy or difficult it is to produce  self replicating cells.  It could be one in trillions.



What's more, no one knows how unlikely the development of multi-cellular organisms intelligent enough to even have the capacity to eventually built a radio transmitters is.  It could be one in trillions.



Hell, even if we assume that such intelligent life will eventually develop on any given planet with life (which is debatable), there is no guarantee that they'll be able to make a radio transmitter, or a space ship.



Imagine a world populated by very intelligent octopi.  They can't use fire, so they never are able to work metal, so they never make it past the stone age.



Point is: the only planets we've got a close up look at are in are solar system, and we aren't even sure if those are devoid of life. There could be multiple instances of life around our galaxy, most of which would likely be single cellular life, as that has been the overall dominant form of life on earth for most of its history, and we wouldn't even know it.
 

Well, the singularity doesn't have to be infinitely small, just so small that our current models of physics, which are just approximations that help us explain what we observe, break down.
Said another way:  The "singularity" in the big bang model does not mean that there was a
physical infinity, just that our models fail at that point, probably
because they are flawed.
Our current understanding of physics does not rule out what this "singularity" is or is not. The big bang's singularity, was really the equivalent of drawing a map of the known world and then writing "here be dragons".  





Of course people want to erase the word "dragons" and write "God"...but it really isn't any more logical.
 

Can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure that when I die, you'll all cease to exist. Sorry.

Yeahno, math doesn't say anything at all like that.  Neither does anything else.  In fact, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Good stuff, Thanks, OP.

This.

And holographic universe theory does not rely on the existence of a programmed simulation.

He takes a lot of leaps, the speed of light for instance being a maximum processor speed, when we know the speed of light isn't set since it changes threw mediums, we also know the universe is expanding at a rate above the speed of light, this would be analogous to adding memory and coding faster then your processor can account for it.

Nice production and explanations of the dual slit experiment.  Minus points for not adding in deep thought or 42.

I'm pretty sure we are nothing more than an AI simulation; we are essentially biological computers.

good video

yea, there is an assumption that this "computer" would work according to our laws. Who is to say what the laws are like in the other realm that the computer is in or that your mind is even capable of visualizing it.



 

...Yes.

DCQE is one of my favorites.

If this is all just a simulation, I wish the cosmic programmer would simulate me some damn money!  Like, some serious "fuck you" type level of money.

Tag for my alternate reality self.

Meh.

I watched the whole thing but when you start saying things like, "this settles it once and for all" and "all scientist agree" then throw in Plato, the original communist, who claims we are not responsible for our actions I tend to reject the idea.

Newton's Law of Gravity was proven to have flaws, Einstein's theories have proven to have flaws, I'm sure there are flaws is this theory also.

What you have to remember is that C is the speed of causality.

ETA

There's a good video explaining how C fell out of Maxwells Equations.  C being the speed of causality.  If I can remember after work I'll post the video.

If legit,  the results of the double slit experiment are crazy. I don't see how that is not more mainstream. They just can't explain it, other than the obvious "if we observe it, its there". That is just crazy.

Also, if the theory is true and things are not physical until we observe them, then who is observing us?

A simulation is exactly what I believe this word to be.  I think Earth is simply a simulation for the education of souls.  Plato said pretty much the same thing several thousand years ago.  Also, a lot of near-death experiencers says similar things.  I remember one account where the person describe death like putting down a good book.  It was your whole world while you were engrossed, but when you walk away from it you remember that it is just a story.

Isn't it obvious?
 

?

And who created them, or is observing them?

LOL - We live in God's Xbox

Fucking watching me masturbate.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So... maybe i'm dumbing it down some, but is this the easy way out of saying there's a creator, but there isn't a God?

Observing something changes the outcome in a lot of things. It doesn't mean evening is stimulated.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Awesome.   Watching later.

Did you watch the video?

Please give an example, that has been observed and verified, where simply observing something physically changes the outcome of it , other than protons in the double slit experiments, and the few other small things talked about in this video.

With the Materialistic view things are there observed or not but with the double slit experiment with protons this is not so. And it has been tested multiple times multiple ways and is generally accepted in the scientific community.

And I never said everything is simulated. The video suggests it based on the double slit experiment but I didn't say it.

I think this is more proof of a creator or a God than proof of a simulation.

There are a bunch of crackpot videos on this on youtube. There are a lot of real scientists working on it so it's not crackpot in itself, but the crackpots like talking about it.

Or time travels to change its past!

Einstein said that time does not exist separate from matter.

We can only explain subatomic phenomena with probability. Logic at that scale appears to be outside of our own, accepted terms. Something else exists that we don't yet perceive. At the temperature of the big bang, matter and energy don't exist. We can't define what would exist. It's completely outside of our experiences and our ability to predict. Nobody knows what happens when the universe is that compact; that hot. It can't be illogical because there's no logic to apply.

I refute it thus.

So about the "simulation hypothesis" as he explains it....let's assume that we are in a simulation. Then everything we know about the nature of the universe comes from inside the simulation. Therefore, we know nothing about the true nature of the universe (for certain). Which means that parts of the simulation hypothesis are unreliable. He states he believes there is a 50% chance we are in a simulation. I think that is a totally unfounded number.



 

Doesn't this demonstrate the speed of light is not the fastest speed in the universe?


Agreed. Too bad there's simulated panic buying at this point of space & time.

(ETA: Cool video OP, thanks for posting.)

Its not the distance or the speed that is the interesting thing. The crazy thing is that they collapse when observed.? Explain that?

Very good video there is a god in some shape or form