The Squad Conspiracy....

[Weebo]

WHAT IF Squad has built this game inefficiently to outsource "us" to figure out ways to add more content to consume less memory to allow more content with more room for more content. Whilst!, continuing to do the work that sets up the programming for the game that allows us to add more content into the game holy .... we're all a part of the simulation, of simulations simulating a simulation to infinity.

LOL, no really this thread is to ask anyone about the simulation theory that lies within physics.

The above was just crap to confuse you and lure you here to the following 3 questions.

1.) The universe at it's earliest state is quantifiable. Like 0's and 1's in binary. -But is it?-

2.) My correlation. The universe functions off of "Boolean conditions" in computer programming. -Explain to me my the laws of physics don't function off of IF statements-

3.)The attachment. If "C" is the amount of mass and "A" is the law of gravity, then "B" is the interaction between them. "Programming" themselves to react to afford new interactions and more explicit laws. From sparse clouds of atoms all the way up the latter to black holes.

3.b)Keep in mind I used gravity as an example, really I am speaking of every law of physics and chemistry. Basically the rules that allow us to exist as we are. Those are what I'm speaking of in "3.)"

B.) The Gist: A sufficiently technologically advanced society is capable of producing computing power so vast that its able to simulate the entire universe even down to the spin of an electron in each individual atom.

Would A.) Allow for the possibility of the simulation to bring about the birth of a cloud that turns into a star that blows its guts apart upon supernova that would then seed a future galaxy of stars that would then build planets that would possibly yield life that could possibly bring intelligent life that might also build a computer at some point able to simulate the entire universe down to its absolute tiniest level.

THUSSSSSSSSSSSSS bringing about another simulation. Over...and Over...and Over...again.

Its really alot of fun to think about.

To add persons with much grander scientific and mathematics understanding the I; I attach the following

[DocMoriarty]

I always thought the universe is only in my imagination to keep me entertained?!

Also reminds me to one of my favorite sci fi books i read long ago. The German title is "Welt am Draht", literally translated something like "World hanging on a wire". Not sure it has ever been translated. The hero is a researcher working for a marketing company which does public surveys on entities simulated in a computer. But he finds more and more evidence that his own world is also only a simulation, such as coming to the end of the simulated world and it takes a second or two to "generate" new landscape. From then on he tries to come into contact with the controllers of his world in the next higher level.

Edited January 23, 2015 by DocMoriarty

[Thomas988]

What if I'm in a coma right now, and that the reason you all exist is because I do (a lot like what Doc said before). Then, when I wake up, I won't remember any of this.

Who knows, maybe I'll turn out to be a the President of the Universe.

[InterCity]

I don't want to sound like a conspirational theoretic, but here goes my little insight on that subject:

1) In my honest opinion, the universe is quantifiable, and where we can't quantify it, we just don't have enough data. But I'm not sure if we'll ever get to the bottom of things: There's so much data to find that it would take more computing power than all the brains of planet Earth (including animals) and the computers can handle. This doesn't contradict the statement that the universe is quantifiable, since infinity also belongs to the array of real numbers (sorry if I've used a bad math term(ite).)

2) At least out of quantum universe, the physics are entirely compliant to boolean statements: To use the example of gravity, it could be written as such:

function gravity (int mass_a, int mass_b, int radius) 
{

int gravityConstant = 10; // don't get me wrong, i know that the actual gravity is 9.81 m.s; but to keep things clean
int gravityForce;
int handle; // this variable is there just for syntax purposes

handle = (mass_a * mass_ / sqr(radius);
gravityForce = gravityContstant * handle;

return gravityForce;

}

Now while this goes only for general gravity and doesn't apply to light, since it is virtually massless and yet is captured by gravity, a similar function may be made compliant to relativity theory (too much physics for a doctor, sorry ). If it looks tht the gravity doesn't work like that... it does. There's just another force altering the result.

Now to the boolean point: I can simply say that physics apply at all times: So they comply with boolean rules, but virtually

 physics = true 

at all times of the day no matter if they're working on a planet or a photon. Any given physical law works at the same time and if a physical law was written like a function and a test would be made whether it's true or not, it would always return true (or a syntax error).

There is something that looks like a "Maybe" concerning the behaviour of living organisms, because they don't seem to use the binary logic at all sometimes. (hello, my fiancée). It may be confusing, but generally physics apply before biology, and physics say that most of the thinking process are just short electrical pulses: their intensity may vary, but the intensity can be coded binarily, as shown by computer games and, in fact, computers themselves. So, IMHO, the world does comply to boolean statements, at least at its crudest forms. The reason why it doesn't always seem like that is that we don't always see it as a chessboard and have virtually no information on the current situation at any given time (do you know what my brother is doing right now? Me neither. Can it influence you? Yes, it can.).

Now to the most difficult question: How did the universe go from quarks to black holes: The answer is... physics.

It's no secret that most of the natural elements seek to make themselves stable, i.e. get as close to an inert gas as possible. This is why they're reacting and making up other compounds. But some of these compounds are not stable either, and interact with other compounds that are available to create a more stable form of themselves. This would eventually lead to formation of carbohydrates and organic matter.

I won't lie, I have no explanation for how we did transform from a simple chains of hydrogen and carbon into a thinking being, but we're still essentially those carbohydrates. So the chemistry of a human body, broken to pieces, is in fact really simple: We're being held together by the same joints that hold together these black holes - just in a different set-up.

The atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, and these particles are made of quarks: There are two types of quarks: Up (1) and down (0). Seems possible to make with a computer, although our universe (even if possibly simulated), is made of so enormous amounts of physics that it would take years to implement them. So the world as we know it, if simulated, is clearly not a beta version.

From what I've written above, you can easily conclude that I think that the world is theoretically computer-simulable, but such a feat is technically off limits for humanity right now. But the computers, as we know them, would eventually run out of resources if we simulate inside a simulation: So an administrator would either have to "correct" the simulation on time or the system would crash, resulting in the death of all of those universes but the original one and those above it in terms of hierarchy of simulations.

If the world is really simulated, we would sooner or later find out a proof: A computer glitch. These occur in every program and are inevitable. I'm not saying that the universe isn't glitchy right now (the black holes, for example, could be a prime example of such a programming error), but they're just not glitchy enough for us to see. I'm only saying that this is the most likely way to discover that we're not real at all.

Jeez, it could make for a nice book, if I only could write fiction...

TL; DR: The real world is not necessarily real.

P.S. Sorry if I've made an amusement thread a nerdy discussion, I love nerding around and don't have enough nerds in my vicinity.

To add my own remark: What if the stars are actually subatomar particles of an universe bigger than ours?

Edited January 23, 2015 by InterCity

[Weebo]

Haha Awesome response! A rebuttal is inbound in about 9 hours after I get off work

[Captain Sierra]

Haha Awesome response! A rebuttal is inbound in about 9 hours after I get off work

Still holding out to read this.