In quantum mechanics, particles do not have a definite state unless they’re being observed. Many theorists have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how you explain this. One explanation is that we’re living within a simulation, seeing what we need to see when we need to see it. . . .
The universe is also pixelated—in time, space, volume, and energy. There exists a fundamental unit that you cannot break down into anything smaller, which means the universe is made of a finite number of these units. This also means there are a finite number of things the universe can be; it’s not infinite, so it’s computable. And if it only behaves in a finite way when it’s being observed, then the question is: Is it being computed? Then there’s a mathematical parallel. If two things are mathematically equivalent, they’re the same. So the universe is mathematically equivalent to the simulation of the universe.
Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.
If we believe that our simulators are willing to punish/reward people for certain behavior within the simulation, we should try to figure out what behavior they are going to reward and act on that. Thus, knowing that we are very probably living in a computer simulation should have a profound effect on the way we lead our lives.
Hmm. Not sure how serious you're being, but it's something to think about. But wouldn't our programmers also have to live in a matrix of their own? Then the makers of that matrix would have to have another of their own, etc, etc. Infinite regress problem, I think.
As for you and your hubby thinking the same thoughts, that's a pretty normal thing for people who have lived together for a long time. And for him to focus on the chores that he'd left undone longest would just seem to suggest that he was aware of having neglected them and didn't want to let them go undone too long.
If I did have a programmer, though, I'd like to have some words with him/her about this crappy memory and fading eyesight. And this tooth that keeps bugging me.
The metaphor of a "Matrix" like reality is to an extent valid but weak.
There are no "programmers", there is no "Universal computer", no processing in a timeless uncreated ultimate 1 order reality.
This reality at base level is motionless, timeless, it has 1 single dimension with all information patterns in a sequence.
At best if you want to stick to the matrix analogy, reality is pure software without hardware.
A finite digital 1 dimension string of orderly information. A huge pattern.
As someone with a Physics degree I have to tell you that description of Quantum Mechanics is completely bogus. The person who wrote that has certainly never studied Quantum Physics (and it is possible he hasn't ever taken any Physics classes). He is just spouting nonsense pieced together with jargon you might find in a mass media account of some journalist's account of what a scientist once said in passing.
That being said, these are two different questions. There is nothing in Physics that suggests we are living in a simulation... but then again there is nothing that proves we aren't.
So speculate away (preferably without the bogus pseudo-science).
...oh I write lots of bull, am far from wise, or really knowledgeable, but every now and then I make a couple of good points, even if very poorly expressed as English is not my native language...
....nonetheless if I had to bet my neck on something I said this would be one of the subjects on which I think my view is slightly more "advanced" then the current explanation scientists themselves provide...its not that I am saying something very different but I am very careful looking for a self consistent explanation.
This one goes straight to the point and its more recent:
Have you considered the possibility that you might be misunderstanding the guy on the video? He is trying to give a layman's view of a highly mathematical science, and you are taking his summary overview of the field and interpreting it through your own beliefs. There are three layers of abstraction here.
If you want to understand Quantum Mechanics then study the mathematics. That way you are actually studying the science rather than relying on your understanding of someone's quick overview of their understanding of the science.
I did study Physics. The quote on the first post on this thread is nonsense.