Have science prove that we live in a simulation? And is this proof of an afterlife?

[Drvladivostok]

I don't really have the scientific qualification to explain this but the 2021 Nobel prize for Physics have been given to four people that just prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe is not locally real.
Watch this video:

Bassically particles' behaviour are only set to a concrete position when we measure them. This reminds me of how games work: It only renders what you see.

So I suppose when a tree fell down in a forest without an observer it doesn't fall at all.

Slightly peering toward philosophy some Nepali Mystics have been ruminating over this, if senses can be manipulated via halucinogens therefore our senses cannot pinpoint concrete and absolute reality.

The conclusion that these mystics have made and that the one Schrodinger ultimately concede is that reality is merely a realm of possibility and data and physical observation is what makes those possibilities fall into a concrete position.

I don't know about you but this makes religioun and spirituality more appealing to me.

"We are all dreaming, when we die we wake up".

 

[Black Rose]

This reminds me of how games work: It only renders what you see.

This is a misnomer.

I understand how computers work so it is not really like this in that people say only what is rendered is what is happening but this implies no transistors are doing actual work computing the results in matrix multipliers. The insides matter just as much as the outsides. This is why a teraflop computer can calculate more matrixes than a gigaflop computer.

The truth is that when objects interact they become observers themselves so all particles in the universe interact with some kind of another particle and are doing "observations" also.

A physics engine inside a computer is interacting with itself and that is why those computers with more internal interactions have more computing power. Otherwise, it would only take 2 to 3 transistors to play Halo 3 which is not possible.

If a tree has 1.0*10^28 atoms then the number of observations taking place would be in pico seconds or 10^43 wave collapses a second. These are internal to the tree itself, they happen inside the tree not just when we look at the tree. The confusion is to think of the tree as a single particle when it is actually 10^28 atoms all interacting together with themselves.

 

[saucer]

While the video offers gifts to theoretical physics, applied physics, and formal logic, that Nobel prize didn't get awarded for proving that we live in a simulation nor for proving that there is an afterlife.

I mean, come on man. Didn't you see the wizard at the end "fuck around & find out"?

Anyway, that at least some features of the quantum world observationally operate interdependently such that even the constant speed of light appears violated makes intuitive sense to me, as where it comes especially to light, everthing we observe around us changes in color as the Sun appears & the disappears from the sky -- nevermind that we see things differently when using different types of electrical lighting, magnifying glasses, telescopes, etc.

 

[Cognisant]

Every time astronomers encounter some new phenomenon that they weren't expecting someone suggests it might be aliens, so far across decades of astronomy and astrophysics research it has never been aliens, but the question always comes up. Now I'm not saying aliens are impossible but when we do find them it'll probably be something plainly obvious, like us building a better telescope and spotting exoplanets with active biospheres or an alien ship dropping out of warp right on our proverbial doorstep.

There won't be a debate, we'll look up in the night sky to see a giant artificial looking thing next to our moon and when we turn to the scientist in the room he'll shrug and say "yeah that's probably aliens" and everyone will lose their fucking minds.

Likewise if physicists ever conclusively prove that we're living in a computer simulation or that reality is subjective and the afterlife is real, it won't just be a pop-sci article or a click-bait youtube video, there will be PROFOUND implications and not just theoretical implications, I mean the "we just figured out how to open the command console" kind of implications.

Given that this discovery has no practical implications, it only proves that light interacts with filters in an unintuitive way, which is interesting certainly, but beyond that it doesn't really mean anything.

Theoretical physicists are a lot like programmers, they have their own lingo which uses words from common language but "real" in the physics sense isn't the same as "real" in the philosophical sense, much less the layman's understanding of "real".

Personally I don't follow developments in theoretical physics because the more I learn about it the better I understand that I have no idea what the fuck they're on about and I'm not willing to spend the next five years of my life learning the math necessary to even begin to truly understand.

 

[Black Rose]

if the universe was a cube that cube would contain 10^90 cubic centimeters

one centimeter contains 10^99 bits

Together a simulation of the universe would be 10^189 bits a second

10^215 calculations since the big bang.

-

Elon Musk and Nick Bostrom say that there would be billions of ancestor simulations.

In reality, there would only be one. And it would be a local simulation, not the entire universe.

In all likelihood, this simulation would happen inside Jupiter or Saturn.

 

[saucer]

I've questioned & argued with others about the rationale for quantum computers as an inventable thing (I don't see it) -- that any state for quantum bits due to interdependence with observation renders the quantum bit itself equivalent to a typical computer bit in the end.

See, Schrödinger's cat argument is ultimately rendered a (1 or 0) rather than (1 and 0) when determining the actual state of the cat or bit.

However the nugget of excitement contained in the experiment's finding is that ENTANGLED quantum particles do intesting things.

I.e., instead of a single Schrödinger's cat we need to imagine two entangled Schrodinger's cats. When we open one box at one end of the universe and the other box at the other end of the universe to determine the informational state (i.e., whether they are dead or alive) of the two entangled cats, we discover that our observations of their states are related -- that one cat's life or death state appears to inform the life or death state of the other cat due to their entanglement with one another.

So what does quantum entanglement mean? What does that relationship mean besides that the relationship isn't limited by the speed of light? Is that the reason for research into quantum computers, to instead use entangled quantum bits instead? Does any of this this solve the [if observed, then (1 and 0) becomes (1 or 0)] problem for quantum bits?

Do I even understand quantum bits at all? Do I understand Schrödinger' cat model? Do I understand anything at all?