/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15493662
>Or like literally every other thing we've ever seen it's a stochastic system and states are determined "non-locally" in the sense that the sum of the system produces mere apparent randomness locally.
All causation is non-local, in this case non-local meaning coming from processing "outside" of the physical (virtual) universe OR coming from none local agent causation free will awareness unit choices which act as an input device in an interactive/participatory programmatic way. The computer that computes the reality can not be within the virtual spacetime that is resultant of it's own computation. The computer MUST logically be "non-physical" from the point of view of those immersed in the reality, see pic
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
The computer ends up being a mind/consciousness by the way, of which we are individuated units and clients of this all mind server which beams experiential data streams to the individuated minds/observers which creates an immersive experience which gives us the first person shooter vantage point we experience AS IF we were located in a head in a body operating in an observer independent matter based reality. Our minds are actually in the same (non-local) realm as the all mind, outside of the virtual space.

>>15483197
>or something outside of that other reality in turn
>if you say, "well god/that reality can just exist, okay??"
This is false. As explained here
>>15483361
The are argument is that there is something outside the PHYSICAL spacetime reality, being that it began. Physical reality can not initiate itself, as this would mean it had to exist before it's own beginning, which is illogical. The initiator must be non-physical (ends up being a mind) or "supernatural" or outside of or non-local to the the spacetime nature.
>you are wrong
Nonsense. You just don't have a good hold on the facts of the matter.
>reality exists because it chooses to exist
You are conflating physical reality with ultimate reality. Physical reality is a subset of a larger reality. You sound like you went down the false langan route. Langan got his physics from john archibald wheeler, who was brilliant, but he was wrong on his idea that the universe is the computer. The computer can't be in the same reality that it outputs. see pic. Wheeler picked no. 2
>Calculating universe: Supporters of the idea that some sort of calculation creates physical events include main-stream physicists like Wheeler, whose "It from Bit" statement implies that processing (bit) somehow creates physical things (it). Now processing doesn't just model the universe, it causes it .
The reason this is illogical
>option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself.
The computer can not be a product of it's own computation. The output (physical world) is CONTINGENT upon the computer, the output (physical world) is not ITSELF the computer of itself. This is silly and illogical. Chris langan is right about many things, but wrong with regards to cosmogeny.

>>15133520
>what the next position of each atom will be? the information for that must already exist, aka it already 'knows'.
Yes, this is done by calculation/computation and then the value is defined and rendered to the observer. This is not done by the universe though, see picrel.
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
The universe is the output. It doesn't 'know' anything and causation is coming from outside of the virtual spacetime of the reality, hence why bell type correlations don't have to obey constraints on spacelike separated data objects see here
>>15130257
>notions of locality and distance defined within the simulation do not constrain the action space of the system performing the simulation (i.e. from the perspective of the system performing the simulation, changing the values of variables
All points are equadistant from the processor. So the distance is VIRTUAL distance. And so the universe doesn't 'know' shit. Consciousnesses know things, NOT the virtual data stream that the consciousnesses interface with, ie the physical world in this case, see pic, specifically
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
There is no middle ground.

>>15133699
whoops here
>>15133759
the pic related is in this post

>>15112598
You can't put exactly 1/3 water in each glass to an infinite amount of decimal places. This is an idealistic, non -physical procedure. Matter is quantized and so there would not be the same amount in each. There would be a positive natural number for each minimal finite element. There are no infinite anything in the physical world. No infinite divisibility, no continuousness, no analyticity. None of that. see here
>>15112275
This is why everything blows up when you try and go below the planck length by the way. It's a processor overload. It's pixelated down there.
You confuse the math model with the physical reality. These continuous math models have utility because the planck length, for instance, is so small that the models make useful predictions down to a non--arbitrary resolution and limited decimal places. There is a minimal delta t of time as well, see pic.
And none of this infinite/continuous/analytic stuff could ever be verified either using measurements upon the experiential/sensual datastream, ie it could not be confirmed empirically. This is a metaphysical claim. I am fine with this myself, being that I am an idealist and platonist and not an empiricist, and I don't believe that the physical world is fundamental, but derivative, so this infinite/continuous/analytic stuff could be grounded in mind, the all mind, god, platonic realm, whatever you want to call it, but it's not physical.

>>15113246
If you are interested in how our probabilistic consciousness based virtual (informational) physical reality works and how the freewill awareness unit (consciousness/player/observer)'s choices fit in to this, see vid here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMImjFYZ1iY&list=PLQ0PXV3djGQuZJpC99bd6cZIOLnz1BV-w&index=32
He talks slow, so speed it to x1.5
So every Δ of planck time, a random draw from a prob distribution of possible future outcomes is drawn then update. Of course, some outcomes are more probable than others. So the sun is going to continue on it's EFFECTIVELY deterministic course. There is some non-zero chance that it will tunnel across the universe from one refresh to the next delta t of time.

>>15033808
So our universe, what we call physicality is number 3. But it's not one where every value of ever particle and every microdynamical event etc has to be calculated at every second every where in the universe at all times. This is retarded. None-of the consciousnesses immersed in the reality can see down that far, nor can their instruments in many cases. And even when they do demand such resolution, you only render the effect of what WOULD be PROBABLE to be down at that resolution. So you just have to render clicks on a geiger counter. You don't have to render the thing that is supposed to be causing the click. Just the clicks. And with photons, you don't have to ever actually render a photon to create light, just the effect, any more than you have to render photons for light in a dream, which is another consciousness generated virtual reality. You render the EFFECT.

>>14828761
Here's a good start with regard to related info. This one is from the perspective of a bottoms up, microcausal simulation, which is not the most efficient with regard to processing power needed. Still of interest though if you want to pursue this subject.

The Physical World as a Virtual Reality
https://brianwhitworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Quantum-Realism-Part1.pdf

>>14816283
>Planck units define the limitations of our mathematical models
Yeah, the continuous/classical models will of course break down including GR and spacetime, as they have in all cases, ultra violet catastrophe, photo electric effect etc, as I said here.
>>14816066
The continuous models are approximations that have utility in certain situations and certain scales, but they are not describing fundamental reality, which is discrete/digital.
>reality does not operate with numbers
This is your metaphysical assumption. Mine is that it is both calculable and calculated and computable. I believe number 3 in picrel to be the case
>it does not think with ones and zeroes
True, the physical universe does not think at all. It is an output of processing. Spatially organized computational (virtual) objects don't think. They don't even have observer independent existence. The only thinking things related to the physical universe are the consciousnesses immersed in the gameplay, which are outside the virtual space and only interface with the spacetime through immersion.

>It can't be subdivided into discrete parts unless you are willing to do so infinitely.

There is a resolution. The planck length volume pixel. And yes, it's true that you can't divide forever. There is no half a pixel. This is an argument in my favor. There are no zeno's paradoxes. In digital physics.