/sci/ - Science & Math

Doesn't all evidence point to the feasibility of this reality being a virtual reality as opposed to a real reality. I know it sounds absurd but lets look at the evidence.

Quantum Entanglement works regardless of distance and though it is known that no actual information travels FTL, the very fact that this phenomenon has no regard for space puts question whether it actually exists and has meaningful causal roles. Maybe space is an emergent phenomenon just like time, in human consciousness that evolution shaped to help us make sense of the world. If reality is indeed information, then we should instead be studying about the laws that information behaves.

> Information cannot be without substrate. It needs something to be etched upon.
How true is that? I mean what even is information? All we know it could be a giant superposition till something pops out of the randomness and carries away this information.

>Virtual Particles
Though its existence is to be debated, the fact that QFT works is enough evidence for me to accept its reality. And virtual particles could be explained by decomposition of an underlying informational reality

> The failure to explain consciousness in terms of physical processes: If there's anybody still waiting for a physical theory of consciousness, I'd like to ask them why. There is no way you could explain the 'sweetness' of sugar on my tongue in terms of chemistry. The two paradigms are totally different. Taste is not a fundamental. And the fundamental particles carry no notion of 'taste'.
One might say 'well emergent phenomenon has properties that are not seen in the constituents'. For example: consider thermodynamics. We have laws of thermodynamics emerging from motion of particles. there is no law about the motion of particles that forbids entropy from reversing however we know that is not the case. But if you ponder deeper, we can come up with a statistical theory of particle momenta that explains it.