[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 568x540, hologrraphic_principle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11121897 No.11121897 [Reply] [Original]

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.

>> No.11121920

>>11121897
>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.
"I don't know what entanglement is or how it works but, worry not, I'll use it as a proof of my bullshit".

>Maybe space is an emergent phenomenon just like time
Since when is time emergent?

>>Virtual Particles
>Though its existence is to be debated
"I anything about virtual particles or even what that means but, worry not, I'll use them as proof of my bullshit".

>And virtual particles could be explained by decomposition of an underlying informational reality
That's bullshit and you know it. Well... Actually no because you don't know what virtual particles are....

>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.
So, according to you, the second law of thermodynamics is emergent but at the same time it's fundamental? That means that either (or both) of your definitions are wrong

>> No.11121964

>>11121920
Lot of assumptions you got there about me buddy.

>> No.11121971

>>11121920

Make sure to tell mommy all about how you schooled that random guy on 4chan later over dinner.

>> No.11122024

>>11121964

He's right though you appear to not know what you are talking about beyond maybe watching some meme youtube videos, quantum entanglement is not the receiving of information but inferring information from a change that occurs, no information travels faster than the speed of light and quantum entanglement (well it's applications that I bet you are thinking of) has 0 to do with information speed.

He is right about time too, it isn't just something humans made up to understand the universe that doesn't really exist.

We already know what virtual particles are, I know I am a bit out of touch but since when are they to be debated?

You talking about consciousness is rather weird here to be honest, we know the physical interactions that occur when you taste smell etc. Now why do people react differently again we know fairly well what causes this (variance within chemical make up etc.)

You don't understand the laws of thermodynamics I don't think, you especially don't seem to understand what entropy is, as for reversing entropy, well you need to study entropy to know why this isn't how the universe as a whole works.

Shit I only have a basic understanding of these concepts and can tell you why you are wrong, you can say oh you know more therefor you can prove me wrong but you make clear you don't know shit.

In fact you remind me of a book I once read called "the problem with physics" or something along those lines, the author believed he could show how Einstein was wrong and how did he do this you might ask? Well he used thought experiments to show how light isn't constant, despite the fact we know it is etc.

>> No.11122028

>>11122024

Speed of light*

>> No.11122032

>>11121897
Back to /lit/ brainlet you know nothing

>> No.11122098

>>11122024
>no information travels faster than the speed of light and quantum entanglement (well it's applications that I bet you are thinking of) has 0 to do with information speed.

sigh, please read my post carefully.
I never claimed quantum entanglement is about information transfer. What I meant was bell's inequalities are violated and that is in itself a proof that there is some kind of process that doesn't depend upon space therefore un-necessitating its relevance in this context.

Secondly, virtual particles WERE and ARE debated to exist because there are valid alternative explanations for the casimir effect.

Thirdly, I guess you need to study entropy. Entropy, more specifically the second law was first derived analyzing a heat engine. There is nothing about the dynamics of classical particle physics that dictates a collective behaviour ie reluctance of particles with more KE flowing from a colder region to a hotter region spontaneously.