What's up man, I was thinking bout the universe n stoff lately so I thought, why dont I make a thread to gather more opinions about this.
Now I'm not a science head for shit bro, but I just wanted to share
So, there's an interesting theory about the fundamental nature of our reality,
which is apparently backed up by the results of a major scientific experiment
It's called the "double slit experiment", look it up if you don't know about it, it's quite interesting
anyway,
They had a shitload of tests and they concluded that the state of matter (from a cloud of probability to a singled out particle) was ultimatelty defined by the presence a conscious observer.
which is us in this case.
In the realm of credible theories
these results allowed the opening of some doors that no one in the scientific community dared to even mention before
To resume,
Even if it looks like it
It's extremely likely that our presence in this universe isn't as hazardous as you might think.
It originates from the mental realm, and not the other way around.
And the constraints we are living in are actually very similar to a simulation they said
You can simplify it by saying that you hold some part of the divine in you.
We have the source code embeded in us it's true, but it dont stop your ass from being dumb as a brick though
Isn't it interesting enough for you ass to post something about it?
Jeez
>>61275915
The double-slit experiment primarily demonstrates the dual particle-wave nature of light. It does tie into quantum mechanics, though, which does get pretty interesting. Philosophically I'm a mechanist, which means more or less that I consider all that exists to arise as a natural interaction of the fundamental laws of physics with the random assortment of matter that existed at the beginning of the universe. I.e, there is nothing particularly special about the "mental realm," in my opinion. This is supported by Occam's Razor, in that it is the simplest possible interpretation of things that covers all known experimental data.
>>61276051
With regards to the similarity between reality and a simulation, all meaning is derived from constraints. Things are quite literally comprised of the rules that govern them. I.E yes, there is no real difference between reality and a simulation, but that makes no difference to us. For all you know, the simulation began one picosecond ago and ends one picosecond into the future. You there is no objective proof from outside of reality that reality has ever existed or will ever exist before or after this exact moment in time. All data we can gather is gathered within the thing to which the data refers, IE reality, and is therefore subjective and self-referential. So it's impossible to ascertain whether or not reality is "real" but even if it is a simulation, and we found out, we would have no way to ascertain if the "real" reality outside of our "simulation" is itself a simulation or not. And this uncertainty would then nest within itself. Assuming the universe is finite, there is a finite amount of nested simulations that we can create, as to create a perfect simulation of something requires more real particles than exist within the simulation. But the amount of simulations above us is impossible to determine.
t. Mechanical engineering student studying astrophysics on the side, aiming for astronautical engineering.
Homosexuality is wrong
>>61276375
Yes, we would be manifest outside of this simulation, in the exterior "reality." But no, we would not necessarily hold part of the source code within us. If the simulation began at the big bang, which makes the most sense as for it to start anywhere else would likely be an incredible amount of work and not all that informative to a prospective simulator, and assuming the simulators use roughly the same coding system as us, we would just be large volumes of stored data, iterating and existing between ticks of approximately 1x10^-16 (more or less the smallest unit of time ever measured, so the smallest unit of time we know to exist) or less seconds - an amount of time less than 1 universal tick would be physically impossible to measure. The rules would be applied to us, our previous state would be discarded or permanently stored as a backup, and the new version created by applying the rules to the old version would be stored in its place. In the time between the attoseconds, we would cease to exist. Our reality is meaningless to us, but since we experience it through fleshy, woundable, hopeful eyes, we may as well try to find some meaning in it and have a good time along the way. Nihilism gets old once you get past the age of 15. But attributing anything to divinity is an intellectual shortcut that you should refrain from taking, as it cuts off some of the most interesting lines of inquiry that you can make. inb4 fedoratip.jpeg yes theological discussions are pretty interesting, but still, it's more fun to hold true to Occam's razor.
>>61277387
Thank you for this thoughtful answer bro, really appreciate it
so to summarize, you dont give that much credit to this mental realm theory?
>>61277969
No I don't, I'm afraid. I consider it part of the trap that many people fall into of believing that a person is more special on a cosmic scale than any other object in the universe. While reassuring, such an idea has no basis in the physical nature of matter and energy. A computer can be given input to produce an output, whether that output be a simple summation of numbers, a complex operation to determine weather patterns, or the movement of a robotic limb. There's no objective physical reason why a computer should never be able to control a human shaped, human sized, human-appearing body, learning and following the rules of humans to the point where it could not be distinguished from a human, right? The only limitation is our ever accelerating technology. So how, exactly, is a human brain different in function from a sufficiently advanced computer? It isn't. Instead of silicone and copper, we have cells and squishy bits. But otherwise we're no different, no more special. If you made a machine which could precisely copy something, down to the sub-subatomic scale, and gave it a person, and all it did was place particles in the appropriate positions to create a perfect replicate of that person, what would be the difference? A brain is, like a computer, just a particular arrangement of matter that, when it interacts with the laws of physics, happens to produce very specific outputs when given inputs. Instead of keyboards, mouses, and mics, we have eyes and ears, noses and skin. But we're still just input-output machines. Our mental realm is no more influential on a cosmic scale than that of the desktop pc I'm using to type this out on.
>>61277969
Also forgot to say but NP it's my pleasure :) after doing so much research and thinking it's nice to have someone who's interested. gtg now but have fun philosophising. Read some books on astrophysics and quantum mechanics if you want a real intro to philosophy, and learn exactly how computers work. It's a crime that advanced physics isn't taught alongside philosophy in uni.
>>61278522
last thing(s):
http://www.earthexplodes.com/comics/200/
http://www.earthexplodes.com/comics/283/
https://xkcd.com/505/
>>61278303
this is truly fascinating but also kind of depressing
so you're saying there's no nothing truly different between my ass and C3PO
>>61278522
>>61278757
Godspeed bro, I'll look it up
Thank you very much
wait so you tell me the world is in fact like the matrix ?
does this mean if i focus hard enough, i could *potentially* bend the spoon ?
if i focus hard enough ? i tried already t b h but without any success unfortunately
