[TheMoon (OP)]

Simulated Reality

When thinking of a simulated reality, one’s first reaction might be to reject the idea as something of a fictional foundation. People believe many things on principle; these are the characteristics given to us by parents, then by society as we move into some system of belief, be that Christianity, atheism or science. But the idea that we live in a simulated world is much too simple. For reality may well be a computer translation – even if that reality never began until humans invented computers! The idea is not a new one. According to mathematician Hanz Morovec, the universe may be perceived as the existence of a simulation. This philosophical hypothesis was first published in 1998. But while the idea that we live in a simulated world is exciting, the subject has been a focus of scepticism. Those who are sceptical imagine some kind of sci-fi scene, but the truth is the hypothesis is just a way of looking at a system that standard physics attempts to describe. When we play a video game, we know there’s a difference between what’s happening on-screen, to what’s happening off-screen. But while everything we perceive has been picked up by the senses, we may be fooling ourselves if we exclude the possibility of simulated reality based on a single argument. It’s possible to create computer simulations. And unless – while we’re doing it we have become separate from the universe, then it’s possible for the universe to create computer simulations. The question is, how many virtual dimensions can we recreate that allow us to interact without the psychological separation; that is the separation between what we think reality is. When we watch television, we’re able to suspend our belief of reality. Temporarily, we are fooled into believing we are somehow in the picture and the earliest examples are seen in books. Hanz Morovec wrote, “Is the Mount Rushmore monument a rock formation or
four presidents’ faces? Is a ventriloquist’s dummy a lump of wood, a human simulacrum, or a personality sharing some of the ventriloquist’s body and mind? Is a video game a box of silicon bits, an electronic circuit flipping its own switches, a computer following a long list of instructions, or a large three-dimensional world inhabited by the Mario Brothers and their mushroom adversaries? But to recreate ourselves within a simulated world is not so simple as to cancel the observations that cause us to be psychologically separated – if, in the simulation we are to be conscious observers. The simulated world would be subject to its own laws and in cancelling any ability would leave us entirely within those laws where conscious observers need not exist. It’s by realizing the separation between various aspects of ‘reality’ that make us who we are; and so, in linking to any other set of laws, we would need a separate link for an ability to ‘see.’ Visual Symmetrics attempts to address the problem as it addresses time-travel, through the means of consciousness. Physical time-travel seems impractical so far as perception goes, because the time-traveller, in order to accurately visit a point in time, would a) need to have adequate altered perception, b) need to have the adequate biological alterations. But in time-travel, just as in moving to a simulated reality we would be unwise if we were to cancel any perception in an attempt to gain accurate results, since there would be no way to return to our normal environment. The exploration of the possibility of time-travel is a good way to highlight problems of being able to move into simulated reality. To say we could accurately time-travel using unaltered perception, would be equal to say we could move into a simulated environment and remain exactly as we are now.

[alancalverd]

What we will be attempting to address in this part, is how sense perception governs the whole of reality.

Stop right there, my friend. Perception demands a perceiver, and sense perception, if it means anything at all, demands a perceiver with a neural system. As far as we know, the observable universe is a lot older than any neural system, and neural systems evolved from the elements of the universe, so reality governs perception, not the other way around. 

The problem with experimental data occurs as a problem with perception.

Wrong.There is never a problem with experimental data. Like it or not, the result you have is the result you got. What distinguishes science from philosophy is the humility to begin with the world as it is, not a preconception of how it should be.

one would not normally look at the sea and define it as a bunch of H2o particles.

unless you wanted to ask why it is a liquid, why icebergs float, what accounts for its extraordinary heat capacity, its ability to dissolve ionic solids, or indeed almost any question about its remarkable behaviour and characteristics.

I suspect you have fallen into a fairly common trap of taking a jargon word from physics - "observer" - and assigning it its colloquial meaning of a sentient (usually human) being. That's the first step on the path to selfdelusion. The second step is imagining that the "laws of physics" are something imposed on nature: the fact is that they are no more than discovered mathematical approximations to experimental data. 

[TheMoon (OP)]

I always entertain the idea of the stubborn, push/pull of psychological and physcical reality.  Psychological reality is physical; and on the other hand, the data one extracts from the universe becomes the individual reality to the extent that it is a universe in its own right.  I believe that if one does not entertain the idea of both forms, but rather, takes reality to include that which one mainly can't see, then it seems an arbitrary argument, however, I have still made my point.  Reality, whether the individual believes it to be made up mainly from that which one can't see- is a concept and as such belongs to the perceptual domain.

[TheMoon (OP)]

In order to obtain more accurate results, measuring apparatus should be close to osscillations as possible.  The limits of how close the measuring apparatus can get, is a limit to perception. The oscillations one can't account for degenerate into the observable system.

[alancalverd]

Hail to the next leader of the Liberal Democrat party! A thousand beautiful, meaningless words, and not a shred of evidence.

[TheMoon (OP)]

I don't think there is any clear evidence; but I think there are some strong analogies between the nature of the mind and physical reality.  On the subject of the degeneracy of hidden variables, Einstein's theory of relativity, Group theory and Fourier transform have not been stirred due to my interpretation.  I also point out that the true test of such hypothesis is whether the system is able to replicate an unspecified observable and again I see no flaws relating to this, nor Einstein's theory of light, Group theory or Fourier transform.

[alancalverd]

I'm so relieved that you have found no flaws in group theory or the Fourier transform. It would be a shame if a century of crystallography, aeronautics and electronics was based on unsound mathematics. As for relativity, I'm sure a generation or two of accelerator engineers, astronomers and navigators will appreciate your endorsement. If you have a moment, could you also perhaps take credit for abolishing the national debt and curing cancer?

[TheMoon (OP)]

I clearly said my interpretation left no flaws, meaning if it had, my interpretation would have been incorrect.  Neither did I find flaws in the english I used in expressing that statement.  Did you.

[alancalverd]

Can't say I was looking to criticise your language, just poking around trying to make sense of the physics.

[TheMoon (OP)]

A less arbitrary interpretation of hidden variables takes less into account the hidden variables themselves in order to grasp further the local aspect.  Suppose the actual entanglement with regards to particles is with the photons and the relation of a supposed entangled pair of particles has to do with their individual negative or positive relation with the photon, rather than with each other.  I mean, if one takes an object and suppose that the only reason, so far, one is unable to verify the relation between local (observable)  and non-local (the other side of the object at the other end of the universe) is that the light only allows us to see the local half.  We are assuming that the object, which include entangled photons take up the whole of space.  The local half of the object has particles at a distance the length of the observable. These behave as entangled pairs at an infinite distance apart,  but for the reason they do not occupy the whole of space and therefore differ from the previous interpretation.  In this interpretation, the only real entangled pairs is a point at a local side and a point at a non-local side. Note, however, not in this interpretation to be an entangled pair.  That is, one of the particles shares a positive relation to any single photon present at angle, while the other particle shares a negative relation.  For instance, if one observes a point at one angle, then the entanglement of the point and photon are related by the angle at which the photon allows us to observe the point and the angle by which the point is seen.    Concerning degeneracy, one could describe one entangled point at the cusp of observability as having a 1 relation to the photon and the point on the other side of the object as having -1 relation.  All points may be described as having consequent positive or negative relation to the photon.  Since the object takes up the whole of space can be confirmed via a measurement of such relations.  The difference between describing entanglement of particles , rather than entanglement of particle and photon is that one could not thus describe a local and non-local system, because photons would be classed as separate from the system, therefore the system could not take up the whole of space.