[Bored chemist]

You know this because?

Because the definition of the "Universe" is "everything".
Any children of the universe would be part of the universe.

[Bored chemist]

I think what I have to say is entertaining at the least, and possibly useful at best.

You missed it being annoying and misleading.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Because the definition of the "Universe" is "everything".

Unus ,duo, tribus; Latin for one, two three. You have a winner:). Cool (or frigus in Latin). I will in future refer to the Universe as the Multiverse. But wait, doesn't the multiverse a contain more than one universe? Maybe our universe will be a victim of natural selection in the multiverse and we will cease to exist.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You missed it being annoying and misleading.

No I didn't. This is your interpretation and you being typically anti-social. I suspect the bulk of the numerous viewers of the topic think differently. Who keeps viewing something that is annoying them?

[Bored chemist]

Who keeps viewing something that is annoying them?

People who are so annoyed by your errors that they want to correct them.
You have only been thanked twice, and neither of those was in this thread.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

People who are so annoyed by your errors that they want to correct them.

Or people who have a pathological need to bring down others.

[Bored chemist]

People who are so annoyed by your errors that they want to correct them.

Or people who have a pathological need to bring down others.

This is a science forum.
People can only bring you down when you post stuff that's wrong.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The base System object in my 3dAbstractions software is inherited by all higher-level system objects. For example the Race.System object inherits the System object. All of the states  and structures and functions of the System object are available to objects that inherit it. The System object is also declared "Must Inherit" meaning it cannot exist on its own.

It is quite possible that reality also works in this way. In other words, the System object is essentially a particle that we can never detect because it is a "Must Inherit" type and therefore cannot exist on its own. Given that the System object also contains a Central Object that is "Must Inherit" it is possible that the Central Object is the smallest particle in the universe (very likely a Preon).

Along the same lines, it is possible that a Higgs particle is a type of System object that is in turn in inherited by all massive particles. In other words, all massive particles are a type of Higgs particle.
 

[Bored chemist]

It is quite possible that reality also works in this way.

Possible, but unlikely.
It is remarkable conceited to think that the whole universe works in the same way that some bunch of apes chose to use computers.

In other words, all massive particles are a type of Higgs particle.

That's either untrue or unhelpful, depending on whether or not you allow random redefinitions of words.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

"Are Humans Smarter Than Chimps? Think Again" (https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/are-humans-smarter-than-chimps-think-again/). See also https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060801231359.htm and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

In my 3dAbstractions software, an App system is a special type of System. It is what runs a Microsoft App. In fact the 3d in 3dAbstractions comes from the structure of the App system.

The App system has subsystems Display, Data and Datastore, hence 3xD. Each subsystem has a dimension associated with it; Display -  3D, Data - 2D and Datastore - 4D. This has correspondent subsystems in Reality.

Display, Space
Data, Data
Datastore, SpaceTime

It is interesting to note that the universe can be simulated in a computer via 2 dimensional data. This is reflected in the Holographic Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle)

"The holographic principle is a tenet of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region"

We may experience Reality as a 3D projection of the 2D data located (possibly) in a black hole.

[Bored chemist]

We may experience Reality as a 3D projection of the 2D data located (possibly) in a black hole.

No; we can't. Because stuff doesn't come out of black holes.

But we may be experiencing reality as the 3D projection of an 11 dimensional universe.

[Bored chemist]

"Are Humans Smarter Than Chimps? Think Again" (https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/are-humans-smarter-than-chimps-think-again/). See also https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060801231359.htm and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism.

Thanks for that.
However, what I said was apes.

You still have to explain why you think the Universe  copies from a computer language you have learned about.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Ape, including Humans (98% Chimpanzee DNA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape. Ape is a genus not a type of animal. Gorilla, a type of Ape much nicer than many humans.

[Bored chemist]

Ape, including Humans (98% Chimpanzee DNA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Yes, I know.

The thing you seem unable to explain is why the Universe should use the same system as some bunch of apes.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

To those of you who are having difficulty believing the Universe might behave like a computer program, can I say that a computer program is part of the Universe (as are you) ergo the Universe behaves at least in part like a computer program. Another way of saying this is to state that a computer program is a capability of the universe. Given that computer programs are well on the way to becoming super-intelligent it can be seen that this is another capability of the universe. Thanks to us/evolution the Universe may well be on is way to becoming infinitely intelligent.

The more people use computer programs, the more  the Universe behaves like a computer program! It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we will manage to create personal Universes for recreation and learning that are all computer program (which leads to the fascinating possibly that I/you ARE this universe).

All of this is repeating what I have said previously in the topic. Hierarchical Finite State Machines are extraordinarily difficult things to get a handle on (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_tree_(artificial_intelligence,_robotics_and_control)), so It would no surprise me if the penny hasn't dropped yet. Maybe revision of the topic will help your understanding or maybe it is beyond your current skill level.

[Bored chemist]

To those of you who are having difficulty believing the Universe might behave like a computer program

Many, if not most computer programs are built to mimic the universe.
Of course they look the same as eachother.
But it's the height of conceit to imagine that the Universe looks like the software, rather than the other way round.

Maybe revision is the go for your understanding.

Would you like to try writing what you meant there in such a way that I can actually parse it?

Keep in mind though that I have been programming for 55 years and it is sometimes very hard to distill my theories/knowledge into easily-digestible chunks.

That may go some way to explaining why it's so hard to set you back on the right track when you go astray.
It may also explain why you think that your ideas are "right" when, at best, you can show that they are "possible".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There exist very similar bosonic and fermionic systems. A bosonic system has a central object of that can assume a single state only. A fermionic system has a central object that can assume multiple states. A bosonic system is basically related to events whilst a fermionic system is related  to data.

Actually, it makes a lot more sense to have Boson and Fermion System types. So, Boson.System and Fermion.System. These would have the "Must Inherit" attribute set, meaning they could only exist in "partnership" with "real" particles (or that they are particles in their own right but too small too small to detect). Similarly, there would exist Quark and Lepton Fermion types and Guage and Scalar Boson  types.

So:


Object
    Must Inherit

System
    Inherits Object
    Must  Inherit

Fermion.System
    Inherits System
    Must Inherit

Quark.System
    Inherits Fermion.System
    Must Inherit

UpQuark.System
    Inherits Quark.System

These are software constructs, and I suspect that the same or very similar relationships will exist in Reality. Irrespective, they would almost certainly form the basis for a software simulation of reality.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The future is here now and it is light. A light diode that works without using charge. https://scienceblog.com/509143/developing-technologies-that-run-on-light/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29

[Bored chemist]

The future is here now and it is light. A light diode that works without using charge. https://scienceblog.com/509143/developing-technologies-that-run-on-light/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogrssfeed+%28ScienceBlog.com%29

What they are talking about is-  as the article points out, A Faraday isolator. The novelty is that it's very small- which is interesting.
The Faraday isolator is called that because it was invented by Faraday in the 19th century.

It's hardly "the future".