[Origin]

Just to understand:

Does this quote:

Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur.

is different from:

... the atom makes the matter and that the evolution uses the matter to exist.

?

Yes, they are different.

Look at his statement:  "Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics", I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, but it sounds like you are saying quantum mechanics is somehow needed to understand relativity, which is not true.

Your second statement, "... the atom makes the matter and that the evolution uses the matter to exist", is trivially obvious.  It is just as useful to say breathable air is needed for animals to evolve.  Evolution is not about quantum mechanics, it is a waste of time and pointless to bring it up.

[Kartazion (OP)]

You just have to understand that evolution would not exist without the atom (quantum mechanics).

[Kartazion (OP)]

Understanding the atom won't explain evolution.

[Origin]

You just have to understand that evolution would not exist without the atom (quantum mechanics).

Why do you keep bring this up?  It is irrelevant.

[Kartazion (OP)]

To imply the illusory aspect of reality to evolution. Did you get it?

[Kartazion (OP)]

The illusory aspect of reality due to the rules of quantum mechanics due to the measurement problem eg. Schrodinger's cat.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Conclusion creation is a decoy and we are in a matrix.

[Origin]

To imply the illusory aspect of reality to evolution. Did you get it?

No.

[Origin]

The illusory aspect of reality due to the rules of quantum mechanics due to the measurement problem eg. Schrodinger's cat.

Stop babbling.

[Origin]

Conclusion creation is a decoy and we are in a matrix.

Ok, I get it, you don't want a serious discussion.  Bye.

[Kartazion (OP)]

To imply the illusory aspect of reality to evolution. Did you get it?

No.

That doesn't surprise me. You lack perspective, and your level of reasoning at the level of philosophy leaves something to be desired.

Conclusion creation is a decoy and we are in a matrix.

Ok, I get it, you don't want a serious discussion.  Bye.

You are ignorant of what we are able to understand.

Bye.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Conclusion: There is a 50-50 Chance that we are living in a matrix. A simulation of reality where the mind resides through.

Pick your side.


_______ Post Scriptum _______

There is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence is involved in evolution, and there is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence isn't involved in evolution.

No there isn't.  There is no evidence that there is a creator involved at all so how could there possibly be a 50 percent chance?
If I see an unidentified flying object, I guess you could say it is either terrestrial or an alien.  It is not a 50% - 50% chance it is an alien or terrestrial, it is almost a 100% chance it is terrestrial.

I agree, but you must reconsider your certainty.

- Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/
- Bonkers boffin claims there’s a 50/50 chance we’re living in a matrix. https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/12936810/do-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation-theory/

Pretty much every conclusion you came up with in your harmonic oscillatory thread was wrong.

I don't give you credit anymore.

1 - You didn't put any arguments on what you are talking about, and your friend catches you up on what you don't understand here.
2 - I'm not inventing anything, I'm just working on the uniqueness of the particle through a harmonic oscillator.
3 - No theory can match this oscillator and develop all the following points:
- Tunnel Effect
- Singularity (Gravitational)
- Zero Point Energy
- Antimatter
- Neutrino
- Radiation Baryon/Boson
- Dark Matter
- Hawking Radiation
- Quantum ChromoDynamics
- CP & T symmetry
- Time Dilation
- Dark Energy
- Quantum Vacuum
- Quantum Superposition
- Paradox
- and more

If you want to respond to this topic, please respond here.

[alancalverd]

Simulation of what?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Of the observation.

[Kartazion (OP)]

______________

The scientific community cannot ignore the facts raised by science itself. There is a math chance that we live in a sophisticated model of observational simulation. I understand that making this information official would not be without consequences. The scientific community should to clearly assert this possibility towards people.

[alancalverd]

So somewhere out there is a real me doing this, and I'm just simulating my actions. Why?

One reason for a simulator S is to predict the behavior of the real system R. Very handy for fixing Apollo 13, to pick one spectacular example. So right now your creator is remodelling  R in response to what I have done in S (otherwise S' won't be a true representation of R'). So anything I do in S will result in a change in both S and R, so I am in control of R. In other words the "real" world is now a puppet of the simulation. Which rather changes the implied meanings of simulation and creator.

Another type of simulator is used to train in hazardous ops without using live ammunition/passengers/whatever,  so we can handle the real world as if we were experienced operators. That makes a bit of religious sense if you believe in an afterlife, but it does mean that the afterlife will be damn close to this one, which is exactly what religion doesn't preach. Little point in S being a Cessna150 if R is an Airbus380, or vice versa, though IIRC Buddhism does suggest a progression through various levels of command and Judaeo-Christianity even confers wings on its graduates!

[Kartazion (OP)]

So somewhere out there is a real me doing this, and I'm just simulating my actions.

No. Eg. the argument posed by Bostrom suggests that we may be living inside a simulation.

One reason for a simulator S is to predict the behavior of the real system R. Very handy for fixing Apollo 13, to pick one spectacular example. So right now your creator is remodelling  R in response to what I have done in S (otherwise S' won't be a true representation of R'). So anything I do in S will result in a change in both S and R, so I am in control of R. In other words the "real" world is now a puppet of the simulation. Which rather changes the implied meanings of simulation and creator.

Another type of simulator is used to train in hazardous ops without using live ammunition/passengers/whatever,  so we can handle the real world as if we were experienced operators. That makes a bit of religious sense if you believe in an afterlife, but it does mean that the afterlife will be damn close to this one, which is exactly what religion doesn't preach. Little point in S being a Cessna150 if R is an Airbus380, or vice versa, though IIRC Buddhism does suggest a progression through various levels of command and Judaeo-Christianity even confers wings on its graduates!

Your post leaves me to think that you ignored the topic in force. Read this example below and ask me questions. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/109/htm or on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12254

[edit] @alancalverd I see you are a moderator. I thought I had to deal with experts. So do you troll? Or are you really innocent in this matter? I rather think that you want to discredit the simulation hypothesis which does not help your elite business. Being ignorant like me/us does not allow you to sustain the culture of ignorance on others. Instead give viable references and not personal opinions that suit you.

[alancalverd]

we may be living inside a simulation.

I repeat: simulation of what? If you can't answer that question, the hypothesis is meaningless.

[alancalverd]

I rather think that you want to discredit the simulation hypothesis

I presented a logical examination of the "simulation hypothesis" which shows it to be bunk. No expertise needed, just common sense.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I repeat: simulation of what? If you can't answer that question, the hypothesis is meaningless.

I don't know which of the two choices is more problematic. In 1 you simply have to buy a pair of glasses to see more clearly, or in 2 if you have been distracted. Indeed I have already answered your question here. But I repeat the context. The simulation of the observation.

I presented a logical examination of the "simulation hypothesis" which shows it to be bunk. No expertise needed, just common sense.

Yes, it's true. But you didn't follow the thread completely. Read this page carefully. This is to highlight that we have a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation. Here is the info to give to people. Secondly, there is the technique used by the simulator, the problem of which only you posed above. But it doesn't work eg. like those already used in aviation, because the one studied here comes from quantum physics (see video on the same page).