[alancalverd]

Repeating a meaningless collection of words doesn't add meaning. Simulation of the observation of what?

It doesn't matter what technique a simulator uses, it has to simulate a real system in order to be a simulator. That's just simple use of  language. So what is the real system of which you think we might be a simulation?

[Kartazion (OP)]

Repeating a meaningless collection of words doesn't add meaning.

Give me an example. You will not be able.

Simulation of the observation of what?

From what you see.

So what is the real system of which you think we might be a simulation?

I don't think it, I'm sure. By math Bostrom suggests we have a 50/50 chance of living inside a simulation. The real system is quantum. On the other hand, I don't know for the base reality.

[Kryptid]

So what are the scientific evidences in relation to evolution?

There are an awful lot: biogeography, genetic patterns (including those of endogenous retroviruses), patterns in the fossil record, and observations of evolution in real time.

This is to highlight that we have a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation.

Where do you get those odds from?

I don't think it, I'm sure. By math Bostrom suggests we have a 50/50 chance of living inside a simulation.

50-50 odds aren't at all being "sure" of something.

This is not reasoning worthy of a scientist. Don't let go.

Says the guy who states that physical evidence was planted by a higher being specifically to be a deception. If the dinosaurs are a deception, then anything can be a similarly-planted deception and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

[Kartazion (OP)]

There are an awful lot: biogeography, genetic patterns (including those of endogenous retroviruses), patterns in the fossil record, and observations of evolution in real time.

Yes evidence for evolution: anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, fossils,... are direct observations.

Where do you get those odds from?

50-50 odds aren't at all being "sure" of something.

From an equation. Google "Live in a Simulation 50 50 chance"

Says the guy who states that physical evidence was planted by a higher being specifically to be a deception. If the dinosaurs are a deception, then anything can be a similarly-planted deception and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

I agree.

[Kartazion (OP)]

______________

@Kryptid @alancalverd @Bored chemist @Colin2B and all - Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?

Thank you for your answers.

[Kryptid]

Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?

I don't dispute that it's possible, but I do dispute that it is probable.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 23:19:28

Simulation of the observation of what?

From what you see.

So I am a simulation of my observation of myself, which itself must be a simulation of my simulation observing ....er... a simulation of.....

No, my friend, a simulation must have an objective system to simulate. An observation is not a system.

[Kartazion (OP)]

... but I do dispute that it is probable.

Can you argue your position? Thank you.

No, my friend, a simulation must have an objective system to simulate. An observation is not a system.

Hello!! Hello!! Anybody home? I was talking about the simulation of the observation and not of the system. You are confusing my dear.

[Kryptid]

Can you argue your position?

Lack of evidence for us being in a simulation, I'd say.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Lack of evidence for us being in a simulation, I'd say.

However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation. It happens as soon as you see and observe matter.

[alancalverd]

No, wave function collapse is a mathematical simulation of an observed phenomenon. You have to start with a system, then develop your model of the system to generate predictions that accord with your observations of the system.

So, back to the question. If I am a simulation, what is the system that I simulate?

To go back a few paragraphs

the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics?

Quantum physics is a mathematical abstraction of the real world, evolved to correspond with our observations of it and to predict what happens next. It seems to work pretty well.

[Colin2B]

However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation. It happens as soon as you see and observe matter.

To add to what Alan is saying:
You are misunderstanding wave function collapse. The collapse represents a change of state or knowledge of the state. Trivial example, your friend is travelling to see you and at any time you can estimate the probability that they are at a position x, but when they arrive and knock on your door their position is known and the probability function ‘collapses’ to a definite value = certainly. A measurement/observation has been performed and you now know where they are.
Don’t make it more complicated by using an outdated and incorrect interpretation.

This appears to be more new theories than chat.

[Kartazion (OP)]

So, back to the question. If I am a simulation, what is the system that I simulate?

Everything you see. It's like the principle of virtual reality glasses. The simulated system is that of the atom and all the other particles.

@Colin2B I thought this wave function collapse was due to observation with the observer effect that occurs in quantum mechanics, such as the double-slit experiment. I really thought it was due to observation. Sorry since observation does not change the state of matter.

I stop this thread here.

Thanks for all.

[Kryptid]

However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation.

I don't see how.

[Kartazion (OP)]

However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation.

I don't see how.

Yes I made a mistake. I thought it was due to observation. Observation does not change the state of matter. Here is what I learn thanks to you. If the state of matter does not change under the effect of observation, then simulation is no longer possible.

[alancalverd]

Observation does indeed alter the state of the observed, and it isn't restricted to quantum mechanics. The "reflected photon" explanation of indeterminacy just blurs the essential simplicity of Heisenberg's insight, but the phenomenon is crucial to a lot of sociology and anthropology.

.

The simulated system is that of the atom and all the other particles.

So I am a simulation of myself. We covered this a few exchanges ago, and now it occurs to me that if I am a hazops simulator I should be able to rehearse my own demise and thus prevent it. No evidence of that, though many people have desired eternal life.
The performance modelling simulator could be handy in business: no need for tedious interviews in the real world because the real we can see how the simulated candidate actually does the simulated job, then choose the right guy in the real world, whereupon the sim guy gets an instant promotion. But that never happens either. 

[Colin2B]

Observation does not change the state of matter. Here is what I learn thanks to you. If the state of matter does not change under the effect of observation, then simulation is no longer possible.

Again, to expand on what Alan is saying:
Again you are misunderstanding the use of the word observation, but you are not alone.
Observation in QM would be better described as a measurement or interaction rather than the act of seeing/observing.
Imagine your friend knocking on your door, you observing (hearing) does not affect his/her state, although if you opened the door that observation is likely to stop the knocking.
Many measurements of physical systems requires an interaction that changes the state of matter. Take litmus paper, dip it into a solution and some of the solution will react with the paper and both will change to different states.
Every interaction we make is likely to make changes. Despite this, it is not a sign we are living in a simulation.

[Kartazion (OP)]

So I am a simulation of myself.

Yes. But I guess only the mind isn't and is rightly stimulated by the simulation.

Again you are misunderstanding the use of the word observation, but you are not alone.
Observation in QM would be better described as a measurement or interaction rather than the act of seeing/observing.

I integrate well the idea of ​​measurement in relation to visual observation. But can you please answer me this question : If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?

Thanks.

[alancalverd]

If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?

The photons don't know whether your eyes are open or closed, so how could they decide what to do? If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody to witness it, does it make a sound?
Much philosophical argument is based on the arrogant assumption that humans are important. In physics, humans are an effect, not a cause.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Could you please describe what this quote means: "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." — Albert Einstein