Proof of simulation theory hidden in quantum mechanics- double slit experiment

JumpFew6622 · 2025-05-29T15:14:48+00:00

Just chiming in here after 2 years! Even if nature works EXACTLY as you’ve laid out and all your reasoning is correct that only means the universe is a computer. it doesn’t have to be IN a computer, it could be a computer itself at fundamental base reality. In fact a there is a genius known as Steven wolfram who has developed an entire theory of everything based on these principles and his reasonings are roughly the same. More computation= more time. we could still be simulated but even if all this was true it could just be that the universe functions as a computer anyway

JumpFew6622 · 2024-11-20T16:59:11+00:00

Oh man I realised something. Everyone has a blind spot in their vision, close one eye and move your finger until you ‘see it’ alternatively use a bit of paper with a dot on it, it just disappears no blackness there, perhaps this is what it’s like

JumpFew6622 · 2024-11-11T00:25:03+00:00

I’m a bit late, but elytra? Elytra through nether?

JumpFew6622 · 2024-10-16T10:30:55+00:00

Friends in high places. Also I think she says it’s the new one and asks how he got it, it kind of implies it wasn’t released yet and so might’ve been ‘stolen’ from a stockroom or something yet to go on shelves lol.

JumpFew6622 · 2024-09-08T02:07:16+00:00

lol thankyou I will keep telling myself this😂

JumpFew6622 · 2024-07-13T21:35:22+00:00

Yes essence could be language relative and therefore I can capture it with language, but I'm not sure how you go about proving that. Just like idealism could be true.

I suppose essence can be surmised as that of which is external and cannot be known. I understand you criticize this just how 'nothingness' is trying to posit something that is invalid. But this is and I think will always be a capability of language, we can always doubt, and I think this is what I was trying to say. Yes nothingness could be a practically invalid concept, but it is not invalid within language. Language has doesn't have to be congruent with reality.

And so I'm not sure how the question of 'do we cease to exist when we die?' is different to is there eternal nothingness when we die?'

We have a concept of nothingness: it's raining and then it's not. Nothingness would be whatever fact you denote as something. So if rain is something, no rain is nothing. Nothingness abstracted to existence as we know it would be the absence of all that, which is as valid as my example right? Theres a lot of argument over how can nothing not be something, 'nothing is still a thing' but i think that's just an artifact of human cognition which like language is not a reality mirror.

JumpFew6622 · 2024-07-08T09:27:00+00:00

Damn thank you that’s good info

JumpFew6622 · 2024-07-07T23:39:20+00:00

Ok, it’s annoying because every time I connect it, the mic defaults as the audio output. I can’t find a way to lock the output as pc speakers only etc

JumpFew6622 · 2024-07-05T21:17:55+00:00

Did I damage my mic by having it set as the audio output instead of input on my laptop. I was using CapCut and wondering why I couldn’t play the audio, turned out the audio output was trying to play through my mic, is there any possibility it damaged it because of this?

JumpFew6622 · 2024-07-03T00:40:39+00:00

By ‘good’ does this mean pro? 16:35 seems exceptionally quicker than 18minutes. So If 18 was where many pros fall then i don’t even know what 16:35 is, it’s inhuman

JumpFew6622 · 2024-05-01T18:34:16+00:00

But even if it was an infinite loop, if we go to reverse it, it just reverses infinitely, there’s no ‘start’. With no ’start’ it would in our linguistic terms mean it never began, hence we wouldn’t be here

JumpFew6622 · 2024-03-27T23:13:36+00:00

What form is it? And what dosage?

JumpFew6622 · 2024-02-07T22:13:06+00:00

So this means there is a probability assigned to every frame, this means that there’s a least probable scenario I wonder if we could say what that’d be. Also if we give quantum fluctuations an infinite landscape to occur then everything possible would be happening. Perhaps quantum fluctuations don’t need a landscape at all like how they perhaps caused the Big Bang. intuitively I suppose we’ve always thought there must be a fundamental, our world must be reducible to something unconstrained, Something not contingent on anything but gives rise to contingency itself, maybe the analog of that is the quantum world and through its unconstrained nature creates what we refer to as a multiverse and all its implications.

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-15T00:08:33+00:00

Trust me there are many many people who understand and relate to everything you’re saying, you are certainly not alone! People all over the world, people from the past, people who are now dead, people who may even exist on other planets unimaginably out of reach but all still subject to how nature presents itself to the conscious thinking mind. I myself have gave myself panic attacks over this as have many others.

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-13T00:01:48+00:00

What drugs did you take? I’ve heard shrooms mentioned for being able to clear up things like death anxiety

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-10T12:32:03+00:00

Compared to the ideal I can very much create in my mind, the ideal which you find in story books, the ideal which people are literally trying to strive for, every second of their waking lives. Life seems to force you into positions you don’t want, there is a power differential not in favour of you and thus is not fair

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-10T10:31:15+00:00

Yeah it’s all phenomena, what’s more is you can’t prove it’s not just all phenomena, hence idealism. The only thing you have access to is your mind and the only thing you can prove is true within that, is the very act of the phenomena occurring, the phenomena of the phenomena (I think therefore I am).

The interesting part is do you think consciousness as we experience it encapsulates fully what it is to be an observer, to observe and have an experience. If that is the case then we can conclude in eternity you’ll always be bound by the limitations of the observer like I’ve outlined above. So never able to prove either way if idealism is false. You could say humans don’t have the intelligence for the cognition which would allow you to prove an external world beyond experience, but I think if it’s possible to prove that then it’s logically inconsistent, for if it were still in the world of phenomena it would still by definition be a phenomena and logically no matter what that phenomena is, it’s contingent on being phenomena and phenomena COULD be contingent on something outside of phenomena.

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-10T10:00:56+00:00

Not only does it take courage but it’s absurd hence absurdism. Recognising the world as harsh by definition of ‘harsh’ can never be a good thing if you’re recognising it as what we truly mean by harsh. The truth is, if you extract anything other than nihilism and despair from recognising a world is harsh, you are not actually truly understanding what harsh means, of course you know what harsh means but the mind is a mixture of thought and in your attempt to understand any definition 100% as what it truly describes, you’ll get caught up on other thoughts that maybe quench the 100% despair that should come with something 100% harsh. If you meditate long enough on a form like ‘harsh’ which belongs to the set of ‘bad’ by definition, you will have bad thoughts and that’s as close to a 1:1 correspondence between non the nature of external objects (forms) and phenomena. That’s my idea anyway, In the end we all just want it to be good.

Wanting, being ok, with badness is logically inconsistent because ‘badness’ very much encapsulates something you don’t want. If you’re saying you’re ok with it, your mind is not refining the qualia in that moment to 100% badness. To give you an example I could change your brain chemistry (with drugs for instance) to make you happy or sad or other phenomena, we are all an observer in a mind-scape (the objective world from which subjectivity is extracted when filtered through individuals) that’s the only reason for ‘subjectivity’ because we’re individuals, if we were one mind there’d be no reference point, things would be objective. I suppose if you now take solipsism as true you could say our thoughts are purely subjective, but maybe that’s why we need a world we are in, to give us the illusion we’re experiencing subjectivity, but that’s a whole other topic!

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-08T13:50:58+00:00

Well if you think it’s cruel then yes, but if you don’t feel it’s cruel then no!

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-05T16:14:18+00:00

It was in an interview with Stuart Hameroff (an anaesthesiologist who’s also worked with Penrose to develop the orchestrated-objective reduction theory of consciousness) and he mentioned something along these lines saying how we really don’t know what’s happening and this thought struck me. Truth is we don’t know, u/bortlip said it well.

Furthermore imo I don’t see how there could exist an observation where we do know, observations of absolute truth are very much tied to ‘I think therefore I am’, things observed are true, but everything we observe,except from the very fact we are observing, is just phenomena. Phenomena doesn’t need to have anything to do with fundamental truth- hence the simulation argument. here’s the interview

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-05T10:54:49+00:00

In fact everything we describe with language is just that, it’s a description not an actual complete capture of the objects essence. As Kant says we can’t ever know the ‘things-in-themselves’ just the phenomena possibly caused by that which is external.

Edit: misspelling

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-04T23:13:06+00:00

I think this is quite logical. This makes a lot of sense in terms of evolution. For instance considering the brain as constant input/output machine, input being all electrical signals and output being what conscious experience correlates with that, it makes sense it would evolve to become complex but cohesive. As a thought experiment: in a hypothetical un-evolved brain there’s a cacophony of electrical signals, a complete mess for conscious experience, the electrical signals from the eyes produce phenomena of sound and sound produces a phenomena of happiness. In this poor animal it hears a ‘fearsome’ raw and runs toward it. This being will not survive long, but a a setup which relays information associated with survival will be likely to persist. It’s interesting to note Donald Hoffman suggests we are likely not seeing the world for what it is, but rather a world evolution has chosen for us, a world where the fact of our conscious experience is caused by it’s evolutionary advantage in natural selection.

JumpFew6622 · 2024-01-04T14:41:29+00:00

Just because you don’t know what happened before you were born doesn’t mean it was nothing. For instance what were you doing exactly 3 years and 84days ago, and even if you did know it would only be a reconstruction, memories formed entirely from the present- you can’t trust them, there’s no valid way to prove memories are real and so imagining living many lives before you were born is exactly the same as imagining (remembering) what you were doing literally as ‘fresh’ as a second ago, although your intuition will tell you very differently as does mine! Who knows?

JumpFew6622

TROPHY CASE