I think that there’s nobody that wants to engage the topic of simulation theory because it would logically implicate that there is a simulator or program running the simulation?
I think a piece of evidence for simulation theory is that we can break down all matter and life into basic 3D components (atoms). When we run simulations on computers that visual simulation is all based on 2D pixels.
You mean like there is something behind the pixels? Graphics software, GP processors, graphics processors, S and DRAM memory, programmable memory, a PC board, a key board, passive components, a power supply etc.
What does all this have to do with what a character in the simulation sees? If we are in a simulation we are characters in the simulation. Whats behind the curtain is not visible to us.
Thank you very much for providing the insightful video. The first very interesting thing to note is that equations of error correcting codes that are used in browser systems in information technology and software are also identical to the equations that the theoretical physicist would encounter when studying leptons and quarks. Very interesting piece of mathematical evidence that is relative to the quantum realm, although I am aware that correlation does not imply causation necessarily especially in light of quantum mechanics. It is still interesting to note either way thank you for the video.
This is based on Gates study of super symmetry theory. I have seen similar claims in quantum gravity theory from Erik Verlinde.
In 2010, Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.
There is a debate between Erik and the dark matter advocates on what best explains the observation of stellar motion. Cree Edwards, an acquaintance, produced a movie called Chasing Einstein that is about this ongoing debate.
There is a link to an article from the Scientific American about a statistical probability of simulation theory and also features one of the panel speakers from the video that you provided, theoretical physicist Zohreh Davoudi from M.I.T.
No, I don’t mean that. Computer simulation is not necessarily visual. Visual simulation is usually based on 3D components, which are then projected onto 2D displays.
Thanks for confirming that you know nothing about either computer simulations or graphics modelling.
→ A 3D world is made of those same pixels. And these 2D pixels are great for showing a 2D virtual world. But they don’t make sense in 3D space.
You know why? You can only make a three dimensional grid of pixels in a three dimensional world. So they could probably show it, but it wouldn’t make sense.