[ TSUKI / chat ] [ home / rules / news ] [ b / lfe / meta ] [ ukko ]

/b/ - Random

Off-topic general board
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1543111617336.jpg (54.55 KB, 1008x720, 1517639817808.jpg)


I'm sure that many of you have trouble believing in the idea of Systemspace. I fall into this category too, and I want to believe, I really do (yet, that obviously sets up some conscious bias in results that I will have to do my best to ignore). However, as a theory that puts forth some understanding into the idea of consciousness, I think that shrugging it off would be foolish, since the question of consciousness is largely unanswered, all theories should be assessed in the same way.

I've read the wikipedia entry on scientifically validating the Systemspace Theory, but I found it to be full of conjecture. If anyone has any possible ideas on how to approach validating the theory, please post it here.

Anecdotal evidence is good, too, but I would like anyone to refrain from suggesting that their anecdotal evidence alone is a good proof for the Systemspace Theory. Collecting anecdotal evidence from several different people may point us non-believers in the right direction for validating the theory scientifically.


Author of that article here. Not my proudest work, and if it wasn't featured I'd have it deleted.
So anyway I found this interesting paper on how the simulation theory can be proven: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058
Something to do with the wave-particle duality. I am not a scientist, but what I'm getting from this is that they'll use the double-slit experiment but only record it some times. The idea is that a system with finite resources would only show things as observers detected it.


Apologies for my remark on the article, it's a good attempt but I found it somewhat hard to read, and the hypothesis for the causes of various phenomena you detailed were a little too unsupported, probably due to it being fairly brief.

That looks like a very interesting paper. I can't read it right now, but I'll take a look at it later. I'd be willing to believe in the Systemspace theory if simulation theory could also be evaluated to be at least somewhat probable under scientific scrutiny.

Quantum mechanics puts forth a really interesting vector of consideration. Finding some kind of structure in reality that could represent a system designed to preserve resources would definitely be a good step. Luckily, we do understand what kinds of structures to look for, in how reality behaves, since many algorithms are completely mathematically perfected and are the best choice for any system looking to preserve resources.


My personal theory is that quantum mechanics is a "hack" the creator of Life put in in order to simplify calculations, sort of like the fast inverse square root. Or it could be a bug where the normal Newtonian physics laws break down after certain variables like speed are too high, like the Minecraft Far Lands.


>comparing quantum physics to minecraft


File: 1543201520800.gif (1.84 MB, 500x281, s u r r e a l.gif)

Not a quantum specialist or anything, but you might be right, in that it is used to simplify calculations.

Quantum mechanics, if I understand correctly, would imply that there is a finite amount of information in the universe. Which is characteristic of a computer simulation.

Dark matter is one point of speculation within the scientific community as well. If we assume that dark matter is responsible for much of the warping of space-time, could it be that dark matter could be linked with aurora? According to the Systemspace Theory, our system is using too much, which could be the reason why the expansion rate of space-time has consistently been observed to be constantly increasing. Aurora could be interacting with our system in such a way that it affects our space-time.

This is all conjecture. I don't have the time or the anything to do anything more with these ideas.


The fact that energy, (and therefore by extension matter) is quantized leads me to think that this is how Life keeps track of matter. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that while we ordinary people can easily conceive of a world where particular rules of quantum physics are different, quantum physicists who understand how these rules are derived from self-evident physics and mathematical laws cannot, just like we cannot conceive of a world where 1 + 1 is anything other than 2.


The people who wrote that paper set up a Kickstarter to fund their experiments on proving simulation theory. Not sure if it is going anywhere, though.


[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ TSUKI / chat ] [ home / rules / news ] [ b / lfe / meta ] [ ukko ]