The Earth Doesnt Exist

Pantysoaker's picture

What If the Earth Does Not Exist?

anybody who thinks it does is an idiot

3.666665
Average: 3.7 (6 votes)

Comments

RaiThioS's picture
Beta Tester

You humans keep thinking about this shit and you're going to get a reboot

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Don't know how Elon Musk is coming up with the probability. 
Neither do I find the concept "frightening". We will most probably (and I won't put a figure to that) never find out if it atually were the case..... 

 

But thinking about the erdogans, trumps and -what's the brasilian cunts name?- suddenly popping up everywhere is a little like putting a virus or malware on a computer so that the game becomes a little more exciting for the player/spectator. I can see that.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
RaiThioS's picture
Beta Tester

My only question right now is this. If this is all a simulation then why the fuck is some guys pitpulls that live 5 miles from here always in my fucking yard? I live on top of a mountain. Those dogs have to climb two different mountains to end up here... Is it a bug?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

Nick Bostrom is a brilliant guy, but his simulation argument is flawed by his own standards.

 

The way he argues for future events, which is a good way to make those types of arguments, is that you don't use subjects, technology or ideas that have not come to fluition yet. Seperating science from science fiction. Only use what we have successfully created in a first step of sorts, then we can attempt to accurately predict future renditions and their impact on society.

 

And since we haven't separated the difference between creating a realistically looking video game simulation and creating an actual reality simulation, still using the same words for both, the meanings are still intertwined though they are completely separate matters and should be held to completely different standards. The closest thing to a real life simulation is virtual reality, that attempts to fool the brain to experience and react to experiences simulated virtually, but it never completely convinces someone that they are living inside another reality. Another example is simulated scenarios, which are growing increasingly popular as entertainment, i.e zombie invasions, war simulation etc. Even battle reenactments. But none of them attempts to simulate real life at an extended period of time, years or even lifetimes. Saying that realistic video games are proof of our path to a inevitable simulated reality, is the same as saying that a realistic painting is proof that we are all living inside a frame in some museum in a super intelligent civilization.  

 

Same goes for A.I.

Today there are many things we call Artificial Intelligence, but they are not the same nor even close to a thinking feeling self-aware consciousness. We don't even know what a consciousness is. Nor have we created a computer that is successfully able to convince us over longer periods of time that it is human. The Turing test is a brilliant concept, yet there is no real example of where we, human beings actually failing it. During war times, perhaps someone could be convinced that a sequence of codes were actually written and transmitted by a human, but given enough time and enough transparency today, that would not happen. And video games are the perfect example of that failure, and video games are at the peak of that field.

 

Nick Bostrom makes the argument that a super intelligent optimization process is what we should fear. But we have yet to produce a super intelligent optimization process. Nor do we know the limits of our own intelligence. We have certain ways to figure out roughly a value, IQ, to find out how able a person is to perform certain tasks at different difficulties independently, but it's still not a perfect measure of intelligence. Stephen Hawking even discounted IQ as a good measure of intelligence as do many other high IQ people in science and academia.

 

The smartest move a "dangerous" super intelligent optimization process could do(i.e acting against our intentions) in order to destabilize society is to shut everything off. Or even make us believe that everything is shut off.

It wouldn't have to use any resources to exterminate large portions of the human population, because we would do all the dirty work. Shutting down or destroying the systems(that today are computer controlled) which provides everyone with clean water would start epidemics worldwide in matter of weeks, because bad hygiene is the biggest reason for diseases spreading around the world.

 

We may produce computers, algorithms or intelligent processes that perform certain tasks faster than us, sure. But they have yet to outperform us in most of our fields.

 

Another thing is that we count ourselves as intelligent, and have yet to find another intelligent civilization seperate from or own, extraterrestrial or otherwise capable of creating a realistic life or world or universe simulation.

 

So if you make an argument out of an incomplete definition of your problem, you are bound to fail, no matter how far your speculation goes, or how logical it currently seems based on past or current events.

Though the activity might produce new things good for society or even help avoid other crises, it won't actually predict future events accurately.

 

The problem with knowing all this, is that we don't know the consequences of using so many resources on something that probably won't happen, instead of using all that time and those resources on an accurate prediction using accurate definitions between similar sounding subjects that are not actually linked.

 

That's the scary part about all this.

 

Nick Bostrom made a great argument that is hard to argue against.

Though, not a discovery. Not a scientific principle based in physics. Not a repeatable experiment.

And now everyone is following that argument down the rabbit hole, using billions of dollars and years of their time, even many sleepless nights on it because technology has caught up with our language. And that's a problem.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

I'm all for the simulation theory, but I'd leave the computer out of it. Most likely we don't live in "base reality", but that doesn't mean this reality has to exist inside a computer.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
username's picture

Oh god, not another misinterpretation of the double-slit experiment....

 

When people sling around the word "observation" willy-nilly like this you can justify the most illogical bullshit

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

How would you interpret the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment? 

https://youtu.be/hSRTvKgAs9c

 

It also raises the question of how does the particle "know" if it can be measured or not and seemingly doing it retrocausally.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

Particles doesn't know a damned thing. The problem with the double-slit experiment is that the act of observing the interaction where a particle becomes a wave or not, is that you need light to observe it. It doesn't matter how low amount the light you have, it will still interfer and cause the wave "interference" pattern. If you have no light you can't record the event.

 

From this they concluded that since it is physically impossible to observe the event,  it must mean that it "reacts" to the attempt of observation, which has confused many people and physicists alike, into believing that the observer theory is about the universe actively trying to hide something, implying a form of consciousness or intelligence in the fabric of reality itself.

 

It's actually like trying to throw rocks in a still lake and not to cause a ripple, while simultaneously expecting the reflection of the landscape to stay intact.

 

Some physicists are going: That's peculiar. We tried our best. And if we try our best and fail, there must be intelligence behind it acting against our intentions. And that must be our greatest discovery yet.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

Did you watch the video? See how the experiment is set up.

You can get no interference pattern and an interference pattern when the particles are essentially doing the same thing. The only difference between the two is in one case we know the path the particle took and in the other, we don't know.

Nothing from the particles perspective should be different in either case, yet it acts differently when we know vs when we don't know the path.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

There is one significant difference between the two experiments, and this has nothing to do with light being needed to observe the experiments as suggested further above: 

  • When the result is a interferencepattern the photon is unobserved whilst passing the slits
  • When the photon is actually observed by a photon detector the pattern changes.

 

As in the latter case the photon triggers some sort of reaction in the detector (i.e. they interfere with each other) it cannot simply be assumed that the photon is unaffected by the detector, even if we cannot identify (yet) how. It also cannot be assumed that the photon simply somehow "knows" it is onbserved.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

The experiment I posted is just a more complicated double slit experiment. The principle is the same. As far as I know, the double slit experiments don't use light to observe particles / photon. They only have a detector that detects light (the photons that are shot through the slits).

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the photons always interact with the device in the same way. They all bounce off some mirrors and end up in a detector every time. The only difference is that in some cases we can know which slit the particle took and in others, we don't know and this determines if you get an interference pattern or not. You can't pin it down on just measurement causing it, because the same measurement is done every time. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
RaiThioS's picture
Beta Tester

Has anyone tried to trick the photon? Make the deflector plate detect collisions!

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

@backdraft: "... the same measurement is done every time"

 

Not according to the video you provided.

 

As the "observed/unobserved" was a crucial part of the experiment, was it not?

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

A measurement is done every time, but the "which slit information" is only known about half of the time.  When we don't know the path the photon took, we get an interference pattern. So the question is how can the photon "know" when that information is available to us? Nothing in the measurement changes with the known and unknown paths (except a few more mirror bounces in some cases)

 

Whats even more of a mind fuck is the way the experiment is setup that the measurement is done before the which path information even exists.   

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Yeah, didn't watch the video to the end earlier because I thought I remembered correctly. I did not. 

They even say it can't be explained (yet). I don't think other scientists "don't have the balls" to explain or "simply ignore" it, though. Probably they are more patient than Campbell and wait until they have more than a hunch or hypothesis, if you wish. One might as well say "nah, god did it".

I also find it interesting that he published a book rather than a scientific paper (or did he do that too, and if yes what did the peer review result in and why isn't it part of the video at hand?), which is usually done to cater for the fanboys rather than the scientific community (suspicious observers did a similar thing recently albeit for an even smaller group of people and despite being completely aware of the scientific process and how to issue a paper, btw).

I don't think any of us here is competent enough to have an educated opinion on the matter.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta Tester

I'm pretty neutral what conclusion he draws from the experiment. It's just one idea.

What ever the case, I think the results of the experiments are enough to leave you wondering just what the hell is mother nature up to.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I would agree with that. What makes me suspicious, though, is when "scientists" publish books rather than papers (and I mean "in lieu" fo rather than "in addition to, so the dumb public also understands").......

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

I've studied physics but quantum mechanics is where I've always drawn the line. This is my level of understanding of the double-slit experiment:

 

As for the instant communication thing, that sounds great but we still need much faster servers before I can fuck infidels up with no lag.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask's picture

Well it's an accurate understanding according to what they're saying.

 

But for no reason I'm going to say they're wrong just to be able to say "I told you so" if that ever turns out to be the case.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down