Thought you may like it Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C. Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped. This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". (the rpm should be revs/sec of course)
Stolen from another group
Started by ●October 15, 2014
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/15/2014 9:55 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:> Thought you may like it > > Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C. > > Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped. This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". > > (the rpm should be revs/sec of course)Uh, what does that have to do with the speed of light??? -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:30:23 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote:> On 10/15/2014 9:55 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: > > > Thought you may like it > > > > > > Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C. > > > > > > Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped. This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". > > > > > > (the rpm should be revs/sec of course) > > > > Uh, what does that have to do with the speed of light??? > > > > -- > > > > RickI think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from.
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 12:09 AM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:30:23 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote: >> On 10/15/2014 9:55 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Thought you may like it >> >>> >> >>> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C. >> >>> >> >>> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped. This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies.. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". >> >>> >> >>> (the rpm should be revs/sec of course) >> >> >> >> Uh, what does that have to do with the speed of light??? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Rick > > I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from.Except it doesn't explain diddly... also, 2c is not a sample rate, but a speed. Not the same thing at all. It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no consciousness. If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* consciousness exists, I am feeling it. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 01:29:41 -0400, rickman wrote:> On 10/16/2014 12:09 AM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:30:23 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote: >>> On 10/15/2014 9:55 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Thought you may like it >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality >>>> is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know >>>> if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant >>>> clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a >>>> "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of >>>> light, C. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than >>>> light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what >>>> happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe >>>> light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash >>>> frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once >>>> it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the >>>> flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster >>>> than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate >>>> equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped. This >>>> is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies.. This is >>>> the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is >>>> called the "Nyquist limit". >>> >>> >>>> >>>> (the rpm should be revs/sec of course) >>> >>> >>> >>> Uh, what does that have to do with the speed of light??? >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> Rick >> >> I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this >> universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of >> course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming >> from. > > Except it doesn't explain diddly... also, 2c is not a sample rate, but a > speed. Not the same thing at all. > > It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only true > consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone > else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no > consciousness. If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. > The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. > Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* consciousness > exists, I am feeling it.Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:29:41 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote:> On 10/16/2014 12:09 AM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:30:23 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote: > > >> On 10/15/2014 9:55 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thought you may like it > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know if anybody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" within reality, defined by the constant speed of light, C. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happens when a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flash frequency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fan will appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past half the flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Once the fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appear to have stopped. This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards in movies.. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording and what is called the "Nyquist limit". > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> (the rpm should be revs/sec of course) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Uh, what does that have to do with the speed of light??? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Rick > > > > > > I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from. > > > > Except it doesn't explain diddly... also, 2c is not a sample rate, but a > > speed. Not the same thing at all. > > > > It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only true > > consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone > > else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no > > consciousness. If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. > > The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. > > Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* consciousness > > exists, I am feeling it. > > > > -- > > > > RickVery clever. But is there any way to empirically test this hypothesis? Indeed, there may be. In a recent paper, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation," the physicists Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage outline a possible method for detecting that our world is actually a computer simulation. Physicists have been creating their own computer simulations of the forces of nature for years -- on a tiny scale, the size of an atomic nucleus. They use a three-dimensional grid to model a little chunk of the universe; then they run the program to see what happens. This way, they have been able to simulate the motion and collisions of elementary particles. But these computer simulations, Professor Beane and his colleagues observe, generate slight but distinctive anomalies -- certain kinds of asymmetries. Might we be able to detect these same distinctive anomalies in the actual universe, they wondered? In their paper, they suggest that a closer look at cosmic rays, those high-energy particles coming to Earth's atmosphere from outside the solar system, may reveal similar asymmetries. If so, this would indicate that we might -- just might -- ourselves be in someone else's computer simulation.
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 3:10 AM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:> Very clever. But is there any way to empirically test this hypothesis? > > Indeed, there may be. In a recent paper, "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation," the physicists Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage outline a possible method for detecting that our world is actually a computer simulation. Physicists have been creating their own computer simulations of the forces of nature for years -- on a tiny scale, the size of an atomic nucleus. They use a three-dimensional grid to model a little chunk of the universe; then they run the program to see what happens. This way, they have been able to simulate the motion and collisions of elementary particles. > > But these computer simulations, Professor Beane and his colleagues observe, generate slight but distinctive anomalies -- certain kinds of asymmetries. Might we be able to detect these same distinctive anomalies in the actual universe, they wondered? In their paper, they suggest that a closer look at cosmic rays, those high-energy particles coming to Earth's atmosphere from outside the solar system, may reveal similar asymmetries. If so, this would indicate that we might -- just might -- ourselves be in someone else's computer simulation.Is this leading into a debate on rounding methods? -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
This all is leading to MATRIX type reality.Everybody living in this world,is nothing but running a simulation of Matrix(this world) on his\her computing Device(Brain)..it seems more possible because spiritual mystics also talk about awakening where one gets awakened to the illusion this world is.When one becomes aware that one is part of bigger program,one gets enlightened and i guess that’s what happened with Buddha and he chose to remain silent on possibility of existence of GOD.The Matrix is borne out of external agent not part of this world. You may chose to call it GOD or ET, it all remains to be explored and i think its possible to know the Real Reality as science advances more and more particularly so on Quantum Physics>On Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:29:41 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote: >> On 10/16/2014 12:09 AM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: >>=20 >> > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:30:23 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote: >>=20 >> >> On 10/15/2014 9:55 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote: >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> Thought you may like it >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> Some scientists are actually attempting to determine whether reality=>is a computer simulation by looking for certain clues. I don't know ifanyb=>ody else has thought of this yet but the most significant clue, if you ask=>me, is that there appears to be evidence of a "sampling rate" withinrealit=>y, defined by the constant speed of light, C. >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> Nothing can actually be observed to travel at a velocity faster than=>light because strange phenomena occurs which is identical to what happensw=>hen a fanblade spins faster than half the speed of a strobe light flashfre=>quency or even at the speed of a strobe light flash frequency. The fanwill=> appear to slow down the faster it goes once it's RPM rate gets past halft=>he flash frequency (for example if the flash frequency is 100 Hz then once=>the fan starts spinning faster than 50 RPM it appears to slow down). Oncet=>he fanblade rotation rate equals the flash frequency the fan will appearto=> have stopped. This is why tires sometimes appear to spin backwards inmovi=>es.. This is the basis behind "sampling rate" in digital recording andwhat=> is called the "Nyquist limit". >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >>> (the rpm should be revs/sec of course) >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> Uh, what does that have to do with the speed of light??? >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> -- >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> >>=20 >> >> Rick >>=20 >> > >>=20 >> > I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for thisu=>niverse simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Ofcour=>se c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Except it doesn't explain diddly... also, 2c is not a sample rate, buta=>=20 >>=20 >> speed. Not the same thing at all. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the onlytrue=>=20 >>=20 >> consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone=20 >>=20 >> else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no=20 >>=20 >> consciousness. If I were part of a simulation it would explainthat.=20>>=20 >> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me.=20 >>=20 >> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my*consciousness=>=20 >>=20 >> exists, I am feeling it. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Rick >Very clever. But is there any way to empirically test this hypothesis? > >Indeed, there may be. In a recent paper, "Constraints on the Universe as a=>Numerical Simulation," the physicists Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi andMa=>rtin J. Savage outline a possible method for detecting that our world isac=>tually a computer simulation. Physicists have been creating their owncompu=>ter simulations of the forces of nature for years -- on a tiny scale, thes=>ize of an atomic nucleus. They use a three-dimensional grid to model alitt=>le chunk of the universe; then they run the program to see what happens.Th=>is way, they have been able to simulate the motion and collisions ofelemen=>tary particles. > >But these computer simulations, Professor Beane and his colleaguesobserve,=> generate slight but distinctive anomalies -- certain kinds ofasymmetries.=> Might we be able to detect these same distinctive anomalies in the actual=>universe, they wondered? In their paper, they suggest that a closer lookat=> cosmic rays, those high-energy particles coming to Earth's atmospherefrom=> outside the solar system, may reveal similar asymmetries. If so, thiswoul=>d indicate that we might -- just might -- ourselves be in someone else'sco=>mputer simulation. >_____________________________ Posted through www.DSPRelated.com
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
after I updated the simulation engine last week, my virtual scientists started to make real progress in disproving causality :-) _____________________________ Posted through www.DSPRelated.com
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:09:00 AM UTC-4, gyans...@gmail.com wrote:> I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from.i don't see where he's coming from. it he said the sampling period of reality is the Planck Time (so Nyquist would be about 10^43 Hz - actually i would suggest normalizing 4*pi*G to 1 rather than just G), *then* i would see where he might be coming from. r b-j
