Wow it is surprising and quite refreshing to see this kind of discussion going on.

The brain (our human brain) has been often described as a computer. Let's say it is an organic computer, because it seems to be made of living tissue.

As much as we think we know about the brain, I don't think science has a clue about consciousness or how we produce a single thought.

We create reality and three dimensional space when we dream, and we do it with or through our brains or thoughts and perceptions. (Consciousness is not clearly understood yet.)

Who is to say that this reality is not created or projected by some kind of massive brain or consciousness in the same way we create our own dreams?

We'll know once the measurements are taken.

I think the universe is one big yellow pill of sexual stimulation for some bigger beings.

That's what i think these days. Those days I used to think we were part of a team in an intergalactic competition, pushing for the longest and stinkiest passing of a constipated movement.

The possibilities of what to think are virtually endless.

Einstein said, I think, once, that "the boundaries of imagination are only laid where the power of imagination cannot extend any farther beyond." Very true.

Really? Would you care to explain how we will know once measurements are taken?

Why don't you just follow the link I posted in post 1 of this discussion? It's all explained there.

God, you are so tedious.

I have read the article several times. I don't understand how we will know anything once the measurements are taken. You appear to know, and if you do I would like you to explain it to me.

I want to understand what we will learn (about our robot overlords) if we take the right measurements. Then where would we go from there?

We'd know everything you talk about is probrbly right. So, keep your fingers crossed.

Not really. IF they did get the measurements, (and they claim they have the technology to do so) then they will have one tiny new bit of information about the nature of reality.

And they would probably start building a simulated universe, but they would still have a long way to go.

Being able to say we can measure the difference between a non-simulated reality and a simulated reality necessarily depends upon our capability to know how perfectly any future computational framework may or may not simulate reality.

I am skeptical of our ability to know what frameworks can ever be used as computational systems no less what properties they provide.

Me too. I am also very skeptical, but then I don't understand the science of that article.

My thoughts are that measurements are not as important as replicating the actual structure and function of a universe.

For us to create a simulation of a universe the same size as this one yes, we would have to match all the measurements, but to create a universe simulation of a smaller size we would have to miniaturize everything. That might not be possible.

I for one am very skeptical that any measurement could be made that would show our universe to be a simulation. It must be remembered that if any "bugs" were to turn up in the software such that we measured an anomaly in our (virtual) universe, it could simply be corrected and spacetime reset to "before" the measurement, so that the bug is never detected and the illusion can continue without suspicion. (or the universe could be adjusted such that the measurement is never made). This may have already happened many times and we would never know.

As for having to replicate an actual universe of the size and complexity that this one appears to be, that also wouldn't be necessary. All that would be needed is to create the appearance of one, so the software/hardware required is not as extensive as you might think.

Maybe it "really" is a paper moon against a cardboard sky.

Perhaps our own universe is simply "the appearance" of one.

That's what I'm thinkin'. Leastways, I don't think it's provable that it isn't a virtual "reality."

I think what they will discover, if they get that far, is that it is a projection from a (group) consciousness that has formed a group mind.

This mind operates collectively and is made up of frequencies, vibrations, and energy. These frequencies are the "brain" that projects what we observe as "reality."

Its original form is flat or one dimensional like a holographic picture is flat. The frequency of "light" projects these pictures (thought forms) into a vast three dimensional (simulated) dream-like reality.

I call this "The Universal Mind." It contains everything, including all alternate realities, all spacetime, all dimensions.

***************************************************************

REALITY AS A SYSTEM:

David Bohm views physical processes as determined by information of more and more subtle levels which interact, and does not limit this consideration to matter alone. In an article of 1990, A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter, he resumes his view that there exists a close link to mental processes: "the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter".

In his view, mental processes as well can be understood as representing levels of activity of increasing subtlety which act upon each other. He recalls that thought is intricately connected with physical reactions, as is known from everyday experience. Yet on the mental side, action as response to information need not be immediate; rather, in some cases at least, it can be mediated by "suspension" of physical action and the resulting train of thought. Bohm suggests that the mental and the physical sides, which he sees as two "poles" of a unified whole, are closely interlinked and that "at each level, information is the bridge or link between the two sides".

A relationship between the mental and matter may exist at indefinitely great levels of subtlety, while nonetheless each kind and level of mind may have a relative autonomy and stability. His article concludes with the statement that "knowledge of matter (as well as of mind) has changed in such a way as to support the approach that has been described here. To pursue this approach further might perhaps enable us to extend our knowledge of both poles into new domains".

I tend to concern myself with what is provable and there is nothing I have found to be logically provable beyond the fact that "something" exists. Needless to say, this forces me to make a LOT of unsubstantiated assumptions just to get through my day. LMAO

On the "plus" side, I tend to be extremely skeptical and tend not to believe something just because somone with some "authority" asserted it. I like Bohm and enjoy his argument, but I feel he and many others might be missing a few crucial details in trying to form an image of the way things are. I try to reason for myself what might be the "true" nature of nature, but like the rest, I too am likely missing some very crucial details. As things come up that contradict my worldview, I try to incorporate them to the extent that my whole view could change. Fortunately, empirical science seems mostly in harmony with it, though my view that all existence is a fractal seems to have fallen out of favour with the majority of the scientific community over the last few years.

This is where I part company with the general scientific view, as I believe they were trying to model the universe on a particular definition of fractal (that falls short, observationally speaking) which may in the end prove to be an incorrect assumption (i.e. the wrong one).

This last statement pops out suddenly as truth and I know very little about fractals but I think the structure of the universe could be built this way.... and thus infinity and the spiral of the fractals become part of the growth and structure of reality.

that was pretty enough

So, basically it's an attempt to create an accurate model of the conditions prior to the Big Bang?

TS, if this is a stupid question, I apologise, for I've never studied theoretical physics.

If my first question is correct, I'm still at a loss how the simulation would demonstrate that the actual universe is itself, another simulation created by a giant Jellyfish named Dennis. At best, it could only prove that it may be a possibility, but not a fact.

Whatever, the case, I don't see the results having much impact on our lives except for providing silly plots for equally silly movies.

Another explanation could be that it's a joke.

Simulation by What or Whom?
And,if the Universe is a Simulation,then we would be as well!
Kind of difficult for a Simulation to grasp they live in a Simulation!