… very misleading While I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that our universe (including us) could be a simulation, this video presents this idea as if it were established fact, often misinterpreting (intentionally?) the results of well-known physics experiments, as well as words such as “observe” and “observer”, to do so. For instance, within the context of various types of double-slit experiments, it demonstrates the “observer” as a human, with eyes that open at the same time the wave-particle duality…
Whereâs the meat? What I got out of this is: âUnspecified scientists think the universe may be a simulation, having found unspecified evidence to support this. So we asked a specific scientist to look into it. He looked at numerous unspecified facts and concluded that our universe looked more like a simulation than a real thing, but not for any measurable reasons we specify here.âIf I ever wrote a paper like that in college Iâd have been drummed out of the class. Iâll be honest, I didnât watch…
Interesting – but a little misleading. The romantic notion that merely observing the universe exerts a mysterious power, has led to a lot of nonsense science (and some pretty cool sci-fi I admit – metachlorians!?) However, A sentient observer is not required (just light will do) to collapse a waveform (to particle-like behavior) in quantum mechanic’s foundational dual slit experiment. It’s still very cool and confuses the metachlorians out of me.
Comments are disabled for this post.
The owner of this website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon properties including, but not limited to, amazon.com, endless.com, myhabit.com, smallparts.com, or amazonwireless.com.
){kind=link}
… very misleading While I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea that our universe (including us) could be a simulation, this video presents this idea as if it were established fact, often misinterpreting (intentionally?) the results of well-known physics experiments, as well as words such as “observe” and “observer”, to do so. For instance, within the context of various types of double-slit experiments, it demonstrates the “observer” as a human, with eyes that open at the same time the wave-particle duality…
Whereâs the meat? What I got out of this is: âUnspecified scientists think the universe may be a simulation, having found unspecified evidence to support this. So we asked a specific scientist to look into it. He looked at numerous unspecified facts and concluded that our universe looked more like a simulation than a real thing, but not for any measurable reasons we specify here.âIf I ever wrote a paper like that in college Iâd have been drummed out of the class. Iâll be honest, I didnât watch…
Interesting – but a little misleading. The romantic notion that merely observing the universe exerts a mysterious power, has led to a lot of nonsense science (and some pretty cool sci-fi I admit – metachlorians!?) However, A sentient observer is not required (just light will do) to collapse a waveform (to particle-like behavior) in quantum mechanic’s foundational dual slit experiment. It’s still very cool and confuses the metachlorians out of me.