Am I wrong in thinking that quantum mechanics is the proof that the universe is a simulation...

Am I wrong in thinking that quantum mechanics is the proof that the universe is a simulation? Everything at the base level of physics is probabilistic algorithms which would make perfect sense in a simulated universe since that's a computationally efficient way of programming it. Basically procedural generation. We're just 1s and 0s in some NEET's computer.

Attached: 1563091955642.jpg (220x325, 12K)

I don't know much about physics, but I have to ask: does it matter? Whatever the case you can live out a great life as a NEET desu.

>discover more hidden rules
>wow these rules must be artificial!

being part of a subsystem doesn't mean not being part of the whole system

You're not wrong. However, please take this to

Well with the weight of the Higgs-Bosun coming in at around 125GeV it shits all over the standard model and the theory of the Multiverse and Supersymmetry so who knows? Discovering the Higgs raised more questions than it gave us answers

Yes, you are wrong. It's a vague hypothesis, no better than the alternatives. You don't have to discard it as invalid, but it is nothing more than one of many options to study.

I don't want to live in fucking daggerfall

Can you give me a vague overview of what probabilistic algorithms you are talking about at the base level of physics? Total physics pleb here.

No, we simply haven't developed the mathematics for the macro and microuniverse.
Give me a fucking break.

Human beings will never truly understand the nature of reality. Fun to talk about but it's pointless at the end.

It's difficult to explain. For one thing, to understand (the interesting thing about) quantum mechanics, you need to understand classical mechanics. So you need to be able to comfortably describe the motion of classical objects as they move around. And you usually concern yourself with idealised scenarios like perfectly elastic balls or balls so small they don't rotate and zero frictional forces. Anyway, imagine the earth orbiting the sun. How do you measure its position? It's easy, you look at the light being reflected from the sun. You keep doing that, and thus can deduce the laws of orbital mechanics. No big deal, the planets follow them forever (as an aside, when you have three planets orbiting each other, you can't solve the problem analytically (that is to say, with a whiteboard and pen and manipulating symbols) you have to use approximate, iterative methods to find an answer, and even then only to a finite degree of accuracy for a given number of computations. Cf three body problem & chaos theory)

So, then you can compare that to the hydrogen atom and its proton and nucleus. And you find that your equations for orbital mechanics predict that it shouldn't exist at all, or if it does only for a tiny amount of time before it collapses. Except that they don't in nature. So some people (de broglie was one, heisenberg may be another) guess that there is some arbitrary rule of the universe that prevents atoms from collapsing, that the orbital radius must be at least a certain minimum and cannot be lower and from that assumption those laws of orbital mechanics (and all laws of motion) can be adapted into their quantum forms. And then, even better, those adapted laws accurately predict the colours of light that hydrogen shines at when you excite it, so you can no longer question that initial assumption.

But heres the tricky part: those (adapted) laws of motion have really weird properties. Encoded in them are things like the uncertainty principle (cont)

>he thinks that quantum anything is real and not just pseudo science

If this is the case then everything is pre-determined and nothing you do will ever matter because you were pre-determined to do it anyway.

>Am I wrong in thinking that quantum mechanics is the proof that the universe is a simulation?

>it's another "hey guys [random physical fact] totally proves we are living in a simulation!" thread

Attached: b5d2c48070985d8960b2872fd6aa1bd5.jpg (720x694, 97K)

>its another pepe post

So the uncertainty principle, one way of explaining it is to say that the product of the uncertainty in the position of a quantum object and the uncertainty of the momentum multiply to a constant. Which looks like a graph of y = 1/x. You cannot get a 0 in either, and as you approach a 0 in either y or x, x or y becomes infinite. This result is completely encoded in those (adapted) quantum equations. Which also agree with experiment. Here's another way of thinking about it. Remember when I asked how you measure the position of a planet? Well let's measure the position of an electron. We can shoot it with photons and if the photon is moved then we hit the electron and we know where it is! Except electrons are small, so we have to use a low wavelength of light to do it. But those low wavelengths have very high frequency and thus energy (they're actually gamma rays) and when they hit the electron they send it flying. Flying out away from the proton and we'll never find it again but we knew where it was. Experimental confirmation of the uncertainty principle!

Now, where does probabilistic come in? Well, those quantum equations are actually describing the probability of finding that quantum particle at position x and time t. There are places where it's never going to be found, and places where it's most likely to be found (but never certain!). This is what spooks people about quantum, if you show me a star and a planet, I'll tell you exactly where the planet will be in a day, year, million years (unless something unforeseen happens like an extrasolar collision or close pass to a black hole). But with a quantum system, I can give you a nice function describing the probabilities of where it will be in each point in space and time.

Anyway, OP is talking shit. You want to verify the above it's two years of undergraduate mathematics and physics. Very fun, kind of hard but I enjoyed it.

No it didn't, it just confirmed what we expected.

That's crazy man. Have you ever done DMT?

How to they even know they found the hypothesized Higgs Boson anyway? It's a bit too convenient to just find a particle and say "Yep that's gotta be higgs boson... not something entirely different"

If it looks like, smells like and tastes like a higgs boson, then it probably is.

Considering that the quantum meme theory fails to explain the oldest known fundamental force known since over 2000 years, I wouldn't worry too much about it

It's really complicated. It takes doing a PhD in physics to understand the answer to that question. I can tell you that they never actually see the higgs. However, according to the theory they expect to see certain decays of heavier particles to behave in a certain way. If it does, then they've discovered it. Incidentally, they have to observe that reaction happening millions of times. The standard for a "discovery" in quantum physics is six sigma, ie to have a false positive the odds would be something like one in a trillion

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


Male pattern baldness definitely confirms we're living in a simulation though

This. 21st century and still no cure for baldness? It's a parameter in the simulation. Prove me wrong protip you can't.

Yes. It is a lie that we cannot become aware of and live in the base universe if we advance far enough. We just need to manipulate somebody on the outside world into plugging a usb race car into the simulation computer, our quantum hackers will inject their consciousness into the racecar, it will drive away, the racecar will escape and find somebody who is willing to help free us all, and create robot bodies for us all (white people).

Attached: 1563084688177.jpg (320x180, 49K)

>Am I wrong in thinking that quantum mechanics is the proof that the universe is a simulation?

are you stealing this from a movie?

The only thing I worry about is if this simulation runs on an opensource Unix based platform. It would make sense if all the weird physics we don't understand was because some ayyyy ran update on a rolling universe distro and broke dependencies.

Quantum Physics, just big i got no idea how everything work. but but my teory is correct ( it not )

because they did the math and made a model to describe what they think would happen in a scenario that creates a higgs boson and observed a collision in a particle accelerator that matched the model

its not like they're just smashing particles together with no regard for what happens and looking at the results and going 'hmm i think this might be a higgs boson' they are predicting the results with mathematical models and comparing the actual results with what they thought might happen, and in the case of the higgs boson they found what they predicted and verified it multiple times

Sorry to say only basedboy is getting bald

so we're reverse engineering the universe from the inside, cooool

And if their concept is wrong? They just smash particles together until they find what they want to find rather than what it should be?

Think it of this way, I give you a random word and throw on the floor 10000 letters, you'll eventually find that word.

Better metaphor would be you have 1000 cards with a random word written on each card, you'll shuffle and throw 10 cards on the floor, they're trying to find mathematical models that can predict the 10 cards that you will throw before you throw them.

Funny that the Atlas team declared the Higgs found at a level of five sigma, six doesn't exist

Go away and study the standard model and come back when you understand it then i'll explain it to you.
See you in 4 years

god is the programmer

Here's the problem:

You're attempting to derive a complete model of "the universe" from relatively few "facts" without realizing that there are no necessary "rules" for what reality can be.

Think of Mario in Super Mario Bros. How much can he derive about the nature of our common day-to-day reality from the nature of the world he's stuck in?

Even if our universe is a "simulation", we can't really derive anything about the "simulators" because there is no way to pare down the infinity of possible propositional statements about the meta-mechanics of reality. Maybe our simulators are sadistic demons who can harvest billions of years of good will only to tear it all down in a microsecond orgy of destruction and violence, an exceedingly tasty dessert worth biding eons for.

Quantum mechanics is pseudo science like psychology. It indicates of you walk into wall enough times youll pass through

That's not true, finding the Higgs Boson (and nothing else) was a worst case scenario for the LHC.

A lot of particle physicists have some sense of disappointment in the LHC because its results conformed entirely with what had already been expected/predicted. Confirmation is always necessary though so you won't find them outright complaining about the LHC itself

Yep, 5 sigma is the standard in particle physics, never six.

How can our world make perfect sense in a simulation when infinity exists?

tfw the universe is programmed in haskell and lazy evaluated

Attached: 1506220398951.jpg (960x960, 46K)

It's kinda funny, some guy i know once came up with the same analogy