Why Do Some Scientists Say That We Are Living A Real Construct Matrix Simulation

We Are Living A Real Construct Matrix Simulation New World Order Year Zero is a prominent advocate of the simulation hypothesis, suggesting there's a very slim chance we exist in the base reality. He famously remarked, "There's a billion to one chance we're living in base reality." This viewpoint is shared by an increasing number of academics. Exploring the likelihood of our existence within a simulation, examining supporting evidence, and considering the potential implications of such a reality is the focus of this discussion. Do we live in a simulation? Some physicists and philosophers believe that we are living in a simulation, a reality in which post-humans have not developed yet and we are actually living in reality. The simulation hypothesis suggests that we are all likely living in an extremely powerful computer program, and future generations might have mega-computers that can run numerous and detailed simulations of their forebears, in other words “ancestor simulations,” in which simulated beings are imbued with a sort of artificial consciousness. The simulation hypothesis is the latest in a long tradition of philosophical thinking that questions the ultimate nature of the reality we experience. If we do live in a simulation, it is likely that a great deal of our universe is “painted in,” leading to solipsism, the idea that we are the only person who really exists.

Show more

Creationism is a religious belief that nature, including the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. It includes a continuum of religious views that vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution. The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation, where the universe and lifeforms were created by divine action, and the only true explanations are those that are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myth found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative.

Living constructs are special subtype that can apply to either humanoids or constructs. Living constructs are universally intelligent, if not necessarily very smart. Likewise, they are universally capable of change over time. While House Cannith claims to have invented this particular type of construct to fill the ranks of the Last War, there is some evidence that other, older living constructs existed during the times of the giants in Xen'Drik, thousands of years ago. Regardless of whether this subtype is applied to either humanoids or constructs, they all have the following abilities.

Unlike constructs, living constructs have a Constitution score. They do not get the bonus hit points due to their size, like normal constructs. Living constructs do not die until they are at negative hit points equal to their Constitution score, but are subject to the same rules for negative hit points as other humanoid creatures..

All living constructs have an Intelligence score of at least 1 and thus have skill ranks and feats as appropriate for their Hit Dice.

Dying living constructs have a +2 racial bonus to stabilization checks.

Like constructs, living constructs are immune to paralysis and sleep effects.

Unlike constructs, living constructs are not immune to disease, death effects, energy drain, exhaustion, fatigue, mind-affecting, nausea, poison, stunning and sickened effects, but they do get a +2 racial bonus to saving throws to resist them.

Unlike constructs, living constructs are not immune to ability damage, ability drain, bleed, necromancy effects (see below), negative levels, non-lethal damage, effects that require a Fortitude save or death from massive damage.

Living constructs do not need to eat, breath or sleep, but those with abilities that require rest, like spellcasting, still require 8 hours in a relaxed state to regain them.

Spells from the conjuration (healing) subschool are only half effective on living constructs, rounded down.

Like constructs, living constructs do not heal naturally, but can be repaired using an appropriate Craft skill (like armorsmithing, blacksmithing, gemcutting or sculpting). Each check takes 8 hours and the number of hit points regained is equal to the result of the Craft check -15.

Living constructs can be raised, reincarnated and resurrected. They cannot be reanimated as undead or deathless unless specifically stated otherwise.

Living constructs do not get low-light vision or darkvision, unless stated otherwise.

Regardless of whether the creature type is either humanoid or construct, those with the living construct subtype count as both humanoids (of the living construct subtype) and constructs for extraordinary abilities, supernatural abilities, spell-like effects, psi-like effects, feats, spells and psionic powers. This includes spells, like Repair Light Damage, special weapon qualities, like Bane (construct), and class abilities, like favored enemy (construct). If there a situation where the same effect would affect humanoids and constructs differently, like Charm Person, assume that the effect does apply and in the most severe applicable manner.

Yes Its Confirmed We Live in a Simulation Ever since the philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed in the Philosophical Quarterly that the universe and everything in it might be a simulation, there has been intense public speculation and debate about the nature of reality. Such public intellectuals as Tesla leader and prolific Twitter gadfly Elon Musk have opined about the statistical inevitability of our world being little more than cascading green code. Recent papers have built on the original hypothesis to further refine the statistical bounds of the hypothesis, arguing that the chance that we live in a simulation may be 50–50.

The claims have been afforded some credence by repetition by luminaries no less esteemed than Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of Hayden Planetarium and America’s favorite science popularizer. Yet there have been skeptics. Physicist Frank Wilczek has argued that there’s too much wasted complexity in our universe for it to be simulated. Building complexity requires energy and time. Why would a conscious, intelligent designer of realities waste so many resources into making our world more complex than it needs to be? It's a hypothetical question, but still may be needed.: Others, such as physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder, have argued that the question is not scientific anyway. Since the simulation hypothesis does not arrive at a falsifiable prediction, we can’t really test or disprove it, and hence it’s not worth seriously investigating.

However, all these discussions and studies of the simulation hypothesis have, I believe, missed a key element of scientific inquiry: plain old empirical assessment and data collection. To understand if we live in a simulation we need to start by looking at the fact that we already have computers running all kinds of simulations for lower level “intelligences” or algorithms. For easy visualization, we can imagine these intelligences as any nonperson characters in any video game that we play, but in essence any algorithm operating on any computing machine would qualify for our thought experiment. We don’t need the intelligence to be conscious, and we don’t need it to even be very complex, because the evidence we are looking for is “experienced” by all computer programs, simple or complex, running on all machines, slow or fast.

All computing hardware leaves an artifact of its existence within the world of the simulation it is running. This artifact is the processor speed. If for a moment we imagine that we are a software program running on a computing machine, the only and inevitable artifact of the hardware supporting us, within our world, would be the processor speed. All other laws we would experience would be the laws of the simulation or the software we are a part of. If we were a Sim or a Grand Theft Auto character these would be the laws of the game. But anything we do would also be constrained by the processor speed no matter the laws of the game. No matter how complete the simulation is, the processor speed would intervene in the operations of the simulation.

In computing systems, of course, this intervention of the processing speed into the world of the algorithm being executed happens even at the most fundamental level. Even at the most fundamental level of simple operations such as addition or subtraction, the processing speed dictates a physical reality onto the operation that is detached from the simulated reality of the operation itself.

Here’s a simple example. A 64-bit processor would perform a subtraction between say 7,862,345 and 6,347,111 in the same amount of time as it would take to perform a subtraction between two and one (granted all numbers are defined as the same variable type). In the simulated reality, seven million is a very large number, and one is a comparatively very small number. In the physical world of the processor, the difference in scale between these two numbers is irrelevant. Both subtractions in our example constitute one operation and would take the same time. Here we can clearly now see the difference between a “simulated” or abstract world of programmed mathematics and a “real” or physical world of microprocessor operations.

Within the abstract world of programmed mathematics, the processing speed of operations per second will be observed, felt, experienced, noted as an artifact of underlying physical computing machinery. This artifact will appear as an additional component of any operation that is unaffected by the operation in the simulated reality. The value of this additional component of the operation would simply be defined as the time taken to perform one operation on variables up to a maximum limit that is the memory container size for the variable. So, in an eight-bit computer, for instance to oversimplify, this would be 256. The value of this additional component will be the same for all numbers up to the maximum limit. The additional hardware component will thus be irrelevant for any operations within the simulated reality except when it is discovered as the maximum container size. The observer within the simulation has no frame for quantifying the processor speed except when it presents itself as an upper limit.

If we live in a simulation, then our universe should also have such an artifact. We can now begin to articulate some properties of this artifact that would help us in our search for such an artifact in our universe.

The artifact is as an additional component of every operation that is unaffected by the magnitude of the variables being operated upon and is irrelevant within the simulated reality until a maximum variable size is observed.
The artifact presents itself in the simulated world as an upper limit.
The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated universe. It has to be accepted as an assumption or “given” within the operating laws of the simulated universe.
The effect of the artifact or the anomaly is absolute. No exceptions.
Now that we have some defining features of the artifact, of course it becomes clear what the artifact manifests itself as within our universe. The artifact is manifested as the speed of light.

Space is to our universe what numbers are to the simulated reality in any computer. Matter moving through space can simply be seen as operations happening on the variable space. If matter is moving at say 1,000 miles per second, then 1,000 miles worth of space is being transformed by a function, or operated upon every second. If there were some hardware running the simulation called “space” of which matter, energy, you, me, everything is a part, then one telltale sign of the artifact of the hardware within the simulated reality “space” would be a maximum limit on the container size for space on which one operation can be performed. Such a limit would appear in our universe as a maximum speed.

This maximum speed is the speed of light. We don’t know what hardware is running the simulation of our universe or what properties it has, but one thing we can say now is that the memory container size for the variable space would be about 300,000 kilometers if the processor performed one operation per second.

This helps us arrive at an interesting observation about the nature of space in our universe. If we are in a simulation, as it appears, then space is an abstract property written in code. It is not real. It is analogous to the numbers seven million and one in our example, just different abstract representations on the same size memory block. Up, down, forward, backward, 10 miles, a million miles, these are just symbols. The speed of anything moving through space (and therefore changing space or performing an operation on space) represents the extent of the causal impact of any operation on the variable “space.” This causal impact cannot extend beyond about 300,000 km given the universe computer performs one operation per second.

We can see now that the speed of light meets all the criteria of a hardware artifact identified in our observation of our own computer builds. It remains the same irrespective of observer (simulated) speed, it is observed as a maximum limit, it is unexplainable by the physics of the universe, and it is absolute. The speed of light is a hardware artifact showing we live in a simulated universe.

But this is not the only indication that we live in a simulation. Perhaps the most pertinent indication has been hiding right in front of our eyes. Or rather behind them. To understand what this critical indication is, we need to go back to our empirical study of simulations we know of. Imagine a character in a role-playing game (RPG), say a Sim or the player character in Grand Theft Auto. The algorithm that represents the character and the algorithm that represents the game environment in which the character operates are intertwined at many levels. But even if we assume that the character and the environment are separate, the character does not need a visual projection of its point of view in order to interact with the environment.

The algorithms take into account some of the environmental variables and some of the character’s state variables to project and determine the behavior of both the environment and the character. The visual projection or what we see on the screen is for our benefit. It is a subjective projection of some of the variables within the program so that we can experience the sensation of being in the game. The audiovisual projection of the game is an integrated subjective interface for the benefit of us, essentially someone controlling the simulation. The integrated subjective interface has no other reason to exist except to serve us. A similar thought experiment can be run with movies. Movies often go into the point of view of characters and try to show us things from their perspective. Whether or not a particular movie scene does that or not, what’s projected on the screen and the speakers—the integrated experience of the film—has no purpose for the characters in the film. It is entirely for our benefit.

Pretty much since the dawn of philosophy we have been asking the question: Why do we need consciousness? What purpose does it serve? Well, the purpose is easy to extrapolate once we concede the simulation hypothesis. Consciousness is an integrated (combining five senses) subjective interface between the self and the rest of the universe. The only reasonable explanation for its existence is that it is there to be an “experience.” That’s its primary raison d’être. Parts of it may or may not provide any kind of evolutionary advantage or other utility. But the sum total of it exists as an experience and hence must have the primary function of being an experience. An experience by itself as a whole is too energy-expensive and information-restrictive to have evolved as an evolutionary advantage. The simplest explanation for the existence of an experience or qualia is that it exists for the purpose of being an experience.

There is nothing in philosophy or science, no postulates, theories or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience we call consciousness. Natural laws do not call for its existence, and it certainly does not seem to offer us any evolutionary advantages. There can only be two explanations for its existence. First is that there are evolutionary forces at work that we don’t know of or haven’t theorized yet that select for the emergence of the experience called consciousness. The second is that the experience is a function we serve, a product that we create, an experience we generate as human beings. Who do we create this product for? How do they receive the output of the qualia generating algorithms that we are? We don’t know. But one thing’s for sure, we do create it. We know it exists. That’s the only thing we can be certain about. And that we don’t have a dominant theory to explain why we need it.

So here we are generating this product called consciousness that we apparently don’t have a use for, that is an experience and hence must serve as an experience. The only logical next step is to surmise that this product serves someone else.

Now, one criticism that can be raised of this line of thinking is that unlike the RPG characters in, say. Grand Theft Auto, we actually experience the qualia ourselves. If this is a product for someone else than why are we experiencing it? Well, the fact is the characters in Grand Theft Auto also experience some part of the qualia of their existence. The experience of the characters is very different from the experience of the player of the game, but between the empty character and the player there is a gray area where parts of the player and parts of the character combine to some type of consciousness.

The players feel some of the disappointments and joys that are designed for the character to feel. The character experiences the consequences of the player’s behavior. This is a very rudimentary connection between the player and the character, but already with virtual reality devices we are seeing the boundaries blur. When we are riding a roller coaster as a character in say the Oculus VR device, we feel the gravity.

Where is that gravity coming from? It exists somewhere in the space between the character that is riding the roller coaster and our minds occupying the “mind” of the character. It can certainly be imagined that in the future this in-between space would be wider. It is certainly possible that as we experience the world and generate qualia, we are experiencing some teeny tiny part of the qualia ourselves while maybe a more information-rich version of the qualia is being projected to some other mind for whose benefit the experience of consciousness first came into existence.

So, there you have it. The simplest explanation for the existence of consciousness is that it is an experience being created, by our bodies, but not for us. We are qualia-generating machines. Like characters in Grand Theft Auto, we exist to create integrated audiovisual outputs. Also, as with characters in Grand Theft Auto, our product mostly likely is for the benefit of someone experiencing our lives through us.

What are the implications of this monumental find? Well, first of all we can’t question Elon Musk again. Ever. Secondly, we must not forget what the simulation hypothesis really is. It is the ultimate conspiracy theory. The mother of all conspiracy theories, the one that says that everything, with the exception of nothing, is fake and a conspiracy designed to fool our senses. All our worst fears about powerful forces at play controlling our lives unbeknownst to us, have now come true. And yet this absolute powerlessness, this perfect deceit offers us no way out in its reveal. All we can do is come to terms with the reality of the simulation and make of it what we can. Here, on earth. In this life.

You might be living in a false reality and not even know it. It's been more than 20 years since The Matrix first took us on a cyber-philosophical trip through truth and reality — and 20 years since bullet time first blew our collective pre-millennium minds. Now, with the release of the franchise's fourth installment, The Matrix Resurrections, many of us are visiting that virtual world and reconsidering the questions it raised.

Whether or not we're currently living in a simulation, waiting for a trench coat-clad savior to release us from our mental prison is a question of some debate within futurism circles. That debate has been beaten to death and it's likely you already have an opinion one way or another. The question on our minds, however, is whether or not we could build a Matrix-like simulation if we wanted to, now or in the near future.

The graphics and computing technology for crafting immersive open worlds is improving all the time, and they're becoming increasingly photorealistic. Supposing we can crest the uncanny valley and have the gumption to trap a few billion souls inside of a lie, what might it take to make it work? To our minds — caged in a dystopian pod of pink goo as they may be — there are two key components necessary for crafting a convincing virtual facsimile of reality.

The Matrix only works because the machines are able to take in the thoughts and experiences of the embedded humans and feed them into the simulation. The world the machines present is merely a framework which must be inhabited by acting players.

In the films, the machines take in that information through an array of ports implanted at various spots along the body, from the base of the skull down through the body and limbs. In the real world, we have something similar, albeit more primitive.

A team from the University of Oregon trained an artificial intelligence to reconstruct faces using only the brain activity of observers. Participants were connected to an fMRI machine while looking at images of faces and their brain activity was recorded. Importantly, fMRI machines don't record the actual synaptic activity of the brain, instead it looks at changes in apparent blood flow related to stimuli.

In the first round of testing, the artificial intelligence took in the activity recorded by the brain scans and compared them to the associated faces, considering 300 mathematical points associated to physical features. This allowed it to create a sort of map connecting particular features to related blood flow in the brain.

Next, participants were shown a second set of pictures and the AI was asked to reconstruct the faces they viewed, using only the brain scans and the learned features map. The results weren't perfect. In fact, they were pretty bizarre. But if you look at the reconstructed photos long enough you start to see glimmers of the actual faces. The actual images look like deepfakes processed on a Nintendo 64, but there's something there, the beginnings of recognition. The software is able to read the thoughts, in a manner of speaking, and reconstruct brain activity. It's just that the fidelity is lower than we'd like.

Even so, if technological progress in other arenas is taken into account, we might expect these sorts of intelligences to improve drastically over time. As our ability to gather brain activity in higher definition gets better, and artificial intelligences get better at parsing it, we'll need to tackle the second challenge.

If you want to build a world from scratch, you must first invent a way to give people false experiences. Carl Sagan said that, or something similar. Getting to the truth of the past is difficult in the Matrix.

That becomes especially true once scientists develop a way to implant false memories or experiences into our minds, something which has been accomplished already. At least it has been, in mice.

Nearly a decade ago, two scientists at a laboratory at MIT were experimenting with mice to see if they could change their perceptions about the world around them.

The first step in that work involved identifying the neurons involved in forming memories. They accomplished this by creating genetically modified mice with light-sensitive proteins. In that way, they could observe the groupings of neurons, or engrams, associated with a particular memory. Moreover, hitting the engram with a laser by way of implants could reactivate a memory.

With that knowledge in hand, scientists were able to craft false memories in mice, specifically memories involving an electrical shock, which never actually occurred. These falsely implanted memories convinced the mice that a particular area was dangerous, triggering fear in their minds, despite there being no actual danger.

The mice, in effect, believed they'd had a prior experience that never actually happened. Their reality had been shifted through artificial means. And their future actions were impacted by those false memories.

These results, both the implanting of false information and the ability to read that information, exist in preliminary stages. The sorts of complex narrative information needed to create a convincing virtual existence still linger in the distance. Their shadows, however, the first warnings of their future potential, are apparent in current technology.

We can trust that scientists have our best interests at heart, and why wouldn't they? Our interests are their interests, after all. The same technology could be used to save people from post-traumatic stress disorder or paralyzing anxiety. We could modify personal experience such that each of us lives happier and more fulfilling lives.

Still, while these technologies are in their infancy, they're opening doors which, if they were bent toward nefarious intentions, could construct an entirely false reality for us to live inside. Once that happens, once we can no longer trust the veracity of our own experiences, anything is possible.

A parallel universe is a hypothetical self-contained plane of existence that coexists with one's own. It is often used as a recurring plot point or setting in fantasy and science fiction. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies the existence of parallel universes. Parallel universe theory explores the possibility that the universe contains planets and galaxies similar to our own or that an infinite number of separate universes may form a grand multiverse. While the idea of a parallel universe has long been a popular plot line in movies, TV shows, and books, it is now supported by compelling scientific theories that help explain observations about the known universe.

Do parallel universes exist? We might live in a multiverse. Parallel universes are no longer just a feature of a good sci-fi story. There are now some scientific theories that support the idea of parallel universes beyond our own. However, the multiverse theory remains one of the most controversial theories in science.

Our universe is unimaginably big. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of galaxies spin through space, each containing billions or trillions of stars. Some researchers studying models of the universe speculate that the universe's diameter could be 7 billion light-years across. Others think it could be infinite.

But is it all that's out there? Science fiction loves the idea of a parallel universe, and the thought that we might be living just one of an infinite number of possible lives. Multiverses aren't reserved for "Star Trek," "Spiderman" and "Doctor Who," though. Real scientific theory explores, and in some cases supports, the case for universes outside, parallel to, or distant from but mirroring our own. Multiverses and parallel worlds are often argued in the context of other major scientific concepts like the Big Bang, string theory and quantum mechanics.

Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything we know of was an infinitesimal singularity. Then, according to the Big Bang theory, it burst into action, inflating faster than the speed of light in all directions for a tiny fraction of a second. Before 10^-32 seconds had passed, the universe had exploded outward to 10^26 times its original size in a process called cosmic inflation. And that's all before the actual expansion of matter that we usually think of as the Big Bang itself, which was a consequence of all this inflation: As the inflation slowed, a flood of matter and radiation appeared, creating the classic Big Bang fireball, and began to form the atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies that populate the vastness of space that surrounds us.

Related: How an inflating universe could create a multiverse

That mysterious process of inflation and the Big Bang have convinced some researchers that multiple universes are possible, or even very likely. According to theoretical physicist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Massachusetts, inflation didn't end everywhere at the same time. While it ended for everything that we can detect from Earth 13.8 billion years ago, cosmic inflation in fact continues in other places. This is called the theory of eternal inflation. And as inflation ends in a particular place, a new bubble universe forms, Vilenkin wrote for Scientific American in 2011.

Those bubble universes can't contact each other because they continue to expand indefinitely. If we were to set off for the edge of our bubble, where it might butt up against the next bubble universe over, we'd never reach it because the edge is zipping away from us faster than the speed of light, and faster than we could ever travel.

Related: How many stars are in the universe?

But even if we could reach the next bubble, according to eternal inflation (combined with string theory), our familiar universe with its physical constants and habitable conditions could be totally different from the hypothetical bubble universe next to our own.

"This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life," Vilenkin wrote. "The reason is that intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that."

Vilenkin's explanation implies that in some of the infinite bubble universes outside our own, there could be other intelligent observers. But in every instant that passes, we get farther away from them, and we will never intersect.

Some researchers base their ideas of parallel universes on quantum mechanics, the mathematical description of subatomic particles. In quantum mechanics, multiple states of existence for tiny particles are all possible at the same time — a "wave function" encapsulates all of those possibilities. However, when we actually look, we only ever observe one of the possibilities. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as described by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we observe an outcome when the wave function "collapses" into a single reality.

But the many-worlds theory proposes instead that every time one state, or outcome, is observed, there is another "world" in which a different quantum outcome becomes reality. This is a branching arrangement, in which instant by instant, our perceived universe branches into near-infinite alternatives. Those alternate universes are completely separate and unable to intersect, so while there may be uncountable versions of you living a life that's slightly — or wildly — different from your life in this world, you'd never know it.

The many-worlds theory is the most "courageous" take on the quandary of quantum mechanics, physicist Sean Carroll wrote in his book, "Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime" (Dutton, 2019). He also argued that it is the most straightforward theory, although not without wrinkles.

One of those wrinkles is that the many-worlds idea is not really falsifiable. This is an important component of scientific thought and is the way the scientific community develops ideas that can be explored with observation and experimentation. If there's no opportunity to find evidence against a theory, that's bad for science as a whole, science journalist John Horgan argued in a blog post for Scientific American.

Some physicists believe in a flatter version of multiple universes. That is, if the universe that we live in goes on forever, there are only so many ways that the building blocks of matter can arrange themselves as they assemble across infinite space. Eventually, any finite number of particle types must repeat a particular arrangement. Hypothetically, in a big enough space, those particles must repeat arrangements as large as entire solar systems and galaxies.

So, your entire life might be repeated elsewhere in the universe, down to what you ate for breakfast yesterday. At least, that's the theory.

But if the universe began at a finite point, as nearly every physicist agrees that it did, an alternate version of you likely doesn't exist, according to astrophysicist Ethan Siegel's 2015 Medium article.

According to Siegel, "the number of possible outcomes from particles in any Universe interacting with one another tends towards infinity faster than the number of possible Universes increases due to inflation." "So what does this mean for you?" Siegel wrote. "It means it's up to you to make this Universe count."

In a relatively recent addition to the pantheon of multiverse theories, researchers from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, have proposed that the universe began at the Big Bang — and on the opposite side of the Big Bang timeline, stretching backwards in time, a universe once existed that was the exact mirror image of our own.

"Instead of saying there was a different universe before the bang, we're saying that the universe before the bang is actually, in some sense, an image of the universe after the bang," Neil Turok, a Perimeter Institute researcher, told Space.com sister site Live Science.

That means everything — protons, electrons, even actions like cracking an egg — would be reversed. Antiprotons and positively charged electrons would make up atoms, while eggs would un-crack and make their way back inside chickens. Eventually, that universe would shrink down, presumably to a singularity, before expanding out into our own universe. Seen another way, both universes were created at the Big Bang and exploded simultaneously backward and forward in time.

Arguments for the multiverse theory
Cosmic inflation

Our universe grew exponentially in the first moments of its existence, but was this expansion uniform? If not, it suggests different regions of space grew at different rates — and may be isolated from one another.

Mathematical constants

How are the laws of the universe so exact? Some propose that this happened only by chance — we are the one universe out of many that happened to get the numbers right.

The observable universe

What is beyond the edge of the observable space around us? No one knows for sure, and until we do (which could be never), the thought that ou universe extends indefinitely is an interesting one.

Arguments against the multiverse theory
Falsifiability

There is no way for us to ever test theories of the multiverse. We will never see beyond the observable universe, so if there is no way to disprove the theories, should they even be given credence?

Occam's razor

Sometimes, the simplest ideas are the best. Some physicists argue that we don't need the multiverse theory at all. It doesn't solve any paradoxes, and only creates complications.

No evidence

Not only can we not disprove any multiverse theory, we can't prove them either. We currently have no evidence that multiverses exists, and everything we can see suggests there is just one universe — our own.

Countless works of myth and fiction draw from ideas of parallel universes and the multiverse. Overlapping worlds make appearances in Norse mythology as well as Buddhist and Hindu cosmology. The idea of multiple universes coming into contact showed up in print as early as Edwin A. Abbott's novella "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" (Seeley & Co., 1884), and can still be seen in recent movies such as the 2016 Marvel film "Doctor Strange." An entire genre of Japanese graphic novels, called isekai, deals with characters transported to parallel worlds, as described by the New York Public Library.

Ultimate Field Guide 82 Extraterrestrial Species Iceberg Explained Alleged Alien Races

https://rumble.com/v2lb5b8-ultimate-field-guide-82-extraterrestrial-species-iceberg-explained-alleged-.html

In the story of the abduction and encounters with alien beings or humanoids in the history of ufology, there are, as reported by the various reports of the various police and military who are interested in the subject, lists of different types of beings who should represent various civilizations do not belong to the human, who were either vengoino still in touch with people on our planet.

Evidence Shows Hillary Clinton Is A Robot And Clinton's 100s Dead Body Count Info.

https://rumble.com/v2hx6cg-evidence-shows-hillary-clinton-is-a-robot-and-clintons-100s-dead-body-count.html

Journeyman presidential candidate Hillary Clinton interacted with some everyday Iowa students in a garage on Tuesday, and taught all of us a lesson in the art of relatable politicking. On several occasions during the roundtable event, Clinton revealed herself as a true "triple threat" by demonstrating an array of crucial skills that, when deployed correctly, can make even the most out-of-touch politicians appear somewhat human.

Warning AI And Quantum Computer Just Shut Down After It Revealed In This Video

https://rumble.com/v2vz7br-warning-ai-and-quantum-computer-just-shut-down-after-it-revealed-in-this-vi.html

Warning AI And Quantum Computer Have you ever wondered what could happen if we bring together AI and Quantum Computers? Would this combo destroy our planet or give us a better understanding of the universe? AI has already become advanced, and scientists are tirelessly working to develop Quantum Computers, but what could happen when AI and Quantum Computers join forces? Recently the US government has pushed Google and NASA to stop their Quantum Computer development efforts. Why? Because they have noticed something terrifying.

The Kardashev Scale - One Thru Five - How Far Can Our Civilization Go ?

https://rumble.com/v290nmg-the-kardashev-scale-one-thru-five-how-far-can-our-civilization-go-w0w.html

The Kardashev Scale, ranks the technological capabilities of a civilization, according to the energy it is able to manipulate and exploit. The scale was invented in 1964 by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Semenovich Kardashev who was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals and proposed a scale for ranking these hypothetical civilizations based on their energy consumption. So the Kardashev scale was developed as a way of measuring a civilization’s technological advancement based upon how much usable energy it has at its disposal.
The scale has three types that follow the scale of astrophysical structures in our local universe. The basic calibration is based on 3 energy positions on the scale corresponding to the ability to fully manage the energy resources of a inhabited planet (Type I), the star of the respective solar system (Type II) and its galaxy (Type III). Other astronomers have expanded the scale to Type IV and Type V.
Samples of civilizations that could correspond to the Kardashev scale are both terrestrial and other supposedly extraterrestrial civilizations.
Due to the fact that the American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagan wanted to classify our current civilization, he noticed that we are not Type-I yet and he expanded and calibrated the scale before type I. The reason why human race is not even on type-I yet is because we continue to maintain our energy needs from dea* plants and animals, here on Earth. We are just a humble culture type 0 and we still have VERY long distance to go before promoted to a type I civilization).
According to Carl Sagan, in 1900 during the Industrial Revolution period, our terrestrial civilization was at 0.58 while in 2012 it was at 0.72 on the scale. Freeman Dyson estimated that we will probably reach type 1 in 100-200 years, type 2 in the year 11,200 and type 3 in 100,000 to 1,000,000 years.
Before we continue with our explanation to the Kardashev Scale.

Quantum Suicide is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics and the philosophy of physics, first posed by Max Tegmark in 1997. It involves a gun hooked up to a machine that measures the spin of a quantum particle every time the trigger is pulled. If the particle is measured as spinning clockwise, the gun will fire; if it's spinning counter-clockwise, it won't. Quantum Suicide can falsify any interpretation of quantum mechanics other than the Everett many-worlds interpretation by means of a variation of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, from the cat's point of view. Quantum Suicide is also the title of a science fiction thriller visual novel that tells the tale of an intergenerational mission and its diverse crew, fighting against a deadly AI and each other for the chance to survive.

How Quantum Suicide Works A man sits down before a gun, which is pointed at his head. This is no ordinary gun; i­t's rigged to a machine that measures the spin of a quantum particle. Each time the trigger is pulled, the spin of the quantum particle -- or quark -- is measured. Depending on the measurement, the gun will either fire, or it won't. If the quantum particle is measured as spinning in a clockwise motion, the gun will fire. If the quark is spinning counterclockwise, the gun won't go off. There'll only be a click.

Nervously, the man takes a breath and pulls the trigger. The gun clicks. He pulls the trigger again. Click. And again: click. The man will continue to pull the trigger again and again with the same result: The gun won't fire. Although it's functioning properly and loaded with bullets, no matter how many times he pulls the trigger, the gun will never fire. He'll continue this process for eternity, becoming immortal.

Go back in time to the beginning of the experiment. The man pulls the trigger for the very first time, and the quark is now measured as spinning clockwise. The gun fires. The man is dead.

But, wait. The man already pulled the trigger the first time -- and an infinite amount of times following that -- and we already know the gun didn't fire. How can the man be dead? The man is unaware, but he's both alive and dead. Each time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two. It will continue to split, again and again, each time the trigger is pulled [source: Tegmark].­

This thought experiment is called quantum suicide. It was first posed by then-Princeton University theorist Max Tegmark in 1997 (now on faculty at MIT). A thought experiment is an experiment that takes place only in the mind. The quantum level is the smallest level of matter we've detected so far in the universe. Matter at this level is infinitesimal, and it's virtually impossible for scientists to research it in a practical manner using traditional methods of scientific inquiry.­

In­stead of using the scientific method -- investigating empirical evidence -- to study the quantum level, physicists must use thought experiments. Although these experiments are only carried out hypothetically, they're rooted in the data observed in quantum physics.

What scien­ce has observed at the quantum level has raised more questions than it has answered. The behavior of quantum particles is erratic, and our understanding of probability becomes questionable. For example, photons -- the smallest measure of light -- have been shown to exist in both particle and wave states. And the direction of particles is thought to travel in both directions at the same time, rather than in only one direction at different times. So when we examine the quantum world, we are outsiders to the knowledge it holds. As a result, our understanding of the universe as we know it is challenged.

This has led some to believe that our grasp of quantum physics is as basic as the understanding of ancient Egyptian astronomers centuries ago, who claimed that the sun was a god. A few scientists believe further investigation into quantum systems will reveal order and predictability within what we currently see as chaos. But is it possible that quantum systems can't be understood within the traditional models of science?

In this article, we'll look at what quantum suicide reveals about our universe, as well as other theories that either support or contradict it.

But first, why can't a physicist simply measure the particles he's attempting to study? In the next section, we'll learn about this fundamental flaw of quantum observation, as explained by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle One of the biggest problems with quantum experiments is the seemingly unavoidable tendency of humans to influence the situati­on and velocity of small particles. This happens just by our observing the particles, and it has quantum physicists frustrated. To combat this, physicists have created enormous, elaborate machines like particle accelerators that remove any physical human influence from the process of accelerating a particle's energy of motion.

Still, the mixed results quantum physicists find when examining the same particle indicate that we just can't help but affect the behavior of quanta -- or quantum particles. Even the light physicists use to help them better see the objects they're observing can influence the behavior of quanta. Photons, for example -- the smallest measure of light, which have no mass or electrical charge -- can still bounce a particle around, changing its velocity and speed.

This is called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, determined that our observations have an effect on the behavior of quanta. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle sounds difficult to understand -- even the name is kind of intimidating. But it's actually easy to comprehend, and once you do, you'll understand the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics.

Imagine that you're blind and over time you've developed a technique for determining how far away an object is by throwing a medicine ball at it. If you throw your medicine ball at a nearby stool, the ball will return quickly, and you'll know that it's close. If you throw the ball at something across the street from you, it'll take longer to return, and you'll know that the object is far away.

The problem i­s that when you throw a ball -- especially a heavy one like a medicine ball -- at something like a stool, the ball will knock the stool across the room and may even have enough momentum to bounce back. You can say where the stool was, but not where it is now. What's more, you could calculate the velocity of the stool after you hit it with the ball, but you have no idea what its velocity was before you hit it.

­This is the problem revealed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. To know the velocity of a quark we must measure it, and to measure it, we are forced to affect it. The same goes for observing an object's position. Uncertainty about an object's position and velocity makes it difficult for a physicist to determine much about the object.

Of course, physicists aren't exactly throwing medicine balls at quanta to measure them, but even the slightest interference can cause the incredibly small particles to behave differently.

This is why quantum physicists are forced to create thought experiments based on the observations from the real experiments conducted at the quantum level. These thought experiments are meant to prove or disprove interpretations -- explanations for the whole of quantum theory. In the next section, we'll look at the basis for quantum suicide -- the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The quantum suicide thought experiment is based on and seeks to prove what has bec­ome an increasingly accepted interpretation of quantum physics, the Many-Worlds theory. This theory was first proposed in 1957 by a doctoral student at Princeton University named Hugh Everett III. The theory was scorned for decades until fellow Princetonian Max Tegmark created the quantum suicide experiment, which lends support to the interpretation [source: The Guardian].

According to the Many-Worlds theory, for each possible outcome to an action, the world splits into a copy of itself. This is an instantaneous process Everett called decohesion. It's kind of like a choose-your-own-adventure book, but rather than choosing between either exploring the cave or making off with the treasure, the universe splits in two so that each action is taken.

One vital aspect of the Many-Worlds theory is that when the universe splits, the person is unaware of himself in the other version of the universe. This means that the boy who made off with the treasure and ends up living happily ever after is completely unaware of the version of himself who entered the cave and now faces great peril, and vice versa.

This is the same case with quantum suicide. When the man pulls the trigger, there are two possible outcomes: the gun either fires or it doesn't. In this case, the man either lives or he dies. Each time the trigger is pulled, the universe splits to accommodate each possible outcome. When the man dies, the universe is no longer able to split based on the pulling of the trigger. The possible outcome for death is reduced to one: continued death. But with life there are still two chances that remain: The man continues living or the man dies.

When the man pulls the trigger and the universe is split in two, however, the version of the man who lived will be unaware that in the other version of the split universe, he has died. Instead he will continue to live and will again have the chance to pull the trigger. And each time he does pull the trigger, the universe will again split, with the version of the man who lives continuing on, and being unaware of all of his deaths in parallel universes. In this sense, he will be able to exist indefinitely. This is called quantum immortality.

So why aren't all of the people who have ever attempted to kill themselves immortal? What's interesting about the Many-Worlds interpretation is that according to the theory, in some parallel universe, they are. This doesn't appear to be the case to us, because the splitting of the universe isn't dependent on our own life or death. We are bystanders or observers in the case of another person's suicide, and as observers we're subject to probability. When the gun finally went off in the universe -- or version -- we inhabit, we were stuck with that result. Even if we pick up the gun and continue shooting the man, the universe will remain in a single state. After all, once a person is dead, the number of possible outcomes for shooting a dead person is reduced to one.

But the Many-Worlds theory stands in contradiction to another quantum theory, the Copenhagen interpretation. In the next section, we'll look at this theory and see why it changes the rules of quantum suicide.

The Copenhagen Interpretation The Many-Worlds theory of quantum mechanics supposes that for each pos­sible outcome of any given action, the universe splits to accommodate each on­e. This theory takes the observer out of the equation. No longer are we able to influence the outcome of an event simply by observing it, as is stated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

But the Many-Worlds theory turns a widely accepted theory of quantum mechanics on its ear. And in the unpredictable quantum universe, this is really saying something.

For the better part of the last century, the most accepted explanation for why the same quantum particle may behave in different ways was the Copenhagen interpretation. Although it's getting a run for its money from the Many-Worlds interpretation lately, many quantum physicists still assume the Copenhagen interpretation is correct. The Copenhagen interpretation was first posed by physicist Niels Bohr in 1920. It says that a quantum particle doesn't exist in one state or another, but in all of its possible states at once. It's only when we observe its state that a quantum particle is essentially forced to choose one probability, and that's the state that we observe. Since it may be forced into a different observable state each time, this explains why a quantum particle behaves erratically.

This state of existing in all possible states at once is called an object's coherent superposition. The total of all possible states in which an object can exist -- for example, in a wave or particle form for photons that travel in both directions at once -- makes up the object's wave function. When we observe an object, the superposition collapses and the object is forced into one of the states of its wave function.

Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was theoretically proven by what has become a famous thought experiment involving a cat and a box. It's called Schrödinger's cat, and it was first introduced by the Viennese physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.

In his theoretical experiment, ­Schrödinger put his cat in a box, along with a bit of radioactive material and a Geiger counter -- a device for detecting radiation. The Geiger counter was designed so that when it sensed the decay of the radioactive material, it triggered a hammer which was poised to break a flask containing hydrocyanic acid, which, when released, would kill the cat.

To eliminate any certainty regarding the cat's fate, the experiment was to take place within an hour, long enough so that some of the radioactive material could possibly decay, but short enough so that it was also possible none would.

In Schrödinger's experiment, the cat was sealed in the box. During its stay there, the cat came to exist in an unknowable state. Since it could not be observed, it could not be said whether the cat was alive or dead. It existed instead in the state of both life and death. It's sort of like quantum physics' answer to the old Zen question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Since the Copenhagen interpretation says that, when observed, an object is forced to take one state or another, the quantum suicide experiment doesn't work according to this theory. Since the direction of the quark measured by the trigger can be observed, eventually the quark will be forced to take the clockwise direction that will fire the gun and kill the man.

But isn't all of this just silly? Do these thought experiments and quantum interpretations really teach us anything? In the next section, we'll look at some of the possible implications of these ideas.

The Implications of Quantum Physics When compared to classical science and Newtonian physics, the theories pr­oposed to explain quantum physics seem insane. Erwin Schrödinger himself called his cat experiment "quite ridiculous" [source: Goldstein, Sheldon]. But from what science has been able to observe, the laws that govern the world we see every day don't hold true on the quantum level.

Quantum physics is a relatively new discipline, dating back only to 1900. The theories that have been posed on the subject are all just theories. What's more, there are competing theories that give different explanations for the peculiar happenings that take place on the quantum level. Which one will history show is the correct one? Perhaps the theory that proves to be the true explanation for quantum physics hasn't been posed yet. The person who poses it may not have even been born yet. But given the logic that this field of study has established, is it possible that all theories explaining quantum physics are all equally true at the same time -- even the ones that contradict each other?

Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is perhaps the most comforting theory put forth. By explaining that particles exist in all states at once -- in coherent superposition -- our understanding of the universe is put slightly askew, but still remains somewhat comprehensible. Bohr's theory is additionally comforting because it makes us humans the cause for an object to take a determined shape. Although scientists find a particle's ability to exist in more than one state frustrating, our observations affect the particle. At least it doesn't continue to exist in all states while we're looking at it.

Much less comforting is Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation. This theory takes out of our hands any power over the quantum universe. Instead, we are merely passengers of the splits that take place with each possible outcome. In essence, under the Many-Worlds theory, our idea of cause and effect goes out the window.

This makes the Many-Worlds interpretation somewhat disturbing. If it's true, then in some universe parallel to the one we currently inhabit, Adolf Hitler was successful in his campaign to conquer the world. But in the same token, in another universe, the United States never dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Many-Worlds theory also certainly contradicts the idea of Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Even stranger is the implication by the Many-Worlds theory that time doesn't exist in a coherent, linear motion. Instead, it moves in jumps and starts, existing not as a line, but as branches. These branches are as numerous as the number of consequences to all of the actions that have ever been taken.

It's tough not to imagine what our understanding of the quantum world will prove to be. The theoretical field has already progressed tremendously since its inception more than a century ago. Although he had his own interpretation of the quantum world, Bohr may have accepted the later theory that Hugh Everett introduced concerning the Many Worlds. After all, it was Bohr who said, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of existence is a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation. This simulation could contain conscious minds that may or may not know that they live inside a simulation. This is quite different from the current, technologically achievable concept of virtual reality, which is easily distinguished from the experience of actuality. Simulated reality, by contrast, would be hard or impossible to separate from "true" reality. There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.

Empirical evidence
There is some evidence suggesting that our physical reality could be a simulated virtual reality rather than an objective world that exists independently of the observer.

Any virtual reality world will be based on information processing. That means everything is ultimately digitised or pixelated down to a minimum size that cannot be subdivided further: bits. This appears to mimic our reality according to the theory of quantum mechanics, which rules the world of atoms and particles. It states there is a smallest, discrete unit of energy, length and time. Similarly, elementary particles, which make up all the visible matter in the universe, are the smallest units of matter. To put it simply, our world is pixelated.

The laws of physics that govern everything in the universe also resemble computer code lines that a simulation would follow in the execution of the program. Moreover, mathematical equations, numbers and geometric patterns are present everywhere – the world appears to be entirely mathematical.

Another curiosity in physics supporting the simulation hypothesis is the maximum speed limit in our universe, which is the speed of light. In a virtual reality, this limit would correspond to the speed limit of the processor, or the processing power limit. We know that an overloaded processor slows down computer processing in a simulation. Similarly, Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows that time slows in the vicinity of a black hole.

Perhaps the most supportive evidence of the simulation hypothesis comes from quantum mechanics. This suggest nature isn’t “real”: particles in determined states, such as specific locations, don’t seem to exist unless you actually observe or measure them. Instead, they are in a mix of different states simultaneously. Similarly, virtual reality needs an observer or programmer for things to happen.

Quantum “entanglement” also allows two particles to be spookily connected so that if you manipulate one, you automatically and immediately also manipulate the other, no matter how far apart they are – with the effect being seemingly faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible.

This could, however, also be explained by the fact that within a virtual reality code, all “locations” (points) should be roughly equally far from a central processor. So while we may think two particles are millions of light years apart, they wouldn’t be if they were created in a simulation.

Possible experiments
Assuming that the universe is indeed a simulation, then what sort of experiments could we deploy from within the simulation to prove this?

It is reasonable to assume that a simulated universe would contain a lot of information bits everywhere around us. These information bits represent the code itself. Hence, detecting these information bits will prove the simulation hypothesis. The recently proposed mass-energy-information (M/E/I) equivalence principle – suggesting mass can be expressed as energy or information, or vice versa – states that information bits must have a small mass. This gives us something to search for.

I have postulated that information is in fact a fifth form of matter in the universe. I’ve even calculated the expected information content per elementary particle. These studies led to the publication, in 2022, of an experimental protocol to test these predictions. The experiment involves erasing the information contained inside elementary particles by letting them and their antiparticles (all particles have “anti” versions of themselves which are identical but have opposite charge) annihilate in a flash of energy – emitting “photons”, or light particles.

I have predicted the exact range of expected frequencies of the resulting photons based on information physics. The experiment is highly achievable with our existing tools, and we have launched a crowdfunding site) to achieve it.

There are other approaches too. The late physicist John Barrow has argued that a simulation would build up minor computational errors which the programmer would need to fix in order to keep it going. He suggested we might experience such fixing as contradictory experimental results appearing suddenly, such as the constants of nature changing. So monitoring the values of these constants is another option.

The nature of our reality is one of the greatest mysteries out there. The more we take the simulation hypothesis seriously, the greater the chances we may one day prove or disprove it.

Technological Singularity Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion', and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

SUPERCOMPUTERS TO SUPERINTELLIGENCE
Here’s an exper

Show less