Are We All Just A Simulation?

I often wonder if our universe is real or some kind of simulation.

Is there a way to know? Does it matter?

From what I have read, the latest thinking is that the universe is indeed real. That the computational power required to simulate the universe would be more than what would be possible.

I have a couple of problems with this explanation.

1. How do we know what is possible outside our universe?

2. The computational power needed is based on the simulation running in real time.

It is possible that outside of the simulation each second could take hours, days, years or even a millennia to render and we wouldn’t notice the difference within the simulation. When watching a cartoon do we notice that each frame took hours or days to create? The more time it takes to render, the less computational power the simulation needs.

Perhaps, the whole universe isn’t being simulated at once, just a particular point of reference. Maybe just your life and interactions are all that is being simulated. Nothing exists except that which intersects with your life.

Personally I tend to lean towards our universe being a simulation.

The reasoning behind my thinking, is that our universe seems to have a frame-rate. When we look at smaller and smaller increments of time, there comes a point where instead of fading to the next moment, time takes a jump to the next frame. That frame-rate is the energy state of electrons.

Electrons dont smoothly transition from one state of energy to the next. They make a leap to the next state without any transitioning.

I believe that if the universe were not a simulation, all time transitions would be infinitely smooth no matter how closely we look.

In the end though it really doesn’t matter, does it? Simulation or not, the universe is real enough for all within it.

Let me know what you think,

Paul

Dark Matter

Dark matter and Dark energy are ways to try and explain the apparent movement of all the observable objects within our universe, and why it is accelerating. It is behaving as if it contains far more matter than we can currently detect.

Perhaps gravity can at least account for some of this missing matter.

Imagine the classic illustration of Einsteins theory of gravity that we all have seen. The stretched membrane with marbles (representing mass) creating dimples in the membrane. Now turn over the membrane. Instead of dimples, we get projections. Instead of capturing mass, these projections would repel it.

This could be the effect of our gravity on parallel *universes and visa versa. The extra mass and energy we see could possibly be the gravitational effects of mass in a parallel universe close to our own.

Maybe one day we will find gravitational lenses where there should be none?

LOL Or perhaps I am full of shit.

Let me know what you think.

Paul

 

 

 

*I use the incorrect term “universes” for simplicity. The proper term in this instance would be “verses”.

Climate Change Deniers

I have a hard time understanding climate change deniers.

Not only is the science pretty solid but it has come to the point that even the casual observer can see the changes. Who can deny that every year brings new record highs?

Some will acknowledge the change but dispute the cause. Claim that carbon emissions produced by man couldn’t possibly affect our climate, despite the historical data and computer models that correlate with the effects we are seeing today.

Most deniers claim that the science isn’t complete. That the cause(s) may in fact be natural. Beyond mans control.

Making the claim that “the science isn’t complete” indicates that they acknowledge at least a chance that the cause(s) are man made and that is what puts them beyond my understanding.

Let’s assume that the science is wrong and we take steps to dramatically reduce carbon emissions anyway. What is the worst that can happen?

Yes, it may for the short term make energy a bit more expensive and cost jobs in the oil and coal industries, but in the long term those jobs lost would be replaced by better, less dangerous jobs in the renewable energy market. We also get rid of limited pollution producing energy sources and replace them with unlimited clean environmentally friendly energy.

The best part is that wind, solar, geothermal, bio-fuels.. ..ect, are stable, globally distributed resources. Which means that their use can only get cheaper.

Even without climate change, moving away from fossil fuels still makes a lot of sense. The long term benefits far outweigh any short term hardships.

Now, lets assume the science is right and we don’t take action to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions,

We are already seeing animals like the Polar Bear becoming endangered and facing extinction due to environmental changes. Permafrost is melting, possibly releasing diseases that hasn’t been seen in thousands of years, from which we may not have a defence.

In just a few decades we will lose billions, if not trillions of dollars worth of property in our coastal cities due to rising sea levels. Our food supply will start to dwindle due to massive crop failures and interruption of our food chain. Widespread wars will break out as people fight over disappearing resources.

Within fifty to one hundred years our environment could collapse altogether making the earth inhospitable to human life.

So which seems like the more reasonable option? Take a chance on a less than ideal economic impact or take a chance of subjecting our children and grandchildren to a miserable existence on a dying planet?

I know climate change deniers love their children, so why would they take that chance, even if they see it as a small one?

This brings up another perplexing thought. I understand that there are people who accept that climate change is real and accept that the cause is man made, yet still vote for people who would do everything in their power to ensure we keep using fossil fuels,

Why?

 What issue could possibly be more important than the fate of the climate our lives depend on?

If we fuck this world up, there is no other.

There is a tipping point and once we reach it there is no return, That point is very very close (if not already here).

Perhaps there is a line of reasoning that the deniers have that I am missing. If there is please reply and let me know.

Paul

Doctor Visit

Went to the doctor today.

Thankfully I don’t have to have surgery but he said that the break is VERY VERY VERY BAD.

Turns out I kinda shattered my ankle, and all that is holding it together is a hope and a prayer. He said I would have to spend a minimum of eight weeks (probably closer to twelve) without putting any weight whatsoever on it. Doing so would risk my ankle collapsing and the need for reconstructive surgery.

The good news is that I got a nice Ky blue cast.

Knee Scooter

The doctor prescribed me something called a “knee scooter” to help me get around while my ankle heals.

I don’t know who invented this thing but they deserve a medal. The difference between it and crutches is night and day.

Crutches allow you to (with difficulty) get from point A to point B and not much else. The scooter not only does the same quicker and easier but it allows me to also carry Items, making me much less dependent on others.

I like zipping around on this thing so much I may just buy one to use after my ankle heals (Yes I am that lazy).

Paul

Broken Ankle

It seems my idiotic carelessness has finally caught up with me and I broke my ankle.

I was one or two steps up on a stepladder (which was stupidly placed on some loose soil), the ladder began to tilt, I attempted to jump off, landed wrong and the result was a broken ankle.

Since I will have an abundance of time on my hands for the next few weeks, expect to see this blog come back to life.

Paul