Do we truly not all live in the lattice?

Reading now: 147

After the arrival of the film "The Matrix" and its continuations on the wide screen, numerous individuals pondered: do we truly not all live in the lattice? How might we demonstrate that this is truly not the situation?

The fundamental verification that we as a whole don't live in the network is the way that a limitless measure of information can be gathered about the world in which we live (we will examine how to do this later), for example this world is genuine.

To be sure, assuming we lived in a lattice, the properties of this grid, i.e., the virtual world wherein we would be inundated, would need to be recorded on some medium, which would clearly be limited in that other nonexistent "genuine world". Something else, the production of such a transporter would "take" the entire world, and this is indistinguishable from the way that we would just live in it, since it was totally made for us, i.e., once more, we don't live in the framework.

Presently back to the subject of where to get the limitless measure of information about our reality. Here, obviously, it quickly rings a bell that they say so much is as yet unclear, and the more we learn, the more incidentally, we actually need to learn… This is valid, however a limitless measure of data about our reality can be found in considerably more recognizable "things". These are the numbers " Pi " and "Type". As you probably are aware, these numbers mirror the properties of our reality and simultaneously are silly, that is, they mirror the properties of our reality. they have endlessly numerous decimal spots, which are not arranged at all and are not rehashed by any calculation, which implies that the record of their "precise" esteem contains an endlessness of data.

Thusly, just these two numbers show us that to record the properties of our reality, you need to have a boundless stockpiling medium, and on the off chance that you add the wide range of various properties, everything being equal, and marvels saw in this world, at that point you can surely not do not as much as vastness of bytes.

Coincidentally, the numbers "Pi" and "Example", we should call it in this way, are "impartially" nonsensical, for example it doesn't make any difference where number framework we work, and what units of estimation of actual amounts we use, in any of them these numbers will stay silly (dissimilar to, for instance, the speed of light, Planck's steady, rudimentary charge, gravitational and other comparable constants, for which you can generally think of such an arrangement of estimation of units, in which they will be whole numbers).

According to such a proof that we don't live in a network, we can make two sensible (from the start) perceptions: first, what keeps us from displaying our reality utilizing a supercomputer utilizing just inexact estimations of the constants "Pi" and "Type", for instance, with a precision of up to 1,000,000 decimal places, this would not need a ton of memory? Individuals some way or another figure out how to demonstrate whole universes in PC games utilizing certain calculations. Also, furthermore, all things considered, individuals know a route by which you can ascertain an ever increasing number of decimal spots in these constants to endlessness, i.e., a supercomputer could most likely do likewise. We can't compose the entire number " Pi " immediately, however we can review it to a particular number of decimal spots.

The response to both of these complaints will be a similar assertion: "The truth of the matter is that in nature impartially, and autonomously of the will and the presence of man as a rule, and of which man can do and what he can't do, there are genuine articles and genuine cycles that happen, which, in addition to other things, are portrayed by these 'unbiasedly' silly numbers." This implies that, indeed, there have been, there are, and there will be cycles and items that have certain properties that depend on the" instant "numbers" Pi " and "Type" on the whole the completion of the silliness of these numbers, for example such cycles that "consider" every one of the decimal spots in these numbers, the whole limitlessness of these signs, and if at any rate one of these signs were distinctive in these numbers, it would be an alternate world, with various laws of nature.

The way that the numbers "Pi" and "Type" can be determined with any precision effectively in the displaying cycle sometimes falls short for nature, or rather it "couldn't care less" about this reality, since it doesn't ascertain anything, it exists, and is just portrayed by these numbers. This is somebody who might want to show our reality would require these numbers, and in the event that he needed to completely mimic it, he would require precise and instant estimations of the numbers " Pi "and" Exponent", which require a vastness of data to compose. However, by and by, the contention isn't this, paying little mind to the way that we or somebody would appear to have the option to display a world like our own utilizing a few techniques and approximations (or determined during the time spent) course, our reality as of now contains an endlessness of data that portrays numerous cycles happening in it, since among different numbers that describe them, there are "dispassionately" silly ones.

The website is an aggregator of articles from open sources. The source is indicated at the beginning and at the end of the announcement. You can send a complaint on the article if you find it unreliable.

Related articles