The Observer Effect and Entanglement are Practically Requirements of Programmed Reality

Programmed Reality has been an incredibly successful concept in terms of explaining the paradoxes and anomalies of Quantum Mechanics, including non-Reality, non-Locality, the Observer Effect, Entanglement, and even the Retrocausality of John Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment.

I came up with those explanations by thinking about how Programmed Reality could explain such curiosities.

But I thought it might be interesting to view the problem in the reverse manner.  If one were to design a universe-simulating Program, what kinds of curiosities might result from an efficient design?  (Note: I fully realize that any entity advanced enough to simulate the universe probably has a computational engine that is far more advanced that we can even imagine; most definitely not of the von-Neumann variety.  Yet, we can only work with what we know, right?)

So, if I were to create such a thing, for instance, I would probably model data in the following manner:

For any space unobserved by a conscious entity, there is no sense in creating the reality for that space in advance.  It would unnecessarily consume too many resources.

For example, consider the cup of coffee on your desk.  Is it really necessary to model every single subatomic particle in the cup of coffee in order to interact with it in the way that we do?  Of course not.  The total amount of information contained in that cup of coffee necessary to stimulate our senses in the way that it does (generate the smell that it does; taste the way it does; feel the way it does as we drink it; swish around in the cup the way that it does; have the little nuances, like tiny bubbles, that make it look real; have the properties of cooling at the right rate to make sense, etc.) might be 10MB or so.  Yet, the total potential information content in a cup of coffee is 100,000,000,000 MB, so there is a ratio of perhaps 100 trillion in compression that can be applied to an ordinary object.

But once you decide to isolate an atom in that cup of coffee and observe it, the Program would then have to establish a definitive position for that atom, effectively resulting in the collapse of the wave function, or decoherence.  Moreover, the complete behavior of the atom, at that point, might be forever under control of the program.  After all, why delete the model once observed, in the event (probably fairly likely) that it will be observed again at some point in the future.  Thus, the atom would have to be described by a finite state machine.  It’s behavior would be decided by randomly picking values of the parameters that drive that behavior, such as atomic decay.  In other words, we have created a little mini finite state machine.

So, the process of “zooming in” on reality in the Program would have to result in exactly the type of behavior observed by quantum physicists.  In other words, in order to be efficient, resource-wise, the Program decoheres only the space and matter that it needs to.

Let’s say we zoom in on two particles at the same time; two that are in close proximity to each other.  Both would have to be decohered by the Program.  The decoherence would result in the creation of two mini finite state machines.  Using the same random number seed for both will cause the state machines to forever behave in an identical manner.

No matter how far apart you take the particles.  i.e…

Entanglement!

So, Observer Effect and Entanglement might both be necessary consequences of an efficient Programmed Reality algorithm.

 

coffee185 entanglement185

There is no “Now.” But there will be.

One of our long time Forum Members posted an excellent question: “Is there really a ‘now'”?  The mystics tell us that there is only NOW.  But I suspect they are referring to a state of reality or a state of consciousness that one only reaches when they die or if they sit on top of a mountain contemplating their naval for a dozen or so years and get really lucky.

Back in the reality that we all know and love, I got to thinking about the reality that we all know and love.  And came to the conclusion that there is no NOW.  Here’s why:

Our interpretation of the present is really based on our short term memory, which lasts some 30 seconds or so. If we had no short term memory, we would not be able to think, plan, procreate, remember to eat, etc. In short, we would perish.

However, what is in short term memory is not NOW, it is the past. Now can only be defined as an instant. Or, in mathematical terms, it is t=0, or the limit as “delta t” approaches zero at t=0. As an absolute, or an infinite concept, it could only exist in an infinite universe, which also must be continuous. As I “tend” to believe that our universe is not infinite and is bound by the attributes of the Program (see “The Universe – Solved!”), the smallest unit of time around the concept of NOW would be a clock cycle of the Program. If it is the Planck time, then it is 10E-43 seconds (although it could be other resolutions). In any case, it has a duration, so it can’t be instantaneous or absolute. Therefore, there is no NOW, only our PERCEPTION of now, which is our very short term memory.

That said, in the other realm, where consciousness “probably” goes after death, everything is NOW, as the mystics say. That is because there is no physical stuff, no brain, no short term memory, and therefore no need for time as a dimension. Hence, everything could only be NOW.

If so, no need to even fear the “five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique.”

kill-bill-guy185

Quantum Mechanics Anomalies – Solved!

Scientists are endlessly scratching their heads over the paradoxes presented by quantum mechanics – duality, entanglement, the observer effect, nonlocality, non-reality.  The recent cover story in New Scientist, “Reality Gap” (or “Is quantum theory weird enough for the real world?” in the online version) observes: “Our best theory of nature has no roots in reality.”

BINGO! But then they waste this accurate insight by looking for one.

Just three days later, a new article appears: “Infinite doppelgängers may explain quantum probabilities”  Browse the website or that of other popular scientific journals and you’ll find no end of esteemed physicists taking a crack at explaining the mysteries of QM.  Doppelgängers now?  Really?  I mean no disrespect to our esteemed experts, but the answer to all of your mysteries is so simple.  Take a brave step outside of your narrow field and sign up for Computer Science 101 and Information Theory 101.  And then think outside the box, if even just for a few minutes.

Every anomaly is explained, thusly:

Duality and the Observer Effect: “Double Slit Anomaly is No Mystery to Doctor PR

Entanglement: “Quantum Entanglement – Solved (with pseudocode)”

Non-Reality: “Reality Doesn’t Exist, according to the latest research

Nonlocality: “Non-locality Explained!”

Got any more anomalies?  Send them my way! Smile

realitycheck

Reality Doesn’t Exist, according to the latest research

A team of physicists in Vienna has conducted a set of “reality” experiments that prove to a level of 80 orders of magnitude that reality doesn’t exist unless you observe it.  In other words, in case you ever doubted the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment, doubt no longer.  It seems that experimental evidence has confirmed that we create our own reality by looking at it, measuring it, or observing it.  The detail are here.

The results of many of recent experiments twist our perceptions of reality even more.  Studies by Helmut Schmidt, Elmar Gruber, Brenda Dunne, Robert Jahn, and others have shown, for example, that humans are actually able to influence past events (aka retropsychokinesis, or RPK), such as pre-recorded (and previously unobserved) random number sequences.  No huge surprise to me, who questions everything about our conventional views of reality.  But I still think the evidence is fascinating and probably a bit unnerving to say the least, to the majority of those out there who don’t typically consider such things.  Cause and effect, and reality are certainly not what they seem.

What could be the explanation?  Certainly, more experiments to probe the depths of reality are needed.  But that doesn’t stop us from speculating.  Once again, Programmed Reality offers a perfect explanation.  Assuming that the programmed construct can detect “observation” (which, in principle, does not appear to be that difficult of a process), all the program has to do is the following:

if(observed)
select result from a subset of coherent results
else, randomize result

For example, in the classic reality experiment, pairs of photons are generated which are “entangled” by virtue of the fact that they were generated from the same reaction.  Those photons can be separated by large distances and then a property of one of them is measured.  The act of measuring the property of one photon immediately determines the property of the other photon, even if it is so far away that it precludes “knowing” about what is happening to its twin photon because of the limitations of exceeding the speed of light.  However, in the Programmed Reality model, the properties of the two photons can be related programmatically.  Once an experiment determines one property, the program sets the other photons property accordingly.  The program is aware of the observation and could be in full control of the properties of the paired particles.

For the RPK effect…

when(observed)
set result from archive to a subset of coherent results

For an example of this effect, imagine a set of random numbers generated programmatically and stored in some sort of archive.  The archive, of course, being a product of Programmed Reality, is under full control of the program.  The archive is not observed prior to the experiment and the subjects perform mass consciousness experiments on the data.  The program measures the level of “coherence” of the consciousness in the experiment and then sets the correlation of the stored numbers according to some algorithm, formula, or table.  When the experimenters unveil the data, lo and behold, they are not truly random, but rather, appear to be affected by the consciousness experiment.  A simple software algorithm can make this work!

The interesting question, though, is “What is the motivation behind the program?”  Why would it have such an effect?  Perhaps the answer lies in the idea that sentient beings do truly create their reality.  Much like “Sim City,” where the players create their reality, perhaps our reality is created accordingly to a complex set of rules and algorithms, which include such attributes as intent and observation.

This doesn’t prove the validity of Programmed Reality, but I have to wonder, how many anomalies does the theory have to solve, for it to be seriously considered?  Wink

IQOQI Reality Test Experiment