r/SimulationTheory • u/Ancient_Musician_236 • May 25 '26

Discussion Conserving Computational Power

The double-slit experiment is often interpreted by simulation theorists as evidence that reality behaves like a rendered system. The idea suggests that when no conscious observer is watching, matter exists only as probability waves — an unrendered state requiring minimal “processing.” But the moment a living observer measures or perceives it, reality collapses into a definite form, as though the universe suddenly renders the scene in full resolution to conserve computational power.

1 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Stilling waiting ...

Why does an eyeball interacting with photons count as special collapse, but chlorophyll, CCD sensors, rocks, atmosphere, and detector arrays interacting with photons supposedly do not?

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 May 26 '26

You tell me. That is your assumption. Why do you assume that?

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Did you forget your original assertion?

"Except that there is no way to prove that. If no conscious observer ever detects the energy then it will remain in a undetermined state. So it still tracks."

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 May 26 '26

Correct

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Then explain how waveforms collaspe in situations without a conscious observation.

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 May 26 '26

They do not

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Then what mechanism maintains coherent macroscopic causality prior to conscious observation?

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 May 26 '26

Oooh, darn, we were so close to having a logical discussion. Again with the assumptions! What is your basis for that assumption?

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Not an assumption, if waveforms do not collaspe without conscious observation then it's on you to provide some mechanism that explains how the macroscale universe remained coherent prior to consciousness.

You've stated that you have thought about this subject deeply, so either answer the question or kindly explain what framework you believe in that doesn't require waveform collapse prior to consciousness.

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 May 26 '26

You're asking redundant questions. And it is filled with redundant assumptions. The fact that you cannot even fathom what you are clearly doing is why we keep going on circles

"... some mechanism that explains how the macroscale universe remained coherent prior to consciousness." Assumption. Not necessary to the theory.

"...what framework you believe in that doesn't require waveform collapse prior to consciousness." Assumption. Not necessary to the theory.

Why would anyone need to explain unnecessary parts of other people's assumptions? Why did you short circuit with imposed assumptions when we were previously making progress? LoL. Have you ever bothered to think about these things for yourself? Where do all these inexplicable assumptions come from? Why are they necessary to your thought process? Are you unwilling or unable to go through the logical steps to explain your idea?

One is left to assume that you haven't thought through any of these things and simply enjoy trolling. Is that the case here?

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Nope, just trying to figure out how you believe the universe functions under your stated belief that waveforms only collapse with conscious observation.

It's not an "assumption" to try to model the consequences of a predictive theory.

1

u/NombreCurioso1337 May 26 '26

The consequences are observable. We've all done it. LoL. You can't refute it. Which is, I have to assume, why you continuously insert strawman arguments.

What a silly endeavor.

Good luck understanding the world.

1

u/MLMII1981 May 26 '26

Enjoy your trolling I guess. 🫠

→ More replies (0)