Do you think the universe is a machine? That of course implies that it was built by someone.
Lately I started to have some strange ideas about our universe. Let's consider some engineer built it. He has the hardware and he will create the rules and the data of the universe (software).
For a second let's think about what we do in games. We decide the physics of the game world, we create the world itself, we don't wait NPC's to appear by emergence like in evolution because it's not a simulation, it's a game, so we create the NPC's with the rules as well.
Let's imagine however that NPC's can show some original behavior and learn experimenting and modify their own states as well. One of the NPC's named Einstein discovered some of the global rules of our game world by experimenting. They are the software rules we decided when we write software (our game). They are precise, simple and beautiful rules.
Then there's another NPC named Planck and he discovered that our game world is not continuous as everybody thought. It's actually 60 fps. Also the world is actually pixelated and you can't actually move a smaller distance than one pixel. In fact the 60 fps time resolution doesn't let you to experiment with really quick things, nothing can happen between two consecutive game frames.
Some other NPC named Bohr even realized that only the visible part of the world is actually rendered, even though the whole world is ticking. He believed that the moon is not there if you don't look at it.
I know the metaphors are not infallible, but I think you got the point. What if relativity is just about the software our builder write and quantum is completely irrelevant hardware limitations that we shouldn't even suppose to realize. In a computer game example, they have nothing to do with each other and combining them with a single theory would be stupid.
Lately I started to have some strange ideas about our universe. Let's consider some engineer built it. He has the hardware and he will create the rules and the data of the universe (software).
For a second let's think about what we do in games. We decide the physics of the game world, we create the world itself, we don't wait NPC's to appear by emergence like in evolution because it's not a simulation, it's a game, so we create the NPC's with the rules as well.
Let's imagine however that NPC's can show some original behavior and learn experimenting and modify their own states as well. One of the NPC's named Einstein discovered some of the global rules of our game world by experimenting. They are the software rules we decided when we write software (our game). They are precise, simple and beautiful rules.
Then there's another NPC named Planck and he discovered that our game world is not continuous as everybody thought. It's actually 60 fps. Also the world is actually pixelated and you can't actually move a smaller distance than one pixel. In fact the 60 fps time resolution doesn't let you to experiment with really quick things, nothing can happen between two consecutive game frames.
Some other NPC named Bohr even realized that only the visible part of the world is actually rendered, even though the whole world is ticking. He believed that the moon is not there if you don't look at it.
I know the metaphors are not infallible, but I think you got the point. What if relativity is just about the software our builder write and quantum is completely irrelevant hardware limitations that we shouldn't even suppose to realize. In a computer game example, they have nothing to do with each other and combining them with a single theory would be stupid.
