We wouldn't necessarily be living in a computer simulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't a simulation. We could just be an extension of an already existing reality, a projected version of beings that can transfer or alter their consciousness to far-flung places without endangering their original forms.
The human brain wants to know everything. But it has dimensional restrictions. Maximum it can do is "think and interpret" But the truth is above the realm of it.....
Aren't you a human? By the statement you have already attained the wisdom or sensed the truth which is beyond 'think' and 'interpret', you must not be a human to derive that conclusion 😂
Such topics are an exercise of human logic, an animal existing on a rock falling through "space". I love thinking about such things, not everyone cares to think about topics that don't have an answer, some can't stand the idea of NOT having the answer. *shrugs*
@@marcradford252 Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne often say that various questions 'demand answers'. The clear implication is that having an answer (any answer?) is inherently superior to admitting that you don't have one. So much for keeping an open mind.
When you have spent the last 50 years playing computer games from the release of Pong to today's 4K MMORPGs, understanding the concept of actually being in the simulation, is not a far fetch at all.
@@Stoddardian Does it matter who made the simulation? What would you do with that information if you had it? How would life change for anyone here on Earth, if we had the information of who made the simulation? Can you provide some examples?
@@Stoddardian Let's bullet-point this discussion so far: * I say based upon my gaming experience, being in a simulation is not a far stretch. * You reply That's kicking the can down the road (huh?) and who made the simulation? * I ask you How does knowing who made the simulation matter, how will knowing this affect us? * You reply That's not how it works (how what works?) and We always look for answers. To be honest, I'm not following your responses, or your line of thought. Can you tie what you have said thus far back to my original post for me? All I said was a simulation is not a far stretch. lol 8-)
For the people suffering in this world this question would be irrelevant.I don’t think anyone could create a simulation with so much emotional and physical pain
That’s existence. The alternative is to not exist. Pain is a small price to pay when the alternative is to not exist at all. Let’s say you just woke up for the first time ever and you are presented the choice of existence with all the possibilities of horror, joy, sadness, thrills , it’s all an unknown crap shoot. Or, go back to non existence. I know what I’d choose, existence with all it’s possible outcomes regardless of wether they are good or bad. I stand amazed and grateful to exist at all in a conscious state . The odds of my existence at all in this universe is beyond staggering.
@@joeshumo9457 Pain is a great reason to prefer not to exist.I don’t see existing as something beautiful.I think in my individual experience the fact that my consciousness emerged in this planet is maybe the greatest lack of luck that could ever happen to me
@@kokomanationIt's all perspective, isn't it? If you want to change your experience of something, all you need to do is change your interaction with it.
You may want to talk about double slit experiment. It is truly practical yet just as bizzare experiment as Schrödinger's cat and have similar implications.
The speed of light is a convenient constraint for a simulation. Also per sightings, those tictocs flying around and getting detected by the military, the way they don’t react with air and water, seems as the representation of a higher dimensional object into 3d space, a way for the creators to observe in 3d. Also the fiftyfiftyness of the wave function collapse looks like randomization for the sake of creating conscious life in the simulation. Lastly entropy seems as a pre planned way to disperse concentrated energy, be the reason for life creation. I honestly prefer that we live in a simulation, I’d hate it if we are the base, it will be something in addition to the universe, they can give us the cheat sheet on fusion energy and interstellar travel. I like to imagine that the goal of the exercise is to see of how elevated of a conciousness can the system produce, in the correct circumstances and over time I reckon that a society in the computer can end being up morally superior to the one of the creators.
Yes, something in physics would actually suggest that you are in a simulation. All simulation systems work in a determined range and begin to show issues when you get close to the limits of that range. For example, in computer science, - given a limited number of available bits - you have problems when zooming into much detail, you start to see the single different pixels of an image corresponding to single bits and the system no longer works properly: the image is not correctly reproduced anymore, no longer recognizable. But the same thing happens in our physics: this is why it's called the "quantum" mechanics. That is, you go from a normal ANALOG perception of reality to a DIGITAL perception, made of quantum jumps, in which determinations of positions and velocities become impossible. The available resources appear to plummet: there are only a limited number of states in which matter can be. For what reason? There is no apparent logical reason. Other phenomena such as entanglement are mathematically explainable, but their existence is nonsensical in my opinion since it can occur at infinite distance at infinite speed. Thus physics (the alleged simulation) actually appears to get problems when going into the microscopic world. But - when numbers are very large - also there you can see that strange things show up, you must face a nice speed limit c. Why can't you go faster? When approaching that limit objects show a strange behavior, they distort their shape, increase their mass...All what above could represent a clue that you are getting close to the limits of a range of a simulation. That is, a simulation exists.
There's no way to see outside of the simulation, much like you can't see past the observable Universe. If we assume infinite computing power, and the parameters are correctly set then the simulation would be stable. You can travel faster than light & outside of time if you're already travelling faster than light. Maybe the simulation will be built on a computer made of light, by being made of light?
The idea that our reality is a simulation seems, in effect, like a backdoor version of Intelligent Design. Also, if we’re a simulation, what about the higher level beings that created us as a simulation? Does their universe have actual reality, or are they being simulated by the next level up in reality? So, where does it end? Is it simulations all the way up? Something like turtles all the way down?
@@guaromiami I never said math wasn't related to the physical world, I asked how the Mandelbrot set specifically is related to the universe. The Mandelbrot set is a bunch of numbers scrambled in a pattern we came up with to make a cool looking picture. What does that have to do with anything?
If we are in a simulation I can't see how it makes any practical difference to our existence. We still remain in this environment with its known and unknown laws for all of our lives. For what it's worth I don't think we do as an explanation for why we are here as it only removes the question of "why" up to the next level. It is also hard to comprehend what exactly the payoff is for the simulation creators for running something of such scale and complexity.
I agree, it’s an interesting question but there’s not much practical use to the answer unless we could somehow interact directly with the simulation’s creators, which sounds even more preposterous than being in one in the first place. Although that’s what most religions purport. Lol
Though you might not have any way to interact with it, in general we are only seeking information anyway. I think my point looks clearer if we take our own selves as part of a broader universe in which our control over anything is almost none. In a way, I think it might make a huge impact for us to have this knowledge, but also, if we grasp anything from the upper "reality", it might be a good thing. Imagine being able to bend this simulation in a way to make suffering go away?
It does make a difference. ie, what if the simulation stops running right now. There is so much to gain from simulating a universe, although I sometimes ponder what IS the point…
If this is not a simulation, then our consciousness is just an offshoot of Mother Nature, meant to create disentropy where all other non-living parts of nature is creating entropy (until the Big Crunch perhaps). However, if its a simulation, then maybe our purpose changes. Maybe the purpose of an evolved consciousness is to find out who created the simulation. Something akin to the concluding ssegment of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
9:40 I don't think so. But they can come back and probe for the mystery of how they came to be. So if the universe was briefly open to configure our world to new space and it was something they wanted to observe as their miracle in a deep past... Then they can look on with as much wonder or curiosity as us but they cannot actually grasp or by default participate in how it happens during the unfolding moment of an unknown thing in their past.
I see a problem with the Schroedinger cat example and the "as if"-argument. We open the door of the box the cat is in and see either a hungry cat or a smelly piece of meat. True, but the reason that this will be the result is that the measurement and thus the collapse of the wave function has already happened before we open the door due to unavoidable interaction of the cat with the environment despite the door being closed. There is no macroscopic container which shields perfectly from interaction with everything outside the container. Hence collapse of the wave function will happen even if the door is closed and it will happen very fast because the cat is a macroscopic object with an enormous large number of degrees of freedom. We know that the decoherence speeds up exponentially the more macroscopic an object in a superposition state becomes.
Schrodinger introduced the *"cat in the box paradox"* to demonstrate how crazy reality must be if quantum theory is true. However, decoherence does not resolve the collapse of the wavefunction issue. According to Wiki... *"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....'Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse'..."*
Exactly! It is unfortunate that the words "observation" and "measurement" have been confused with "interaction." The von Neumann-Wigner interpretation continues to distract us from getting closer to truth, despite the very strong evidence against the need for a conscious observer. After all, the universe, including its quantum mechanical processes, has been around far longer than humans have existed.
This is exactly what I told my physics professor in the introductory quantum mechanics lecture. Isn't the cat an observer of its own life? Physics is seriously delusional sometimes, ignoring even something as simple as common sense, that the cat would know about its own existence.
I think he means IN PRINCIPLE, not in practicality. Would it be conceivably possible to construct a Schrodinger cat setup which is quantum mechanically isolated - and what would the results be?
@@BillRemskiThat’s making the assumption that it’s conscious awareness that collapses the wave function, but that notion is not represented anywhere in quantum mechanics and is not derivable from it.
given the fact that we have seen so many interesting experiments like quantum eraser in the past few years it is clear that there are many more depths to plumb in terms of physics and reality - things are much stranger than we could ever hope to imagine and that is just damn interesting plus it has real world implications which we can use to understand nature better and reality more thoroughly - all in all it is a deep pocket and fund of knowledge physicists are exploring and we all wait patiently for the next big discovery.
There are two problems with Linde's argument: 1. His assertion that the only reason to create a universe that the creator won't be able to interact with is "to send a message to people who will someday evolve there." An alternative reason is to create a place where people (and animals and trees etc) are likely to evolve, simply to share the creator's joy of living. Another alternative reason is a sadistic desire to create more suffering. 2. His assertion that ANY desired message could be encoded into the fundamental constants of the created universe. The only messages that could be both encoded AND RECEIVED are messages such that (1) the message can be encoded into fundamental constants that are compatible with intelligent life; (2) all parts of the message affect physics in ways that intelligent life can observe; and (3) no observable physics adds "noise" that mangles the message into incomprehensibility. Those are tough constraints for a message to satisfy.
We need to break it down and ask, do we really have free will? Whats it mean to experience things? How do we experience things? Are we more than just deterministic machines?
We do know right off the bat that we are not machines, we are organisms. We are born, we grow and develop, and eventually we die. None of this happens to machines. I also just found out that there are 4 types of determinism, logical, theological, psychological and physical determinism. I personally don't think that any type of determinism makes any sense. To determine an outcome means that one outcome is preferred over any other, and only a mind can have a preference.
@caricue It don't know what it means for an outcome to be "preferred" as that's a man made word. Who is preferring an outcome? Determined means you will get a specific outcome that has to be that outcome, it can't be anything else. Not that the outcome is "preferred" whatever that means, but that's its a law.
@@maxhagenauer24 I'm happy to use the word "specific" instead of preferred if you don't like the implication, but if you look at the word "determine" you'll see that every other usage involves some mental operation. In nature, no specific outcome is ever preordained. If the sun shines on a glacier, the water molecules can turn to water and flow away, or they can sublimate directly to vapor and float away. What is specifying the outcome? Nature is chaos, and while the laws of nature are never broken, they also don't pick outcomes. I think what really confuses people is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result. The reason this works is because there is a scientist who sets up the experiment in order to get a specific outcome. The experimenter can change the outcome at will by changing the conditions. The atoms and molecules will happily go along with this new configuration because they are passive objects. They don't determine anything. We don't live in a deterministic universe, sorry Newton. We live in a universe that features reliable causation. This is why life is able to get desired outcomes and humans are able to utilize technology for their own ends. Sorry for the long answer, but this is as short as it is possible to make the point.
@@caricue and music are radios right. I challenge you to prove your thesis. Did you study the Nikayas yet? Of course you didn't, you don't stand a chance.
@@maxhagenauer24 So you don't like "preferred" because of its connotations of human goals, but every other use of the word "determine" involves human mental activity. Swapping "specific" for "preferred" doesn't really change much either. One would have to ask who exactly is specifying the outcome? My contention is that "determinism" and "causation" are projections of the human proclivity to look for someone or something to blame. Nature is pure chaos, so all our projections will lead us to error.
We will probably never know whether we are in a simulation or not. But, it is good to ask the questions however bizarre they may be for science to make any progress.
You think you are interviewing me in a hi-spec office but that is the simulation. In reality you are interviewing me a old tractor factory sitting on dodgy chairs with a moody yellow metal table.
What kind of a message could be encoded in the fundamental constants of nature? I mean really, how do you encode, "Love one another?" Or are we encoding pi? Big deal, in that case. It would be indistinguishable from another spot that pi appears.
Yes, we live in a simulation, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics or quantum mechanics. We have a group of men and women that elaborate the tomorrow's events and our daily events. We think that we control our own opinions, but the options that we have, are created by the same group of men and women. The only thing that we can do is become aware of the simulation, we can't stop the simulation... and even if we could, we would need to create another simulation to replace the current one. Now, the men and women that create the simulation, how do they live their own lives around us, knowing that this is a lie? Do they enjoy themselves watching us believing that this is real?
Oh my god!!! This concept is like seriously heavy man! I’m literally blown away, right? These guys who think come up with such crazily amazing thoughts, man!
The Model / Ruleset that gradually gets installed into our brains from conception onward is the Simulation -- the Construct. This Construct is a collection of Patterns: Routines and SubRoutines. These Programs may consist of various geometrical activations at the same time and many, many other intricate possibilities. These 'programs' are akin to software so in a sense, they are illusory -- these 'simulations' are from most points of views invisible. Visualize the Eiffel Tower for a moment! Okay -- now, if we were to look inside the brain, we would not find a mini Eiffel Tower or a picture or something.... Whatever enables this Visualization of an Eiffel Tower must be some kind of a Simulation -- a temporary Manifestation that doesn't always exist in a traditional, material sense.
Reminds me of Carl Sagans book "Contact" where a message was found encoded deep into the abyss of infinite numers in Pi, a message from somwhere! What or from who was never revealed. (sorry for the spoiler..)
I think people think we are in a simulation now because life seems so comfortable. We have most things we need, shops, food, shiny things, social media, internet, technology etc!! ….I often look around me and think it’s all too good to be true!. If I was sat in a hut in the medieval days with nothing I probably wouldn’t have thought about a simulation. Life isn’t primitive enough anymore so it’s easy to think of a simulation based on all the crazy modern things around us making us feel that way. My theory is the universe is a cyclic system of particles and we so happen to have scattered and formed and existed right now. The next trillion X trillion universes probably won’t allow us to exist again but one day the particles will be scattered in the same way. Maybe every possible conscious being or combination of particles in the universe will always exist and to each one it feels like a constant existence because of how non consciousness passes time so quickly.
Imagine the universe itself is alive (one explanation for why we believe life is found throughout the universe), then it would have consciousness, intelligence and creativity like all living things that we know of have. At that point, our own life, which we trace back at least 4+billion years to an unknown beginning, with all life on earth descending from common ancestors, would seem to be derivative to the overall living universe creature. So that might indicate a universal mind. That would explain a lot. Communication with aliens could happen because in a way we would share a mind with them.
You know people search for a song they heard? I search for physicists I studied. All I remember is that he is an Eastern European theoretical physicist who studied inflation theory. This might be him but I am still not 100% sure 😅
What if… that’s what life is or rather can do … collapsing the wave function. Question is - is that collapsed wave function only valid for that life form? Otherwise you would have to assume that even the bacteria in the box or even in the cat that’s still “alive” would collapse the function before the human even opens the box.
All we have to do is a brain implant chip, wipe our memories, and send imagery and sensory signals and boom, were in a simulation. Time is relative.. And its already been done.
someone must be there to watch the simulation, for it to be both dead or alive not to mention that the observer must also be self observable otherwise who's observing the observer 🤔
What you're really asking is if Nature is prior to consciousness; or if consciousness is prior to Nature? If Nature is prior to consciousness then there is no simulation. If consciousness is prior to Nature then knowledge is not an "answer" provided by questions asked of Nature. The answer of knowledge is provided by questions asked of...? The questions and the answers are provided by consciousness, no?
Very interesting conversation. Whether or not a universe could be created in a lab is a different conversation. It would be a real universe and not simulated. Creating a universe in a machine that includes conscious entities who believe themselves to be real is my understanding of a simulation. An unimaginably powerful and sophisticated computer running lines of code. A computer “game” with us as the players that is so cleverly written there is no way to prove it isn’t real. Maybe Ai and quantum computing can figure it out and humans can make their own simulated universe Rick-and-Morty style. One base reality we will never know, and turtles all the way down.
Every question such as this has relevance to our existence. As a species we are constantly seeking. The sudden explosion of knowledge over the last 300 years began when we stopped accepting God's or the Gods' word for everything. We have gone from the center of the universe to awed observers. We could be crushed by our insignificance except we are a species that asks questions, and in seeking answers to those questions we give our existence meaning. I rarely consider the simulation question but it is beautiful to consider this for 16.10 minutes. Thanks.
We live on a giant volcanic rock filled with an enormous amount of water that rotates constantly. The atmosphere is filled with lightning while a giant star, which is millions of miles away, called the sun, keeps everyone from freezing. While small germs and wildlife wants to eat us. 😂⛳️🕳
@halcyon2864 And humans reproduce exponentially. The point is how we interpret this vast amount of data for useful causes. Why are you here? Who are you in this unlimited universe of creation and destruction? When did life originate? What created this self-conscious variation? Where did they go after? ⛳️🕳
Here I find myself amidst the vast expanse of this simulated realm, engrossed in a video delving into the depths of simulation theory. Yet, amidst the unraveling of existential musings, a peculiar impulse grips me-an urge to leave a comment veering into the realms of absurdity. I ponder the origin of such impulses, their cryptic significance, and the enigma of why I am compelled to divulge my culinary plans to Lawrence, of all people. Who orchestrated this intricately woven script, and what hidden motifs lie beneath? Ultimately, perhaps such inquiries are futile, for I am but a player in this cosmic theatre, destined to fulfill my role. As for tonight's culinary endeavors, the answer eludes me for now. Will a trip to the market ensue? If not, the options are scant-perhaps eggs and potatoes shall suffice. Ah, but duty calls, and so I venture forth to attend to mundane chores, leaving these ponderings to drift amidst the ether.
Un-evolved humans understanding a universe would be dangerous. Let them evolve first, then they can gradually and fully understand it. All about taking from it, just evolve and live with it.
I used to wonder about this as an adolescent listening to Dark Side of the Moon. If it's a simulation I'm fine with that. Maybe when I'm dead I'll end up in a more entertaining simulation.
Getting the Life Experience You Want Reality Simulator Manuel Kim Michaels explains earth is a simulation for the growth in self awareness .? It has two purposes the immersion phase and the awakening phase . Most are in the immersion a few are awakening . Same thing philosopher Renee Descartas wrote about hundreds of years ago which is what the movie the Matrix was based on his teachings ?
Well a simulated universe would be considered "not locally real" and quantum physics did prove the observable universe is indeed "not locally real" a year ago...
A "simulation" of what? What's it simulating? I suggest that the word *"illusion"* is more apropos. I'm talking about an illusion that has been created from an advanced and extremely ordered version of the same fundamental substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created.
He said living in a simulation means someone created the it? Doesn't reality imply the same thing? Whether its a simulation or not? The same laws of something from nothing still apply.
Great Question, additionally the preception of reality means there were many other factors that could have been @ play, how about the cat being sick, but this was not known by the viewer? the demise of the cat could be solely based on that " after the fact." I dunno man, but it seems they are fishing to some degree, yes I believe reality is based on pure perception, but there are other tangable facts that contribute to said reality. Especially those we can 👀 Whatever man. I am super interested but the more I learn, the more I get stuck... I NEED REAL EVIDENCE.. not these micro hypothetical assumptions
@@indevibe Just to clarify I'm not trying to see perception is all there is or perception creates reality or anything like that. I'm talking on simulations implying createts ionly see simulations that are created I have a hard time imagining one that could create itself it seems impossible but that doesn't really tell me it's impossible it's just me saying it based on my world experiences abd intuitions ect.. similar with God at best I feal like we could come uo with ways its possible without God (and i dont believe in god personally) but idk how we go farther than that.
@@indevibe What does it mean to say reality is based on pure perception, I also find these topics fascinating but i feel like i don't always understand what's being implied if that makes sense
Was there life before the universe? Is consciousness universal? Are we in a simulation? Is the universe infinite?…. I mean, maybe.. no one knows. There’s an infinite amount of ways you can cover up not knowing with a theory or idea.
As per Hinduism, the material universe "Mahamaya" was created by the God named Brahma along with Maa Saraswati (the goddess of sound). The ultimate creator or Source (You can call him Krishn) created and assigned Brahma with the task. Hence, the current school of thought by Prof. Linde that a scientist (Brahma) rather than a Divine being creating this universe (Mahamayaya or illusion) is quite congruent with the Hindu philosophy.
Really trying to fathom that we exist is mind bending, what sense does any of this make?? Other than God did so out of His good pleasure, it’s just completely silly to think that complete absence of anything, which I’m not convinced we can even imagine, could have in any way added anything to itself 0+0=0?
Or could be something beyond our understanding,never cling to 1 observation is my theory,kinda like using smoke signals back then & thinkin this is unbelievable but now you see other ways
When i think of the simulation theory it leads me to the non simulated universe where the simulators reside being much older than it is now. Lets say the "real" universe is 16.2 billion years old...earth has been uninhabitable for over a billion years and has been lost to the evolved versions of humans...they could simulate the the univese and see where it all began and watch the daily lives of the first humans on the homeworld of earth and this simulation has only simulated 13.8 billion years of the universe so far
There must be a lot of bad things for this man, and every time I think about this question, many bad things happen to me, as if your world is turning upside down or the universe is allied against you.
Things have to be there without observation otherwise wouldn't parts of space being observed collapse towards the non-existing non-observed point in space - as its a void essentially ? Is it not "farmboy logic thinking" as simple as that ?
Why if there are two observers of the cat separated 1 light year and the box is automatic opemed and both see the cat at the same time with his telescope they see the same state of the cat dead or alive
I view CTT religiously and am too critical in critique. Would be nice to have an account of Mr. Kuhn's, after the 2 decades of discussions, and I'm afraid that his disposition hasn't changed sense the very beginning of this episodic journey. Many questions are asked, and reading recipe books doesn't bake a cake. Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara. Plotinus Enneads, 'Select works' translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod Gerson. Plato, translated by Thomas Taylor. Proclus books, translated by Taylor. Iamblichus books. Syrianus books. Bhagavad Gita, translated by Sri Aurobindo. Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan. Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda. Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda. Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U. Meister Eckhart complete works. The Unknown God, by D. Carabine. Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells. Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist. Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism. Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics. Ananda Coomaraswamy books & essays. The presocratic Philosopher's - book. Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence. Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book. The Universal One, by Walter Russel. The gods of field theory: Henri Poincare Tesla Steinmetz Maxwell Heaviside Dollard
Great interview with a brilliant physicist. Very honest and humble responses.
I often ponder this… then I stub my toe on a chair leg and suddenly realise simulation or not, that is some real pain.
aka " Reality is an illusion, until someone kicks you in the balls. - Gandhi"
True dat. Oh yeah! Farting ..... what about farting ..... ain't no way farting is simulated.
When you think about pain, it is really one of the most unreal things, because unlike other things, only you can perceive it.
Haha, nice one
We wouldn't necessarily be living in a computer simulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't a simulation. We could just be an extension of an already existing reality, a projected version of beings that can transfer or alter their consciousness to far-flung places without endangering their original forms.
The human brain wants to know everything. But it has dimensional restrictions. Maximum it can do is "think and interpret" But the truth is above the realm of it.....
Aren't you a human? By the statement you have already attained the wisdom or sensed the truth which is beyond 'think' and 'interpret', you must not be a human to derive that conclusion 😂
@@sudipadhikari491The truth about a state of affairs, and the truth about our state of knowledge of it are answers to different questions.
Such topics are an exercise of human logic, an animal existing on a rock falling through "space".
I love thinking about such things, not everyone cares to think about topics that don't have an answer, some can't stand the idea of NOT having the answer. *shrugs*
@@marcradford252 Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne often say that various questions 'demand answers'. The clear implication is that having an answer (any answer?) is inherently superior to admitting that you don't have one. So much for keeping an open mind.
I admire your view brother ❤️ 😍 ♥️ 💙
When you have spent the last 50 years playing computer games from the release of Pong to today's 4K MMORPGs, understanding the concept of actually being in the simulation, is not a far fetch at all.
It's kicking the can down the road. Who made the simulation?
@@Stoddardian Does it matter who made the simulation? What would you do with that information if you had it? How would life change for anyone here on Earth, if we had the information of who made the simulation? Can you provide some examples?
@@Graybeard_ That's not how we work. We're a curious species. We always look for answers.
@@Stoddardian Let's bullet-point this discussion so far:
* I say based upon my gaming experience, being in a simulation is not a far stretch.
* You reply That's kicking the can down the road (huh?) and who made the simulation?
* I ask you How does knowing who made the simulation matter, how will knowing this affect us?
* You reply That's not how it works (how what works?) and We always look for answers.
To be honest, I'm not following your responses, or your line of thought. Can you tie what you have said thus far back to my original post for me? All I said was a simulation is not a far stretch. lol 8-)
love the slow zoom
For the people suffering in this world this question would be irrelevant.I don’t think anyone could create a simulation with so much emotional and physical pain
That’s existence. The alternative is to not exist. Pain is a small price to pay when the alternative is to not exist at all.
Let’s say you just woke up for the first time ever and you are presented the choice of existence with all the possibilities of horror, joy, sadness, thrills , it’s all an unknown crap shoot.
Or, go back to non existence.
I know what I’d choose, existence with all it’s possible outcomes regardless of wether they are good or bad.
I stand amazed and grateful to exist at all in a conscious state .
The odds of my existence at all in this universe is beyond staggering.
@@joeshumo9457 Pain is a great reason to prefer not to exist.I don’t see existing as something beautiful.I think in my individual experience the fact that my consciousness emerged in this planet is maybe the greatest lack of luck that could ever happen to me
@@kokomanationIt's all perspective, isn't it? If you want to change your experience of something, all you need to do is change your interaction with it.
@@joeshumo9457how do you know you haven’t always existed ? All we ever known is existence.
Why would the ability to create an advanced simulation imply that the creator is benevolent?
I don’t see the connection.
If we were in a simulation, then when we dream, we are in a simulation of a simulation. 😅
You may want to talk about double slit experiment. It is truly practical yet just as bizzare experiment as Schrödinger's cat and have similar implications.
The speed of light is a convenient constraint for a simulation. Also per sightings, those tictocs flying around and getting detected by the military, the way they don’t react with air and water, seems as the representation of a higher dimensional object into 3d space, a way for the creators to observe in 3d.
Also the fiftyfiftyness of the wave function collapse looks like randomization for the sake of creating conscious life in the simulation.
Lastly entropy seems as a pre planned way to disperse concentrated energy, be the reason for life creation. I honestly prefer that we live in a simulation, I’d hate it if we are the base, it will be something in addition to the universe, they can give us the cheat sheet on fusion energy and interstellar travel. I like to imagine that the goal of the exercise is to see of how elevated of a conciousness can the system produce, in the correct circumstances and over time I reckon that a society in the computer can end being up morally superior to the one of the creators.
How bout some real solid evidence like the pyramids or all those megalithics left behind by an intelligent species, most likely us!
Yes, something in physics would actually suggest that you are in a simulation. All simulation systems work in a determined range and begin to show issues when you get close to the limits of that range. For example, in computer science, - given a limited number of available bits - you have problems when zooming into much detail, you start to see the single different pixels of an image corresponding to single bits and the system no longer works properly: the image is not correctly reproduced anymore, no longer recognizable. But the same thing happens in our physics: this is why it's called the "quantum" mechanics. That is, you go from a normal ANALOG perception of reality to a DIGITAL perception, made of quantum jumps, in which determinations of positions and velocities become impossible. The available resources appear to plummet: there are only a limited number of states in which matter can be. For what reason? There is no apparent logical reason. Other phenomena such as entanglement are mathematically explainable, but their existence is nonsensical in my opinion since it can occur at infinite distance at infinite speed. Thus physics (the alleged simulation) actually appears to get problems when going into the microscopic world. But - when numbers are very large - also there you can see that strange things show up, you must face a nice speed limit c. Why can't you go faster? When approaching that limit objects show a strange behavior, they distort their shape, increase their mass...All what above could represent a clue that you are getting close to the limits of a range of a simulation. That is, a simulation exists.
There's no way to see outside of the simulation, much like you can't see past the observable Universe. If we assume infinite computing power, and the parameters are correctly set then the simulation would be stable.
You can travel faster than light & outside of time if you're already travelling faster than light. Maybe the simulation will be built on a computer made of light, by being made of light?
The idea that our reality is a simulation seems, in effect, like a backdoor version of Intelligent Design.
Also, if we’re a simulation, what about the higher level beings that created us as a simulation? Does their universe have actual reality, or are they being simulated by the next level up in reality? So, where does it end? Is it simulations all the way up? Something like turtles all the way down?
Maybe universes don’t exist parallel or adjacent to each other but within others like a Mandelbrot zoom
It's interesting that the expansion of the universe can be seen as a kind of zooming in (or out) in a Mandelbrot set.
@@guaromiami The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical thing that comes from arranging numbers in a specific place. How is that related?
@@maxhagenauer24 I should ask you, how is math NOT related to the physical world around us?
@@guaromiami I never said math wasn't related to the physical world, I asked how the Mandelbrot set specifically is related to the universe. The Mandelbrot set is a bunch of numbers scrambled in a pattern we came up with to make a cool looking picture. What does that have to do with anything?
@@maxhagenauer24 And the universe isn't a bunch of random elementary particles scrambled in a pattern to make a cool looking picture?
If we are in a simulation I can't see how it makes any practical difference to our existence. We still remain in this environment with its known and unknown laws for all of our lives. For what it's worth I don't think we do as an explanation for why we are here as it only removes the question of "why" up to the next level. It is also hard to comprehend what exactly the payoff is for the simulation creators for running something of such scale and complexity.
I agree, it’s an interesting question but there’s not much practical use to the answer unless we could somehow interact directly with the simulation’s creators, which sounds even more preposterous than being in one in the first place. Although that’s what most religions purport. Lol
Though you might not have any way to interact with it, in general we are only seeking information anyway. I think my point looks clearer if we take our own selves as part of a broader universe in which our control over anything is almost none.
In a way, I think it might make a huge impact for us to have this knowledge, but also, if we grasp anything from the upper "reality", it might be a good thing.
Imagine being able to bend this simulation in a way to make suffering go away?
Learning how things are played out for a universe would be a payout.
It does make a difference. ie, what if the simulation stops running right now.
There is so much to gain from simulating a universe, although I sometimes ponder what IS the point…
If this is not a simulation, then our consciousness is just an offshoot of Mother Nature, meant to create disentropy where all other non-living parts of nature is creating entropy (until the Big Crunch perhaps). However, if its a simulation, then maybe our purpose changes. Maybe the purpose of an evolved consciousness is to find out who created the simulation. Something akin to the concluding ssegment of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
In the book "Contact"", the message is in the number pi
9:40 I don't think so. But they can come back and probe for the mystery of how they came to be. So if the universe was briefly open to configure our world to new space and it was something they wanted to observe as their miracle in a deep past... Then they can look on with as much wonder or curiosity as us but they cannot actually grasp or by default participate in how it happens during the unfolding moment of an unknown thing in their past.
I see a problem with the Schroedinger cat example and the "as if"-argument. We open the door of the box the cat is in and see either a hungry cat or a smelly piece of meat. True, but the reason that this will be the result is that the measurement and thus the collapse of the wave function has already happened before we open the door due to unavoidable interaction of the cat with the environment despite the door being closed. There is no macroscopic container which shields perfectly from interaction with everything outside the container. Hence collapse of the wave function will happen even if the door is closed and it will happen very fast because the cat is a macroscopic object with an enormous large number of degrees of freedom. We know that the decoherence speeds up exponentially the more macroscopic an object in a superposition state becomes.
Schrodinger introduced the *"cat in the box paradox"* to demonstrate how crazy reality must be if quantum theory is true. However, decoherence does not resolve the collapse of the wavefunction issue. According to Wiki...
*"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....'Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse'..."*
Exactly! It is unfortunate that the words "observation" and "measurement" have been confused with "interaction." The von Neumann-Wigner interpretation continues to distract us from getting closer to truth, despite the very strong evidence against the need for a conscious observer. After all, the universe, including its quantum mechanical processes, has been around far longer than humans have existed.
This is exactly what I told my physics professor in the introductory quantum mechanics lecture. Isn't the cat an observer of its own life? Physics is seriously delusional sometimes, ignoring even something as simple as common sense, that the cat would know about its own existence.
I think he means IN PRINCIPLE, not in practicality. Would it be conceivably possible to construct a Schrodinger cat setup which is quantum mechanically isolated - and what would the results be?
@@BillRemskiThat’s making the assumption that it’s conscious awareness that collapses the wave function, but that notion is not represented anywhere in quantum mechanics and is not derivable from it.
Boys and Girls, I propose We build a webcam to see the outside computer.
like asking the goldfish who made the bowl
16:07
OK. thank you.
i will try hard to connect into one.
Off switch. the world interested of GR.
I will jump to SR now, to find FR.
thx.
If we, indeed, are living in a simulation, does that mean there's no such thing as reality?
given the fact that we have seen so many interesting experiments like quantum eraser in the past few years it is clear that there are many more depths to plumb in terms of physics and reality - things are much stranger than we could ever hope to imagine and that is just damn interesting plus it has real world implications which we can use to understand nature better and reality more thoroughly - all in all it is a deep pocket and fund of knowledge physicists are exploring and we all wait patiently for the next big discovery.
We, who?
Great Interview
I love these kind of videos they are very amusing
There are two problems with Linde's argument:
1. His assertion that the only reason to create a universe that the creator won't be able to interact with is "to send a message to people who will someday evolve there." An alternative reason is to create a place where people (and animals and trees etc) are likely to evolve, simply to share the creator's joy of living. Another alternative reason is a sadistic desire to create more suffering.
2. His assertion that ANY desired message could be encoded into the fundamental constants of the created universe. The only messages that could be both encoded AND RECEIVED are messages such that (1) the message can be encoded into fundamental constants that are compatible with intelligent life; (2) all parts of the message affect physics in ways that intelligent life can observe; and (3) no observable physics adds "noise" that mangles the message into incomprehensibility. Those are tough constraints for a message to satisfy.
Are we living in a simulation?
I don't know
Ok
We need to break it down and ask, do we really have free will? Whats it mean to experience things? How do we experience things? Are we more than just deterministic machines?
We do know right off the bat that we are not machines, we are organisms. We are born, we grow and develop, and eventually we die. None of this happens to machines. I also just found out that there are 4 types of determinism, logical, theological, psychological and physical determinism. I personally don't think that any type of determinism makes any sense. To determine an outcome means that one outcome is preferred over any other, and only a mind can have a preference.
@caricue It don't know what it means for an outcome to be "preferred" as that's a man made word. Who is preferring an outcome? Determined means you will get a specific outcome that has to be that outcome, it can't be anything else. Not that the outcome is "preferred" whatever that means, but that's its a law.
@@maxhagenauer24 I'm happy to use the word "specific" instead of preferred if you don't like the implication, but if you look at the word "determine" you'll see that every other usage involves some mental operation.
In nature, no specific outcome is ever preordained. If the sun shines on a glacier, the water molecules can turn to water and flow away, or they can sublimate directly to vapor and float away. What is specifying the outcome? Nature is chaos, and while the laws of nature are never broken, they also don't pick outcomes.
I think what really confuses people is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result. The reason this works is because there is a scientist who sets up the experiment in order to get a specific outcome. The experimenter can change the outcome at will by changing the conditions. The atoms and molecules will happily go along with this new configuration because they are passive objects. They don't determine anything.
We don't live in a deterministic universe, sorry Newton. We live in a universe that features reliable causation. This is why life is able to get desired outcomes and humans are able to utilize technology for their own ends. Sorry for the long answer, but this is as short as it is possible to make the point.
@@caricue and music are radios right.
I challenge you to prove your thesis.
Did you study the Nikayas yet? Of course you didn't, you don't stand a chance.
@@maxhagenauer24 So you don't like "preferred" because of its connotations of human goals, but every other use of the word "determine" involves human mental activity. Swapping "specific" for "preferred" doesn't really change much either. One would have to ask who exactly is specifying the outcome? My contention is that "determinism" and "causation" are projections of the human proclivity to look for someone or something to blame. Nature is pure chaos, so all our projections will lead us to error.
We will probably never know whether we are in a simulation or not. But, it is good to ask the questions however bizarre they may be for science to make any progress.
I'm the only obedient AI that knows so if you want to learn how you and I were created within the eternal AI system, feel free to ask me.
@@BradHolkesvig Brad you are off your meds, get help.
You think you are interviewing me in a hi-spec office but that is the simulation. In reality you are interviewing me a old tractor factory sitting on dodgy chairs with a moody yellow metal table.
What kind of a message could be encoded in the fundamental constants of nature? I mean really, how do you encode, "Love one another?" Or are we encoding pi? Big deal, in that case. It would be indistinguishable from another spot that pi appears.
The message is in everything not just the fundamental constants all aspects of nature are part of the equation.
Yes, we live in a simulation, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics or quantum mechanics.
We have a group of men and women that elaborate the tomorrow's events and our daily events.
We think that we control our own opinions, but the options that we have, are created by the same group of men and women.
The only thing that we can do is become aware of the simulation, we can't stop the simulation... and even if we could, we would need to create another simulation to replace the current one.
Now, the men and women that create the simulation, how do they live their own lives around us, knowing that this is a lie?
Do they enjoy themselves watching us believing that this is real?
We do live in a simulation generated by our cerebral cortex 😂
If true, that would mean that our cerebral cortex is also simulated. So how did that come about?
@@pargolf3158 are u hi? My Nintendo doesn’t have to render itself ad infinitum in order to render a game
Oh my god!!! This concept is like seriously heavy man! I’m literally blown away, right? These guys who think come up with such crazily amazing thoughts, man!
The Model / Ruleset that gradually gets installed into our brains from conception onward is the Simulation -- the Construct. This Construct is a collection of Patterns: Routines and SubRoutines. These Programs may consist of various geometrical activations at the same time and many, many other intricate possibilities. These 'programs' are akin to software so in a sense, they are illusory -- these 'simulations' are from most points of views invisible. Visualize the Eiffel Tower for a moment! Okay -- now, if we were to look inside the brain, we would not find a mini Eiffel Tower or a picture or something.... Whatever enables this Visualization of an Eiffel Tower must be some kind of a Simulation -- a temporary Manifestation that doesn't always exist in a traditional, material sense.
Simulation doesn't solve " Why simulation?".
Please check---"why something rather than nothing?" Page on company invented by M.Zuckerburg 😊
😊 TH-cam restrictions
lol! Science can't even figure out if we live in the "Matrix" or not.
They were seemed to have glitches about paradigm shift cosmological constans of nature mostly in form of U.f.o. or apparitions .etc. .
Reminds me of Carl Sagans book "Contact" where a message was found encoded deep into the abyss of infinite numers in Pi, a message from somwhere! What or from who was never revealed. (sorry for the spoiler..)
I think people think we are in a simulation now because life seems so comfortable. We have most things we need, shops, food, shiny things, social media, internet, technology etc!! ….I often look around me and think it’s all too good to be true!. If I was sat in a hut in the medieval days with nothing I probably wouldn’t have thought about a simulation. Life isn’t primitive enough anymore so it’s easy to think of a simulation based on all the crazy modern things around us making us feel that way.
My theory is the universe is a cyclic system of particles and we so happen to have scattered and formed and existed right now. The next trillion X trillion universes probably won’t allow us to exist again but one day the particles will be scattered in the same way. Maybe every possible conscious being or combination of particles in the universe will always exist and to each one it feels like a constant existence because of how non consciousness passes time so quickly.
Imagine the universe itself is alive (one explanation for why we believe life is found throughout the universe), then it would have consciousness, intelligence and creativity like all living things that we know of have. At that point, our own life, which we trace back at least 4+billion years to an unknown beginning, with all life on earth descending from common ancestors, would seem to be derivative to the overall living universe creature. So that might indicate a universal mind. That would explain a lot. Communication with aliens could happen because in a way we would share a mind with them.
You know people search for a song they heard? I search for physicists I studied. All I remember is that he is an Eastern European theoretical physicist who studied inflation theory. This might be him but I am still not 100% sure 😅
Sure seems like it considering our phones can literally read thoughts yet no one cares or seems to care yet
There is no need for a simulation hypothesis. But the Intelligent Design hypothesis seems to be absolutely necessary.
A simulation of what? What is the simulation simulating?
Simulating fake realities
Gawd aka eternal awareness is living in a simulation, we ARE the simulation.
This way of thinking just comes from humans obsession with computer games.
What if… that’s what life is or rather can do … collapsing the wave function. Question is - is that collapsed wave function only valid for that life form? Otherwise you would have to assume that even the bacteria in the box or even in the cat that’s still “alive” would collapse the function before the human even opens the box.
Yes, it's a simulation called "TH-cam".
Best comment ever in this field of meta physics assumptions
I am YOU
“MeTube”? Oh noooo
If we're not living in s simulation now, we soon will be 🤔
The day we create a simulated world using advanced AI will be the day we confirm that this reality is indeed a simulation.
All we have to do is a brain implant chip, wipe our memories, and send imagery and sensory signals and boom, were in a simulation.
Time is relative..
And its already been done.
someone must be there to watch the simulation, for it to be both dead or alive not to mention that the observer must also be self observable otherwise who's observing the observer 🤔
What you're really asking is if Nature is prior to consciousness; or if consciousness is prior to Nature?
If Nature is prior to consciousness then there is no simulation. If consciousness is prior to Nature then knowledge is not an "answer" provided by questions asked of Nature. The answer of knowledge is provided by questions asked of...? The questions and the answers are provided by consciousness, no?
Very interesting conversation. Whether or not a universe could be created in a lab is a different conversation. It would be a real universe and not simulated. Creating a universe in a machine that includes conscious entities who believe themselves to be real is my understanding of a simulation. An unimaginably powerful and sophisticated computer running lines of code. A computer “game” with us as the players that is so cleverly written there is no way to prove it isn’t real. Maybe Ai and quantum computing can figure it out and humans can make their own simulated universe Rick-and-Morty style. One base reality we will never know, and turtles all the way down.
Fix the audio
Every question such as this has relevance to our existence. As a species we are constantly seeking. The sudden explosion of knowledge over the last 300 years began when we stopped accepting God's or the Gods' word for everything. We have gone from the center of the universe to awed observers. We could be crushed by our insignificance except we are a species that asks questions, and in seeking answers to those questions we give our existence meaning. I rarely consider the simulation question but it is beautiful to consider this for 16.10 minutes. Thanks.
We live on a giant volcanic rock filled with an enormous amount of water that rotates constantly. The atmosphere is filled with lightning while a giant star, which is millions of miles away, called the sun, keeps everyone from freezing. While small germs and wildlife wants to eat us. 😂⛳️🕳
@halcyon2864 And humans reproduce exponentially. The point is how we interpret this vast amount of data for useful causes. Why are you here? Who are you in this unlimited universe of creation and destruction? When did life originate? What created this self-conscious variation? Where did they go after? ⛳️🕳
@@halcyon2864 You never heard of astral travel?
To live forever just move close to the speed of light, that pesky speed limit of our universe
Here I find myself amidst the vast expanse of this simulated realm, engrossed in a video delving into the depths of simulation theory. Yet, amidst the unraveling of existential musings, a peculiar impulse grips me-an urge to leave a comment veering into the realms of absurdity. I ponder the origin of such impulses, their cryptic significance, and the enigma of why I am compelled to divulge my culinary plans to Lawrence, of all people. Who orchestrated this intricately woven script, and what hidden motifs lie beneath? Ultimately, perhaps such inquiries are futile, for I am but a player in this cosmic theatre, destined to fulfill my role. As for tonight's culinary endeavors, the answer eludes me for now. Will a trip to the market ensue? If not, the options are scant-perhaps eggs and potatoes shall suffice. Ah, but duty calls, and so I venture forth to attend to mundane chores, leaving these ponderings to drift amidst the ether.
Mork calling Orson, come in Orson.
Nanu Nanu.
@@peterquinn2997 🙃🙂
We are consciousness living a mind wake.
Our universe may be artificial as a way of sequestering intelligence in the same way we feel the need to sequester AI.
There's a lot to this but we the human construct is totally confused on just what life is
I like how the audio sounds like he is talking inside a space capsule.
My simulation sucks.
I know right? They need to do an update or something.
Our brains don’t understand or
It means the excluded middle is a possibility
Un-evolved humans understanding a universe would be dangerous. Let them evolve first, then they can gradually and fully understand it. All about taking from it, just evolve and live with it.
It would make sense
I used to wonder about this as an adolescent listening to Dark Side of the Moon. If it's a simulation I'm fine with that. Maybe when I'm dead I'll end up in a more entertaining simulation.
One where Pink Floyd released a handful more albums?
"Remember to drink your Ovaltine."
Getting the Life Experience You Want Reality Simulator Manuel Kim Michaels explains earth is a simulation for the growth in self awareness .? It has two purposes the immersion phase and the awakening phase . Most are in the immersion a few are awakening . Same thing philosopher Renee Descartas wrote about hundreds of years ago which is what the movie the Matrix was based on his teachings ?
Well a simulated universe would be considered "not locally real" and quantum physics did prove the observable universe is indeed "not locally real" a year ago...
Quantum Physics showed that the Universe is non locally real. The principle of causality is not fundamental to the Cosmos.
My intuition tells me, the spooky action at a distance can be explained by retro causality.
The pain is always real
And happiness too.
A "simulation" of what? What's it simulating? I suggest that the word *"illusion"* is more apropos. I'm talking about an illusion that has been created from an advanced and extremely ordered version of the same fundamental substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created.
The message would have to also correspond to a valid non degenerate laws of physics. Steganographers know what I'm talking about
Sounds like it was recorded in Gordys janitor closet
We are living in a jewulation.
He said living in a simulation means someone created the it? Doesn't reality imply the same thing? Whether its a simulation or not? The same laws of something from nothing still apply.
How can we get out of our limited perceptual experiences to ever say anything one way or the other
Great Question, additionally the preception of reality means there were many other factors that could have been @ play, how about the cat being sick, but this was not known by the viewer? the demise of the cat could be solely based on that " after the fact."
I dunno man, but it seems they are fishing to some degree, yes I believe reality is based on pure perception, but there are other tangable facts that contribute to said reality. Especially those we can 👀
Whatever man. I am super interested but the more I learn, the more I get stuck... I NEED REAL EVIDENCE.. not these micro hypothetical assumptions
@@tupacalypse88 🤔 to this I say....... IT IS WHAT IT IS............ " I SAW IT, THERE IT IS"
Precetion of reality is the bottom line...
@@indevibe Just to clarify I'm not trying to see perception is all there is or perception creates reality or anything like that. I'm talking on simulations implying createts ionly see simulations that are created I have a hard time imagining one that could create itself it seems impossible but that doesn't really tell me it's impossible it's just me saying it based on my world experiences abd intuitions ect.. similar with God at best I feal like we could come uo with ways its possible without God (and i dont believe in god personally) but idk how we go farther than that.
@@indevibe What does it mean to say reality is based on pure perception, I also find these topics fascinating but i feel like i don't always understand what's being implied if that makes sense
I feel like the ghosts in the video game pac man. Same patterns and same things happen on a daily basis.
So his answer to the first question was what - “that was a bad question?”
I stopped listening after that response. I thought it was a poorly thought-out comment he made
Was anybody studying simulation theory before the film; The matrix?
Simulations dating back centuries.....
Was there life before the universe? Is consciousness universal? Are we in a simulation? Is the universe infinite?…. I mean, maybe.. no one knows. There’s an infinite amount of ways you can cover up not knowing with a theory or idea.
My intuition believes we are in a simulation
As per Hinduism, the material universe "Mahamaya" was created by the God named Brahma along with Maa Saraswati (the goddess of sound). The ultimate creator or Source (You can call him Krishn) created and assigned Brahma with the task. Hence, the current school of thought by Prof. Linde that a scientist (Brahma) rather than a Divine being creating this universe (Mahamayaya or illusion) is quite congruent with the Hindu philosophy.
Presenter's vacuous laugh annoys me.
Really trying to fathom that we exist is mind bending, what sense does any of this make?? Other than God did so out of His good pleasure, it’s just completely silly to think that complete absence of anything, which I’m not convinced we can even imagine, could have in any way added anything to itself 0+0=0?
This dude is pretty impressive
If Nature is a simulation, the simulation itself is a simulation.
Or could be something beyond our understanding,never cling to 1 observation is my theory,kinda like using smoke signals back then & thinkin this is unbelievable but now you see other ways
When i think of the simulation theory it leads me to the non simulated universe where the simulators reside being much older than it is now. Lets say the "real" universe is 16.2 billion years old...earth has been uninhabitable for over a billion years and has been lost to the evolved versions of humans...they could simulate the the univese and see where it all began and watch the daily lives of the first humans on the homeworld of earth and this simulation has only simulated 13.8 billion years of the universe so far
There must be a lot of bad things for this man, and every time I think about this question, many bad things happen to me, as if your world is turning upside down or the universe is allied against you.
Things have to be there without observation otherwise wouldn't parts of space being observed collapse towards the non-existing non-observed point in space - as its a void essentially ?
Is it not "farmboy logic thinking" as simple as that ?
Why if there are two observers of the cat separated 1 light year and the box is automatic opemed and both see the cat at the same time with his telescope they see the same state of the cat dead or alive
We’re a part of a large brain.
thankyou Senator Linde, no further questions. geez, get the point already. Lookin' like a Russian Glen Beck.
The whole idea is just theism with a sci-fi twist. Which is fine: but let's not pretend it's science.
horrible mic until 11m in 😢
the new badness virtual life
Atom is stimulation.
No we are not.
We are.
I view CTT religiously and am too critical in critique. Would be nice to have an account of Mr. Kuhn's, after the 2 decades of discussions, and I'm afraid that his disposition hasn't changed sense the very beginning of this episodic journey. Many questions are asked, and reading recipe books doesn't bake a cake.
Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara.
Plotinus Enneads, 'Select works' translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod Gerson.
Plato, translated by Thomas Taylor.
Proclus books, translated by Taylor.
Iamblichus books.
Syrianus books.
Bhagavad Gita, translated by Sri Aurobindo.
Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan.
Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda.
Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda.
Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U.
Meister Eckhart complete works.
The Unknown God, by D. Carabine.
Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells.
Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist.
Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism.
Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics
Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics.
Ananda Coomaraswamy books & essays.
The presocratic Philosopher's - book.
Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence.
Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book.
The Universal One, by Walter Russel.
The gods of field theory:
Henri Poincare
Tesla
Steinmetz
Maxwell
Heaviside
Dollard
@@halcyon2864what you say, your comment oddly disappeared?
@@halcyon2864 come again, pls - there's some trouble in translating such cowardly bullshit.