“Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.” - Alan Watts
Not necessarily. That may just be an illusion. If life has anything to teach me it's that life is much uglier than I realize For all we know we could be the computer viruses cast to exile doomed to Extinction. That would mean regardless whether we experience the universe around us that are no way means that that's what the universe wanted from us
When I start thinking about simulation, theory itself seems highly likely. However, I get stuck in the headspace around the complexities of things like depression, pain and love...or things felt on a individually deep level; because it’s within the mind, within the consciousness. Who am I to say whether your agony is in fact real or not. Breaking a bone, the doctor putting it back together through reconstruction, could still fit into that complexity, but the anguish involved inside is where it gets difficult for me to track further. I can, but that’s where it begins to get tricky. I’m sure if our brains are just being stimulated or simulated, those complexities lose their magnitude, but still it’s interesting. To us, reality is fantastic and arousing, yet also full of grim and loss. I think we find it hard to understand the intricacy through which things such as pain and loss could be filtered into a simulation, simply bc it’s happening to us in real time, and that makes its authenticity very personal and more difficult to remove ourselves from. One might parachute down into foreign territory with ease, or take fire under brutal circumstances while playing a video game...and do it while downing a bag of lays potato chips. However, it’s rare you find yourself choosing to say, pick a video game for marriage counseling, or chemo treatment. The future might very well hold our ambitions for sub-realities like these, esp. if life becomes utterly mundane and livelihood and despair are far removed. Perhaps these are the excitatory things missing from the future, and we are realigning with “their” pasts; or perhaps we are a glimpse into what is no longer available. Still, the consciousness and biological intricacies are what give me the most difficulty. Great coding, for sure. 👍
I worked in healthcare chaplaincy where I see suffering every day. Without a doubt, suffering is a very real thing to those who perceive it and even to those who watch it secondhand. The fact that vicarious trauma exists is quite a peculiar thing in reference to simulation theory. The only rebuttal I can give toward this is that suffering gives incentive to humans to further find freedom from suffering through technology. But immediately my question to that is why does our simulation facilitate an incentive to create another simulation (via AI technology)? Wouldn't the point of a simulation be to rid one of suffering and to bring about good endings or bliss? In video games, for example, the suffering within games are manageable so that the character is able to transcend it. On earth, there are those who suffer rigorously without hope. The level at which we suffer makes me suspicious of the simulation theory. Simulation theory strikes me as a backdoor approach to nihilism because it has the same effect when taken to its logical end. It's merely another approach or extension to atheistic thought. Not that I am saying anything positive or negative about that. I find it more convincing that human suffering has a role within the idea of absolute morality. Perhaps the level of suffering is to show that manifestations for evil have a consequence. That mankind can manifest evil but they can also manifest good. Perhaps, it's also to show that because evil exists, there is also absolute good. And because both exist there is something to distinguish between the two in an objective way. At least that's the hope.
' in order for the simulation to be indistinguishable from reality, we would need to make the players feel they and the world they live in is entirely real' riz v.
@@user-yn2ct2ie9m Alan Watts said if you know the end of the game of life then it becomes meaningless. He gave the analogy of the person who can live a 75 year life span every night condensed down to 7 hours of sleep for a long period of time, experiencing all the wonderful things of existence - wealth, unlimited sex, power etc, etc..and even being the super hero who saves the princess. But in an infinite multiverse this soon becomes boring and tedious . The only one key ingredient that is missing is the "not knowing" as I find myself in this situation. This is when the human mind looks for meaning in religion and now the simulation hypothesis. Its like devoted computer gamers who play the Call of Duty, war game and really would be in their element if they could throw away their hand hold controller and fully emerse themselves in battle in an advanced VR environment experiencing the cold rain on their face and bullets flying over their heads and eventually the shot in the back of their head instantly bringing them out of the game. However, there are the gamers who will get bored of this game eventually and new tech is invented to connect a device to their head which will come with a disclaimer. " When entered into the game your memory will be wiped for the duration of the game, only being restored when killed". This will be the ultimate game as the gamer will find themselves sat in a trench shaking and crying and wondering "why me god?" please, please I don't want to die or be blown up and have no legs, but he escapes the war and goes home to his family suffering from PTSD and lives a poor life in 1918-1960 and dies an alcoholic and instantly he's back in his expensive leather gamers chair with only 3 hours of game play having passed. He reaction?? well would that be " wow what a game!" or I will never play that again. I kind of understand that the not knowing is the meaning of life fro me personally
You are in a simulation and everything in this simulation is temporary you are just borrowing that body and this time. Your Consciousness has been put in that body. in this simulation you are the writer the director and the main character. You have won the biggest lottery in the universe to be here. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery everyday for trillions of years. It's the greatest magic show in the universe and I feel blessed to witness it. And when I'm in pain I tell myself it is temporary because that's is how this simulation works. 👁
Chalmers works under a version of a Carnapian semantical distinction between internal and external assigned meanings (see here: "What exactly is an intension? Carnap's characterization suggests a natural definition: an intension is a function from possibilities to extensions.[*] The possibilities here correspond to different possible states of the world. Relative to any possibility, an expression has an extension: for example, a sentence (e.g. 'All renates are cordates') can be true or false relative to a possibility, and a singular term (e.g. 'the teacher of Aristotle') picks out an individual relative to a possibility. An expression's intension is the function that maps a possibility to the expression's extension relative to that possibility. When two expressions are necessarily co-extensive, they will pick out the same extension relative to all possibilities, so they will have the same intension. When two expressions are not necessarily co-extensive, they will not pick out the same extension relative to all possibilities, so they will have different intensions. So intensions behave just as Carnap suggests they should (...) The core idea of two-dimensional semantics is that there are two different ways in which the extension of an expression depends on possible states of the world. First, the actual extension of an expression depends on the character of the actual world in which an expression is uttered. Second, the counterfactual extension of an expression depends on the character of the counterfactual world in which the expression is evaluated. Corresponding to these two sorts of dependence, expressions correspondingly have two sorts of intensions, associating possible states of the world with extensions in different ways. On the two-dimensional framework, these two intensions can be seen as capturing two dimensions of meaning.These two intensions correspond to two different ways of thinking of possibilities. In the first case, one thinks of a possibility as representing a way the actual world might turn out to be: or as it is sometimes put, one considers a possibility as actual. In the second case, one acknowledges that the actual world is fixed, and thinks of a possibility as a way the world might have been but is not: or as it is sometimes put, one considers a possibility as counterfactual. When one evaluates an expression relative to a possible world, one may get different results, depending on whether one considers the possible world as actual or as counterfactual." From: consc.net/papers/foundations.html#1.1) One meaning could turn to be metaphysically internal to one language in which common sense is the whole truth, meaning that for some intension that could be the actual case; same meaning could turn to be metaphyisically external to another language in which common sense is false and computational simulation is the whole truth, meaning that for another intension that could be the counterfactual case. Nonetheless, we can always track meanings in both cases of intensions, both logically and empirically, as shown before by the Carnapian foundations of two-dimensional semantics.
The simulation hypothesis is really just a more modern iteration of a very old question/observation that goes back several thousand years(even to the origins of Hinduism); which is "What is real? How much of what I'm experiencing is actually real, or illusory?". Brain in a vat, Butterfly Poem, Evil Demon, and now this Simulation Hypothesis is just a more modern approach to thinking about it. This is much more a question about the nature of reality, and what is and isn't real, rather than are we living in a computer simulation. The base reality, if they are like us(I doubt it) would probably have the same philosophical question stuck with them. One thing you can be certain of is that YOUR consciousness is real. Thats one of the best ways you can define consciousness I think. Its the one thing that you can definitively say is not an illusion. The external world? Not so much. You can't definitively say whether or not the thing in front of you is real or not. But does it really matter? For things that arn't conscious, is there really anything different between a real chair and a virtual chair? Remember consciousness is the one thing that isn't ambiguous about this. If you're conscious, its not an illusion, its not something that can be faked. Outsiders from your own consciousness may not be able to tell you're conscious but thats because its something that can't directly be observed. One problem that some physicists and philosphers or douchebags like Elon Musk make is differening between simulated consciousness and a simulated reality. Theres literally no such thing as simulated consciousness. If you were to do what they are saying, you would basically have to map the circuitry of the brain on some type of device(connectome maybe) and then simulate the external stimuli. Thats distinctly different from just simulating everything within a computer program. A Sim character in a game could act and behave just like a conscious being but that doesn't mean its conscious.
The Simulation Argument is actually very distinct from traditional skeptical arguments such as Descartes' Demon. I recommend reading Bostrom's original paper, and his FAQ on the argument (the 3rd question is directly related to your main point), links to both I have posted below, which should clear up any points of contention. www.simulation-argument.com/classic.pdf www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html
Being a Hindu, I can confirm that the world is simulated is taught to us in childhood. However, the very limited free will is what counts as karma. Free will is considered an illsuion almost entirely and what you do in that. 001% of free will decides Moksha after death or continuous cycle of life and death.
We can't even clear define WHAT IS consciousness in ALL(!) history of Philosophy. But we are talking about the SIMULATION(what mean know what is consciousness and structure of it) of consciousness. Not knowing the natural consciousness as much as possible to create simulated?
There are lots and lots of things many people cannot define, that seems to have no bearing whatsoever on us copying it. We don't know how gravity works, but we still use it. We also don't know how light works, every DVD player has a laser though, we don't even know what keeps a bicycle upright when its being cycled, still not a barrier. If your argument is we don't know 'everything' about something... well that's fine, in fact its not possible to know everything about a thing. There is also of course the person who insist that nobody knows 'anything' about something... which of course is not true. It THEY that do not know anything about something and assume nobody else does. So you'll be surprised to hear that although we, well actually others, that in fact have defined consciousness created conscious machines, and the math to check and make sure its actually conscious. -> www.sciencealert.com/a-robot-has-just-passed-a-classic-self-awareness-test-for-the-first-time Weird that ehh?
try this video he describes the illusion of consciousness coming from our brain activity & how that assumption is false. th-cam.com/video/fjbwWivYabU/w-d-xo.html
No delusion, drugs, imagination, spirituality, philosophy or Alex Jones stand-up comedy act needed. From 4:00 DC gets it right. A sim where everything is relatively real only it's populated by solid holograms or people except for 1 or a few who are unaware or who aren't simulacra. "If there's no audience then there's no...just-in-time Truman Show. The reality show story device of that movie isn't part of any convenient projected delusion. The Jim Carey character, Tru-man, wasn't paranoid. All the story device metaphors of the movie correspond to an aspect of sim "reality." We now have a ex-reality show host TBTF R/ E con artist as US President named Tru-mp. There's no dome barrier for him to hurt his head on when he travels or run his yacht into like in the movie. For most ppl the barriers are simple metaphors for family, job, school, injury or other confining circumstance. It could also be total sleep deprivation beyond insomnia that sets in whenever traveling outside a given familiar area which is how it works (or doesn't work) 4me. One way or another, the person spends a lot of time confined to a given location that can be more easily manipulated, controlled, choreographed, synchronized either by a guy with lots of $ and/or by an AI gestalt metaphysical OS. The rich guy just gets to see a lot of posthuman Mar-A-Lago paying guests. Apocalypse Now? The Jim Bakker Religious Right preachers are always wrong but at the same time always right. We don't have to wait for the last judgement. The gestalt isn't a still & silent witness anymore & maybe never was. We are not Waiting For Godot. "It" has already arrived in our neural circuitry as well as populating the externality. (Just leave off the last two letters with a small g) The name of the show playing now is The Sim-pson's.
Yea. When thinking about this simulated reality theory I end up at the strange conclusion, that nothing at all actually exists. Or to say it differently; the word "existence" is now synonymous with the word "simulation." It makes me think of monism. All is one, single, unlimited hallucination, that never started and never ends.
pcread. The point is that nothing about this theory matters or makes sense. And all these people want from this theory is to say they're better than you.
the Matrix analogy is a poor one The unreal Martix program reality was computer generated yes....but it was fed to REAL minds The simulation theory asserts there are no real minds just computer generated minds
Google search the 'Brain in a vat' concept and you will see that the simulated universe theory does include real minds and not just computer generated minds.
IF you have NOT seen "The Processing System of LIFE, these simulations (Universes) are played in, then I can reveal to you two very simple ways you can SEE "The Processing System of LIFE".
My primary source of skepticism here is that there is no reason to think our programmers aren't simulated themselves. If it is likely we are simulated, wouldn't the dimension above ours be the same? And the one above that? Tricky stuff.
i guess thats exactly what he is talking about. Thats why the chances we are simulated is so high because there could be millions of simulations on different levels. Get Ai in the picture instead of human programmers and we get ridiculous numbers...
Campbell is a crackpot. He has no real evidence for his beliefs on why we are here and what this is all about. It's like believing in any religion. It's all on faith and frankly it's really silly.
when you take a look at "the game of life" introduced by john conway and think for a minute, you understand that it's easy to create complexe simulations using only simple mathematical equations that you can write in your hand. so yeah if you have enough computing power you can create a world where life can immerge and evolove and maybe become aware of it's own existence.
I believe anytime we, or nature, manipulates energy, we, or nature, is creating a small segment of consciousness... do this at a certain frequency and speed this manipulation becomes self aware.
Lets take another turn here. Movies, games and most of entertainment is design to help you forget... and dive in to experience without consequences. Do you really think it will be hard for VR companies to augment virtual reality with some sort of primitive and simple senses that will improve over time dramatically and maybe, just maybe have an option that you could forget, or rather not know that you are playing the game?
as long as you real body gets water, food and movement... and even then your brain would strike after a few months. i dont think VR at any level could trick us into that. artificial worlds could though.
my objection is a simulation is not self realizing. We are self realizing beings that can discuss about simulations and even run our own. yet those simulations do not become self aware and make their own.
Back in the late 1980s after having grown up with the cold war and the idea that technology was ultimately going to destroy us all... I asked myself, what if the opposite were true and that ultimately technology was going to create us all instead? It seemed like a more pleasant outcome... a comforting idea. As time went by things like virtual reality came along and the idea that recreational technology was actually RE-CREATIONAL made more and more sense... with that came MDMA and the whole Techno scene and I became even more excited because I felt like other people saw the possibilities too... I don't really know what happened then... It was almost like the collective consciousness fragmented and people just became incredibly self-centered and the whole idea lost its comforting appeal. The possibilities became almost frightening instead.
I'm surprised that a lot of people don't get it. Let me share a clue: if you think about average person, from his birth to his death, what drives him forward, what he is being thought at school, family and by others in his inner circle, you should start seeing the truth
and just to add: the world we live in - there is no reason to be plugged inside matrix, the existing simulacrum is so powerful, this hyperreality or hyperreal is so real that having anything extra is not needed
If this is true then human beings at one time thought this was true and it wasnt really a simulation, so they just died. And whoes to say that isnt us?
6:55 The idea of all-knowing and all-powerful programmer is ridiculous. The whole point and need for a simulation is in the lack of knowing of how the simulation will end up. If we already know how that simulation will turn out, there is no need to run that simulation. Only when that simulation will produce something that you could presee, there is motive to use simulation. Especially if you try to tweak or intervene (small part of) the simulation, you have no idea or only a hunch of how the simulation will continue. If the simulation is so trivial and deterministic that you know *everything* about it, running it is uninteresting and it hardly deserves to be called as a simulation.
if we live in a simulation and it's exactly the same as reality it then makes no difference ,if on the other hand the simulation is a pale version of reality specially designed to to study us in a very limited environment that would be a bummer man ...more like rats in a maze than lions on a massive game reserve
That's a problem I've noticed in a couple of Chalmers' ideas - they can be reduced to a decision about how to define things, and I don't see how the language you use for a particular thing has any metaphysical consequences. Extended mind and extended body theory are another example of this, and even Andrew Clark seems to reluctantly admit this in his interview on Closer to Truth - they classify some object in the external world as part of your body or mind, depending on its function, and then they say this has ethical consequences. Does it, though? Should the moral severity of some action be determined by what we call it? They provide the (real life) example of a man whose memory was damaged in a biking incident. He uses Viseo flowcharts to keep track of basic conversations. They say that this outsourcing of his memory to the software, makes that software part of his cognition. Fair enough. But so what? Even if I didn't call it cognition, it would be just as bad to take that software from his, as it would to do so if we called it cognition. It's all just words, but what does it MEAN? An idea like idealism or panpsychism has real metaphysical consequences, whether or not it's empirically testable. These theories suggest something very strange about the nature of the world, and potentially have metaphysical consequences. But some "metaphysical theories" aren't metaphysical theories at all, and they don't tell us anything profound. That includes Chalmers' response to the simulation argument - he doesn't actually believe anything different to the external world skeptic, he just rephrases those beliefs. That rephrasing should logically have no effect on your behaviour. Don't get me wrong, Chalmers is a useful thinkers in my opinion. He has some great ideas. Some of them just seem subtly silly.
Yeah, it is just a stupid, vain brainfuck. We ALL have the same definition of "real" - otherwise our world would not work one minute. (Please leave out the few psychos)
Yes, you are most certainly living in a virtual reality simulation. But it exists in something that is much more than a "computer." And it is of your own design! If you want to know the details, including exactly WHY you are experiencing a virtual reality simulation rather than Absolute Reality, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found" (available through Amazon).
If they find out this is all a simulation as they already did, choose the life that you want and live it until your simulation is over. It doesn’t change anything if this is a simulation or not, it’s very irrelevant.
Doing some research and I have a question about #2. Has a maximum speed: In our world, a light shone from a spaceship moving at almost the speed of light still leaves the ship at the speed of light, which is impossible in an objective reality. Einstein proved that the speed of light is a maximum, but gave no reason for it. The equations increase an object’s inherent mass as it increases speed relative to other objects, which works but doesn’t really explain anything. In contrast, every screen has a fixed refresh rate that no pixel-to-pixel transfer “speed” can exceed. Most of the quantum entanglement tests I have researched aren't clear on whether quantum entanglement occurs faster than the speed light. I found this article and I am not smart enough to figure out what this means? No faster-than-light communication: The two detectors measured photons from the same pair a few hundreds of nanoseconds apart, finishing more than 40 nanoseconds before any light-speed communication could take place between the detectors. Information traveling at the speed of light would require 617 nanoseconds to travel between the detectors. (www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real) Does that mean the particles "spooky action" happened faster than the speed of light? I get confused because the beginning sentence state "No faster-than-light communication" but reading the paragraph sounds like "the photons finished 40 nanoseconds before any speed of light could take place." I also found this although may be an older experiment, "But even weirder, the wave equation implied that once measured, two entangled particles could somehow instantly communicate, much faster than the speed of light, to link up their states." (www.livescience.com/52811-spooky-action-is-real.html) Please help because if the "spooky action" happens faster than the speed of light, it would question number 2 which compares the speed of this quantum computers processing to the speed of light and nothing goes faster than the speed of light.. or processor.
Also how about how time dilates near massive objects (such as black holes) and how that correlates to a computer processor slowing down when it's trying to process a lot of info at once.
The only existing simulations are DREAMS. And how poor they are often, are they not? The way cinema presents dreams is mostly sharp and clear, everything in focus. And NOT from the dreamers POV - which is what most of us experience in dreams: moving through a partly focused, partly fuzzy world seen through our eyes. (Perhaps with movie actors and TV people it's sometimes different because the are used to see themself on screens, "from the outside")
Every particle must be a unique character in the simulation. The cost of executing the simulation of a single particle including energy input is astronomical. Astronomical times astronomical = $(infinity-1). That is just the cost of running the simulation. The R&D of knowing how to build and run the thing is going to be astronomical again so it's now $(infinity-1)+astronomical. What a stupid waste of money considering the awful things that are being painstakingly simulated like poverty, death, and mayhem. No one with the intelligence and the resources would make such a simulation.
That analysis seems to have a huge flaw. If there is an outer universe, the laws of reality and physics could be completely different from ours. There is no reason to assume every theoretical universe which could support intelligence would be identical to ours. And even in our own universe, we have no idea what technology could be possible in 100 or a million years time.
Objective Realist 420 not at all. My point was that it would be such a huge undertaking to "simulate" a single particle, that I doubt our universe alone could be simulated, let alone the infinitely many parallel universes that are hypothesized to exist. A process, or entity, if intelligent as simulation theory requires, that was able to pull off such a feat would for all intents and purposes be God. It's not the outer-verse that challenges our ability to know nearly so much as the inner-verse. That place behind the veil that surrounds things smaller than ten to the minus thirteen millimeters wherein the first principles seem to unravel.
Imagine you are looking through VR goggles,your single particle will be only simulated when you look at it with the microscope in the game, your particle and the whole world doesn't have to be pixelated when you are not looking there. It is not the impossible. Technology for VR is very impressive, and its just a beginning.
You are all missing the point. It's not only the visual component that must be simulated, but every physical characteristic. This includes mass, inertia, momentum, etc. if the world we live in now is but a simulation, then even Gravity is being simulated. It's not about what will be or could be, simulation theory says we are now in a simulation. If so, then the simulator is a, if not the, supreme being. We are all made up of these particles, if they aren't simulated perfectly, we cease to exist in the simulation.
Chalmers is a great thinker so I don’t understand his deliberate self-delusion here. Maybe scepticism is just distasteful to him? We really don’t know that an external world exists. All we know is experience. However, the contents of experience seem to behave with numerous regularities which are seductive to the scientific mind. We can propose mechanisms to account for how things play out as they do; Science is storytelling, after all. But as to whether we are trying to explain a material universe, a simulation program or something else those differences are moot. We don’t know what we are describing. We’re just looking for the best metaphor.
You are actually in a simulation completely made of Stardust. They say you must have a computer to create the simulation. Well guess what? Seth Lloyd discovered how to design the first buildable quantum computer and the way he figured out how to design it was by studying How the Universe Works and it works just like a giant quantum computer. It is the universe that created your Consciousness and this simulation made of Stardust. How I would know this is because I am the universe seeing itself. 👁
We are given free will, , but we are also given limitations. We are definitely someone's creation....simulation. The fact that we can't travel the speed of light and can't reach the other galaxies, might mean that the whole universe is just an illusion just for show that we have a background, a past.
Or instead of thinking that the universes laws are revolved around us exploring it we can think of it as the universes laws as not allowing us to explore it. There’s no way we’re actually in a simulation. A computer of that power would be absolutely massive, and to waste all that power on a simulation for supposed hyper intelligent beings doesn’t fit the bill. Not to mention numerous neurobiologist have argued that machines couldn’t possibly recreate the human mind.
@@rayz639 I agree. The universe is made in such a way we can never find out what's beyond our own galaxy. We might see them, but that could be an illusion built into the simulation.
The simulation theory sounds alot like a theist saying "can you prove (a) god does not exist?" No, someone can not prove a negative. The same with simualation theory the proof in on the proposer not the sceptic!
@@BaphomentIsAwsome666 not at all. Simulation theory would possibly suggest we are not real and without spirit at all and have been artificially created. Quite a disturbing thought.
Would like to see him in discussion with Bernardo Kastrup who thinks he's solved the hard problem of consciousness by arguing everything is in consciousness.
I could see one major reason for creating a simulation. We can find out how the origins of life came to be. It might take many trillions of versions to come about though.
Is'nt consciousness the knowing through experience that something ''is'' ? Like putting a hand on a red hot stove top ? It sure is'nt wondering about what is'nt, right ? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder...and so is reality, I believe.
"First, you have to assume a rate of improvement is happening with the development of video games turning into virtually simulated universes." How is this not a MASSIVE assumption, that completely destroys the whole thought experiment?
Isn't that how thought experiments work? When someone says "you have to assume..." it does not mean "it is a fact that...". No one is saying that this is definitely a simulation. But if video games keep evolving in complexity and scope, then it makes the idea more feasible. And I don't think it's a MASSIVE assumption. We've been working on video games for 50 years, look at how far we've come since Pong. Now imagine how complex video games will be if they keep evolving for thousands of years. Which they probably will, if we don't destroy ourselves. And even if we do destroy ourselves, that doesn't mean other civilisations couldn't do better.
@@olaf3140 exactly. And we are not talking about a civilization (AI) 100 years more progressed than we are, but maybe 10000 years. Could also be 10Millions years ahead of us. Isnt much in the timeline of a planet.
The entire thing boils down to "You can't disprove it, so we should take it seriously!" You could make the exact same argument for the existence of god, yet all these 'intellectuals' would balk at that (and rightly so). This whole 'hypothesis' seems to me to be nothing more than 'intellectual' skeptics wanting to play in the theological park because they've realized it's more fun than the scientific park, with fewer rules...
We have forgotten the main problem of simulation argument If we will be ever capable of creating such a simulation then its rational for the teenage god who created us to ask himslef do i live in simulation ? And this problem goes by the way And if we would not be able to make a simulation then its rational to ask who created the real world which we are being simulated in
Those ideas don't work, as they can't cross the computability barrier. The world can't be simulated, as it would cost infinite amount of computation, as compared with what we can do. And imagining that we will go there eventually because "we seem to progress at a logarithm pace" is a very naive thought and does not match any reality. Nick Bostrom is not an engineer, he is a philosopher, that's why he can think in this way ; and that's why he can be so wrong about that.
@@grantmyers3132 The idea that it would be possible to compute a whole universe into a small fraction of it, namely into a computer, is equivalent to putting in a box a bigger box: it breaks logic. Just like you can't find in a finite chunk of space an infinite energy, you can't find as well in a finite chunk of space an infinite computing power, as those entities (namely energy and information) are after all of the same nature. And that's why Nick Bostrom is wrong and why his argument is a joke.
If energy doesn't conserve due to grid and rounding errors, then we live in simulation. If so, we might try to communicate with those running the simulation. Maybe praying to Gods worked back 4KY ago and it only stopped after people started tracking miracles in Holy Books?
how do you know they are real? think of this. when your dreaming, is your dream the same as your brothers just because your brother is sleeping in the same room? why do we have individual thought processes? why cant you read my mind? lmao. we do live in a simulation but people are scared of the idea of it. but dont be. it means we get re-incarnated and live the same life over and over again. too bad if your born into poverty but watcanyado
Don't try to bend the spoon "thats impossible. Instead know that really there is no spoon! there's always one prick that starts a chicken and egg argument!!!
how can we be a simulation if everyone observes the same fact. e.g if a see a blue wooden chair infront of me ten feet away, an other person will see the same chair
Simulations are build for making a common experience .In 'The Sims' all participants experience the same world, in 'Flight Simulator' you are in a course to crash with another plane and if you don"t turn, you will crash . There is time and space consistency in a simulation as it is in our world.
It certainly is but think how stretched our knowledge would seem to a human of some 200-300 years ago (a split second in cosmic time-scale) and you will see that truth was always far beyond of what we are guessing .
Why would everyone seeing and experiencing the same thing mean the universe was not simulated? Is your test one where everyone must see a totally different universe around them? Why?
He means that everything validated as real cause everyone perceive-experience it . But this is not enough reason to make this assumption In a simple simulation, lets say in a multiplayer game(games that people play like Warcraft), everyone sees everything as it is. All of them. Simulations are constructed for the players to have common experience.
One thing I don’t like is that they try to explain simulation theory as if they know what consciousness is we don’t. We don’t know what it is. It is still a Puzzle till this day. We only have theories to think of what it could he and stuff but not really you know facts. So they can make up things as if they know what it is or why. Like we don’t know lol. So we can’t make assumptions about it if we don’t know. And I don’t think we will ever know tbh
Lol, God doesn't exist... why not? Because we the Scientists are God. So this whole time Atheists were asking about why God would allow so much hatred/suffering/evil in the world they could have just been asking each other.
I would actually be amenable to some combination of the holographic principle and bio-centrism... because, in order for something to be said to "exist", it has to be observed. Quantum entanglement proves that the perceived depth of our universe is all in our heads and, yet, that depth is absolutely necessary for it to function. The universe is not something that life merely inhabits, we are part of the process.
When a group of people discuss about any shared event, there perceptions often differ a lot. Reality (if there is any such thing) is just the agreed upon average of those perceptions. Those discussions and sharing of perceptions and experiences leads everyone to the "reality", which is why people enjoy discussions and sharing experiences to understand the shared world they live in. Outside human systems there is no such thing as universal reality. If I see green as red and I was always told (the seemingly green) apple is "red", I would always call the apple "red" as I grow up and when we meet, you or I would never know that what we both call "red" apple and agree upon the name of the color is not what both of us actually see. Language cannot describe what we "actually" see.
Why would you make a simulation if you couldn't play in it? I think post-humans or whatever made this can be someone in here and play the game. The thing to do would be figure out who they would choose to 'step into' and se if there's any evidence...
I have just had a thought. If we are simulated then the creator of the simulation is either only interested in studying life as we know it, including or maybe limited to, us, or else the programmer is a novice with only one inhabited planet in their Universe. An expert might have many populated Galaxies with very many civilizations interacting with each other and advancing all the while.
a lot of these arguments also work for the idea that we exist in the hallucinations of a extatically tripping junky. im not 'against' the hypothesis tho, just saying there are so much more possibilities, and statistics often lie
actually now that i think about it, IF any other universe works like ours (which it probably does because a simulation would be the simulated ' other universe' and hallucinations often match real world entities), then comparing the technological complexity of a computer simulation, to the relative simplicity of a tripping mind, makes me think existing in a hallucination is much more likely STATISTICALLY. in other words: hallucinations are much more common than advanced simulations, the same might apply to the next universe up. if that is the case then living in the hallucinations of another being is more likely than living in a simulation. either that or this super universe simply does not have anything like hallucinations, and they do have simulations. but then how do hallucinations exist here, as simulations are often based on things already existant
I had a dream last night where me and this beautiful woman was talking, kissing, just sitting on some chairs, looking out towards the sea, we must have been in some tropical place, beach. We were eating some food and drinking some drinks which by the tasted very real, was very nice aha, but anyways, I looked down and saw lots of people screaming and rinning, I looked to my left and saw a car speeding and then crash into a store saying "Sony Playstation 10 and Galaxy millennium" and after that, the woman says "look at the sea gorgeous, I think it's coming our way, I think a tsunami is going to hit!" I said "holy fuck, you're absolutely right about that, gorgeous lady, you're absolutely 100% bubbly jubbly right, maybe we should get a move on!" She said "ok then, lets go!" So, off we went but by the time we finished speaking, it was too late in the sense of we were holding onto each other, hugging ect while the tsunami hit at incredible speed but the power, weight wasn't that incredible, it was shit if I'm honest with you, I was able to hold my friend the entire time, so that was great, I reckon. Anyways, it was over after what felt like forever, but it was over though, so that was good. We then carry on with our day like nothing happened. We also popped into the Sony Playstation 10, stayed there for about 30 minutes or so looking around this giant amazing looking store, nothing like any store I've ever seen in this current life, unless it is what I see in my own little reality but maybe places/areas/cities in dreams get distorted, I don't know but it was amazing though and the Galaxy Millennium store was absolutely amazing as well but that could also be a distortion of my mind or possibly a simulation glitch? maybe that's what this dream was, a glitch in the system? Could all my dreams be glitches in the simulation as well as my brain, ofcourse????
it would be legitimate to ask, if the simulation theory is reality, how do we as humans who are aware of it, use this knowledge to improve our lives and the life that is on our planet? would this lead to improvements in medicine, ecology, etc? some of the branches of science and technology are related to these concerns, and will eventually be influenced by such a big shift in our understanding of reality itself.
I rember that I saw it mentioned on a slide in one of my psychology lectures... that solipsism was a possibility but not one taken very seriously by psychologists, except in the matrix movies..haha,, and I as like well actually this one should be taken a fair bit more more seriously because more u start to think about the more it starts to raise its ugly face.. as we really can only it seems know our own minds and other things are only known through experience of them,. so wats going on I wonder!!!
Solipsism is an extension of narcissism. It is becoming increasingly popular as a world-view thanks to the success of books like "the secret" and other pseudo-spiritual self-empowerment books that have grown out of something called "the law of attraction" which was popularised in the 1920s. The whole, "my thoughts create my reality" philosophy is promoted as though it's rooted in ancient Eastern Philosophy but the way that it has been packaged is flawed and, I think, dangerous. I genuinely believe that it has been done deliberately because it suits the capitalist system as people are encouraged to make their own individual happiness and wealth their number one priority. The flaw lies in the basic model of consciousness that must exist in order for solipsism to be viable. You can say that these words that you are reading are simply a projection of your subconscious mind and not the product of an external consciousness, (ie. me...) and from within your own mind you cannot prove that it is anything but that... Likewise, I can say that the comment that I am replying to is not the product of your independent action driven by your consciousness but rather a projection of my own which I have manifested in order to create this experience which I am... erm... experiencing... However... Even if I believe that... I did not do it consciously. I did not act in any way that I am aware of in order to create the comment that I am now responding to. Likewise, you did not consciously create this response, and that in itself proves that something exists outside of your consciousness... (Even if it exists entirely within your own mind in reality... it's in a part of your consciousness that you are not aware of... (unless you are... in which case, you'll know what I've written below because you made me write it!)))... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... In authentic Eastern traditions, spiritual learning would involve a very long period of study dedicated to understanding 'self' as a concept and as a reality. This would be the foundation for all that follows and at the end of this stage the student/devotee would have a very different perspective on what 'self' is compared to the one they had when they started or the one commonly held by modern Westerners. 'Ego' and all that jazz... Some would say that we live in something called 'Maya' which is an illusory state of separateness and that our individual self is a creation of the whole.., which is practically the total opposite of solipsism. But what do they know?! Jsut in case you or anyone else is taken in by the whole solipsism thing and have come to believe in your omniscience and omnipotence, I made a spelling mistake/typo at the beginning of this sentence... Feel free to correct it! Namaste __/\__
What happens if the "controller" of the simulation gets up from his/her/its chair and trips over the plug, pulling it out of the universal socket with a bang and subsequent darkness/oblivion? We may have to wait billions of years for someone to spot the unplugged computer, plug it in and start again with an updated programme. Or, more likely, the intelligent being just gets bored playing this silly simulation with these weird (and sometimes wonderful) humanoids and walks away? There could be billions of simultaneous simulations going on at the very moment YOU are reading this. Think of the billions of e-mail, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat accounts there are somewhere "out there" in the digital ether. Maybe the purpose of our existence is to get to the point where we realise we are, in fact, a simulation and then, once that revelation has truly sunk in, to make "conscious contact" with our controller? Once contact has been made we could ask them through conscious thought to give us a new experience from the one we are having right now. "Okay, dear universe" we say to ourselves, "thanks for my experience so far and for me arriving at this point of awareness. Now, I have enjoyed, loathed, hated, loved (insert your own word) my experience so far, but would now like to enjoy ________ (fill in your own experience) and see how that feels". So, we chose and make our own experience and it's not left up to fate, circumstances or other people? Professor Chalmers you quoted Descartes, but here's what Eckhart Tolle (he of "The Power of Now" and "A New Earth" fame) has said about Rene's famous quote: “The philosopher Descartes believed he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: "I think, therefore I am." He had, in fact, given expression to the most basic error: to equate thinking with Being and identity with thinking. The compulsive thinker, which means almost everyone, lives in a state of apparent separateness, in an insanely complex world of continuous problems and conflict, a world that reflects the ever-increasing fragmentation of the mind.” What Tolle means is that the thinking/speaking little "voice" in our heads is not the real "me". The insistent, thinking voice being the false ego - the "I". That the universal consciousness within us is aware that the voice is not real. I call it being conscious of the unconscious, which amounts to the same thing. Complicated, I know! Anyway, it's late here in London -- too late to unravel any more thoughts on the subject and certainly too late to formulate them into any cohesive argument. I will leave it to others to comment further and say "thank you", Professor, for your words.
John Deery (director) The so called speed of light is not an applicable variable to be used within the framework of the physical world since the speed of light is can only be accurately measured outside the physical world i.e, inside of an artificially created vaccum. To use speed of light in any mathmatical formula which attempts to prove a physical law can only lead to inaccurate results, incorrect results, false results.
This - very interesting simulation argument... What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality. • The universe is a simulation. • Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one. • First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC. Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children. • Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression. • Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour. • Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward. • Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation. Those are the basic points of the theory. The theory itself is the combination of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by. "Human Beings" are evil aspects of consciousness and their forms and environment are specifically designed for the purpose of rehabilitation - the first step in the process. That's what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality. www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314326
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Sagan, I think). I hear wonderfully imaginative claims, with rather weak assumptions associated imo, about this simulation idea. Simulation Hypothesis (SH) kind of makes me sad as a scientist. This SH is very similar to the Religious God arguments put forth by Theist. "How do you know God doesn't exist?" "How do you know we are not in a Simulation?" are really the best arguments for either God or SH; neither one do I feel I need to proof and both are based on radical assumptions. As stated earlier, proofing extraordinary claims falls upon those making the extraordinary claim. Maybe this idea is catching on in the Scientific world because deep down we all want a more concrete answer to the chaos and randomness that is the Universe. Meh, idk, if it's true or not, I feel similar to the gentlemen in the video, it doesn't really change anything.
Mowgli Hajduk It’s not a theory with any supportive frame work. More of an interesting thought experiment. It takes into account our current simulation technology and extrapolates the most extreme consequence given 50-200 Years time of continued advancement.
Mowgli Hajduk Basically, the argument of simulation theory is that intelligent simulations could create simulations too, so its a simulation within simulations within simulations basically forever.....so you would likely to be in a simulation than the real world that started all simulations.
Good presentation. I think he means that he is not cynical about the simulation hypothesis, he IS sceptical about it. Also if a "teenager" created the simulation we live in, he wouldn't be all knowing or all powerful, since the program they are running is doing so with fundamental laws of physics, particularly complexity, so she'd have the same issues we have with measurement, modelling and control.
Does anyone commenting for one minute act as if they are living in a simulation??? Other than nuts, not one of us acts that way... we take the world of our perceptions as real, to not do so is madness...
These people that believe in the "simulation theory" are looking for a purpose that doesn't exist. Looking for a way out of reality. They can't accept that this is their life. It's pseudo science, it's almost like looking for god...not one of them really believes it though...
I agree. While it is true that we do not yet understand the true nature of our reality, that is not the same as saying our reality is a "fake". The reason people jump over the holographic principle and go right for the "the matrix" is because they can't accept that, on some level, our universe and our existence is absurd.
First apes became intelligent. Then people became civilised. Then we invented God in our terms through philosophy. God, as a creater of the unique creation. Then science overtook philosophy. And so the science fiction overtook mythology. Now we are knowing more and more. And maybe the more we are knowing about the creation, we are much more likely understanding the creator. The God may not look like that, what we think. But ultimately we can know him and also understand the purpose of his creation.
If we are in a simulation, simulate my state of the Union as a legal one so I can go to a store and get some cannabis, please. Chalmers looks like he just smoked some flower, btw.
Think of your mind ( consciousness ) as an AI ( artificial intelligence ) where it processes our Creator's thoughts into a world that appears to be real. Our Creator is also an invisible consciousness that thought ( created ) everything we experience and spoke ( commanded ) us all into existence. Most likely there are no real worlds and our Creator creates everything including all conscious beings able to be aware that they are conscious beings.
Karma gati will simultaneously simulated you round the Universe Hindu know this already Even every children's in India give you amazing answers about universe without being a scintist
“Through our eyes, the universe is perceiving itself. Through our ears, the universe is listening to its harmonies. We are the witnesses through which the universe becomes conscious of its glory, of its magnificence.”
- Alan Watts
Not necessarily. That may just be an illusion. If life has anything to teach me it's that life is much uglier than I realize
For all we know we could be the computer viruses cast to exile doomed to Extinction. That would mean regardless whether we experience the universe around us that are no way means that that's what the universe wanted from us
When I start thinking about simulation, theory itself seems highly likely. However, I get stuck in the headspace around the complexities of things like depression, pain and love...or things felt on a individually deep level; because it’s within the mind, within the consciousness. Who am I to say whether your agony is in fact real or not. Breaking a bone, the doctor putting it back together through reconstruction, could still fit into that complexity, but the anguish involved inside is where it gets difficult for me to track further. I can, but that’s where it begins to get tricky. I’m sure if our brains are just being stimulated or simulated, those complexities lose their magnitude, but still it’s interesting.
To us, reality is fantastic and arousing, yet also full of grim and loss. I think we find it hard to understand the intricacy through which things such as pain and loss could be filtered into a simulation, simply bc it’s happening to us in real time, and that makes its authenticity very personal and more difficult to remove ourselves from. One might parachute down into foreign territory with ease, or take fire under brutal circumstances while playing a video game...and do it while downing a bag of lays potato chips. However, it’s rare you find yourself choosing to say, pick a video game for marriage counseling, or chemo treatment. The future might very well hold our ambitions for sub-realities like these, esp. if life becomes utterly mundane and livelihood and despair are far removed. Perhaps these are the excitatory things missing from the future, and we are realigning with “their” pasts; or perhaps we are a glimpse into what is no longer available. Still, the consciousness and biological intricacies are what give me the most difficulty. Great coding, for sure. 👍
I worked in healthcare chaplaincy where I see suffering every day. Without a doubt, suffering is a very real thing to those who perceive it and even to those who watch it secondhand. The fact that vicarious trauma exists is quite a peculiar thing in reference to simulation theory. The only rebuttal I can give toward this is that suffering gives incentive to humans to further find freedom from suffering through technology. But immediately my question to that is why does our simulation facilitate an incentive to create another simulation (via AI technology)? Wouldn't the point of a simulation be to rid one of suffering and to bring about good endings or bliss? In video games, for example, the suffering within games are manageable so that the character is able to transcend it. On earth, there are those who suffer rigorously without hope. The level at which we suffer makes me suspicious of the simulation theory. Simulation theory strikes me as a backdoor approach to nihilism because it has the same effect when taken to its logical end. It's merely another approach or extension to atheistic thought. Not that I am saying anything positive or negative about that.
I find it more convincing that human suffering has a role within the idea of absolute morality. Perhaps the level of suffering is to show that manifestations for evil have a consequence. That mankind can manifest evil but they can also manifest good. Perhaps, it's also to show that because evil exists, there is also absolute good. And because both exist there is something to distinguish between the two in an objective way. At least that's the hope.
' in order for the simulation to be indistinguishable from reality, we would need to make the players feel they and the world they live in is entirely real' riz v.
All of you guys are great thinkers with interesting ideas
@@user-yn2ct2ie9m Alan Watts said if you know the end of the game of life then it becomes meaningless. He gave the analogy of the person who can live a 75 year life span every night condensed down to 7 hours of sleep for a long period of time, experiencing all the wonderful things of existence - wealth, unlimited sex, power etc, etc..and even being the super hero who saves the princess. But in an infinite multiverse this soon becomes boring and tedious . The only one key ingredient that is missing is the "not knowing" as I find myself in this situation. This is when the human mind looks for meaning in religion and now the simulation hypothesis. Its like devoted computer gamers who play the Call of Duty, war game and really would be in their element if they could throw away their hand hold controller and fully emerse themselves in battle in an advanced VR environment experiencing the cold rain on their face and bullets flying over their heads and eventually the shot in the back of their head instantly bringing them out of the game. However, there are the gamers who will get bored of this game eventually and new tech is invented to connect a device to their head which will come with a disclaimer. " When entered into the game your memory will be wiped for the duration of the game, only being restored when killed". This will be the ultimate game as the gamer will find themselves sat in a trench shaking and crying and wondering "why me god?" please, please I don't want to die or be blown up and have no legs, but he escapes the war and goes home to his family suffering from PTSD and lives a poor life in 1918-1960 and dies an alcoholic and instantly he's back in his expensive leather gamers chair with only 3 hours of game play having passed. He reaction?? well would that be " wow what a game!" or I will never play that again. I kind of understand that the not knowing is the meaning of life fro me personally
You are in a simulation and everything in this simulation is temporary you are just borrowing that body and this time. Your Consciousness has been put in that body. in this simulation you are the writer the director and the main character. You have won the biggest lottery in the universe to be here. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery everyday for trillions of years. It's the greatest magic show in the universe and I feel blessed to witness it. And when I'm in pain I tell myself it is temporary because that's is how this simulation works. 👁
We still suffer. Suffering is real.
Actually consider it’s an illusion. Comes from the illusion of self too. Look at Sam Harris illusion of self on TH-cam
@@clubadv Yess!!! I love sam harris!
Pain is real, suffering is an option.
Exactly
@@clubadv yes, yes. You need to become enlightened, a buddha, to realize that.
Most people can't get to that state so its pointless.
Chalmers works under a version of a Carnapian semantical distinction between internal and external assigned meanings (see here: "What exactly is an intension? Carnap's characterization suggests a natural definition: an intension is a function from possibilities to extensions.[*] The possibilities here correspond to different possible states of the world. Relative to any possibility, an expression has an extension: for example, a sentence (e.g. 'All renates are cordates') can be true or false relative to a possibility, and a singular term (e.g. 'the teacher of Aristotle') picks out an individual relative to a possibility. An expression's intension is the function that maps a possibility to the expression's extension relative to that possibility. When two expressions are necessarily co-extensive, they will pick out the same extension relative to all possibilities, so they will have the same intension. When two expressions are not necessarily co-extensive, they will not pick out the same extension relative to all possibilities, so they will have different intensions. So intensions behave just as Carnap suggests they should (...) The core idea of two-dimensional semantics is that there are two different ways in which the extension of an expression depends on possible states of the world. First, the actual extension of an expression depends on the character of the actual world in which an expression is uttered. Second, the counterfactual extension of an expression depends on the character of the counterfactual world in which the expression is evaluated. Corresponding to these two sorts of dependence, expressions correspondingly have two sorts of intensions, associating possible states of the world with extensions in different ways. On the two-dimensional framework, these two intensions can be seen as capturing two dimensions of meaning.These two intensions correspond to two different ways of thinking of possibilities. In the first case, one thinks of a possibility as representing a way the actual world might turn out to be: or as it is sometimes put, one considers a possibility as actual. In the second case, one acknowledges that the actual world is fixed, and thinks of a possibility as a way the world might have been but is not: or as it is sometimes put, one considers a possibility as counterfactual. When one evaluates an expression relative to a possible world, one may get different results, depending on whether one considers the possible world as actual or as counterfactual." From: consc.net/papers/foundations.html#1.1)
One meaning could turn to be metaphysically internal to one language in which common sense is the whole truth, meaning that for some intension that could be the actual case; same meaning could turn to be metaphyisically external to another language in which common sense is false and computational simulation is the whole truth, meaning that for another intension that could be the counterfactual case. Nonetheless, we can always track meanings in both cases of intensions, both logically and empirically, as shown before by the Carnapian foundations of two-dimensional semantics.
The simulation hypothesis is really just a more modern iteration of a very old question/observation that goes back several thousand years(even to the origins of Hinduism); which is "What is real? How much of what I'm experiencing is actually real, or illusory?". Brain in a vat, Butterfly Poem, Evil Demon, and now this Simulation Hypothesis is just a more modern approach to thinking about it.
This is much more a question about the nature of reality, and what is and isn't real, rather than are we living in a computer simulation. The base reality, if they are like us(I doubt it) would probably have the same philosophical question stuck with them.
One thing you can be certain of is that YOUR consciousness is real. Thats one of the best ways you can define consciousness I think.
Its the one thing that you can definitively say is not an illusion.
The external world? Not so much. You can't definitively say whether or not the thing in front of you is real or not. But does it really matter? For things that arn't conscious, is there really anything different between a real chair and a virtual chair? Remember consciousness is the one thing that isn't ambiguous about this. If you're conscious, its not an illusion, its not something that can be faked. Outsiders from your own consciousness may not be able to tell you're conscious but thats because its something that can't directly be observed.
One problem that some physicists and philosphers or douchebags like Elon Musk make is differening between simulated consciousness and a simulated reality. Theres literally no such thing as simulated consciousness. If you were to do what they are saying, you would basically have to map the circuitry of the brain on some type of device(connectome maybe) and then simulate the external stimuli.
Thats distinctly different from just simulating everything within a computer program. A Sim character in a game could act and behave just like a conscious being but that doesn't mean its conscious.
The Simulation Argument is actually very distinct from traditional skeptical arguments such as Descartes' Demon. I recommend reading Bostrom's original paper, and his FAQ on the argument (the 3rd question is directly related to your main point), links to both I have posted below, which should clear up any points of contention.
www.simulation-argument.com/classic.pdf
www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html
quagmire444 Its more like idealism vs materialism. Given what we know today, materialism is making less and less sense.
quagmire444 - Do you think an artificial intelligent “robot” could ever become conscious?
Being a Hindu, I can confirm that the world is simulated is taught to us in childhood.
However, the very limited free will is what counts as karma.
Free will is considered an illsuion almost entirely and what you do in that. 001% of free will decides Moksha after death or continuous cycle of life and death.
We can't even clear define WHAT IS consciousness in ALL(!) history of Philosophy. But we are talking about the SIMULATION(what mean know what is consciousness and structure of it) of consciousness. Not knowing the natural consciousness as much as possible to create simulated?
There are lots and lots of things many people cannot define, that seems to have no bearing whatsoever on us copying it. We don't know how gravity works, but we still use it. We also don't know how light works, every DVD player has a laser though, we don't even know what keeps a bicycle upright when its being cycled, still not a barrier.
If your argument is we don't know 'everything' about something... well that's fine, in fact its not possible to know everything about a thing.
There is also of course the person who insist that nobody knows 'anything' about something... which of course is not true. It THEY that do not know anything about something and assume nobody else does.
So you'll be surprised to hear that although we, well actually others, that in fact have defined consciousness created conscious machines, and the math to check and make sure its actually conscious.
-> www.sciencealert.com/a-robot-has-just-passed-a-classic-self-awareness-test-for-the-first-time
Weird that ehh?
try this video he describes the illusion of consciousness coming from our brain activity & how that assumption is false.
th-cam.com/video/fjbwWivYabU/w-d-xo.html
Your grammar hurts my amygdala.
No delusion, drugs, imagination, spirituality, philosophy or Alex Jones stand-up comedy act needed. From 4:00 DC gets it right. A sim where everything is relatively real only it's populated by solid holograms or people except for 1 or a few who are unaware or who aren't simulacra. "If there's no audience then there's no...just-in-time Truman Show. The reality show story device of that movie isn't part of any convenient projected delusion. The Jim Carey character, Tru-man, wasn't paranoid. All the story device metaphors of the movie correspond to an aspect of sim "reality."
We now have a ex-reality show host TBTF R/ E con artist as US President named Tru-mp. There's no dome barrier for him to hurt his head on when he travels or run his yacht into like in the movie. For most ppl the barriers are simple metaphors for family, job, school, injury or other confining circumstance. It could also be total sleep deprivation beyond insomnia that sets in whenever traveling outside a given familiar area which is how it works (or doesn't work) 4me.
One way or another, the person spends a lot of time confined to a given location that can be more easily manipulated, controlled, choreographed, synchronized either by a guy with lots of $ and/or by an AI gestalt metaphysical OS. The rich guy just gets to see a lot of posthuman Mar-A-Lago paying guests.
Apocalypse Now? The Jim Bakker Religious Right preachers are always wrong but at the same time always right. We don't have to wait for the last judgement. The gestalt isn't a still & silent witness anymore & maybe never was. We are not Waiting For Godot. "It" has already arrived in our neural circuitry as well as populating the externality. (Just leave off the last two letters with a small g) The name of the show playing now is The Sim-pson's.
'who' is to say that the 'programmer' isn't himself a simulation...
Yea. When thinking about this simulated reality theory I end up at the strange conclusion, that nothing at all actually exists. Or to say it differently; the word "existence" is now synonymous with the word "simulation."
It makes me think of monism. All is one, single, unlimited hallucination, that never started and never ends.
No one:) I don´t think anyone says:) No one knows either:)
pcread. The point is that nothing about this theory matters or makes sense. And all these people want from this theory is to say they're better than you.
Who's to say anything?
giantpoopbutt Plays you're officially an anti-intellectual. Congratulations.
Watch and learn: m.th-cam.com/video/VqULEE7eY8M/w-d-xo.html
the Matrix analogy is a poor one The unreal Martix program reality was computer generated yes....but it was fed to REAL minds The simulation theory asserts there are no real minds just computer generated minds
Google search the 'Brain in a vat' concept and you will see that the simulated universe theory does include real minds and not just computer generated minds.
The substrate for consciousness need not be an organic brain.
I think the definition of a simulation is an artificial construct, created by an outside intelligence.
well said.
David Depish Exactly
IF you have NOT seen "The Processing System of LIFE, these simulations (Universes) are played in, then I can reveal to you two very simple ways you can SEE "The Processing System of LIFE".
My sims feel this way too.... They are so headstrong,... but the music is so good.
My primary source of skepticism here is that there is no reason to think our programmers aren't simulated themselves. If it is likely we are simulated, wouldn't the dimension above ours be the same? And the one above that? Tricky stuff.
i guess thats exactly what he is talking about. Thats why the chances we are simulated is so high because there could be millions of simulations on different levels. Get Ai in the picture instead of human programmers and we get ridiculous numbers...
For a great take on this concept, check out Tom Campbell and his MBT theory....
Campbell is a crackpot. He has no real evidence for his beliefs on why we are here and what this is all about. It's like believing in any religion. It's all on faith and frankly it's really silly.
Tom Campbell deals with fiction.
Did he record all these videos on the same day?
when you take a look at "the game of life" introduced by john conway and think for a minute, you understand that it's easy to create complexe simulations using only simple mathematical equations that you can write in your hand. so yeah if you have enough computing power you can create a world where life can immerge and evolove and maybe become aware of it's own existence.
create complex simulations using simple math? have at it
"So you're telling me there's a chance..."
...
...
I believe anytime we, or nature, manipulates energy, we, or nature, is creating a small segment of consciousness... do this at a certain frequency and speed this manipulation becomes self aware.
Lets take another turn here. Movies, games and most of entertainment is design to help you forget... and dive in to experience without consequences. Do you really think it will be hard for VR companies to augment virtual reality with some sort of primitive and simple senses that will improve over time dramatically and maybe, just maybe have an option that you could forget, or rather not know that you are playing the game?
as long as you real body gets water, food and movement... and even then your brain would strike after a few months. i dont think VR at any level could trick us into that. artificial worlds could though.
my objection is a simulation is not self realizing. We are self realizing beings that can discuss about simulations and even run our own. yet those simulations do not become self aware and make their own.
Silvia who says they don't? Maybe we're doing that now... And so what if they did?
Could they do anything about it? Could we?
Back in the late 1980s after having grown up with the cold war and the idea that technology was ultimately going to destroy us all... I asked myself, what if the opposite were true and that ultimately technology was going to create us all instead?
It seemed like a more pleasant outcome... a comforting idea.
As time went by things like virtual reality came along and the idea that recreational technology was actually RE-CREATIONAL made more and more sense... with that came MDMA and the whole Techno scene and I became even more excited because I felt like other people saw the possibilities too...
I don't really know what happened then... It was almost like the collective consciousness fragmented and people just became incredibly self-centered and the whole idea lost its comforting appeal. The possibilities became almost frightening instead.
You became older.
It's still an uphill battle with our social setup, but trust me plenty of MDMA, techno and hope is still going strong
I'm surprised that a lot of people don't get it. Let me share a clue: if you think about average person, from his birth to his death, what drives him forward, what he is being thought at school, family and by others in his inner circle, you should start seeing the truth
and just to add: the world we live in - there is no reason to be plugged inside matrix, the existing simulacrum is so powerful, this hyperreality or hyperreal is so real that having anything extra is not needed
If this is true then human beings at one time thought this was true and it wasnt really a simulation, so they just died. And whoes to say that isnt us?
Good point.
6:55 The idea of all-knowing and all-powerful programmer is ridiculous. The whole point and need for a simulation is in the lack of knowing of how the simulation will end up. If we already know how that simulation will turn out, there is no need to run that simulation. Only when that simulation will produce something that you could presee, there is motive to use simulation. Especially if you try to tweak or intervene (small part of) the simulation, you have no idea or only a hunch of how the simulation will continue. If the simulation is so trivial and deterministic that you know *everything* about it, running it is uninteresting and it hardly deserves to be called as a simulation.
if we live in a simulation and it's exactly the same as reality it then makes no difference ,if on the other hand the simulation is a pale version of reality specially designed to to study us in a very limited environment that would be a bummer man ...more like rats in a maze than lions on a massive game reserve
The whole video is based on ones definition of 'real'.
"Real" in this debate is defined as that which exists independent of one's own consciousnesses.
That's a problem I've noticed in a couple of Chalmers' ideas - they can be reduced to a decision about how to define things, and I don't see how the language you use for a particular thing has any metaphysical consequences. Extended mind and extended body theory are another example of this, and even Andrew Clark seems to reluctantly admit this in his interview on Closer to Truth - they classify some object in the external world as part of your body or mind, depending on its function, and then they say this has ethical consequences. Does it, though? Should the moral severity of some action be determined by what we call it? They provide the (real life) example of a man whose memory was damaged in a biking incident. He uses Viseo flowcharts to keep track of basic conversations. They say that this outsourcing of his memory to the software, makes that software part of his cognition. Fair enough. But so what? Even if I didn't call it cognition, it would be just as bad to take that software from his, as it would to do so if we called it cognition. It's all just words, but what does it MEAN?
An idea like idealism or panpsychism has real metaphysical consequences, whether or not it's empirically testable. These theories suggest something very strange about the nature of the world, and potentially have metaphysical consequences. But some "metaphysical theories" aren't metaphysical theories at all, and they don't tell us anything profound. That includes Chalmers' response to the simulation argument - he doesn't actually believe anything different to the external world skeptic, he just rephrases those beliefs. That rephrasing should logically have no effect on your behaviour.
Don't get me wrong, Chalmers is a useful thinkers in my opinion. He has some great ideas. Some of them just seem subtly silly.
Real is indivisible and undeniable.
Yeah, it is just a stupid, vain brainfuck. We ALL have the same definition of "real" - otherwise our world would not work one minute. (Please leave out the few psychos)
Yes, you are most certainly living in a virtual reality simulation. But it exists in something that is much more than a "computer." And it is of your own design! If you want to know the details, including exactly WHY you are experiencing a virtual reality simulation rather than Absolute Reality, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found" (available through Amazon).
mind boggingly fascinating
If they find out this is all a simulation as they already did, choose the life that you want and live it until your simulation is over.
It doesn’t change anything if this is a simulation or not, it’s very irrelevant.
Or we are simulated by machines to help understand base-reality-humans. Maybe trying to understand emotions.
Doing some research and I have a question about #2. Has a maximum speed: In our world, a light shone from a spaceship moving at almost the speed of light still leaves the ship at the speed of light, which is impossible in an objective reality. Einstein proved that the speed of light is a maximum, but gave no reason for it. The equations increase an object’s inherent mass as it increases speed relative to other objects, which works but doesn’t really explain anything. In contrast, every screen has a fixed refresh rate that no pixel-to-pixel transfer “speed” can exceed.
Most of the quantum entanglement tests I have researched aren't clear on whether quantum entanglement occurs faster than the speed light. I found this article and I am not smart enough to figure out what this means?
No faster-than-light communication: The two detectors measured photons from the same pair a few hundreds of nanoseconds apart, finishing more than 40 nanoseconds before any light-speed communication could take place between the detectors. Information traveling at the speed of light would require 617 nanoseconds to travel between the detectors. (www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-proves-spooky-action-distance-really-real)
Does that mean the particles "spooky action" happened faster than the speed of light? I get confused because the beginning sentence state "No faster-than-light communication" but reading the paragraph sounds like "the photons finished 40 nanoseconds before any speed of light could take place."
I also found this although may be an older experiment,
"But even weirder, the wave equation implied that once measured, two entangled particles could somehow instantly communicate, much faster than the speed of light, to link up their states." (www.livescience.com/52811-spooky-action-is-real.html)
Please help because if the "spooky action" happens faster than the speed of light, it would question number 2 which compares the speed of this quantum computers processing to the speed of light and nothing goes faster than the speed of light.. or processor.
Also how about how time dilates near massive objects (such as black holes) and how that correlates to a computer processor slowing down when it's trying to process a lot of info at once.
The only existing simulations are DREAMS. And how poor they are often, are they not? The way cinema presents dreams is mostly sharp and clear, everything in focus. And NOT from the dreamers POV - which is what most of us experience in dreams: moving through a partly focused, partly fuzzy world seen through our eyes. (Perhaps with movie actors and TV people it's sometimes different because the are used to see themself on screens, "from the outside")
@@grantmyers3132 Grant, thanks for your answer - but you don't comment on anything I write - which seems sadly normal nowadays.
Every particle must be a unique character in the simulation. The cost of executing the simulation of a single particle including energy input is astronomical. Astronomical times astronomical = $(infinity-1).
That is just the cost of running the simulation. The R&D of knowing how to build and run the thing is going to be astronomical again so it's now
$(infinity-1)+astronomical.
What a stupid waste of money considering the awful things that are being painstakingly simulated like poverty, death, and mayhem. No one with the intelligence and the resources would make such a simulation.
That analysis seems to have a huge flaw. If there is an outer universe, the laws of reality and physics could be completely different from ours. There is no reason to assume every theoretical universe which could support intelligence would be identical to ours. And even in our own universe, we have no idea what technology could be possible in 100 or a million years time.
Objective Realist 420 not at all. My point was that it would be such a huge undertaking to "simulate" a single particle, that I doubt our universe alone could be simulated, let alone the infinitely many parallel universes that are hypothesized to exist.
A process, or entity, if intelligent as simulation theory requires, that was able to pull off such a feat would for all intents and purposes be God.
It's not the outer-verse that challenges our ability to know nearly so much as the inner-verse. That place behind the veil that surrounds things smaller than ten to the minus thirteen millimeters wherein the first principles seem to unravel.
Imagine you are looking through VR goggles,your single particle will be only simulated when you look at it with the microscope in the game, your particle and the whole world doesn't have to be pixelated when you are not looking there. It is not the impossible. Technology for VR is very impressive, and its just a beginning.
Right, only rendering something needing to be observed, or procedural generation, or emergence, can be used to this effect.
You are all missing the point. It's not only the visual component that must be simulated, but every physical characteristic. This includes mass, inertia, momentum, etc. if the world we live in now is but a simulation, then even Gravity is being simulated.
It's not about what will be or could be, simulation theory says we are now in a simulation. If so, then the simulator is a, if not the, supreme being.
We are all made up of these particles, if they aren't simulated perfectly, we cease to exist in the simulation.
Chalmers is a great thinker so I don’t understand his deliberate self-delusion here. Maybe scepticism is just distasteful to him? We really don’t know that an external world exists. All we know is experience. However, the contents of experience seem to behave with numerous regularities which are seductive to the scientific mind. We can propose mechanisms to account for how things play out as they do; Science is storytelling, after all. But as to whether we are trying to explain a material universe, a simulation program or something else those differences are moot. We don’t know what we are describing. We’re just looking for the best metaphor.
You are actually in a simulation completely made of Stardust. They say you must have a computer to create the simulation. Well guess what? Seth Lloyd discovered how to design the first buildable quantum computer and the way he figured out how to design it was by studying How the Universe Works and it works just like a giant quantum computer. It is the universe that created your Consciousness and this simulation made of Stardust. How I would know this is because I am the universe seeing itself. 👁
We are given free will, , but we are also given limitations. We are definitely someone's creation....simulation.
The fact that we can't travel the speed of light and can't reach the other galaxies, might mean that the whole universe is just an illusion just for show that we have a background, a past.
Including the fact that the edges of the universe are rushing away from us faster than we can ever travel.
Or instead of thinking that the universes laws are revolved around us exploring it we can think of it as the universes laws as not allowing us to explore it. There’s no way we’re actually in a simulation. A computer of that power would be absolutely massive, and to waste all that power on a simulation for supposed hyper intelligent beings doesn’t fit the bill. Not to mention numerous neurobiologist have argued that machines couldn’t possibly recreate the human mind.
@@rayz639 I agree. The universe is made in such a way we can never find out what's beyond our own galaxy. We might see them, but that could be an illusion built into the simulation.
I like that he mentions Descartes at some length because if I'm to make sense of his then he should be in that tradition.
The simulation theory sounds alot like a theist saying "can you prove (a) god does not exist?" No, someone can not prove a negative. The same with simualation theory the proof in on the proposer not the sceptic!
I never heard anyone who support seriously simulation theory speaking in this terms, maybe you found people that were already religious-oriented
@@paologiroldi90 Simulation theory is the same as the God question just a modern reinterpretation of the same question.
@@BaphomentIsAwsome666 not at all. Simulation theory would possibly suggest we are not real and without spirit at all and have been artificially created. Quite a disturbing thought.
Would like to see him in discussion with Bernardo Kastrup who thinks he's solved the hard problem of consciousness by arguing everything is in consciousness.
I could see one major reason for creating a simulation. We can find out how the origins of life came to be. It might take many trillions of versions to come about though.
I love David Chalmers
Is'nt consciousness the knowing through experience that something ''is'' ? Like putting a hand on a red hot stove top ?
It sure is'nt wondering about what is'nt, right ? Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder...and so is reality, I believe.
"First, you have to assume a rate of improvement is happening with the development of video games turning into virtually simulated universes."
How is this not a MASSIVE assumption, that completely destroys the whole thought experiment?
Isn't that how thought experiments work? When someone says "you have to assume..." it does not mean "it is a fact that...". No one is saying that this is definitely a simulation. But if video games keep evolving in complexity and scope, then it makes the idea more feasible.
And I don't think it's a MASSIVE assumption. We've been working on video games for 50 years, look at how far we've come since Pong. Now imagine how complex video games will be if they keep evolving for thousands of years. Which they probably will, if we don't destroy ourselves. And even if we do destroy ourselves, that doesn't mean other civilisations couldn't do better.
@@olaf3140 exactly. And we are not talking about a civilization (AI) 100 years more progressed than we are, but maybe 10000 years. Could also be 10Millions years ahead of us. Isnt much in the timeline of a planet.
New drinking game: every time he says the word "simulation" ...drink a shot of Fireball :D
So as simulation beings.. we live forever?? because I don't want to... This shit scares me..
alexander g No. People die all the time.
David chalmer thinks the likelyhood that we are infact living inside a simulation is 42 percent and that scares the shit outta me lol...
Validity does not equal likelihood.
The entire thing boils down to "You can't disprove it, so we should take it seriously!" You could make the exact same argument for the existence of god, yet all these 'intellectuals' would balk at that (and rightly so).
This whole 'hypothesis' seems to me to be nothing more than 'intellectual' skeptics wanting to play in the theological park because they've realized it's more fun than the scientific park, with fewer rules...
But whats the purpose behind it?...
We are all just GTA IX Running on some kid's Nintendo Switch. That kid got a C- in science class, and he is literally god.
We have forgotten the main problem of simulation argument
If we will be ever capable of creating such a simulation then its rational for the teenage god who created us to ask himslef do i live in simulation ?
And this problem goes by the way
And if we would not be able to make a simulation then its rational to ask who created the real world which we are being simulated in
Those ideas don't work, as they can't cross the computability barrier. The world can't be simulated, as it would cost infinite amount of computation, as compared with what we can do. And imagining that we will go there eventually because "we seem to progress at a logarithm pace" is a very naive thought and does not match any reality. Nick Bostrom is not an engineer, he is a philosopher, that's why he can think in this way ; and that's why he can be so wrong about that.
@@grantmyers3132 The idea that it would be possible to compute a whole universe into a small fraction of it, namely into a computer, is equivalent to putting in a box a bigger box: it breaks logic. Just like you can't find in a finite chunk of space an infinite energy, you can't find as well in a finite chunk of space an infinite computing power, as those entities (namely energy and information) are after all of the same nature. And that's why Nick Bostrom is wrong and why his argument is a joke.
what will happen when we die in this simulation
Same with real life, no one knows for sure.
How do you define reality?
If energy doesn't conserve due to grid and rounding errors, then we live in simulation. If so, we might try to communicate with those running the simulation. Maybe praying to Gods worked back 4KY ago and it only stopped after people started tracking miracles in Holy Books?
No.
If we are simulated why not the people around you arent simulated and you are the only one really conscious in the simulation :/
how do you know they are real? think of this. when your dreaming, is your dream the same as your brothers just because your brother is sleeping in the same room? why do we have individual thought processes? why cant you read my mind? lmao. we do live in a simulation but people are scared of the idea of it. but dont be. it means we get re-incarnated and live the same life over and over again. too bad if your born into poverty but watcanyado
Don't try to bend the spoon "thats impossible. Instead know that really there is no spoon! there's always one prick that starts a chicken and egg argument!!!
how can we be a simulation if everyone observes the same fact. e.g if a see a blue wooden chair infront of me ten feet away, an other person will see the same chair
Simulations are build for making a common experience .In 'The Sims' all participants experience the same world, in 'Flight Simulator' you are in a course to crash with another plane and if you don"t turn, you will crash . There is time and space consistency in a simulation as it is in our world.
hmmm. but simulation theory is a stretch
It certainly is but think how stretched our knowledge would seem to a human of some 200-300 years ago (a split second in cosmic time-scale) and you will see that truth was always far beyond of what we are guessing .
Why would everyone seeing and experiencing the same thing mean the universe was not simulated? Is your test one where everyone must see a totally different universe around them? Why?
He means that everything validated as real cause everyone perceive-experience it .
But this is not enough reason to make this assumption
In a simple simulation, lets say in a multiplayer game(games that people play like Warcraft),
everyone sees everything as it is. All of them.
Simulations are constructed for the players to have common experience.
His eye contact is intense.
The simulation theory then solved nothing, only restates Descartes' method of doubt
Jorge Torres Yup. But our ideas get better with better tech.
One thing I don’t like is that they try to explain simulation theory as if they know what consciousness is we don’t. We don’t know what it is. It is still a
Puzzle till this day. We only have theories to think of what it could he and stuff but not really you know facts. So they can make up things as if they know what it is or why. Like we don’t know lol. So we can’t make assumptions about it if we don’t know. And I don’t think we will ever know tbh
Someone keeps hitting my master bating button
Lol, God doesn't exist... why not? Because we the Scientists are God. So this whole time Atheists were asking about why God would allow so much hatred/suffering/evil in the world they could have just been asking each other.
We can't even replicate the power of one human brain and you expect me to believe there is a computer somewhere capable of running 7 billion of them?
of course not now on earth. But maybe somewhere (or on earth) where civilization is 10000 years ahead of us.
I would actually be amenable to some combination of the holographic principle and bio-centrism... because, in order for something to be said to "exist", it has to be observed. Quantum entanglement proves that the perceived depth of our universe is all in our heads and, yet, that depth is absolutely necessary for it to function. The universe is not something that life merely inhabits, we are part of the process.
When a group of people discuss about any shared event, there perceptions often differ a lot. Reality (if there is any such thing) is just the agreed upon average of those perceptions. Those discussions and sharing of perceptions and experiences leads everyone to the "reality", which is why people enjoy discussions and sharing experiences to understand the shared world they live in. Outside human systems there is no such thing as universal reality. If I see green as red and I was always told (the seemingly green) apple is "red", I would always call the apple "red" as I grow up and when we meet, you or I would never know that what we both call "red" apple and agree upon the name of the color is not what both of us actually see. Language cannot describe what we "actually" see.
who created the various dimensions and our minds, and our spirit frequencies?
Someone higher .
Why would you make a simulation if you couldn't play in it? I think post-humans or whatever made this can be someone in here and play the game. The thing to do would be figure out who they would choose to 'step into' and se if there's any evidence...
we as humans do tons of simulations (weather, science, economy etc) without participating.
I didn’t expect him to say dumb things as he did.
What you are doing at now we indians doing this in our every single bit of life
I have just had a thought. If we are simulated then the creator of the simulation is either only interested in studying life as we know it, including or maybe limited to, us, or else the programmer is a novice with only one inhabited planet in their Universe.
An expert might have many populated Galaxies with very many civilizations interacting with each other and advancing all the while.
a lot of these arguments also work for the idea that we exist in the hallucinations of a extatically tripping junky.
im not 'against' the hypothesis tho, just saying there are so much more possibilities, and statistics often lie
actually now that i think about it, IF any other universe works like ours (which it probably does because a simulation would be the simulated ' other universe' and hallucinations often match real world entities), then comparing the technological complexity of a computer simulation, to the relative simplicity of a tripping mind, makes me think existing in a hallucination is much more likely STATISTICALLY.
in other words:
hallucinations are much more common than advanced simulations, the same might apply to the next universe up.
if that is the case then living in the hallucinations of another being is more likely than living in a simulation.
either that or this super universe simply does not have anything like hallucinations, and they do have simulations. but then how do hallucinations exist here, as simulations are often based on things already existant
So, who is winning this "game"?
Why is there something instead of nothing? No fucking clue but its great to play with ideas.
God is a teenager. Makes sense now. I understand it all.
Space is also an illusion that is meaningless without objects to observe.
I had a dream last night where me and this beautiful woman was talking, kissing, just sitting on some chairs, looking out towards the sea, we must have been in some tropical place, beach. We were eating some food and drinking some drinks which by the tasted very real, was very nice aha, but anyways, I looked down and saw lots of people screaming and rinning, I looked to my left and saw a car speeding and then crash into a store saying "Sony Playstation 10 and Galaxy millennium" and after that, the woman says "look at the sea gorgeous, I think it's coming our way, I think a tsunami is going to hit!" I said "holy fuck, you're absolutely right about that, gorgeous lady, you're absolutely 100% bubbly jubbly right, maybe we should get a move on!" She said "ok then, lets go!" So, off we went but by the time we finished speaking, it was too late in the sense of we were holding onto each other, hugging ect while the tsunami hit at incredible speed but the power, weight wasn't that incredible, it was shit if I'm honest with you, I was able to hold my friend the entire time, so that was great, I reckon. Anyways, it was over after what felt like forever, but it was over though, so that was good. We then carry on with our day like nothing happened. We also popped into the Sony Playstation 10, stayed there for about 30 minutes or so looking around this giant amazing looking store, nothing like any store I've ever seen in this current life, unless it is what I see in my own little reality but maybe places/areas/cities in dreams get distorted, I don't know but it was amazing though and the Galaxy Millennium store was absolutely amazing as well but that could also be a distortion of my mind or possibly a simulation glitch? maybe that's what this dream was, a glitch in the system? Could all my dreams be glitches in the simulation as well as my brain, ofcourse????
it would be legitimate to ask, if the simulation theory is reality, how do we as humans who are aware of it, use this knowledge to improve our lives and the life that is on our planet? would this lead to improvements in medicine, ecology, etc? some of the branches of science and technology are related to these concerns, and will eventually be influenced by such a big shift in our understanding of reality itself.
Covid 19 was just a way to free up hard drive space.
And reduce lag
I rember that I saw it mentioned on a slide in one of my psychology lectures... that solipsism was a possibility but not one taken very seriously by psychologists, except in the matrix movies..haha,, and I as like well actually this one should be taken a fair bit more more seriously because more u start to think about the more it starts to raise its ugly face.. as we really can only it seems know our own minds and other things are only known through experience of them,. so wats going on I wonder!!!
Solipsism is an extension of narcissism. It is becoming increasingly popular as a world-view thanks to the success of books like "the secret" and other pseudo-spiritual self-empowerment books that have grown out of something called "the law of attraction" which was popularised in the 1920s. The whole, "my thoughts create my reality" philosophy is promoted as though it's rooted in ancient Eastern Philosophy but the way that it has been packaged is flawed and, I think, dangerous. I genuinely believe that it has been done deliberately because it suits the capitalist system as people are encouraged to make their own individual happiness and wealth their number one priority.
The flaw lies in the basic model of consciousness that must exist in order for solipsism to be viable. You can say that these words that you are reading are simply a projection of your subconscious mind and not the product of an external consciousness, (ie. me...) and from within your own mind you cannot prove that it is anything but that... Likewise, I can say that the comment that I am replying to is not the product of your independent action driven by your consciousness but rather a projection of my own which I have manifested in order to create this experience which I am... erm... experiencing... However...
Even if I believe that... I did not do it consciously. I did not act in any way that I am aware of in order to create the comment that I am now responding to.
Likewise, you did not consciously create this response, and that in itself proves that something exists outside of your consciousness...
(Even if it exists entirely within your own mind in reality... it's in a part of your consciousness that you are not aware of... (unless you are... in which case, you'll know what I've written below because you made me write it!)))...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
In authentic Eastern traditions, spiritual learning would involve a very long period of study dedicated to understanding 'self' as a concept and as a reality.
This would be the foundation for all that follows and at the end of this stage the student/devotee would have a very different perspective on what 'self' is compared to the one they had when they started or the one commonly held by modern Westerners. 'Ego' and all that jazz...
Some would say that we live in something called 'Maya' which is an illusory state of separateness and that our individual self is a creation of the whole.., which is practically the total opposite of solipsism.
But what do they know?!
Jsut in case you or anyone else is taken in by the whole solipsism thing and have come to believe in your omniscience and omnipotence, I made a spelling mistake/typo at the beginning of this sentence... Feel free to correct it!
Namaste
__/\__
Hindu know it's already that this whole universe is Maya illusion
Don't go for money
Go for knowledge
Money comes automatically
Jaya sanatan dharma
What happens if the "controller" of the simulation gets up from his/her/its chair and trips over the plug, pulling it out of the universal socket with a bang and subsequent darkness/oblivion? We may have to wait billions of years for someone to spot the unplugged computer, plug it in and start again with an updated programme. Or, more likely, the intelligent being just gets bored playing this silly simulation with these weird (and sometimes wonderful) humanoids and walks away?
There could be billions of simultaneous simulations going on at the very moment YOU are reading this. Think of the billions of e-mail, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat accounts there are somewhere "out there" in the digital ether.
Maybe the purpose of our existence is to get to the point where we realise we are, in fact, a simulation and then, once that revelation has truly sunk in, to make "conscious contact" with our controller? Once contact has been made we could ask them through conscious thought to give us a new experience from the one we are having right now.
"Okay, dear universe" we say to ourselves, "thanks for my experience so far and for me arriving at this point of awareness. Now, I have enjoyed, loathed, hated, loved (insert your own word) my experience so far, but would now like to enjoy ________ (fill in your own experience) and see how that feels". So, we chose and make our own experience and it's not left up to fate, circumstances or other people?
Professor Chalmers you quoted Descartes, but here's what Eckhart Tolle (he of "The Power of Now" and "A New Earth" fame) has said about Rene's famous quote: “The philosopher Descartes believed he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: "I think, therefore I am." He had, in fact, given expression to the most basic error: to equate thinking with Being and identity with thinking. The compulsive thinker, which means almost everyone, lives in a state of apparent separateness, in an insanely complex world of continuous problems and conflict, a world that reflects the ever-increasing fragmentation of the mind.”
What Tolle means is that the thinking/speaking little "voice" in our heads is not the real "me". The insistent, thinking voice being the false ego - the "I". That the universal consciousness within us is aware that the voice is not real. I call it being conscious of the unconscious, which amounts to the same thing. Complicated, I know!
Anyway, it's late here in London -- too late to unravel any more thoughts on the subject and certainly too late to formulate them into any cohesive argument. I will leave it to others to comment further and say "thank you", Professor, for your words.
John Deery (director) The so called speed of light is not an applicable variable to be used within the framework of the physical world since the speed of light is can only be accurately measured outside the physical world i.e, inside of an artificially created vaccum.
To use speed of light in any mathmatical formula which attempts to prove a physical law can only lead to inaccurate results, incorrect results, false results.
This - very interesting simulation argument...
What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.
• The universe is a simulation.
• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one.
• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.
Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children.
• Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression.
• Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour.
• Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.
• Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.
Those are the basic points of the theory. The theory itself is the combination
of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by.
"Human Beings" are evil aspects of consciousness and their forms and environment are specifically designed for the purpose of rehabilitation - the first step in the process.
That's what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.
www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314326
Stop talking about Quantum Mechanics and the double slit experiment when you know nothing about it. You are spreading misinformation!!!
“Evil demon”, actually.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Sagan, I think). I hear wonderfully imaginative claims, with rather weak assumptions associated imo, about this simulation idea. Simulation Hypothesis (SH) kind of makes me sad as a scientist.
This SH is very similar to the Religious God arguments put forth by Theist. "How do you know God doesn't exist?" "How do you know we are not in a Simulation?" are really the best arguments for either God or SH; neither one do I feel I need to proof and both are based on radical assumptions. As stated earlier, proofing extraordinary claims falls upon those making the extraordinary claim.
Maybe this idea is catching on in the Scientific world because deep down we all want a more concrete answer to the chaos and randomness that is the Universe. Meh, idk, if it's true or not, I feel similar to the gentlemen in the video, it doesn't really change anything.
Mowgli Hajduk It’s not a theory with any supportive frame work. More of an interesting thought experiment. It takes into account our current simulation technology and extrapolates the most extreme consequence given 50-200 Years time of continued advancement.
Mowgli Hajduk Basically, the argument of simulation theory is that intelligent simulations could create simulations too, so its a simulation within simulations within simulations basically forever.....so you would likely to be in a simulation than the real world that started all simulations.
And the probability that once an advanced simulation exists, it will spawn nested sims to the capability of the hardware is vanishingly close to 1.
Grant Myers - I’m sorry, I can’t tell if your being serious or just trolling.
Good presentation. I think he means that he is not cynical about the simulation hypothesis, he IS sceptical about it. Also if a "teenager" created the simulation we live in, he wouldn't be all knowing or all powerful, since the program they are running is doing so with fundamental laws of physics, particularly complexity, so she'd have the same issues we have with measurement, modelling and control.
I think the likelihood of us being inside a virtual reality/computer simulation is approximately 98%
So the programmer would be god? I rather think we live in a giant Petri dish. (seen from the universe)
@@klartext2225 yeah, me too!
@Alec Daniel You're insanely stupid!
Does anyone commenting for one minute act as if they are living in a simulation??? Other than nuts, not one of us acts that way... we take the world of our perceptions as real, to not do so is madness...
Nope. I am coming around on the holographic principle but the simulation hypothesis is just holographic+.
I've got to say, though, the fact that quantum entanglement proves the 3D-ness of our reality is not really there creeps the shit out of me.
These people that believe in the "simulation theory" are looking for a purpose that doesn't exist. Looking for a way out of reality. They can't accept that this is their life. It's pseudo science, it's almost like looking for god...not one of them really believes it though...
I agree. While it is true that we do not yet understand the true nature of our reality, that is not the same as saying our reality is a "fake". The reason people jump over the holographic principle and go right for the "the matrix" is because they can't accept that, on some level, our universe and our existence is absurd.
Richard Wyant madness is so fake its true in the end
Don't step in front of the train simulation!
I've thought about this before, just in a slightly different way.
Same
First apes became intelligent. Then people became civilised. Then we invented God in our terms through philosophy. God, as a creater of the unique creation. Then science overtook philosophy. And so the science fiction overtook mythology. Now we are knowing more and more. And maybe the more we are knowing about the creation, we are much more likely understanding the creator. The God may not look like that, what we think. But ultimately we can know him and also understand the purpose of his creation.
Good work if you can find it.
If we are in a simulation, simulate my state of the Union as a legal one so I can go to a store and get some cannabis, please.
Chalmers looks like he just smoked some flower, btw.
simulation/creation theory side by side hummmmmmmm
If all of life is just a simulation is there a way to reprogram it so Taco Bell will bring back the green sauce?
There are tables and chairs!? FML!
How many times did he say Simulation? 😂😂
How many times did he say consciousness lol
Think of your mind ( consciousness ) as an AI ( artificial intelligence ) where it processes our Creator's thoughts into a world that appears to be real. Our Creator is also an invisible consciousness that thought ( created ) everything we experience and spoke ( commanded ) us all into existence. Most likely there are no real worlds and our Creator creates everything including all conscious beings able to be aware that they are conscious beings.
Karma gati will simultaneously simulated you round the Universe
Hindu know this already
Even every children's in India give you amazing answers about universe without being a scintist
Yes! I hit the 1000th like. Not sure why that's important to me but there you go.
black holes could be a glitch [spacetime glitch]