No boundaries free thinking? I think just the oposite. I think that this discussion is tottaly bounded by just a few presuppositions. For example, why would a simulation had to be done in a computer? Most probably it is not.
Only humans with big ego think there is nothing more intelligent... Reality is we are baby consciousness not even in our own bed yet .. Still in the cot needing restraints until we become smart enough to not hurt ourselves
Have you ever seen an editing mistake in a movie, such as a cowboy wearing a Seiko watch when the movie was depicting a scene during the 1800’s. Or a quick glimpse of a plane flying in the same movie? In the 1970’s, a friend and I were witness to such an anomaly that happened in our imaginary and simulated world and existence. We weren’t watching a movie inside a theater, we were walking down a dirt path in the San Bernardino mountains on our way back to the car after a failed fishing venture. As we were walking, a group of geese flew out from the underbrush of the mountainside and I for some reason, which was just immature playing around, decided to point my fishing pole at the birds and pretended to shoot at the birds, even making a playful sound with my mouth to simulate the sound of a gunshot, and then, suddenly, the “matrix” made a mistake as one of the birds froze in midair, as if time had stopped. The bird hung in midair and defied all the laws of nature and physics and just froze there in space. And after 5 or 6 seconds, as the matrix was trying to calculate an escape from this error, the bird suddenly went into a vertical position while simultaneously spreading out its wings and it began to rotate along its vertical axis and the spin was accelerating. This caused the bird to further defy all the laws of nature and physics as it began to ascend upwards about four feet into the air before finally just stopping all together and then fell not the thick underbrush of the mountain, out of our sight and reach. My friend, who been in front of me on the path, slowly turned around and then gingerly reached out his hand to push the fishing pole I was holding so that it was pointed away from him. I reminded him that it was a fishing pole. He told me he knew that but after seeing what happened to the bird, he didn’t want to take any chances. So we both had witnessed the exact same thing. Then we tried to find the bird but the thick underbrush of the mountain prevented us from getting it. I thought about this anomaly for years before realizing that our reality is just a very powerful hologram existence, an illusion, and as Einstein said, “A very persistent illusion.” That was over fifty years ago and my life has had several anomalies in it that have brought me to the belief that there are no coincidences in life. Every moment has a purpose and meaning. And it all culminated into a quick peek behind the curtains about eight months ago that revealed to me our true nature and essence inside this tiny universe. But that takes us to the topic of consciousness and is a fall inside the rabbit hole that even a thousand books couldn’t explain. It truly all is just a dream inside of a dream.
I found Kurzweil interesting. I have similar thoughts regarding information. Martin Rees always has clarity in his explanations. A great sequence of interviews.
World govts are colluding together at the expense of their own citizens to usher in new world order. New world order led by obama and pope francis is coming. America will be under martial law from this covid agenda and will be invaded by russia and china in near future thanks to treasonous us govt. Repent and seek jesus christ for salvation.
But Kurzweil could make a big blunder that he thinks human can create “mind”, or AI can become our brain; at least for as long as current human on the earth can do in their life time!
I think it’s both: consciousness is fundamental and the simulation is the vehicle that consciousness rides in. Our base reality uses simulations (universes) to explore itself
To be clear - I don’t claim that the simulation hypothesis is true - in fact, my gut feel is that it isn’t. But there are things out there that DO point in that direction. The simulation hypothesis is “unfalsifiable” - we can never prove that we AREN’T being simulated because the simulation can be arbitrarily good - and any flaws in it would simply look like the kinds of quirky things that happen in quantum physics all the time. Proving it’s true is incredibly difficult - because, again, no matter how weird and quirky things get (and we know that they do!) - this can all be attributed to “how the universe works” - and we can put together elaborate theories to explain those quirks. Let me point out a couple of simple examples: I happen to have been a video game and simulation programmer for most of my career - so if a universe simulator were to be written - I’m the kind of guy who’d be writing it…and the kinds of short-cuts that I’d take are the kinds of things we should be looking out for. If I were designing a “universe simulator” - I’d want to distribute the workload across many computers. I’d probably do something like Linden Labs did with their “Second Life” simulation - which is to assign one computer to every such-and-such volume of space. Perhaps I’ll have one computer for every cubic parsec of space. There would be an ungodly number of these computers - but hey - I live in a universe one level up from ours - the laws of physics are probably different there - so maybe I can build a very large number of computers very cheaply. Now - when something happens inside one of those cubic parsecs that impacts events in one of the neighboring cubic parsec - I’ll need those two computers to exchange information about the event. So if a star explodes in one parsec-cube - then all of the surrounding parsec-cubes will need to be told that there is a transfer of light, gamma rays, etc. Fine so far…but hold on a moment - how many computers have to get that information? Well, in theory, ALL of them do - a world that’s a thousand parsecs away would need to obtain light from the supernova…so I might have to share that information across a few BILLION computers! Argh…that’s a real pain in the butt to do. Ooohhhh! I know - why don’t I make the speed of light be REALLY slow - and have it be “The Cosmic Speed Limit” - and not allow anything - not even information - to travel faster than that! Now, the computer in which the star explodes only has to tell it’s immediate neighbors - and over the course of a few years, they can tell their neighbors - and so forth. Limiting the speed of light drastically reduces “latency requirements” and makes my simulation MUCH easier to put together. So … we could argue that the extremely weird fact that there is a cosmic speed limit is some sort of a hint that maybe we’re in a simulation! In case you think that’s unlikely - I once worked for a company that made a multiplayer online game (World of Tanks) - which (just like Linden Labs) assigned one server computer to every square kilometer of the gaming area (it may have been more than 1km - I forget). The servers updated their game world 60 times per second - and communicated back and forth between themselves at the end of each update cycle. So when you fired a gun or launched a missile, it could not possibly travel faster than 1 kilometer per 16 milliseconds. That conveniently meant that every server computer only had to pass on information to its immediate neighbors in each update cycle - and if a missile needed to travel more than a couple of kilometers - then it would take 16 milliseconds to cross each kilometer. In effect, that game had a “speed of light” limitation of 60 kilometers per second. Would the Albert Einstein of that simulated game world think: “Oh wow! There is this weird cosmic speed limit - isn’t physics strange!?!” … or would he just assume: “There is a weird cosmic speed limit - we must be living in a simulation.”? It’s hard to say … but in our case, we’ve been happily accepting the finite speed of light as a “Law of physics” for about 100 years now … and in all that time, we’ve never once thought that this “proves” the simulation hypothesis. Then, we have the expansion of space. This is amazingly useful to our hypothetical hyper-programmer. Because space slowly expands, we cannot ever see things beyond about 42 billion lightyears. So between that and the finite speed of light, we have a clever way to pretend to simulate an infinite, unbounded universe with only a finite number of computers. Many video games have a very hard time covering up what happens at the edges of their game world. Then, there is “The Big Bang” - which is also very useful as a starting point for the simulation. Starting it with a zero sized singularity - and having that create both space and time - provides all sorts of conveniences. It means that the universe didn’t have to be created in every detail in a way that would be completely invisible to observers within it. In fact, if “creationism” were true - that would be concrete proof that we were living in a simulation … but a very poorly implemented one. Starting with the Big Bang makes simulation very consistent - with no weird flaws due to inconsistent initial conditions. Real video games often suffer from that exact problem. In one video game I worked on at Midway Games, we started the game with simulated people randomly placed in the game world. But once in a while, one of them would be randomly dropped into a location which they could never possibly have gotten into in the real world - and they’d be trapped there forever! If the inhabitants of that game were intelligent, then events like that would clearly demonstrate that they lived in a simulation. Starting with the Big Bang prevents you from accidentally making mistakes of that kind because everything evolves consistently from an informationless initial state. Of course the finite speed of light, the expansion of space, the Big Bang, and quantum weirdnesses, by themselves, prove nothing. Even things like quantized properties of the universe and things like the “uncertainty principle” which might be hiding “roundoff errors” can also be interpreted as a convenience for the programmers OR as “just the way the universe works”. So we can pile up things that suggest that the universe MIGHT be simulated - but we can’t ever truly prove it … and we certainly can’t ever DISPROVE it. This problem is a lot like “The Existence of God” … you can’t disprove it - and there isn’t (yet) any convincing evidence that proves it … so we should be at least agnostic on this topic … veering towards an atheistic (a-simulation-ist) position.
@@AnonymousC-lm6tc you are just assuming the sim hypothesis is unfalsifiable. So for example, if some part of pi billions or trillions of digits in has a message from our sim masters, that would be proof of a sim.
This idea is no different then the idea of an omnipotent god, it’s as old as humanity itself. Regardless, if this universe is somehow playing itself out on a computer in a separate reality, it changes nothing. More times then not a scientific simulation entails setting up the scenario then letting itself play out to see what and how it all happens. Unless it’s some child’s video game of course, in that case we’re all screwed.
@@PaulHoward108 he's implying that we can't do anything about it. I suggest that it hints at there being something bigger than is and perhaps our purpose.
@@GolgothaBridge The simplest type of simulation is a dream, and a dream is produced by a dreamer. If we know of the existence of a dreamer, we can consciously act in that relationship. As I understand it, the dreamer is the purpose, and knowing the purpose is a big change from not knowing. It gives the ability to act intelligently.
@@youareliedtobythemedia That makes no sense. If I understand this simulation hypothesis correctly, it means that a human civilization in the future decided to create a simulation of it's ancestors to study the origin of the universe maybe or to understand how life on earth evolved. Now to be able to create such a simulation I think we can all agree that they must be very intelligent. So surely they must also understand that it would be horrible idea to simulate the suffering of trillions of organisms. Especially considering that some of those organisms are their own ancestors. As for the video game argument. I'm sure that video game characters don't feel pain yet and should we in the future have the technology do implement real pain receptors so to speak in digital characters, there would be laws preventing us from doing so.
Everyone talks about the matrix movies, when it comes to the simulation hypothesis. Considering the ancestor simulation, the movie "The 13th Floor - Bist du was du denkst?" would be much more appropriate.
Who created the creators of our simulation? Wouldn't the same rules apply to them as well, so that they're perhaps simulated beings creating other simulated beings...and so on.
No one created the creators. God is eternal and God created all matter. Every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord upon His return. There will be a lot of people on their knees begging for mercy at that time. Why wait? Now is the time.
@@hugohabicht2357 John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
It is possible that if a race is advanced enough in their evolutionary process, or more aless mental process To have all feelings void, much like the vulcan race in Star Trek
@@blooregardqkazoo4519 So that’s a good question, but there’s a few “stow-away” concepts and value judgements in there that need a little unpacking. The first is that “advancement” and ethics (or morality) are mutually exclusive and that as a species “advances” (whatever that means), they evolve beyond morality or morality as commonly conceived. This isn’t the place to argue for one or the other, but just to point out that one or the other would require just that-a case be made. It’s not a given (e.g. I think most people would agree that we have advanced as a species and part of that advancement can be seen precisely in our moral progress-think of human rights, etc.) Secondly (and this might have been better stated first, but I’m sticking with the sequence it appeared in your comment) there seems to be an equivalency assumed here between ethics and feelings. Many would certainly argue for such an equivalency (and I would say that is what our ethical systems are by and large devolving into), such as the proponents of emotivism, but, again, this is not a given but something for which a case would need to be made. I would argue that ethical statements refer to something other than my “feeling” (as typically conceived)--.i.e. Me saying, torture is wrong is saying something other and wholly different from, “ew, torture, yuck”. Finally, Star Trek’s Vulcan’s ethical system is very much a utilitarian ethic (think here of Spock’s “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”) in the John Stuart Mill sense. If the simulations were truly sentient and particularly (or even potentially) were being run thousands (perhaps millions) of times over, these sentient beings would constitute “the many” compared to non-simulated beings. A more concrete example of Vulcan “morality” in action would be their vegetarianism which, presumably, eliminates the needless suffering of millions of animals. It would be quite odd to “advance” to such a state, eliminating world suffering, to include animal suffering, only to create countless additional worlds with sentient beings whose suffering is for-ancestorial curiosity or, perhaps, a future high-school student’s science project.
To the creators of the simulation all of that suffering isn't real. It's like asking if a loving author could write a novel in which characters suffer....
@@markupton1417 But not really, based on the assumptions of the whole hypothesis. The simulation hypothesis assumes the simulation of consciousness in order (presumably)to prove realistic data for the authors. For them to assume the pain "isn't real" would undermine the whole hypothesis and assume this advanced civilization doesn't understand their own simulation.
OK, to answer the final question, I easily reject that consciousness, as we know it, can be simulated. The greatest knowledge is self-knowledge, because all other knowledge comes from that one perspective. It's fundamental. Therefore, it cannot even be seen objectively. Even if we think we've simulated something from which consciousness has emerged, we can never prove it without becoming that "consciousness," which is impossible. The only way to truly experience someone else's self-consciousness, is to BE at least part of it. This would support only the nondualist perspective, that we've all splintered off of the One consciousness, into which we may eventually remerge.
@Terre Schill all of these r answered in old philosophies of India. These ppl are just playing out simulation of not seeing it and appear to try and explore wt is totally explored. Simulation is not created by something out there, it is created by thought right before us
science is always open to all the possibilities. but before any possibility gets serious consideration in the mainstream it first has to be shown to be plausible, then not shown to be false by simple means. Once it clears those hoops, then credible scientists will discuss it.
In this series I have repeated mentioned my belief that this universe is a simulation of some mathematical formulae. There are several reasons to support this belief. Often Robert has used words “real” and “imaginary”/ “fake”. I have always wondered what he means by “real”.
He typically uses the term ‘real’ as something of a synonym for his perception of intersubjetive consensus (more or less) regarding a particular fact or circumstance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
There must be a 'what exists' and also a 'what can be perceived'. Then I start to think about relevance. I also think a lot about scale. Our human minds have grown to let us imagine possibilities that are beyond our perception. Then our explorer instinct, which seems to be built-in to the human experience, pushes some of us to try and perceive 'what exists' at previously imperceptible scales; both larger, and smaller. So we discover more, and more. Our human egos are such a powerful and persistent trickster; a kind of gravitational pull that assumes we must be important, and we must be somewhere close to the center, and relevant to something big. Maybe. Likely? - Thanks for the great discussions!
World govts are colluding together at the expense of their own citizens to usher in new world order. New world order led by obama and pope francis is coming. America will be under martial law from this covid agenda and will be invaded by russia and china in near future thanks to treasonous us govt. Repent and seek jesus christ for salvation.
As believer in a supreme being outside of this universe that created this universe, then of course I would believe that the universe is a simulation. It has been made, and it is undoubtedly different from where the supreme being resides. Does it matter? Not really, unless we use our knowledge to destroy the simulation, and us with it. My solace--aside from living what I believe to be a good life--is that there is a connection between where we are, and where we came from. And, the ability for the creator to use that connection to move me from the simulation to the creator's "area" when my time in the simulation has ended
*"And, the ability for the creator to use that connection to move me from the simulation to the creator's "area" when my time in the simulation has ended"* ... That doesn't necessitate a "simulation." Couldn't your God do the same thing and accomplish the same goal using "reality?" I am not a theist, but can you explain why an all-powerful God would need to use a simulation instead of the real deal?
When I used dmt one time I could see that everything has a super complex mandala like a computer chip... And higher consciousness could read these mandala and read all the information about your energy your experiences and make up from the beginning of your creation to the end...
10:47 According to Bernardo Kastrup, the fact that we are conscious is proof that the body and the matter surrounding it is essentially foreign and a feeling of constant discomfort drives the feeling we call curiosity, which in perpetual effect is called consciousness. This notion I found originally with UG Krishnamurti, who suggested that it is the craving of either pain or pleasure that drives the person to think, otherwise thought does not create it self. The urge to communicate is a tendency to share the trauma of reality and lonliness is its proof. Thus enlightenment has been the utter disregard for this reality and not abstinence from it. The urge to experience pain or pleasure drives man to create a thought pattern that we have learned to call consciousness.
The perpetual effect can also be called ego. It’s the feeling of “I”- therefore, to expand on your comment, one should ask…what creates an urge? Food creates the body-the universe being one that consumes itself to exist. The body, being previously consumed energy returned to form-This particular form, grown from womb and compounded by food, has a complex chemistry that produces a sensation through all senses available to the organism. The sensation of “I am” comes to be. It’s an occurrence… A happening. The feeling of “I” is a thought. It is THE thought which comes prior to all thought- as all thoughts originate from the sense of “I”. What is an urge? An urge is a sensation brought into existence through the particular body chemistry, specific to that structures environment. In this way, existence, or the universe, is an interconnected web, where nothing is apart from anything else. In this sense- does it matter whether we exist in a simulation? Regardless of simulation or not, what would be the actual difference and who would be omnipotent enough to know? The universe can only know itself through separate parts of its self, secretly one. By this rationale, even if we were in a simulation, we would be part of the whole. And what would that simulation be inside of? The universe is more like an infinite onion.
I am a bit puzzled. I wonder if this recent trend to "reduce" reality to information is just a gigantic rough assumption. The fact our brain is most likely able to process information doesn't mean that information is the only thing that exists out there. Is not surprising that reality, divided into its more basic elements, looks to us "just" like information... that's the parts we can understand of it.
@@nosuchthing8 I personally assume our reality is not a computer simulation until proven otherwise. This theory, for how fascinating it could be, seems missing the falsification principle. My comment was rather towards the possible pieces of evidence (or maybe we should call them "clues") that sound to me quite weak. Hope this help you understanding my position.
@@joegranata7936 I agree with you 100%. Based on burden of proof. I don't see any evidence this claim is true. It's just an interesting variant of a very old idea.
What it seems is that you dont understand that only minds can deal and have the perception of information. You can have a high resolution picture with lots of "information" but only MINDS can deal with it! A stone cant. Furthermore, all information "per se" is immaterial. Because it only exists in Minds or flowing and acting like the DNA (software), the real engine of this reality . And only Minds can create and deal with it (the Information). And Minds are immaterial. See the point?
Absolutely. Information can be reflected in any medium that can have at least two states. But the key there is that it needs a medium. I think many intelligent people are fundamentally confused on this point. Information is a counter factual way of analyzing some embodiment. But it needs to have the embodiment.
I think most of them are on the right path but they all seem to think there is some computer off to side simulating this universe. What if there is no computer at all and this higher intelligence can simply create physical reality thru thought. Maybe we are training to be able to do the same but first must live in the simulated reality to understand it down to small detail.
It strikes me that in my one lifetime, I've had the perspective of seeing humankind move technologically from horses to Mars rovers and AI... You couldn't imagine a more diverse life
nonsense, they feed the desire for paranoid dreaming which has no basis in experience, and no logical or rational basis whatsoever. Are you creatures not sufficiently unbalanced and disturbed as it is?
@@SwitchMonkey you almost certainly confuse what you call "thought" with what is in point of fact dreaming, or no more than random associating between which and dreaming there is no difference whatsoever. What do you actually mean by thought If not some sort of associating?all that nonsense about fakes or simulations is neither more nor less than dreaming and/or paranoid speculation which is a form of mental illness
@@SwitchMonkey no, it is how the dreaming or associative apparatus works. You have no experience whatsoever of a brain, unless you happen to be a brain surgeon, so all this nonsense about brains is hearsay and dreaming. You only talk about brains because someone told you about that, so it is second-hand what is your first-hand experience of brain or brains? Simple answer? - None at all, but you have wide experience of the dreaming or associative apparatus, or you would not be able to make any sense of these symbols. What you call'thought or 'thinking is no more and no less than random associating or talking to yourself and what the flying fcuk are you doing talking to yourself? who are you telling what?the plain fact of the matter is that men (human beings are the abject slaves of their functions, most notably the associative function and the liking and disliking, wanting and not wanting, function, otherwise known as emotions. You have no first-hand experience whatsoever of brains so all this rubbish about brains is hearsay and what you have been* told*, is it not? - Somebody *told* you that your associative apparatus is dependent on your brain but since it is likely that if you bash somebody over the head their associative apparatuses ceases to function, so there is some reason to suppose that something in the head has something to do with the associative apparatus which functions purely automatically without any participation from the owner(?) whatsoever. What in blue blazes is "thinking or thought"? Of how many brains have you direct immediate personal experience? Do you see that nothing in that associative apparatus of yours is your own? It may well be contingent on some biological apparatus that you could call a brain but you have no basis for saying so whatsoever that is your own direct immediate experience. Is that not exactly correct? You are not a brain surgeon, are you? - Perhaps you are not even a doctor. Certainly I am no kind of doctor or brain surgeon and have no direct immediate personal experience of a brain save the brain of an animalthat I have eaten, but I rather suppose that that is not what you mean by experience of brain or brains, unless you happen to have seen some spattered all over the ground, which I'm glad say I have not experienced. If someone had not 'told' you that you had a brain would you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that you had any such thing? Yeah, right. you see how very little of what goes on in your associative apparatus is*your_own*?the old Greek word for somebody had something of their own was "idiot", but for some obscure reason contemporary beings use that word to mean foolish or fool, no finer example of which could be found but that to be found in your servant here present. Let us suppose that no one had told you that you had a brain, would you have any reason whatsoever to suppose that you had any such tithing had nobody told you that you did have such a thing? - You see nothing in you is original or your own nor in me either. Mostly because you and I have been through that monstrous invention of human beings that is called "education", which is neither more nor less than stuffing the heads of children with information that is not their own or result of their own direct immediate personal experience, but I do appreciate that you have been conditioned or programmed, or as they say "educated to regard what is called "education" as a "good thing", and you are probably quite horrified that anyone would suggest you that it was anything but a "good thing", given that you have been programmed or conditioned or educated to regard it as a "good thing", and you have absolutely no valuation whatsoever for anything that is your own. Is that not exactly correct? No doubt you regard everything I have said as horrifying, that would hardly surprise me given that I am fairly familiar with the degree of conditioning or programming of contemporary men (human beings). If they have a question or a desire for information they do not seek to discover anything from their own experience or reflection, but rather go running to*someone_else to "tell" them thus they have become entirely passive and conditioned to that more extreme weakness and form of passivity that is called belief. Find out for yourself; see if you can discover how much of what is in your associative apparatus is original to you or entirely your own, but you have not been conditioned or programmed to be in the least bit interested in that, have you? Do you see that you have no particular interest in discovering anything for yourself but have been conditioned or programmed to go running to others? - That is the direct result of that evil invention of human beings that is called "education". Were you ever in your entire life asked if he wanted to learn something or be taught something? - I wasn't all adults wanted do to me was stuff me full of other people's information; I was never once invited or encouraged to discover anything for myself, and when they stuffed me full of pointless and useless information from other people they never told me what possible use that could be to me, except when I was learning the law which is my particular occupation, or was before I retired long ago, but now I am about to learn something about what happens - if anything when the physical apparatus ceases to function altogether, which for all I know maybe a delightful experience, but since I have no experience of it whatsoever, but for some idiosyncratic reason have the rather unusual and peculiar wish to discover what particular purpose I serve in the conditions in which I find myself, whatever myself might be. I can tell the difference between me my hat, but between me and myself? - That is something of a mystery, and plainly not a mystery of no interest to you in the least, but who knows? To your servant here present it seems rather tiresome and tedious to account for the mystery that is the associative apparatus with all its ingenuity and usefulness by dismissing it as what is called "the brain" - and how exactly would you and I directly immediately personally experience "the brain" other as something that is an association in the associative apparatus about which other people have*told*us - assuming you have been told anything whatsoever about rather than having some direct immediate personal experience of your own brain qua brain which I rather doubt you have for rather obvious reasons to do with the fact that you cannot stand on your own shoulders either.can a brain experience a brain or itself any more than a mirror can reflect itself? - Is that not far more interesting than some paranoid fantasy of some psychopath about whether or not something is an illusion fate or simulation I only suppose that I have a "brain" because somebody*told*me about that brain which in my case ceased to function particularly well when I suffered what the French call a coup de cerveaux (a bit hazy about the spelling) but it means blow to the head, otherwise known as a stroke, which left my physical apparatus malfunctioning to the point where it is relatively useless except for babbling nonsense to creatures like you. However I h have - by the by, also had a lifelong question to which nobody can give me an answer except myself, and that is "*what*am I , which you probably find a rather tedious and tiresome if not utterly pointless question, but being a foolish old duffer it has a particular interest for your servant here present. I fully expect you to say now why don't you just go away and die you stupid old man, and I can't think of any reason why I might blame you for that. It is probably the most sensible and amusing thing for you to say. Oddly enough I am so old that if you wait long enough that will come about in any event, sooner rather than later, particularly since I have no evidence that would lead me suppose that I am immortal, and have sufficient experience of various beings close to me that were (for themselves) destroyed forever, moreover I cannot suppose that I am any exception to the general rule which does seem to be more or less universal although all universals can only possibly be imaginary. Is it not remarkable that both you and I have a relatively short expectation of experiencing anything and in the period between beginning experiencing anything and finally ceasing to experience anything whatsoever, you and I I am creatures similar to ourselves waste their time with fantasies about whether or not something is an illusion or a fake or a simulation which I can assure you your(for yourself) destructionfor ever will probably not be but since whatever it is that enables you to experience anything will cease to function long before that, it is rather academic. can you think of any sensible reason why anyone might be frightened of something of which they have no direct immediate personal experience whatsoever?- moreover they will never and could not possibly ever have any experience of it whatsoever. Whether or not that has anything to do with your hearsay "brains or brain, I am in no position to comment, any more than you have any direct immediate personal experience of your own what is called "brain", anymore than you have any experience of standing on your own shoulders, or a mirror has any experience of reflecting itself. Good God what a stupid old man your interlocutor is! Cheer up he will be dead soon, if not soon enough for him. Have you ever tried to be aware of the exact moment that you fall asleep? The reasons that you cannot, are screamingly obvious are they not?I'm off to bed and if I never wake up I will never know anything about that, will I? - What in blue blazes *am* I?
I am not convinced we would even notice the glitches, for us the glitch would be the standard we would not recognize it as an inconsistency but the way things should be.
I'm not sure if the universe is fake as in it is a computer simulation but in eastern philosophy, the empirical world is often referred to as the world of illusion or the veil of Maya. The more I experiment with psychedelics the more I'm starting to believe this.
as someone who has had significant time to process after a long time spent delving into psychedelics, I have one thing to say on the matter for those looking to them as a source of truth. the truth you will see will always be a reflection of yourself. you can part the veil and still you will always return to your self, even beyond the point of ego death. we grasp and grasp looking to reach beyond, but the limitations of our consciousness make it impossible to ever grasp the true reality beyond ourselves. go and reach, grasp, yet know that it is always only your self you will find.
@@zyklqrswx There is some truth in what you say. We will always only find our self. However, this is Reality. There is only your self. There is nothing else.
Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean we should accept it as truth. Possibility is not truth, scientific evidence and proof is 99.9% truth and that’s closer to truth than possibility which is at best 50%.
I'm going to be honest here: when I originally watched this show on RU-vid I had great doubts of the validity of Roberts intentions. However, I've begun to understand Robert's stance in a more complete fashion. He is approaching these questions without bias, undoubtedly. If Robert comes off like he's being snobby you are mistaken! If anyone views him I this way then they're merely projecting their own feelings and actions upon him. You've earned yourself a lifelong fan Robert! I wish you the best adventures in your pursuit of the truth of our reality! Cheers 🥂
I've watched this show for years but have never seen a Vaiṣṇava interviewed. He doesn't seem capable of even asking the questions that acknowledge the possibility of what we believe. That's a severe bias even if he can't see it.
My confusion is how do we trust our instruments and measurements if everything is part of the simulation? A cartoon who has consciousness would only have access to ‘cartoon stuff’. Even though they might conceive of something beyond their ‘physics’ they would only have what the artist allows in the frame. Jack Kirby couldn’t pull Spider-Man off the page and Spidey couldn’t figure it out with its fellow ink. It’s a thought experiment only.
Brilliant. As it is, we exist in parallel universes. Everything we see is a reflection in our minds. If this is reality, everything else that is imperceptible to human mind or senses is also a reality. In effect, everything seems to be unreal and in simulation, isn't it?
My Consciousness is the super computer that simulates my universe. Yours simulates your universe. Each conscious beings universe is rooted in the same universal super consciousness that oversees the infinitude of universes that make up the whole.
Very thought provoking and interesting. Really enjoyed watching this one a lot. Also enjoy watching Mr. RLK journey across the globe as he probe deeply into the minds of some of the world's most intellectual and influential thinkers of our times in search of the "Truth".
A course in miracles says that we are in a simulated universe created by our own mind to escape the oneness of the source of all things. We want our own being where we think we have some control separated from our true source, it's just a dream, relax and love.
I'm starting to lean towards the Universe is a Quantum Computer. Everything is caught in the same quantum entanglement. Every time a bit flips it transfers the information and flips the next bit. This is what causes the wave function 🤔 I can't express this concept thru typing on my phone 😆
A computer that computes its own functioning? There's a "Shabda Manifesto" that explains how the universe would need to be structured for that would work.
I tend to believe what Seth Lloyd says about quantum computing? Max Tegmark also leads me to believe we are in a mathematical shape? Sean Carroll is also all about the wave function and that's it haha. These are my best sources for my guess along with years of wondering ;)
One of the more interesting aspects of simulation theory is the computational principles surrounding depth of the simulation. If a simulation is created, and left to run for a substinative amount of cycles, will the simulated create more simulations? If they do, computational power of simulation n will always be less then n-1. If root computational power is finite, then the the depth of simulations is finite as well. If you were to assume the same level of complexity per level, the tick or cycle rate would have to be significantly slower, or visa versa the complexity of simulation would be significantly lower.
To simulate the universe you would only have to compute the input into the conscious minds from the output from the conscious minds. If the simulated universe created a sub-simulated universe this could be achieved by just adding the additional minds (in the sub-universe) into the simulation but just simulating as a sub-universe. Easy!
@@marcrob100 it kind of depends on the reason for the simulation, if you are looking at ancestor simulations then you maybe able to simulate consciousness at the root level. But if you are trying to simulate abiogenesis, and the evolution of a species the level of complexity of the simulation would be exponentially greater. In this type of simulation, there is a hard limit to the depth of simulations if there is finite computational resources. If we were within one of these later types of simulations, there is a far higher probability we are at the leaf rather then the root.
@@marcrob100 how do you tell conscious mind from unconscious one? especially from outside of the simulation? Unless you bread them like in The Matrix movie. And since scientists look further and further into space and time, you'd have to simulate more and more of the universe anyway. My favorite example here is Crab Nebula supernova. It was "simulated" in 1054, when Early astronomers only had their eyes and no telescopes. Why to bother? Or did they just change Chinese records when we discovered it in 20th Century? Again, why did they bother?
we have to keep in mind here , that first principles are required to build an argument up from the floor . ( in philosophy) we cannot rest our hat on hidden assumptions. ( science does not follow this process and actually does rest upon some hidden assumptions or articles of faith. but, this simulation argument if to be taken as an explanation for reality it is philosophy and does require elimination of all hidden assumptions using first principles. ( and in doing so we may actually answer this question ..)
As this was first aired back in 2008, would be interesting to see how the idea of simulation has developed among scientists, whether these people questioned have changed their minds about the prospect that a superhuman race created a computerised environment for us to evolve and live in. Is it still being taken as seriously, or has science in any way debunked these hypotheses?
Knowing how recently the simulation idea has started to be taken seriously is bizzarre. I too am curious about the opinions of scientists, on both sides, and what they thought then vs now
There is an interesting debate that Neil Degrasse Tyson moderates on this. At the end of the debate it seem Neil was the one most willing to believe it is a possibility.
The existence of irrational numbers and Xeno’s paradox are quantities beyond any mechanical simulation because they are infinite yet result in finite experiences.
It is easy to think we live in a simulation because we do. The visual experience is a simulation. The external world does not enter the mind. The brain creates a simulation of the external world and that is what we experience.
@@zyklqrswx All experiences are simulations. That does not infer our experiences point to fictitious entities. It only means we don't experience the entity. We experience a simulation of it.
What if the glitches were put there intentionally to fool us, then we'd have to find the glitch in the glitch to infinity. And wouldn't any glitch in physics just be considered "new physics, yet to be understood", not some kind of revelation into the simulation.
Only programmers and viewers outside the simulation can determine what is, or isn't a glitch. When a game or program starts to act up, who do you call? Isn't it the developer? I have never heard of any game or program correcting its own glitches.
High5 that Like button, Comment & Subscribe for the algorithm so RU-vid shows this Inspiring content to us more, plus other people 🙏 #LovingLifeNoww ♾ Utilize use the Comment section for notes, plus possibly Inspire others, plus remind & affirm/enable ourself with what is Important to us (we get to decide that too) ☯️✨🙏❤
I think the belief that computers can continue to become endlessly more powerful may be flawed, in which case it might never be possible to run such a detailed ancestor simulation. But if they can, then i think there could be two types of simulation, those that are meant to be interacted with and those that are left to run untouched until they reach some kind of conclusion??
Computers don't need to continue becoming more powerful FOREVER...just until capable of simulation. Probably a HUGE gap between what's necessary and what's (theoretically) possible.
Some just refuse to understand other possibilities of existence, so “ I’m a material girl( person ) and I love living in a material World”. Lol Truth I am not of this body I am more to what this body does experience in the material existence.
Imagine if you were part of an advanced civilization who led a sterile safe boring life and could be placed into a simulation at the point of birth leaving your memories behind and afterwards when you died and came out you would be "well that was a hell of a ride!"
One can ascertain that one is in a simulation through Soul Consciousness. To have awareness of the soul, one must have an advanced soul so one can learn how to get out from the simulation. There's always an open door or doors as one of the science fiction writers mentioned here.
I also agree on the second person interviewed. When one becomes an advanced civilization, the group of people leading that civilization would know that they had been in a simulation and would attempt to defy the laws that constricted and contained them in that simulation through a process of gaining higher knowledge, intelligence and wisdom whereby they would learn the mechanisms to discover the secrets of space and time. By then, that civilization would 'break-away' from that simulation and create a dimension in which the creator or group of creators would then form and develop their own laws that would seemingly become universal laws in their created dimension. From my understanding, the creator of the universe seems to be the simulator and can be regarded as a god with his laws formed and to be adhered with certain level of leniency.
Such an interesting topic and superb video! Somehow me listening to all these brainiacs seemed effortless. Thanks to all for being concise! Didn’t get that “oh my gawd they might as well be speaking Hebrew “ feeling I sometimes get when my Community College only ( Ironically studied Cosmetology not COSMO-tology) educated brain can can’t compute! Very well done! Looking forward to more! New subscriber captured! ✌️😎
The Swedish kid: IF the simulation theory is true, then for advanced civilizations, (1) either they become extinct before making simulations, (2) they made simulations, (3) or they weren't interested. The assumption is IF we are in a simulation, then...Kuhn can't recognize circular reasoning? The guy in Boston: "We will get to a point where we ARE sublimly intelligent and we WILL be able to create another universe" ... Unwarranted, undemonstrable....it's not even certain we still ARE evolving and NOT devolving. It might be confusion between reality and wishful thinking of this kind IS evidence of evolutionary regression, diminution, decay...." Kurzweil of Boston: "1. Physical laws of the universe are computational, 2. Computers are computational, 3. Therefore the universe is a computer." 😆 The real reality is "information." (Childish)
@@gwilymyddraig . "I can't say your arguments aren't cogent or resourceful and make profound semse because I'm unwilling to overcome the envy I feel for the gifted, so I will just project my enviousness and resentment onto him." Been there: Last May Pew Research issued a report revealing that 73% of 'female American liberals' aged 48+ have been informed by a medical professional that they are mentally ill.... ...Gwylim?
Throughout the episode, they assume; if we live in a simulation, the simulated universe has the same qualities and laws of physics as the base reality. There’s no reason one should assume that base reality is anything like what we observe in our universe.
22:20 The imperfect simulation speculation is, in my opinion, silly. So there are incredibly intelligent beings able to create and program life that has conscience and intelligence, and an entire universe around it... but they're somehow also sloppy and a) they make mistakes big enough for us, with our very limited intelligence to notice b) they didn't consider the possibility of us finding proof of this being a simulation (one would think they would have programmed the simulation in a way that it would erase our memories if we find out, or worse, the simulation would end if we found out) and c) they are not monitoring the simulation and/or aren't able to interact with the simulation to fix such a mistake. I think that grossly underestimates whatever intelligence created such a simulation. Unless the goal of the simulation is to find out what happens if a civilization finds out that their reality isn't real. Which is unlikely but in that case, I think they would have made it more obvious? Idk.
The question is how would they figure out what exactly happens in the simulation of a universe so vast as our. To study all this simulated vastness and find life and civilisations.
@@user-blabla-47854 They could have done millions of these simulations just to see what happens. Our concept of time is what they programed it to be. A billion years could be a few minutes to them.
Good point. Also the purpose of a simulation is to answer a question, usually a question that is too expensive to run in real life. There are an infinite number of questions so unless the question is what happens when a conscious being discovers it isn't real then we're probably not in a simulation.
The universe exists as a result of conscious observation, not in spite of it. Consciousness existed before the universe. Without it, there is no universe.
Bad actor, Correct. Consciousness is nonlocal, without cause, non emergent & eternal beyond any linear comprehension. Moreover, "All" is an emergent artifact of the "non emergent.
One thing that I instantly thought of: can simulations recursively do simulations themselves? And can they be implemented without additional overhead? By that, I mean without additional resources on the base layer. And when information itself is the base ingredient of the universe: do we really need a (kind of hardware) base layer? Can there be something like closed loop simulations, where the assumed base layer is implemented by its own simulation? Fascinating topic. I would really love to see an episode with Joscha Bach on that topic!
*"Can a universe be simulated from just information, including the feeling of consciousness, the scope of the cosmos, and the perception of reality?"* ... The universe and everything in it constitutes "information," but that doesn't mandate that it's a simulation. There is no necessity for a simulation when reality gathers more information as-is.
according to our research, it seems very likely that this might be how our universe really looks, whether it's simulated or not. all the parameters for how our reality functions are derived from mathematical rules, including those that dictate the formation and structure of matter and energy, and the forces that govern them. these things can be understood at their basest level as units of information interacting to form a system. it's even suspected that the universe has a kind of minimum pixellation scale below which smaller things can't exist. these are all the sorts of things we might see in a universe that was really just running itself off of a bunch of code, that code being the mathematical rules of the universe. it seems likely that whether or not our universe is the "real" one, it is in a sense being "simulated from just information".
If we live in a simulation, would there be anything to break out to? Could our game or animated characters break out into our reality? I don't see how. And why would we be in a simulation? There's only a few logical reasons I can think of. Sure there's the ancestor theory. Would we have bodies "out there"? I doubt it. It may be a way to survive the unsurvivable. Say, the big freeze. Put our conscience in something not destroyed by whatever we escape. It's very interesting to think about. If you go down the rabbit hole it can go on indefinitely. What if every advanced intelligent being eventually, if/ when advanced enough, creates its own AI with its own simulation, doing it so well that the AI becomes conscience in its own world, and continuing the process. Any of it is possible.
When you use the term "Reality" there are no "fakes" just upper and downer domains...And even the term "up" and "down" may not make sense in a fractal perspective of Reality.
@@madelynhernandez7453 Yes, the evidence does move toward the conclusion that we are not the center of anything. It may be an inconvenient conclusion too many, but it's where the evidence is taking us. That we are not that special increases the odds that other intelligent life exists out there. But, a computer generated world is something entirely different. The foundational difference between fresh and blood compared to a line of code should be self- explanatory.
I don't buy it. A cell is an extraordinarily complicated entity. So complicated in fact that the number of biochemical reactions alone in one cell must be many billions per second as an individual enzyme, and there are tens of thousands of them in one cell, can perform thousands of reactions in just a second. Layered upon this complexity are the tissues then organs, systems...etc. An individual organism is not independent. It is dependent upon other species and organisms and the ecosystem components of which it is a part that are changing second by second. Keep in mind that the exact location of every interacting atom in each molecule in each protein in each cell in each organism and that organisms motion within it's ecosystem must also somehow be specified by code. The amount of data necessary to store what is necessary to simulate a small forest or pond, let alone an entire biosphere would be so large I contend no computer could actually be large enough to do it, especially if the Universe is inhabited, as it must be by billions of worlds with life and other biospheres. Only a universe dedicated to computing simulations alone could possibly store enough information to simulate just our biosphere. I don't want to spend weeks trying to calculate only the number of biochemical reactions necessary for a typical small aquatic pond to function (I probably couldn't do it anyway) so I leave it here with one last word- bacteria. The prokaryotes also have to be considered as well as the nonbiological processes. Contemplation of the enormity of the sum of all of these calculations should dissuade anyone from this insane speculation. Whatever this reality is, it is not fake. I'm pretty confident that we are not living in the matrix and you probably only go around once...at least in this Universe. ;)
These are all important questions that need to be explored . I am not sure if this question fits the requirements of being a myth or not. A myth is an attempt to explain the human condition . I suppose being a simulation is certainly a condition isn't it ? Are we the property of the creator of this program ? copyright protection has always been thought of as protecting what is within the copyright from being copied by someone else but does that include that which is within the copyright from leaving on their own free will or are they slaves to the holder of the copyright ? A simulation is different then a copy of the original. A copy of the original is found in almost all life as well as in rocks and minerals .we ourselves use DNA to make copies of cells that when the instructions found within the DNA are followed and the cells are constructed in their proper order we become a person . And a cell is really very close to being a universe with in it's self . We don't call cells a simulation we call them copies. A crystal is a copy of it's smallest division repeated over and over so the crystal form is the same as any one of those copies. Maybe the question should be are we in a cell of a living being and the cells within us that are copied over and over and when assembled in their proper order create the ugly crystal we call humans ? It may not explain the mood swings but it does explain why humans keep making the same mistakes over and over .I mean like wars and power hungry greedy unethical tyrants and their victims over and over through out all of recorded history we see the same thing over and over is that just the properties of that ugly crystal we call human nature .is our universe like the cells within us just one of trillions that make up God ?
Few days ago I read about using AI to control a tokamak. The article said they first train it on a simulation. But it's painfully slow: in order to simulate just a few seconds of working reactor it runs for many hours. So they quickly switched it to work with a real reactor. It shows that you can't make simulation faster than the real thing unless you throw away much of details. And this I think is the main argument against simulation hypothesis.
You're judging what a simulation can do by what human created simulations can do. It's kinda like when the LEADING SCIENTIST in the world said humans would NEVER achieve heavier than air flight less than a week before the Wright brothers first flight.
