Eric Steinhardt - What Things Are Real? 

Well this one went off the rails pretty quick.

this sounds like two people on different kinds of hallucinogenics talking to each other but really talking past each other.

Philip K Dick famously said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." When I stop believing in little concrete gods, they absolutely go away. If only the Gnomes in my garden were so easily evicted.

His “gods” reminded me of Donald Hoffman’s “conscious agents”.

I'm more interested in the interviewer's views, he seems more thoughtful than the guy he is interviewing.

This is a very good channel. For me no emotions to interfere just pure thoughts. 2nd day new subscriber.

Our encounter with the reality of Being should not be categorized; such categorization attempts are inherently disjointed, artificial, and ultimately meaningless. Humans approach reality with individual perspectives that serve the substrates, dimensions, and politics of their experiences of Being. Touching upon the ultimate reality of Being-in-itself [and Absolute Nothingness] is currently beyond the reach of the human enterprise.

I'd say that everything is real, but not necessarily in the same way. Language is real too. But it's something that exists in people's minds as a mental tool for thinking, understanding, and communication. It's not some physical object like a chair or a table. So, it's not so much a question of whether something is real. It's a question of how and in what way something is real. And this is where you can make mistakes. Because there are almost as many ways for things to be real as there are things in our universe. You can easily mis-classify in what way something is real. For example, there is a good reason to think that mathematics is just a special language for describing, thinking, and communicating about the physical universe. Because just as with any other language, you can use mathematics to write fiction or create mathematical structures that don't exist in reality. Mathematics isn't any more real than any other language. It's just a mental tool for doing something different from that of other languages. Some people might object by saying that if there are intelligent aliens living somewhere, then much of their mathematics would probably be the same as ours. They might use different symbols and alphabets. But the numbers and many mathematical ideas would be the same. And I agree that aliens would probably have very similar mathematics to ours. But this would be convergence by necessity, rather than evidence that mathematics is something other than language. Aliens would have the same mathematics, because they would need to describe the same physical reality that we describe. Convergence by necessity is the reason why people and flies both have eyes. Eyesight is so good to have in terms of survival, that both human and fly evolution independently evolved more or less the same thing. Mathematics is also like this. It's so good for describing the physical universe, that intelligent species would develop it and invent it independently of each other to have more or less the same thing.

Where can I watch the entire episode please anyone? A link to it would be very much appreciated. I tried the links in the description but got no joy.

if the "software" is made of fundamental particles what "hardware" part should be made of ? ... was this guy even sober ?

Did someone understood anything about those mini-gods creating things ?

I had to also say i feel sorry for this guy!

Steinhardt sounds like he is saying something similar to Donald Hoffman "we are just icons on a desktop . . . and we do not have access to the underlying hardware. . . " I think Kant also supposed that we do not have access to the true nature of reality. Why should we?

Please simplify***

Spelling the Professors name incorrectly in the title, and correctly in the description. 🤔

"We should have ontological commitments to things that are necessary for science, therefore numbers exist. Also I'm just going to make up a bunch of stuff about god computers that underlie everything, even though they're not necessary for science" - this guy having his metaphysical cake and eating it

Ideas alone aren't "Real". Concepts in the Human mind aren't "Real". I.e.; Chimera- a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve... In Mathematics, Zero is a useful concept and tool. Combined with a One it gives us Ten. But Zero in and of itself is merely a concept in the Human Mind. Aside from theoretical Black Holes, there is nothing in Existence that is Zero. Things can only be. Things can only "Not be" in the human mind and perhaps in other sentient animals. The idea or concept that something "isn't there" or is "missing" or "lacking" is merely that. An abstract idea and concept in the mind. Ontologicaly speaking, matter can only exist or "be". If it didn't, only the human mind would think otherwise.

Well, I have to say, this sounded a little silly to me.

For anyone that doesn't get it or this sounds crazy to this might help: Consider that when you watch a movie on a TV you're actually seeing a bunch of pixels simulating a reality that seems to be moving changing and dynamic. But it's all just a dynamic configuration of colors on the same screen. The movie, it's characters and plot doesn't give you insight into what the nature of the screen it's on. We have the experience of life and it seems to be happening in a universe. It seems to have programming/intelligence, a begining and end, continuity or time, and perhaps even some goal that it's evolving towards. All of the programs on a computer have the same characteristics. What is the computer that our lives/universe is running on? What are the pixels which simulate experience as we know it? You could name this anything but he decided to go with the term gods. With capital G God possibly being the entire network of computers/multiverses itself. It's not too much of a stretch if you can clearly see the absurdity of using in-game lore in a video game to attempt to point to and describe the world of the programmers which gave rise to it and the technology they have. In a similar way it just requires you to stop taking your current understanding of life as seriously as you're used to and open your mind to far greater possibilities than we tend to entertain. To see that the line between real and imaginary is much thinner than we'd like to entertain and that logic and reason could just as easily be very intricate works of imagination as much as imagination could be something that arises out of a seemingly logical 'real' world. If human beings can dream entire environments and multiple characters. Could something greater dream what we know of as this universe? Might the line between mind and matter be as flimsy as one drawn in the sand? We're usually in a very small sandbox of ideas that we're willing to play with. When those who play in a bigger sandbox suggest what they can fathom it may seem crazy at first. Just as a cellphone may have seemed crazy to a human 500 years ago. These kinds of things can be uncomfortable as it challenges our sense of what we think we know and many of us would rather dismiss it as madness than consider that we might not understand as much about our reality as we're convinced of. That even our style of science in all the hundreds of years it's been around may still be quite young and just scraping the surface of an iceberg that's billions of years old and intelligent enough to create life. Anything advanced enough seems magical. Those who speak of things that sound magical may just be ahead of the cultural curve. Not always the case of course. There is actual incoherence and misunderstanding. We just have to be more careful with how we assess it and how quick we are to dismiss or devalue someone. We may not be as good at telling the difference as we think and a healthy dose of humility goes a long way in preventing us from unknowingly keeping ourselves fooled.

That which does not change is real. As thoughts and sensations are in constant change, find that which is experiencing the thoughts and sensations. If you can't abide in/as effortless thought free Awareness, you won't understand. And then you'll try to understand using thought and it won't work, so then you'll disregard the thought free state as irrelevant. TRUST ME. If you seek Truth, seek the space between thoughts. Delve deeply into thought free Awareness. Remember what you are...

In the quantum world, there are wavefunctions that describe the atomic scalable physical world; what if... this wave is an existence fluctuation between this 3D universe linked to a parallel universe where the essence of physical values are preserved (total energy, total momentum, total charge, etc) in a "pure" not material way. This can be the "hardware" fluctuating with the "software" in the video. Born deduce that the square modulus of this wavefunction was the probability of finding particles in (r,t); a concept very near to existence in (r,t). This and more ideas were taken from a small book at Amazon "Space, main actor of..." and can help develop the "concrete" real world expressed in the video. The other "intangible" world (concepts, thoughts, logic, values, misconceptions, etc) are real meanwhile there is someone that sustains them.

Is it meant to be ironic that this was filmed in a church. May have been appropriate to shoot this in a computer retailer.

what a thought what I would see is in our everyone's commonsense stuff (concrete) and abstract (ideas ,when we think software when computer works ,interactions with particles so on

If humans did not exist, then abstract concepts would not exist. How could they without a mind to hold these thoughts?

I am having difficulty with the logic underlying Eric’s formulation of reality. Suppose we call that which is at the very top of Eric’s formulation of reality as “Ericstence” (i.e., what Eric calls “Existence”). According to Eric’s formulation, Ericstence supervenes everything abstract and concrete, including concrete entities such as human beings and abstract entities such as numbers and sets. So, Eric exists as the concrete human being who formulated Ericstence. However, Eric could not have existed without Ericstence which supervenes him. So, Eric exists because of Ericstence, but then Ericstence exists because of Eric! Appears to be a case of circular logic here.

I always think and suspect that consciousness is like a barometer, only an observer, a discoverer or a realizer of any thing in reality.

I am A simple God***

Robert, interview me. You seem to get stuck in your circle of contacts. Maybe change of respondents will refresh your search.

Eric's use of the term 'little g Gods' is unhelpful in this discussion. I think what he is really talking about are 'brute facts', things which are universal, never change, and give rise to everything else.

All energies, its properties and matter are actually real. But many concepts, like time and dimensions, are intrinsically real in our perception. Finally, emergent aspects of existence, like consciousness, thoughts, words, numbers and language, are intrinsically real in our minds. So reality consists of Energy Matter Concepts Emergents

you can't cut a stick so short that it only has 1 end..

Anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is "real" in some context or another.

I'll tell you who I WOULDN'T want to have a beer with

What? Sorry you cannot propose existence of something by simply asserting or describing it.

The question you should ask is, "What is true?" We have attempted to make illusion true and call it "reality". For that reason, we don’t know the difference between the two. However, in our minds was placed a Voice that sees our illusions, knows the truth, and can teach us the difference. But you must invite this Voice into awareness. It’s a Spirit that is Whole, a.k.a the Holy Spirit (the Voice for God), and He does not come by force to correct your perception.

We are constucted by light energy and matter, things we can visually inspect ,the rest we cant detect ,dark energy and matter. But wait (yes we can)looking good!!!

Depends on your own imagination

Define reality.

I was about to write up something "concrete" but decided just to go with that this interview was extremely disappointing - it was like listening to a very sure of himself medieval alchemist talk about how to make gold and that its "very technical" How the hell this guy leads university courses is peculiar.

By golly, I think he's onto something here!

In Essence, simulation theory.

But there is no clear difference between abstract and concrete

Why does he think Platonism is correct? Because of belief, experience, or just plain prejudice: prediliction? It's just beyond his mental energy, "it's technical". Which means it fits a neat, utilitarian, mental, manufacturing process that, in the end, is sufficient to the task at hand but not to a fuller tasking. He's like a painter telling you his portrait of something is accurate. Technically he's right. Really he isn't.

Nothing is real nothing is what make our reality apparently here think out of the box start with what came about first that would be pure thought yes close your eyes and analyze these thoughts

The physical world is real but temporary. Let those who claim that it's only an expression of consciousness be swept away by an avalanche and see if they still stick to their nonsense claim.

I don’t understand well your English, and your choosing of words***

He’s pulling your leg Robert! I hope he is. He can’t be serious.

Reality has two dimensions: the actual (in Aristotelian sense of actus) and the virtual one (structured knowledge). The first is that kind of reality that we get by participation. Only this is physical. The second is a result of intellection. So, all those things that this gay is mentioning are not physical, once you cannot touch, smell… them. My point is that reality has to be understood as a kind of tissue made of act-virtual correlations.

Maths are abstract, reality is physical on one level or another, even in the Backward time realm of the universe.

Usually men getting to discuss such.matters and having the support.

I spat my tea out (actually it was wine) when he just dropped "gods" in, completely out of the blue. Wtf is he on about?

Gods are software. Matter is hardware

God is real, everything else is a thought in God's head. There, solved the whole discussion!

Why do atheist think our inventions aren't real? If people did not exist quantities of objects would still exist. God is not a different category from what exist. God exist and created everything from the beginning with his word. Just as we create the computer with or word. The word is the intellect/informatio/understanding.

COUPLE OF LUNATICS : YES THAT'S REAL : THAT'S THEIR UNIVERSE : THEY CAN GO ON AND ON FOR EVER !

Newton's laws of motion have never moved a single Billiard Ball in the history of mankind. It's such a shame!!!

Then who or what created the hardware and software of those computers? This theory can be repeated infinitely and you will find no true God, only creators of creations who are themselves creations.

Calling a computer god is a fallacy . Why ... The term God comes with a lot of baggage and claims ... False equivalency . Is like God is love ... Now God are computers ?

We are all God's... off to Raxxla!

Plato was a Stone Age guy, living in a world of fire and wheel. He made many epistemological mistakes that were clearly refuted by means of pure observations, still his ideas made more sense than this dude, with diploma in modern sciences. Abstract principles and number sets or Platonic solids, what's the difference? Physical theory ain't much better, particles emerge from force fields, and they come in discrete quantum packets. Particles are finitely small energetic dots, radiating gradients of potentials in a spherical shape, and light waves tend to travel in a straight line. But since space-time is a curved medium, geometrical ideals are not possible in reality. The universe is not a computer, there are no gods and abstractions arise from the simplest of natural principles. This is only what humans have learned in the past 10,000 years, but we can see weird shapes and energetic phenomena out there not possible to be explained by logic or anything we know. So no, the real universe is nothing like what Stone Age people could possibly imagine.

Nothing is real. You are imagining the universe.

Pay Thales royalties, homes.

This speaker seems to me to be very mixed up. Everything he says should be stated in the reverse. It is much simpler to admit to the existence of G-D and his blueprint for creation of the universe, rather than this nonsense about other gods.

So his arguments are basically the simulation theory...

this video is REAL

I propose that eric steinhardt is not the one to determine what is real and what is not.

Phew....little gods? What next?

Eric Steinhart sounds psychotic. I'm sure he's not, but without a lot of background information for the viewer to place these concepts into context, this sounds like the typical rantings of a lunatic.

Hockey is real. Lots of stuff is real. I doubt this guy's gods are real.

Sits on top Earth, God's, who's Jesus Christ, Earth is His footstool. And just patiently wait till I put your enemies beneath your feet. Them cursed little g gods.

You two are UNREAL Because your thinking is INSANE and UNREAL

Mr Eric: The concrete divided into hardware and software, everything else is software....Robert ironically: whats everything else? proton neautrons are software? running on the hardware of your little gods :D Mr Eric probablyneeds a psychiatrist

I don’t like this guy. He’s too closed minded to make for a good scientist. He’s a classic my way or no way.

I agree in part with the conclusions of this discussion, but it doesn’t offer any conclusive answers. “Small” gods? Sounds very like simulation theory, which asks the question, who is the original creator(s)? The mind boggles 😊

Lord have mercy. Our reality is supervened upon little "g" gods? I thought I was watching Monty Python's Flying Circus for a moment.

Another stale academic who doesn't appreciate the magnitude of the question. Bring back the Hoffmeister!

Interviwer ask rambling question. He keep gooing baseless anwering. Plato perfect world is inconsistence modern phiscs. Speak up he Mind is living Plato dreans World.

Total nonsense

this man's god seems all made up, totally unconvincing ...noticed Richard's sarcasm towards him...little god 😅😂

The invisible vibrations that make up the invisible Creation are real within the Creation. Everything else that we experience was programmed by our Creator.

what a waste of time

Rubbish. pure rubbish.

I think these guys need to learn about Ontology and look into Basic Formal Ontology.

God is the only real one Everything else is an illusion

The day we know what the US-goverment knows then i can start this trip about life and gods. But right now this is just a clown show