A group of friends and I had these exact kinds of conversations in the late 90's in my friend's backyard shed at University. And yes, we were all totally high on the marijuana. Very "That 70's Show" basement smoke-out style, but more intellectual like this. I get what this dude is saying about social media, and Ad companies paying to know our preferences, catering to them, and even subtly trying to change our perception, interests, or how we feel (not even including Russian hackers getting the right riled up about Hillary with B.S. nonsense like Pizzagate). But we are not living in The Truman Show, with Ed Harris sitting up in the moon directing traffic. Maybe figuratively we are living in a simulated universe, and slightly literally, meaning that what some people know to be real, such as Pizzagate, for example, is in fact not real or true. And that we are through media pushed to feel one way or another, ok, that Is true, but it's not any MORE true than it was with Ads since the beginning of television, and before that, radio, and before that other propaganda, and the Church! Religion, throughout history, from Christians to even Buddhists have used preaching, propaganda, and manipulation to influence people. The big temple by the deer in Nara, Japan was erected as an attempt to control the people who the government thought would become more subdued with a religious temple. The Catholics actually used actual visual magic tricks (I think I saw this on PBS) to control people. Social Media is literally no different. So I totally get what he's saying, and in that way our world is a simulation. But it's not a simulation like the Matrix or 1998's Dark City. That's just the marijuana talking. We have enough trouble with the Ad companies, government, and Russians, we don't need people going crazy full-on conspiracy theory and thinking we are living in a totally simulated universe. It's just not good for us as a society and planet.
Star Trek: The Next Generation (starting in 1987) had a number of episodes on this theme, that damn holodeck that always malfunctioned. They also had episodes on self-replicating nanobots and the like. I wonder to what extent that show popularized these ideas.
I definitely agree in living life to the fullest, but I also think this to me is the most compelling possibility of life after "death". There is some pretty strong argumentation for this, vs religion which always falls back on tiresome clichés like "someone must have created the universe", without being able to go further. Just thinking statistics, it is compelling to see that the sheer numbers involved absolutely allow for the possibility of us being a simulation. If we are simply physical matter, it is hard to buy that unbeknownst to all scientific researchers, there is a soul or something to that effect that happens to be outside of all laws of nature. If we are a simulation, it is far easier to me to see that we ultimately could be (a whole lot of) of data that can be transferred somewhere else. (Of course, a side tangent would be that if someone created us in a simulation, they are for all intents and purposes Gods to us).
@@tosvus The "Simulation Hypothesis" is just another, more sophisticated version of "Intelligent Design". It's not a scientific question. It cannot be proven nor disproved, at least not yet. It's just, yet again, humans anthropomorphizing the universe, another case of perodolia.
@@FGP_Pro Yes, but math/statistics makes it a whole lot more reasonable. It is still of course totally unprovable, but the sheer fact that in a few decades we have gone from extremely simple computers to now almost photo realistic games, and started on quantum computing, means given enough time we will indeed be able to simulate to a point where nobody would have any idea they are inside a simulation. Maybe not in 10 years, maybe not in 100, maybe not in 1000, but as long as we don't destroy ourselves first, it will get there. Even 100 000 years is peanuts in the grand scale of the universe. So since we can get to a point of this eventually, someone else is extremely likely to have done it before us. Now, whether we happen to be a part of one of their simulations or not is of course impossible to figure out as we sit inside the bubble so to speak, but again, the numbers show that if someone else could have done it before us, then someone would have done it before them, and so on, plus of course when one civilization gets to that point, much like a computer game, there could be billions of simulations running in parallel just there (much like gaming machines, here, today). Anyway, fascinating topic...
@@tosvus You say, "So since we can get to a point of this eventually..." You say that as a fact, but it's not a fact. It is speculation, conjecture, imagination, not reality. No one else has done it before, that we know of. We don't even know if anyone else capable of such technology exists in the universe. And, it isn't looking good for intelligent life in the universe. The "Rare Earth Hypothesis" seems to carry more weight at this point, than the "Drake Equation".
@@FGP_Pro Its understandable you can't fathom the vastness of time and space we are talking about, and that's just limited to this universe. Outside this universe it may be infinite, and that is of couse even harder to understand, so I'm not going to try to sway you.
At the end when he humbly laughs at what he probably talks about casually with his colleagues and maybe even joke around, make no mistake, that is the frontier of our knowledge as we know it so far. Don’t take life too seriously everyone.
i think probably time exists in a bubble and there are other bubbles where we have already advanced to the space age and bubbles where we are still stuck in the stone age. this "pimply kid" from "outside looking in" or whatever is just in another bubble. we are in a bubble inside of the pimply kid's bubble.
Exactly as he said, what difference would it make? The only difference is that some higher form of intelligence designed the algorithm that started the universe. And the algorithm probably didn't have to be that complicated. Amazingly complex things can arise from simple beginnings. Take the example of life itself.
And they keep saying the simulation had to be "good enough to fool us". Really? If we were born into pixelated, 16-bit Minecraft, by what reference point would we see through the shabby illusion? Minecraft would be our only experience, our only reference. We'd have nothing to compare against, thus, it's a completely moot point.
"some infinities are larger than other infinities" followed by "I think we're coming to the point where we dont know what were talking about". BY GOD I THINK HES RIGHT!
@@LeeRaldar no they'd be exactly the same. Any symbology we tack onto infinity is completely meaningless, with very few exceptions when talking about theoretical dimensions that don't actually exist but are useful for abstract computation
Yeah they teach you that in calculus, I think there’s 5 levels of infinity using the Hebrew letter aleph to designate them, so there’s like aleph 1, aleph 2 etc. lowest is counting numbers (the numbers you use to count things) like 1 2 3 4 etc, there’s uncountable numbers, like the (larger) infinite number of values in between 0 and 1, because they’re “uncountable”. Each level of infinity is larger than the previous level by a factor of infinity. Like if I were to ask you what the first value is after 0, how would you tell me? So 0, ok and then 0.000000000... eventually you’d imagine a 1 going at the end but it technically doesn’t even exist because you could always add another 0 before the 1, right? So it’s uncountable, and the largest level of infinity are transcendental numbers, aka “magic numbers”, which are defined as values/numbers that can never be the result of an algebraic equation. Like pi is transcendental number, e, c etc.
I think it should be obvious that any device capable of building and running our Universe as a simulation would be outside of our Universe and therefore beyond anything we could describe. It makes way more sense to build a Universe that runs itself - as our Universe does - and inject into it some way of observing that Universe from within it.
You could tell Jaron was new to the idea of differently sized infinities… yet he stayed open to the concept with grace and humility. That’s a mark of not only mental intelligence, but just as importantly- social intelligence.
@@tyrrian2520 I thought that for a second too. But proof of different sized infinities is called “the diagonalization proof”, which he immediately mentioned. So he did know. He may have meant that he’s a bit suspicious of it. Not sure. But he knew about Cantor’s diagonalization proof of the different cardinality of infinities.
The guys who found out about the infinite sets were all a little bit off kilter, well maybe not all of them but i believe at least 2 of them went crazy to some degree... maybe true intelligence (whatever that means) doesn't equate to hearing some dogmatic gospel and being slightly stoked even though you've never heard of it. Maybe for the sake of furthering this discussion yes because they were being filmed and would waste time, but as much as being humble, also you should question things just because someone says something or it's like a foundational concept in a field doesn't mean it should not be questioned. All the guys who "found" set theory were men... does that mean men are better at math? Or only men were granted the right to study mathematics in an institutional setting? Maybe this conversation would be different if there were more female mathematicians. Being subservient to the established beliefs is hardly a mark of genius, but rather, of graceful and eloquent skills in conversation as a sort of actor in order to finish the job of making a segment, don't you think?
He basically said while avoiding saying it, god is so beyond our understanding we shouldn’t even try to understand him. Word, I felt that. Mean while he’s assuming that he’s so beyond us he wouldn’t care about us..
how about "God is so beyond our understanding" yes... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try, but that our own efforts at understanding will always fall far short, and to know Him with any certainty He would have to impart that information to us. Jesus... the same Jesus who healed the sick and raised the dead, tells us "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." John 1:18
@@davidpelto8824 I agree with you, I was just being sarcastic to his view of the intangibles of life. I did like how he broke it down even though I come from a different view point. I see god as something outside of time and space with the ability to see all that exist and all that could have existed. That ability to compute all that data while designing our universe and setting up the laws of physics for a self-sustaining Number based physical reality is mind bending. Just the data it would take to design a person from a single cell is hard but none the less the entire spectrum that we can observe ourselves is a lot to take in
I think there's no way to ever know, even in the most perfect simulation. The creators of a simulation couldn't even know if they were in a simulation.
The universe is beyond comprehension in size and things get more intricate and complex as you look deeper into things. No way there's any simulation. The most advanced technology we have only enables us to discover fundamental particles. What an unproductive stretch simulating a universe down to the quarks would be unless you were able to also observe it from the outside which is impossible
Wrong actually. A simulation would be a virtual recreation of itself. So in simulating itself it is simulating the ability to make a simulation. Meaning a simulation could create a simulation. Which would also prove that we live in a simulation. That’s the crazy part about simulation hypothesis. It seems illogical because all you would need is the computing power to create an exact simulated copy of our reality accounting for physics/every single natural law/variable. It’s not there though because we don’t know everything about the universe yet, we don’t know everything about physics yet, there is still natural phenomena we cannot explain…
If you are not aware that it is a simulation, you do not have to worry like a fish in a fish bowl because you do not know anything else. Otherwise, this applies to "So, will anyone disconnect me now?" and "Leave us in hell alone down here, okay?" Maybe the creators also live in a simulation and so on.
“We are so profoundly non-special from the perspective of this deity that we may as well not exist.” Well. That was a brutal way to start my morning. Off to work at my job now. And boy am I motivated!! ..... lol
@@andrewut7ya511 exactly. Sometimes I wonder, why try? Or rather, why stress? You’re position Is shaky either way. And who the hell are you trying to impress?
5:55 - You can't claim that the same limitations we face would also apply to the simulation operator. For all practical purposes the simulation operator may as well be God.
Exactly. What it appears like is that this "God" created an algorithm, probably not as complex as we imagine, and just let it roll. This "God" probably doesn't intervene on our level but may in a much broader context. However, once we realize what we are and what we're in, we might find a way to tinker with the programming. That is, the computer programming begins to program itself. Kind of what software does today once you program an original intent or objective of the programming. In other words, the software starts adapting itself to the final objective based upon input and adjusts itself for greater effectiveness and efficiency.
@@DavidSmith-fr1uz It seems like based on the video that even if he intervened at our level its entirely plausible he could do so in such a way not to leave footprints. The guy said, that the existence of the operator was plausible and that his involvement without evidence due to “covering his tracks” was plausible. If that’s the case, I think just about anything is plausible with an entity of that much ability.
This simulation isn't like your VR or RP games. This simulation would be perhaps thousands or a million times more sophisticated. Not needing active maintenance by it's users or lack of users. Our universe could exist on a massive underground complex, on a dead world. Powered by 50th generation advanced reactors. Essentially it could run forever, because of massive surplus in energy. Run by a Big G God AI. That doesn't know it's makers have long since gone extinct. Just one possiblity.
Hypothetically speaking, if we were in a simulation, I think it would be safe rto assume that a sufficiently advanced civilization would have computer-neural interfacing. Such a civilization would have computers that could send information directly into a person's brain. A person's brain would be the processor and any additional memory needed for the program to function. Thus the simulation would seem real to whoever is hooked up to the computer.
I don’t actually buy the simulation theory at all, but - just to play devil’s advocate: if a child was plugged into a simulation at birth, the simulation doesn’t actually have to be accurate or true to real life at all. It merely has to be consistent - since it’s all you’ve ever known, you’ll have nothing to compare with. It also doesn’t need to simulate quantum effects - it merely has to simulate the results you’d expect from quantum effects, the readings on your instruments, and so on. The simulation would have literally taught you everything you know, and it doesn’t need to resemble anything from the “real world” at all, because you wouldn’t know what the “real world” is - it would just have to deliver consistently on whatever rules the simulation follows, because that would be all you know. It’s fun to play with these ideas and challenge your own logic, just don’t let the ideas drive you crazy 😜
Oners82 nope, he's basically saying the opposite: what if someone could create a simulation so robust that we wouldn't know the difference (1:40) - what I'm saying is, if you were born into a simulation, that would be your reality no matter what it is, you'd have never known anything else.
Oners82 dude, they don't even broach that subject in the first minute. maybe you should watch it again. (I've watched it now 3 times, and I don't hear him saying that, at all.)
Oners82 if you can infer all of that from one phrase, you're obviously much more familiar with the subject/idea than I am. I also don't know why he would then proceed into a longer discussion about the quality of the simulation, if you're saying he has already opened up the discussion with the assertion that it's unimportant. I'm not convinced of that, but, whatever.
Rasmus Schultz you’re speaking like you actually understand the rules to it if it were real. You don’t know anything at all, none of us do. so you have no right to claim anything as real or tell anyone what to think.
But guys, bear in mind that if we are in a simulation, we do not exist *outside* of the simulation. We are not "plugged into it". We are entirely products of the simulation, and when we die, or the simulation is turned off, we simply cease to exist. We do not awaken in a higher universe. There is no afterlife in the Simulation Hypothesis.
A couple of interesting things not mentioned in the video; game developers have to follow very specific code in order for their games to function, that could, in essence, be what we consider the laws of physics. Also, game textures are broken down into pixels, which would equate to us looking at something on a molecular level.
@@jasong6967 I think he’s referencing the implications of his experience, not implying being under the influence while watching. I can say personally my first DMT trip made me question whether reality was simulated.
This conversation is essentially an intellectual sleight of hand. Jaron starts off talking about the hypothetical situation of raising a person in a virtual world. In this scenario, the person isn't a simulation, but the universe they experience is. But shortly thereafter he's talking as though not only the universe is a simulation but everything in it, including the people. There was a HUGE unjustified and unacknowledged leap there.
Sometimes, when I open my eyes after sleeping, for the BRIEFEST of moments I'll be somewhere else. I'm in a place that is all metal, or at least it appears as such. My surroundings are always the same, a long and narrow passage, like a corridor or hallway. At the bottom of the wall, where it joins with the floor, there is like a metallic molding that is, apparently, housing a light source. The entire experiences is always crazy, but the CHARACETERISTICS OF THE LIGHT is by far the craziest part: it's always the same color, red, but it's somehow fluid-like, fabric-like, and it even feels alive somehow. I don't know what it all means, if it indeed means anything, but one thing I DO KNOW: If we happen to live in a "matrix style simulation," the AI who enslaved us did a piss poor job of representing light lol....
Sounds a bit like the reality grid I see on salvia. Sort of like an exosceleton, weaving, red, fabric... the fabric of reality. Maybe we're just terrible at fully comprehending or interpretting light.
@@mycommentpwnz The reality grid is a bit like what i described, and also a bit like what you described. Living fabric, a living, fibre like red grid, that weaves reality together and creates it. I use that term because no other term exists, and that's how it presented itself. It was a reality grid, and I knew that because it was. I speak only for myself though.
@@Trancedd salvia is herb related to sage which was used by certain tribes in religious ceremonies, you can buy it quite legally in the country I live it’s sold in a concentrated version 50 times the natural strength. When you smoke it you have a profound psychedelic trip 99/100 it’s one through hell don’t do it is my advice stick to dmt
I think the scariest part is out of the 7 or so billion people on earth. Not one of us truly knows why we’re here. Some people say they do but really no one knows why we are here.
The question is as meaningless as asking if the universe is Republican or Democrat. We're here because our parents had sex on a particular occasion, and the spermy that became us (thanks to Ma's egg!) made it across the finish line first. No other reason needed or possible.
Well, it took 13.7 billion years for the universe to create a creature to observe itself. Observation changes quantum mechanics and does consciousness. Quantum mechanics also has memory.
maybe could be we are in the year 5000 and the technology has evolved so much that it is able to simulate whole worlds completely identical to the real world ... and so we are all in a simulation set in 2019. bladerunner, teaches.
The counter-argument to this is that if there are indeed an infinite number of universes within our phase space, then the likelihood that we are in a simulation is exponentially decreased!
We are in a virtual reality. The universe is information wave patterns, and our body and brain translate them into sights, sounds, smells and sensations that make sense to us for the purposes of survival and reproduction. There's no need for a human-like creator. Complex patterns can evolve by themselves.
He starts talking about how with the sheer number of stars and galaxies out there, someone must have made such a simulation. But if we ARE a simulation, then I've got some news for him: none of those stars and galaxies are real. All bets are off as to what the "real" universe is, and what its laws are. Quantum mechanics could just be a bug in the simulation software, so saying that the pimply kid can or can't do something because of the laws of QM is pure guesswork.
Well ... yes but! If it were a truly complete virtual reality, all those stars and galaxies would be no less real than we are. So if they aren't real, nor are we, and I'm not replying to you! But I am ... Descartes strikes again! ('I think, therefore I am.')
The Biggest Fallacy Here Is That The Conversation Is Limited To The Current Information We Have Rather Than The Fact That Any Creator Of Things Within This “Simulation” Would Have Access To A Vastly Superior Body Of Information & Technology Than We Within The “Simulation” Have Access To. In Other Words, The Pimply Kid Would Likely Create This Simulation On Far More Advanced Technology Than A Quantum Computer. Technology Far Beyond Our Comprehension & Understanding For Certain. When We Think Of These Things We Always Seem To Inject Our Ego Into The Mix And Grossly Over Estimate Our Intelligence In The Process. In All Honest Humility, It’s Ok To Reason That There Are Certain Things We Will Never Understand Nor Have The Ability To Comprehend. It’s Ok To Say… Hey, I Do Not Know Rather Than Just Make Up Some Bullshit Out Of The Thin Blue Air After Smoking A Bowl Of Weed. lol 😂🤣😂
Actually those are fallen angels the bible says are all around us...drugs are a satan initiated bridge from our consciousness to the spiritual realm...this is a fact.
@@TheHitman- I agree, They can get scary at times very much like the book of revelations. But there’s more than one spirit out there. Some are good and some are evil
We wouldn't just need a quantum computer. We'd need one made of more particles than our entire universe! Why do so many otherwise smart people think this is plausible for any life form?
@@nibernator That's right. One particle can't store more data than is needed to describe one particle. In practice, it's even worse - many computer particles are needed to encode one universe particle.
sounds like as if you give negative feedback to your drug dealer and then realize that he is the only contact you have and try to flatter him, but he is not convinced
The reason I don't fully believe the simulation idea is because the beings that are controlling the simulation are likely under the same constraints as we are, if this is a simulation. The Matrix, for example, leaves an open-ended question because outside of the Matrix is just another cave with the same constraints.
The multiverse theory is a way to avoid dealing with the Prime Mover concept in Aristotelian physics which is a postulate of fundamental reality versus infinite nameable possibilities. Because the multiverse cannot be verified but only speculated, it remains science fiction. A more satisfying and also more intellectually fruitful theory is the anti-materialist concept which makes scientific thought and discovery a conscious process rather than the result of mere chance event. In other words, a Supreme Intelligent Being who is the source of all that exists.
What if there are no physical material universes? Seems to be left out of the discussion..I assume it’s seen as absurd; despite the many people interviewed on this very channel who posit such things, not that that detail means it true. How can we rule out the option that the space/time material universe strongly emerges from something else that is nothing like space/time? Maybe there are no simulations running on any material computers and also no actual material things?
If it is then you are fake and everyone else is fake even this message that you are reading is written by the simulation and it's meaningless. Ah wait it's like that in any case oh well you are right it changes nothing. Move on.
We observe creatures that are unaware of us, why can’t intelligent creatures be observing us & us not be aware of the observer? Why would we Be excluded from this process?
Simulator Coder: "I guess Ill make one of the guys who realizes hes in a simulation the longest dredlocks in history of the universe. It will give him credibility."
What I find to be rather hilarious with the simulation theory is that they’ve arrived at the same idea as previous religions; that there is a creator entity. This goes seemingly unnoticed as atheists rationally discuss if there is an intelligent creator behind this universe.
That final statement by the interviewer was a powerful admission that while he is intelligent his mind is very open to that which we dont yet know. Very cool
I’ve had dreams of being in my home town walking around but it’s different in either the year or the world itself has changed into different spanning locations
The thing our universe is, is not an indication of "real," as "reality" is a flase construct that is built upon an agreed perception of everything from beauty to time. So it doesn't matter that our universe is non-physical, because our experience is agreed to be "reality" and "real."
When i see hair like this i always wonder - how the hell do you wash it? On the topic: the ultimate question is CAN you simulate consciousness, can you simulate conscious experience? We still cant answer this question. Maybe yes in theory... but we still dont know if consciousness just arise from a very complex neural network activity and is just an illusion or is it sort of a separate entity that can exist with or without brain. Ask yourself - are you an illusion? ... You probably wont like that question.
Lla derat Yes you can wash that hair but Jaron is a filthy hippy who believes in magic. I have sat through his lectures and he is insufferable, condescending and fake... Rasta-jabba is not our friend. he views himself as special . okay, simulated minds. why not?! we are meat-machines, there is no magic or secret sauce. our consciousness is not beamed to us from a distant star, the baby jesus has not endowed us with self-determination. the only way simulation would he impossible is if there was a god. the reason people believe simulation is impossible is because these people have magical thoughts about the nature of our being. unfortunately there is literally nothing significant about sentience except in the eyes of other sentient beings. the reason life even exists is simply to facilitate the entropy cycle. our glorious minds are not fundamental, consciousness came as a result of random happenstance. but we already know that a human or any living being can be replicated. women make humans all the time. each cell is put in place (the initial exponential rate of growth of human cells in a embryo is equal to that of the exponential growth of the early universe) and wired up sans magic. most people are made out of corn syrup and big Macs no jesus, mohammed, vishnu, chakra or hot yoga required.. we are mechanical meat-beings and we represent a infinitesimal slice of reality. to be honest I am not convinced we actually are conscious and in control; it seems as though our DNA/lizard brain runs the show. for example 120 seconds after a male and female meet our subconscious has already determined whether or not we will mate. no one asks us our brain just does it. there are many examples of our brain making decisions without us. the feeling of being a self-determined, thinking and feeling being could simply be a pacifier, the psychological version of a radiator or some other mechanical regulator. Q: what do you get when you fashion a bag from meat and fill it with water? A: A human.
Holographic Universe Hypothesis Hypothesis: The Physical Universe as a 3-Dimensional Hologram internally projected from a 2-Dimensional Event Horizon. • Introduction: This hypothesis suggests that our Universe is a Holographic Projection, where the Three-Dimensional Space we Perceive is a Holographic Illusion, and the "real" Reality exists as a Two-Dimensional Information Structure Encoded on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. This hypothesis is based on several concepts in Modern Physics, including Hawking Radiation, Zero-Point Energy, Vacuum Energy, and Virtual Particles. ● Black Hole Event Horizon and Information: According to Classical Physics, Black Holes possess an Event Horizon, a Boundary beyond which Nothing can Escape, including Light. This Event Horizon can be considered a Two-Dimensional Surface surrounding the Black Hole, referred to as the Holographic Screen. The Holographic Principle, derived from String Theory and Black Hole Thermodynamics, states that all the Information Contained within a region can be Encoded on its Boundary. • Black Holes and Information Paradox: Black Holes are fascinating objects predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. According to Stephen Hawking's work on Black Hole Thermodynamics, Black Holes Emit Radiation called Hawking Radiation. This Radiation carries away Energy and reduces the Mass of a Black Hole over Time, eventually causing it to Evaporate completely. However, this poses a problem known as the "Information Paradox." If all the Information that falls into a Black Hole is lost when it Evaporates, it Violates the Principle of Quantum Mechanics that states Information Must Be Conserved. • Holography and 3-Dimensional Projection: Using the Holographic Principle as a foundation, it is hypothesized that the Information Encoded on the Black Hole's Event Horizon is Projected in Three Dimensions, forming our Observable Universe. This Projection Mechanism is akin to a Hologram, where a Two-Dimensional Surface Encodes a Three-Dimensional Image. • Holographic Principle: The Holographic Principle, proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind, suggests that all the Information contained within a Region of Space can be Encoded on its Boundary. This principle originated from the study of Black Hole Physics and has been linked to the concept of Quantum Gravity. In the context of this hypothesis, it implies that the Three-Dimensional Reality we Perceive might be a Holographic Projection Encoded on a Two-Dimensional Surface. • Event Horizon as a 2-Dimensional Information Structure: The Event Horizon of a Black Hole is the Boundary beyond which Nothing, including Light, can Escape its Gravitational Pull. The Event Horizon is a Two-Dimensional Surface, and according to the Holographic Principle, it could store all the Information about the Black Hole's Interior. This Information can be seen as a Holographic Projection of a Lower-Dimensional Reality. • Hawking Radiation and Holography: Hawking Radiation, arising from Quantum Effects near the Event Horizon, suggests that Black Holes emit Particles and Energy. These Particles, known as Virtual Particles, can Appear spontaneously and Annihilate each other shortly after. According to the Holographic Principle, these Virtual Particles and the associated Quantum Fluctuations can be understood as Fluctuations of the Two-Dimensional Holographic Information on the Event Horizon. The apparent Three-Dimensional Space we Perceive is a Manifestation of these Holographic Fluctuations. • Vacuum Energy and Zero-Point Energy: In Quantum Field Theory, the Vacuum is not Empty but Filled with Fluctuating Fields, giving rise to what is known as Vacuum Energy or Zero-Point Energy. The Holographic Principle suggests that the Energy associated with these Quantum Fluctuations is Encoded in the Two-Dimensional Holographic Description on the Event Horizon. The Energy of the Vacuum and the Fluctuations within it could account for the Properties and Dynamics of the Three-Dimensional Holographic Projection we Experience. • Emergent Spacetime and Virtual Particles: Virtual Particles, constantly Appearing and Disappearing due to Quantum Fluctuations, are another important aspect of this hypothesis. These Particles Emerge from the Quantum Vacuum and can be seen as Excitations or Perturbations in the Holographic Description on the Event Horizon. These Fluctuations can give rise to the apparent Properties of Spacetime, such as the Curvature, Particle Interactions, and Forces we Observe in our Three-Dimensional Reality. ● Orch-OR Theory and Consciousness: Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory, proposed by Physicist Sir Roger Penrose and Anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, suggests that Consciousness Emerges from Quantum Processes occurring in Microtubules within Brain Cells. The Holographic Hypothesis incorporates Orch-OR by emphasizing the significance of Consciousness in the Projection of the 3D Holographic Universe. It proposes that Consciousness is not solely an Emergent Property of the Brain but is Fundamental and Intimately connected to the Underlying Fabric of Reality. ● Consciousness and Projection: Consciousness, as a Fundamental Aspect of Reality, is posited to interact with the Information encoded on the Event Horizon. It is hypothesized that Conscious Observation and Intentionality may Influence the Projection Process, potentially Shaping our Reality on a Fundamental Level. This Interaction between Consciousness and the Holographic Projection is yet to be fully understood, but it suggests that our Conscious Awareness is not merely a Passive Observer but an Active Participant in the Construction of our Perceived Reality. ● Consciousness as the Projector of Reality: Building upon the Holographic Principle, this hypothesis proposes that Consciousness plays a crucial role in Manifesting and Projecting Reality. It suggests that Individual Consciousnesses, when Unified or Interconnected in some way, act as Projectors that Generate the Perceived Reality. This Collective Consciousness creates the Illusion of a Three-Dimensional World by Projecting it from a Higher-Dimensional Realm onto the Lower-Dimensional Space we experience. • Co-Creation and Interdependence: This hypothesis implies that Reality is not solely the result of an External Objective Reality but is Co-Created by the Collective Consciousness. It suggests that our Subjective Experiences and Perceptions are intimately intertwined with the Nature of Reality itself, forming a Symbiotic Relationship where Consciousness shapes Reality, and Reality shapes Consciousness in return. • Experimental Implications: If this hypothesis were correct, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the Nature of Reality. It would suggest that our Perception of a Three-Dimensional Universe is an Emergent Property of a Two-Dimensional Holographic Description. ● In conclusion, this hypothesis proposes that our Universe is a Three-Dimensional Holographic Projection originating from the Two-Dimensional Event Horizon of a Black Hole. This concept is based on the Holographic Principle, which suggests that all the Information within a region of Space can be Encoded on its Boundary. The Holographic Nature of our Reality is supported by various concepts in modern Physics, including Hawking Radiation, Zero-Point Energy, Vacuum Energy, and Virtual Particles. By considering the Information Paradox associated with Black Holes, the Holographic Principle provides a potential solution by suggesting that the Event Horizon acts as a Two-Dimensional Information Structure storing all the Information about the Black Hole's Interior. This information can be viewed as a Projection of a Lower-Dimensional Reality onto the Three-Dimensional Spacetime we Perceive. The Emission of Hawking Radiation from Black Holes, consisting of Virtual Particles arising from Quantum Effects near the Event Horizon, further supports the Holographic Nature of our Universe. These Virtual Particles and the associated Quantum Fluctuations can be understood as Fluctuations of the Two-Dimensional Holographic Information encoded on the Event Horizon. The apparent Three-Dimensional Space we Observe is a Manifestation of these Holographic Fluctuations. Additionally, the Vacuum Energy or Zero-Point Energy, which is the Energy associated with Quantum Fluctuations in the Empty Space, can be linked to the Holographic description on the Event Horizon. The Energy of the Vacuum, along with the Fluctuations within it, could account for the Properties and Dynamics of the Three-Dimensional Holographic Projection we experience. Furthermore, the emergence of Spacetime and the behavior of Virtual Particles can be explained within the Holographic Framework. Virtual particles, arising from Quantum Fluctuations, can be seen as Excitations or Perturbations in the Holographic description on the Event Horizon. These fluctuations give rise to the apparent properties of Spacetime, including Curvature, Particle Interactions, and Forces that we Observe in our Three-Dimensional Reality.
According to people like Lawrence Krauss, the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. Therefore, such a simulation is being run with zero energy which is not possible. On the other hand, if such a simulation does use energy, even a tiny amount, then it kinda opens up a paradox that, with each simulated universe capable of running its own simulations, inevitably you'll end up with an infinite number of simulated universes all drawing an infinite amount of energy from the original simulation, again not really possible.
Not so! Simply take the Schrodinger wave equation seriously. It gives no excuse or reason to discard all the other 'possible worlds' it incorporates. The simpler explanation would have no 'collapse' of the wave function - which is an ad hoc add-on ,out of sheer desperation! Friar Occam's razor demands you shave off the 'collapse'. Leaving you with all the worlds.
The whole of mathematics is literally predicated upon that being true; that which constitutes the very foundation of mathematics is precisely that which you trivialize as "semantic BS". plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
Wasn't trying trivialize anything, what would be the point? thanks for the link, theoretical math is not really my thing, but from what I could gather this set theory still involves at least one paradox. It seems like the language of math is trying to describe the indescribable. It seems that while it may be very useful for describing the observable physical world, it seems as though the ultimate nature of reality may lay somewhere beyond the limits of math and science. Unless, is there some practical application for describing infinite sets?
Eric Michel Calculus is arguably the prime example of maths with practical applications. And afaiu you can't have that without infinity. (Besides, mathematical truth seems pretty independent from practical application, yet always unreasonably effective nonetheless.) And that natural & real numbers are different orders of infinity (i.e. both are infinite, but there are more reals than naturals) is a fairly straightforward consequence of the foundational assumptions (the ZFC set theory axioms mentioned above) needed to make basically all of maths work. Whether infinte things actually exist is another philosophical issue, but regardless, we can talk about them coherently using the tools of mathematics & logic.
David Rea It's spelled "Aleph". Your formula doesn't make sense; even if it would, why not choose e.g. Aleph-56 as the base? Aleph-TREE(TREE(3))? Most importantly, you can't define the largest number - it's inherently contradictory (Cantor's paradox). Also, just because something is infinite doesn't mean that it contains everything: The set of even numbers is infinite (exactly as large as all natural numbers), but doesn't contain a single odd number - in fact, almost all numbers (e.g. reals), let alone other mathematical objects, are outside it. I feel actually getting to know the basics would only increase your sense of awe.
I'm seeing everyone's comments saying they had these types of convos in their garages in the 90s. It's funny because a song by the rapper common titled "all night" has a line that says, masons building lodges/we be in garages/discussing who we boned and what God is/.. Seriously validates how much these types of discussions were normal for people back then. I don't know if so much about today lol.
Very entertaining. But sometimes I think that we can think too much. We are like dogs staring at a computer screen, there are a million things that only open up after "death". Best to just use the power we were given to stimulate with kindness the reality of those on Earth, trapped in an alternative Hell of unbelievable poverty and distress.
That's very well said. "Stimulate with kindness the reality of those on Earth, trapped in an alternative Hell of unbelievable poverty and distress." I wonder if this is by design, if the distress is somehow a product being extracted from us. We all do so much of it.
Here's what I think. The LHC is are shooting protons at each other at the speed of light and basically creating a little "big bang" each time so they can study what happens. I think that each time they create a little "big bang" they're are actually creating a whole universe just like ours and eventually some or all will create life within them to us it seems small and impossible but to the ones that evolve in those universes it's huge just like ours is to us. So I could see how we could be a tiny "big bang" that was studied for a little while an put away on the shelf. But now we're doing it which leads to the multiverse but I don't think I would be able to explain anything farther since I already haven't a clue about how it goes
Contradiction is our problem, we believe things cannot contradict eachother and that’s why we can not make sense of the real world. Because for us it has to be a clear one sided answer for anything and everything. Maybe yes and no both are joined together in a world where more then one possibility and outcome has and will take place.
Even a quantum computer would have lag and glitches based on how the hardware is being used up.. You would need events and situations within the simulation that has the ability to free up the quantum computers hardware. Maybe why we lose our sight and things go blurry, or not being able to have a massive memory and why we forget things. Events and Situations in a simulation that happen to free up the hardware, and so sometimes lagging and glitches happen inside a quantum computer.. The problem is, if everyone and everything becomes more complex and has the ability to improve everything, and using technology to improve, then they would use up those resources or hardware of a quantum computer, and then the lagging and glitches will be more extensive..
I think this whole premise is based on the idea that computers can house sentient minds. I don't believe any computer we'll ever build, of the sort we build today, will ever be able to do this. It's not a matter of size, power, or complexity. Our computers are utterly deterministic mechanisms - nowhere in their architecture or physics is there any possible "seat of sentience." Now, this doesn't rule out the idea that some different kind of construct might be able to house a mind, or, for that matter, an entire universe full of them. I don't see the simulation hypothesis as subject to either proof or disproof - that makes it an invalid question for science to even consider. If you can propose an experiment that will settle the issue, then great. If not? Go do actual real science. In any case, let's say we are in a simulation. So what? We're in a universe. We're able to be aware of our own existence. We're able to share experiences, love, pursue happiness, etc. What does it matter if it's a "real" universe or a simulation? Also, explaining our universe by saying it's a simulation that was deliberately created does us absolutely no good scientifically - one is still left with the need to explain the rise of sentient life in that "outermost real" universe. The proposal doesn't advance us scientifically in any way, nor does it propose ever to do so. It's a waste of time - this issue is out in the weeds.
Resolution of potential is the schism between strands. Any particle can witness reality by interacting with it but minds are special because they can consciously resolve reality in accordance with their will. I'm not saying that we invent reality but that we can form a strategy to effect it.
A quiet whisper in my mind gave me an alternative name. Elizsia.. or Eliza.... I saw myself come into the world from darkness, and the darkness lasted less than 1 second.. What if I was the consciousness inserted into the simulation as a baby, I have no memory of myself before age 3, but saw that darkness for a moment, and then as if i opened my eyes for the first time.. I was sitting on a bunkbed with my sisters and cousins on the other bunkbed..
This feels like the type of conversations that carried on in record shops in the 90s
A group of friends and I had these exact kinds of conversations in the late 90's in my friend's backyard shed at University. And yes, we were all totally high on the marijuana. Very "That 70's Show" basement smoke-out style, but more intellectual like this.
I get what this dude is saying about social media, and Ad companies paying to know our preferences, catering to them, and even subtly trying to change our perception, interests, or how we feel (not even including Russian hackers getting the right riled up about Hillary with B.S. nonsense like Pizzagate). But we are not living in The Truman Show, with Ed Harris sitting up in the moon directing traffic. Maybe figuratively we are living in a simulated universe, and slightly literally, meaning that what some people know to be real, such as Pizzagate, for example, is in fact not real or true. And that we are through media pushed to feel one way or another, ok, that Is true, but it's not any MORE true than it was with Ads since the beginning of television, and before that, radio, and before that other propaganda, and the Church! Religion, throughout history, from Christians to even Buddhists have used preaching, propaganda, and manipulation to influence people. The big temple by the deer in Nara, Japan was erected as an attempt to control the people who the government thought would become more subdued with a religious temple. The Catholics actually used actual visual magic tricks (I think I saw this on PBS) to control people. Social Media is literally no different. So I totally get what he's saying, and in that way our world is a simulation. But it's not a simulation like the Matrix or 1998's Dark City. That's just the marijuana talking.
We have enough trouble with the Ad companies, government, and Russians, we don't need people going crazy full-on conspiracy theory and thinking we are living in a totally simulated universe. It's just not good for us as a society and planet.
oobopshbam81 That gave me a good chuckle.
Star Trek: The Next Generation (starting in 1987) had a number of episodes on this theme, that damn holodeck that always malfunctioned. They also had episodes on self-replicating nanobots and the like. I wonder to what extent that show popularized these ideas.
Would you believe the Psychedelic 60s? I was there!
Record stores in the 90s we discussed how divisive Kid A was
If this universe is a simulation it is the worst open world RPG ever.
@NPC 10010011666 lmao which ones
It’s dope when u say fuck the matrix and do whatever u want
Yep the money system is screwed up bigtime, and far to many rules against weapon choices.
I kinda feel that lifes energy is the furthest away from the Matrix that energy could be.
@@kyledavidson4604 You can jump out of a plane for $100. That is as much excitement and fun you will find on a yacht. It is worth every penny.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, we have to live as if it's real, even if it isn't.
I definitely agree in living life to the fullest, but I also think this to me is the most compelling possibility of life after "death". There is some pretty strong argumentation for this, vs religion which always falls back on tiresome clichés like "someone must have created the universe", without being able to go further. Just thinking statistics, it is compelling to see that the sheer numbers involved absolutely allow for the possibility of us being a simulation. If we are simply physical matter, it is hard to buy that unbeknownst to all scientific researchers, there is a soul or something to that effect that happens to be outside of all laws of nature. If we are a simulation, it is far easier to me to see that we ultimately could be (a whole lot of) of data that can be transferred somewhere else. (Of course, a side tangent would be that if someone created us in a simulation, they are for all intents and purposes Gods to us).
@@tosvus The "Simulation Hypothesis" is just another, more sophisticated version of "Intelligent Design". It's not a scientific question. It cannot be proven nor disproved, at least not yet. It's just, yet again, humans anthropomorphizing the universe, another case of perodolia.
@@FGP_Pro Yes, but math/statistics makes it a whole lot more reasonable. It is still of course totally unprovable, but the sheer fact that in a few decades we have gone from extremely simple computers to now almost photo realistic games, and started on quantum computing, means given enough time we will indeed be able to simulate to a point where nobody would have any idea they are inside a simulation. Maybe not in 10 years, maybe not in 100, maybe not in 1000, but as long as we don't destroy ourselves first, it will get there. Even 100 000 years is peanuts in the grand scale of the universe. So since we can get to a point of this eventually, someone else is extremely likely to have done it before us. Now, whether we happen to be a part of one of their simulations or not is of course impossible to figure out as we sit inside the bubble so to speak, but again, the numbers show that if someone else could have done it before us, then someone would have done it before them, and so on, plus of course when one civilization gets to that point, much like a computer game, there could be billions of simulations running in parallel just there (much like gaming machines, here, today). Anyway, fascinating topic...
@@tosvus You say, "So since we can get to a point of this eventually..." You say that as a fact, but it's not a fact. It is speculation, conjecture, imagination, not reality. No one else has done it before, that we know of. We don't even know if anyone else capable of such technology exists in the universe. And, it isn't looking good for intelligent life in the universe. The "Rare Earth Hypothesis" seems to carry more weight at this point, than the "Drake Equation".
@@FGP_Pro Its understandable you can't fathom the vastness of time and space we are talking about, and that's just limited to this universe. Outside this universe it may be infinite, and that is of couse even harder to understand, so I'm not going to try to sway you.
At the end when he humbly laughs at what he probably talks about casually with his colleagues and maybe even joke around, make no mistake, that is the frontier of our knowledge as we know it so far. Don’t take life too seriously everyone.
i think probably time exists in a bubble and there are other bubbles where we have already advanced to the space age and bubbles where we are still stuck in the stone age.
this "pimply kid" from "outside looking in" or whatever is just in another bubble. we are in a bubble inside of the pimply kid's bubble.
@@env0x if I could trap time in a bubble
@@env0x time doesn’t exist. It was invented.
💯
@@ALGULRHYTHM Jim Croche "Time In a Bottle". I spent waaay too much time in a bottle... 😂
Exactly as he said, what difference would it make? The only difference is that some higher form of intelligence designed the algorithm that started the universe. And the algorithm probably didn't have to be that complicated. Amazingly complex things can arise from simple beginnings. Take the example of life itself.
And they keep saying the simulation had to be "good enough to fool us". Really? If we were born into pixelated, 16-bit Minecraft, by what reference point would we see through the shabby illusion? Minecraft would be our only experience, our only reference. We'd have nothing to compare against, thus, it's a completely moot point.
"some infinities are larger than other infinities" followed by "I think we're coming to the point where we dont know what were talking about". BY GOD I THINK HES RIGHT!
There are numerous ways of thinking about infinity for example is an infinity of ones lesser than an infinity of twos ?
@@LeeRaldar no they'd be exactly the same. Any symbology we tack onto infinity is completely meaningless, with very few exceptions when talking about theoretical dimensions that don't actually exist but are useful for abstract computation
@@nickmagrick7702 Precisely, however such concepts create foundations for thinking outside of the box.
@@LeeRaldar a stellated box in a hall of mirrors.
Life is just a series of reflections. .
Yeah they teach you that in calculus, I think there’s 5 levels of infinity using the Hebrew letter aleph to designate them, so there’s like aleph 1, aleph 2 etc. lowest is counting numbers (the numbers you use to count things) like 1 2 3 4 etc, there’s uncountable numbers, like the (larger) infinite number of values in between 0 and 1, because they’re “uncountable”. Each level of infinity is larger than the previous level by a factor of infinity. Like if I were to ask you what the first value is after 0, how would you tell me? So 0, ok and then 0.000000000... eventually you’d imagine a 1 going at the end but it technically doesn’t even exist because you could always add another 0 before the 1, right? So it’s uncountable, and the largest level of infinity are transcendental numbers, aka “magic numbers”, which are defined as values/numbers that can never be the result of an algebraic equation. Like pi is transcendental number, e, c etc.
I think it should be obvious that any device capable of building and running our Universe as a simulation would be outside of our Universe and therefore beyond anything we could describe. It makes way more sense to build a Universe that runs itself - as our Universe does - and inject into it some way of observing that Universe from within it.
👌
You could tell Jaron was new to the idea of differently sized infinities… yet he stayed open to the concept with grace and humility. That’s a mark of not only mental intelligence, but just as importantly- social intelligence.
But how could he not know it considering the amount of substances he’s consumed?
@@tyrrian2520 I thought that for a second too. But proof of different sized infinities is called “the diagonalization proof”, which he immediately mentioned. So he did know. He may have meant that he’s a bit suspicious of it. Not sure. But he knew about Cantor’s diagonalization proof of the different cardinality of infinities.
He actually knew after all. That’s why he mentioned diagonalization
The guys who found out about the infinite sets were all a little bit off kilter, well maybe not all of them but i believe at least 2 of them went crazy to some degree... maybe true intelligence (whatever that means) doesn't equate to hearing some dogmatic gospel and being slightly stoked even though you've never heard of it. Maybe for the sake of furthering this discussion yes because they were being filmed and would waste time, but as much as being humble, also you should question things just because someone says something or it's like a foundational concept in a field doesn't mean it should not be questioned. All the guys who "found" set theory were men... does that mean men are better at math? Or only men were granted the right to study mathematics in an institutional setting? Maybe this conversation would be different if there were more female mathematicians.
Being subservient to the established beliefs is hardly a mark of genius, but rather, of graceful and eloquent skills in conversation as a sort of actor in order to finish the job of making a segment, don't you think?
is it?
He basically said while avoiding saying it, god is so beyond our understanding we shouldn’t even try to understand him. Word, I felt that. Mean while he’s assuming that he’s so beyond us he wouldn’t care about us..
how about "God is so beyond our understanding" yes... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try, but that our own efforts at understanding will always fall far short, and to know Him with any certainty He would have to impart that information to us. Jesus... the same Jesus who healed the sick and raised the dead, tells us "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." John 1:18
@@davidpelto8824 I agree with you, I was just being sarcastic to his view of the intangibles of life. I did like how he broke it down even though I come from a different view point. I see god as something outside of time and space with the ability to see all that exist and all that could have existed. That ability to compute all that data while designing our universe and setting up the laws of physics for a self-sustaining
Number based physical reality is mind bending. Just the data it would take to design a person from a single cell is hard but none the less the entire spectrum that we can observe ourselves is a lot to take in
Im always interested what he has to say. He can make a complex way of thinking sound very logical.
That’s the very definition of “propaganda.”
Hey just sounds likes a stoned hippy who's watched too many DVDs.
If it can be fake, why can't it just be real? The fake universe has to be a real something.
I think there's no way to ever know, even in the most perfect simulation. The creators of a simulation couldn't even know if they were in a simulation.
The universe is beyond comprehension in size and things get more intricate and complex as you look deeper into things. No way there's any simulation. The most advanced technology we have only enables us to discover fundamental particles. What an unproductive stretch simulating a universe down to the quarks would be unless you were able to also observe it from the outside which is impossible
It's pretty mind-blowing that our universe doubles in size every 10 to the (exponent)-37 seconds. (Inflationary Expansion)
@@nikolassaul1062 You don't know what's possible overall. Just what's not possible for you. We don't have the answers.
Turtles all the way up and all the way down?
Wrong actually. A simulation would be a virtual recreation of itself. So in simulating itself it is simulating the ability to make a simulation. Meaning a simulation could create a simulation. Which would also prove that we live in a simulation. That’s the crazy part about simulation hypothesis. It seems illogical because all you would need is the computing power to create an exact simulated copy of our reality accounting for physics/every single natural law/variable. It’s not there though because we don’t know everything about the universe yet, we don’t know everything about physics yet, there is still natural phenomena we cannot explain…
If you are not aware that it is a simulation, you do not have to worry like a fish in a fish bowl because you do not know anything else. Otherwise, this applies to "So, will anyone disconnect me now?" and "Leave us in hell alone down here, okay?" Maybe the creators also live in a simulation and so on.
"I don't know what to do with my hands"
-Jaron Lanier
I love how when Kuhn says someone had to make this universe and Jarren says maybe someone won it in a contest lol
“We are so profoundly non-special from the perspective of this deity that we may as well not exist.” Well. That was a brutal way to start my morning. Off to work at my job now. And boy am I motivated!! ..... lol
Instead of going to job one time, sell your computer and take a holiday on the money you get... And it will no longer demotivate you 😊
😂
Just don't believe this non sense
Rest assured in knowing that what you do doesnt matter, and someone can do it better anyways. And noone will know that we were ever here.
@@andrewut7ya511 exactly. Sometimes I wonder, why try? Or rather, why stress? You’re position Is shaky either way. And who the hell are you trying to impress?
5:55 - You can't claim that the same limitations we face would also apply to the simulation operator. For all practical purposes the simulation operator may as well be God.
But that is just the modern version of the homunculus
His description of the operator made me think of God.
Exactly. What it appears like is that this "God" created an algorithm, probably not as complex as we imagine, and just let it roll. This "God" probably doesn't intervene on our level but may in a much broader context. However, once we realize what we are and what we're in, we might find a way to tinker with the programming. That is, the computer programming begins to program itself. Kind of what software does today once you program an original intent or objective of the programming. In other words, the software starts adapting itself to the final objective based upon input and adjusts itself for greater effectiveness and efficiency.
@@DavidSmith-fr1uz It seems like based on the video that even if he intervened at our level its entirely plausible he could do so in such a way not to leave footprints. The guy said, that the existence of the operator was plausible and that his involvement without evidence due to “covering his tracks” was plausible. If that’s the case, I think just about anything is plausible with an entity of that much ability.
This simulation isn't like your VR or RP games. This simulation would be perhaps thousands or a million times more sophisticated. Not needing active maintenance by it's users or lack of users. Our universe could exist on a massive underground complex, on a dead world. Powered by 50th generation advanced reactors. Essentially it could run forever, because of massive surplus in energy. Run by a Big G God AI. That doesn't know it's makers have long since gone extinct. Just one possiblity.
The fact that we are talking about the possibility that we are living in a simulation shows how strange reality is.
Or how "disconnected" from reality some of us are. ..
@@Boogbama123orrrr… how connected to this reality we are.
Hypothetically speaking, if we were in a simulation, I think it would be safe rto assume that a sufficiently advanced civilization would have computer-neural interfacing. Such a civilization would have computers that could send information directly into a person's brain. A person's brain would be the processor and any additional memory needed for the program to function. Thus the simulation would seem real to whoever is hooked up to the computer.
I don’t actually buy the simulation theory at all, but - just to play devil’s advocate: if a child was plugged into a simulation at birth, the simulation doesn’t actually have to be accurate or true to real life at all. It merely has to be consistent - since it’s all you’ve ever known, you’ll have nothing to compare with. It also doesn’t need to simulate quantum effects - it merely has to simulate the results you’d expect from quantum effects, the readings on your instruments, and so on.
The simulation would have literally taught you everything you know, and it doesn’t need to resemble anything from the “real world” at all, because you wouldn’t know what the “real world” is - it would just have to deliver consistently on whatever rules the simulation follows, because that would be all you know.
It’s fun to play with these ideas and challenge your own logic, just don’t let the ideas drive you crazy 😜
Oners82 nope, he's basically saying the opposite: what if someone could create a simulation so robust that we wouldn't know the difference (1:40) - what I'm saying is, if you were born into a simulation, that would be your reality no matter what it is, you'd have never known anything else.
Oners82 dude, they don't even broach that subject in the first minute. maybe you should watch it again. (I've watched it now 3 times, and I don't hear him saying that, at all.)
Oners82 if you can infer all of that from one phrase, you're obviously much more familiar with the subject/idea than I am. I also don't know why he would then proceed into a longer discussion about the quality of the simulation, if you're saying he has already opened up the discussion with the assertion that it's unimportant. I'm not convinced of that, but, whatever.
Rasmus Schultz you’re speaking like you actually understand the rules to it if it were real. You don’t know anything at all, none of us do. so you have no right to claim anything as real or tell anyone what to think.
But guys, bear in mind that if we are in a simulation, we do not exist *outside* of the simulation. We are not "plugged into it". We are entirely products of the simulation, and when we die, or the simulation is turned off, we simply cease to exist. We do not awaken in a higher universe. There is no afterlife in the Simulation Hypothesis.
A couple of interesting things not mentioned in the video; game developers have to follow very specific code in order for their games to function, that could, in essence, be what we consider the laws of physics. Also, game textures are broken down into pixels, which would equate to us looking at something on a molecular level.
Carl you're hurting my brain but damn that's some interesting perspective right there.
This guy with the locs is a lovely man his energy is very sweet
We are all in the mind of God.
And He is in our hearts.
I had to smoke some DMT for this conversation to make sense.
...and it did.
Zzzzz
You wouldn’t be able to comprehend what your seeing is you in fact we’re on DMT watching this. YOU ARE LYING
@@jasong6967 I think he’s referencing the implications of his experience, not implying being under the influence while watching. I can say personally my first DMT trip made me question whether reality was simulated.
I didn’t think you were supposed to smoke it.
@@dkatomski Exactly. Guy is a dolt and can't read English.
Aside from the topic, I love how animated Jaron is.
This simulation really creeps me out but this man just brightened it up and made me feel a little better about it.
Why can't God evolve?
This conversation is essentially an intellectual sleight of hand.
Jaron starts off talking about the hypothetical situation of raising a person in a virtual world. In this scenario, the person isn't a simulation, but the universe they experience is.
But shortly thereafter he's talking as though not only the universe is a simulation but everything in it, including the people. There was a HUGE unjustified and unacknowledged leap there.
Sometimes, when I open my eyes after sleeping, for the BRIEFEST of moments I'll be somewhere else. I'm in a place that is all metal, or at least it appears as such. My surroundings are always the same, a long and narrow passage, like a corridor or hallway. At the bottom of the wall, where it joins with the floor, there is like a metallic molding that is, apparently, housing a light source. The entire experiences is always crazy, but the CHARACETERISTICS OF THE LIGHT is by far the craziest part: it's always the same color, red, but it's somehow fluid-like, fabric-like, and it even feels alive somehow.
I don't know what it all means, if it indeed means anything, but one thing I DO KNOW: If we happen to live in a "matrix style simulation," the AI who enslaved us did a piss poor job of representing light lol....
Sounds a bit like the reality grid I see on salvia. Sort of like an exosceleton, weaving, red, fabric... the fabric of reality.
Maybe we're just terrible at fully comprehending or interpretting light.
@@Trancedd I don't know what a "reality grid" or "salvia" is.
@@mycommentpwnz The reality grid is a bit like what i described, and also a bit like what you described. Living fabric, a living, fibre like red grid, that weaves reality together and creates it. I use that term because no other term exists, and that's how it presented itself. It was a reality grid, and I knew that because it was. I speak only for myself though.
My salvia comment is gone. Salvia erowid trip reports. Read through them. Most people see the same thing.
@@Trancedd salvia is herb related to sage which was used by certain tribes in religious ceremonies, you can buy it quite legally in the country I live it’s sold in a concentrated version 50 times the natural strength. When you smoke it you have a profound psychedelic trip 99/100 it’s one through hell don’t do it is my advice stick to dmt
I think the scariest part is out of the 7 or so billion people on earth. Not one of us truly knows why we’re here. Some people say they do but really no one knows why we are here.
The question is as meaningless as asking if the universe is Republican or Democrat. We're here because our parents had sex on a particular occasion, and the spermy that became us (thanks to Ma's egg!) made it across the finish line first. No other reason needed or possible.
To have a laugh, bit of a dance and some loving
Well, it took 13.7 billion years for the universe to create a creature to observe itself. Observation changes quantum mechanics and does consciousness. Quantum mechanics also has memory.
Our universe was created in one of his dreadlocks.
No, it was in his belly
Its called string theory
Lol
That's why it stinks.
His hair puts the 'dread' in "dreadlocks"
Why the fuck can't I change my avatar??
maybe could be we are in the year 5000 and the technology has evolved so much that it is able to simulate whole worlds completely identical to the real world ...
and so we are all in a simulation set in 2019.
bladerunner, teaches.
The counter-argument to this is that if there are indeed an infinite number of universes within our phase space, then the likelihood that we are in a simulation is exponentially decreased!
love it. :) great discussion tyvm! Shine on! :) love to see the good stuff on here, and you two are awesome!
This guy makes me want to scratch my head, figuratively and literally.
lol, kinda reminded me of a buddha statue, but you might see it in seattle or something lol, i was scratching my head too 😀
We are in a virtual reality. The universe is information wave patterns, and our body and brain translate them into sights, sounds, smells and sensations that make sense to us for the purposes of survival and reproduction. There's no need for a human-like creator. Complex patterns can evolve by themselves.
The only simulation is the lies we are fed to keep us dumb and addicted to sin and not realizing we are all love and enlightened beings.
Preach
Its not a simulation. Its Holographic.
He starts talking about how with the sheer number of stars and galaxies out there, someone must have made such a simulation. But if we ARE a simulation, then I've got some news for him: none of those stars and galaxies are real. All bets are off as to what the "real" universe is, and what its laws are. Quantum mechanics could just be a bug in the simulation software, so saying that the pimply kid can or can't do something because of the laws of QM is pure guesswork.
But... You don't know that.
Define "reality."
But perhaps the entire universe as we can observe it is the actual simulation, the multiverse even. We're just one of the quirks of the simulation.
Perhaps the only real thing then is.....the consciousness that is exploring all this......
Well ... yes but! If it were a truly complete virtual reality, all those stars and galaxies would be no less real than we are. So if they aren't real, nor are we, and I'm not replying to you! But I am ... Descartes strikes again! ('I think, therefore I am.')
The Biggest Fallacy Here Is That The Conversation Is Limited To The Current Information We Have Rather Than The Fact That Any Creator Of Things Within This “Simulation” Would Have Access To A Vastly Superior Body Of Information & Technology Than We Within The “Simulation” Have Access To. In Other Words, The Pimply Kid Would Likely Create This Simulation On Far More Advanced Technology Than A Quantum Computer. Technology Far Beyond Our Comprehension & Understanding For Certain. When We Think Of These Things We Always Seem To Inject Our Ego Into The Mix And Grossly Over Estimate Our Intelligence In The Process. In All Honest Humility, It’s Ok To Reason That There Are Certain Things We Will Never Understand Nor Have The Ability To Comprehend. It’s Ok To Say… Hey, I Do Not Know Rather Than Just Make Up Some Bullshit Out Of The Thin Blue Air After Smoking A Bowl Of Weed. lol 😂🤣😂
we do not have enough information and knowlidge to determine wtf is going on, that is the only realistic point of view at this moment
You can experience the hidden “entity” through DMT
LSD or shrooms too
Actually those are fallen angels the bible says are all around us...drugs are a satan initiated bridge from our consciousness to the spiritual realm...this is a fact.
@@TheHitman- I agree, They can get scary at times very much like the book of revelations. But there’s more than one spirit out there. Some are good and some are evil
Could gravity be running our universe as a program on a quantum field multiverse computer?
Meh, if it is a simulation its still our reality no?
Exactly, it doesnt change anything.
We wouldn't just need a quantum computer. We'd need one made of more particles than our entire universe! Why do so many otherwise smart people think this is plausible for any life form?
Because if our universe is a simulation, then the computer running it clearly has more particles than our simulation...?
@@nibernator That's right. One particle can't store more data than is needed to describe one particle. In practice, it's even worse - many computer particles are needed to encode one universe particle.
"We can take it, we can have fun with it, but I think there's a very serious aspect to it as well."
7:06 love how awkward this ending was
sounds like as if you give negative feedback to your drug dealer and then realize that he is the only contact you have and try to flatter him, but he is not convinced
Yeah it gets like that sometimes
Play it back in slowest speed 😂😂
Haha yep
The reason I don't fully believe the simulation idea is because the beings that are controlling the simulation are likely under the same constraints as we are, if this is a simulation. The Matrix, for example, leaves an open-ended question because outside of the Matrix is just another cave with the same constraints.
Turtles all the way down!
I hope he is healthy enough to live into old age. he is an important mind for us to have.
Clearly he isn't
A simulation can only be considered "fake" if held up against the thing it is simulating. In and of itself it is quite real.
The multiverse theory is a way to avoid dealing with the Prime Mover concept in Aristotelian physics which is a postulate of fundamental reality versus infinite nameable possibilities. Because the multiverse cannot be verified but only speculated, it remains science fiction. A more satisfying and also more intellectually fruitful theory is the anti-materialist concept which makes scientific thought and discovery a conscious process rather than the result of mere chance event. In other words, a Supreme Intelligent Being who is the source of all that exists.
And I disagree that Homo Sapiens are the pinnacle of intelligent consciousness. Something is conscious in nature as it created us from dead matter.
What if there are no physical material universes? Seems to be left out of the discussion..I assume it’s seen as absurd; despite the many people interviewed on this very channel who posit such things, not that that detail means it true. How can we rule out the option that the space/time material universe strongly emerges from something else that is nothing like space/time? Maybe there are no simulations running on any material computers and also no actual material things?
Even if it was- what is one to do about it?
This is what I call burnout philosophy.
Yip. It's like "er, OK, and...?"
Build a better simulation - and move in!
If it is then you are fake and everyone else is fake even this message that you are reading is written by the simulation and it's meaningless. Ah wait it's like that in any case oh well you are right it changes nothing. Move on.
We all live in a yellow submarine.
We observe creatures that are unaware of us, why can’t intelligent creatures be observing us & us not be aware of the observer? Why would we Be excluded from this process?
People that are considered smart in comparison to others sure do presuppose A LOT. Well if they say that, then that means..... NO, Dude. It doesn't.
When they proved atoms are made of light made me question everything
Quantum effects might just be present in the simulation, maybe outside there would be none and something entirely different.
in short...maybe?
this man is very interesting and this video inspired me to watch one of his talks.
John Morris Dude is fascinating! Check him out.
John Morris good for you here’s a cookie
yes he's inspiring, very intelligent and ahead of time despite his looks which may lead those who don't know him to think otherwise
One loc is stronger than one strand. Us people from the other color spectrum know that our hair is our antennas to the universe.
Simulator Coder: "I guess Ill make one of the guys who realizes hes in a simulation the longest dredlocks in history of the universe. It will give him credibility."
I wanna know this guys secret. He's really happy.
What I find to be rather hilarious with the simulation theory is that they’ve arrived at the same idea as previous religions; that there is a creator entity. This goes seemingly unnoticed as atheists rationally discuss if there is an intelligent creator behind this universe.
If something created this reality does not mean they are "God" or whatever was made up by feeble men. Not even close.
@@wellfleetion
The simulation theory is made up by feeble men as well.. just saying.
Very chronocentric.
That final statement by the interviewer was a powerful admission that while he is intelligent his mind is very open to that which we dont yet know. Very cool
The fact that Post Malone took the time to travel back in time and attempt to let us in on what has happened since is at minimum, considerate.
Lmfaooooo
When you have a social media account you are not just the user you are the product 😉
LSD is very strong stuff 👀
Hey Jon, whens the next korn album?
Don’t quit your day job.
I imagine this conversation being held in a comic book store
I’ve had dreams of being in my home town walking around but it’s different in either the year or the world itself has changed into different spanning locations
Me too I had a very lucid dream of walking around my neighborhood but everything was a weird black and sliver color
The thing our universe is, is not an indication of "real," as "reality" is a flase construct that is built upon an agreed perception of everything from beauty to time. So it doesn't matter that our universe is non-physical, because our experience is agreed to be "reality" and "real."
When i see hair like this i always wonder - how the hell do you wash it?
On the topic: the ultimate question is CAN you simulate consciousness, can you simulate conscious experience? We still cant answer this question. Maybe yes in theory... but we still dont know if consciousness just arise from a very complex neural network activity and is just an illusion or is it sort of a separate entity that can exist with or without brain. Ask yourself - are you an illusion? ... You probably wont like that question.
I could be wrong, but I thought the way you created dreadlocks in the first place was by NOT washing them.
Lla derat Yes you can wash that hair but Jaron is a filthy hippy who believes in magic. I have sat through his lectures and he is insufferable, condescending and fake... Rasta-jabba is not our friend. he views himself as special .
okay, simulated minds. why not?! we are meat-machines, there is no magic or secret sauce. our consciousness is not beamed to us from a distant star, the baby jesus has not endowed us with self-determination. the only way simulation would he impossible is if there was a god. the reason people believe simulation is impossible is because these people have magical thoughts about the nature of our being. unfortunately there is literally nothing significant about sentience except in the eyes of other sentient beings. the reason life even exists is simply to facilitate the entropy cycle. our glorious minds are not fundamental, consciousness came as a result of random happenstance. but we already know that a human or any living being can be replicated. women make humans all the time. each cell is put in place (the initial exponential rate of growth of human cells in a embryo is equal to that of the exponential growth of the early universe) and wired up sans magic. most people are made out of corn syrup and big Macs no jesus, mohammed, vishnu, chakra or hot yoga required.. we are mechanical meat-beings and we represent a infinitesimal slice of reality.
to be honest I am not convinced we actually are conscious and in control; it seems as though our DNA/lizard brain runs the show. for example 120 seconds after a male and female meet our subconscious has already determined whether or not we will mate. no one asks us our brain just does it. there are many examples of our brain making decisions without us. the feeling of being a self-determined, thinking and feeling being could simply be a pacifier, the psychological version of a radiator or some other mechanical regulator.
Q: what do you get when you fashion a bag from meat and fill it with water? A: A human.
John Dow mind blown
Funny troll
Kim Runic not trolling just telling it like it is.
Holographic Universe Hypothesis
Hypothesis: The Physical Universe as a 3-Dimensional Hologram internally projected from a 2-Dimensional Event Horizon.
• Introduction:
This hypothesis suggests that our Universe is a Holographic Projection, where the Three-Dimensional Space we Perceive is a Holographic Illusion, and the "real" Reality exists as a Two-Dimensional Information Structure Encoded on the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. This hypothesis is based on several concepts in Modern Physics, including Hawking Radiation, Zero-Point Energy, Vacuum Energy, and Virtual Particles.
● Black Hole Event Horizon and Information:
According to Classical Physics, Black Holes possess an Event Horizon, a Boundary beyond which Nothing can Escape, including Light. This Event Horizon can be considered a Two-Dimensional Surface surrounding the Black Hole, referred to as the Holographic Screen. The Holographic Principle, derived from String Theory and Black Hole Thermodynamics, states that all the Information Contained within a region can be Encoded on its Boundary.
• Black Holes and Information Paradox:
Black Holes are fascinating objects predicted by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. According to Stephen Hawking's work on Black Hole Thermodynamics, Black Holes Emit Radiation called Hawking Radiation. This Radiation carries away Energy and reduces the Mass of a Black Hole over Time, eventually causing it to Evaporate completely. However, this poses a problem known as the "Information Paradox." If all the Information that falls into a Black Hole is lost when it Evaporates, it Violates the Principle of Quantum Mechanics that states Information Must Be Conserved.
• Holography and 3-Dimensional Projection:
Using the Holographic Principle as a foundation, it is hypothesized that the Information Encoded on the Black Hole's Event Horizon is Projected in Three Dimensions, forming our Observable Universe. This Projection Mechanism is akin to a Hologram, where a Two-Dimensional Surface Encodes a Three-Dimensional Image.
• Holographic Principle:
The Holographic Principle, proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind, suggests that all the Information contained within a Region of Space can be Encoded on its Boundary. This principle originated from the study of Black Hole Physics and has been linked to the concept of Quantum Gravity. In the context of this hypothesis, it implies that the Three-Dimensional Reality we Perceive might be a Holographic Projection Encoded on a Two-Dimensional Surface.
• Event Horizon as a 2-Dimensional Information Structure:
The Event Horizon of a Black Hole is the Boundary beyond which Nothing, including Light, can Escape its Gravitational Pull. The Event Horizon is a Two-Dimensional Surface, and according to the Holographic Principle, it could store all the Information about the Black Hole's Interior. This Information can be seen as a Holographic Projection of a Lower-Dimensional Reality.
• Hawking Radiation and Holography:
Hawking Radiation, arising from Quantum Effects near the Event Horizon, suggests that Black Holes emit Particles and Energy. These Particles, known as Virtual Particles, can Appear spontaneously and Annihilate each other shortly after. According to the Holographic Principle, these Virtual Particles and the associated Quantum Fluctuations can be understood as Fluctuations of the Two-Dimensional Holographic Information on the Event Horizon. The apparent Three-Dimensional Space we Perceive is a Manifestation of these Holographic Fluctuations.
• Vacuum Energy and Zero-Point Energy:
In Quantum Field Theory, the Vacuum is not Empty but Filled with Fluctuating Fields, giving rise to what is known as Vacuum Energy or Zero-Point Energy. The Holographic Principle suggests that the Energy associated with these Quantum Fluctuations is Encoded in the Two-Dimensional Holographic Description on the Event Horizon. The Energy of the Vacuum and the Fluctuations within it could account for the Properties and Dynamics of the Three-Dimensional Holographic Projection we Experience.
• Emergent Spacetime and Virtual Particles:
Virtual Particles, constantly Appearing and Disappearing due to Quantum Fluctuations, are another important aspect of this hypothesis. These Particles Emerge from the Quantum Vacuum and can be seen as Excitations or Perturbations in the Holographic Description on the Event Horizon. These Fluctuations can give rise to the apparent Properties of Spacetime, such as the Curvature, Particle Interactions, and Forces we Observe in our Three-Dimensional Reality.
● Orch-OR Theory and Consciousness:
Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory, proposed by Physicist Sir Roger Penrose and Anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, suggests that Consciousness Emerges from Quantum Processes occurring in Microtubules within Brain Cells. The Holographic Hypothesis incorporates Orch-OR by emphasizing the significance of Consciousness in the Projection of the 3D Holographic Universe. It proposes that Consciousness is not solely an Emergent Property of the Brain but is Fundamental and Intimately connected to the Underlying Fabric of Reality.
● Consciousness and Projection:
Consciousness, as a Fundamental Aspect of Reality, is posited to interact with the Information encoded on the Event Horizon. It is hypothesized that Conscious Observation and Intentionality may Influence the Projection Process, potentially Shaping our Reality on a Fundamental Level. This Interaction between Consciousness and the Holographic Projection is yet to be fully understood, but it suggests that our Conscious Awareness is not merely a Passive Observer but an Active Participant in the Construction of our Perceived Reality.
● Consciousness as the Projector of Reality:
Building upon the Holographic Principle, this hypothesis proposes that Consciousness plays a crucial role in Manifesting and Projecting Reality. It suggests that Individual Consciousnesses, when Unified or Interconnected in some way, act as Projectors that Generate the Perceived Reality. This Collective Consciousness creates the Illusion of a Three-Dimensional World by Projecting it from a Higher-Dimensional Realm onto the Lower-Dimensional Space we experience.
• Co-Creation and Interdependence:
This hypothesis implies that Reality is not solely the result of an External Objective Reality but is Co-Created by the Collective Consciousness. It suggests that our Subjective Experiences and Perceptions are intimately intertwined with the Nature of Reality itself, forming a Symbiotic Relationship where Consciousness shapes Reality, and Reality shapes Consciousness in return.
• Experimental Implications:
If this hypothesis were correct, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the Nature of Reality. It would suggest that our Perception of a Three-Dimensional Universe is an Emergent Property of a Two-Dimensional Holographic Description.
● In conclusion, this hypothesis proposes that our Universe is a Three-Dimensional Holographic Projection originating from the Two-Dimensional Event Horizon of a Black Hole. This concept is based on the Holographic Principle, which suggests that all the Information within a region of Space can be Encoded on its Boundary. The Holographic Nature of our Reality is supported by various concepts in modern Physics, including Hawking Radiation, Zero-Point Energy, Vacuum Energy, and Virtual Particles.
By considering the Information Paradox associated with Black Holes, the Holographic Principle provides a potential solution by suggesting that the Event Horizon acts as a Two-Dimensional Information Structure storing all the Information about the Black Hole's Interior. This information can be viewed as a Projection of a Lower-Dimensional Reality onto the Three-Dimensional Spacetime we Perceive.
The Emission of Hawking Radiation from Black Holes, consisting of Virtual Particles arising from Quantum Effects near the Event Horizon, further supports the Holographic Nature of our Universe. These Virtual Particles and the associated Quantum Fluctuations can be understood as Fluctuations of the Two-Dimensional Holographic Information encoded on the Event Horizon. The apparent Three-Dimensional Space we Observe is a Manifestation of these Holographic Fluctuations.
Additionally, the Vacuum Energy or Zero-Point Energy, which is the Energy associated with Quantum Fluctuations in the Empty Space, can be linked to the Holographic description on the Event Horizon. The Energy of the Vacuum, along with the Fluctuations within it, could account for the Properties and Dynamics of the Three-Dimensional Holographic Projection we experience.
Furthermore, the emergence of Spacetime and the behavior of Virtual Particles can be explained within the Holographic Framework. Virtual particles, arising from Quantum Fluctuations, can be seen as Excitations or Perturbations in the Holographic description on the Event Horizon. These fluctuations give rise to the apparent properties of Spacetime, including Curvature, Particle Interactions, and Forces that we Observe in our Three-Dimensional Reality.
You can tell how old someone is by how they convey their image of an archetypal gamer.
He sounds like post Malone and they have the same Mannerisms. They have to be from the same tribe
This made me feel so much better. I thought I may have damaged my brain from past acid use, but clearly I am way better of than some
According to people like Lawrence Krauss, the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. Therefore, such a simulation is being run with zero energy which is not possible. On the other hand, if such a simulation does use energy, even a tiny amount, then it kinda opens up a paradox that, with each simulated universe capable of running its own simulations, inevitably you'll end up with an infinite number of simulated universes all drawing an infinite amount of energy from the original simulation, again not really possible.
Arrrgggg....the many worlds interpretation....holy Occam's nightmare batman.
Not so! Simply take the Schrodinger wave equation seriously. It gives no excuse or reason to discard all the other 'possible worlds' it incorporates. The simpler explanation would have no 'collapse' of the wave function - which is an ad hoc add-on ,out of sheer desperation! Friar Occam's razor demands you shave off the 'collapse'. Leaving you with all the worlds.
As soon as an efficient quantum computer is made and running, civilianisation will advance so much in such a short amount of time.
God is a bored video game kid. I like this :-D:-D
He has to be a video game kid, right?! ;)
I think what they actually did was to thoroughly disprove God in this video.
@@kebman God is the CPU really.
What difference does it make
Post Malone is a big brained neeba!
Chernobyl Coleslaw sthapp!!
Yes is the answer.
Higher order infinity? Infinity +1? Sounds like semantic BS to me.
The whole of mathematics is literally predicated upon that being true; that which constitutes the very foundation of mathematics is precisely that which you trivialize as "semantic BS". plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
Wasn't trying trivialize anything, what would be the point? thanks for the link, theoretical math is not really my thing, but from what I could gather this set theory still involves at least one paradox. It seems like the language of math is trying to describe the indescribable. It seems that while it may be very useful for describing the observable physical world, it seems as though the ultimate nature of reality may lay somewhere beyond the limits of math and science.
Unless, is there some practical application for describing infinite sets?
Eric Michel Calculus is arguably the prime example of maths with practical applications. And afaiu you can't have that without infinity. (Besides, mathematical truth seems pretty independent from practical application, yet always unreasonably effective nonetheless.)
And that natural & real numbers are different orders of infinity (i.e. both are infinite, but there are more reals than naturals) is a fairly straightforward consequence of the foundational assumptions (the ZFC set theory axioms mentioned above) needed to make basically all of maths work.
Whether infinte things actually exist is another philosophical issue, but regardless, we can talk about them coherently using the tools of mathematics & logic.
There is nothing greater than infinity.
David Rea It's spelled "Aleph". Your formula doesn't make sense; even if it would, why not choose e.g. Aleph-56 as the base? Aleph-TREE(TREE(3))? Most importantly, you can't define the largest number - it's inherently contradictory (Cantor's paradox).
Also, just because something is infinite doesn't mean that it contains everything: The set of even numbers is infinite (exactly as large as all natural numbers), but doesn't contain a single odd number - in fact, almost all numbers (e.g. reals), let alone other mathematical objects, are outside it.
I feel actually getting to know the basics would only increase your sense of awe.
I'm seeing everyone's comments saying they had these types of convos in their garages in the 90s. It's funny because a song by the rapper common titled "all night" has a line that says, masons building lodges/we be in garages/discussing who we boned and what God is/.. Seriously validates how much these types of discussions were normal for people back then. I don't know if so much about today lol.
this dude needs a haircut and a treadmill
6 Max Grinder thanks for projecting your own insecurities onto someone else.
6 Max Grinder you have no right to judge another human
Well, I'm a woman so...
I'm not judging. Just stating facts.
This comment says a lot more about you than him.
Also, when people try to observe the quantum world? They cant see it in action, because seeing it in action would also lag the simulation..
In an alternate universe Post Malone is discussing alternate universes
Those dreads are a alternate reality.
Very entertaining. But sometimes I think that we can think too much.
We are like dogs staring at a computer screen, there are a million things that only open up after "death".
Best to just use the power we were given to stimulate with kindness the reality of those on Earth, trapped in an alternative Hell of unbelievable poverty and distress.
That's very well said. "Stimulate with kindness the reality of those on Earth, trapped in an alternative Hell of unbelievable poverty and distress." I wonder if this is by design, if the distress is somehow a product being extracted from us. We all do so much of it.
Here's what I think. The LHC is are shooting protons at each other at the speed of light and basically creating a little "big bang" each time so they can study what happens. I think that each time they create a little "big bang" they're are actually creating a whole universe just like ours and eventually some or all will create life within them to us it seems small and impossible but to the ones that evolve in those universes it's huge just like ours is to us. So I could see how we could be a tiny "big bang" that was studied for a little while an put away on the shelf. But now we're doing it which leads to the multiverse but I don't think I would be able to explain anything farther since I already haven't a clue about how it goes
Contradiction is our problem, we believe things cannot contradict eachother and that’s why we can not make sense of the real world. Because for us it has to be a clear one sided answer for anything and everything. Maybe yes and no both are joined together in a world where more then one possibility and outcome has and will take place.
Try explaining this to someone
Even a quantum computer would have lag and glitches based on how the hardware is being used up.. You would need events and situations within the simulation that has the ability to free up the quantum computers hardware. Maybe why we lose our sight and things go blurry, or not being able to have a massive memory and why we forget things. Events and Situations in a simulation that happen to free up the hardware, and so sometimes lagging and glitches happen inside a quantum computer.. The problem is, if everyone and everything becomes more complex and has the ability to improve everything, and using technology to improve, then they would use up those resources or hardware of a quantum computer, and then the lagging and glitches will be more extensive..
I think this whole premise is based on the idea that computers can house sentient minds. I don't believe any computer we'll ever build, of the sort we build today, will ever be able to do this. It's not a matter of size, power, or complexity. Our computers are utterly deterministic mechanisms - nowhere in their architecture or physics is there any possible "seat of sentience."
Now, this doesn't rule out the idea that some different kind of construct might be able to house a mind, or, for that matter, an entire universe full of them. I don't see the simulation hypothesis as subject to either proof or disproof - that makes it an invalid question for science to even consider. If you can propose an experiment that will settle the issue, then great. If not? Go do actual real science.
In any case, let's say we are in a simulation. So what? We're in a universe. We're able to be aware of our own existence. We're able to share experiences, love, pursue happiness, etc. What does it matter if it's a "real" universe or a simulation? Also, explaining our universe by saying it's a simulation that was deliberately created does us absolutely no good scientifically - one is still left with the need to explain the rise of sentient life in that "outermost real" universe. The proposal doesn't advance us scientifically in any way, nor does it propose ever to do so.
It's a waste of time - this issue is out in the weeds.
What if somebody connected computers in the exact same pattern as human brain is connected?
Resolution of potential is the schism between strands. Any particle can witness reality by interacting with it but minds are special because they can consciously resolve reality in accordance with their will. I'm not saying that we invent reality but that we can form a strategy to effect it.
I love how Jaron Lanie looks like some burnout who works the night shift at 7-11 and is much smarter than you.
Why the hell are they sitting so close? Did one of the programmers screw up the code?
In reality, there is no virtual reality
A quiet whisper in my mind gave me an alternative name. Elizsia.. or Eliza.... I saw myself come into the world from darkness, and the darkness lasted less than 1 second.. What if I was the consciousness inserted into the simulation as a baby, I have no memory of myself before age 3, but saw that darkness for a moment, and then as if i opened my eyes for the first time.. I was sitting on a bunkbed with my sisters and cousins on the other bunkbed..
There is so much profit with this conversation. Sooo beneficial