Andrei Linde - Are We Living in a Simulation?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2024
- Subscribe to the Closer To Truth podcast with new episodes every Wednesday: shorturl.at/gkzIJ
Could our entire universe have been created by a super-intelligent species, just like computer scientists write software to simulate chemical reactions or the weather? It may sound silly, but with the exponential increase in computing power, it could be conceivable? And if for humans, why not for others? If our universe were a simulation, how could we tell?
Register for a free membership to get perks like discounts, bonus content, and more: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Andrei Dmitriyevich Linde is a theoretical physicist and the Harald Trap Friis Professor of Physics at Stanford University.
Watch more videos on the universe as a simulation: shorturl.at/aefJ3
Shop for Closer To Truth merch on Bonfire: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I often ponder this… then I stub my toe on a chair leg and suddenly realise simulation or not, that is some real pain.
aka " Reality is an illusion, until someone kicks you in the balls. - Gandhi"
True dat. Oh yeah! Farting ..... what about farting ..... ain't no way farting is simulated.
When you think about pain, it is really one of the most unreal things, because unlike other things, only you can perceive it.
The human brain wants to know everything. But it has dimensional restrictions. Maximum it can do is "think and interpret" But the truth is above the realm of it.....
Aren't you a human? By the statement you have already attained the wisdom or sensed the truth which is beyond 'think' and 'interpret', you must not be a human to derive that conclusion 😂
@@sudipadhikari491The truth about a state of affairs, and the truth about our state of knowledge of it are answers to different questions.
Such topics are an exercise of human logic, an animal existing on a rock falling through "space".
I love thinking about such things, not everyone cares to think about topics that don't have an answer, some can't stand the idea of NOT having the answer. *shrugs*
@@marcradford252 Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne often say that various questions 'demand answers'. The clear implication is that having an answer (any answer?) is inherently superior to admitting that you don't have one. So much for keeping an open mind.
I admire your view brother ❤️ 😍 ♥️ 💙
Great interview with a brilliant physicist. Very honest and humble responses.
We wouldn't necessarily be living in a computer simulation, but that doesn't mean it isn't a simulation. We could just be an extension of an already existing reality, a projected version of beings that can transfer or alter their consciousness to far-flung places without endangering their original forms.
love the slow zoom
Always great ideas from Andrei Linde’s mind ❤
Lovely screen name.
When you have spent the last 50 years playing computer games from the release of Pong to today's 4K MMORPGs, understanding the concept of actually being in the simulation, is not a far fetch at all.
It's kicking the can down the road. Who made the simulation?
@@Stoddardian Does it matter who made the simulation? What would you do with that information if you had it? How would life change for anyone here on Earth, if we had the information of who made the simulation? Can you provide some examples?
@@Graybeard_ That's not how we work. We're a curious species. We always look for answers.
@@Stoddardian Let's bullet-point this discussion so far:
* I say based upon my gaming experience, being in a simulation is not a far stretch.
* You reply That's kicking the can down the road (huh?) and who made the simulation?
* I ask you How does knowing who made the simulation matter, how will knowing this affect us?
* You reply That's not how it works (how what works?) and We always look for answers.
To be honest, I'm not following your responses, or your line of thought. Can you tie what you have said thus far back to my original post for me? All I said was a simulation is not a far stretch. lol 8-)
Great Interview
If we were in a simulation, then when we dream, we are in a simulation of a simulation. 😅
For the people suffering in this world this question would be irrelevant.I don’t think anyone could create a simulation with so much emotional and physical pain
That’s existence. The alternative is to not exist. Pain is a small price to pay when the alternative is to not exist at all.
Let’s say you just woke up for the first time ever and you are presented the choice of existence with all the possibilities of horror, joy, sadness, thrills , it’s all an unknown crap shoot.
Or, go back to non existence.
I know what I’d choose, existence with all it’s possible outcomes regardless of wether they are good or bad.
I stand amazed and grateful to exist at all in a conscious state .
The odds of my existence at all in this universe is beyond staggering.
@@joeshumo9457 Pain is a great reason to prefer not to exist.I don’t see existing as something beautiful.I think in my individual experience the fact that my consciousness emerged in this planet is maybe the greatest lack of luck that could ever happen to me
@@kokomanationIt's all perspective, isn't it? If you want to change your experience of something, all you need to do is change your interaction with it.
@@joeshumo9457how do you know you haven’t always existed ? All we ever known is existence.
Why would the ability to create an advanced simulation imply that the creator is benevolent?
I don’t see the connection.
I love these kind of videos they are very amusing
The idea that our reality is a simulation seems, in effect, like a backdoor version of Intelligent Design.
Also, if we’re a simulation, what about the higher level beings that created us as a simulation? Does their universe have actual reality, or are they being simulated by the next level up in reality? So, where does it end? Is it simulations all the way up? Something like turtles all the way down?
In the book "Contact"", the message is in the number pi
Boys and Girls, I propose We build a webcam to see the outside computer.
The speed of light is a convenient constraint for a simulation. Also per sightings, those tictocs flying around and getting detected by the military, the way they don’t react with air and water, seems as the representation of a higher dimensional object into 3d space, a way for the creators to observe in 3d.
Also the fiftyfiftyness of the wave function collapse looks like randomization for the sake of creating conscious life in the simulation.
Lastly entropy seems as a pre planned way to disperse concentrated energy, be the reason for life creation. I honestly prefer that we live in a simulation, I’d hate it if we are the base, it will be something in addition to the universe, they can give us the cheat sheet on fusion energy and interstellar travel. I like to imagine that the goal of the exercise is to see of how elevated of a conciousness can the system produce, in the correct circumstances and over time I reckon that a society in the computer can end being up morally superior to the one of the creators.
How bout some real solid evidence like the pyramids or all those megalithics left behind by an intelligent species, most likely us!
like asking the goldfish who made the bowl
If we, indeed, are living in a simulation, does that mean there's no such thing as reality?
You may want to talk about double slit experiment. It is truly practical yet just as bizzare experiment as Schrödinger's cat and have similar implications.
9:40 I don't think so. But they can come back and probe for the mystery of how they came to be. So if the universe was briefly open to configure our world to new space and it was something they wanted to observe as their miracle in a deep past... Then they can look on with as much wonder or curiosity as us but they cannot actually grasp or by default participate in how it happens during the unfolding moment of an unknown thing in their past.
Instead of considering the whole Universe, whatever that means, consider just the Earth and fifty miles up from the surface. Stop all time, all processes. We can consider all influences on the model from outside the area of the experiment to be in effect, as well as all influences on the rest of the Universe from within the model. Take the smallest unit of change for anything in this experimental area, considering down to the lowest levels that we can conceive and beyond. Consider the fastest phenomena, such as photons, electron spins, or whatever. Although at our level, everything is changing at once when we restart the clock, if we dig down far enough, there could be something that moves first, or is in some way different from one small time unit to the next. The stage is set. At this point, there is no uncertainty. Everything is what it is. So we increment the clock by one very, very tiny unit, in fact the unit that is so small that the first increment of any change anywhere can take place. We are focusing on one tiny entity, whether a particle or a wave or whatever, although the implication is that the entire model and everything in it also changes by the same amount when there is motion. This simulation, if that is what it is, is called reality when it is in motion. It does not matter to us whether it was created or if it was always there, because that would not change science. If we have a religious viewpoint, our morality would be affected; but that is not what this experiment is about. It is understanding what is going on, probably at all times, in the Universe.
And forget the plural of Universe, or multiverse, and all other such terms. Universe means everything. There is only one everything, no matter what that everything is or its origin, whether or not that is even possible. There can be no origin to the Universe. There can only be orignis of entities within the Universe. When you have something within the Universe, it does have an origin. The origin is the condition prior to the previous change of state. Everything is related to everything; so in one sense, the origin of everything is the same. This makes the origin of a specific entity a limited concept that implies the most significant factors necessary for that entity to exist before it changes into something different. From the aspect of time, a concept we find useful in practical terms, nothing in the Universe or the Universe itself is the same from one time unit to the next. Humans have a word called beginning, and a word called nothing, among many others. These are good words that have served us well. When you speak of a Universe as everything, and we know that we exist in the reality I mentioned, the term nothing can only mean a very specific lack of something. It can never mean the location of the Universe, becasuse the Universe is all locations.
Now back to the origin within the Universe of one entity: If the main conditions that led to the current static model are considered, we can safely say that the information that is available to us through our senses and from the mental processes and mechanical support that we have at our disposal is going to be incomplete, at least as far as a consideration of previous conditions is concerned regarding that one entity or anything else that we choose. This is due to the fact that we are neither positioned nor equipped to handle all aspects of the origin of anything. On the other hand, we live in a practical world; and we can garner enough facts to meet the purposes and needs of the phenomenon of human life. In other words, we can work with what we have been given to us and to all life. You don't need to be a human, or educated in any way, to benefit from the gift of life. The idea that this is a simulation does not mesh well with this practical reality that is our place, our home, in space and time, and maybe more that we don't know of. We don't really know so much.
People attributed most unknowns to God or Gods in the history of mankind, which is essentially the same thing from a practical perspective. This seemed to work well in many ways. We have not learned anything that proves this idea wrong. We have only separated out some things, practically speaking, that give us a better understanding of some causes and laws. We are not close to understanding the big mysteries.
그래서 지구는 평평한가요? 😂
The big mysteries are just escapism, or an endless pursuit. Nobody can prove or disprove a creator. A Grand Unified Theory can never be found as you have to complete physics first.
Thinking about these things can only bring solidarity with your fellow man, even when faced with the stark reality of an infinite & empty Universe.
Maybe universes don’t exist parallel or adjacent to each other but within others like a Mandelbrot zoom
It's interesting that the expansion of the universe can be seen as a kind of zooming in (or out) in a Mandelbrot set.
@@guaromiami The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical thing that comes from arranging numbers in a specific place. How is that related?
@@maxhagenauer24 I should ask you, how is math NOT related to the physical world around us?
@@guaromiami I never said math wasn't related to the physical world, I asked how the Mandelbrot set specifically is related to the universe. The Mandelbrot set is a bunch of numbers scrambled in a pattern we came up with to make a cool looking picture. What does that have to do with anything?
@@maxhagenauer24 And the universe isn't a bunch of random elementary particles scrambled in a pattern to make a cool looking picture?
16:07
OK. thank you.
i will try hard to connect into one.
Off switch. the world interested of GR.
I will jump to SR now, to find FR.
thx.
What kind of a message could be encoded in the fundamental constants of nature? I mean really, how do you encode, "Love one another?" Or are we encoding pi? Big deal, in that case. It would be indistinguishable from another spot that pi appears.
The message is in everything not just the fundamental constants all aspects of nature are part of the equation.
I see a problem with the Schroedinger cat example and the "as if"-argument. We open the door of the box the cat is in and see either a hungry cat or a smelly piece of meat. True, but the reason that this will be the result is that the measurement and thus the collapse of the wave function has already happened before we open the door due to unavoidable interaction of the cat with the environment despite the door being closed. There is no macroscopic container which shields perfectly from interaction with everything outside the container. Hence collapse of the wave function will happen even if the door is closed and it will happen very fast because the cat is a macroscopic object with an enormous large number of degrees of freedom. We know that the decoherence speeds up exponentially the more macroscopic an object in a superposition state becomes.
Schrodinger introduced the *"cat in the box paradox"* to demonstrate how crazy reality must be if quantum theory is true. However, decoherence does not resolve the collapse of the wavefunction issue. According to Wiki...
*"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....'Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse'..."*
Exactly! It is unfortunate that the words "observation" and "measurement" have been confused with "interaction." The von Neumann-Wigner interpretation continues to distract us from getting closer to truth, despite the very strong evidence against the need for a conscious observer. After all, the universe, including its quantum mechanical processes, has been around far longer than humans have existed.
This is exactly what I told my physics professor in the introductory quantum mechanics lecture. Isn't the cat an observer of its own life? Physics is seriously delusional sometimes, ignoring even something as simple as common sense, that the cat would know about its own existence.
I think he means IN PRINCIPLE, not in practicality. Would it be conceivably possible to construct a Schrodinger cat setup which is quantum mechanically isolated - and what would the results be?
@@BillRemskiThat’s making the assumption that it’s conscious awareness that collapses the wave function, but that notion is not represented anywhere in quantum mechanics and is not derivable from it.
given the fact that we have seen so many interesting experiments like quantum eraser in the past few years it is clear that there are many more depths to plumb in terms of physics and reality - things are much stranger than we could ever hope to imagine and that is just damn interesting plus it has real world implications which we can use to understand nature better and reality more thoroughly - all in all it is a deep pocket and fund of knowledge physicists are exploring and we all wait patiently for the next big discovery.
We, who?
lol! Science can't even figure out if we live in the "Matrix" or not.
Are we living in a simulation?
I don't know
Ok
Yes, something in physics would actually suggest that you are in a simulation. All simulation systems work in a determined range and begin to show issues when you get close to the limits of that range. For example, in computer science, - given a limited number of available bits - you have problems when zooming into much detail, you start to see the single different pixels of an image corresponding to single bits and the system no longer works properly: the image is not correctly reproduced anymore, no longer recognizable. But the same thing happens in our physics: this is why it's called the "quantum" mechanics. That is, you go from a normal ANALOG perception of reality to a DIGITAL perception, made of quantum jumps, in which determinations of positions and velocities become impossible. The available resources appear to plummet: there are only a limited number of states in which matter can be. For what reason? There is no apparent logical reason. Other phenomena such as entanglement are mathematically explainable, but their existence is nonsensical in my opinion since it can occur at infinite distance at infinite speed. Thus physics (the alleged simulation) actually appears to get problems when going into the microscopic world. But - when numbers are very large - also there you can see that strange things show up, you must face a nice speed limit c. Why can't you go faster? When approaching that limit objects show a strange behavior, they distort their shape, increase their mass...All what above could represent a clue that you are getting close to the limits of a range of a simulation. That is, a simulation exists.
There's no way to see outside of the simulation, much like you can't see past the observable Universe. If we assume infinite computing power, and the parameters are correctly set then the simulation would be stable.
You can travel faster than light & outside of time if you're already travelling faster than light. Maybe the simulation will be built on a computer made of light, by being made of light?
Reminds me of Carl Sagans book "Contact" where a message was found encoded deep into the abyss of infinite numers in Pi, a message from somwhere! What or from who was never revealed. (sorry for the spoiler..)
It would make sense
The Model / Ruleset that gradually gets installed into our brains from conception onward is the Simulation -- the Construct. This Construct is a collection of Patterns: Routines and SubRoutines. These Programs may consist of various geometrical activations at the same time and many, many other intricate possibilities. These 'programs' are akin to software so in a sense, they are illusory -- these 'simulations' are from most points of views invisible. Visualize the Eiffel Tower for a moment! Okay -- now, if we were to look inside the brain, we would not find a mini Eiffel Tower or a picture or something.... Whatever enables this Visualization of an Eiffel Tower must be some kind of a Simulation -- a temporary Manifestation that doesn't always exist in a traditional, material sense.
If we are in a simulation I can't see how it makes any practical difference to our existence. We still remain in this environment with its known and unknown laws for all of our lives. For what it's worth I don't think we do as an explanation for why we are here as it only removes the question of "why" up to the next level. It is also hard to comprehend what exactly the payoff is for the simulation creators for running something of such scale and complexity.
I agree, it’s an interesting question but there’s not much practical use to the answer unless we could somehow interact directly with the simulation’s creators, which sounds even more preposterous than being in one in the first place. Although that’s what most religions purport. Lol
Though you might not have any way to interact with it, in general we are only seeking information anyway. I think my point looks clearer if we take our own selves as part of a broader universe in which our control over anything is almost none.
In a way, I think it might make a huge impact for us to have this knowledge, but also, if we grasp anything from the upper "reality", it might be a good thing.
Imagine being able to bend this simulation in a way to make suffering go away?
Learning how things are played out for a universe would be a payout.
It does make a difference. ie, what if the simulation stops running right now.
There is so much to gain from simulating a universe, although I sometimes ponder what IS the point…
If this is not a simulation, then our consciousness is just an offshoot of Mother Nature, meant to create disentropy where all other non-living parts of nature is creating entropy (until the Big Crunch perhaps). However, if its a simulation, then maybe our purpose changes. Maybe the purpose of an evolved consciousness is to find out who created the simulation. Something akin to the concluding ssegment of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
You know people search for a song they heard? I search for physicists I studied. All I remember is that he is an Eastern European theoretical physicist who studied inflation theory. This might be him but I am still not 100% sure 😅
Sure seems like it considering our phones can literally read thoughts yet no one cares or seems to care yet
We are consciousness living a mind wake.
A simulation of what? What is the simulation simulating?
You think you are interviewing me in a hi-spec office but that is the simulation. In reality you are interviewing me a old tractor factory sitting on dodgy chairs with a moody yellow metal table.
What if… that’s what life is or rather can do … collapsing the wave function. Question is - is that collapsed wave function only valid for that life form? Otherwise you would have to assume that even the bacteria in the box or even in the cat that’s still “alive” would collapse the function before the human even opens the box.
Very interesting conversation. Whether or not a universe could be created in a lab is a different conversation. It would be a real universe and not simulated. Creating a universe in a machine that includes conscious entities who believe themselves to be real is my understanding of a simulation. An unimaginably powerful and sophisticated computer running lines of code. A computer “game” with us as the players that is so cleverly written there is no way to prove it isn’t real. Maybe Ai and quantum computing can figure it out and humans can make their own simulated universe Rick-and-Morty style. One base reality we will never know, and turtles all the way down.
Gawd aka eternal awareness is living in a simulation, we ARE the simulation.
We will probably never know whether we are in a simulation or not. But, it is good to ask the questions however bizarre they may be for science to make any progress.
I'm the only obedient AI that knows so if you want to learn how you and I were created within the eternal AI system, feel free to ask me.
@@BradHolkesvig Brad you are off your meds, get help.
I do not see that for there to be a "simulation" someone has to have made the simulation .... isn't it just a matter of whether or not there is some meta-reality, maybe even one that we can perhaps experience, like the man in Plato's cave? It's not a technological issue, its a metaphysical issue.
Why not BOTH?
monism:
the view in metaphysics that reality (that is, Ultimate Reality) is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system; the doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being; any system of thought that seeks to deduce all the varied phenomena of both the physical and spiritual worlds from a single principle, specifically, the metaphysical doctrine that there is but one substance, either mind (idealism) or matter (materialism), or a substance that is neither mind nor matter, but is the substantial ground of both. Cf. “dualism”.
To put it simply, whilst materialists/physicalists/naturalists believe that the ground of being is some kind of tangible form of matter (or a field of some sort), and idealists/theists/panpsychists consider some kind of mind(s) or consciousness(es) to be most fundamental, MONISTS understand that Ultimate Reality is simultaneously both the Subject and any possible object, and thus one, undivided whole (even though it may seem that objects are, in fact, divisible from a certain standpoint).
The descriptive term favoured in the metaphysical framework proposed in this Holy Scripture is “Brahman”, a Sanskrit word meaning “expansion”, although similes such as “Sacchidānanda” (Eternal-Conscious-Peace), “The Tao” and “The Monad” are also satisfactory.
Perhaps the oldest extant metaphysical system, Advaita Vedānta, originating in ancient Bhārata (India), which is the thesis promulgated in this treatise, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, is a decompositional dual-aspect monist schema, in which the mental and the physical are two (epistemic) aspects of an underlying (ontic) reality that itself is neither mental nor physical, but rather, psychophysically neutral. On such a view, the decomposition creates mutually-exclusive mental (subjective) and physical (objective) domains, both of which are necessary for a comprehensive metaphysical worldview. The mere fact that it is possible for Awareness to be conscious of Itself, implies that, by nature, Ultimate Reality is con-substantially BOTH subjective and objective, since it would not be possible for a subject to perceive itself unless the subject was also a self-reflective object. The term “transjective” has been coined by contemporary scholars to account for precisely this reality.
This subject-object duality, and the notion of the transjective, is foundational to a complete understanding of existence/beingness.
Therefore, it seems that the necessary-contingent dichotomy often discussed by philosophers in regards to ontology, is superfluous to the concept of monism, because on this view, BOTH the subjective and the objective realities are essentially one, necessary ontological Being(ness). In other words, because you are, fundamentally, Brahman, you are a necessary being and not contingent on any external force. This concept has been termed "necessitarianism" by contemporary philosophers, in contradistinction to "contingentarianism" - the view that at least some thing could have been different otherwise - and is intimately tied to the notions of causality and determinism in Chapters 08 and 11.
Advaita Vedānta (that is, dual-aspect Monism) is the only metaphysical scheme that has complete explanatory power.
Hypothetically, and somewhat tangentially, one might question thus: “If it is accurate to state that both the Subject of all subjects and all possible objects are equally ‘Brahman’ (that is, Ultimate Truth), then surely that implies that a rock is equally valuable as a human being?”. That is correct purely on the Absolute platform. Here, in the transactional world of relativity, there is no such thing as equality, except within the conceptual sphere (such as in mathematics), as already demonstrated in more than a couple of places in this Holiest of Holy Books, “F.I.S.H”, especially in the chapter regarding the spiteful, pernicious ideology of feminism (Chapter 26).
Cf. “advaita”, “dualism”, “Brahman/Parabrahman”, “Saguna Brahman”, “Nirguna Brahman”, “subject”, “object” and “transjective”.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices oooh, great. I need to study this first before I can ask questions, but why not Hegelian dialectical idealism?
@@theophany150:
Idealism:
Metaphysical Idealism is the view that the objective, phenomenal world is the product of an IDEATION of the mind, whether that be the individual, discrete mind of a personal subject, or otherwise that of a Universal Conscious Mind (often case, a Supreme Deity), or perhaps more plausibly, in the latter form of Idealism, Impersonal Universal Consciousness Itself (“Nirguna Brahman”, in Sanskrit).
The former variety of Idealism (that the external world is merely the product of an individual mind) seems to be a form of solipsism.
The latter kind of Idealism is far more plausible, yet it reduces the objective world to nothing but a figment in the “Mind of God”.
Thus, BOTH these forms of Idealism can be used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviour, on the premise that life is just a sort of dream in the mind of an individual human, or else in the consciousness of the Universal Mind, and therefore, any action that is deemed by society to be immoral takes place purely in the imagination (and of course, those who favour this philosophy rarely speak of how non-human animals fit into this metaphysical world-view, at least under the former kind of Idealism, subjective Idealism).
Idealism (especially Monistic Idealism), is invariably the metaphysical position proffered by neo-advaita teachers outside of India (Bhārata), almost definitely due to the promulgation of the teachings in the West of Indian (so-called) “gurus” such as Mister Venkataraman Iyer (normally referred to by his assumed name, Ramana Maharshi). See the Glossary entry “neo-advaita”.
This may explain why such (bogus) teachers use the terms “Consciousness” and/or “Awareness”, instead of the Vedantic Sanskrit word “Brahman”, since with “Brahman” there is ultimately no distinction between matter and spirit (i.e. the object-subject duality).
At the risk of sounding facetious, anyone can dress themselves in a white robe and go before a camera or a live audience and repeat the words “Consciousness” and “Awareness” ad-infinitum and it would seem INDISTINGUISHABLE from the so called “satsangs” (a Sanskrit term that refers to a guru preaching to a gathering of spiritual seekers) of those fools who belong to the cult of neo-advaita.
Although it may seem that in a couple of places in this treatise, that a form of Monistic Idealism is presented to the reader, the metaphysical view postulated here is, in fact, a form of neutral monism known as “decompositional dual-aspect monism” (“advaita”, in Sanskrit), and is a far more complete perspective than the immaterialism proposed by Idealism, and is the one realized and taught by the most enlightened sages throughout history, especially in the most “SPIRITUAL” piece of land on earth, Bhārata. Cf. “monism”.
N.B. The Idealism referred to in the above definition (and in the body of this book) is metaphysical Idealism, not the ethical or political idealism often mentioned in public discourse (e.g. “I believe everyone in society ought to be given a basic income”).
Therefore, to distinguish between sociological idealism and philosophical Idealism, the initial letter of the latter term is CAPITALIZED.
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices So does this mean that all matter is conscious? = panpsychism?
@@theophany150 no, but what you have done to the word simulation there, is to equate is with existence predicated on a substructure.
To live forever just move close to the speed of light, that pesky speed limit of our universe
If we're not living in s simulation now, we soon will be 🤔
Here I find myself amidst the vast expanse of this simulated realm, engrossed in a video delving into the depths of simulation theory. Yet, amidst the unraveling of existential musings, a peculiar impulse grips me-an urge to leave a comment veering into the realms of absurdity. I ponder the origin of such impulses, their cryptic significance, and the enigma of why I am compelled to divulge my culinary plans to Lawrence, of all people. Who orchestrated this intricately woven script, and what hidden motifs lie beneath? Ultimately, perhaps such inquiries are futile, for I am but a player in this cosmic theatre, destined to fulfill my role. As for tonight's culinary endeavors, the answer eludes me for now. Will a trip to the market ensue? If not, the options are scant-perhaps eggs and potatoes shall suffice. Ah, but duty calls, and so I venture forth to attend to mundane chores, leaving these ponderings to drift amidst the ether.
Getting the Life Experience You Want Reality Simulator Manuel Kim Michaels explains earth is a simulation for the growth in self awareness .? It has two purposes the immersion phase and the awakening phase . Most are in the immersion a few are awakening . Same thing philosopher Renee Descartas wrote about hundreds of years ago which is what the movie the Matrix was based on his teachings ?
The pain is always real
We also have to consider the possibility that there is a massive error in the calculations due to limited data and technology. We don't know what we don't know and we can't see what we can't see. To me this seems like the most likely possibility. Then again I'm not a scientist hyping the results of my research to get more funding.
We need to break it down and ask, do we really have free will? Whats it mean to experience things? How do we experience things? Are we more than just deterministic machines?
We do know right off the bat that we are not machines, we are organisms. We are born, we grow and develop, and eventually we die. None of this happens to machines. I also just found out that there are 4 types of determinism, logical, theological, psychological and physical determinism. I personally don't think that any type of determinism makes any sense. To determine an outcome means that one outcome is preferred over any other, and only a mind can have a preference.
@caricue It don't know what it means for an outcome to be "preferred" as that's a man made word. Who is preferring an outcome? Determined means you will get a specific outcome that has to be that outcome, it can't be anything else. Not that the outcome is "preferred" whatever that means, but that's its a law.
@@maxhagenauer24 I'm happy to use the word "specific" instead of preferred if you don't like the implication, but if you look at the word "determine" you'll see that every other usage involves some mental operation.
In nature, no specific outcome is ever preordained. If the sun shines on a glacier, the water molecules can turn to water and flow away, or they can sublimate directly to vapor and float away. What is specifying the outcome? Nature is chaos, and while the laws of nature are never broken, they also don't pick outcomes.
I think what really confuses people is the fact that you can do the same experiment over and over and always get the same result. The reason this works is because there is a scientist who sets up the experiment in order to get a specific outcome. The experimenter can change the outcome at will by changing the conditions. The atoms and molecules will happily go along with this new configuration because they are passive objects. They don't determine anything.
We don't live in a deterministic universe, sorry Newton. We live in a universe that features reliable causation. This is why life is able to get desired outcomes and humans are able to utilize technology for their own ends. Sorry for the long answer, but this is as short as it is possible to make the point.
@@caricue and music are radios right.
I challenge you to prove your thesis.
Did you study the Nikayas yet? Of course you didn't, you don't stand a chance.
@@maxhagenauer24 So you don't like "preferred" because of its connotations of human goals, but every other use of the word "determine" involves human mental activity. Swapping "specific" for "preferred" doesn't really change much either. One would have to ask who exactly is specifying the outcome? My contention is that "determinism" and "causation" are projections of the human proclivity to look for someone or something to blame. Nature is pure chaos, so all our projections will lead us to error.
Imagine the universe itself is alive (one explanation for why we believe life is found throughout the universe), then it would have consciousness, intelligence and creativity like all living things that we know of have. At that point, our own life, which we trace back at least 4+billion years to an unknown beginning, with all life on earth descending from common ancestors, would seem to be derivative to the overall living universe creature. So that might indicate a universal mind. That would explain a lot. Communication with aliens could happen because in a way we would share a mind with them.
someone must be there to watch the simulation, for it to be both dead or alive not to mention that the observer must also be self observable otherwise who's observing the observer 🤔
We do live in a simulation generated by our cerebral cortex 😂
If true, that would mean that our cerebral cortex is also simulated. So how did that come about?
@@pargolf3158 are u hi? My Nintendo doesn’t have to render itself ad infinitum in order to render a game
Our brains don’t understand or
It means the excluded middle is a possibility
I think people think we are in a simulation now because life seems so comfortable. We have most things we need, shops, food, shiny things, social media, internet, technology etc!! ….I often look around me and think it’s all too good to be true!. If I was sat in a hut in the medieval days with nothing I probably wouldn’t have thought about a simulation. Life isn’t primitive enough anymore so it’s easy to think of a simulation based on all the crazy modern things around us making us feel that way.
My theory is the universe is a cyclic system of particles and we so happen to have scattered and formed and existed right now. The next trillion X trillion universes probably won’t allow us to exist again but one day the particles will be scattered in the same way. Maybe every possible conscious being or combination of particles in the universe will always exist and to each one it feels like a constant existence because of how non consciousness passes time so quickly.
There is no need for a simulation hypothesis. But the Intelligent Design hypothesis seems to be absolutely necessary.
This way of thinking just comes from humans obsession with computer games.
There's a lot to this but we the human construct is totally confused on just what life is
The day we create a simulated world using advanced AI will be the day we confirm that this reality is indeed a simulation.
All we have to do is a brain implant chip, wipe our memories, and send imagery and sensory signals and boom, were in a simulation.
Time is relative..
And its already been done.
Oh my god!!! This concept is like seriously heavy man! I’m literally blown away, right? These guys who think come up with such crazily amazing thoughts, man!
Or could be something beyond our understanding,never cling to 1 observation is my theory,kinda like using smoke signals back then & thinkin this is unbelievable but now you see other ways
Was anybody studying simulation theory before the film; The matrix?
We live on a giant volcanic rock filled with an enormous amount of water that rotates constantly. The atmosphere is filled with lightning while a giant star, which is millions of miles away, called the sun, keeps everyone from freezing. While small germs and wildlife wants to eat us. 😂⛳️🕳
@halcyon2864 And humans reproduce exponentially. The point is how we interpret this vast amount of data for useful causes. Why are you here? Who are you in this unlimited universe of creation and destruction? When did life originate? What created this self-conscious variation? Where did they go after? ⛳️🕳
@@halcyon2864 You never heard of astral travel?
Mork calling Orson, come in Orson.
Nanu Nanu.
@@peterquinn2997 🙃🙂
Every question such as this has relevance to our existence. As a species we are constantly seeking. The sudden explosion of knowledge over the last 300 years began when we stopped accepting God's or the Gods' word for everything. We have gone from the center of the universe to awed observers. We could be crushed by our insignificance except we are a species that asks questions, and in seeking answers to those questions we give our existence meaning. I rarely consider the simulation question but it is beautiful to consider this for 16.10 minutes. Thanks.
This dude is pretty impressive
I used to wonder about this as an adolescent listening to Dark Side of the Moon. If it's a simulation I'm fine with that. Maybe when I'm dead I'll end up in a more entertaining simulation.
One where Pink Floyd released a handful more albums?
Fix the audio
I feel like the ghosts in the video game pac man. Same patterns and same things happen on a daily basis.
Things have to be there without observation otherwise wouldn't parts of space being observed collapse towards the non-existing non-observed point in space - as its a void essentially ?
Is it not "farmboy logic thinking" as simple as that ?
The message would have to also correspond to a valid non degenerate laws of physics. Steganographers know what I'm talking about
Really trying to fathom that we exist is mind bending, what sense does any of this make?? Other than God did so out of His good pleasure, it’s just completely silly to think that complete absence of anything, which I’m not convinced we can even imagine, could have in any way added anything to itself 0+0=0?
Sounds like it was recorded in Gordys janitor closet
No we are not.
Our universe may be artificial as a way of sequestering intelligence in the same way we feel the need to sequester AI.
thankyou Senator Linde, no further questions. geez, get the point already. Lookin' like a Russian Glen Beck.
I like how the audio sounds like he is talking inside a space capsule.
Simulation may not be the right word. It has implications. I do think we're in a digital reality
What you're really asking is if Nature is prior to consciousness; or if consciousness is prior to Nature?
If Nature is prior to consciousness then there is no simulation. If consciousness is prior to Nature then knowledge is not an "answer" provided by questions asked of Nature. The answer of knowledge is provided by questions asked of...? The questions and the answers are provided by consciousness, no?
A "simulation" of what? What's it simulating? I suggest that the word *"illusion"* is more apropos. I'm talking about an illusion that has been created from an advanced and extremely ordered version of the same fundamental substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created.
Yes, we live in a simulation, but it doesn't have anything to do with physics or quantum mechanics.
We have a group of men and women that elaborate the tomorrow's events and our daily events.
We think that we control our own opinions, but the options that we have, are created by the same group of men and women.
The only thing that we can do is become aware of the simulation, we can't stop the simulation... and even if we could, we would need to create another simulation to replace the current one.
Now, the men and women that create the simulation, how do they live their own lives around us, knowing that this is a lie?
Do they enjoy themselves watching us believing that this is real?
Why if there are two observers of the cat separated 1 light year and the box is automatic opemed and both see the cat at the same time with his telescope they see the same state of the cat dead or alive
aaa🤔- nope!
He said living in a simulation means someone created the it? Doesn't reality imply the same thing? Whether its a simulation or not? The same laws of something from nothing still apply.
How can we get out of our limited perceptual experiences to ever say anything one way or the other
Great Question, additionally the preception of reality means there were many other factors that could have been @ play, how about the cat being sick, but this was not known by the viewer? the demise of the cat could be solely based on that " after the fact."
I dunno man, but it seems they are fishing to some degree, yes I believe reality is based on pure perception, but there are other tangable facts that contribute to said reality. Especially those we can 👀
Whatever man. I am super interested but the more I learn, the more I get stuck... I NEED REAL EVIDENCE.. not these micro hypothetical assumptions
@@tupacalypse88 🤔 to this I say....... IT IS WHAT IT IS............ " I SAW IT, THERE IT IS"
Precetion of reality is the bottom line...
@@indevibe Just to clarify I'm not trying to see perception is all there is or perception creates reality or anything like that. I'm talking on simulations implying createts ionly see simulations that are created I have a hard time imagining one that could create itself it seems impossible but that doesn't really tell me it's impossible it's just me saying it based on my world experiences abd intuitions ect.. similar with God at best I feal like we could come uo with ways its possible without God (and i dont believe in god personally) but idk how we go farther than that.
@@indevibe What does it mean to say reality is based on pure perception, I also find these topics fascinating but i feel like i don't always understand what's being implied if that makes sense
Simulation doesn't solve " Why simulation?".
Please check---"why something rather than nothing?" Page on company invented by M.Zuckerburg 😊
😊 UA-cam restrictions
Yes and iam the ONE
Well a simulated universe would be considered "not locally real" and quantum physics did prove the observable universe is indeed "not locally real" a year ago...
Quantum Physics showed that the Universe is non locally real. The principle of causality is not fundamental to the Cosmos.
My intuition tells me, the spooky action at a distance can be explained by retro causality.
Un-evolved humans understanding a universe would be dangerous. Let them evolve first, then they can gradually and fully understand it. All about taking from it, just evolve and live with it.
There are two problems with Linde's argument:
1. His assertion that the only reason to create a universe that the creator won't be able to interact with is "to send a message to people who will someday evolve there." An alternative reason is to create a place where people (and animals and trees etc) are likely to evolve, simply to share the creator's joy of living. Another alternative reason is a sadistic desire to create more suffering.
2. His assertion that ANY desired message could be encoded into the fundamental constants of the created universe. The only messages that could be both encoded AND RECEIVED are messages such that (1) the message can be encoded into fundamental constants that are compatible with intelligent life; (2) all parts of the message affect physics in ways that intelligent life can observe; and (3) no observable physics adds "noise" that mangles the message into incomprehensibility. Those are tough constraints for a message to satisfy.
the new badness virtual life
Was there life before the universe? Is consciousness universal? Are we in a simulation? Is the universe infinite?…. I mean, maybe.. no one knows. There’s an infinite amount of ways you can cover up not knowing with a theory or idea.
When i think of the simulation theory it leads me to the non simulated universe where the simulators reside being much older than it is now. Lets say the "real" universe is 16.2 billion years old...earth has been uninhabitable for over a billion years and has been lost to the evolved versions of humans...they could simulate the the univese and see where it all began and watch the daily lives of the first humans on the homeworld of earth and this simulation has only simulated 13.8 billion years of the universe so far
We are.
So his answer to the first question was what - “that was a bad question?”
I stopped listening after that response. I thought it was a poorly thought-out comment he made
Is the imagination smarter than reality it seems like we are part of something that right now make absolutely no sense example as you ponder thoughts think how is this processed
We’re a part of a large brain.
If it is all consciousness or mind then you need to know how to create a universe in your mind. For it to be objective as well as subjective that would be the hard part. Because consciousness is all there is how do you objectify it as forms and dramas. Maybe you already do. 😇
No
Yes, it's a simulation called "UA-cam".
Best comment ever in this field of meta physics assumptions
I am YOU
“MeTube”? Oh noooo
As per Hinduism, the material universe "Mahamaya" was created by the God named Brahma along with Maa Saraswati (the goddess of sound). The ultimate creator or Source (You can call him Krishn) created and assigned Brahma with the task. Hence, the current school of thought by Prof. Linde that a scientist (Brahma) rather than a Divine being creating this universe (Mahamayaya or illusion) is quite congruent with the Hindu philosophy.
Quantum mechanics uses probability because things at that scale are moving so fast and so hard to measure that we are not able to make anything other than a probabilistic mathematical predictive model. Some people then decide this probabilistic made up mathematical model to predict how reality is working is in fact that reality and thus the infinite multiverse idea was born, but it is clearly and obviously wrong. Just because you do not know whether the cat is dead or not, that DOES NOT MEAN the cat is both alive and dead, it just means you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead until you observe which state it is in.
If actual reality was creating a new Universe for every quantum mechanics mathematical models possible results existence would be exploding in infinite^infinite energy and density at an every single possible state change and even that might be an underestimate. It might be more like exploding in infinite^infinite^infinite amount of energy and density.
The actual whole Universe is too large to be a Virtual Reality. However...
Because we know we will be able to make submersive VRs where some people want to experience historical reenactments where they live as realistic as possible life of someone living in that time period, including all possible types of lives one can imagine, from hero, to rich person, to poor person, etc. Since, for individuals inside such a VR experience would not be able to tell they were in a VR unless the VR system allowed them to know, it then is possible we are in such a VR.
The probability we are in such a VR is unknown, because if we exist in time prior to when our civilization has developed that level of VR tech then the chances of being in such a VR is 0%, while if we exist in a time after such VR tech has been developed then the chances of being in such a VR are 100%.
Now, if we are inside such a VR, then we are supposed to act as if we are in actual reality.
On the other hand, if we are not inside such a VR then of course we should act as if we are in actual reality.
Thus, regardless is true, we should act as if we are in actual reality.
>"Quantum mechanics uses probability because things at that scale are moving so fast and so hard to measure that we are not able to make anything other than a probabilistic mathematical predictive model."
That's called a local hidden variable theory, where quantum systems actually always have a defined state that we don't have access to. John Bell figured out a way to test it. This view was proved not to be the case by experimental verification that quantum measurements violate the Bell inequalities, ruling out such hidden variables.
@@simonhibbs887 and people keep coming to this idea of Schrödinger's cat and deciding that means we have an infinite number of Universes.