"For all we know, we are nothing but the dream of an amoeba in the bloodstream of a flea." My 8th grade science teacher, Mrs. Pascal (not kidding), in 1963.
"Become conscious of being conscious. Say or think "I am " and add nothing to it. Be aware of the stillness that follows the "I am".Sense your presence, the naked, unveiled, unclothed beingness. It is untouched by young or old, rich or poor, good or bad or any other attributes." - Sri Ramana Maharshi
I think the best way to understand mysticism is thru degrees of consciouness. Quran talks about shift of consciouness from nafs Al amara( animal based consciouness) to nafs Al mutmaena( soul based consciouness). This shift in consciouness can only happen when one decides to internalize truth and completely submit his will to Allah(One/Indivisble Infinite Perfection). you can think of it in Immanuel Kants terms as Trasnscdental apperception shifting from Pheonomena(things as they appear) to Noumena(things as they are in themselves). Kant says theoretical reason cannot establish. noumena, but noumena is the foundation for practical reason. Sufi says one can have glimpses into noumena(metaphysical reality) thru categorical imperative, which sufi defines as complete and utter submission to will of God, Divine will which is revealed in Quran and example of Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). Kant would say noumena is unknowable because we are constrained by forms of intuiton and categories of understanding, but sufi would say you can transcend theoretical reason and actually have some glimpses of God,soul,freedom etc. But this transemddence from phenomena would require shift in consciousness which happens thru purification of Heart.
"The end of history is when the universe becomes conscious of itself." But Niel has always said that we are the way the universe knows itself. No other organism on Earth knows or is aware of the universe like humans. It hasn't ended yet.
Yh but we don’t consider us the universe itself yet. Also you can not look at consciousness, it’s like trying to look at your teeth. Without any kind of reflection to do so. It’s like consciousness/the u inverse has a block that allows us to see directly what it is or that we are it
My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I would like to explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists and it it is strongly related to the topic of this video. In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. People often say that a quantum particle is in many places at the same time but this is just an absurd interpretation since it implies logical contradictions; a non-collapsed wave function describes infinite possibilities and not a particle that occupies infinite positions at the same time. If the properties are indeterminate it means that such properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics) and all attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Since the collapse of the wave function violates the fundamental laws of physics, it can only be associated with an agent that is not described by the Schrodinger equation, and the only event we know of that is irreducible to the Schrodinger equation is consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process; contrary to what many claim, a measuring instrument cannot cause the collapse of the wave function. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
Interesting take. Very similar to what donald hoffman's trying to research atm. To clarify, by God, do you mean the collective of our consciousnesses? Is it only used as a term to describe a non-physical force outside our "physcial" understanding?
"however, the fact that properties are created when a consciousind observes..." Why is this hypothesis so unreasonable? And why does this all not simply converge onto solipcism?
@@andreiiordache265 No, by God I do not mean the "collective of our consciousness" because such expression refers only to a subjective cognitive construct and therefore it does not refer to something that can exist objectively and independently of the human mind. Consciousness is a concept that refers to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience, such as sensastions, emotions, thoughts or even dreams. The fundamental property of consciousness, as we directly experience it, is subjectivity, i.e. the immediate and intuitive awareness of oneself as an indivisible unit, our "I". Consciousness is inherently subjective because a subject is an intrinsic property of experience, and subjectivity cannot be broken down into simpler elements / pieces. So, the term “consciousness” always refers to a subject who has a mental experience. For example, when I feel pain, what exists is not pain alone but “I who feel pain”; the “I” is an intrinsic part of the experience of pain. The same is true for any action: for example, there is no “walking” without a “walking subject”. The idea that a mental experience can exist without an experiencer is simply a nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression “spherical cube”, which is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless expressions and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while being devoid of any meaning. The idea that consciousness can be subjectless or exists as a fundamental impersonal entity, in the sense that it does not imply a unitary subjectivity that has a mental experience, is an illusory idea exactly like the idea of a spherical cube or the idea that there may be a “walking” without a “walking subject”. What distinguishes science from supertitions or philosophical speculations is that science is a combination of rationality and empirical evidence, and the most fundamental and direct empirical evidence is that we are the subject of our mental experiences. The idea that the existence of distinct personal subjects is an illusion is just an irrational and unscientific assumption that contradicts the most fundamental empirical evidence, namely the fact that a person cannot feel the thoughts or sensations of others.
@@marcobiagini1878 thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I’ve always found idealism to be intriguing, and a possible explanation, but I never understood why someone might find it a better explanation than realism. Your explanation provides a lot of insight. One question: 1. Above you describe consciousness, under idealism, is there a scientific explanation of the inner workings of consciousness and how it arises? Or unlike other phenomenon, since it’s fundamental, does it not necessarily operate on the same predictable laws of universe?
@@Paul-tu7hj As I physicist, I understand that current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics. It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
"The soul is undergoing a dream from which it must awake. This dream represents our association and identification with the world. The fact that it is described as being a dream means that whatever is in it has to be false. Nothing in a dream can be true. Waking up from that dream is the ultimate goal, Self-realization." -- The main theme of "Yoga Vasistha"
@@eternalskeptic Replace 'soul' with 'consciousness' if that works better for you, they are pretty much interchangeable in this context. Consciousness/self/ego/soul is the individual, reality is the dream. The ultimate goal as stated above is Self-realization, the capital S is purposeful, distinction between 'self' (the individual) and 'Self' (the collective consciousness of everything, unity, the universe, god, whatever you want to call it). Self-realization being the 'waking up' from reality, coming to the understanding that reality is both a private and shared illusion constructed to help us interact with and understand each other and nature and the Truth is that we are all part of the Self. Not separate entities but individual expressions of the Self. Yogis believe that there are several layers between us and the truth and that there is a way to push through them to attain enlightenment. The physical and mental practices of Yoga are the technique to getting there. Whether any of that is true, frankly, doesn't matter. However, the side effects of the practice are excellent for physical and mental health and philosophical ideas that promote non-violence, cooperation and breaking down the barriers between us.
@@2CoolUnderPressure "For the ajnani (ignorant human being) the standard of reality is the waking state, whereas for the jnani (realized being) the standard of reality is reality itself. This reality of pure consciousness is eternal by its nature and therefore subsists equally during what you call waking, dreaming, and sleep.” -- Ramana Maharshi
Didn't we all have these moments when we thought this got to be a simulation, and every time someone realizes it, the person is shut down as a failsafe, to not disturb the other subjects in the rest of the simulation. But ... somehow we are still here - so either we are allowed to have those ideas or it is not a simulation. Lucky us!
@@QuickSticks8771Correct, in the exact same way you have the physical capabilities of creating a video game and programming exactly what each NPC does as an action and conveys as speech.
When I hear about the simulation theory and people who are really, really into it, I always ask: why? In the end, it doesn’t matter. You’re still living on this planet, called Earth, and it makes no difference whether it’s “real” or a “simulation”-because for you, it feels real, so it is.
@ I don’t personally think so. That’s an arrogant thought, in my opinion, because it implies that we humans are somehow very important to the “simulators.” However, if there really were “simulators” who created this universe, we would be of no significance, as the universe is far too vast for us to matter. If there truly were “simulators,” there would likely be a much greater purpose for creating such a simulation, rather than simply “testing what these little humans can endure in their day-to-day lives.” That makes no sense to me! However, I’d be happy to hear a different opinion on this topic because i think it‘s very interesting to think about😄
@ One perspective is that whole universe is the experiment. I think we are the experiment and the universe is just a backdrop. Space is too vast and dangerous to fully explore, so we won’t discover it isn’t real. We have no evidence of extraterrestrial life because there isn’t any. We’re the goldfish in bowl. Or, I’m just a moron because I don’t have your same opinion. Thanks, Internet.
what Neil expressed is literally how i feel about this question. Like since I cannot tell if im dreaming or in a simulation or not then why would I stress myself out over this question ya now? Same with the question of if we have free will or not. Like this is the only reality ive known and it seems like I do have free will so Im not going to stress out over if thats true or not. Im just gonna live the life I think I have. Im taking the ignorance is bliss approach on this topic i suppose but what else can we do? but also I love the idea of us being some sort of ant farm in a scientists lab or something. That has actually been my best guess and thought that we were made by some scientists in their lab and theyre just observing or something.
Or maybe those running this simulation are also in a simulation from other higher beings. "Reality is not always what you perceive as real, but your perception is a lens through which you view the world" I found this quote online. We could be in simulation within a simulation, or not at all.
in the old video game The Sims, there was an option to release something devastating like a tornado or flood. We definitely are in a simulation like The Sims, and somebody pushed a button to release something terrible... again back in November
Once you become aware you’re in a simulation , it’s not that anyone shuts you off , no one will have the power to do that at that time because you are the one in control of the simulation , it’s the realization Moses had of I AM THAT I AM - you are the supreme self- why you’re all kept from realizing that is because you would not go to work the next day at a job you do not like for a boss you do not like in order to have money that is not even real in the first place - this is a completely transformational experience that is too overwhelming for most because they do not spend the years and years and lifetimes of meditation and yoga to realize this but instead take one hit of LSD and get hit with this realization like a brick , however some are able to completely absorb the experience this way such as a Steve Jobs who was able to completely transform the world after this realization , and yes he also knew and understood very deeply the life of Yogananda and Neem Karoli Baba - when more people realize this the entire world will change drastically because people will realize the world does not have to be the way it is and can literally be a much much better quality of life for the entire planet , and they will also understand they have the power to create this world - 🔮🌎♾️
Doctor Who is the greatest and longest running show in history. I would start with the 2005 reboot. The Doctor is a Timelord - a traveller in time and space. He is a hero who intervenes and tries to be “a good man” but is like a flawed god. He uses his intelligence to defeat opponents rather than weapons and violence (when he can). It’s a wild ride with brilliant story arcs and widely different styles but always tongue in cheek and self-mocking. Definitely something to explore.
The bottom line is, regardless of whether or not this is a simulation, We have to act the same as if it weren't. We have to treat other people with kindness and treat the planet with respect. We must do what we can to make our lives better and the lives of those around us better. We still need to be productive members of society because the rules and physics and emotions of this simulation are real to us within the simulation. So even if your neighbor is not real the perception of his feelings and emotions are real to us and that should be the driving force behind our behavior.
How do we know we're not in a dream? The boundary between reality and illusion has puzzled philosophers, scientists, and seekers of cosmic consciousness for centuries. Dreams feel real until we awaken, just as our perceived reality might be a veil over a deeper truth. From a cosmic perspective, the question invites us to explore the nature of awareness itself. Are we simply biological entities interpreting sensory inputs, or are we expressions of a universal consciousness experiencing itself in myriad forms? If reality is but a projection of the mind, shaped by quantum potentials and the interplay of energy, then distinguishing 'dream' from 'reality' might be less about absolutes and more about the degree of lucidity we bring to our experiences. Perhaps the true answer lies in embracing the mystery. Whether this life is a dream or a waking reality, what matters is the clarity with which we engage it the connections we form, the lessons we learn, and the meaning we create. In the end, the journey of questioning might be the most 'real' thing of all.
Our spirit lives forever if anything exists at all we exist forever. I feel like our spirit is being fed information that is what gives us the perception of our reality.
For some reason, this discussion reminded me of George Berkeley's philosophy. Which I always found interesting, for, as an old professor of mine used to say, it's just IMPOSSIBLE to confute... 😅 Of course one can reject it, as Descartes did (IMHO, "misinterpreting" Berkeley's ideas), but not "prove it wrong". 🙂
It’s weird to me I’ve been thinking these thoughts for over a decade and a half if not longer and it’s like they seem to have started thinking about it being a reality for the first time.
How do I know this is a simulation? When you go to put on your right glove, you grab your left glove. When you go to put on your left glove, you grab the right one. It happens waaaay too often to not be the algorithm messing with me. 😒
There is a paradox involved in a perfect simulation of the universe: one creates a simulation in order to learn something about a system. But if one knows how to create a perfect simulation of a system, one already knows everything about that system. So, there is no use for the simulation. Certainly it would be enormously expensive to run such a simulation were it possible to do so, therefore it should not be a child's toy. I think the answer is: some people think they are so damn interesting, that a super being would want to simulate them ( e.g., post-modern philosophers ).
Where do u took from the "perfect" part? How u know that? It needs to be a perfect simulation? The "Original" "reality" is perfect because it created a "perfect simulation"? Know how to reproduce something perfectly means that where the creator of this came from is perfect? So many questions and u are assuming a lot.
i have had some lusid dreams and how i check that its dream or not is that i touch someting that i havent touched before and in dream i can feed the presure of toutch but not the texture as subconscious mind cannot recreate someting i have no knowledge of... wouldnt that work in simulations too as seeing and toutching someting unkown would cause the feelind of dissonance like in dreams?
We don't. But it's better to take what is at hand as though it is real because you can waste the rest of your life spinning possibilities in your mind or you can enjoy the here and now.
The simulation theory is gathering speed. There is freewill within the simulation. The universe was ever conscious. The freewill is narrowing down. The universe can and will function without human beings.
For the simulation to be somebody, a subject, has to do it, for if the Universe simulates itself, then there is no simulation. Simulation also means that something is imitated, if it is not, then it is not a simulation but a creative process.
If the universe is "someone", then, it can create a simulation of itself. Like us humans creating AI and robots. And yes, to simulate something it requests a original "piece" to by "copied". So?
How do I tell if I’m lucid dreaming or not? I turn on a lamp. If the bulb illuminates the room like normal, I’m awake. If the bulb’s filament glows but produces no light, it’s a dream.
Boolean algebra operating on bits does not occur in nature. They fail to point out it would take a digital computer larger than the universe to simulate the universe. Impossible, in other words.
We overrate the world of elements, matter, and substance. We struggle to define objective reality because we like the comfort of identifying patterns and repeatability. In fact, it is our experiences-individual and shared-which “matter” most. Our ability to perceive, (re)frame, and reconsider what we experience is nearly infinite-e.g., religion, philosophy. It’s not so important that we are objectively correct in our agreements on a shared reality as that we are free to choose how we experience this “reality.” To Neil's point, this makes the question of simulation vs. reality moot (unless you choose to find meaning in it). The true power lies with the observer not the observed. Put simply, it’s more important to understand how you look at things than to understand the things you’re looking at.
Reality is highly subjective and my theory is that there is something that connects our realities but whats real for me is not necessary whats real for you.
My lucid dreams are different from the norm though. When I lucid dream, the events, imagery, etc seems as real as the waking world when I'm awake. However, unlike typical lucid dreamers, I am never able to recognize that I'm dreaming and then "control the dream;" instead, my brain panics and I'm overcome with a feeling of anxiety, as in the dream I now can't be sure whether I'm dreaming or not. What I mean is, the _events_ of the dream will sometimes be radical (like I once dreamt I was on the roof of a small, 10' x 10'x skyscraper amidst other tall buildings, and no way to get down), but since they *_feel real,_* my thinking goes something like, _"this is totally bizarre and could be a dream, but I can't be SURE, can I?"_ So typically, I'll err on the side of caution in these lucid dreams and *_assume_* it's NOT a dream. For example, I once lucid dreamt that I woke up on the side of a road with no houses in either direction; just trees. I surmised that I may have been abducted, robbed, and then just left on the side of the road. I didn't recognize the location so I didn't know which way to go. I remember thinking, _"If this IS a dream, then it doesn't matter... but if it's NOT, I need to find a house soon so I can make a phone call and find out where I am."_ But of the lucid dreams I've had, I've never been CERTAIN I was dreaming. Some lucid dreams were so indistinguishable from reality that I sometimes woke up questioning whether I was still dreaming...
Yeah me too. And when It seems to be real, I quickly figure out it's a dream. But I get It when people say dreams are indistinguishable from reality, because there are moments in the dreams in which the realization of being on a different realm is not present.
What's next, someone makes a movie about a dreaming plasma creature living inside of a star, and then everyone starts asking if we are really just dreaming plasma????????????
If we are just part of a computer simulation what is the reality of the beings who built that computer. Maybe they’re just a simulation that is so advanced they simulated us, or maybe there are many layers of simulation’s ahead of their simulation.
At that point it all falls apart, its either everythign is just simulation in simulation in s8imulation, or one is real, and that can just as well be us then.
The argument of consciousness vs dreams vs scientific reality will always end in "I don't know, but it'd be cool if..." Until we know what's what. As a 4th dimensional being trapped in 3rd dimensional body, I'm limited in my capabilities of understanding such conceptually complex ideas.
And you can still apply the "but someone coudl have created the creator" argument to that as well. So may as well just think there is no creator nor is there a simulation we live in.
There should be a law that says if you create the sentient computer programs you have to program a eternal heaven for them to go to whenever they "die".
The counterargument would be, making a simulation infinitely vast means it is virtually impossible to gather any detailed information from it. Billions of galaxies with billions of solar systems... Maybe we're not even relevant it that simulation? Maybe the simulation is only about finding the answer to, what happens to the Universe in the end? :)
Impossible? How do u know that? We can have computers waaay better than, for example, the quantic computers that we are trying to achieve (that is way faster and potent than the "normal ones"). U are assuming too much.
@@selim6033 I am also assuming quantum computing is a dead end. I am also assuming the reoccurrence of paradoxes in science is evidence we don't understand science as well as we think. Funny how opinions work. :) I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
@@TheRealDuckofDeath Why is it a dead end? Why the paradoxes will reoccur? Why we will not be able to understand science better in the future (as well to understand the paradoxes)?
1:53-1:55---that's a real, literal, multiversal reality. As is time! I've alaways been me, but 5 year old me was very different person, and 80 year old me will likely be a crochety jerk...I hate him...
My personal answer to this question is: We don't, and what difference would it make if we were? This is the only reality we can know, we might as well treat it as if it's real and that our actions have consequences.
"For all we know, we are nothing but the dream of an amoeba in the bloodstream of a flea." My 8th grade science teacher, Mrs. Pascal (not kidding), in 1963.
A flee wouldn't have enough processing power to simulate billions of human brains.
That’s the craziest, amazing conversation I’ve heard today 😅✌️📚
"Become conscious of being conscious. Say or think "I am " and add nothing to it. Be aware of the stillness that follows the "I am".Sense your presence, the naked, unveiled, unclothed beingness. It is untouched by young or old, rich or poor, good or bad or any other attributes." - Sri Ramana Maharshi
I think the best way to understand mysticism is thru degrees of consciouness. Quran talks about shift of consciouness from nafs Al amara( animal based consciouness) to nafs Al mutmaena( soul based consciouness). This shift in consciouness can only happen when one decides to internalize truth and completely submit his will to Allah(One/Indivisble Infinite Perfection). you can think of it in Immanuel Kants terms as Trasnscdental apperception shifting from Pheonomena(things as they appear) to Noumena(things as they are in themselves). Kant says theoretical reason cannot establish. noumena, but noumena is the foundation for practical reason. Sufi says one can have glimpses into noumena(metaphysical reality) thru categorical imperative, which sufi defines as complete and utter submission to will of God, Divine will which is revealed in Quran and example of Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). Kant would say noumena is unknowable because we are constrained by forms of intuiton and categories of understanding, but sufi would say you can transcend theoretical reason and actually have some glimpses of God,soul,freedom etc. But this transemddence from phenomena would require shift in consciousness which happens thru purification of Heart.
"The end of history is when the universe becomes conscious of itself."
But Niel has always said that we are the way the universe knows itself. No other organism on Earth knows or is aware of the universe like humans. It hasn't ended yet.
Yh but we don’t consider us the universe itself yet. Also you can not look at consciousness, it’s like trying to look at your teeth. Without any kind of reflection to do so. It’s like consciousness/the u inverse has a block that allows us to see directly what it is or that we are it
Get ready
The universe created humans that split atoms for fun. We're doomed 😂
We are aware of the universe like a crab is aware of the ocean
My name is Marco Biagini and I am a physicist; I would like to explain the “observation” problem in quantum mechanics because it is often misunderstood even by many physicists and it it is strongly related to the topic of this video.
In quantum mechanics the state of a physical system is described by the wave function and does not have defined values for all the physical quantities measurable on it; on the other hand, only the probability distributions relating to the measurable values for these quantities are defined. Once the measurement has been carried out, the system will have a defined value in relation to the measured quantity, and this involves a radical modification of its wave function; in fact the wave function generally describes infinite possibilities while for an event to take place, it is necessary that the wave function assigns a probability of 100% to a single possibility and 0% probability to all the others. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The transition between a state that describes many possibilities to a state that describes only one possibility is called “collapse of the wave function”. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The open problem in quantum physics is that the cause of the transition between the indeterminate state and the determined state, cannot be traced back to any physical interaction, because all known physical interactions are already included in the Schrödinger's equation; in fact, the collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger's equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger's equation.
After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities.
This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.
Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a collection of events isolated in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is no continuity between events.
In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; for example, there can be no triangle with indeterminate sides and no circle with indeterminate radius. People often say that a quantum particle is in many places at the same time but this is just an absurd interpretation since it implies logical contradictions; a non-collapsed wave function describes infinite possibilities and not a particle that occupies infinite positions at the same time.
If the properties are indeterminate it means that such properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist; actually photons, electrons and quantum particles in general are just the name we give to some mathematical equations. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event.
Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics) and all attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Since the collapse of the wave function violates the fundamental laws of physics, it can only be associated with an agent that is not described by the Schrodinger equation, and the only event we know of that is irreducible to the Schrodinger equation is consciousness. Therefore, events can only exist when consciousness is involved in the process; contrary to what many claim, a measuring instrument cannot cause the collapse of the wave function.
However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the existence of an event (associated to the collapse of the wave function =violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link.
No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience) ; the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of God's act of creation in our mind of the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. The fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics is that reality is not described as a continuum of events but as isolated events, and this is in perfect agreement with the idealistic view which presupposes that what we call "universe" is only the set of our sensory perceptions and that the idea that an external physical reality exists independently of the mind is only the product of our imagination; in other words, the universe is like a collective dream created by God in our mind. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.
Interesting take. Very similar to what donald hoffman's trying to research atm. To clarify, by God, do you mean the collective of our consciousnesses? Is it only used as a term to describe a non-physical force outside our "physcial" understanding?
"however, the fact that properties are created when a consciousind observes..."
Why is this hypothesis so unreasonable? And why does this all not simply converge onto solipcism?
@@andreiiordache265 No, by God I do not mean the "collective of our consciousness" because such expression refers only to a subjective cognitive construct and therefore it does not refer to something that can exist objectively and independently of the human mind. Consciousness is a concept that refers to the property of being conscious= having a mental experience, such as sensastions, emotions, thoughts or even dreams. The fundamental property of consciousness, as we directly experience it, is subjectivity, i.e. the immediate and intuitive awareness of oneself as an indivisible unit, our "I". Consciousness is inherently subjective because a subject is an intrinsic property of experience, and subjectivity cannot be broken down into simpler elements / pieces. So, the term “consciousness” always refers to a subject who has a mental experience. For example, when I feel pain, what exists is not pain alone but “I who feel pain”; the “I” is an intrinsic part of the experience of pain. The same is true for any action: for example, there is no “walking” without a “walking subject”. The idea that a mental experience can exist without an experiencer is simply a nonsensical expression, exactly as the expression “spherical cube”, which is an expression formed by juxtaposing two words whose meaning is mutually exclusive, thus leading to an intrinsic logical contradiction. Language allows us to form meaningless expressions and this can create illusory definitions; these expressions may create the illusion of a meaning, while being devoid of any meaning. The idea that consciousness can be subjectless or exists as a fundamental impersonal entity, in the sense that it does not imply a unitary subjectivity that has a mental experience, is an illusory idea exactly like the idea of a spherical cube or the idea that there may be a “walking” without a “walking subject”. What distinguishes science from supertitions or philosophical speculations is that science is a combination of rationality and empirical evidence, and the most fundamental and direct empirical evidence is that we are the subject of our mental experiences. The idea that the existence of distinct personal subjects is an illusion is just an irrational and unscientific assumption that contradicts the most fundamental empirical evidence, namely the fact that a person cannot feel the thoughts or sensations of others.
@@marcobiagini1878 thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I’ve always found idealism to be intriguing, and a possible explanation, but I never understood why someone might find it a better explanation than realism. Your explanation provides a lot of insight.
One question:
1. Above you describe consciousness, under idealism, is there a scientific explanation of the inner workings of consciousness and how it arises? Or unlike other phenomenon, since it’s fundamental, does it not necessarily operate on the same predictable laws of universe?
@@Paul-tu7hj As I physicist, I understand that current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).
Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds.
Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Clarifications
The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.
Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
Conclusions
My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.
Why am I just now seeing Star Talk Plus channel exists. The simulation must have guided me here.
Dr. Tyson is the Oracle. Without the homemade cookies.
Did you follow the white rabbit?
"The soul is undergoing a dream from which it must awake. This dream represents our association and identification with the world. The fact that it is described as being a dream means that whatever is in it has to be false. Nothing in a dream can be true. Waking up from that dream is the ultimate goal, Self-realization." -- The main theme of "Yoga Vasistha"
What's a soul? Got evidence for it? 🤔
@@eternalskeptic Beat me to it!
@@eternalskeptic Replace 'soul' with 'consciousness' if that works better for you, they are pretty much interchangeable in this context. Consciousness/self/ego/soul is the individual, reality is the dream. The ultimate goal as stated above is Self-realization, the capital S is purposeful, distinction between 'self' (the individual) and 'Self' (the collective consciousness of everything, unity, the universe, god, whatever you want to call it). Self-realization being the 'waking up' from reality, coming to the understanding that reality is both a private and shared illusion constructed to help us interact with and understand each other and nature and the Truth is that we are all part of the Self. Not separate entities but individual expressions of the Self. Yogis believe that there are several layers between us and the truth and that there is a way to push through them to attain enlightenment. The physical and mental practices of Yoga are the technique to getting there. Whether any of that is true, frankly, doesn't matter. However, the side effects of the practice are excellent for physical and mental health and philosophical ideas that promote non-violence, cooperation and breaking down the barriers between us.
The soul doesnt dream your mind dreams while its in the rem cycle
@@2CoolUnderPressure "For the ajnani (ignorant human being) the standard of reality is the waking state, whereas for the jnani (realized being) the standard of reality is reality itself. This reality of pure consciousness is eternal by its nature and therefore subsists equally during what you call waking, dreaming, and sleep.” -- Ramana Maharshi
Just stu.bled on this channel within a channel today, keep up the good job, from Malawi 🇲🇼
5:45 I thought the gent third from the right was becoming aware and shut down before the others with that fade transition.
For a second there I had the same thought
1:46 that was raised in the Matrix. Joey Pants knows it isn’t a real steak, but it sure tastes like a wagyu. “Ignorance is bliss”
Well, the ending kinda freaked me out.. never thought about that before 😂
Didn't we all have these moments when we thought this got to be a simulation, and every time someone realizes it, the person is shut down as a failsafe, to not disturb the other subjects in the rest of the simulation. But ... somehow we are still here - so either we are allowed to have those ideas or it is not a simulation. Lucky us!
Or they know we are scared beings who remain wilfully ignorant 😂
There is no them
One consciousness appearing as many
The illusion of time and space is an experience of all that is pretending it’s not all that is 🤯
@@QuickSticks8771 You can be programmed to believe exactly that thing, in a matrix. I do hope you're intelligent enough to realize that.
@@justinmann9440 according to that logic my intelligence and the realization of anything is whatever “they” choose to program right ?
@@QuickSticks8771Correct, in the exact same way you have the physical capabilities of creating a video game and programming exactly what each NPC does as an action and conveys as speech.
You can doubt the world, you can doubt the body and you can doubt the mind.
You cannot doubt the witness of all of these. Awareness is fundamental.
When I hear about the simulation theory and people who are really, really into it, I always ask: why? In the end, it doesn’t matter. You’re still living on this planet, called Earth, and it makes no difference whether it’s “real” or a “simulation”-because for you, it feels real, so it is.
I get your point. We wouldn't know either way I suppose. Whatta a mind job.
I think the algorithm is constantly messing with us to see how much we can withstand.
@ I don’t personally think so. That’s an arrogant thought, in my opinion, because it implies that we humans are somehow very important to the “simulators.” However, if there really were “simulators” who created this universe, we would be of no significance, as the universe is far too vast for us to matter. If there truly were “simulators,” there would likely be a much greater purpose for creating such a simulation, rather than simply “testing what these little humans can endure in their day-to-day lives.” That makes no sense to me! However, I’d be happy to hear a different opinion on this topic because i think it‘s very interesting to think about😄
@ One perspective is that whole universe is the experiment. I think we are the experiment and the universe is just a backdrop. Space is too vast and dangerous to fully explore, so we won’t discover it isn’t real. We have no evidence of extraterrestrial life because there isn’t any. We’re the goldfish in bowl. Or, I’m just a moron because I don’t have your same opinion. Thanks, Internet.
what Neil expressed is literally how i feel about this question. Like since I cannot tell if im dreaming or in a simulation or not then why would I stress myself out over this question ya now? Same with the question of if we have free will or not. Like this is the only reality ive known and it seems like I do have free will so Im not going to stress out over if thats true or not. Im just gonna live the life I think I have. Im taking the ignorance is bliss approach on this topic i suppose but what else can we do? but also I love the idea of us being some sort of ant farm in a scientists lab or something. That has actually been my best guess and thought that we were made by some scientists in their lab and theyre just observing or something.
Or maybe those running this simulation are also in a simulation from other higher beings.
"Reality is not always what you perceive as real, but your perception is a lens through which you view the world"
I found this quote online.
We could be in simulation within a simulation, or not at all.
It"s fantasy; In the end you only get one reality to experience, it's yours because no one else can experience it fully like you do.
Given what happened AGAIN back in November, I’m now desperately hoping that this IS a simulation
in the old video game The Sims, there was an option to release something devastating like a tornado or flood.
We definitely are in a simulation like The Sims, and somebody pushed a button to release something terrible... again back in November
@ yup, and last time this game was played, I wasn’t a fan of the beginning… or middle… or how it ended
Red pill or blue pill dude…
@@hangry265 Blue pill!
Yeah some incel hacked the system.
"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream." Edgar Allen Poe
Once you become aware you’re in a simulation , it’s not that anyone shuts you off , no one will have the power to do that at that time because you are the one in control of the simulation , it’s the realization Moses had of I AM THAT I AM - you are the supreme self- why you’re all kept from realizing that is because you would not go to work the next day at a job you do not like for a boss you do not like in order to have money that is not even real in the first place - this is a completely transformational experience that is too overwhelming for most because they do not spend the years and years and lifetimes of meditation and yoga to realize this but instead take one hit of LSD and get hit with this realization like a brick , however some are able to completely absorb the experience this way such as a Steve Jobs who was able to completely transform the world after this realization , and yes he also knew and understood very deeply the life of Yogananda and Neem Karoli Baba - when more people realize this the entire world will change drastically because people will realize the world does not have to be the way it is and can literally be a much much better quality of life for the entire planet , and they will also understand they have the power to create this world - 🔮🌎♾️
He almost punch neil 😂
Almost took his eye out lmao
Neil is not digging the hand movements that's for sure
We don't know what is matter
And we questions how matter produces consciousness
I know i'm not in a dream because if it is it keeps feeding me vid's about how we are not in a dream
Not a single glitch throughout my entire life!
Neil your were fantastic last Thursday in Worcester!
Dr. Nice was so on the same page and profound with this conversation.
There is a mischievous being dreaming this up
YOU!!
If you’re curious about the simulation or you’re convinced it’s a simulation and are looking for an exit route. Start studying the life of Yogananda.
Thats a nice debate!
Love the Black Hole lunch box on the shelf. Excellent movie.
Doctor Who is the greatest and longest running show in history. I would start with the 2005 reboot. The Doctor is a Timelord - a traveller in time and space. He is a hero who intervenes and tries to be “a good man” but is like a flawed god. He uses his intelligence to defeat opponents rather than weapons and violence (when he can). It’s a wild ride with brilliant story arcs and widely different styles but always tongue in cheek and self-mocking. Definitely something to explore.
The bottom line is, regardless of whether or not this is a simulation, We have to act the same as if it weren't. We have to treat other people with kindness and treat the planet with respect. We must do what we can to make our lives better and the lives of those around us better. We still need to be productive members of society because the rules and physics and emotions of this simulation are real to us within the simulation. So even if your neighbor is not real the perception of his feelings and emotions are real to us and that should be the driving force behind our behavior.
How do we know we're not in a dream? The boundary between reality and illusion has puzzled philosophers, scientists, and seekers of cosmic consciousness for centuries. Dreams feel real until we awaken, just as our perceived reality might be a veil over a deeper truth.
From a cosmic perspective, the question invites us to explore the nature of awareness itself. Are we simply biological entities interpreting sensory inputs, or are we expressions of a universal consciousness experiencing itself in myriad forms? If reality is but a projection of the mind, shaped by quantum potentials and the interplay of energy, then distinguishing 'dream' from 'reality' might be less about absolutes and more about the degree of lucidity we bring to our experiences.
Perhaps the true answer lies in embracing the mystery. Whether this life is a dream or a waking reality, what matters is the clarity with which we engage it the connections we form, the lessons we learn, and the meaning we create. In the end, the journey of questioning might be the most 'real' thing of all.
Our spirit lives forever if anything exists at all we exist forever. I feel like our spirit is being fed information that is what gives us the perception of our reality.
Didn't I watch this already?
Must be a loop in the matrix
Yes
This is just a clip from the longer podcast.
lol
Déjà vu? They must've updated something near you
Hilarious to see NDT and Chuck in real time understand what Chalmers has literally already written a whole book about.
For some reason, this discussion reminded me of George Berkeley's philosophy. Which I always found interesting, for, as an old professor of mine used to say, it's just IMPOSSIBLE to confute... 😅
Of course one can reject it, as Descartes did (IMHO, "misinterpreting" Berkeley's ideas), but not "prove it wrong". 🙂
It’s weird to me I’ve been thinking these thoughts for over a decade and a half if not longer and it’s like they seem to have started thinking about it being a reality for the first time.
How do I know this is a simulation? When you go to put on your right glove, you grab your left glove. When you go to put on your left glove, you grab the right one. It happens waaaay too often to not be the algorithm messing with me. 😒
There is a paradox involved in a perfect simulation of the universe: one creates a simulation in order to learn something about a system. But if one knows how to create a perfect simulation of a system, one already knows everything about that system. So, there is no use for the simulation. Certainly it would be enormously expensive to run such a simulation were it possible to do so, therefore it should not be a child's toy. I think the answer is: some people think they are so damn interesting, that a super being would want to simulate them ( e.g., post-modern philosophers ).
Where do u took from the "perfect" part? How u know that? It needs to be a perfect simulation? The "Original" "reality" is perfect because it created a "perfect simulation"? Know how to reproduce something perfectly means that where the creator of this came from is perfect? So many questions and u are assuming a lot.
But how do you explain the time outside of this? Supposedly whatever's "outside" is also outside of (our familiar) time and space.
i have had some lusid dreams and how i check that its dream or not is that i touch someting that i havent touched before and in dream i can feed the presure of toutch but not the texture as subconscious mind cannot recreate someting i have no knowledge of...
wouldnt that work in simulations too as seeing and toutching someting unkown would cause the feelind of dissonance like in dreams?
Still love me some chalmers!
Always go with the simplest argument. A simulation is far more complex than our reality .
What? This is a dumb opinion.
I shoud have dosed before watching this!
He gives some VERY heavy questions. If we're in a dream, this'll change life as we know things.
They should read "Finding Rest in Illusion" by Longchen Rabjam. 😅
We don't. But it's better to take what is at hand as though it is real because you can waste the rest of your life spinning possibilities in your mind or you can enjoy the here and now.
The closest movie to this discussion would be Floor 13, not The Matrix (HUGE fan of the Matrix though!)
Up is down if you’re upside down
5:9 described God 👽 great video.
description matches with Brahma from hinduism
The simulation theory is gathering speed. There is freewill within the simulation. The universe was ever conscious. The freewill is narrowing down. The universe can and will function without human beings.
Neil is hilarious, telling the philosophers "let me pull some philosophy on you". Ha ha ROFL😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
For the simulation to be somebody, a subject, has to do it, for if the Universe simulates itself, then there is no simulation.
Simulation also means that something is imitated, if it is not, then it is not a simulation but a creative process.
If the universe is "someone", then, it can create a simulation of itself. Like us humans creating AI and robots. And yes, to simulate something it requests a original "piece" to by "copied". So?
How do I tell if I’m lucid dreaming or not? I turn on a lamp. If the bulb illuminates the room like normal, I’m awake. If the bulb’s filament glows but produces no light, it’s a dream.
Boolean algebra operating on bits does not occur in nature. They fail to point out it would take a digital computer larger than the universe to simulate the universe. Impossible, in other words.
It’s only impossible if you assume that nothing can be larger than the universe.
We overrate the world of elements, matter, and substance. We struggle to define objective reality because we like the comfort of identifying patterns and repeatability. In fact, it is our experiences-individual and shared-which “matter” most. Our ability to perceive, (re)frame, and reconsider what we experience is nearly infinite-e.g., religion, philosophy. It’s not so important that we are objectively correct in our agreements on a shared reality as that we are free to choose how we experience this “reality.” To Neil's point, this makes the question of simulation vs. reality moot (unless you choose to find meaning in it). The true power lies with the observer not the observed. Put simply, it’s more important to understand how you look at things than to understand the things you’re looking at.
This is fun
"Comparison(Real or Fake) is the thief of joy."
Reality is highly subjective and my theory is that there is something that connects our realities but whats real for me is not necessary whats real for you.
Unless you practice lucid dreaming you actually never know if you're in a dream or awake. You just assume you're awake all the time
My lucid dreams are different from the norm though. When I lucid dream, the events, imagery, etc seems as real as the waking world when I'm awake. However, unlike typical lucid dreamers, I am never able to recognize that I'm dreaming and then "control the dream;" instead, my brain panics and I'm overcome with a feeling of anxiety, as in the dream I now can't be sure whether I'm dreaming or not. What I mean is, the _events_ of the dream will sometimes be radical (like I once dreamt I was on the roof of a small, 10' x 10'x skyscraper amidst other tall buildings, and no way to get down), but since they *_feel real,_* my thinking goes something like, _"this is totally bizarre and could be a dream, but I can't be SURE, can I?"_ So typically, I'll err on the side of caution in these lucid dreams and *_assume_* it's NOT a dream.
For example, I once lucid dreamt that I woke up on the side of a road with no houses in either direction; just trees. I surmised that I may have been abducted, robbed, and then just left on the side of the road. I didn't recognize the location so I didn't know which way to go. I remember thinking, _"If this IS a dream, then it doesn't matter... but if it's NOT, I need to find a house soon so I can make a phone call and find out where I am."_
But of the lucid dreams I've had, I've never been CERTAIN I was dreaming. Some lucid dreams were so indistinguishable from reality that I sometimes woke up questioning whether I was still dreaming...
I usually know when I am dreaming
Yeah me too. And when It seems to be real, I quickly figure out it's a dream. But I get It when people say dreams are indistinguishable from reality, because there are moments in the dreams in which the realization of being on a different realm is not present.
I can always tell, since childhood.
I tought for a second that this was David Icke. That would had been interesting...
wouldnt the code just have a simple failsafe to not allow its users to question reality?
Why?
I randomly yell "Tech Support!" when no one's looking.
I appreciated this. There a good replacement for asking God. Nice one. And the reference is top tier.
@@Ray-dl5mp I was wondering how many people would understand the reference. I'm happy to have one.
Matrix is based on Platos cave: The shadows in the cave. Perspective. The more you know or have information it changes your perspective etc.
What's next, someone makes a movie about a dreaming plasma creature living inside of a star, and then everyone starts asking if we are really just dreaming plasma????????????
I have achieved Quantum Consciousness
Your my science project
My name is Giovanni Georgio, but everyone calls me............................Georgio!
"What, me worry?"
If we are just part of a computer simulation what is the reality of the beings who built that computer. Maybe they’re just a simulation that is so advanced they simulated us, or maybe there are many layers of simulation’s ahead of their simulation.
At that point it all falls apart, its either everythign is just simulation in simulation in s8imulation, or one is real, and that can just as well be us then.
1:22 putting math onto everything is no different than. Putting language on everything. The difference it makes is in truth and actuality.
if it is, we will never know
Bro on the right is having a moment
The word "consciousness" is banned around Chalmers dinner table
As a child i used to think we were a child's science experiment
The argument of consciousness vs dreams vs scientific reality will always end in "I don't know, but it'd be cool if..." Until we know what's what. As a 4th dimensional being trapped in 3rd dimensional body, I'm limited in my capabilities of understanding such conceptually complex ideas.
Neil looks like he just woke up
These guys should see Pantheon
The Dream is over what can I say. - John Lennon
Simulation theory just moves the “someone created everything” blame somewhere else
And you can still apply the "but someone coudl have created the creator" argument to that as well. So may as well just think there is no creator nor is there a simulation we live in.
Damn those who simulated the beans (scandal seed) and the pot with which they can cook for the whole army!😂
There should be a law that says if you create the sentient computer programs you have to program a eternal heaven for them to go to whenever they "die".
How do we know our reality isn't just a looped playback of a quantum tape
Simulation theory just kicks the existential can down the road and is ultimately unsatisfying on many levels.
The only way out is in.
blud high af
The counterargument would be, making a simulation infinitely vast means it is virtually impossible to gather any detailed information from it. Billions of galaxies with billions of solar systems... Maybe we're not even relevant it that simulation? Maybe the simulation is only about finding the answer to, what happens to the Universe in the end? :)
Impossible? How do u know that? We can have computers waaay better than, for example, the quantic computers that we are trying to achieve (that is way faster and potent than the "normal ones"). U are assuming too much.
@@selim6033 I am also assuming quantum computing is a dead end. I am also assuming the reoccurrence of paradoxes in science is evidence we don't understand science as well as we think. Funny how opinions work. :)
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
@@TheRealDuckofDeath Why is it a dead end? Why the paradoxes will reoccur? Why we will not be able to understand science better in the future (as well to understand the paradoxes)?
@@selim6033 Enjoy your argument with yourself. It is pretty clear you don't need me around to stay triggered.
If this is a simulation we need better devs
Haha I spoke to chuck nice about this LMAO
If this is true, wouldn’t we all be bits, too? How would we know?
Who created, runs and maintains the matrix?
1:53-1:55---that's a real, literal, multiversal reality. As is time! I've alaways been me, but 5 year old me was very different person, and 80 year old me will likely be a crochety jerk...I hate him...
In matrix you would not be thinking what is real and what's not.
So they basically talking about "Mukti" or "Moksha".
Reality has properties of a hologram, not a simulation. The projection is self induced.
What a dangerous way to valued Reality 😂
My personal answer to this question is: We don't, and what difference would it make if we were? This is the only reality we can know, we might as well treat it as if it's real and that our actions have consequences.
If we know that, it can help us understand things, learn things, create things and go beyond our current capacity to inovate, survive, etc.
I was kinda hopeful that this is a bad dream or alternative reality. I' just waiting for someone to wake me or blow a fuse.
I need a "do over".
The "are we in a simulation theory," reminds me a lot of Gnosticism
The world is finally asking themselves philosophy 101 questions, again.