2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Watch the 2020 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate on Alien Life: • 2020 Isaac Asimov Memo...
What may have started as a science fiction speculation-that perhaps the universe as we know it is a computer simulation-has become a serious line of theoretical and experimental investigation among physicists, astrophysicists, and philosophers.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium, hosts and moderates a panel of experts in a lively discussion about the merits and shortcomings of this provocative and revolutionary idea. The 17th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate took place at The American Museum of Natural History on April 5, 2016.
#IsaacAsimov #debates #simulations #universe
2016 Asimov Panelists:
David Chalmers
Professor of philosophy, New York University
Zohreh Davoudi
Theoretical physicist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
James Gates
Theoretical physicist, University of Maryland
Lisa Randall
Theoretical physicist, Harvard University
Max Tegmark
Cosmologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The late Dr. Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific and influential authors of our time, was a dear friend and supporter of the American Museum of Natural History. In his memory, the Hayden Planetarium is honored to host the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate - generously endowed by relatives, friends, and admirers of Isaac Asimov and his work - bringing the finest minds in the world to the Museum each year to debate pressing questions on the frontier of scientific discovery. Proceeds from ticket sales of the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debates benefit the scientific and educational programs of the Hayden Planetarium.
2017 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: De-Extinction
• 2017 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?
• 2016 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2015 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Water, Water
• 2015 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Selling Space
• 2014 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
• 2013 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2012 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Faster Than the Speed of Light
• 2012 Isaac Asimov Memo...
2011 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Theory of Everything
• 2011 Isaac Asimov Memo...
Rose Center Anniversary Isaac Asimov Debate: Is Earth Unique?
• Rose Center Anniversar...
***
Subscribe to our channel:
/ subscription_c. .
Check out our full video catalog:
/ amnhorg
Facebook: naturalhistory
Twitter: / amnh
Tumblr: / amnhnyc
Instagram: / amnh
This video and all media incorporated herein (including text, images, and audio) are the property of the American Museum of Natural History or its licensors, all rights reserved. The Museum has made this video available for your personal, educational use. You may not use this video, or any part of it, for commercial purposes, nor may you reproduce, distribute, publish, prepare derivative works from, or publicly display it without the prior written consent of the Museum.
© American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY - Наука та технологія
It's so nice to see grown adults talking and debating in a mature environment and not talking over each other or yelling to try and make either point.
Science mentality does that
@@PaulJackino What?
Emotional maturity and self control are the factors.
Studying science doesn't mean you have self discipline and self control and respect for the ability to communicate effectively.
Very rare in todays world
@@dannac_8888 To be a good scientist you have to be humble in a way, because you have t o be open to change your mind at all times, as soon as evidence comes along. If you cant do that, you are not a scientist. And for that you need a certain degree of humility.
Nah uh no it’s not
I cant handle the fact that guy is almost wearing Morpheus glasses lol
no.
morpheus wears that black guy glasses.
he is the inspiration to samuel jackson as a human being.
Those glasses existed before Morpheus.
Anyone else wonder if those two with glasses are high
that shit is absolutely on purpose.
Let me tell you why you're
You're here because you know something
Every year I come back and watch this, taking away new thoughts and ideas that keep me utterly occupied, and confused. Brilliant. I hope that this topic can be revisited with light of the AI progress in 2023, as the infinite information section of this video could be explored more with AI and the compilation of its data.
This is my first time hearing of it. I'm binging on knowledge tonight, baby.
I'm only 2 minutes in, but it strikes me as notable that Neil deGrasse Tyson passes such personal judgement on the topic while introducing it. Gives me all the more reason to consider the possibilities discussed here.
The problem with the simulation theory is that there is no difference because a real simulation and real reality because they both would have macro properties that emerge from micro properties. Kinda how if u were the the cell inside the body how do you know the body emerges from you and other cells. Photons collapse with our observation but also photons have no masses so how can it be interactive
Anything "Neil DeGrasse Tyson" weighs in on in a supportive sense makes my butthole pucker.
Exactly!
what is wrong with you people? someone who knows more than you passes personal judgment on a conspiracy theory and that makes you believe it more? how does that make sense to you?
He's not just pushing personal views he spews inaccurate information. 9/11 wasn't a natural disaster... I will just discount everything he says and avoid him in future. Heaven knows how he got where he is...
7:35 The Oracle
9:25 Neo
11:40 Morpheus
13:30 Twin
16:04 The Architect
+Kevin Kostyk - that's awesome!! Although I would make one minor change: Davoudi should be Trinity instead of the Oracle, and Tyson should be the Oracle. But still an awesome observation by you.
Yes!
At 46:40 your statement confirmed.
More like Bill and Ted
The Architect is actually in another video🤣 I'll post it later if I can find it but the resemblance is jaw dropping
could have used a computer scientist on the panel as well
Thats what I was thinking... they even talked a little about programming and code, having someone who knows about complex computational algorithms would have made this a lot more interesting.
Tyler Yesssss that really would have helped.
good idea! I think one answer may lie in computational complexity. Natural systems tend towards a state that is so complex, it is as easy to duplicate the system as it is to model it. Thus, any simulation would be almost as complex as the real thing.
dude, that people are called gamers, not scientists. :)
But none of them really think like a game designer. Most high end games these days are simulations. There are games that are pushing the limits of emersion. All a simulation has to do is trick the minds in the simulation.
I would have LOVED to witness the identical panel engaging in a debate today, seven years later, considering all the mind-blowing discoveries they were completely unaware of back then...
What kind of discoveries?
Well, there is an argument against the "simulation" conjecture. It's called Occam's Razor which is an important part of science. The idea is that if you are looking for an explanation for something, you should look for the simplest one able to account for all the facts. The reason is that the more unnecessarily complex it gets, the less probable it is the actual explanation. Here's why: Sometimes laws or rules that a universe follows are actually constraints on what can happen. Put in too many (complicate it too much that way) and you can constrain your reality out of existence (your model can't explain your universe). Other times, you might make so many things possible, in trying to be able to explain everything, that the amount of significantly different universes your model allows may be so immensely huge that the probability that it actually corresponds to your universe is infinitely small. Even more, that idea is related to a part of Physics called Thermodynamics, which explains why when you mix, say, water and sugar, the dissolved sugar never -on it's own- separates from the water again to form solid sugar crystals:
A "state" is where each molecule is, how it's oriented, and what it's doing (rotating quickly in this direction, this part vibrating slowly, going quickly towards the right...)
When you give the water and sugar the freedom of mixing, it opens up so immensely more actually possible sugar mixed with water states than there are possible sugar separate from water states that there is simply no significant chance that by random motion and change the sugar and water will reach a "being separate" state again.
A "too free" model of the Universe will not give you your universe, but rather one of a much larger group. The "simulation" explanation seems to me as one of the latter, because while a simulation (purportedly "our universe") has to be simpler than the actual universe in which it is made, else it would not be computable, here the "actual universe" in this scenario would be a free for all of anything.
Furthermore, this idea shouldn't make you lose sleep because even if you were in a simulation, as long as all those to which we relate are in the same and we are all truly sentient (conscious) and mortal, our relationships are real and an abrupt end to the simulation would simply be our turn to die. Additionally, it is questionable we even need to be truly conscious, as Bhuddists see ourselves as machines made of smaller parts, and if the parts are not conscious, there is no reason to think the whole is, so we only experience the illusion of consciousness. And yet they live their lives.
As a final measure, you might also want to apply the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion -emphasis on "reasonable"-. Now, does that simulation idea hit you as reasonable, versus our understanding of a coherent, physical / chemical / biological law-"abiding" universe?
Which brings us back to Occam's razor.
Occam's razor is not a KEY component to the scientific method. If you see hoove prints similar to a horse you should assume it was a horse rather than a mythological horse being, this is all Occam's razor argues.
Are you an educated expert with degrees in astronomy or just a UA-cam comment or
@@robertsaget6918 I've a Chemical Physics PhD with an emphasis in Materials Science and a long standing interest in Astronomy, what we can classify as reality, and some formal education in Psychology.
I fell asleep at 3 am and woke up to this
So around 4 or 5
😂
Brooo, wtf! Same!
Same here too, it's a sign....woke at 4:44am and this was running
With which video u went to sleep?
My right ear loves this debate
im glad someone else noticed. the stereo field on this video makes it hard to watch
I really wanted to watch it, but it's just impossible for me
I slightly unplugged my headphones so that the audio only came from one driver. The stereo mix was making me dizzy.
Frost hahhahahahhaa omg
I thought my headphones were defective.
What I took from the first lady’s speech about limited computational resources is they lack the tools to answer this question. And they can only begin to answer the question if they make a giant leap and assume the creators of this simulation are limited to finite resources. That’s like saying we have to assume Michelangelo only had black and white paint because we can only look at a limited portion of his masterpiece.
But she is really interesting because she is talking about rough knowledge ^^ it’s nice , she talks from the pint of what human kind knowledge has until now, imagination is so important but her perspective is what we cab actually confirm with what we know so far, the day she can say it is possible then really the odds would be high in did . She is like a live computer.
I think the best example of this concept is plainly but beautifully displayed in the movie “Free Guy” where we created a free thinking AI program that can both observe and exist in the simulation.
They talked a lot about "bugs" in the universe but they seemed to ignore
an important point. Bugs are relative to the intention of the creator.
For all we know many of the things happening in our universe are
actually "bugs", but we would never know it because we are not aware of
the intentions of our creator (if there is one). We instead treat them
as intended features of a perfect creator. Searching for bugs in the
universe doesn't really make much sense unless you have knowledge of
these intentions. You can, however, search for bugs in your own
understanding of the universe, but I think this panel confuses those two
ideas.
Alex Floyd great insight
Alex Floyd good point
God moves in mysterious ways - as do time travelers and universe simulators
I agree. Conversely, some things might very well be features of nature but look like bugs to us. When a pawn has reached the first rank of the opposite side of the board and becomes, say, a queen, it may seem like a "bug" for an observer who does not know the rules. When some exceptional cases appear that do not fit with the laws of nature derived from former observations and experiments, they can be considered as "bugs" in the universe, or we can revise our understanding of the nature and formulate new laws, theories and models to describe and explain them, then they are no longer "exceptional" but are included in the list of "natural" phenomena. The retrograde motion of planets had bugged ancient astronomers until the heliocentric model was proposed. The orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics but could be by general relativity. Dark energy may now seem like a glitch in gravity, but will very likely be explained by future scientists. It has actually been mentioned in the panel that scientists cannot prove anything, they can only provide the best explanation according to the data, information or evidence currently available, so scientific knowledge is constantly changing in response to newly discovered "inconsistencies". Since we do not have access to the "manual" or "program" of the universe (if it is simulated), we cannot know whether the inconsistencies are bugs or are due to our incomplete understanding of the underlying rules.
" Searching for bugs in the universe doesn't really make much sense unless you have knowledge of these intentions. "
Yes you would need a comparison? But sometimes you don't. There is a book entitled 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics' which is along the lines of our math is so good at describing our universe that it is 'unreasonably' good at it. That math should not be so effective a tool.
But in the case of finding a bug in a system when one is inside that system with no comparison? Well, it might seem like there is no way to identify such a bug.
You'd be surprised though.
Plus bugs are one thing, things working as they should another. Both are potential categories of investigation.
can u imagine creating a simulation and seeing them organize to the point that they have a debate about weather or not u exist... lmao
Ikr..lol
It would be so fun to troll them live.
TheBestUA-camChannelEverTimesInfinity and then comment About it on a virtual video hosting site
If you could create that simulation, it's likely this wasn't the 1st one, so they'd probably be unimpressed.
yesssss@TheBestUA-camChannelEver
3:10 introductions 5:50 personal introductions
A pleasure and thank you for being here
There are far too many leather jackets and sunglasses on stage for it not to be an attempt to look as matrixy as possible.
@RANDY WASSUM Yeah, it's an actual word, it's a way to arrange things. Like Sudoku.
😂👍
Precisely!
😂😂😂😂
Looks like matrix night at the YMCA
Actually, my life would be pretty simple to simulate. I spend most of my time in front of a computer screen.
+Kilgore Trout Your computer exists in a simulation, simulating Windows 95, running Microsoft Flight Simulator.
+benbennit that sounds like HELL !!!!
within a simulation dithering with a simulation it has been said that this place we call our universe is not the true reality. So if this reality we live in now is a programme can we fathom the power involved in making this reality where even our senses are not able to tell the difference.
It's a quantum algorithm, unconstrained by scale as well as being infinite. You can fit one mathematical model within another and another and....
I am a computer screen.
Neil DT is so amazing and has made a career out of interrupting people way smarter than himself.
You just need to be the host...
@@basiliobastardo255 Yeah, sounds like you grasped the point pretty well here
Yeah he disrespected lisa so many times
If we are in a simulation, and that simulation is being ran inside an underlying universe, how could we tell what laws of physics are from the simulation or which are bleeding through from the underlying universe? Because wouldn’t both sets apply?
I’d say not necessarily because it’s like saying do the laws of physics of my world bleed into minecraft or any other game? The basis of reality for a video game can be anything the creator wants including a mirror image of the creators laws of physics. But it’s like yea okay my minecraft character has human physics laws built in but as soon as I switch too creative mode most of those laws go out the window unlike reality there’s no creative mode atleast not that I’ve discovered lol.
@@johnwoods5095 that is actually kind of my point. As the developers, we decide the laws of physics in minecraft, and can choose to turn certain laws off. So if we’re in a sim, how many of our laws are being set by the developers, and how many are just bleeding over from base reality?
@CRASS2047 why would physics from a base reality bleed over? The rules are the rules, whether simulated or not. What's the hypothetical reason for cross contamination?
@@drexelrep they would only bleed over if that was intended by the programmers. It’s a question, I’m not making a statement. For instance, I believe quantum entanglement ( Einstein’s spooky action at a distance) could be because time does not exist in the base reality from where our simulation is being projected. So speed of light, or speed limits may not exist outside of our simulation. But I could definitely be wrong. There seems to be some sort of connection between entangled particles that can completely break the laws of our universe. But even if that’s the case, I have no idea if that is an intentional part of our simulation, or bleed over from base reality
@@CRASS2047 ah, ok i see. I think there's a lot of questions to explore over the next several generations before we even approach being able to reason yours, but its a fun supposition to contemplate.
How can they talk about simulations with a straight face when Morpheus is sitting right there with them, just ask him guy's !
Greg K 😂
Lol 😂 he just keeps quiet cuz he doesn't wanna ruin the rest of the show. Just occasionally chiming in trippy stuff hahaha!!!
He's probably a simulator here to nudge us in the right direction without spoiling ALL the fun. Hahaha!
I can just see Samuel L saying, 'I am not Laurence Fishbourne!'
Thought it was Morgan Freeman. God has all the answers.
I feel like this discussion would have been more complete if they brought in a proficient computer programmer to give their take on it.
@@homelessrobot speaking of which, makes me wonder how they did not get to a point where they should have felt compelled to at least mention superintelligence to try and draw in some parallels.. Again, would of probably happened if a computer science researcher was included in the discussion, which adds much more flavor.
I felt like I learned absolutely nothing? just me
That's me, and I'm wondering where part 1 to this talk went? It use to be on UA-cam 🤨
All physicists have to learn programming. Just like all engineers do. The only thing a developer, designer or programmer could add would be changes in languages, but the OSI model TCP/IP models are all the same in principal. Besides most computer programmers don't know about mainframe programming at the binary level which this string theory programming is referring to, nor about telecommunications through the different models for data transmission. Those other two disciplines are done by electronic engineers and computer science majors in the specialty of telecommunications.
Dee Saved I wouldn’t call the basic programming courses that they take “learning programming”. Unless a physicist ventures into the realm of Quantum computing their programming knowledge will remain novice at best. Not even even going to mention civil/electrical engineers.
Watching this while playing Dark Souls. Love destroying my mind, soul and room all in one sitting lol
that sounds like a good night
A lot of this was over my head BUT Neil kept interrupting. He could not help himself. Wow.
At first, I thought that the panel members with black sunglasses represents the Matrix (Simulation) side of the debate.
They really should have invited a game programmer to that panel. A game programmer could explain how this could be done -- limiting the simulation for example.
+Michael Lyashenko IF the hypothetical simulated universe is coded like our code based creations, it could be an interesting insight but it also could have limited the debate.
+Michael Lyashenko They just as easily could have brought a theologian in because most religions basically believe the universe is a simulation aka creation that was made by (a) programmer(s) aka God, gods, or some other being with powers to control and create aka program greater than mortals aka us. But as the other commenter stated that would have limited the discussion apparently.
+Rita Hajnal No Man's Sky
+Jordan N Golden The difference is the Programmers are on the outside of the simulation while God is within it.
+Michael Lyashenko Chris Crawford is a game designer who writes about such things. i.e. erasmatazz.com/library/science/information-is-the-reality.html
The question I'm going to ask is, "If we were truly living in a computer simulation, how would it benefit us to have have the knowledge that we were in one???...
To try and figure out how to write more algorithms for our simulation???
To try and decode what makes up our bodies so we could live long???".......
It would benefit us in not fearing death at all. More people would skydive, etc...
It's pretty closed minded to assume computers are the only thing in any reality that could run a simulation. Think about that.
@@mcmaldek yup...I've always maintained the simulation may very well be ...... Analog
@@mcmaldek I guess he forgot our Brain is also a computer made by Nature
The Immortal Pantheon Hello!!! Thank you
29:18 No. If randomness is already part of the model, then you don't need to change input parameters to get a different result.
I wonder how much more colorful the conversation would have been with a coding expert that makes simulations and games and the like.
Not very. If we are in a simulation then the technology governing our existence would be so vastly superior and foreign to anything a coder is familiar with that their input would add very little to the conversation. A radical philosopher would be more insightful then any computer expert.
@Powerdriller Power
You're assuming that they would use contemporary coding systems on analogous hardware. I'm sure a significantly advanced computers would be unrecognizable to us. It's like asking the Wright brothers to explain the Apollo space shuttles and that was only a 60 year gap. What could a computer scientist really tell us about a machine built 600 years in the future? Besides, Gates and Tegmark both have enough coding training and computer knowledge to make any relevant points even though there isn't much modern computers can tell us about machines that might be built a thousand years in the future.
@Powerdriller Power
Those are very valid points. I didn't think of that. I've taken some basic coding classes but I'm not very well versed in the area. I am an electrical engineering major and have limited knowledge of current computer science. I find this simulation argument very interesting tho and it's cool to see other poeple who are interested as well. When I try to explain the concept to friends they look at me as if I'm crazy even tho it has a scientific basis.
Powerdriller Power hey this might be annoying but do you know any videos I could watch to help me with coding? I’m currently taking a college course (:
@@bzrkls check udemy
2 hrs on wooden stools... who planned this event?!
The same people who OK'ed those sunglasses...
o so your mother?
holy shit, i didnt notice that.
truly terrible.
Yeah. Those are BAR stools. Meaning you need a bar to lean against (and a few pints) for them to even be remotely comfortable
Christians and Muslims.
49:29 CHALMERS: "We just need to move that picture to the next universe up."
That's actually next-level meta, and nobody talked about it. The hackers who simulated in the next universe up are, themselves, living in a simulated universe. I mean, why not?
"People aren't ready for this."
I just have to say one thing: I’ve taken Java 101 and C++ 101, and I know for a fact that all it takes to have anomalies is to write a method in your code that sets a value that picks a “random number” (it’s not really “random”, but that’s a WHOLE other discussion….) and then uses this “random” numerical value to say, for example: when the value equals 1 through 999,999,999…. Then you produce the typical result…. If the value equals 1,000,000,000; then run the anomaly. For any programmers out there: you know what I’m talking about when I say that it would likely be: “0-999,999,998”, and the anomaly would be on “999,999,999; but same difference to the layman. Anyway, if one wanted to run a program with anomalies like the existence of matter, one would simply have to produce a “random” number, and then run a “if then” and “else if” that allowed the program to produce an anomaly. This takes up VERY LITTLE processing power, and wouldn’t be hard for even “THIS GUY”, a C++ 101 student to code myself from scratch. I could run it EASILY on a computer from 1992 in MINUTES…. Just saying….
THE CHOSEN ONE...
@@caballopalido
Ur freaking FUNNY BRO.
Yeah, but the Matrix isn't set in 1992 so for all we know 1992 never even happened and we're all just asleep in the Matrix where they don't have computers from 1992 to run your code because we don't know if we're in the Matrix so we don't know if the computers are real to run the code to tell us if we're in the Matrix. But hell, you're probably just an Agent anyways blue pilling all of the sheeple with your robot AI chatgpt nightmare propaganda. Carry on
Simulators: “Hmm..dam they got us.”
“Time to introduce coronavirus.”
Piper Wright well...yes
Imagine seeing this post in 2016😂
That's jacked up. lol But possible.
Too soon? lol
Jaquan Stallburger ill be arrested
This debate should have started with questioning what is meant by a simulation
You can bet good money that they'll never say who the programmer is, or who built the thing. Make more money. Place separate bets.
Ooooooohhhhhh, I like this
@@l.m.892 well, it damn sure wasn’t Microsoft as it works.
A simulation in this case would be writing a computer program where the most import variables are the constants in the universe like the speed of light in outer space for example. Similar to a video game or some model making program. Then you hit enter and watch the code “simulate” the universe. Or multiple universes if you write code that would slightly change up your important constants every time.
I agree
Excellent debate. Thanks a 1,000! And greetings from Niterói, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil.
I'll second that; ' I wouldn't be surprised ,' Great panel and great conversation. Laws of physics, laws of nature, the quantum mechanics formulates meaning of the Universe.
So If my life's just a video game simulation like they're suggesting , how do I find out my current score and does anyone know any good cheats?
+Woltato racing a cop is 10,000 gangster points
+Woltato farm money for the better upgrades
Quantum mechanics might be a cheat, but evolution resulting in humans is clearly a bug.
+Woltato It's called Facebook friends.
+Arto Kulmala oh man I'm not ready.
When you leave autoplay on after you fall asleep.
My autoplay always "autopauses" It makes me angry 😠
Yes happening 2020 . Hehe
@@emmkingmk maybe yt is trying to tell us something
THAT HAPENED TO ME 😂
Same
Our sense of continuity depends on our memory being consistent with the present. If an error occurs, the memory can always be rewritten, and as long as it was consistent it could be quite different and you would not be aware of discontinuity. The universe might be an objective simulation or automaton at the Planck level, but I don't think it's possible to remove the subjective element in practice. Of course, that applies to reality even if it isn't a simulation!
Very true!! Memories are unreliable so whats real is subjective to the individual.. Hell, everyone is rewriting the Matrix with the individuals Mind living our own simulation of Hell
which of course, it is.
Descartes already dealt with this question hundreds of years ago. It's the first supposition in his proof popularized as "I think therefore I am." This is better stated as "Cogito ergo sum" or "I doubt therefore I am." The self is a necessary being. Descartes's "Grand Deceiver" is the equivalent of the question "are we living in a simulation."
From a panel of brilliant minds that know a lot. The phrase that sticks out in my mind is "We don't know".
Yes these are not brilliant minds cuz literally they know nothing... A big fat goose egg... 0...zip ....not... zilch
This is the inverse of Dunning-Kruger effect.
Charles Bukowski summarizes it succinctly: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence"
It's telling that humankind has not come up with the answer after thinking about this for basically a million years. I think it is something beyond our imagination or understanding. Assuming we should be able to understand everything is wrong. Afterall, the only thing human about the universe is a thin coating on the exterior of one of the trillion trillion planets in the universe.
@@kaneisable9347 the most brilliant mind on the plant knows nothing, no idea what we are doing here, why are we here, or how it began.
We know they're in the Matrix, because they're wearing sunglasses indoors
That made me LOL
same
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
the coding in reality is blinding them and only two of them took the red pill
😎
Great video!!!! So since I'm just seeing this video for the 1st time and it was posted 6yrs years ago I'd love to see a follow up video with all the same people.
They are all in jail now for witchcraft. Thanks Joe Biden.
"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet."
- Woody Allen
No need for a simulation when society has most of us trained to do like the same 5 things everyday on repeat.
Gosh, why do you need to hit the nail that hard....
Just too true.
And that training is part of a more localized simulation
Candy Texture 🤔 ...it's just GTA with better graphics, so go for it! Remember, the cops aren't real either, just game AI bots. Let us know how it goes! 😆
This whole debate is ran by complete Normies with NPCs kind, complete distraction and shills , Sad .
@Lame Duck possibly it has been proven that the nurses and staff that run the nut houses are crazier than the patient's themselves ...
Life is literally just a dream. It's a collective dream we have got stuck in for various reasons. When you die you wake up
When you sleep you wake up as well.
@@therealyoda6172 no you just get part way back
@@mikefugate1367 existence is a dream. If you fully woke up there would be nothing and everything at the same time
@@therealyoda6172 when i did salvia.. i fking hated it.. because thats what it told me.. and the simulation is outside my control because i am an npc.. my destiny is preprogrammed and is only twisted by key players.
That's new it's so out there that it makes sense in a freaky way
Assuming we are in a simulation then we can only know the universe to the extent that the simulation parameters are discoverable by the program that governs our simulated brains. In other words…
If those simulation parameters require an understanding of parameters outside of the simulation (in order to explore them further) then our consciousness or what we like to think of as “consciousness” is only within the context of the simulation itself and that creates an inherent limitation. Therefore we are not conscience in a true sense but only conscience within the context of our limited existence. We might take this analogy to a spiritual level and come to the conclusion that only God is truly conscience and the only creator of this simulation. In this sense, it can no longer be a simulation (as we define “simulation”) and is therefore rendered as our only reality as we can not match the consciousness of God.
In defense of indoor sunglasses, especially here: those stage lights blind tf out of you.
A real shame they did not have a sophisticated game programmer or generally game developer in there. A lot of their theories or questions can easily be answered from the point of a game dev. They might have gotten much further in the discussion.
Indeed. Christopher Domas would have been fantastic. Search for him on youtube, "Psychological Warfare in Reverse Engineering"
Not really, considering that the only part of the world that is active in a game is the part you are interacting with and its being generated as you play. So there's not a whole city going about is business in real time on your PC lol...just what is being used in your current play space.
RUSSIAN ROBOT Explain how his point is incorrect. Are you stating that there is, in fact a city thriving inside your computer while you are not using it?
Read about the Elder Scrolls games. They had the NPCs actually doing just that. Interacting with each other even when you're not around them.
And loosely based on the observable quantum physics phenomenon, you can compute a reality like ours at a fraction of the processing power. It’s very suspicious to me that they didn’t talk about the observable quantum physics phenomenon.
The guy on the left eluded to this, and I was thinking the same thing, that the universe appears to run as a simulation because of the codes or laws present in our universe. Whether these codes were predetermined/predefined is something altogether different. However, the fundamental question I had as a boy "how did everything begin from nothing" may be relevant here. How is it possible we're here, because that is impossible, yet not impossible because we are here. How can there be physical things around us that spawned from essentially nothing. Maybe it's not possible, and can only exist as an "idea" or "code", and that's what this whole thing is, a simulation that unfolds from a predetermined (or not) set of codes. Also, there are some anomalies that appear in our world that may indicate something strange is going on, such a the results of the double-slit experiment, where light changes from a particle to a wave if being measured by an outside observer. I used to believe that god did not exist. However, I have lately started to think that there may be a creator or designer or architect, not in the sense man has created, but something different. Everything appears too designed. From those exact numbers in nature that cannot deviate, to our own bodies. Look at some of the animations of DNA replication. It really appears as a designed biomechanical machine. How does taking thymine and connecting it to adenine, and guanine and connecting to cytosine, and put it together in a 6 billion strand specific sequence present a code to alter atoms to present themselves in a extremely complex structure that is in fact.....you. There is something going on here that is fantastic and beyond the confines of our human intellect. My 10-year-old son made a comment to me the other day that resonated, he said "Dad, maybe heaven is a real place, because we're here now, and that is impossible, but we are alive."
Jacob Maddox well put, read it twice
Jacob Maddox Very smart comment by your son.
Doctor Acanthamoeba GTFO you just don't want us to figure your ass out lol
Well said, I've thought about many of the things you said. I google every few weeks "where did the original information come from"? All I can say is, I believe in something transcendent from the universe. I know it was a joke, but I was cringing when they were mocking the "programmer" as a 5-year old kid with a toy video game. If there is indeed a programmer who dominates the universe at every moment the thought of that is terrifying to me. That Programmer might indeed have consequences laid out for us after death just like some religions say.
Sorry to be the guy to gloss over all the important stuff just to jump at the opportunity to correct you, *but* ... a guy alludes to a thing or an idea with his words and eludes the law with his feet. Definitely not his cock.
Simulatees: "I think this is a simulation"
Simulator: "put a bunch of very intelligent people together in a video, all of whom they will believe, and tell them that it's not a simulation"
Chalmers made a brilliant point. They just simulate as much as needed.
I think Lisa Randall was killing it. Always grounded to real physics.
***** oh you are right random youtube person... you should've ben on that stage lmao
I think the problem was that she was trying to stay a little too grounded. Everyone else was just trying to explore hypotheticals and create a fun discussion of possibilites. After all, the discussion was supposed to be about the universe being simulated, but it seemed like Lisa didn't even want to entertain the idea.
sure if you put it that way, it appears that the simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable, but it's related to the computationable and informational universe paradigm, the question is, is information fundamental? if so, then it doesn't matter if we are simulated or not, cause in the information paradigm, there is no difference between a simulated phenomena and the phenomena itself, cause both are informational, and there is no real one!, heck putting it another way, explain to me what you mean by "reality"
in QM, more and more scientists are saying that there is no such a thing as reality
even physicists have personality flays and closed-mindedness.. it is up to us to check and balance eachother's flaws when it comes to train of thought
I don't think she was "close-minded." It was clearly her job to be the straight man and she performed admirably.
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar; and doesn't.
...does NOT walk into a bar, and orders a drink.
This makes me uncertain.
Scrodinger's cat is not even a cat, its lines of code?, hence why it can walk in a bar and yet not.
Then the cat catn't
Schrodinger's cat into a bar ; that mouse already had that dream last night.
What movie was the number 42 @25:30 referenced to? Where earth is the machine to compute it.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Love the Issac Asimov debates
Could they not get these lovely people more comfortable chairs??
Simulated comfort.
You know, I didn't notice until I read your comment but those chairs look like they could seriously inflame some hemorrhoids.
right? they need to be in like smoking lounge chairs in a semi circle so they can have a real conversation. tyson could hardly find a spot to stand to talk with them too
Should have been in Eric Foreman's basement.
i know right xd
a Monk once told me: "What we feels, see, hear etc is only reflections of reality, and reflections is not the same as reality"
+Vinh Nguyen that monk was probably drunk, wasn't he
you are drunk if you think you know how reality works
A wise man once said "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear"
Descartes and his meditations describes the same thing as the monk you encounter had told you.
+Philip Cain encountered*
The fact that roughly 0.0007% of the world population have seen this video on this channel and I happen to be one of them, coupled with the fact that I am able to comprehend and understand damn near everything contained within it at my "young" age leaves me wondering where do I even go from here? Perhaps I need to pursue a career in psychology or physics or quantum theory or something because this all resonates so strongly with me. I'd love to have a sit down with each and every one of these individuals. I want to be surrounded with the thinkers. For as much understanding as I have, I would love to continue my wonderings and delve even deeper into this deeper side of existence. Whilst watching I jotted down (in a very barebones format) a bunch of relative areas to this discussion (and areas that aren't necessarily relative to the content here) that I love exploring and I'd like to put them forth here.
-Quantum physics
-String theory
-Consciousness
-Solopsism
-Déjà vu
-A.I.
-DNA
-Chaos theory
-Butterfly effect
-Pre big bang and post life
-Reincarnation
-Multiverse and how it is like a choose your own adventure story (I feel like this is similar to a save state in a game. Progress, or the opposite of, made after a save state can be simply undone by returning to the save state and continuing with a tweak, patch, or something of the sort. Which could explain why we can't find anomalies or corruption in the universe)
-Foundational building of knowledge (think of how far we've come since Galileo and the other big thinkers of the past were here pondering life and existence)
You’re missing the most important book.
Which is?
The BIBLE.
Knowledge for the BRAIN is not here. Genuine questions from the HEART are all here.
Oh I'm acquainted. Read it a couple times. But the expanse of knowledge I'm looking for is different in a sense. There is definitely a lot to be gleamed from the Bible regarding many of these topics for sure though! I think many scientists and people of the sort are familiar with the Bible, even if their understanding of it is used only for approval or disapproval of theory. It has a play in theistic and atheistic views alike.
@@79licorice have you read Ra The Law Of One? Things really fell into place for me since then.
Why would it even matter if the Universe were a simulation? Keep doing what you're doing.
At the minute 15:10, where the subtitles go [unintelligible], he said René Descartes.
"René Descartes said how do you know you're not being..."
Amazing talk btw.
The simulations sent us all together once again at 3 am when we’ve fallen asleep...
I saw this in my recommendations and I had apparently watched it already. So yeah I slept through it one night. I’m glad to know I’m not the only one
It’s 3 am as I’m watching this wtf
3am here too ☺️
WTH I just woke up literally at 3am
@@relaxingsounds4504 bruh it's literally 3:13
Wish we could hold more of this debates, If Zora finds an edge case which proves (some way to replicate and show that the edge case indeed happens) we are in a simulation then would we (as a community) then apply some rules and say we found another rule of science or accept the fact that we are in a simulation.
If we are conscious of being in a similation does this mean our consciousness is a programming feature of the simulation or the possibility of duality and our consciousness is independent of the simulation?
Yes but can it run Crysis?
Purefoldnz Only at 144p 20fps
If simulations are made to copy the universe... OF COURSE IT IS doh!!
Not in the part of the simulation that simulates shitty computers!
I love u for this comment
Yes, first person shooters are an everyday occurrence in our simulation.
26:40 "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"
(Opens door to Eternal Life and Resurrection)
29:14 Value of Parameters,
30:14 Multiverse, Probability (needs a well-defined meaning)
34:07 Simulation breaks down, multiple unique universes do not
35:44 Any evidence against a simulation could be simulated
37:59 Super Mario Laws of Physics (How could inside understanding lead to outside understanding?)
38:22 Simulator cuts corners
40:40 Physical reality to Quantum Level (higher resolution, higher resolution, pixels) 42:17 Screen-Door Effect
Thank you kind hearted person
Thank you God
Michael Pisciarino you have no life. Thanks 🙏
I have done, well, let's say "a lot" of research, and I have, well, "a lot" to comment on, and your post just happened to "set me off" (as it is the first one about religion)...First, the 26:40 Sagan quote is simply the thoughts of a person. I'm not saying he was or was not intelligent, simply that, ironically, just because he CLAIMS this, as he cannot PROVE it, it is not NECESSARILY a fact. To be clear, the keyword there is NECESSARILY. (I do not follow that only claims that CAN be proven with evidence are true). There have been theories that were proven true, and later exceptions were found. Hmm, a simple example...You can't see things in the dark [without fire]...[Fast forward, invention of electricity, then flashllight]. The theory was right, but the "law" was appended. The point is, and Lisa R. pointed this out, science DISproves theories; it rules things OUT, not necessarily in...Anyway: Eternal life (or any textual claims of ANY religion, to be purposefully broad) COULD be true. Although there is no evidence (and even if there were evidence AGAINST this), it could be true. (Even if it were proven false millions of times over, it could still be an exception). Personally, I believe that we (as a species) continue to "append" to our own rules. We have several words for it, too: "news", "discoveries", "inventions", etc. Whether a purposeful product of a creator or an accidental by-product of another, humans continue to smash our quarks together to append our own rules and theories to make sense of our environment. I agree with Neil in that it would be way too self-centered of us to believe we are the most intelligent that ever has been or will be. Further, as soon as WE have the power to do this, we will...Why then would we expect this not to have already happened of a more-capable entity?
[edited] Realized I didn't reply to your other comments, and, well, this is fun, so:
29:14 Zohreh - Watch Brian Greene, (ua-cam.com/video/bf7BXwVeyWw/v-deo.html). He is also published. Until I am as well, I'm going to keep my thoughts secret here. ;-)
30:14 Lisa - Not sure why you pointed this out. It's a great point (and maybe that's why you've noted it). Simply put, she's right.
34:07 Lisa again - "The computer couldn't keep track of stuff" is what interests me about this segment. I have to say I was appalled at how little this group as a whole had (probably HAS still - 2019) about technology), or at-least, if they DO have more knowledge than what was displayed, how little of it they applied in this debate. I felt like when really important concepts of how humans have evolved our technology came up, the group got silly and laughed it off (often literally), when actually the similarities between this evolution and how potentially we ourselves were created should, in my opinion, be researched thoroughly. Don't remember the mm:ss, but Max brings up Minecraft and the "seed" used Markus Persson (inventor of Minecraft) uses in his programming. I think there's a HUGE similarity to this concept and the creation (again, see Brian Greene). I'm aggravated that this topic was discussed by these great minds and technology was laughed at and brushed off like it was. There's another time when David C. (towards the end) mentions something (I may go back and find this because I think it's important to) and again the group laughs it off. At the very end, Lisa does it yet again (makes a comment about what is effectively "God's computer"). To Lisa: Our own technology unfolds exponentially year after year; how could we ever presume to comprehend "God's technology"? (I think of a floppy disk in the 90's versus the Citadel in Nevada (www.switch.com/the-citadel/). It's not just her, though. Throughout this entire debate, they all laugh this topic off as if to effectively say, "Do you know what kind of technology that would require? That's not even feasible." I see our creator laughing at these folks. Seriously, though, they should do this again with at-least one technology professional. 40:40 and 42:17, as you note, also are too-quickly brushed off by the group in my opinion.
35:44 David - This is called Last Thursdayism. Note: www.last-thursday.org/ is a silly fake. Look it up elsewhere. The basic idea is that pre-human history (fossils, the photons coming from the really old universe, etc) were all planted at a given point in time purposely to - at even a subatomic level - factually prove their existence and creation at various times before the were created). Later David notes this concept again (towards the end), referencing the Jim Carrey film, the Truman Show. I kind-of believe this. Again: this can't be disproven and to even try is to believe I am, or WE as a species are, more-capable of fooling God. In-fact, this entire group sort-of implies that relating to "error-correction"....sort-of a "God had to made a mistake somewhere in the galaxy and we're going to find it! 4021 Max to Zohreh "Look for corner-cutting evidence". I'd say, "Umm, probably not. Probably. not, Mario." If you follow Neil's humorous analogy at the very end, that's like thinking your dog is going to figure out how to hack the password to your Amazon account so he can order more dog food...no..steaks. At the same time, though, I agree with Zohreh, that, as the dogs, we must keep trying...must keep looking. :-)
Aaron Luckette legitimately all of ten people over five years will see that book you wrote.
The real question is now that we know that it’s computer code, can we edit it?
To me, if I imagine the universe as a simulation, that would require 3d pixels. If you imagine a computer creating those pixels, they would have a finite refresh rate. This refresh rate would explain the speed limit on light traveling.
Great point! I though the theory on you can’t travel faster than light was disproven? Or maybe I am wrong
@@BB-uz8pn there are theories about dilation of space, like a warp drive. But it hasn’t been tested
the simulation theory being fact is every high school kids nightmare
math student : "when are we ever gonna use this in the real world?!"
teacher "our world is math mf" *mic drop*
Yella Felluh lol.
Kind of true for "real physics" as well though.
Yella Felluh what is 10/3
What is 3.3333333333...x3
What is 9.9999999999...?
What is math?
Is math an invention?
"Is math related to science?"
1/3=0.333...
10 * 1/3=3.333...
10 * 1/3 - 1/3 = 9 * 1/3 = 3.333... - 0.333... = 3 = 9/3
the mistake that people not related too much with math,
u cant treat infinity as "almost inifinity", infinity never ends and u keep going with this 3*3.333... for ever so the the last 0. .... ...0000001 which is missing goes forever to the infinite small number which is zero
Oh my! I just thought of a really outstanding theory, what if our universe was a simulation!
me at 12 playing the sims: What if we're the sims in an alien computer?
1:32:12 I AGREE with James, BUT -- no one mentioned the hysterical IRONY of him saying "The universe doesn't care." :D
His comment raises another GREAT cosmological question, SEPARATE from Simulation:
"Does the universe have sentience, intention, or emotions?"
Do they do that one yet?
I was at this talk I remember this. What a great talk.
So...basically in the beginning god hit the enter key and then there was light?
Or maybe he hit the delete key and then there was light....hmmm.
Lol no that was outside the simulation. The simulation is everyone that chose the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Just guessing tho. Lol
Nope, god is in the simulation, it's actually a 13 year old Korean kid in a natural universe who pushed the button.
Carlos Saraiva Or a partially eaten apple 0_0
Basically ... So if God is controlling all of the universe through channelling dimensions of higher beings
It's still God watching over us because the controlling of every program is nothing without the
'prime controller'
His gray afro is immaculate
TOO immaculate. Must be a simulation.
It's a simulated mullet.
It's kell with a fake beard
best comment
It’s a judge’s gayfro he is wearing,as he came straight from court,he is presiding on a huge case.He is known for moonlighting as Keenan’s sidekick,along with talking crap about super mario.His day job as a judge consumes much energy and leaves him floppy,lethargic and very sensitive to light.His main objective in life is to discover his paternal spunken generator.Three cheers 🥂 for this ultimate man of many talents.He enriches all our lives.
For an ‘open minded discussion’ there is a lot of “we can’t”, “we won’t”, “we’ll never know” coming out of the “experts” (sunglasses lady mostly) I find particularly interesting. Such a perspective of ‘let me explain’ instead of ‘what if’ which seems counter intuitive to the nature of science - almost like being right is more important than finding truth
24:17 one of the best answers out there short and simple
Morgan Freeman looks great.
fool that's ben carson
sweeperstore I think this was supposed to be a joke
is a racist joke ever funny nowadays?
Bruh that's Lawrence Fishburne
The panelists sometimes surprised me with basic questions/discussions among themselves: Not all simulations are interactive, like a game. Suppose a physicist simulates the evolution of galaxies in his computer, he will set the inital conditions and the rules for the state change. He will not interfere, while the galaxies evolve!
Likewise, a far distant future intelligent beings that evolved technologically so well, can simulate us to see how their ancestors evolved, behaved, survived and innovated. While doing so, they'll not interfere with us, even if we attacked each other with nuclear bombs!
He meant the interactive feature is already cooked up into the code. So when the physicist simulated the evolution of galaxies with the initial conditions and all he already is taking into account of the astronomical interactions playing major role in Galaxy evolution.
So its already interactive
M mmm
Mmmm m
This was an excellent and insightful train of thought to board.
⁰09b866887666hnbb5
It's decorable how Neil bring this masters to our level
I am an astrophilosopher. This topic is approached by thinking of the universe first, as a Metaverse, then as a mere verse of philopohical verse, quarks or liptons or Asimovs in the monster mashaverse.
Of course the universe looks like a simulation. It's because we make simulations so that they look like the universe. If we didn't, our simulations wouldn't be accurate, and we would have to change them so that they did. The simulation of the universe looks to me like a classic case of humanity imposing itself onto the universe.
+FirstRisingSouI This is an idea that will turn into a circular argument. I can just as well point out, if we can build simulations with math, why can't ours have been built with math? Therefore, as a scientist , you go where the science leads. Sometimes it's a dead end, sometime's it turns out to change the world (Einstein's work).
I'm not saying it's impossible, any more than I'd say gods or demons or fairies are impossible.
Imagine the following scenario: we live in a universe that does not behave like our simulations. Our simulations are therefore junk science, so we scrap them and make simulations that are like the universe we live in. Voila! The universe suddenly looks like our simulations.
If we use the fact that the universe looks like a simulation as an argument that it is a simulation, that argument is not falsifiable, as no matter what kind of universe we found ourselves in, we would create simulations that look like that universe.
+Lee Allers At large scales, that would seem like a possibility. However, once you get down to the level of quantum physics, things like the uncertainty principle become a problem.
edit: To make a true complete simulation of a functioning universe would require the inclusion of the smallest possible scale and the computing power necessary for such a simulation would require more work than would be available in said universe...
possumverde You could always say that the higher universe has exponentially more computing power and energy available.
FirstRisingSouI
But then you get into the huge mess of...where did that universe come from? Is it some sort of simulation as well? etc. Personally, I'm one of those who sees no point in worrying about questions we will never be able to answer due to the physical limitations of our existence...and whether or not this is all a "simulation" is one of those questions...I've never seen a point to philosophizing simply for the sake of philosophizing...and am perfectly happy to leave that up to philosophy professors whose income depends on such wastes of time...
So the conclusion is that we can't really prove anything
netmx basically.
Well duh.
Look into quantum physics. The instant ifnormation teleportation is mind blowing. But maybe they talk about it in the debate, i should watch the video first lmao
only reason i came to watch the video,, its what everything breaks down to but also the way you interpret things
@Dhen Phu which allows people to introduce ridiculous ideas like this. Really? Life is a simulation, huh? U people are stupid
Conservation of Spatial Curvature
(Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
Pretty cool that these people came out of the matrix just to do this debate.
Space time can be continuous and only appear discretized because of our limited information and Zoreh’s point about Feynman asking why discretized space would require infinite degrees of freedom was definitely my favorite moment about this.
Kind of hard watching this with Morpheus in the centre, Julian Assange on the far left, Fonzie and Steve Harvey with hair and not laugh
hee
yeah.. the beings running this simulation should have picked more sensible avatars.
the preceding reality that gives birth to a simulation should always be more complex than the simulation it births. Similarly, if a simulation creates a simulation within itself, the computing power must be less than the simulaton that it came from. Therefore, if you are to explain the complexity in our universe with even more complexity through postulating a more complex higher reality, you are making the problem of explaining our universe harder, not easier. Its the same problem intelligent design has.
When I wake up in the morning I see a strange codes running just before I fully become awake. But I somehow can't remember how the code looks. It is always in a strange language that is continually changing. Happens to me about 3-4 mornings each week.
Deja vu is from the simulation crashing and being rebooted and we're resuming from an older save and reaching the point right before we crashed.
The panelists in video: brilliant scientists that genuinely care about this topic and finding the answer
Comments: liFe iS (nOt) viDjA gAme!!!!
Hahahahahsh
Strong hints that we live in video games or the matrix or simulation
1. Everythings on nature are based on math, algorithm and constant. Striking intention so it can be run on some kind of computer device
2. Everythings on fundamental level are quantized, other means of digitized. Striking intention so it can be run on specific kind of computer device, which is digital computer
3. It has distinct smallest unit of measures, not indefinately smaller. Similar to pixel in digital computer.
4. It has efficient rendering technique. Which is only render things when it being observed by the player. Once player is not observing, it going back to code and algorithm without need to be materialized
5. It has universal 'server tick' to synchronize everything and to avoid inconsistency around the simulated world. which is speed of light.
6. Since space and time are the output of algorithm, Anything unrelated to wolrd rendering algorithm, are not bound with space and time and can communicate instantly since it run outside the rendering algorithm. Such as quantum entanglement
7. Since almost everything is centered around the player, and almost everything is being rendered as per the player pbservation, not only future, but also any past time event is still on a form of code, and being rendered once the player is observing it. Thus, quantum delayed choice was happened
8. When the player dies, it could goes to spectator mode. Since the player viewport is not necessarily hard coded to the rendered body.
9. The player could go to different realm or mini games during sleep
10. There are millions of account and eyewitness, testimoning about them being experiencing some kind of glitches in the matrix
11. There are literal source code of higher level programming language, written and stored in every living things. That when compiled and run, it will create chemical nano machine that run autonomously based on previously written code.
12. Religious text that literally said "surely, this worldy life is just a game play, and the hereafter is better for the piety, dont they think it?"
1:50:00 i was listening to sean carroll talking to antonio padilla about "big numbers" and padilla suggested that if you go far enough in one direction in the universe you will eventually encounter another milky way galaxy, slightly different, but very similar, just statistically, not a replica or duplicate, but just an arrangement that is similar and maybe this is what an infinite universe would be like, not that you eventually return to the point of origin, but there are just endless variations of the universe we can "explore", that seems more comfortable (?) to imagine than a universe without end or borders or is infinite. that the multiverse and the many worlds is a tangible thing and part of the "overall" universe.
They need to fix the code on that lighting so they don't have to use the sun glasses mod
Exactly!
yeah, but they're SO fucking cool, they just gotta wear their shades!
i the matrix taught us anything..
No doubt. And proper chairs.
Zohreh Davoudi deserves her documentary series regarding her search for glitches and bugs.
She is hot. I know this isn’t the place for such comments but a woman that smart and looks like that..
@@J.W1180 Ahhh man, you're gonna make rewatch this.
@@HiddenPalm it’s still good. Do it
@@J.W1180 You know I will.
The lack of depth perception due to watching this video in 2D gives me fear of the scientists knocking over their pitchers and glasses of water with their hand gestures.
Have you guys ever considered adding Nikola Tesla‘s theory of the universe being in a time loop plus the theory of the key to the universe: 369 (plus the meaning in Numerology) into this Debate? I was taking notes while listening and added his theory and it actually fit really well with all the debates spoken about on here. It also combines all together with all the religious books and beliefs! I hope my opinion/perspective was useful 😅
The big bang was the simulator being powered on. We think the universe is expanding but it is being created at the speed of light, hence the speed limit. Black holes are lines of code being deleted to keep the simulation program running without stalling.
Speed Of Light isn't even constant it was averaged out at three locations it has variables.
Rupert Sheldrakes 10 dogma's of science that have held back these subjects. Not sure thats still available !!
The mistake they make is in thinking that 'error correction' is a stand alone, observable function, when it could easily be a part of a bigger function that just happens to error correct. I.E. A swiss army knife is primarily a blade, but it can also unscrew things. When the blade is put away, and the screwdriver comes out, it can be hard to visualize both these functions as being part of the same 'system' and without knowledge of what a swiss army knife is, you may see either a knife, or a screwdriver, depending on your perspective. More of a computational simulation perspective, but somewhat overlooked.
For your word creates when you voice a idea, you word creates the desire and the hope to pursue that which you had said.