Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Modern Physics + Consciousness Implies God

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance. Also the universal speed limit of Special Relativity makes more sense assuming a virtual reality as it's completely arbitrary in a classically physical world. In a virtual reality the universa speed limit is akin to the processing rate of the program being run. Also, anyone who has opened up too many screens on their desktop knows this causes everything run slower, this eerily resembles how having too much mass in one area of space can cause time to run slower. Also every particle is essentially identical, but why did it have to be this way? In a virtual reality it's because every digital object by the same code is identical. There are so many facts about the universal that are completely arbitrary assuming a non-digital world, but make so much sense under the virtual reality hypothesis that it implies good circumstantial evidence in favor of a virtual reality. Now obviously if the reality is a program then it had a designer. If the designer was a race of aliens then they would need to use classical bits (essential "unpacked" from the qubits of our reality) which would result in a computer so massive that it would be impractical. It would be bigger than the size of the universe. So is God the programmer? It's a strange idea but it is supported by the leading theory of consciousness which is Integrated Information Theory. Every conscious system can be measured by phi, by the integration of information. However, if the universe is digital then it reduces to information! Is the information of the universe integrated though? Well new experiments such as the one showing how time emerges from quantum entanglement provided evidence for a universal wave-function. This entails everything in the universe is entangled, and thus integrated. What does this mean? The universe is a conscious state inside a conscious mind. Our emperical reality is merely a simulation in the mind of God. Bizzare huh?
bulproof
Posts: 25,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:38:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance. Also the universal speed limit of Special Relativity makes more sense assuming a virtual reality as it's completely arbitrary in a classically physical world. In a virtual reality the universa speed limit is akin to the processing rate of the program being run. Also, anyone who has opened up too many screens on their desktop knows this causes everything run slower, this eerily resembles how having too much mass in one area of space can cause time to run slower. Also every particle is essentially identical, but why did it have to be this way? In a virtual reality it's because every digital object by the same code is identical. There are so many facts about the universal that are completely arbitrary assuming a non-digital world, but make so much sense under the virtual reality hypothesis that it implies good circumstantial evidence in favor of a virtual reality. Now obviously if the reality is a program then it had a designer. If the designer was a race of aliens then they would need to use classical bits (essential "unpacked" from the qubits of our reality) which would result in a computer so massive that it would be impractical. It would be bigger than the size of the universe. So is God the programmer? It's a strange idea but it is supported by the leading theory of consciousness which is Integrated Information Theory. Every conscious system can be measured by phi, by the integration of information. However, if the universe is digital then it reduces to information! Is the information of the universe integrated though? Well new experiments such as the one showing how time emerges from quantum entanglement provided evidence for a universal wave-function. This entails everything in the universe is entangled, and thus integrated. What does this mean? The universe is a conscious state inside a conscious mind. Our emperical reality is merely a simulation in the mind of God. Bizzare huh?

Only read the title and saw that the rest must be crap.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,664
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance.

Actually, I would like to correct you on this. The Planck length is not a pixelation of the universe, as simply being the smallest length with meaning does not equal pixels in physics; as a part-time physicist, I understand this to a slightly deeper level than most (for example, how the Planck length was decided by the scientific community); yet I will not explain why as this knowledge is just a few clicks away in the internet. Moreover, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle further propels the idea that the universe is not exactly quantised in that manner.

Though the universe may be pixelated, the Planck length is in no way a pixel, not in the traditional meaning, at least.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:09:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Nice meme.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:36:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:38:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance. Also the universal speed limit of Special Relativity makes more sense assuming a virtual reality as it's completely arbitrary in a classically physical world. In a virtual reality the universa speed limit is akin to the processing rate of the program being run. Also, anyone who has opened up too many screens on their desktop knows this causes everything run slower, this eerily resembles how having too much mass in one area of space can cause time to run slower. Also every particle is essentially identical, but why did it have to be this way? In a virtual reality it's because every digital object by the same code is identical. There are so many facts about the universal that are completely arbitrary assuming a non-digital world, but make so much sense under the virtual reality hypothesis that it implies good circumstantial evidence in favor of a virtual reality. Now obviously if the reality is a program then it had a designer. If the designer was a race of aliens then they would need to use classical bits (essential "unpacked" from the qubits of our reality) which would result in a computer so massive that it would be impractical. It would be bigger than the size of the universe. So is God the programmer? It's a strange idea but it is supported by the leading theory of consciousness which is Integrated Information Theory. Every conscious system can be measured by phi, by the integration of information. However, if the universe is digital then it reduces to information! Is the information of the universe integrated though? Well new experiments such as the one showing how time emerges from quantum entanglement provided evidence for a universal wave-function. This entails everything in the universe is entangled, and thus integrated. What does this mean? The universe is a conscious state inside a conscious mind. Our emperical reality is merely a simulation in the mind of God. Bizzare huh?

Only read the title and saw that the rest must be crap.

So what happened was...science whizzed right over your head, you were looking for something to satisfy your very strong confirmation bias, and you aren't here for debate because you don't really understand science, theology, nor much of anything else with equal or more complexity than that of a drying doggie terd in the frying heat.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:39:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:36:18 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:38:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance. Also the universal speed limit of Special Relativity makes more sense assuming a virtual reality as it's completely arbitrary in a classically physical world. In a virtual reality the universa speed limit is akin to the processing rate of the program being run. Also, anyone who has opened up too many screens on their desktop knows this causes everything run slower, this eerily resembles how having too much mass in one area of space can cause time to run slower. Also every particle is essentially identical, but why did it have to be this way? In a virtual reality it's because every digital object by the same code is identical. There are so many facts about the universal that are completely arbitrary assuming a non-digital world, but make so much sense under the virtual reality hypothesis that it implies good circumstantial evidence in favor of a virtual reality. Now obviously if the reality is a program then it had a designer. If the designer was a race of aliens then they would need to use classical bits (essential "unpacked" from the qubits of our reality) which would result in a computer so massive that it would be impractical. It would be bigger than the size of the universe. So is God the programmer? It's a strange idea but it is supported by the leading theory of consciousness which is Integrated Information Theory. Every conscious system can be measured by phi, by the integration of information. However, if the universe is digital then it reduces to information! Is the information of the universe integrated though? Well new experiments such as the one showing how time emerges from quantum entanglement provided evidence for a universal wave-function. This entails everything in the universe is entangled, and thus integrated. What does this mean? The universe is a conscious state inside a conscious mind. Our emperical reality is merely a simulation in the mind of God. Bizzare huh?

Only read the title and saw that the rest must be crap.

So what happened was...science whizzed right over your head, you were looking for something to satisfy your very strong confirmation bias, and you aren't here for debate because you don't really understand science, theology, nor much of anything else with equal or more complexity than that of a drying doggie terd in the frying heat.

And craptor dosn't even understand the complexity of a turd. LMAO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:50:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Interesting post. I agree that our reality is nothing more than information-processing.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:51:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:39:29 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:36:18 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:38:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance. Also the universal speed limit of Special Relativity makes more sense assuming a virtual reality as it's completely arbitrary in a classically physical world. In a virtual reality the universa speed limit is akin to the processing rate of the program being run. Also, anyone who has opened up too many screens on their desktop knows this causes everything run slower, this eerily resembles how having too much mass in one area of space can cause time to run slower. Also every particle is essentially identical, but why did it have to be this way? In a virtual reality it's because every digital object by the same code is identical. There are so many facts about the universal that are completely arbitrary assuming a non-digital world, but make so much sense under the virtual reality hypothesis that it implies good circumstantial evidence in favor of a virtual reality. Now obviously if the reality is a program then it had a designer. If the designer was a race of aliens then they would need to use classical bits (essential "unpacked" from the qubits of our reality) which would result in a computer so massive that it would be impractical. It would be bigger than the size of the universe. So is God the programmer? It's a strange idea but it is supported by the leading theory of consciousness which is Integrated Information Theory. Every conscious system can be measured by phi, by the integration of information. However, if the universe is digital then it reduces to information! Is the information of the universe integrated though? Well new experiments such as the one showing how time emerges from quantum entanglement provided evidence for a universal wave-function. This entails everything in the universe is entangled, and thus integrated. What does this mean? The universe is a conscious state inside a conscious mind. Our emperical reality is merely a simulation in the mind of God. Bizzare huh?

Only read the title and saw that the rest must be crap.

So what happened was...science whizzed right over your head, you were looking for something to satisfy your very strong confirmation bias, and you aren't here for debate because you don't really understand science, theology, nor much of anything else with equal or more complexity than that of a drying doggie terd in the frying heat.

And craptor dosn't even understand the complexity of a turd. LMAO

Then start a debate about poop and let's see who knows more.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 4:53:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:51:00 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:39:29 PM, desmac wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:36:18 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:38:50 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance. Also the universal speed limit of Special Relativity makes more sense assuming a virtual reality as it's completely arbitrary in a classically physical world. In a virtual reality the universa speed limit is akin to the processing rate of the program being run. Also, anyone who has opened up too many screens on their desktop knows this causes everything run slower, this eerily resembles how having too much mass in one area of space can cause time to run slower. Also every particle is essentially identical, but why did it have to be this way? In a virtual reality it's because every digital object by the same code is identical. There are so many facts about the universal that are completely arbitrary assuming a non-digital world, but make so much sense under the virtual reality hypothesis that it implies good circumstantial evidence in favor of a virtual reality. Now obviously if the reality is a program then it had a designer. If the designer was a race of aliens then they would need to use classical bits (essential "unpacked" from the qubits of our reality) which would result in a computer so massive that it would be impractical. It would be bigger than the size of the universe. So is God the programmer? It's a strange idea but it is supported by the leading theory of consciousness which is Integrated Information Theory. Every conscious system can be measured by phi, by the integration of information. However, if the universe is digital then it reduces to information! Is the information of the universe integrated though? Well new experiments such as the one showing how time emerges from quantum entanglement provided evidence for a universal wave-function. This entails everything in the universe is entangled, and thus integrated. What does this mean? The universe is a conscious state inside a conscious mind. Our emperical reality is merely a simulation in the mind of God. Bizzare huh?

Only read the title and saw that the rest must be crap.

So what happened was...science whizzed right over your head, you were looking for something to satisfy your very strong confirmation bias, and you aren't here for debate because you don't really understand science, theology, nor much of anything else with equal or more complexity than that of a drying doggie terd in the frying heat.

And craptor dosn't even understand the complexity of a turd. LMAO

Then start a debate about poop and let's see who knows more.

At least I can spell turd.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 5:54:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

It doesn't matter what a classically physical world would be like, it only matters if this reality we are in a virtual reality. It behalves exactly like all known virtual realities.


In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Well it's conceivable that we could've lived in a reality in which it wasn't pixilated, which didn't have a universal speed limit, which didn't entail large bodies which cause time to slow down, and which didn't have quantum mechanics and was completely governed by Relativity. If we found ourselves in that reality then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect it was a virtual reality. But we don't live in that universe.


Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?

Human's are curious beings, it tells us about the nature of the reality we inhabit.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:03:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 3:53:33 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance.

Actually, I would like to correct you on this. The Planck length is not a pixelation of the universe, as simply being the smallest length with meaning does not equal pixels in physics; as a part-time physicist, I understand this to a slightly deeper level than most (for example, how the Planck length was decided by the scientific community); yet I will not explain why as this knowledge is just a few clicks away in the internet. Moreover, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle further propels the idea that the universe is not exactly quantised in that manner.

Though the universe may be pixelated, the Planck length is in no way a pixel, not in the traditional meaning, at least.

Many physicists would disagree with you that a smallest length or time doesn't equate to pixilation. In a completely classical physical world there would be no reason why we couldn't just zoom in further. A Planck unit certainly seems like a pixel, also Max Planck himself agreed that there is no matter in the traditional sense, and that the mind is the Matrix of all "matter".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:33:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra
Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory).

While that is true, it is neither an assumption nor a necessary consequence of any research Planck did. It simply arises from the fact that when observations get small and fuzzy enough, it's not presently clear whether causality begins at an event (making causality material), begins at observation of the event (making it more cognitive), or somewhere in between, or whether our causality paradigm itself is wrong. :)

But either way, it doesn't imply a god any more than a created universe implies deism. If you want to model the universe as a kind of cognitive information matrix you can -- it's a legitimate paradigm. However that model need assume nothing about the matrix other than that it persists, so that information can be propagated and resampled.

Planck's ideas show the bias of an idealist and a lifelong theoretician. He worked with models so he saw models as the subject of science. However an experimentalist sees models as part of the process -- the observation is the subject. Planck's intuitions about epistemology were not peer-reviewed; they have no especial scientific weight; nor even particular validity. A lot of theoretical physicists enjoy wacky philosophy -- it goes with the territory -- and few philosophies are wackier than those of quantum physicists. :D

And even though it may not have originally been Chopra woo, Planck's intuitional ramblings about epistemology have certainly fed Chopra woo, and the position is being Chopra woo'd here in this thread by overstating its necessity.

DHardage's criticism of this thread is accurate, even if such criticism of Planck's ideas (had he made them) might not be.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,664
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 6:51:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 5:54:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

It doesn't matter what a classically physical world would be like, it only matters if this reality we are in a virtual reality. It behalves exactly like all known virtual realities.

But you're establishing the criteria for a virtual world based on our technology, which would be a direct product of the simulation, itself. You are making assumptions about the necessity of some "real" world based on the observed aspects of the "simulated" world, which is unwarranted.

In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Well it's conceivable that we could've lived in a reality in which it wasn't pixilated, which didn't have a universal speed limit, which didn't entail large bodies which cause time to slow down, and which didn't have quantum mechanics and was completely governed by Relativity. If we found ourselves in that reality then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect it was a virtual reality. But we don't live in that universe.

Why would that universe be a more plausible "natural" universe? How have you determined that a "less-pixelated" universe would be the case? You're justifying things based on our far-less advanced technology, for instance: the slow-down. On what basis do you justify that the simulated universe we're in is subject to these same primitive limitations and properties?

Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?

Human's are curious beings, it tells us about the nature of the reality we inhabit.

Yes, and that curiosity drive certainly leads to irrational conclusions. This takes the form of the Need for Cognitive Closure, which represents our general tendency to be adverse to ambiguity; either having unclear answers or a lack thereof. You've only attached the notion of God as a conclusion to this through pure speculation, for example.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 7:55:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.

But Chopra peddles it like cheap liquor. And even if reality is mental, it makes no real difference. If you really feel that way I challenge you to stand blindfolded on a railroad track with a freight train coming. Hey, if you can't see it, it's not real so you won't be crushed, right?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:33:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra
Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory).

While that is true, it is neither an assumption nor a necessary consequence of any research Planck did. It simply arises from the fact that when observations get small and fuzzy enough, it's not presently clear whether causality begins at an event (making causality material), begins at observation of the event (making it more cognitive), or somewhere in between, or whether our causality paradigm itself is wrong. :)

But either way, it doesn't imply a god any more than a created universe implies deism. If you want to model the universe as a kind of cognitive information matrix you can -- it's a legitimate paradigm. However that model need assume nothing about the matrix other than that it persists, so that information can be propagated and resampled.

Well if the universe is a virtual reality that certainly does imply an intelligent programmer. If we live in a classical universe then you would be right in stating Deistic assumptions may not be justified.


Planck's ideas show the bias of an idealist and a lifelong theoretician. He worked with models so he saw models as the subject of science. However an experimentalist sees models as part of the process -- the observation is the subject. Planck's intuitions about epistemology were not peer-reviewed; they have no especial scientific weight; nor even particular validity. A lot of theoretical physicists enjoy wacky philosophy -- it goes with the territory -- and few philosophies are wackier than those of quantum physicists. :D

"Wacky" is a subjective term, I believe Max Planck was spot on with his metaphysical intuitions. The point I am making is that the Idealistic philosophy is and has been taken serious by serious minds so coupling in with the likes of Chopra isn't really fair.


And even though it may not have originally been Chopra woo, Planck's intuitional ramblings about epistemology have certainly fed Chopra woo, and the position is being Chopra woo'd here in this thread by overstating its necessity.

Labelling things as woo or wacky doesn't negate their validity. It's just an appeal to ridicule.


DHardage's criticism of this thread is accurate, even if such criticism of Planck's ideas (had he made them) might not be.

Not at all, calling something a name isn't a criticism. It's an appeal to ridicule.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:15:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 7:55:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.

But Chopra peddles it like cheap liquor. And even if reality is mental, it makes no real difference. If you really feel that way I challenge you to stand blindfolded on a railroad track with a freight train coming. Hey, if you can't see it, it's not real so you won't be crushed, right?

Idealism doesn't say the train isn't real, just that it reduces to mental properties. Whether I see it or not it still exists within God's mind.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:22:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:51:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:54:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

It doesn't matter what a classically physical world would be like, it only matters if this reality we are in a virtual reality. It behalves exactly like all known virtual realities.

But you're establishing the criteria for a virtual world based on our technology, which would be a direct product of the simulation, itself. You are making assumptions about the necessity of some "real" world based on the observed aspects of the "simulated" world, which is unwarranted.

How is it unwarranted? As Physicist Sylvester James Gates said, if the characters in the movie The Matrix wanted to know whether or not they were in it, they would just have to look at how their reality is described to see whether it behalves like a virtual reality or not. Well, our universe does behalve in sub a manner, so it's warranted to claim we live in a virtual reality.


In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Well it's conceivable that we could've lived in a reality in which it wasn't pixilated, which didn't have a universal speed limit, which didn't entail large bodies which cause time to slow down, and which didn't have quantum mechanics and was completely governed by Relativity. If we found ourselves in that reality then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect it was a virtual reality. But we don't live in that universe.

Why would that universe be a more plausible "natural" universe? How have you determined that a "less-pixelated" universe would be the case? You're justifying things based on our far-less advanced technology, for instance: the slow-down. On what basis do you justify that the simulated universe we're in is subject to these same primitive limitations and properties?

We only have examples of virtual realities we've created, if our universe is not a virtual reality it would be extremely coincidental that it behalves as such. This, this makes the hypothesis more plausible than it's negation. And it wouldn't matter how advanced a program gets if there is too much being run at once it will slow down as there is a finite amount of information to be processed in the universe.


Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?

Human's are curious beings, it tells us about the nature of the reality we inhabit.

Yes, and that curiosity drive certainly leads to irrational conclusions. This takes the form of the Need for Cognitive Closure, which represents our general tendency to be adverse to ambiguity; either having unclear answers or a lack thereof. You've only attached the notion of God as a conclusion to this through pure speculation, for example.

No it's not pure speculation, attaching the notion of God to this is justified through the means of the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:15:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 7:55:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.

But Chopra peddles it like cheap liquor. And even if reality is mental, it makes no real difference. If you really feel that way I challenge you to stand blindfolded on a railroad track with a freight train coming. Hey, if you can't see it, it's not real so you won't be crushed, right?

Idealism doesn't say the train isn't real, just that it reduces to mental properties. Whether I see it or not it still exists within God's mind.

So, reality is only mental to God? So we're just what, figments of his imagination?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:27:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:24:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:15:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 7:55:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.

But Chopra peddles it like cheap liquor. And even if reality is mental, it makes no real difference. If you really feel that way I challenge you to stand blindfolded on a railroad track with a freight train coming. Hey, if you can't see it, it's not real so you won't be crushed, right?

Idealism doesn't say the train isn't real, just that it reduces to mental properties. Whether I see it or not it still exists within God's mind.

So, reality is only mental to God? So we're just what, figments of his imagination?

Reality is mental to all minds, ours and God's.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:40:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:27:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:24:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:15:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 7:55:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.

But Chopra peddles it like cheap liquor. And even if reality is mental, it makes no real difference. If you really feel that way I challenge you to stand blindfolded on a railroad track with a freight train coming. Hey, if you can't see it, it's not real so you won't be crushed, right?

Idealism doesn't say the train isn't real, just that it reduces to mental properties. Whether I see it or not it still exists within God's mind.

So, reality is only mental to God? So we're just what, figments of his imagination?

Reality is mental to all minds, ours and God's.

How can we be independent minds if we exist in a mental reality of another entity? We would be mere thought patterns and temporary impulses, nothing more. Again, if reality is only mental, nothing should be able to cause you physical harm if you do not acknowledge its existence.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,664
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 8:49:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:22:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:51:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:54:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

It doesn't matter what a classically physical world would be like, it only matters if this reality we are in a virtual reality. It behalves exactly like all known virtual realities.

But you're establishing the criteria for a virtual world based on our technology, which would be a direct product of the simulation, itself. You are making assumptions about the necessity of some "real" world based on the observed aspects of the "simulated" world, which is unwarranted.

How is it unwarranted? As Physicist Sylvester James Gates said, if the characters in the movie The Matrix wanted to know whether or not they were in it, they would just have to look at how their reality is described to see whether it behalves like a virtual reality or not. Well, our universe does behalve in sub a manner, so it's warranted to claim we live in a virtual reality.

The people in the Matrix could compare the real world with the matrix; they had experience and knowledge of the real world. Otherwise, Deja Vu would be considered a normal phenomenon: a "glitch" of the mind. The perceived inconsistency is only apparent if it doesn't correspond with the expected consistency of the real world.

Really, I don't think that the people in the Matrix were really outside of it. I think they'd still be trapped in it, with the Matrix fooling them into believing they were free so they'd be perfectly controllable. And this hypothesis would be unfalsifiable within the Matrix movie world. How would the characters ever know if this was false if they suspected it? Everything they base their reasoning on is an aspect of the programmed world they reside in.

In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Well it's conceivable that we could've lived in a reality in which it wasn't pixilated, which didn't have a universal speed limit, which didn't entail large bodies which cause time to slow down, and which didn't have quantum mechanics and was completely governed by Relativity. If we found ourselves in that reality then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect it was a virtual reality. But we don't live in that universe.

Why would that universe be a more plausible "natural" universe? How have you determined that a "less-pixelated" universe would be the case? You're justifying things based on our far-less advanced technology, for instance: the slow-down. On what basis do you justify that the simulated universe we're in is subject to these same primitive limitations and properties?

We only have examples of virtual realities we've created, if our universe is not a virtual reality it would be extremely coincidental that it behalves as such. This, this makes the hypothesis more plausible than it's negation. And it wouldn't matter how advanced a program gets if there is too much being run at once it will slow down as there is a finite amount of information to be processed in the universe.

How has probability been determined in order to show that this similarity is extremely coincidental? And that second statement is still completely based on knowledge of *our* technology. By what means would we determine that the simulator is subject to such slow-down? By what means do we determine that the simulator would be in any way similar to what we understand it to be in this world?

Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?

Human's are curious beings, it tells us about the nature of the reality we inhabit.

Yes, and that curiosity drive certainly leads to irrational conclusions. This takes the form of the Need for Cognitive Closure, which represents our general tendency to be adverse to ambiguity; either having unclear answers or a lack thereof. You've only attached the notion of God as a conclusion to this through pure speculation, for example.

No it's not pure speculation, attaching the notion of God to this is justified through the means of the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.

Well, I should inquire as to what you mean by "God" exactly. I mean, if it turns out that we're in some program that's run by a geeky teenager and you want to refer to that as such, then I understand. However, what leads you to believe that a will must be behind said simulation? Why couldn't it be the result of unguided, naturalistic occurrences in the "real" world?

BTW - thanks for creating this tread. It's an interesting discussion. :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:24:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:40:35 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:27:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:24:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:15:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 7:55:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra

Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory). This has nothing to do with Chopra.

But Chopra peddles it like cheap liquor. And even if reality is mental, it makes no real difference. If you really feel that way I challenge you to stand blindfolded on a railroad track with a freight train coming. Hey, if you can't see it, it's not real so you won't be crushed, right?

Idealism doesn't say the train isn't real, just that it reduces to mental properties. Whether I see it or not it still exists within God's mind.

So, reality is only mental to God? So we're just what, figments of his imagination?

Reality is mental to all minds, ours and God's.

How can we be independent minds if we exist in a mental reality of another entity?

Well we aren't independent minds (our minds depend on the grand mind), but we have our own minds. We are sub-minds in a large pool of mind.

We would be mere thought patterns and temporary impulses, nothing more. Again, if reality is only mental, nothing should be able to cause you physical harm if you do not acknowledge its existence.

I don't see why this needs to be the case. If I am not aware of the train the "train" program is still being run in God's mind. It would still cause a declenching of my consciousness (death) regardless of whether or not I was aware of it.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:28:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:10:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:33:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:05:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 4:13:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
Metaphysical woo ala Deepak Chopra
Actually the idea that reality is mental in nature was adhered to by the Nobel Prize winning Max Planck (who also fathered Quantum Theory).
While that is true, it is neither an assumption nor a necessary consequence of any research Planck did. It simply arises from the fact that when observations get small and fuzzy enough, it's not presently clear whether causality begins at an event (making causality material), begins at observation of the event (making it more cognitive), or somewhere in between, or whether our causality paradigm itself is wrong. :)
But either way, it doesn't imply a god any more than a created universe implies deism. If you want to model the universe as a kind of cognitive information matrix you can -- it's a legitimate paradigm. However that model need assume nothing about the matrix other than that it persists, so that information can be propagated and resampled.
Well if the universe is a virtual reality that certainly does imply an intelligent programmer.

No it doesn't. We can already write computer programs that generate programs, we have procedurally-generated informatic environments, and mindless automata that can copy and amend environments in random ways. There's no assurance that a constructed, orderly universe is an original and deliberate design of an intelligent entity, and not an automated copy of some procedurally-generated design produced by an evolutionary algorithm itself written by some artificially intelligent being that no longer exists created by naturally-arising organic intelligences that also no longer exist.

There's no implication from a constructed universe to deism, much less theism.

"Wacky" is a subjective term,
No, it just means it's outside the common run of comparably-qualified thought, and that's confirmable statistically and objectively, as you'd know if you'd researched the thought of other celebrated QM physicists.

I believe Max Planck was spot on with his metaphysical intuitions.
So your intuitions like his intuitions?

Okay, but so what? If you cited the intuitions of the majority of leading theoretical physicists, that'd be data pertaining to the possible development of the field.

But unless you're a Nobel-winning QM researcher yourself, your intuitions are less informed and insightful than Planck's were. So you can't even validate Planck's intuitions effectively, much less verify them. What weight then has your opinion? How does it affect the weight of evidence?

The point I am making is that the Idealistic philosophy is and has been taken serious by serious minds so coupling in with the likes of Chopra isn't really fair.
Actually, saying that QM implies God itself isn't fair, since you didn't research, validate or verify the conjecture. You just made an intuitive leap that appealed to you.

As did the equally unqualified and poorly-researched Chopra. Hence the legitimacy of DHardage's comparison.

And even though it may not have originally been Chopra woo, Planck's intuitional ramblings about epistemology have certainly fed Chopra woo, and the position is being Chopra woo'd here in this thread by overstating its necessity.
Labelling things as woo or wacky doesn't negate their validity. It's just an appeal to ridicule.
It's a comment on the statistical spread of the collective intuitions of QM researchers, and also on the inability of almost a century of theoretical physics to verify Planck's beliefs.

DHardage's criticism of this thread is accurate, even if such criticism of Planck's ideas (had he made them) might not be.
Not at all, calling something a name isn't a criticism. It's an appeal to ridicule.
This thread is built on an ignorant appeal to misunderstood authority, and a retread of tired fallacies already cynically exploited by Deepak Chopra. Are ridicule and scorn inappropriate?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 9:35:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 8:49:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:22:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:51:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:54:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

It doesn't matter what a classically physical world would be like, it only matters if this reality we are in a virtual reality. It behalves exactly like all known virtual realities.

But you're establishing the criteria for a virtual world based on our technology, which would be a direct product of the simulation, itself. You are making assumptions about the necessity of some "real" world based on the observed aspects of the "simulated" world, which is unwarranted.

How is it unwarranted? As Physicist Sylvester James Gates said, if the characters in the movie The Matrix wanted to know whether or not they were in it, they would just have to look at how their reality is described to see whether it behalves like a virtual reality or not. Well, our universe does behalve in sub a manner, so it's warranted to claim we live in a virtual reality.

The people in the Matrix could compare the real world with the matrix; they had experience and knowledge of the real world. Otherwise, Deja Vu would be considered a normal phenomenon: a "glitch" of the mind. The perceived inconsistency is only apparent if it doesn't correspond with the expected consistency of the real world.

Yes it is unfalsifiable, because even if we didn't have the evidence I presented we could still be in a simulation. The point is that the evidence we have makes it more probable, because it falls in line with what we know about virtual realities and how they are programmed.


Really, I don't think that the people in the Matrix were really outside of it. I think they'd still be trapped in it, with the Matrix fooling them into believing they were free so they'd be perfectly controllable. And this hypothesis would be unfalsifiable within the Matrix movie world. How would the characters ever know if this was false if they suspected it? Everything they base their reasoning on is an aspect of the programmed world they reside in.


In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Well it's conceivable that we could've lived in a reality in which it wasn't pixilated, which didn't have a universal speed limit, which didn't entail large bodies which cause time to slow down, and which didn't have quantum mechanics and was completely governed by Relativity. If we found ourselves in that reality then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect it was a virtual reality. But we don't live in that universe.

Why would that universe be a more plausible "natural" universe? How have you determined that a "less-pixelated" universe would be the case? You're justifying things based on our far-less advanced technology, for instance: the slow-down. On what basis do you justify that the simulated universe we're in is subject to these same primitive limitations and properties?

We only have examples of virtual realities we've created, if our universe is not a virtual reality it would be extremely coincidental that it behalves as such. This, this makes the hypothesis more plausible than it's negation. And it wouldn't matter how advanced a program gets if there is too much being run at once it will slow down as there is a finite amount of information to be processed in the universe.

How has probability been determined in order to show that this similarity is extremely coincidental? And that second statement is still completely based on knowledge of *our* technology. By what means would we determine that the simulator is subject to such slow-down? By what means do we determine that the simulator would be in any way similar to what we understand it to be in this world?

It's hugely coincidental if we live in a universe that behaves like all known virtual realities but it isn't one. You know, there old "if it quacks like a duck" routine. Of course, a virtual reality could still be possible without all the similarities but self-evidently the similarities make it more likely.


Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?

Human's are curious beings, it tells us about the nature of the reality we inhabit.

Yes, and that curiosity drive certainly leads to irrational conclusions. This takes the form of the Need for Cognitive Closure, which represents our general tendency to be adverse to ambiguity; either having unclear answers or a lack thereof. You've only attached the notion of God as a conclusion to this through pure speculation, for example.

No it's not pure speculation, attaching the notion of God to this is justified through the means of the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.

Well, I should inquire as to what you mean by "God" exactly. I mean, if it turns out that we're in some program that's run by a geeky teenager and you want to refer to that as such, then I understand. However, what leads you to believe that a will must be behind said simulation? Why couldn't it be the result of unguided, naturalistic occurrences in the "real" world?

Virtual realities and simulations are programs and require a programmer. Also, because the qubits would have to be unpacked into classical bits for this universe to be simulated by a physical computer, the computer would have to be bigger than the universe itself! What teenager could do that? Also the integrated information theory entails the universe is a conscious state in side a mind. I would think the mind grounding all we know to exist suffices for at least some form of God.


BTW - thanks for creating this tread. It's an interesting discussion. :)
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:54:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 6:03:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:53:33 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:36:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
There are many reasons to believe our "physical" reality is actually a virtual reality and a simulation. For one, reality at it's smallest scale is actually pixilated (as the universe is quantized). Just look at the Planck length for instance.

Actually, I would like to correct you on this. The Planck length is not a pixelation of the universe, as simply being the smallest length with meaning does not equal pixels in physics; as a part-time physicist, I understand this to a slightly deeper level than most (for example, how the Planck length was decided by the scientific community); yet I will not explain why as this knowledge is just a few clicks away in the internet. Moreover, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle further propels the idea that the universe is not exactly quantised in that manner.

Though the universe may be pixelated, the Planck length is in no way a pixel, not in the traditional meaning, at least.

Many physicists would disagree with you that a smallest length or time doesn't equate to pixilation. In a completely classical physical world there would be no reason why we couldn't just zoom in further. A Planck unit certainly seems like a pixel, also Max Planck himself agreed that there is no matter in the traditional sense, and that the mind is the Matrix of all "matter".

This is, to a certain extent, an argumentum ex defectu ratione intellectus; because even if you would say that the Planck length is a pixel, it's not a pixel in the traditional sense.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,664
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 12:22:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/21/2016 9:35:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:49:03 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/21/2016 8:22:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 6:51:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/21/2016 5:54:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/21/2016 3:51:49 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I find such a hypothesis to be utterly useless because every scrap of information, knowledge, or experience that you make this judgement by is derived from said simulation. It's literally impossible for you to have any valid notion of what the world *should* be like (referring to the "real" world).

It doesn't matter what a classically physical world would be like, it only matters if this reality we are in a virtual reality. It behalves exactly like all known virtual realities.

But you're establishing the criteria for a virtual world based on our technology, which would be a direct product of the simulation, itself. You are making assumptions about the necessity of some "real" world based on the observed aspects of the "simulated" world, which is unwarranted.

How is it unwarranted? As Physicist Sylvester James Gates said, if the characters in the movie The Matrix wanted to know whether or not they were in it, they would just have to look at how their reality is described to see whether it behalves like a virtual reality or not. Well, our universe does behalve in sub a manner, so it's warranted to claim we live in a virtual reality.

The people in the Matrix could compare the real world with the matrix; they had experience and knowledge of the real world. Otherwise, Deja Vu would be considered a normal phenomenon: a "glitch" of the mind. The perceived inconsistency is only apparent if it doesn't correspond with the expected consistency of the real world.


Yes it is unfalsifiable, because even if we didn't have the evidence I presented we could still be in a simulation. The point is that the evidence we have makes it more probable, because it falls in line with what we know about virtual realities and how they are programmed.

Right, being unfalsifiable doesn't make it false. I'm going to stop here, because we're going to go around in circles at this rate.

Really, I don't think that the people in the Matrix were really outside of it. I think they'd still be trapped in it, with the Matrix fooling them into believing they were free so they'd be perfectly controllable. And this hypothesis would be unfalsifiable within the Matrix movie world. How would the characters ever know if this was false if they suspected it? Everything they base their reasoning on is an aspect of the programmed world they reside in.

In the above examples you provide, such as perceiving pixilation or having multiple browser screens open, (i.e. within the simulation) so all you're doing is just comparing the simulation with itself, in the case that this simulation hypothesis is true. Who's to say that any of this "in-simulation" data represents how things would have to be in the supposed "real" world?

Well it's conceivable that we could've lived in a reality in which it wasn't pixilated, which didn't have a universal speed limit, which didn't entail large bodies which cause time to slow down, and which didn't have quantum mechanics and was completely governed by Relativity. If we found ourselves in that reality then there wouldn't be any reason to suspect it was a virtual reality. But we don't live in that universe.

Why would that universe be a more plausible "natural" universe? How have you determined that a "less-pixelated" universe would be the case? You're justifying things based on our far-less advanced technology, for instance: the slow-down. On what basis do you justify that the simulated universe we're in is subject to these same primitive limitations and properties?

We only have examples of virtual realities we've created, if our universe is not a virtual reality it would be extremely coincidental that it behalves as such. This, this makes the hypothesis more plausible than it's negation. And it wouldn't matter how advanced a program gets if there is too much being run at once it will slow down as there is a finite amount of information to be processed in the universe.

How has probability been determined in order to show that this similarity is extremely coincidental? And that second statement is still completely based on knowledge of *our* technology. By what means would we determine that the simulator is subject to such slow-down? By what means do we determine that the simulator would be in any way similar to what we understand it to be in this world?

It's hugely coincidental if we live in a universe that behaves like all known virtual realities but it isn't one. You know, there old "if it quacks like a duck" routine. Of course, a virtual reality could still be possible without all the similarities but self-evidently the similarities make it more likely.

I think this takes a lot of creative interpretation to justify, personally. I don't view a string of loose coincidences to be a solid enough foundation to adopt a belief in something like this. But, again, I feel we'd just go in circles from here if we continue.

Plus, if it's the case that this is actually true and known to be true, what impact does this have on how we live our lives? Of what use is this information to us?

Human's are curious beings, it tells us about the nature of the reality we inhabit.

Yes, and that curiosity drive certainly leads to irrational conclusions. This takes the form of the Need for Cognitive Closure, which represents our general tendency to be adverse to ambiguity; either having unclear answers or a lack thereof. You've only attached the notion of God as a conclusion to this through pure speculation, for example.

No it's not pure speculation, attaching the notion of God to this is justified through the means of the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.

Well, I should inquire as to what you mean by "God" exactly. I mean, if it turns out that we're in some program that's run by a geeky teenager and you want to refer to that as such, then I understand. However, what leads you to believe that a will must be behind said simulation? Why couldn't it be the result of unguided, naturalistic occurrences in the "real" world?

Virtual realities and simulations are programs and require a programmer. Also, because the qubits would have to be unpacked into classical bits for this universe to be simulated by a physical computer, the computer would have to be bigger than the universe itself! What teenager could do that? Also the integrated information theory entails the universe is a conscious state in side a mind. I would think the mind grounding all we know to exist suffices for at least some form of God.

That's making a whole lot of assumptions about the world in which the simulation is hosted. This is what my original point was mostly about; you are basing conclusions about some "real" world on knowledge that is gain exclusively within the simulation. You are assuming the real world is the largely the same as the simulated one. Maybe in *that* word, technology is sufficient for any teenager to do this!

BTW - thanks for creating this tread. It's an interesting discussion. :)