"A materialist world would produce a clockwork physics based on particles floating in nothingness."
This is utterly false: science rejects "nothingness". Nothingness is a contradiction and does not exist. Not a good start.
You do realize that computer simulations are BASED on physics, right? It means that it should NOT surprise us to find so many similarities because one (the simulation) is a reflection of the other (physical reality) and not the other way around. Horse before the cart, anyone?
This is very similar to the problems faced by String theories: in their attempt to explain everything, they leave no room for predictions. In other words, there is so much cherry picking in these theories (M-Theory, String, Many Worlds, etc.) that they predict nothing. Consequently they are not a very good SCIENTIFIC theories.
I love the Ockham's razor bit! Last I checked, Ockham's razor is not a law of physics. It may also surprise you to know that "cause & effect" is also NOT a law of physics.
There are MANY MANY MANY things on the "list of similarities" that are conjecture & speculation and some that are plain false. The one that jumps out at me the most is the "anti-matter runs time in reverse." This is utter non-sense.
I wouldn't even call it quantum mysticism: I think quantum quackery fits better! Not to mention that all a simulation does is "push" things back a level and we are left with the same problem: what is the governing physics of the computer running the simulation! The answers to this in the video are not very compelling.
With things like "quantum tunneling in MPORG", more non sequiturs than you can shake a stick at, and enough false choices to last a life time there's no reason to take this video as a whole seriously! As far as the science part goes, it is pisspoor: think of it as a gigantic non sequitur.
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.