Genesis

[2PhiloVoid]

I think I put him in a sour mood.

Maybe hand out some different candy?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't need to be high to recognize the obvious.

Not only is it not obvious that the unverse is a simulation, but any modicum of information on either subject makes it laughable.

But I think you made my point: God is great.

I have no need of that hypothesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe hand out some different candy?

Good idea!

 

[partinobodycular]

Sorry for jumping in here a day late and a dollar short, but what exactly is it that differentiates "real" reality from "virtual" reality, simulated or otherwise?

If the argument is simply that reality can't be both physical and virtual at the same time, then my question is... why?

How are we defining the terms "real", "virtual", and "simulated"?

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry for jumping in here a day late and a dollar short, but what exactly is it that differentiates "real" reality from "virtual" reality, simulated or otherwise?

If the argument is simply that reality can't be both physical and virtual at the same time, then my question is... why?

How are we defining the terms "real", "virtual", and "simulated"?

The standard scientific definition of "real" is given at about 2:50.

 

[sjastro]

I don't have any particular problem with anyone making a buck however they can, but at least my guy didn't use two comic actors and an ad selling a personal thorium isotope emitter in the first minute as Sabine did last month when she chimed in on the topic. Anyhow, did you have anything to say about the topic?

If you are going to use sarcasm the timing should be right like telling a joke, otherwise as Oscar Wilde wrote “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”
You are not doing yourself any favours as you are coming across as a troll at odds with the first post which seemed to try to promote serious discussion.

The home truth about “your guy” is his video is based on a lie, after accurately researching what locality means as well as giving a historical account, all the good work is undone by claiming the 2022 Nobel in Physics proves the we live in a simulation.

On the official Nobel foundation site.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science"

Tell me where does it state the prize was awarded for the discovery we live in simulated universe? Evidently “your guy” didn’t research the most important part of the video, namely the conclusion, and decided to express a personal opinion devoid of any science.

 

[Larniavc]

Thoughts?

I’m unconvinced that I’m in a simulation.

 

[partinobodycular]

The standard scientific definition of "real" is given at about 2:50.

That seems like more of a philosophical definition than a scientific one. By that definition even a computer simulation is real so long as it exists independent of the observer.

Perhaps someone can help me, because I'm still confused, what differentiates a 'real' world from a virtual/simulated one?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That seems like more of a philosophical definition than a scientific one. By that definition even a computer simulation is real so long as it exists independent of the observer.

No, it's the same either way. But this guy seems to be enamored with a Functionalist view of perception of the world rather than a Physicalist (Realist) view of the world.

Notice how after offering the standard philosophical and scientific definition of Locality and Realism, he then says that he jumped on board with simulation because of his experience with video games. His view of what should be defined as 'real' is functionalist rather than realist.

Perhaps someone can help me, because I'm still confused, what differentiates a 'real' world from a virtual/simulated one?

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m unconvinced that I’m in a simulation.

There's a simple test you can take to tell if you are or not:

Send a notice to your utility companies and tell them you're not going to be paying them anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

... what differentiates a 'real' world from a virtual/simulated one?

Science.

 

[sjastro]

That seems like more of a philosophical definition than a scientific one. By that definition even a computer simulation is real so long as it exists independent of the observer.

Perhaps someone can help me, because I'm still confused, what differentiates a 'real' world from a virtual/simulated one?

In physics there is a distinction between virtual and simulated.
Simulations whether they be computer or experiment based use model mind based realities that have no ontological basis in the real world.
They are used to explain or predict what happens in the real world.

Virtual as in virtual particles arise from the mathematics of Quantum Field theories, they are mathematical in nature, not directly observable, but have physical like properties such being able to transfer momentum in the electromagnetic interaction between particles or exerting pressure in a vacuum as described by the Casimir effect.

 

[Chesterton]

If you are going to use sarcasm the timing should be right like telling a joke, otherwise as Oscar Wilde wrote “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”
You are not doing yourself any favours as you are coming across as a troll at odds with the first post which seemed to try to promote serious discussion.

The home truth about “your guy” is his video is based on a lie, after accurately researching what locality means as well as giving a historical account, all the good work is undone by claiming the 2022 Nobel in Physics proves the we live in a simulation.

On the official Nobel foundation site.


Tell me where does it state the prize was awarded for the discovery we live in simulated universe? Evidently “your guy” didn’t research the most important part of the video, namely the conclusion, and decided to express a personal opinion devoid of any science.

I'll take that as a "no", you don't have anything to say on the topic, and yes, I've read what the Nobel people had to say about it. It perfectly conforms to what the video says.

 

[Chesterton]

I’m unconvinced that I’m in a simulation.

It's impossible to convince someone who's asleep that they're asleep.

 

[Chesterton]

That seems like more of a philosophical definition than a scientific one. By that definition even a computer simulation is real so long as it exists independent of the observer.

No, it's scientific.

Perhaps someone can help me, because I'm still confused, what differentiates a 'real' world from a virtual/simulated one?

Nothing important.

 

[Chesterton]

No, it's the same either way. But this guy seems to be enamored with a Functionalist view of perception of the world rather than a Physicalist (Realist) view of the world.

Notice how after offering the standard philosophical and scientific definition of Locality and Realism, he then says that he jumped on board with simulation because of his experience with video games. His view of what should be defined as 'real' is functionalist rather than realist.

He says "realism is the assumption that objects have definite states whether or not anyone is looking at them". What would be a realist view?

 

[sjastro]

I'll take that as a "no", you don't have anything to say on the topic, and yes, I've read what the Nobel people had to say about it. It perfectly conforms to what the video says.

If this is not a troll comment the alternative is you are completely out of your depth in assessing the veracity of the video and have zero understanding of the Nobel foundation comment.

 

[Larniavc]

It's impossible to convince someone who's asleep that they're asleep.

You can’t convince anyone anything when they are asleep. They can’t hear you.

 

[Chesterton]

You can’t convince anyone anything when they are asleep. They can’t hear you.

Well, true, but you could put their hand in a bowl of warm water. Wouldn't convince them but might compel them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He says "realism is the assumption that objects have definite states whether or not anyone is looking at them". What would be a realist view?

You're correct. He did say that. However, afterward he went on to say that both locality and realism are wrong.

So, I'm not sure what to make of that.