Genesis

[Hans Blaster]

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.

We also have virtual meetings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Movies like "The Matrix" or "Inception" (dreams, rather than simulation) or ST:TNG episode "Frame of Mind" are great entertainment, but that doesn't make them real.

 

[partinobodycular]

Thoughts?

Okay, I watched the entire video and noticed two glaring problems. The first is the reference to the delayed choice experiment, and the second is the assumption that hidden variables don't exist.

Fortunately Sabine Hossenfelder has done videos explaining why both of these arguments are flawed.

Of course neither of Sabine's arguments prove that we're not in a simulation, but they completely invalidate the OP's grounds for claiming that we are. The universe may be locally real after all. So much for Simulation Theory.

But I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes 'real'. At the moment I'm not even willing to venture a guess.

 

[partinobodycular]

Thoughts?

Following the reasoning present in the OP, wouldn't it be simpler to simulate a reality with only one observer... me, than to simulate a reality with 8.3 billion observers? And if I'm the only observer then everything and everybody else is just an illusion. Outside of my immediate perception there are no computers running simulations, or physicists studying quantum mechanics, or data centers collecting trillions of gigabytes of information. None of that stuff actually exists. And if none that stuff actually exists, then Elon's layer upon layer of simulations don't exist either.

Which leads to a much less grandiose conclusion. I'm either in the base reality, or I'm a direct simulation thereof.

But then again, what's to stop me from assuming that even the base reality is a simulation... and I'm the only one in it.

 

[Larniavc]

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

Yeah but that does not work. It’s a myth some people believe because it appeals to them.

 

[sjastro]

Here is something for @Chesterton to consider, if he is smart enough he might be able to comprehend it and realise why his video is utter nonsense particularly when it is centred around the idea that distance is an illusion.
In a previous post I explained that quantum field theories including entanglement depends on space-time being real meaning distance is not an illusion, another refutation given here and at a more elementary level involves dimensional analysis and basic quantum mechanics.

Firstly the dimensional analysis; mass is defined as M, distance has dimension of length L, velocity is defined as distance L per time T with dimension LT⁻¹, momentum is mass multiplied by velocity with dimension MLT⁻¹.
In basic quantum mechanics, the position x and momentum p of a particle cannot not be measured with 100% certainty, reducing the uncertainty in the position Δx, increases the uncertainty in the momentum Δp and vice versa.

The relationship between Δx and Δp is defined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Δx.Δp ≥ h/4.

Performing dimensional analysis on Δx.Δp gives LMLT⁻¹ = ML² T⁻¹.
The right-hand side of the equation must also have the same units hence h ≡ ML² T⁻¹.
h is a physical constant known as Planck’s constant and has the value 6.6260715 x 10⁻³⁴ J.s.
J.s is joule-seconds and has the dimensions ML² T⁻¹.

So where does h appear in nature, one example is the energy levels Eₙ in the hydrogen atom defined by the equation
Eₙ = -mₑe⁴/8εₒ²h²n² ≡ MM²L⁶T⁻⁴/M²L⁴T⁻² = ML²T⁻² which is the dimensions for energy J in joules.
In the hydrogen spectrum the observed spectral lines directly correspond to the energy spacings between allowed electron energy levels.
Since L appears in the dimensional analysis for energy does this mean the spectrum of any atom is an illusion; does any physical parameter which contains L in its dimensional analysis also an illusion?

 

[partinobodycular]

Here's my problem with what's meant by 'real'. I'm an epistemological solipsist... have been for over fifty years. Therefore I assume that I'm real. I also assume that other things exist. But in what manner can they be said to exist? As illusions existing only in my mind, or as things that exist independent of any conscious observer? If it's the latter, then a conscious observer can never definitively say that anything outside of themselves is real.

On the other hand, perhaps someone has a definition of 'real' that we can at least theoretically test. In other words, it's 'real' if it conforms to A,B, and C.

So what's meant by 'real'?

 

[Chesterton]

Movies like "The Matrix" or "Inception" (dreams, rather than simulation) or ST:TNG episode "Frame of Mind" are great entertainment, but that doesn't make them real.

Never seen any of those.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, I watched the entire video and noticed two glaring problems. The first is the reference to the delayed choice experiment, and the second is the assumption that hidden variables don't exist.

Fortunately Sabine Hossenfelder has done videos explaining why both of these arguments are flawed.

Of course neither of Sabine's arguments prove that we're not in a simulation, but they completely invalidate the OP's grounds for claiming that we are. The universe may be locally real after all. So much for Simulation Theory.

But I'm still trying to figure out what constitutes 'real'. At the moment I'm not even willing to venture a guess.

Unfortunately, Sabine has not debunked Bell nor the double eraser, both of which have been proven by experimentation all around the world. If she has and I missed it, please point it out to me.

Following the reasoning present in the OP, wouldn't it be simpler to simulate a reality with only one observer... me, than to simulate a reality with 8.3 billion observers? And if I'm the only observer then everything and everybody else is just an illusion. Outside of my immediate perception there are no computers running simulations, or physicists studying quantum mechanics, or data centers collecting trillions of gigabytes of information. None of that stuff actually exists. And if none that stuff actually exists, then Elon's layer upon layer of simulations don't exist either.

Which leads to a much less grandiose conclusion. I'm either in the base reality, or I'm a direct simulation thereof.

But then again, what's to stop me from assuming that even the base reality is a simulation... and I'm the only one in it.

Yes. And nothing's to stop you.

Here's my problem with what's meant by 'real'. I'm an epistemological solipsist... have been for over fifty years. Therefore I assume that I'm real. I also assume that other things exist. But in what manner can they be said to exist? As illusions existing only in my mind, or as things that exist independent of any conscious observer? If it's the latter, then a conscious observer can never definitively say that anything outside of themselves is real.

On the other hand, perhaps someone has a definition of 'real' that we can at least theoretically test. In other words, it's 'real' if it conforms to A,B, and C.

So what's meant by 'real'?

You've already been given the definition. If you're a solipsist, your real is your real. Good luck with it.

 

[Chesterton]

Here is something for @Chesterton to consider, if he is smart enough he might be able to comprehend it and realise why his video is utter nonsense particularly when it is centred around the idea that distance is an illusion.
In a previous post I explained that quantum field theories including entanglement depends on space-time being real meaning distance is not an illusion, another refutation given here and at a more elementary level involves dimensional analysis and basic quantum mechanics.

Firstly the dimensional analysis; mass is defined as M, distance has dimension of length L, velocity is defined as distance L per time T with dimension LT⁻¹, momentum is mass multiplied by velocity with dimension MLT⁻¹.
In basic quantum mechanics, the position x and momentum p of a particle cannot not be measured with 100% certainty, reducing the uncertainty in the position Δx, increases the uncertainty in the momentum Δp and vice versa.

The relationship between Δx and Δp is defined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Δx.Δp ≥ h/4.

Performing dimensional analysis on Δx.Δp gives LMLT⁻¹ = ML² T⁻¹.
The right-hand side of the equation must also have the same units hence h ≡ ML² T⁻¹.
h is a physical constant known as Planck’s constant and has the value 6.6260715 x 10⁻³⁴ J.s.
J.s is joule-seconds and has the dimensions ML² T⁻¹.

So where does h appear in nature, one example is the energy levels Eₙ in the hydrogen atom defined by the equation
Eₙ = -mₑe⁴/8εₒ²h²n² ≡ MM²L⁶T⁻⁴/M²L⁴T⁻² = ML²T⁻² which is the dimensions for energy J in joules.
In the hydrogen spectrum the observed spectral lines directly correspond to the energy spacings between allowed electron energy levels.
Since L appears in the dimensional analysis for energy does this mean the spectrum of any atom is an illusion; does any physical parameter which contains L in its dimensional analysis also an illusion?

View attachment 379090​

Wow, it took you seven whole posts before you did this. Despite all the insults, I was actually starting to admire you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow, it took you seven whole posts before you did this. Despite all the insults, I was actually starting to admire you.

Chesterton, taking a different tact here, what in either the OP video or from consideration of the Simulation Theory is it that you find most interesting or identify with conceptually?

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton, taking a different tact here, what in either the OP video or from consideration of the Simulation Theory is it that you find most interesting or identify with conceptually?

I like the fact that, despite the pushback against God in the 19th and 20th centuries, science is finally coming around to face the facts. That's what science is about, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I like the fact that, despite the pushback against God in the 19th and 20th centuries, science is finally coming around to face the facts. That's what science is about, right?

I guess you could be right, but I'm not clear on which facts you're referring to where Simulation Theory is relevant. Is there something in the Bible that you perceive refers to Simulation Theory? Or is there some aspect of our lives that feels like it's a simulation?

 

[Chesterton]

To answer your 2nd question, no, nothing about our lives feels like it's a simulation. It all feels very real.

To the first question, yes. It is written "God created...". And He created Man in His image. As far as the fish and the birds and the other land animals, we don't know. We didn't get their letters. But we know that we're roughly in His image. Quantum mechanics, cosmology, biology, mathematics, all point to this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To answer your 2nd question, no, nothing about our lives feels like it's a simulation. It all feels very real.

To the first question, yes. It is written "God created...". And He created Man in His image. As far as the fish and the birds and the other land animals, we don't know. We didn't get their letters. But we know that we're roughly in His image. Quantum mechanics, cosmology, biology, mathematics, all point to this.

Maybe you can help me better understand what it is you're indicating about a relation between the Imago Dei and the Simulation Theory. I'm not seeing how one concept is reflected in the other. But then again, I'm not clear on what "existence as simulation" is supposed to mean conceptually, either, especially not on a Macro scale. Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand it.

 

[Chesterton]

Maybe you can help me better understand what it is you're indicating about a relation between the Imago Dei and the Simulation Theory. I'm not seeing how one concept is reflected in the other. But then again, I'm not clear on what "existence as simulation" is supposed to mean conceptually, either, especially not on a Macro scale. Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand it.

Maybe you're overthinking it? It's as simple as, a man creates a video game (or go back a few thousand years, a man makes a cave drawing), the same as God made us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe you're overthinking it? It's as simple as, a man creates a video game (or go back a few thousand years, a man makes a cave drawing), the same as God made us.

Ok. I think I get your drift, but analytically, I don't think I'd identify the act of a caveman making a cave drawing as a 'simulation.' Instead, I'd identify that as an act of 'imitation of...'

 

[Chesterton]

Imitation, simulation...same thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Imitation, simulation...same thing.

Not really. Simulation and Emulation are two different, even if seemingly similar, states.

 

[Chesterton]

Not really. Simulation and Emulation are two different, even if seemingly similar, states.

You didn't say emulation.