Thought provoking video.

[Chriliman]

Thought provoking video.

 

[cvanwey]

Thought provoking video.

Seems odd that apologists need to reach so very deep into their bag to do, what a claimed all powerful God could just instill into everyone, on his own.

This screams of...

'Can you come up with a better explanation? If you can't, then this leans towards my specific God.'

How about instead, presenting direct evidence for the existence of Yahweh. And since we are presenting videos, I have one for you to kick it off:

(If you wish, fast forward through the first 4-5 minutes)

 

[Chriliman]

Seems odd that apologists need to reach so very deep into their bag to do, what a claimed all powerful God could just instill into everyone, on his own.

This screams of...

'Can you come up with a better explanation? If you can't, then this leans towards my specific God.'

How about instead, presenting direct evidence for the existence of Yahweh. And since we are presenting videos, I have one for you to kick it off:

(If you wish, fast forward through the first 4-5 minutes)

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just wanted to share something I found interesting. Quantumn physics is fascinating regardless of its implications, however contemplating the implications is fascinating to me as well.

 

[cvanwey]

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just wanted to share something I found interesting. Quantumn physics is fascinating regardless of its implications, however contemplating the implications is fascinating to me as well.

O I know. It's not directed at you, per say... But the title of the video screams fallacies

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In quantum mechanics, "observation" means "interaction with photons." 99% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, neither of which can be observed. So why would the universe simulator load these things if they're not being observed? 99% or more of the universe is apparently an exception to his proposed rule that things are only loaded when observed in order to conserve memory. Furthermore, the existence of trillions of galaxies would be moronic programming as every star would have to be 100% loaded at all times because it is bursting with photons, i.e. observers. His little theory fits like a glove on a foot.

Also, was the entire universe loaded at once during the Big Bang? That's not how computer start ups work, but that's necessarily how his model would work.

If by "observer" he literally means "human observer" then everything he said about quantum mechanics is irrelevant: equivocation logical fallacy. An observer in a video game forcing areas of a map to load simply by moving around is not what is meant by "observer" in quantum mechanics.

Yes we are likely in a simulation, but it's not because of the mechanics of the quantum world. So the infinite regress argument does not apply. There's likely a haystack of simulated worlds but there is still one needle in that haystack.

On top of that, he dismissed the idea of the "true" reality being a classical world because the computer would have to be so very large, but if we are talking about an entirely new reality he's a bit presumptuous to be so dismissive. It is conceivably possible for a universe to exist in which there is a galaxy-spanning computer.

 

[Chriliman]

In quantum mechanics, "observation" means "interaction with photons." 99% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, neither of which can be observed. So why would the universe simulator load these things if they're not being observed? 99% or more of the universe is apparently an exception to his proposed rule that things are only loaded when observed in order to conserve memory. Furthermore, the existence of trillions of galaxies would be moronic programming as every star would have to be 100% loaded at all times because it is bursting with photons, i.e. observers. His little theory fits like a glove on a foot.

So in quantum mechanics a photon is considered an observer? I thought all material (including photons) existed as a wave function until observed.

If by "observer" he literally means "human observer" then everything he said about quantum mechanics is irrelevant: equivocation logical fallacy. An observer in a video game forcing areas of a map to load simply by moving around is not what is meant by "observer" in quantum mechanics.

What exactly do you understand observer to mean then?

Yes we are likely in a simulation, but it's not because of the mechanics of the quantum world.

The mechanics of the quantum world suggest that we're in a simulation. Take quantum entanglement for example.

So the infinite regress argument does not apply. There's likely a haystack of simulated worlds but there is still one needle in that haystack.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here?

On top of that, he dismissed the idea of the "true" reality being a classical world because the computer would have to be so very large, but if we are talking about an entirely new reality he's a bit presumptuous to be so dismissive.

I Agree, I would have liked him to dive deeper into this possibility.

It is conceivably possible for a universe to exist in which there is a galaxy-spanning computer.

Yes, but the computer(or mind) couldn't only exist within the universe because it would just be part of the simulation. It would have to also exist outside the universe, causing the simulation.

 

[ananda]

Thought provoking video.

This fits quite well with early Buddhist psycho-cosmology.

Samsaric existence is self-emergent: an innumerable number of conscious minds together creates the reality we know through collaborative volition & observation. "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe" - as the video narrator points out - is one reason why conscious control over one's own mind is one of the foremost goals in Buddhism.

 

[Chriliman]

This fits quite well with early Buddhist psycho-cosmology.

Samsaric existence is self-emergent: an innumerable number of conscious minds together creates the reality we know through collaborative volition & observation. "There is no objective reality beyond what we observe" - as the video narrator points out - is one reason why conscious control over one's own mind is one of the foremost goals in Buddhism.

I think it makes more sense to say objective reality exists in a state that is inconceivable unless consciousness exists to conceive it. This isn't to say there is no objective reality.

 

[ananda]

I think it makes more sense to say objective reality exists in a state that is inconceivable unless consciousness exists to conceive it. This isn't to say there is no objective reality.

Possibly. However, whether or not an objective reality exists, the key actor is the individual consciousness.

 

[Chriliman]

Possibly. However, whether or not an objective reality exists, the key actor is the individual consciousness.

Yes and there’s still the observed evidence suggesting our reality is like a simulation, not unlike the digital worlds we create ourselves, which points to a consciousness beyond our reality who made the simulation. Fascinating!

 

[ananda]

Yes and there’s still the observed evidence suggesting our reality is like a simulation, not unlike the digital worlds we create ourselves, which points to a consciousness beyond our reality who made the simulation. Fascinating!

There also exists a possibility that our individual mind is what creates and shapes the simulation we individually experience.

 

[Chriliman]

There also exists a possibility that our individual mind is what creates and shapes the simulation we individually experience.

Sure, when I come to exist I can manipulate the simulation to a certain extent, but that doesn't account for how/why I came to exist or how/why the universe came to exist.

I certainly can't say I created my own existence or created the universe, no, someone or something else is responsible for that.

 

[ananda]

Sure, when I come to exist I can manipulate the simulation to a certain extent, but that doesn't account for how/why I came to exist or how/why the universe came to exist.

I certainly can't say I created my own existence or created the universe, no, someone or something else is responsible for that.

I figure the consciousness of my parents created the aggregates needed for my own consciousness to arise. The impact of one's own consciousness on the rest of reality depends on the strength of that consciousness.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So in quantum mechanics a photon is considered an observer? I thought all material (including photons) existed as a wave function until observed.

What exactly do you understand observer to mean then?

Inspiring Philosophy was attempting to leverage the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I'll call the HUP, to suggest that particles with unknown positions are not "loaded" into the "game" of the universe in order to save memory. The HUP states that the position and motion of a particle cannot be simultaneously known to great degrees of accuracy, and further, that one becomes more/less certain in inverse to the other. Absolute certainty of a particle's position or motion is impossible as that would make the other variable absolutely uncertain (it would be paradoxical to be able to measure exactly how fast something is moving while at the same time having absolutely no idea where it is). While every particle in the universe will have varying degrees of certainty with regards to its position and motion, I would presume that his tacit assumption is that the position variable requires more memory than the motion variable due to the vast size of the universe, and that higher degrees of certainty require more memory. In this case, having low amounts of certainty on positions of particles would save the most memory. But none of this works if you abuse the notion of an observer, and he did exactly that. But I got into that already in my first post.

The HUP does not apply to light as far as I understand. As far as light is concerned, we are indeed absolutely certain of its motion. Of all the things in the universe, we are most certain about the speed of light, and, of course, the whole of reality contorts itself to ensure that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. This uniquely qualifies light to behave as an observer. If the HUP applied to light, we would have to have absolutely no certainty on the position of photons, and that's not the case.

Let me summarize with a counter example. Suppose I had two electrons and I wanted to use one to find the other. I could bounce my electron back and forth until it pings off of the other, and in that way I'll know I've found it. Except, not really, because of the HUP. The position and motion of each particle will have a large margin of error, which is inescapable due to the HUP, and that margin of error will compound when both electrons interact with one another. While this electron-on-electron interaction will count as an observation, it will not be a very accurate one. But if I use a photon, I only have to worry about the uncertainty of the one electron I'm trying to find.

The mechanics of the quantum world suggest that we're in a simulation. Take quantum entanglement for example.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand why that phenomenon has to be unique to computers among all possible worlds.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here?

Inspiring Philosophy said that qbits (quantum bits) would be required to store the data of the universe, because classical bits would require too much memory to store all possible quantum states. So I think his argument would look like this:

1. All universes with quantum mechanics are a simulation
2. A quantum mechanics universe can only be simulated in a quantum computer
3. A quantum computer can only exist in a universe with quantum mechanics

This would imply an infinite regress, which he presumably would say is impossible as there has to be a universe that is actually real to host all the nested simulations.

I would agree with the third premise, but I think I've explained the massive faults with the first two.

I Agree, I would have liked him to dive deeper into this possibility.

It seems you aren't persuaded by the second premise either.

Yes, but the computer(or mind) couldn't only exist within the universe because it would just be part of the simulation. It would have to also exist outside the universe, causing the simulation.

I apologize if my needle-in-a-haystack prompted this response. I didn't mean to suggest that. There would definitely be a nested hierarchy, such as

x is contained in {x} which is contained in {x, {x}} and so on.

It's fair to say that at some point the sequence must stop. My gripe with his video is that quantum mechanics is absolutely not the reason why we are likely in a simulation. It won't really save much memory, if any at all. If we are in a simulation, I doubt quantum mechanics are around to save memory but rather would be part of the simulation process (for example, to see how long it would take for a Boltzmann Brain to form).

 

[Chriliman]

Inspiring Philosophy was attempting to leverage the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I'll call the HUP, to suggest that particles with unknown positions are not "loaded" into the "game" of the universe in order to save memory.

I understood the particles with unknown positions are like the stored data on the computer game waiting to be rendered out on screen.

The HUP does not apply to light as far as I understand. As far as light is concerned, we are indeed absolutely certain of its motion. We can know the speed of light, but it has decreased over time. I think by now it's stopped decreasing IIRC. Of all the things in the universe, we are most certain about the speed of light, and, of course, the whole of reality contorts itself to ensure that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. This uniquely qualifies light to behave as an observer. If the HUP applied to light, we would have to have absolutely no certainty on the position of photons, and that's not the case.

So light can be considered an observer because it's constant and we can be certain of it's position? Am I understanding you correctly? Would it be accurate to say we can confidently use light to make accurate observations? (Rather than saying light is an observer?)

Could you elaborate? I don't understand why that phenomenon has to be unique to computers among all possible worlds.

Well it doesn't have to be unique to computers for the analogy to make sense. All pixels on a screen can be equally affected by the processor regardless of distance(this may be limited to the speed of light though), which is similar to what we observe in quantum entanglement when particles are simultaneously affected even at great distances from each other.

Inspiring Philosophy said that qbits (quantum bits) would be required to store the data of the universe, because classical bits would require too much memory to store all possible quantum states. So I think his argument would look like this:

1. All universes with quantum mechanics are a simulation
2. A quantum mechanics universe can only be simulated in a quantum computer
3. A quantum computer can only exist in a universe with quantum mechanics

This would imply an infinite regress, which he presumably would say is impossible as there has to be a universe that is actually real to host all the nested simulations.

I would agree with the third premise, but I think I've explained the massive faults with the first two.

The way around this was to postulate a mind as the actual reality which created the simulation, that is not itself a simulation.

I apologize if my needle-in-a-haystack prompted this response. I didn't mean to suggest that. There would definitely be a nested hierarchy, such as

x is contained in {x} which is contained in {x, {x}} and so on.

It's fair to say that at some point the sequence must stop. My gripe with his video is that quantum mechanics is absolutely not the reason why we are likely in a simulation. It won't really save much memory, if any at all. If we are in a simulation, I doubt quantum mechanics are around to save memory but rather would be part of the simulation process (for example, to see how long it would take for a Boltzmann Brain to form).

I don't see an issue with postulating a mind(s) that encompasses all simulated space/time that isn't itself a simulation, but can exist within and outside the simulation.

You think we're likely in a simulation, what's your best guess as to how/why the simulation exists, who or what do you think made it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I understood the particles with unknown positions are like the stored data on the computer game waiting to be rendered out on screen.

But again, no particle has a truly unknown position; its position is always determined to some degree. Furthermore, its motion is more certain the less certain its position is. The video game analogy fails for this reason; there is no particle whose variables are waiting to be loaded. All particles are loaded at the same time in the entire universe. In accordance with the principle of charity I put together the best possible case that Inspiring Philosophy could have made, but the video game analogy still fails.

So light can be considered an observer because it's constant and we can be certain of it's position? Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes.

Would it be accurate to say we can confidently use light to make accurate observations? (Rather than saying light is an observer?)

No.

In the context of the quantum world, a person is not an observer. A stray electron would not be picked up by a person's eyeball. But suppose we set up an apparatus the size of an "o" on this page with a region of detection the size of a "·". Then we wouldn't be able to refine the electron's location beyond the diameter of the "·". The only way to discern the location of the electron to a small margin is to use a single photon. The photon is the apparatus that is detecting the electron, hence it is the observer.

Well it doesn't have to be unique to computers for the analogy to make sense. All pixels on a screen can be equally affected by the processor regardless of distance(this may be limited to the speed of light though), which is similar to what we observe in quantum entanglement when particles are simultaneously affected even at great distances from each other.

I don't see how a screen is truly relevant to the CPU. The screen output is merely for the convenience of the user. A simulated being would be entirely unaware of what is on the screen and would be entirely unaffected by it as well.

The way around this was to postulate a mind as the actual reality which created the simulation, that is not itself a simulation.

Keep this preferred conclusion of his in mind and watch his video again. None of his evidence will be related to this actual conclusion.

He suggests that regions of high mass experience relativistic effects as a form of computational lag. Does God's mind lag?

He suggests that certain particles not being observed are not loaded in order to preserve memory. Does God's mind have finite memory?

Take these points away and what circumstantial evidence does he even have left? All of his so-called evidence would only lead us to conclude that the mind we're being simulated in is a finite, limited mind. That's not God. At least it's not the Christian God.

And finally, if we are all truly in God's mind, then we are truly a part of God. This means that the profane is the divine. I am God, as are the contents of a used toilet. I would think that most find this to be highly blasphemous.

Inspiring Philosophy's argument is quite lacking, and further, if it is granted then the God of Christianity is clearly precluded from the conversation.

I don't see an issue with postulating a mind(s) that encompasses all simulated space/time that isn't itself a simulation, but can exist within and outside the simulation.

A mind doesn't solve his problem. A mind has to be made of matter, and so the constraints that hold back computers still apply to a mind. He has said that minds exist independently of matter and he is 100% wrong. There is no known example of this, there is no way that this is conceivably even possible, and Inspiring Philosophy has abused the notion of what an observer is in quantum mechanics.

You think we're likely in a simulation, what's your best guess as to how/why the simulation exists, who or what do you think made it?

I can discuss it if you want but it's off topic so I won't get into it unless you want me to.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've looked at the equation for the HUP and I think I was wrong about a detail. The HUP isn't an equation; it's an inequality. The product of the change in momentum and the change in position is greater than or equal to half the Planck constant. I'm not literate in physics so I can't really take this line of thought much further other than to say that there might not be an upper bound on uncertainty.

Assuming I was wrong and that it's possible for position and motion to both be very uncertain, my previous objections are still valid. 99% of the universe is still an exception to his proposed rule, and all the stars in the universe must be loaded at once.