Tech billionaires think we live in the Matrix and have asked scientists to get us out

a reply to: roadgravel

The thing is that even if we were to prove tomorrow that we were living in a simulation (which we won't, because we aren't) we would still know nothing about the 'inhabitants' of any other simulations. So while interesting in a philosophical sense, it's just a new twist on the sci-fi idea of alternate universes, with the twist being that those alt-universes are artificial rather than empirically real. A pointless distraction, in other words.

a reply to: audubon

Just a twist?

It has nothing to do with just a twist. These Scientist aren't coming to these conclusions because they woke up one day and said wouldn't this be cool. This is what the evidence points to. There's no evidence that an objective material reality exists. So no matter how many times you click your heels and wish there was one, Science doesn't support that notion. Science doesn't care whether you like the idea or not because it's not about what you like it's about the observed evidence.

Here's Scientist like Greene, Susskind and others talking about the 3rd dimension. Susskind calls it an illusion. This is because Science can't show that volume has an objective existence.



Here's Nobel Prize Winner talking about the Universe is a Simulation.



Here's a longer lecture given by Sussking titled The World as a Hologram.



Again, the point is these things aren't just a twist or a philisophical whim.

a reply to: neoholographic

t has nothing to do with just a twist. These Scientist aren't coming to these conclusions because they woke up one day and said wouldn't this be cool. This is what the evidence points to. There's no evidence that an objective material reality exists. So no matter how many times you click your heels and wish there was one, Science doesn't support that notion. Science doesn't care whether you like the idea or not because it's not about what you like it's about the observed evidence.

It also doesn't care what you believe is the truth, even though you are just plain flat wrong.

The evidence does not point to the universe being a simulation. The simulation hypothesis seeks to explain the evidence in the universe. Completely different. It's just the anthropic principle on steroids.

The fact that some scientists (i.e., the ones in the videos you provided) think it's a nice theory isn't any kind of proof. You're relying on the 'appeal to authority', except they aren't claiming anything near as conclusive as you seem to think they are.

The question is not how to prove that objective reality exists (this has been a philosophical poser for centuries) but how to prove that what we perceive is fake. The burden of disproof is on the simulation theorists, and they don't have one speck of objective evidence. It's as speculative as the Everett-Wheeler 'Many Worlds' hypothesis, if not more so.

So, it's really not a question of me 'clicking my heels' and asserting that reality is real. It's a question of me peering up at you as you sail away in a hot air balloon fuelled by the emissions of cosmological speculation, carried along on a current of credulous media promotion, and wondering why you think I am obstinately refusing to just take off, fly up, and join you.

If any of this sounds personal, I'd encourage you to roll back on that aspect of the post to which I am replying, and then I'll become more civil too.

No one is saying it is a proven theory. There is much that isn't understood about the universe so I have no need to rule the possibility out.

a reply to: roadgravel

If I were one of those tiresome armchair investigators who patrol the internet with a list of logical fallacies in one hand and a nit-comb in the other, I would play the "invisible pink unicorn" card at this point.

And I would be justified in so doing because believing that you live in a simulation is no different from believing that the universe is a test set by God, except it relies on science-fantasy literature and ultraterrestrials instead of on 2,000 year old scrolls and a demiurge.

But I'm not, so I won't.

a reply to: audubon

You said:

The fact that some scientists (i.e., the ones in the videos you provided) think it's a nice theory isn't any kind of proof. You're relying on the 'appeal to authority', except they aren't claiming anything near as conclusive as you seem to think they are.

This is just a flat out lie. Did you even to bother to listen to anything that was said? Did you read the published papers where they explain in great detail ast to why they have reached these conclusion?

Again, you provide zero evidence to support anything that you're saying. Nobody is just appealing to authority. The only authority here is the evidence that supports their conclusions. That's not just accepting what someone says, it's actually taking the time to read the articles, books and peer reviewed papers that support their conclusions.

So it is about you clicking your heels because you haven't provided a shred of evidence beyond your hyperbole. When I look at your post, I only see your opinion without any evidence to support what you're saying.

So the question is, can they show an objective material reality exists because all of the observed evidence says no. Evidence seems to be a concept that you're not familiar with because each of your post have been devoid of any evidence and just full of hyperbole.

The problem you have is, you want to stick your head in the sand and act like people are reching these conclusions with just a twist. It's idiotic when you look at the mountains of evidence over many years that supports the conclusions. Now it's possible these things may turn out not to be true but to act like this is just mere speculation shows two things.

1. You have a blind belief that the universe must conform to your beliefs and evidence be damned.

2. Maybe you don't know what evidence is because you haven't provided a shred of evidence in any of your posts.

What you're demanding is that I prove reality is really real.

Are you on acid? Because the default position among those of normal awareness is that the onus is on sceptics to prove that reality is not real.

This they have not done, nor is it likely to be done. You can post as many hour-long videos as you want, various scientists coming out in favour of the idea is not proof, or anywhere near it. It's just their opinions.

You can rattle off as many smears about 'not understanding evidence' as you like. I know perfectly well what constitutes evidence, and the 'simulation theory' doesn't have any. What it boils down to is a bunch of academics pointing at correlations and saying: "Coincidence? I THINK NOT!"

(You probably understand what evidence is, too, as that would be a good explanation for why you won't discuss this startling evidence, but prefer to link to cherry-picked TL;DW youtube videos to get yourself off the hook).

They're not saying it's aliens, but... it's aliens. Or something, they haven't decided yet. Maybe us, but in the future. Possibly the tooth-fairy. Who cares, so long as they can play make-believe? And that's what it is.

It's flimsy, it's meretricious, and it's not good enough.

a reply to: audubon

Again, an entire post filled with nothing. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying. Do you know what evidence is? You said:

What you're demanding is that I prove reality is really real.

First off, I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm just asking you to simply show us evidence to support anything that you're saying. All of your posts are filled with hyperbole but lack any substance.

It's a big nothingburger.

Secondly, if your position is that the reality we experience is an objective material reality you need to show EVIDENCE to support this conclusion.

When people say reality is an illusion, they're saying reality doesn't have an objective existence in the way in which it's perceived. These questions go back to Philosophers like Plato to Theoretical Physicist like Werner Heisenberg:

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science

“I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighbouring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”
― Werner Heisenberg

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

Again, the problem you have is your blind belief. There's no evidence that an objective material reality exists in the way we perceive it.

one of those tiresome armchair investigators

I doubt others would put Nick Bostrom in that group.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: audubon

Again, an entire post filled with nothing. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying. Do you know what evidence is? You said:

What you're demanding is that I prove reality is really real.

First off, I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm just asking you to simply show us evidence to support anything that you're saying. All of your posts are filled with hyperbole but lack any substance.

Call me old-fashioned but since I am claiming that reality is, well, real, it would appear that you are indeed demanding evidence that reality is, well, real. I'm not sure how I might go about that, but fortunately there is no need, since I am not the one with a very exotic theory to substantiate.

Secondly, if your position is that the reality we experience is an objective material reality you need to show EVIDENCE to support this conclusion.

There you go again.

When people say reality is an illusion, they're saying reality doesn't have an objective existence in the way in which it's perceived. These questions go back to Philosophers like Plato to Theoretical Physicist like Werner Heisenberg:

Again, the problem you have is your blind belief. There's no evidence that an objective material reality exists in the way we perceive it.

Do I have to explain to you the fundamental differences between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics?

The quotes you've listed (and in dramatic bold text!) are reflections from physicists coming to terms with their discoveries at the dawn of the quantum physics era, a century or so ago. They aren't the reflections of people discovering that everyday reality is an illusion. If you think about it, isn't it likely that they would have said as much and in so many words at the time?

They are describing the baffling (because they had just discovered it) nature of a subatomic world that doesn't correspond to classical physics. This duality in physics is well-known, and well-established, and has been for donkey's years.

For example, you brandish this quote:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

What your truncated quote omits -- and I'm gong to be generous and assume you did it due to lack of full comprehension of what you were quoting -- is that 'modern physics has decided in favor of Plato' because the rival theory was that of Democritus, who believed in 'billiard-ball' atoms (i.e., solid particles not reducible to any smaller parts).

Plato, by contrast, believed that atoms were mathematical forms.

He did not, for the record, believe that we lived in a simulation. His 'allegory of the cave' was intended to illustrate how philosophers could see beyond the simplified perceptions of lower minds, not that reality itself was fake: The clue is in the word 'allegory'. But Plato believed lots of other odd things too (the literal truth of the 'wandering womb', for example).

So Heisenberg is using an old philosophical debate to illustrate the quantum world. It doesn't make sense in terms of everyday physics, it only makes sense in maths. Similarly, when Oppenheimer said "Now I am become death..." he didn't actually mean he had become a supernatural force.

I'm not going to subject each of your quotes to this level of attention, because it's not worth the effort. This one will serve as an illustration. You don't know what (you think) you are talking about.

a reply to: audubon

What?

Another nothginburger.

Nothing you said refutes anything I'm saying. Again, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying just hyperbole.

Please provide some evidence. Your post make no sense. There's a reason why you only quoted one of the things Heisenberg said. This is because you wanted to take it out of context and then add your long winded nothingness. He also said:

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
― Werner Heisenberg

Again, it's clear what he's saying and what others are saying today. It's also clear you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. This is why your posts are devoid of any evidence. We are having a debate about Science not your blind belief. If you want to debate your blind beliefs, there's a forum for that.

You said that an objective material reality was real. Of course you haven't provided a shred of scientific evidence to support this.

What I said was that reality isn't the way that we perceive it to be and this is based on observed EVIDENCE which I have listed throughout this thread.

Heisenberg agrees. ELEMENTARY PARTICLES ARE NOT REAL.

The point is, you haven't even defined what you mean by reality is real. What do you mean by this? How is reality real as you see it and where's the scientific evidence to support your notion of real whatever that may be because nobody knows what you're talking about because your posts are devoid of any Science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Heisenberg agrees. ELEMENTARY PARTICLES ARE NOT REAL.

NO. HE. DOESN'T.

What he says - and what you quoted, so you ought to have read - is that at the quantum level our classical models break down and those quantum entities are (quote) "ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

There is a massive difference between what you are saying he said and what he actually said. But it is becoming apparent that you think he said what you would like him to have said and can't see any other interpretation.

To recap: If physicists had discovered a century ago that reality was an illusion, why did they not say so, and why in fact did it take nearly a century for anyone to propose that idea if it had been self-evident all along?

The answer is: Because none of those listed propositions is true, or even partially true. Not one.

This is getting silly, you don't understand the quotes you keep churning out because the whole point of them is that the ideas to which they relate cannot be properly expressed in non-mathematical terms, and you are just wasting my time by repeating nonsense at me, waiting for me to patiently point out what nonsense you're talking, an then repeating the same nonsense all over again but with greater vehemence.

I'm content to leave this conversation here, and let disinterested observers judge who is talking sense out of the pair of us. No doubt you will proclaim victory by default, like a chimp who has just s#it on a chessboard. Knock yourself out, I'm done.

a reply to: audubon

What are you in the 3rd grade?

What do you mean proclaim victory? You sound ridiculous. You haven't presented any evidence to proclaim anything in a Scientific forum. Your posts have nothing to do with Science. You can't even articulate why you think reality has an objective material existence or any Science to support anything you have said.

Declare victory lol. So childish.

He said exactly what I'm saying. Reality isn't what we perceive it to be. Here's more:

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”



So tell me, if the distinctions between past, present and future are a persistent illusion how is the reality you perceive real?

Will you actually provide some evidence to support anything your saying?

originally posted by: pikestaff
So we are all living in a computer program, right, where is this computer? who types all the programs for all the snowflakes, blades of grass, tree leaves, raindrops, grains of sand, pebbles, clouds, lightening, storms, people, dogs, cats, birds, sheep, pigs, cattle, lions, elephants, snakes, horses, fish, and everything else?

Not as hard as you're trying to make it seem.

a reply to: roadgravel

Isn't that the most frightening but about it though. How do you know when you've finally woken up?

It's the Bond villain Elon Musk I bet....He is up to something.

a reply to: neoholographic

id rather put all the money into building my own relaity

if they are working with scientist and using their own money and its to help "us" out. as in the entire population then go for it.

break out of the simulation for what? why would you want to end the simulation? do they think that we are actually in some kind of pod like in the matrix movie? we would just be breaking out of one simulation to break into a new one. god these people sound dumb when they talk like this.

Hey there Neoholographic: Nice OP. Why don't we just cut right to the extreme viewpoint here.....let's say we pump a whole lot of particulate aluminum into the atmosphere and add some GWEN towers on the ground. I think you know where I'm going with this.

Most on this site are aware of this most extreme possibility. But does that equal total simulated reality? Probably not. Increasingly I find it's important to focus on the idea that it's not one single thing or another, but combinations, more than likely.....

So, what that would mean here, is the gamers absolutely know the level of simulation we are in, and how algorhthims and convergent and manipulated timelines figure into that perception.....There's the perception, but that isn't necessarily reality, though many philosophically believe that to be true. That's encouraged, as well. It's another blame mechanism, while you suffer through what you haven't any control over, imho.

Perhaps, just maybe, there is a true solid world, with a simulated overlay, if you will. So that you see what is manipulated for you to see, both in the environ sense, and the brain functioning sense of eyesight and pure empiricism, all at the same time. This is truly complex, and made that way on purpose, so that no one can ever get to the grinding gears of it to discover the whole truth....again, imho.

Just my four cents or so. Thansk for the information.
tetra

Haven't they read the Good News? The Word's of Jesus are intended to liberate us from the confines of this mental matrix. The Truth will set you free.