What's Real?

[Commodore]

Evan Walker, thanks Tims.

Now the logical progression in the Simulation Hypothesis video was pretty clean. It arrived at a place Susskind is avoiding with everything he's got. Yet what he says points there. There are a dozen physicists in that video, from Nasa...top colleges, they all arrive at that same place, that this is a simulation. So, what does Walker say that says its not a simulation? Is there a paper online which refutes what all these folks are saying? Or even better yet, a youtube vid?

Why don't you start providing some actual scientific papers instead of YouTube videos? One of the links you already provided said there was no scientific evidence for this "hollow moon" theory, so why should I trust any YouTube videos you post?

Also, you keep saying "many physicists" and "many top colleges" but when I search all I find is Bostrom and Musk being the only ones who are really pushing hard for this hypothesis. Everything else I'm seeing is just a bunch of scientists either ripping the hypothesis to shreds or avoiding the issue alotogether by just shrugging their shoulders and saying "maybe".

Not to mention this is only a hypothesis. You do know what a hypothesis is right? It is the starting point. That means there is little to no evidence to go on yet. Which is fine. My problem though is that you seem to already be convinced that this is scientific fact, despite the fact that this is all still in the hypothesis stage and experimentation/collection of evidence hasn't really even begun.

 

[Old Hippy]

Okay Hippy, screw Bostrum, and I'll raise you Susskind.

The question addressed here is why our universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Susskind explains that Weinberg calculated that if the cosmological constant was just a little different, our universe would cease to exist.
so we go round in circles of intelligent design, of the millions of possible universes we live in one that really suits us.
well actually we don't, most of the universe is a very hostile place where we would cease to exist, we just got lucky and if its a simulation well someone else just got lucky repeat again and again and again
sometimes you just have to sip your simulated beer on a Sunday night, and smell the simulated snapper on the BBQ....

 

[CavLancer]

Comm, the three suggestions in the OP were in descending levels of credibility to prove a point. The question being, what's real. Whether you believe in any of them is your concern. The first was the real meat, the simulation hypothesis, and if that's true anything else might be also. If we live in a simulated universe, whose to say the program didn't start running 5 minutes ago and what we remember as coming prior are simply part of our programmed reality? If this is a simulation, which appears likely from what I've seen, then anything goes. Your results may differ.

Its a fair point Hippy. I could go to the IRS and try to convince them the taxes I owe wouldn't exist even if I paid them, but they might be an even harder sell than you guys... Fun stuff anyway. Trying to convince the programmer of stuff might be easier than the IRS.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Comm, the three suggestions in the OP were in descending levels of credibility to prove a point. The question being, what's real. Whether you believe in any of them is your concern. The first was the real meat, the simulation hypothesis, and if that's true anything else might be also. If we live in a simulated universe, whose to say the program didn't start running 5 minutes ago and what we remember as coming prior are simply part of our programmed reality? If this is a simulation, which appears likely from what I've seen, then anything goes. Your results may differ.

Reality is a tricky thing.
First you need to define what you mean by "real". And then "real" to whom or what? What is real to an ant may not be the same as what is real to you or me. What is real to you and me may not be the same as what is real to the Dalai Lama.

Is there an objective reality? Is it accessible to all? Is it limited to that which can be measured?
No, the moon is not hollow.
No, we do not live in a simulation or hologram.
String theory fails.

 

[timtofly]

Reality is a tricky thing.
First you need to define what you mean by "real". And then "real" to whom or what? What is real to an ant may not be the same as what is real to you or me. What is real to you and me may not be the same as what is real to the Dalai Lama.

Is there an objective reality? Is it accessible to all? Is it limited to that which can be measured?
No, the moon is not hollow.
No, we do not live in a simulation or hologram.
String theory fails.

What is real is that humans think that theories are realities, but neither realities are actual realities. Try not to think really hard about that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What is real is that humans think that theories are realities, but neither realities are actual realities. Try not to think really hard about that.

That is one theory....

So, what are the characteristics of what is real? Or, should I say: Real.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I watched and loved the video on Antarctica. My only question is, are there any other possible reasons that John Kerry et al might have gone there? Could they be curious about such a place?

BTW, I looked at google earth to find that very massive, birth canal looking orifice, but failed. Can you help me out with a hint at its location?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Global Warming

 

[timtofly]

That is one theory....

So, what are the characteristics of what is real? Or, should I say: Real.

The characteristics of reality includes all we know and all we do not know.

My issue is how we view a simulation. The fictional Matrix, is backwards from the condition of the current universe. In the Matrix the "soul" and utopia is the simulation. From all indication, the soul is the reality, and the physical universe is the simulation. The only proof one can have of a simulation would be the chance to view it from the outside.

 

[Bootstoots]

It is (probably) impossible to know anything scientifically about whether the world we live in is a simulation nested on some enormous computer, whether I'm the only being that truly exists and other people are just aspects of the simulation, whether there are other universes, whether the world was created last Thursday and all of us (including all of our memories from before last Thursday) were made in the creation event, whether I'm actually just a Boltzmann brain that appeared out of random fluctuations in a chaotic high-entropy universe, and so on and so forth.

Questions about what lies beyond observable reality are not scientific questions. They're metaphysics, not physics. There's nothing wrong with metaphysical speculations, but lots of physicists seem to have convinced themselves that their metaphysical thoughts are somehow scientific. I mean, you could interpret QM using the many-worlds interpretation, but that's just one interpretation of it and it's not falsifiable in any way: hence, it's metaphysics inspired by physics rather than actual physics. I think it's interesting that even many self-proclaimed rational, skeptical minds still end up coming back to speculating about metaphysics, without really realizing that they've done that.

 

[CavLancer]

See, that's why I cherry pick, bullblah like that Boots. You sound like an expert. Not science? If you want to tell me about 'not science' lets go backk to the global warming thread and you can share with me about polar bears or penguins or whatever the flavor of the day is. Not science, forsooth.

As it happens the science points to metaphysics and the scientists don't like that so they pooh pooh the whole thing. You should hear Susskind dance around the obvious conclusions, its pretty delusional. The sci says this is a creation, and its made by a creator. Deal with it.

I just had to get that out of the way, now I'll respond to some of the more plausible, or at least more entertaining posts.

 

[CavLancer]

Reality is a tricky thing.
First you need to define what you mean by "real". And then "real" to whom or what? What is real to an ant may not be the same as what is real to you or me. What is real to you and me may not be the same as what is real to the Dalai Lama.

Is there an objective reality? Is it accessible to all? Is it limited to that which can be measured?
No, the moon is not hollow.
No, we do not live in a simulation or hologram.
String theory fails.

Reality was simple. You had a rock in your hand so you had a rock in your hand. Now, you have a hand full of data. Simple stuff here folks. Yes, its very likely we live in a simulation.

 

[CavLancer]

The question addressed here is why our universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Susskind explains that Weinberg calculated that if the cosmological constant was just a little different, our universe would cease to exist.
so we go round in circles of intelligent design, of the millions of possible universes we live in one that really suits us.
well actually we don't, most of the universe is a very hostile place where we would cease to exist, we just got lucky and if its a simulation well someone else just got lucky repeat again and again and again
sometimes you just have to sip your simulated beer on a Sunday night, and smell the simulated snapper on the BBQ....

Intelligent design? I stubbed my toe the other day and it hurt like hell. It didn't have to do that. One little bit of code written a little different and it might have felt like an orgasm.

 

[CavLancer]

I watched and loved the video on Antarctica. My only question is, are there any other possible reasons that John Kerry et al might have gone there? Could they be curious about such a place?

BTW, I looked at google earth to find that very massive, birth canal looking orifice, but failed. Can you help me out with a hint at its location?

I'm not standing behind the whole Antarctica thing. However if the entire universe just happens to be data, which is highly likely, then there's no good reason why there couldn't be a space alien root beer stand down there, competing with the .ice cream joint on the dark side of the moon. In fact I should hope there would be something to eat when we finally get there.

 

[Old Hippy]

Intelligent design? I stubbed my toe the other day and it hurt like hell. It didn't have to do that. One little bit of code written a little different and it might have felt like an orgasm.

who knows with the reboot next Wednesday it might have that effect....

 

[CavLancer]

I'll try not to stub my toe for a couple days, thanks!

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not standing behind the whole Antarctica thing. However if the entire universe just happens to be data, which is highly likely, then there's no good reason why there couldn't be a space alien root beer stand down there, competing with the .ice cream joint on the dark side of the moon. In fact I should hope there would be something to eat when we finally get there.

You need to keep in mind that the data that you say makes up the universe is just the way we interpret what our various instruments observe. Our perspective is tied tightly to our limited instrumentation and that instrumentation is built based on our peculiar biological apparatus. Data is our invention. The glow-worm might well "view" reality quite differently. Is its limitations less significant than ours? What role does the observer play in determining what is real?

 

[Commodore]

Comm, the three suggestions in the OP were in descending levels of credibility to prove a point. The question being, what's real.

But the simulation hypothesis isn't very credible even if the basic premise behind it turns out to be correct. I think the best refutation of the simulation hypothesis that I read made an excellent point: Even if our universe was created for the purpose of being a simulation, it is still not a simulation and can still be considered to be reality. The reason being that if some intelligence was able to create a simulation so advanced that it is indistinguishable from reality, then that simulation ceases to be a simulation and becomes reality, albeit a created reality instead of a naturally occurring one (if there can even be such a thing).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Reality was simple. You had a rock in your hand so you had a rock in your hand. Now, you have a hand full of data. Simple stuff here folks. Yes, its very likely we live in a simulation.

How you are making the leap from "handful of data" to "simulation" escapes me. Yes, what we think of as a physical object can be thought of as a collection of particles that are physical objects or it can be thought of as a collection of particles that are matrices of probabilities instead, so a "handful of data." But that doesn't make a "simulation."

For there to be a simulation would imply that there is something being simulated. Something somewhere else that is "real" that the simulation is representing. There is absolutely nothing in quantum physics to suggest that some "reality" somewhere is providing such a template.

 

[Commodore]

How you are making the leap from "handful of data" to "simulation" escapes me. Yes, what we think of as a physical object can be thought of as a collection of particles that are physical objects or it can be thought of as a collection of particles that are matrices of probabilities instead, so a "handful of data." But that doesn't make a "simulation."

For there to be a simulation would imply that there is something being simulated. Something somewhere else that is "real" that the simulation is representing. There is absolutely nothing in quantum physics to suggest that some "reality" somewhere is providing such a template

It also baffles me how he can say it is "very likely" when there is little to no evidence supporting the hypothesis...which is why it is still called a hypothesis.