isn't that fun how a 1999 action movie (matrix, inspired by a 80's book by the Bogdanov bros. ) rebooted a whole philosophy and review on how finally, in the universe the only thing that counts is the perception and how the brain interprets it ? that's always been true.
Yeah, that would be cool if there happened to be keywords concealed somewhere in our simulation (assuming it is one). From the outside they'd just be cheat codes, but from the inside they'd look just like spells. Of course I don't know how they would be found, but it would make for a cool plot device in simulcra-type scifi.
@JohananRaatz Maybe there's something in occult rituals after all? Bohemian Grove and all that. Do you really think we will reach a point where we could create simulations that are fully realistic? And how volatile would these sims be? What would happen if the power supply was cut off? Especially if you have sims within sims. If there was, say, a meteor impact near the device containing the 1st sim, causing it to malfunction, this would cause strange things to happen inside all the other sims.
@1simonmatthews I doubt the "1st" sim would be prone to malfunction of any sort, perhaps apart from the collapse of the universe itself. But the confounding advanced civilization of the future is running simulations in the medium of space-time/hyperspace, most probably out of reach from asteroids & other destructive factors. My wonder is when we begin simulations of our own, what happens to the consciousness within terminated/looped sims; specific confined sims, and so on. A lot to think about.
@JohananRaatz I don't think we can be sure of this, since we don't know how many new sub-universes are popping into existence at any one time. If the original universe is infinite, with an infinite amount of new sub-universes popping into existence all the time, growing at an exponential rate, then the amount of simulations may never catch up. I would think each simulation would be a sub-universe that could never contain as much information as the original universe, or the one containing it.
This is what my logic tells me. It's possible that the original universe is infinite, in which case simulated universes could never contain as much information as the original, infinite universe. And no matter how many simulated universes there are in existence, there would always be more of the original, infinite universe in existence. This would make it more likely that we are not in a simulation. I don't know if this is correct, but it's what my logic is telling me.
This doesn't even begin to explain how life originates. Starting in the middle or at this perceived "end" leaves the equation without any foundation. Instead of seeking where does it end, you should be asking where it began. If you deny the God of Christ but support a multiverse of computers, which one is more far fetched when you take the initial creation of the universe into consideration?
@JohananRaatz Ok, I'm hanging around to see. The guidelines within the bible don't give very much leeway for a computer generated reality but, sequel on!
@Maxid1 It will take a bit. In the meantime let me show you my primary other argument for God, to put another context on this. The Omega Point at the end is identified with the wave-function of the universe, but there's a good reason to identify that with God for a reason that doesn't have to do with Omega Point theory or Simulism: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Now this argument by itself could argue for any kind of God (deist perhaps), though I have some other arguments I want to add to it.
If we are a simulation & we become undoubtidly aware of this.then wont we try to fight it?I wonder if the "Machines taking over humanity & enslaving it" is actually speaking of ourselves...
This all started with the damn matrix movie. It was great, but people have lost their minds over this, preferring what is possible and fantastical to what isn't.
@AmundLauritzen Well I did mention earlier in the video that I don't fully buy the computational model of the mind. Consciousness could exist on a special kind of quantum computer though -as long as it uses non-computational analog states as the basis of it's computating. Those could allow for free-will.
If you watch the 2005 BBC Horizon documentary about Stephen Hawking you'll understand which metaphysical fallacy you make. Let me know when you find out.
I appreciate it you're beginning to cite you're sources, please don't forget Gerard 't Hooft.
@AlainG80 I saw it. Does this have to do with black holes not quite forming before they evaporate? (though that's physics not metaphysics) I'm not sure I know what you are pointing to.
@AlainG80 Ok, it look like you're aiming at hypostatization. Yes these are interesting parallels, but each of these three have arguments all their own that don't hypostasize. I mean look at Bostrom's argument. Yes it's intuitive to say that perhaps he's subsconsciously doing this and then making that argument up after the fact, but where does his argument in itself go wrong? It seems very solid to me.
And you never know. Perhaps all three of those are all right simultaneously anyway. Who knows.
@AlainG80 Ok, it look like you're aiming at hypostatization. Yes these are interesting parallels, but each of these three have arguments all their own that don't hypostasize. I mean look at Bostrom's argument. Yes it's intuitive to say that perhaps he's subsconsciously doing this and then making that argument up after the fact, but where does his argument in itself go wrong? It seems very solid to me.
And you never know. Perhaps all three of those are all right simultaneously anyway. Who knows.
infidels org/library/modern/graham_oppy/modal html
infidels org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/modal html
They don't work if you don't presuppose premisses. Scientists don't presuppose stuff because they value parsimony and adhere to the null hypothesis. Together with a sample size of 1 universe, any probabillities are pure speculation. It makes for good sci-fi (like inception/the matrix), but bad science.
Dont presuppose stuff, except for methodological naturalism of course, since we have evidence for that and because we quantified that pre-supposition.
I'm glad you understand the distinction behind science and phlosophy. I just needed to test it, after the PM you wrote.
I agree, it is a trichotemy, just like any correlation test it has (on a abstract level) 3 options. Anti-simulation, a-simulation and pro-simulation. The null hypothesis is a-simulation and the alternative hypothesis prosimulation. With a sample size of 1 universe we have nihil correlation co-efficient, I do agree that like modal arguments it makes me... 1/2
... skeptical of metaphysical claims, including metaphysical naturalism. I hope now you understand Lawrence Krauss's sentiment when he disbelieves in (super)string / M-theory hypothesis predictions and dismisses it as bad science. On the edges of our knowledge, mathematicians are leading the evidence, while conservative scientists like to follow the evidence. God might be a black swan, since science is inductive and abductive [(scientific) theory] reasoning. To date no evidence though! 2/2
Well I guess with me, and you might have noticed this by now, I like to put philosophy and science together more than some to try to get "the big picture" so to speak. Perhaps it was my philosophy background.
"Lawrence Krauss's sentiment when he disbelieves in (super)string"
I do dislike that yes. Modern string theory started well but has gotten out of control and too far from either experiment, or reasonable deductions from previous science.
If we use our knowledge of THIS illusory world to imply that we are a simulation, then we really don't know anything about this fake world (throw informatics, biology, quantum theory and consciousness to the trash), much less of the one running the simulation.
In other words, it assumes at the very beginning that this world is the real truthful world.
@IloveYOUviruses The only way I can think of to reconciliate the probable vanity of this world with the reality of the Prime Cause is found in Ecclesiastes 1:2
With this being the case, this world is vanity, but was meant to be truthful from the beginning.
@griswold985 "brain does "processes" which are non-computable,"
Well I actually happen to agree with you on that, tthough it was Harris presenting it so it came across with his "flavor" so to speak. That said, I think it would be possible to use analog non-computable Penrose states as the basis of a quantum computer and then build up computations on these. (this is actually like how we base some of our proofs on non-provable yet true Platonic info, and then make a logical case from them)
Hey Raarz: Do you have skpye? If not could you please get skype? If you have it but don't use it, could you please START using it? It's really not brain surgery.
Very nice video, Though I think when one thinks of this reality as being part of a mother reality in which there are computers who run ancestor simulations, and the question of God, i think that one still comes to an immaterial personal agent who would supersede even that mother reality if you will.
I will be continuing my video so feel free to respond to it by comment or video.
@TheDutchPhilosopher Well this was a separate video, but let me show you something regarding the wave-function of the universe which eventually "becomes" this Omega Point (though really is it the whole time): watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
It's a peculiar result from Penrose's quantum mind model that completely undermines Hawking's argument against the need for a deity.
As for immateriality you might like this: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
does it strike anyone as ... prophectic, that the next generation of children, starting around 2012 13 will be called GENERATION ALPHA !!! :-) this new generation is gen ZED.
no such thing as coincidence, this is a self regulating design.
I concur with your commentary. The editing/composition of this video is very poor. It's hard to read the text, and the music makes it worse because you have to read it yourself with musical detraction TO BOOT(although you can just turn down the volume).
But sycophants or butt kissers will compliment regardless. Because it tells them what they want to hear. Even if it's junk. Like Redstateadvocate and matrixlone
How this junk helps matrixlone's God belief is a mystery to me.
So whenever you disagree with somone's position on a video, you write it off as the author just "telling them what they want to hear", but when the same events transpire on your own videos, it's because you genuinely made a good video/argument?
It must be awfully nice to simply write off any opposition as "butt kissers" or "sycophants" without having to actually take a hard look at yourself honestly, isn't it, Dhorpatan?
@AFrightfulDream In other words, to get around the chicken or the egg paradox, the eternal beginnings would quite literally be the Eternal Forms. From a Godel angle this actually may make sense: The physical world can be represented as a logical system, but since it's a logical system it must be either inconsistent or incomplete according to the incompleteness theorem. Thus physicalism is incomplete. The only way around this is is if we have Platonic forms that don't need proof to ground it all.
@AFrightfulDream "nothing is by nature, self-subsistent and first"
Well no, and that's where things get weirder. I buy Max Tegmark's ultimate ensemble concept, with it's Platonic monism. In other words caves are the illusion and there is nothing but forms. You are made of Platonic information imbedded at the Planck scale.
Of course if materialism was true at bottom yes it would be nothing but caves, but it seems both from physics, as well as philosophy of mind that it might be info at bottom.
@RomansPwnedJesus Well atheism and theism aside, the ideas presented in the Simulation Argument run circles around and are a complete nightmare for Objectivist epistemology. So I suppose I can see why he'd react like that. People don't like to have the floor taken out under their feet. That said, that still isn't a reason to dismiss it.
I think you mean "you are most likely a sim in a customer's mind" Unless that customer has it set in their sim that they are a god. Still a customer though.
Good video also, it makes you think and adds new ideas to consider.
@HonestTechnoAtheist Well see though the "customer" is likely the most advanced being imaginable. The more advanced the being the more simulations it will run, and thus the more likely we will be in one of those simulations.
The being with the most simulations possible, would be the Omega Point however. And the Omega Point is a state of being in which all space-time, matter and energy in existence is harnessed for quantum computation and saturated with intelligence -literally God.
@JohananRaatz The customer is only god in his OWN simulated world that he made. Just like I am god in any fantasy I create in my imagination. But does that make me god in real life? Or course not only in my imagination. The same applies with the customer and his simulated world.
@HonestTechnoAtheist The thing is that the top simulated world would be identical with the real world, since at the Omega Point, space-time would be hacked into and could be manipulated just like the Q. And we are most likely at the Omega Point already, since the Omega Point by definition will be running astronomically more simulations than any lesser civilization.
Making things worse the Omega Point would be outside time according to the Wheeler-DeWitt equ. so it would exist for all time.
@HonestTechnoAtheist The thing is that the top simulated world would be identical with the real world, since at the Omega Point, space-time would be hacked into and could be manipulated just like the Q. And we are most likely at the Omega Point already, since the Omega Point by definition will be running astronomically more simulations than any lesser civilization.
Making things worse the Omega Point would be outside time according to the Wheeler-DeWitt equ. so it would exist for all time.
@JohananRaatz It might be identical to the real world, but that doesn't mean it IS the real world. Just like chatting to someone online, isn't the samething as chatting to someone in real life. If we are in the omega point now (and we could be who knows, I just don't believe that we are) that still leaves the problem that a real world exists somewhere, on some planet. So why not go ahead and save a step and say that our world is the real one? Existing for all time still needs time.
The real world would exist, but it would be completely saturated with quantum computing matter at the O-point. There would be nothing that isn't part of the computer. And you saw how the q-computer here would work, (at the stage where we use space-time to compute) it'd be program and no stuff-one giant self-simulation. If there is any stuff, it would have a one to one correspondence of particle to bit making it the same as a self-simulation.
The real world would exist, but it would be completely saturated with quantum computing matter at the O-point. There would be nothing that isn't part of the computer. And you saw how the q-computer here would work, (at the stage where we use space-time to compute) it'd be program and no stuff-one giant self-simulation. If there is any stuff, it would have a one to one correspondence of particle to bit making it the same as a self-simulation.
@JohananRaatz Fine enough that you woudn't be able to tell the difference then between what was real and what was simulated. I just don't believe that we are in a virtual world right now. Think about how rare life may or may not be in the unverse. It must have started with at least ONE real world. So why not just say that our world is ONE real world that has life on it? Though if our world did have a programmer, he might SEEM like a god, but he would really just be a guy on a computer.
@JohananRaatz Fine enough that you woudn't be able to tell the difference then between what was real and what was simulated. I just don't believe that we are in a virtual world right now. Think about how rare life may or may not be in the unverse. It must have started with at least ONE real world. So why not just say that our world is ONE real world that has life on it? Though if our world did have a programmer, he might SEEM like a god, but he would really just be a guy on a computer.
@JohananRaatz Fine enough that you woudn't be able to tell the difference then between what was real and what was simulated. I just don't believe that we are in a virtual world right now. Think about how rare life may or may not be in the unverse. It must have started with at least ONE real world. So why not just say that our world is ONE real world that has life on it? Though if our world did have a programmer, he might SEEM like a god, but he would really just be a guy on a computer.
Well in QM it does. Since their quantum states are identical, and the no-cloning theorem prevents any two quantum states from sharing the same state. If you recreate the state (especially since we are dealing with the Wheeler-DeWitt equ which says time is an illusion) it's the same! It's like "quantum time travel."
PS. I'll get back to you on your wall, but I'm busy for a few days. But for now, the time travel paradoxes get resolved when you add parallel universes.
unfalsified naturalistic explanations are more plausible by default than unfalsified supernatural explanations. It seems to just be cultural conditioning that a naturalistic idea like this is considered the peak of insanity while supernatural beliefs like God, Ghosts and psychics are considered normal beliefs.
@RomansPwnedJesus "unfalsified naturalistic explanations are more plausible"
No, don't you see? If this is right, there would be no natural/supernatural dichotomy anymore. You could have God, ghosts, psychics, even fairy dimensions and the Roman pantheon if you wanted, and it would ALL be explicable with science.
And the weird part, the closer to the Omega Point (aka the Naturalistic God) the civilization becomes the MORE likely we would be one of their simulations.
@JohananRaatz If the sim hypothesis is right, supernatural phenoma could exist in our world, but our world would also be unreal. So the real world wouldn't necessarily be supernatural.
@RomansPwnedJesus "So the real world wouldn't necessarily be supernatural."
But remember at the Omega Point (the end of Ray Kurzweil's Sixth Epoch of Evolution) the entire universe would be saturated into one giant quantum computer -that quite literally has no hard-ware. (see what I did with the advanced civilization hacking into spin foam to harness space-time itself to do the quantum computing) At this stage there would be no non-simulated "real" world -and we are most likely at this stage.
@MegaExelo Well see (this is where it crosses over into traditional Christianity) they viewed evil as an absence or "illusion" -like matter.(Hole Theory of Evil)Think of it like "acquiring the Knowledge of Good and Evil" and then discovering that what you got is an experiential knowledge of life without God/Good.
Of course the gnostics often had all sorts of other views also that were heretical and such, but insofar as their view of evil is concerned they might have been on to something.
@MegaExelo I just realized, that almost every single point where (most) atheists get screwed up ideas about morality and politics comes from the idea of matter being primary. If matter isn't primary, then there are ideals above us that are actually really there, and if that is the case then existentialism and all of the relativism that goes with it is impossible.
Great video, however wouldn't the berkenstein bound prevent one simulation from happening in another. Actually, can we simulate an entire universe or would that violate berkenstein bound?
There has to be one point where we can't possibley keep creating simulated universes.
@MegaExelo Well not necessarily. Remember to make the simulation convincing, all you need is to have it simulated up to the level of perception of the Sims. If one of the Sims decided to build a microscope or even a Large Hadron Collider, one could simply have the program texture the Paramecia or the Higgs Boson only when the Sim is looking at it.To the Sim the simulation would appear just like our world.
And then of course at the Omega Point, these simulations would be at the Bek Bound anyway.
@Dhorpatan I know you probably think this is insane, but the Science Channel is actually promoting the Simulation Argument, and it suggests some freaky evidence for it: watch?v=Q5AFBytn4ls
@MegaExelo "misinterpeting reality?" "no different than an evil being deceiving you"
Ironically, I just realized what you just said has a strong resemblance to Gtnostic ideas about evil and the Devil ("the Demiurge" -a concept that derives from Neoplatonism). Notice, misinterpreting reality is not the same as not observing it. (matter is never actually observed) It's interesting though, because in gnosticism matter is viewed as the source of evil. I wonder how Simulism ties into this.
This video is one of the many reasons I think you're a quack. if we're in a simulation, then you can never know truth, nor trust Science, since you can't know if the beingd running the simulation are deceiving us, or altering our simulation in ways that are not consistent with the way reality really is.
It's takes a somewhat mentally deranged person to be happy about, and welcome the notion that they live in a simulation. As if that's something that is good.
@Dhorpatan (1 of 2) "a simulation, then you can never know truth, nor trust Science"
You're making false assumptions as to what science is. Science merely tells us to make observations and then use those to confirm or invalidate our theories -it says nothing as to what goes on outside of the context of those theories though. If the context is the Matrix, then those theories will be valid in the Matrix, if in the real world then in the real world etc. Science doesn't give us universal absolutes.
@Dhorpatan (2 of 2) "not consistent with the way..."
On a separate note, this is the problem with a number of your arguments. You treat empirical reality as though you know for a fact that it is all that is, when empirical reality doesn't and isn't able to tell you this. You can't use empirical reality to prove there is nothing outside of itself.
"I think you're a quack."
The simulation argument is taken seriously by philosophers. Are they quacks? And you haven't provided a counterargument.
@TheFunkyTheist He's right on every single point too! It's self-designing, timeless, logically coherent, amazing, non-physical and even personal! AND Craig is right AND all at the same time!
When I first saw this clip, I thought to myself what a limited perspective we humans have, and about the sheer irony of it. Lewis stumbled onto exactly the right answer completely by accident.
nice
Duplooytim 1 month ago
@Duplooytim Thanks! :)
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
Very interesting theory.
Earo16 1 month ago
isn't that fun how a 1999 action movie (matrix, inspired by a 80's book by the Bogdanov bros. ) rebooted a whole philosophy and review on how finally, in the universe the only thing that counts is the perception and how the brain interprets it ? that's always been true.
patachu666 1 month ago
Maybe that is how NASA eventually gets back to the Moon?
It will be a SIMS Simulation?
islandbuoy4 1 month ago
@islandbuoy4
no. there's already... Moonbase Alpha! EUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUbay
patachu666 1 month ago
@patachu666
Moon Bases? you are a bigger fool than most Trekkies patch.
Hey evil 666 aka SSS get me past the DEATH belt first?
Who is 666/SSS gonna call when the SpiritS SanctuS appears?
555-ghost-busters?
islandbuoy4 1 month ago
@islandbuoy4 eebay.
ebay!
ebayebayebay
patachu666 1 month ago
@patachu666
hoses full of john madden
patachu666 1 month ago
@1simonmatthews Happy New Year to you too!
"tried to see if there are keywords"
Yeah, that would be cool if there happened to be keywords concealed somewhere in our simulation (assuming it is one). From the outside they'd just be cheat codes, but from the inside they'd look just like spells. Of course I don't know how they would be found, but it would make for a cool plot device in simulcra-type scifi.
JohananRaatz 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz Maybe there's something in occult rituals after all? Bohemian Grove and all that. Do you really think we will reach a point where we could create simulations that are fully realistic? And how volatile would these sims be? What would happen if the power supply was cut off? Especially if you have sims within sims. If there was, say, a meteor impact near the device containing the 1st sim, causing it to malfunction, this would cause strange things to happen inside all the other sims.
1simonmatthews 1 month ago
@1simonmatthews I doubt the "1st" sim would be prone to malfunction of any sort, perhaps apart from the collapse of the universe itself. But the confounding advanced civilization of the future is running simulations in the medium of space-time/hyperspace, most probably out of reach from asteroids & other destructive factors. My wonder is when we begin simulations of our own, what happens to the consciousness within terminated/looped sims; specific confined sims, and so on. A lot to think about.
Raelsatu 1 month ago
@JohananRaatz I don't think we can be sure of this, since we don't know how many new sub-universes are popping into existence at any one time. If the original universe is infinite, with an infinite amount of new sub-universes popping into existence all the time, growing at an exponential rate, then the amount of simulations may never catch up. I would think each simulation would be a sub-universe that could never contain as much information as the original universe, or the one containing it.
1simonmatthews 2 months ago
This is what my logic tells me. It's possible that the original universe is infinite, in which case simulated universes could never contain as much information as the original, infinite universe. And no matter how many simulated universes there are in existence, there would always be more of the original, infinite universe in existence. This would make it more likely that we are not in a simulation. I don't know if this is correct, but it's what my logic is telling me.
1simonmatthews 2 months ago
Awesome vid. I read up on Teilhard de Chardin a few months back. Interesting Catholic, to say the least!
Oppositum 2 months ago
@Oppositum I've got a sequel planned at some point, assessing the plausibility of simulant-simulator interactions.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
This doesn't even begin to explain how life originates. Starting in the middle or at this perceived "end" leaves the equation without any foundation. Instead of seeking where does it end, you should be asking where it began. If you deny the God of Christ but support a multiverse of computers, which one is more far fetched when you take the initial creation of the universe into consideration?
Maxid1 2 months ago
@Maxid1 "This doesn't even begin to explain how life originates."
Well the Omega Point is outside of time. From the perspective of the Omega Point it's been there for all time.
"If you deny the God of Christ but support a multiverse of computers,"
Who says I do? Hang around you'll see. ;-)
"which one is more far fetched when you take the initial creation of the universe into consideration?"
Neither is.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@JohananRaatz Ok, I'm hanging around to see. The guidelines within the bible don't give very much leeway for a computer generated reality but, sequel on!
Maxid1 2 months ago
@Maxid1 It will take a bit. In the meantime let me show you my primary other argument for God, to put another context on this. The Omega Point at the end is identified with the wave-function of the universe, but there's a good reason to identify that with God for a reason that doesn't have to do with Omega Point theory or Simulism: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
Now this argument by itself could argue for any kind of God (deist perhaps), though I have some other arguments I want to add to it.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@Maxid1 Hi there!
"you deny the God of Christ but support a multiverse of computers,"
I think Johanan is showing creation and the origin of life in the form of an analogy. It's actually quite an interesting one!
Peace!
KTK401 2 months ago
If we are a simulation & we become undoubtidly aware of this.then wont we try to fight it?I wonder if the "Machines taking over humanity & enslaving it" is actually speaking of ourselves...
PureTeenageIgnorance 2 months ago
Comment removed
kikikikia 2 months ago
What is the music starting at 3:45 ?
LtStarkiller 2 months ago
@LtStarkiller Immediate Music-Mystery of the Ages: watch?v=GwxIdRSS4Vg
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
This all started with the damn matrix movie. It was great, but people have lost their minds over this, preferring what is possible and fantastical to what isn't.
matwocents 3 months ago
@matwocents Did you watch the whole video? It started in 1950
ikheetjason 2 months ago
Comment removed
AmundLauritzen 5 months ago
@AmundLauritzen Well I did mention earlier in the video that I don't fully buy the computational model of the mind. Consciousness could exist on a special kind of quantum computer though -as long as it uses non-computational analog states as the basis of it's computating. Those could allow for free-will.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
You might enjoy:
secularoutpost infidels org/2011/07/natural-miracles html
secularoutpost infidels org/2011/04/problem-with-metaphysical-naturalism html
/secularoutpost infidels org/2009/01/stupid-philosopher-tricks html
Search for Bostrom and Berkeley
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80 Thanks, I'll check them out.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@AlainG80 Thanks, I'll check them out.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
If you watch the 2005 BBC Horizon documentary about Stephen Hawking you'll understand which metaphysical fallacy you make. Let me know when you find out.
I appreciate it you're beginning to cite you're sources, please don't forget Gerard 't Hooft.
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80 I looked it up, is this "The Hawking Paradox?" I'm watching it now.
And yeah sorry there, I used to cite the sources more -in the older videos more. I'll start doing that again.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@AlainG80 I saw it. Does this have to do with black holes not quite forming before they evaporate? (though that's physics not metaphysics) I'm not sure I know what you are pointing to.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
We can create instantanious concepts in our head, so Theists think we are concepts in God's head.
With the event of computers people could model the universe, the universe became a simulator,
Stephan Hawking compared the universe to a black hole that is the reasoning behind the point singularity.
To solve the information paradox the holographic principle was invented, and now people propose that the universe is a hologram.
There is a fallcy which describes these mistakes.
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80 Ok, it look like you're aiming at hypostatization. Yes these are interesting parallels, but each of these three have arguments all their own that don't hypostasize. I mean look at Bostrom's argument. Yes it's intuitive to say that perhaps he's subsconsciously doing this and then making that argument up after the fact, but where does his argument in itself go wrong? It seems very solid to me.
And you never know. Perhaps all three of those are all right simultaneously anyway. Who knows.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@AlainG80 Ok, it look like you're aiming at hypostatization. Yes these are interesting parallels, but each of these three have arguments all their own that don't hypostasize. I mean look at Bostrom's argument. Yes it's intuitive to say that perhaps he's subsconsciously doing this and then making that argument up after the fact, but where does his argument in itself go wrong? It seems very solid to me.
And you never know. Perhaps all three of those are all right simultaneously anyway. Who knows.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. from a philosophical point of view.
The agentcy illusion is the main one described from a psychological point of view.
AlainG80 5 months ago
Comment removed
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80 "Post hoc ergo propter hoc." "The agentcy illusion"
Bostrom isn't saying that we are in fact in a simulation like this, just that we are most likely to be in one.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Yes, it is as vague as modal arguments are.
infidels org/library/modern/graham_oppy/modal html
infidels org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/modal html
They don't work if you don't presuppose premisses. Scientists don't presuppose stuff because they value parsimony and adhere to the null hypothesis. Together with a sample size of 1 universe, any probabillities are pure speculation. It makes for good sci-fi (like inception/the matrix), but bad science.
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80
Dont presuppose stuff, except for methodological naturalism of course, since we have evidence for that and because we quantified that pre-supposition.
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80 "Scientists don't presuppose stuff because they value parsimony" "It makes for good sci-fi (like inception/the matrix), but bad science."
Bostrom isn't doing science though. He's doing philosophy.
Does it make bad science? Yes, barring external events coming in we have no evidence to say it's a simulation -hence a null hypothesis.
But good philosophy is based on the strength of the argument instead of predictability, and Bostrom's argument is pretty strong.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
I'm glad you understand the distinction behind science and phlosophy. I just needed to test it, after the PM you wrote.
I agree, it is a trichotemy, just like any correlation test it has (on a abstract level) 3 options. Anti-simulation, a-simulation and pro-simulation. The null hypothesis is a-simulation and the alternative hypothesis prosimulation. With a sample size of 1 universe we have nihil correlation co-efficient, I do agree that like modal arguments it makes me... 1/2
AlainG80 5 months ago
... skeptical of metaphysical claims, including metaphysical naturalism. I hope now you understand Lawrence Krauss's sentiment when he disbelieves in (super)string / M-theory hypothesis predictions and dismisses it as bad science. On the edges of our knowledge, mathematicians are leading the evidence, while conservative scientists like to follow the evidence. God might be a black swan, since science is inductive and abductive [(scientific) theory] reasoning. To date no evidence though! 2/2
AlainG80 5 months ago
@AlainG80 "... skeptical of metaphysical"
Well I guess with me, and you might have noticed this by now, I like to put philosophy and science together more than some to try to get "the big picture" so to speak. Perhaps it was my philosophy background.
"Lawrence Krauss's sentiment when he disbelieves in (super)string"
I do dislike that yes. Modern string theory started well but has gotten out of control and too far from either experiment, or reasonable deductions from previous science.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
Flaw detected at 1:25
If we use our knowledge of THIS illusory world to imply that we are a simulation, then we really don't know anything about this fake world (throw informatics, biology, quantum theory and consciousness to the trash), much less of the one running the simulation.
In other words, it assumes at the very beginning that this world is the real truthful world.
IMHO, this hypothesis is self refuting.
IloveYOUviruses 5 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses The only way I can think of to reconciliate the probable vanity of this world with the reality of the Prime Cause is found in Ecclesiastes 1:2
With this being the case, this world is vanity, but was meant to be truthful from the beginning.
IloveYOUviruses 5 months ago
i stoped wathcing at 1:00 when he was talking about brain;
truth is , brain does "processes" which are non-computable, thus it will never be implemented in computers.
griswold985 5 months ago
@griswold985 "brain does "processes" which are non-computable,"
Well I actually happen to agree with you on that, tthough it was Harris presenting it so it came across with his "flavor" so to speak. That said, I think it would be possible to use analog non-computable Penrose states as the basis of a quantum computer and then build up computations on these. (this is actually like how we base some of our proofs on non-provable yet true Platonic info, and then make a logical case from them)
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
Hey Raarz: Do you have skpye? If not could you please get skype? If you have it but don't use it, could you please START using it? It's really not brain surgery.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@Omnicron777 LOL! Ah yes, Hawking should stick to physics. He makes a great physicist but a really crappy philosopher.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
Very nice video, Though I think when one thinks of this reality as being part of a mother reality in which there are computers who run ancestor simulations, and the question of God, i think that one still comes to an immaterial personal agent who would supersede even that mother reality if you will.
I will be continuing my video so feel free to respond to it by comment or video.
TheDutchPhilosopher 5 months ago
@TheDutchPhilosopher Well this was a separate video, but let me show you something regarding the wave-function of the universe which eventually "becomes" this Omega Point (though really is it the whole time): watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
It's a peculiar result from Penrose's quantum mind model that completely undermines Hawking's argument against the need for a deity.
As for immateriality you might like this: watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
does it strike anyone as ... prophectic, that the next generation of children, starting around 2012 13 will be called GENERATION ALPHA !!! :-) this new generation is gen ZED.
no such thing as coincidence, this is a self regulating design.
susan196three 5 months ago 2
@xelane4454
Spot on!
MegaExelo 5 months ago 3
Dude, you did a shit job of editing. It's great material, but I can barely read a fucking thing!
InTheCity3D 5 months ago
@InTheCity3D
I concur with your commentary. The editing/composition of this video is very poor. It's hard to read the text, and the music makes it worse because you have to read it yourself with musical detraction TO BOOT(although you can just turn down the volume).
But sycophants or butt kissers will compliment regardless. Because it tells them what they want to hear. Even if it's junk. Like Redstateadvocate and matrixlone
How this junk helps matrixlone's God belief is a mystery to me.
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan
How very interesting...
So whenever you disagree with somone's position on a video, you write it off as the author just "telling them what they want to hear", but when the same events transpire on your own videos, it's because you genuinely made a good video/argument?
It must be awfully nice to simply write off any opposition as "butt kissers" or "sycophants" without having to actually take a hard look at yourself honestly, isn't it, Dhorpatan?
xelane4454 5 months ago 7
WHO PLAYS THE MUSIC IN THIS? SO EPIC
JamesFraser0725 5 months ago 8
@JamesFraser0725
1.) Audiomachine - Blitzkrieg: watch?v=B81pRn2FlOk
2.) Immediate Music-Mystery of the Ages: watch?v=GwxIdRSS4Vg
3.) Two Steps From Hell - The Truth Unravels: watch?v=Xh_rx8mn4x0
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@AFrightfulDream In other words, to get around the chicken or the egg paradox, the eternal beginnings would quite literally be the Eternal Forms. From a Godel angle this actually may make sense: The physical world can be represented as a logical system, but since it's a logical system it must be either inconsistent or incomplete according to the incompleteness theorem. Thus physicalism is incomplete. The only way around this is is if we have Platonic forms that don't need proof to ground it all.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@AFrightfulDream "nothing is by nature, self-subsistent and first"
Well no, and that's where things get weirder. I buy Max Tegmark's ultimate ensemble concept, with it's Platonic monism. In other words caves are the illusion and there is nothing but forms. You are made of Platonic information imbedded at the Planck scale.
Of course if materialism was true at bottom yes it would be nothing but caves, but it seems both from physics, as well as philosophy of mind that it might be info at bottom.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz it sounds like dhorpatan ridiculed this video without actually addressing any of your reasoning.
RomansPwnedJesus 5 months ago 12
@RomansPwnedJesus Well atheism and theism aside, the ideas presented in the Simulation Argument run circles around and are a complete nightmare for Objectivist epistemology. So I suppose I can see why he'd react like that. People don't like to have the floor taken out under their feet. That said, that still isn't a reason to dismiss it.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@RomansPwnedJesus What's new? :)
KTK401 2 months ago
I think you mean "you are most likely a sim in a customer's mind" Unless that customer has it set in their sim that they are a god. Still a customer though.
Good video also, it makes you think and adds new ideas to consider.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist Well see though the "customer" is likely the most advanced being imaginable. The more advanced the being the more simulations it will run, and thus the more likely we will be in one of those simulations.
The being with the most simulations possible, would be the Omega Point however. And the Omega Point is a state of being in which all space-time, matter and energy in existence is harnessed for quantum computation and saturated with intelligence -literally God.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz The customer is only god in his OWN simulated world that he made. Just like I am god in any fantasy I create in my imagination. But does that make me god in real life? Or course not only in my imagination. The same applies with the customer and his simulated world.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist The thing is that the top simulated world would be identical with the real world, since at the Omega Point, space-time would be hacked into and could be manipulated just like the Q. And we are most likely at the Omega Point already, since the Omega Point by definition will be running astronomically more simulations than any lesser civilization.
Making things worse the Omega Point would be outside time according to the Wheeler-DeWitt equ. so it would exist for all time.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist The thing is that the top simulated world would be identical with the real world, since at the Omega Point, space-time would be hacked into and could be manipulated just like the Q. And we are most likely at the Omega Point already, since the Omega Point by definition will be running astronomically more simulations than any lesser civilization.
Making things worse the Omega Point would be outside time according to the Wheeler-DeWitt equ. so it would exist for all time.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz It might be identical to the real world, but that doesn't mean it IS the real world. Just like chatting to someone online, isn't the samething as chatting to someone in real life. If we are in the omega point now (and we could be who knows, I just don't believe that we are) that still leaves the problem that a real world exists somewhere, on some planet. So why not go ahead and save a step and say that our world is the real one? Existing for all time still needs time.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist "a real world exists somewhere"
The real world would exist, but it would be completely saturated with quantum computing matter at the O-point. There would be nothing that isn't part of the computer. And you saw how the q-computer here would work, (at the stage where we use space-time to compute) it'd be program and no stuff-one giant self-simulation. If there is any stuff, it would have a one to one correspondence of particle to bit making it the same as a self-simulation.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist "a real world exists somewhere"
The real world would exist, but it would be completely saturated with quantum computing matter at the O-point. There would be nothing that isn't part of the computer. And you saw how the q-computer here would work, (at the stage where we use space-time to compute) it'd be program and no stuff-one giant self-simulation. If there is any stuff, it would have a one to one correspondence of particle to bit making it the same as a self-simulation.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz Fine enough that you woudn't be able to tell the difference then between what was real and what was simulated. I just don't believe that we are in a virtual world right now. Think about how rare life may or may not be in the unverse. It must have started with at least ONE real world. So why not just say that our world is ONE real world that has life on it? Though if our world did have a programmer, he might SEEM like a god, but he would really just be a guy on a computer.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz Fine enough that you woudn't be able to tell the difference then between what was real and what was simulated. I just don't believe that we are in a virtual world right now. Think about how rare life may or may not be in the unverse. It must have started with at least ONE real world. So why not just say that our world is ONE real world that has life on it? Though if our world did have a programmer, he might SEEM like a god, but he would really just be a guy on a computer.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz Fine enough that you woudn't be able to tell the difference then between what was real and what was simulated. I just don't believe that we are in a virtual world right now. Think about how rare life may or may not be in the unverse. It must have started with at least ONE real world. So why not just say that our world is ONE real world that has life on it? Though if our world did have a programmer, he might SEEM like a god, but he would really just be a guy on a computer.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz Great vid man thank you.
matrixlone 5 months ago 5
@HTA: "doesn't mean it IS"
Well in QM it does. Since their quantum states are identical, and the no-cloning theorem prevents any two quantum states from sharing the same state. If you recreate the state (especially since we are dealing with the Wheeler-DeWitt equ which says time is an illusion) it's the same! It's like "quantum time travel."
PS. I'll get back to you on your wall, but I'm busy for a few days. But for now, the time travel paradoxes get resolved when you add parallel universes.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz You never replied on my channel, sure I was offline but you still could have commented.
HonestTechnoAtheist 5 months ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist Sorry there, I've been tied up mostly for the last few days. Look on your wall though.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
Great vid! Quite a fascinating angle!
Redstateadvocate 5 months ago 4
unfalsified naturalistic explanations are more plausible by default than unfalsified supernatural explanations. It seems to just be cultural conditioning that a naturalistic idea like this is considered the peak of insanity while supernatural beliefs like God, Ghosts and psychics are considered normal beliefs.
RomansPwnedJesus 5 months ago
@RomansPwnedJesus "unfalsified naturalistic explanations are more plausible"
No, don't you see? If this is right, there would be no natural/supernatural dichotomy anymore. You could have God, ghosts, psychics, even fairy dimensions and the Roman pantheon if you wanted, and it would ALL be explicable with science.
And the weird part, the closer to the Omega Point (aka the Naturalistic God) the civilization becomes the MORE likely we would be one of their simulations.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz If the sim hypothesis is right, supernatural phenoma could exist in our world, but our world would also be unreal. So the real world wouldn't necessarily be supernatural.
RomansPwnedJesus 5 months ago
@RomansPwnedJesus "So the real world wouldn't necessarily be supernatural."
But remember at the Omega Point (the end of Ray Kurzweil's Sixth Epoch of Evolution) the entire universe would be saturated into one giant quantum computer -that quite literally has no hard-ware. (see what I did with the advanced civilization hacking into spin foam to harness space-time itself to do the quantum computing) At this stage there would be no non-simulated "real" world -and we are most likely at this stage.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
whats the name of the music
Jjaegerr 5 months ago
@Jjaegerr
1.) Audiomachine - Blitzkrieg: watch?v=B81pRn2FlOk
2.) Immediate Music-Mystery of the Ages: watch?v=GwxIdRSS4Vg
3.) Two Steps From Hell - The Truth Unravels: watch?v=Xh_rx8mn4x0
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
I have always found gnosticsm quite odd but if at the base of it all is just information then i would assume it would destroy the gnostic position.
On my earlier comment, I was showing that your body playing tricks on you would distort the truth just as much as an evil being playing tricks on you.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo Well see (this is where it crosses over into traditional Christianity) they viewed evil as an absence or "illusion" -like matter.(Hole Theory of Evil)Think of it like "acquiring the Knowledge of Good and Evil" and then discovering that what you got is an experiential knowledge of life without God/Good.
Of course the gnostics often had all sorts of other views also that were heretical and such, but insofar as their view of evil is concerned they might have been on to something.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@MegaExelo I just realized, that almost every single point where (most) atheists get screwed up ideas about morality and politics comes from the idea of matter being primary. If matter isn't primary, then there are ideals above us that are actually really there, and if that is the case then existentialism and all of the relativism that goes with it is impossible.
KevinStanton84 5 months ago
Sweet. I believe in computers. Maybe I'm a theist after all! ;)
SBRslacker00 5 months ago 5
@JohananRaatz
Great video, however wouldn't the berkenstein bound prevent one simulation from happening in another. Actually, can we simulate an entire universe or would that violate berkenstein bound?
There has to be one point where we can't possibley keep creating simulated universes.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo Well not necessarily. Remember to make the simulation convincing, all you need is to have it simulated up to the level of perception of the Sims. If one of the Sims decided to build a microscope or even a Large Hadron Collider, one could simply have the program texture the Paramecia or the Higgs Boson only when the Sim is looking at it.To the Sim the simulation would appear just like our world.
And then of course at the Omega Point, these simulations would be at the Bek Bound anyway.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan
How do you know that your senses are not deceiving you into misinterpeting reality?
That is no different than an evil being deceiving you.
MegaExelo 5 months ago
@MegaExelo
Dhorpatan is an objectivist. Thus, he has an ePISStemology as opposed to a theory of knowledge.
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
It can be easily argued that a theory of knowledge is an Epistemology, you clown.
What the FUNK is wrong with you sir?
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan Your "epistemology" might as well be a glass of pee. As we've discussed before, your definition of the universe is laughable.
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
How is my definition of the Universe laughable Funkwipe?
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan I know you probably think this is insane, but the Science Channel is actually promoting the Simulation Argument, and it suggests some freaky evidence for it: watch?v=Q5AFBytn4ls
Jasonator1000 5 months ago
@MegaExelo "misinterpeting reality?" "no different than an evil being deceiving you"
Ironically, I just realized what you just said has a strong resemblance to Gtnostic ideas about evil and the Devil ("the Demiurge" -a concept that derives from Neoplatonism). Notice, misinterpreting reality is not the same as not observing it. (matter is never actually observed) It's interesting though, because in gnosticism matter is viewed as the source of evil. I wonder how Simulism ties into this.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
Interesting, really. Thanks for the vid
pawsoned 5 months ago
Correction:
Beings; not beingd
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
"The universe is not just stranger than we imagine but"...
WAX1138 5 months ago 3
So god is a computer?
CosmicThinking 5 months ago
@CosmicThinking Yup. Wave-function of the universe undergoing quantum computations, and self-aware due to Orch-OR.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@JohananRaatz
This video is one of the many reasons I think you're a quack. if we're in a simulation, then you can never know truth, nor trust Science, since you can't know if the beingd running the simulation are deceiving us, or altering our simulation in ways that are not consistent with the way reality really is.
It's takes a somewhat mentally deranged person to be happy about, and welcome the notion that they live in a simulation. As if that's something that is good.
Dhorpatan 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan (1 of 2) "a simulation, then you can never know truth, nor trust Science"
You're making false assumptions as to what science is. Science merely tells us to make observations and then use those to confirm or invalidate our theories -it says nothing as to what goes on outside of the context of those theories though. If the context is the Matrix, then those theories will be valid in the Matrix, if in the real world then in the real world etc. Science doesn't give us universal absolutes.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@Dhorpatan (2 of 2) "not consistent with the way..."
On a separate note, this is the problem with a number of your arguments. You treat empirical reality as though you know for a fact that it is all that is, when empirical reality doesn't and isn't able to tell you this. You can't use empirical reality to prove there is nothing outside of itself.
"I think you're a quack."
The simulation argument is taken seriously by philosophers. Are they quacks? And you haven't provided a counterargument.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago
@CosmicThinking
Maybe Lewis Wolbert was right after all lol!
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago 5
@TheFunkyTheist He's right on every single point too! It's self-designing, timeless, logically coherent, amazing, non-physical and even personal! AND Craig is right AND all at the same time!
When I first saw this clip, I thought to myself what a limited perspective we humans have, and about the sheer irony of it. Lewis stumbled onto exactly the right answer completely by accident.
JohananRaatz 5 months ago