Does reality exist? | Anil Seth, Sabine Hossenfelder, Massimo Pigliucci & Anders Sandberg
Sabine Hossenfelder, Anil Seth, Massimo Pigliucci & Anders Sandberg discuss whether humanity is stuck in the matrix.
If you enjoy this video check out more content on the mind, reality and reason from the world's biggest speakers at iai.tv/debates-and-talks?utm_...
00:00 Introduction
02:21 Anders Sandberg | We could be living in a superior race's simulation.
04:16 Sabine Hossenfelder | The simulation hypothesis is pseudoscience.
06:20 Anil Seth | Is whether we are a simulation even important?
09:29 Massimo Pigliucci | The mind is too complex to be replicated.
13:14 Is it reasonable to question the existence of reality?
23:55 How do we define reality?
29:34 Are we victim to Hollywood fantasy?
Until recently the possibility that we are living in a computer simulation was largely limited to fans of The Matrix with an over active imagination or sci-fi fantasists. But now some are arguing that strange quirks of our universe, like the indeterminateness of quantum theory and the black hole information paradox are evidence that our reality is in actuality a created simulation. Moreover, tech guru Elon Musk has come out supporting the theory, arguing that ""we are most likely in a simulation"".
Should we take the idea that we are living in a computer simulation seriously?
#AnilSeth #MassimoPigliucci #ComputerSimulatedReality
Groundbreaking consciousness researcher Anil Seth, stoic philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, maverick physicist and KZhead sensation Sabine Hossenfelder and Oxford transhumanist Anders Sandberg ask if we are stuck in the matrix. Güneş Taylor hosts.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Do you agree that the simulation hypothesis is unlikely or could we be living in the next installment of the matrix? To find out more head over to IAI.tv for thousands of debates and talks tackling the big ideas! Visit iai.tv/debates-and-talks?channel=philosophy%3Amind-and-reason&page=0%3FKZhead&+comment&
@queerdo That's a great find queerdo, vital to extend the life of this debate!
The most plausible simulation hypothesis is that we could be a construction inside an Alien Telescope. Our current telescopes take in light and then rely on a human brain to construct a conceptual "simulation" of what is actually out there, but ultra advanced telescopes will do a lot of the conceptual constructing with deep learning algorithms. Maybe true quantum mechanics is not probabilistic, the quantum constructor inside the telescope is probabilistic.
The computer is god You are god I am god The end :)
Well the whole panel unanimously agreed that we were in a simulation and gave indisputable proof. That was before the agents came and adjusted their memories and implanted new thought patterns (including the audiene) so you had to run the event again where they not only say not really but talk about it a while so as not to give it away and think we have freedom to figure it out 🤦
My real real problem with the idea of the universe being simulated is that it's really just another manifestation of the "God of Gaps" argument. By that I mean that since we can't explain something about the universe or physics, etc, (yet), it must be that "the universe is being simulated". It's just another form of "God did it" to explain a hole in our knowledge. I mean, of course we may be in a simulation (it's certainly a possibility) but that we can't quite explain everything we observe in the universe (yet) says more to our lack of knowledge than anything else.
It doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not it's still our reality and we have to live it and deal with it
Understanding the nature of reality matters. Doesn't mean you can change it. But it matters.
nobody is trying to change it bro
Simulation theory is not a theory, it is not testable. Therefore it is a hypothesis, but still lacks any credible scientific basis because a simulation-based universe pulls scientific connotation towards itself, it makes it appear intellectually profound and scientific at face value when it is simply a waste of everyone's time. It's almost mimicking the illusion of progress and innovation in the field of physics, it appears they are moving the needle of understanding forward, only appearances.
@@claytonyoung1351 yes, but its not worth spending lots of time on improbable ideas like this. Yes its fun to think about it, but it doesn't lead anywhere or tell us much. I suppose in a way you could say that our brains create a "simulation" of the world we live in from a human point of view. The example in this video of colour is an interesting point.
@@Rik77 you don't know the benefits we can gain from studying it. We don't live in space, but have gained much from traveling to it.
Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.
And stranger than we cant think.
Ty
You should credit Terrance McKenna for that
@@drummermylo Terrance stole that as well actually
@@shroomzBacteria good to know haha. Wonder who it is first was credited to
I love how Sabine starts her intro in panel discussions, with a very clear cut, the theories are sensible and promising (exciting, trailblazing), or shots fired (2x/3x/ squared) 🤣🫠✨️ The level of straight candor is admirable and also not surprising coming from a German scientist 😆 🙏💖
She is very narrow-minded.
It’s mostly low educated people with no imagination, and no ability to comprehend such complex topics who like this shot gun tactics. You can compare it with supporters of trump, who also say they like trump because he is “straight talker” who uses simple language that the peasants can understand
Great chat, great guests 🙌🏼
^ Great channel🤘
Ironically, for someone who is annoyed by "philosophizing,' Sabine Hossenfelder sure does spend a lot of time doing it herself.
the irony is that she's a theoretical physicist. if she wouldn't be philosophizing, she would be a scientist or engineer working in the fields.
A very interesting discussion. While watching it, I became very aware that I was actually watching, not the real event, but a simulation of it. Twinkling LEDs on my monitor, controlled by electric charges, representing numbers, in semiconductors devices, controlled by computer programs and communicating by electrons and photons, which simulate the event that is dated yesterday. It is a copy and paste simulation, but not a creative simulation that runs itself, but it would still impress our ancestors throughout history. Since physics appears to be trending towards numbers, probabilities and strangeness, as well as the exponential growth of technology, I think that the philosophical debate about a simulated universe is justified. It also tallies with some aspects of religion.
Privacy 📸📲brainwashing🖥📳🎲🎡 surveillance 🤪😬😨 President Putin / Macron/ Biden/ a nation is a kingdom without the king, the Tzar. however somehow you play the role of the changeable King . The president is above the citizens, the hierarchy so far cannot be change. the common people are the common people that cannot be change either. However they can exist on a better environment, health & quality of food, love & pleasure, consciousness of who they are what they can become. The problem today 🌍🌎🌏 GLOBALLY* are the Shylocks 🤐🤑🤑📲entrepreneurs, financier's, bankers & industrialist. Elton Musk Jeff Bezzo's Arnault, and the lot of industrial revolution technological revolution :magnates, false kingship 👑they do not have the vision, the insight of the king, to balance the instabilité they have created using brainwashing 📲doublespeak 💪🛒💎 to keep their wealth afloat, doubletalk, is a danger to humanity, COP 26 and climate havoc exist because of the misuse of industry financiers & entrepreneur's going wild, that is what needs to be put under control, slicing the insecure power of the 19 / 20th century new rich magnates, since they use fear, political manipulation, advertising publicity as a way of extortion manipulation enslavement conditioning & domestication of the whole population 👴👼 using democracy as a tool of mental manipulation, to gain a power that they will never achieve peacefully, reason for wars military complex & divided to be ruled methods; rather than independent creative education. to achieve critical thinking on a creative and more balance population.📸⌚🌷
I'd call it an analog reproduction, not a simulation. That's probably why I don't get invited to parties anymore.
@@Les537 Not sure there are parties for people of my age! However, you could definitely come to mine for that comment. If the beings in a simulation have free will, is it actually a simulation? If you create something that has never happened before, it is completely new. If you are attempting to reproduce something that has happened before, your ancestors, for instance, that might imply no free will, or pre-destination.
@@wodantheviking I agree, we could be a construction inside of an Alien Telescope. Our current telescopes take in light and then rely on a human brain to construct a conceptual "simulation" of what is actually out there, but ultra advanced telescopes will do a lot of the conceptual constructing with deep learning algorithms. It could be hard to tell if we are the source of earth or if a super telescope is using the light that came from earth as a seed to create a probabilistic construction of what earth probably was.
🎯
So the underlying message from this interview is that we shouldn’t waste our time thinking about the bigger questions in life because ultimately none of its provable... Good on you... you should be proud of yourselves.
except if you have a grant. you forgot this important part
Alternatively, you could make up a bunch of theories with no evidence and distort the publics view
Just small minded people feeling really important about themselves
you can think about the "bigger questions", just in most cases, it amounts to entertainment. what is meant by entertainment in this sense is that it it is something doesn't contribute to the search for truth, regardless of however those theories may be useful to you personally.
LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS? * (Lowest Level): Just energy in a coherent format interacting with itself. * Some sort of feedback mechanism, but with no real consciousness, memories or thoughts. * Some sort of 'memory' established, but still no consciousness to consciously interact with that memory. Just basically like stored preprograms that get activated at certain times. * Low level unconscious activity occurs that can interact with those stored memories. * Higher level consciousness activity occurs, while still having unconscious activity, that interacts with those stored memories with 'thoughts'. (Where we are currently at).
I feel like I dont see Sabine smile alot (which is perfectly fine ofc), but I still enjoy seeing her smile alot and enjoy the conversation for pleasure :D Alot of scientific discourse is enjoybale because we share information and learn something or teach something, but it is rarely "enjoyment for pleasure". Sorry for my bad england, im germany :)
What I find confusing (and a bit disappointing) about many scientists is that: a) they do great work which clearly demonstrates the disconnect between everyday reality as we perceive/experience it (i.e. colours, smells, time, space) and the underlying independent reality which experiments demonstrate (quantum mechanics, block universe, etc); b) but they seem heavily wedded to everyday experience of reality and are sceptical of the value of questioning reality. I don't get it. They seem disconnected from the implications of their own work.
What's there to get? Science requires evidence.
What makes time so unique? There's a good lecture by the Royal Institute about computation and the universe. There are computations such that, the only way to know the outcome is to wait for the computation to finish. You can't just use a formula and know the final state before it happens. Such a calculation is a simulation because it has to run its course over time to get the final result, unlike a simple function where you can use any value for X and get its answer. So in a sense, yes, the universe is a simulation because only way to know the outcome of the universe is to let it unfold. Quantum mechanics explains reality. Science is about proving that reality is in-fact reality. What does non-reality look like? Science says life is as real as things that are repeatable. Something becomes real when there is substantial proof that anyone can reproduce said results. Despite the behavior of quantum mechanics, you still get the same results from doing the exact same set of experiments. It's like throwing a glass bottle filled with dice at a wall. Hard to predict, but fundamentally deterministic. To prove something is not real is to prove that it can't be reproduced. You say these scientists are too married to the notion of reality, but if they try to prove that the universe isn't real they'd have to prove there are anaomolies in phsycis that come and go like the randomness of a dream. In order for reality to be proven as non-reality, scientists would have to disprove their entire life's work by showing that their experiments are no longer true under the exact same set of circumstances they were previously done under. If reality isn't real, science doesn't work. Science works precisely because there is such a thing as reality. Doing science in an unreal universe would be like doing science in a dream.
Science is disconnected, and scientists are not supposed to be egotistical except for educational (or humour) purposes. Perhaps they are skeptical of the value of questioning reality because philosophy is the parent of science and it's an act of rebellion. But really, an expert simplifies a complex world for a client, for a fee. The person who thinks they know more than the expert do exactly the same thing (simplifying a complex world for a client) only the client is themselves and the fee is a diminishing of that person, a going out of context. For a scientist to presume knowledge is like this trap and their incomes and esteem are tied to it.
@@MichelleHell It depends on what you mean by real. n order to determine whether reality is real or simulated, we don't need to find randomness in either the quantum world or the standard world. In fact, what we should look for is arbitrary limits on things. The speed of light is one such limitation. Why is the speed of light at that speed and why can't anything be faster? I've heard it argued that this arbitrary limit would be in keeping with living in a simulation. If the universe is some sort of computer simulation, there would likely be limits to its processing power. Perhaps the speed of light is a clue to the limits of the processor. I can also make a case for living in a simulation with the double slit experiment. If we are in an actual simulation, it could conserve processing by collapsing the wave function and coming into existence as a particle only when it is being measured or observed. Otherwise the photon, for example, is just a probability wave (which requires less processing speed), and is in a grey area between latent and manifested reality. It potentially exists, but only becomes part of our reality (which is simulated) when we observe it. This would also be a clue that we are in a simulation. Of course this isn't "evidence" that we are living in a computer simulation, but it does support the notion.
@@projectmalus Excellent observation.
We ourselves agreed to be a part of this matrix...and some higher power is in control of who exits and who enters this matrix.
I think maybe our concousness exists outside of this reality, we may have put ourselves into this simulation because in the real world, we have accomplished everything scientifically and there is nothing else to do - what could you do if there was nothing else to do [technoligically reached the peak there is nothing else left to learn - like completing a game, the only thing you can do is start again or don't it play again] - wipe your memory, put you into a new body and world - then you get to experience life again. The not knowing is what makes life. The strings in string theory, could be the equivilent to sinewaves operating in a CPU. The observer's paradox could simply be memory optomization..
Maybe the higher power is the ovule and we're the sperm who finally made it. We're just DNA coded creatures after all.
@@rootyroot similar thoughts 👌
@@averagesauceenjoyer7209 maybe in space we have a giant jizz tank that does top ups.
40 plus minutes, to hear at the end... "I don't know". Good talk...
I felt sorry for the moderator. the panel did not have much interest or sympathy with the topic under discussion. in fact they spent much of the time questioning the legitimacy of the topic.
That's their opinion of it.
Please share these brief videos with other people. Thanks!
Go Sabine!
Even the pop-up window would not be enough... aren't some of those appearing as independent windows, for example when not playing full screen? Would the simulation have a outside view of the software where the simulation is being run?
1. If you don’t understand the question you’ll give the wrong answer. Real is not the opposite of fake. Possibility is not a probabilistic statement. Real possibility=actual/factual occurrence. So the question is: is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation true? 2. Is it reasonable to question the existence of reality? Means: Is it logical/rational to doubt reality? So “reasonable” does not not mean “possible”, it means “sensible”. If its sensible it is useful. 3. The whole theme was: Is it rational to believe that we live in a virtual reality? Nobody answered. Nobody discussed “evidence” of this possibility, if there is any. What is real? Is reality a construct of our minds? Would we “know” if we were a character in a video game? Would we know if our experiences are a product of Dr. Braino’s experiment? They should be discussing Plato’s “allegory of the cave”. But they didn’t.
The problem was that there wasn't anyone there to argue the point. All of the panelist merely just dismissed it as a possibility out of hand and couldn't even speak to the question. At best they were putting up straw man arguments in a lame attempt to frame the opposition.
@@todradmaker4297 Well, the burden of proof must be on those who advocate for the simulation hypothesis. As far as science goes, all other hypotheses or theories that warrants the full attention of the science community have laid out their arguments well. Anil actually made the point at the beginning, the proponents are basically asking us (which the organizers reflected very well in their question formulation) to assign a probability to something which its possibility is highly questionable. You must remember that the computer simulation was derived from a statement of probability. It is not anything like the general relativity which is derived from things already possible. Therefore, its interpretations are closer to reality. The simulation hypothesis (I won't even allow assigning it a status of "theory") is just a metaphorical fad same as during the height of clockmaking; god used to be a clockmaker, then he was a mathematician, now he is a computer programmer. That hypothesis is much closer to religion, a fiction, than science. I don't even want to call it a hypothesis because it presents no way of truly testing it.
I think Massimo addressed that. The simulation hypothesis is just about concievability and not even within the realm of possibility as it was stated by its proponents so far. Hence, not even worthy of the name "hypothesis". Don't even let the word theory come anywhere close to it.
@@rbr1170 I agree that the burden of proof is on those that advocate the idea of a simulated universe. I just thought that it would have been nice if there was actually a panelist to advocate the idea. As is, I thought the discussion was rather pointless. About as useful as a group of old white southern Republican men taking about racial justice.
To have a more interesting debate you'd need some that believe this and some that don't, from that perspective this was a poorly selected panel. All arguments against it were based on current norms and existing technologies without considering or imagining what the future might bring. (Teenager in room, how computers function now, current reasoning and values etc.) If you showed someone an iphone 200 years ago they wouldn't know what it was.
What do you mean by consciousness? How do you decide whether consciousness is present in a specific individual?
Sabine is such a beast. I mean, in a good way.
A magnificent beast. She is one of my favourite animals on the planet.
She is still an individual thinker, and she doesn't ride that collective yay sayers wave for the sake of belonging to the cult.
@@owencampbell4947 She kind-of is the anti-cult cult hit. We can't go too wrong paying attention to her.
@@CAThompson because she tells us what is able, what is not able, and what fantasy is. They will hate her for that But isn't that what we criticize about religion, believe blindly?
You won't go far wrong listening to her .
If the pop-up window is a modal dialog box, the whole universe is halted until the simulation managers dismisses it. So, we wouldn’t notice the pop up-window, nor can’t we interact with it because the simulation is halted at the moment it pops up. An a smart architect would have placed pop up windows in another dimension.
'Life in this world is a dream within a dream while reality is universal enlightenment = Myoho-Renge-Kyo'
Like many people, I came here because Sabine was one of the participants. Sadly she talked only about 5 minutes altogether, and not at all in the last 10 minutes, roughly 4:24-6:28, 13:20-14:30, 22:10-22:45, 23:18-23:34 and 28:58-29:35.
If this reality is but a computer simulation, we got too many things going wrong here. Pain, suffering, misery. I suggest we all send it back - return to sender for refund and re-boot.
As always a great debate. I agree with a lot of what Anil says in his book Being You. However, I did not understand the point about consciousness and substrate dependence. First consciousness is a word for a class of phenomenon we call conscious. By definition, a large component of it is human consciousness involves human sensory perception like colors, sounds, smells, touch, and taste. Sure. Of course, the anatomy of humans (and for that matter all the animals on earth) and physiology and organic chemistry-based electro-bio-chemistry are involved in producing those conscious phenomena. But there is an additional component of consciousness which is abstract thought. For example, Einstein's thoughts about the theories of SR and GR or Max Plank, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac's thoughts about QM are not dependent on what Anil calls wetware, even though it is true that n those cases they were instantiated in the wetware of their brains. IMO such components of consciousness, once understood can be implemented in rich enough substrate.
This should be seen by many more people
Since 2006 I have had a thought based on personal experience that “it’s all layered out for us and our freewill is only a complex line through the “layering” back in 09 I informed “high-ish “Chair” in 1 of the hierarchy of what tells us what’s real and in 2013/14 he resigned. There is more to this - like what’s happened since.!! I’m still looking for the right person with the right “capability to talk/further this with...
Very, very interesting....in many ways.
I'd like to see Bernardo Kastrup there. He's got some interesting insights about this subject
Totally!
They want only "materialistic panel" to discuss about metaphysics
I think he is wrong
@@TheWayofFairness i think u r wrong
We are responsible to the Cosmos, because as Carl Sagan put it, 'We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself'.
Sounds like eastern mysticism. Carl Sagan was being poetic because in numerous interviews he made it clear that he did not believe in that line of thought. However, he often employed poetic naturalism in his role of public science communicator. Dawkins' more recent wrtings have a similar quality.
@@reimannx33 No, it's a fact. Brian Cox has said it too. Intelligent Life is literally the Universe being self aware of itself in some locations. We are made of the universe, It's not Mysticism, it's a fact. Claiming life is the PURPOSE of the universe to become conscious would be Mysticism.
Saw the question of the title, immediately looked for Sabine Hossenfelder, was not disappointed. The idea that we're in a simulation seems nonsensical to me - why would anyone bother running a simulation with me sitting in my pyjamas drinking tea and talking nonsense to my cat, what does that achieve?
Nothing at all my friend... it wasn't built with you in mind... 😉
@@ycart_tech6726 So why am I, even?
@@CAThompson because you can! Good for you, BTW!
@@ycart_tech6726 I better get used to it, I suppose. 😆
@@CAThompson Like, what other options do you have? 😉
I am interested in computer simulation myself. I can now watch a simulation of the Dirac equation which I have written myself in Excel VBA and no doubt someday I will have my very own universe. That's apparently a simulation inside a simulation. Now how far do we push this? How about nine levels, each under the supervision of one of the nine choirs of angels? If we are going to pursue a crazy idea, let's not do things by half measures.
Basic? Sounds slow.
They get close to talking about what I consider most important at 30:00: I think the real debate that should be taking place is not whether we are in a simulation, but whether groups of scientists and researchers will get to the point that they eventually create something, perhaps with human cells as a starting point, that is fully conscious in a lab. In my opinion, this should be prevented at all costs as it's definitely possible but highly unethical. Any such being would have to have the same rights as a human but clearly wouldn't and may be forced to endure enormous amounts of pain in a loop forever, i.e. it would be in a literal hell.
That's why the idea of uploading out minds into a matrix bothers me. What prevents some maniac keeping entities trapped in horrible situations.
How would we even know it’s conscious?
I loved this, great to see everyone beating it out., friendly like. Sabine held back ,, which was fair enough for this platform, on other stages she can be much more factually brutal. Thumbs up from me any way. 👍
We don’t have any reason to declare that we live in a simulation but nobody can deny it either. I’m glad that people are starting to get over the phase where they enjoyed the "occult", "dark", "conspiracy" vibes of this proposition and i hope there won’t be any idiots taking risks or engaging in wrongdoings based on their belief that they aren’t in "real life". But then again, you’ll never have a definite "No!" coming from any serious scientist or philosopher.
@@raresmircea No one can disprove my invisible unicorn either.
Sabine was brutal on philosophers
@@noahway13 unfairly so. She does not know why she is on this planet, just stick . Scientist like that are putting us off science. Conscience is NOT going to arise from computer..
@@ResmiogluI like her most times, but other times I think she is on the spectrum a little bit. I like how she handled Laurence Krauss
Over breakfast☕😱 I would rather wait until later on Fascinating debate and very thought provoking👍
Is the glass half full, or half empty? Or is the glass just bigger than it needs to be?
Great listen. I'm not sure what Sabine really brought to the table. The panel as a whole could have got stuck into Bostrom's paper a little more because there's a whole host of substance in there that could have been unpacked and debated. I have to say though, Gunes Taylor is delightful. I'm 100% backing the parallel universe theory on the premise that there must be one in which I'm successful and good looking enough to court her affection..
does existence exist? reality is existence. if we can never determine the boundaries of the matrix, then there is no way to prove it one way or the other, and it is also doesn't matter. the only way it could matter is if we could prove its existence.
You said I think and if this was a simulation, the thought of thinking would never come up. Thus make the best of your thinking it's all about you.
They discuss about computing simulation and matrix. My questions is: If they know how to make a program simulation? Why the matrix can be proved just only mathematically but not in real life? Can A.I have consciousness?
I have wondering many times, could the speed of light be limited to c, depends of our conceptual mind. In a discrete space, may in my mind limit the real speed of light through space, bases by me that infinity require unlimited space of storage within our conceptual mind. The first time it catches my mind took place in 1985, when a group of Canadian researchers, found some particles moving 2x, and 4x faster than speed of light. What if our DNA, limits our conceptual mind of the speed of light?
I am happy to have survived to see the day when reputable scientists hold seminars to seriously entertain notions that in my youth would have been only found in science fiction magazines and the deranged ramblings of acidheads. If your idea of testability requires encountering space aliens to confirm your hypothesis, you have probably departed from the realm of science.
I am sorry, but this level of conversation usually takes place in a BAR 😂
Does anyone remember James Gates and his finding of the "Doubly even self duel linear binary error correcting block code". Written into the fabric of reality. This is basically the same code that communications devices have to correct for errors when sending data. 🤷🏻♂️
Firstly, as of now, peer reviews of those types of papers/statements have fallen flat. Secondly, no repeatable experiments have validated any of those grandiose claims. This proposal by Gates still resides on the fringes. Unless there is significant progress on the theoretical and experimental sides testing its predictions and falsifiability, it is more science fiction.
@@reimannx33 well the entire discussion fits within the purview of science fiction. 👽 Just pointing it out because it fits the narrative here.🤷🏻♂️
@@reimannx33 thanks for the update. I had heard about the claim but never followed up on it.
Enough computational knowledge with an integration of a perfect understanding of physics. Something that can rearrange molecules to make any kind of object on command and a starting point. Why would the simulation be limited to our past?
The hypothesis of simulation is a simulation. Reality has structure, most of which we cannot perceive but sense evidence of, and function within its range and spectrum which is spectacular. There is more than meets the eye or the senses, yet we can celebrate the wonders to behold.
The structure couldbe simulated too.
The panel addresses obviously two very different questions. First: Is reality (whatever that may be) a «computer simulation»? Mapped onto the scale of the universe & the computing power potentially required, this is a non-sensical question. And what does Hossenfelder mean by saying, that the universe is «calculating» the «laws of nature» (we do not know what the universe IS, and neither do we know what «nature» is, right?) & that in this sense the simulation argument would hold on a universal scale? Second: Does reality exist? This question is obviously framed in the sense of whether an objective reality, independent of the human mind or consciousness, exists. Again, this question hinges on a number of assumptions, ie objective reality, consciousness, their relation, their interplay, and of course, the deeper philosophical question of how we could possibly know that reality is real, other than in the sense of a conventional, ie cultural consensus. People tend to forget that reality, or what we perceive & experience of it, is a very different thing, when sitting on a panel in London, or alone in the jungle of the Amazon, with the next reality-affirming modern infrastructure out of reach for who knows how long. Unfortunately both questions & the discussion are limited by the paradigms of the modern science & philosophical attempts to come to terms with the knowledge science has produced. First, science, in its struggle to provide proof of this or that aspect of an objective reality does so by taking consciousness more or less out of the equation, although nothing of what it does would be possible without consciousness. To reduce consciousness to an epiphenomenon of physical, electrochemical etc processes in the brain doesn't explain anything. What if consciousness, again whatever that may be, is co-evolving with a suitable biological substrate? And what if what we measure as the epiphenomena may equally well be an «effect», «caused» by consciousness? Since the really big question, or the really big problem in science, ie consciousness, is not answered in any meaningful way, we should be very careful to make claims in either way. Physicists claim to know something about the laws that «govern» the universe, but have no clue as to how these «laws» have come about to be laws in our minds, in our consciousness. Philosophers who primarily tend to focus on the aspect of consciousness or mind of the problem in turn have often a very limited understanding of the science aspects of what they're doing. So the only acceptable conclusion is, and this is what all panelists seemed to be agreed on, is that we do not know. Well, isn't that something!
If our shared reality is really a large computer program feeding all out sensory inputs, then that program seemingly simulated a flat world that contained contradictory evidence that caused us to eventually realize we live on a sphere in a much larger universe. Or did the program itself get upgraded over time?
Check out Tom Campbell MY BIG TOE
Does not seeing colours depend on a certain chemical and physical structure, and function, of the brain such that, given that structure and function, a given wave-length will have a certain colour-quality? If something else is assumed, such as an inscrutable subjectivity, does this not mean that some kind of "spiritual" quality is assumed?
Anil Seth: "The photoreceptors in our eyes are only sensitive to three wavelengths." This popular misconception is both technically wrong and neurologically misleading. The three types of cone cells in our eyes collectively perceive the full range of visible wavelengths, divided into three overlapping bands roughly centered in the red, green, and blue regions of the spectrum. Nerve cells in our brains then compare the relative intensities of these three sensory components and classify the perceptual hue of each area in our field of vision along two orthogonal axes: red versus green, and blue versus yellow. The results of that neurological analysis are integrated by our brains into a full-color field of view.
Also we can view measurement apparatuses as extensions of our perceptions, but again they encounter the exact same problem as out eyes, just with oess blood vessels obscuring the view ofc, we don’t get to start with the exact way our mind, eyes, memories and apparatuses function, so we are still back to playing chess with nature under our own rules to find inconsistencies between the rules and the results we would expect as a consequence of the rules, we never get to see the details in full about why nature says no. Its like that british humor program with the lady character who types something in and returns “computer says no..” we don’t get to ask why, we have to ask a different question and try to guess, or give up at some point.
Very good
What a beautiful kind woman, pouring everyone a glass of water. I haven't seen any comments about that. Shouldn't be overlooked.
Life is just a bowl of cherries Don't take it serious Life's too mysterious You work, you save, you worry so But you can't take your dough When you go, go, go Keep repeating, it's the berries The strongest oak must fall The best things in life to you were just loaned So how can you lose what you never owned Life is just a bowl of cherries So live and laugh at it all Keep repeating, it's the berries You know the strongest oak has got to fall The sweet things in life to you were just loaned So how can you lose what you never owned Life is just a bowl of cherries So live it, love it, wriggle your ears And think nothing of it, you can't do without it There's no two ways about it You live and you laugh at it all.
The existence of anything we can possibly imagine, regardless of how outrageous or ridiculous, etc, IS indeed possible! If an idea exists it's because its potential reality already exists within the subconscious waiting to be awakened. Therefore, that old saying 'nothing is ever new under the sun' is more true today than ever before.
True. Even ideas are energy. But i guess no ideas can be original since they already exist.
That idea is a logically inconsistent paradox. For if it were true anything that anything could be possible, then it could be possible for it to be true that there are things that are impossible.
@@DavidDW no
Hmm you've missed the boat of reality, David. Try again :)
I wonder what the water quality is that they are drinking. If it's water! Js
If we had never developed the computer or developed some tool Other than the computer, this question would never be asked.
they publicly support sexual predators child rapists and domestic abusers
I used to think consciousness was primary. Now I think its more of a nondual transcendent awareness. Consciousness involves a duality of knower and known, even of it is the subject knowing itself. But beyond that there is a nonreferential ultimate light without any cognizable content. This is what we are. As soon as that awareness sees itself, consciousness or duality emerges and the simulation/illusion begins.
This concept is consistant with the feeling i had when i was in my early teens that life is as if we were beside a creator reviewing rather than acting in the now but then if time really doesnt exist (if infinity then ability to measure=0) that means all is simultaneous (its always now to our consciousness) ...does anyone understand or agree? Not sayin i do
I understand you - and have had a similar thought.
All major religions touch up on these topics through mysticism.
@@bigboss-qv7pe thanks for relaying this. Would it be asking too much for some specific cases?
@@TEE19622 look into how gnostics perceive time and they derive a lot of their knowledge from kabbalah. I'd say that hermetics talk about this as well.. I can't pinpoint anything but through studies it was just so easy to grasp that there's no such thing as linear timeline/time. Kronos is the god of time in mystery schools maybe that could send you down a rabbit hole. Good luck with your search and have a great existence!
He said it, the whole Conversation... "We can't Prove a lot..."
And he also stated that proving something is for Maths not Science. Science is an inductive method and so it's a matter of developing Cogency through evidence, Falsifiability, and Reproducibility. At best Science can disprove things, otherwise it builds on evidence through the Scientific Methods.
The only thing i would say is that some abstract hilbert space means nothing in itself, nomenclature is not what quantum mechanics is about. Ofc nothing is pure nomenclature, there is always some intuition no matter how wrong or right the undeliverable logic or suggestion of logic is. But you know as kant used to say; there are synthetic structures we build up from principle with no real contact with nature, and then we can sort of analytically get consequences from that and try to check up with nature as it is even if we are in danger of missing some stuff along the way.
I heard nothing which absolutely precludes our being in a simulation, including the assumption we see things we think would not be in a simulation. What I can agree with is the first answer in the part where it is said it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
I see nothing which absolutely precludes our being in a dream of the gods either but that doesn't make it so.
politely asking: exactly what do you mean that it makes no difference?
Sabina refuses to accept concept as an option, unless it observed and proved. Lost of things can’t be proved yet shouldn’t be dismissed.
If we lived in a computer simulation, I would have expected pop up adverts to be appearing everywhere all the time. Who knows about a mind independent reality?
By "real" possibility as opposed to a "fake" possibility she simply means is it with merit(e.g. equations, theories, etc) that we can think we live in a simulation rather than it just being a hunch without any supporting science or that can't be proven.
if we are living like 13th floor type sim, voyager 1 and 2 will never exit solar system. Both satellites stops some point. All our instruments are passive except those two sats. Because they sending signals from edge of solar system. Those signals are generated by our instruments and manufactured by us.
There are ways to compute that are not discrete. Look up extended analog computing.
Can it be broken down into pieces?
@@nosuchthing8 what is it and what do you mean by broken up into pieces?
So basically.... "We Don't Know..."
I wish they could have atleast assigned their own subjective probabilities, but that might come with a risk of seeming unscientific.
Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder is the real deal.
Why so short 😭??
I expected more from such a well accredited panel. This sounded like a regular half drunk bar discussion.
they publicly support sexual predators child rapists and domestic abusers
Actually Nick Bostrom a philosopher at Oxford as presented the "simulation" argument, an old philosophical idea, in a very powerful way. The idea should be taken seriously.
true. if trees were simulated they would live forever so we need to reevaluate the story of the trees and carbon date identify though sources from cellulose matter Life is not a tv show life is difficult it is never easy Simulations suggest a wizard of oz scenario
Just a unique experience from 0 to end 🐺
On topic, if by "Matrix" the equivalent concept in Actuality is Holographic time-timing presence Principle, ..yes, but that is not what you think you understand about what the labelling system means by Matrix, if the "Overmind" is Quantum Computational AM-FM Communication Actual-Artificial Intelligence In-form-ation and not a limited Mechanical Device for AI.
Finally someone pointing out that there are real brains in the Matrix movies.
no real brains, the top keep spinning in part 2 and 3.
"Even Elon Musk..." -> Tell me you're braindead without telling me you're braindead.
This is like sims talking about windows.
Eventually, reflections on a window show only neon angles while the rest of what could be reflected like a mirror in "light" is not rendered. Simultaneously, the present doesn't occur so day and night is simulated as to show a distinction in distortions. Most of what we used to buy before technology was by window shopping... but it's not the 3D but the implications of the 4D themes that may be covered. A Twilight Zone episode illustrates a paradox in an episode regarding mannequins. Eventually one feels like a mannequin who can't leave the store... we buy into each other's lies when we look at each other's eyes as well. Giving an alternative definition to "Being born blind." Perhaps blind to ignorance as there seems to be "more" progress in the field of "science" than the field of ignorance ironically...
Basic theology you mean … the same model proposed by christianity
@@antigen4 atoms built the eve
@@antigen4 Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on metaphysics.
Tod Radmaker no but it has a monopoly on western culture, which is what we are talking about here.
Every human experience is an aspect of reality in itself that can be examined.
Sure & these 'scientists' publicly support sexual predators child rapists and domestic abusers
Perhaps
@@quantumfineartsandfossils2152 I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean. Is there a context you can perhaps clarify on that important issue?
It is so refreshing to listen Sabrine talking science.
Consciousness is NOT substrait independent. The nature of a thing is its nature. Consciousness is not a product of anything that it can be conscious 'of'.
Great minds here , however I would’ve came in from a diff angle .. Reverse engineer what it would take to simulate reality . Where are we with VR , AR , AI & brain interfaces at the moment & where will we be in 500 yrs ? I’m being generous with the time frame as I believe it will be much sooner . It being when all these technologies exponentially grow to a point where we begin to question what reality is & which feels more real , the real world or the metaverse .. Prob not in my lifetime but great to think about !
People never talk about Telescope technology in these discussions. What if we are in an Alien Telescope? Our current telescopes take in light and then rely on a human brain to construct a conceptual "simulation" of what is actually out there, but ultra advanced telescopes will do a lot of the conceptual constructing with deep learning algorithms.
Consider the following: Imagine yourself inside a video game, movie or other virtual reality. a. As you look around and examine items at the minutest detail, everything would have the same basic density, (pixels per cubic space). That does not appear to be the reality we exist in. b. The computational power to display everything without any glitches would be massive. Probably not reality then. c. Things could occur that would defy the perceived 'laws of nature' for that existence from your perspective. (Effects without any known causes). This does not appear to reflect perceived reality. d. There should still be some sort of perceived interface from our side of 'reality'. No such interface has been discovered as of yet. e. Even in that other 'real' reality, where did it ultimately come from or did it always and eternally exist throughout all of eternity past? And if it could come into existence or exist that way, why couldn't our reality be the same way? f. Either we truly exist throughout all of future eternity, whether in this perceived reality (even if it's real reality), OR we don't. Even if we existed throughout all of future eternity minus one day (figure of speech), we would still die one day from something and go extinct. The sum total of our existence would be only what we left behind, including how our existence affected the larger society we existed in, the largest society of all being all entities in existence, in all states of existence, including those not even in existence yet. And either at least one species still exists after we die for our existence to still have potential meaning and purpose to, OR none do. And if none do, then it ultimately does not matter that we even ever existed at all in the first place, much less how we existed while we existed, whether only in a virtual world or in real reality. Life itself (whatever state of existence it might be in) only matters to life itself but only as long as life itself still exists. Will life itself (in some sort of state of existence) always exist throughout all of future eternity (whatever space and time actually are) OR not? (Future eternity currently being perceived as a long, long time frame).
BUT ALSO: Consider the following: Language, the very thing we utilize to think thoughts and convey ideas. Un-named Concepts -> Given a Name (could be a sound, symbol, etc) -> With an attached meaning -> And maybe even other meanings depending upon context -> And maybe even other names with the same meaning. (Basically a Dictionary and a Thesaurus for a language). BUT: a. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that we have all the un-named concepts that could ever be named? b. How exactly do we know for 100% certainty that the meanings we give named concepts are 100% correct? We truly do not know what we do not know. This is a part of the 'Great Unknown'. Never stop learning.
Nice
@@timmy1729 Thank you. I like to study and think about things.
I would take issue with c. You might do a brief look at the famous Socorro UFO landing in New Mexico (not Roswell). Thoroughly investigated at the time by Project Blue Book, the military spared no expense in trying to explain what happened ... could not. Forever labeled as 'Unexplained'. Not a hoax, not an earthly craft, not ET's - so then what was it? If it was not part of our reality, then somehow it was introduced briefly. Same goes with the famous Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot. Still studied to this day, almost impossible to conceive as a hoax, yet a bipedal ape is definitely *not* walking around in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. So then what was it? Apparently Elon Musk is intent on finding 'glitches in the matrix'. I dont call these 2 events glitches, rather, brief insertions into our reality.
@@jamesrav Well then also ponder this copy and paste from my files: Question: Where do thoughts actually come from? For example: Modern science claims that we have billions of brain cells with trillions of brain cell connections. How exactly does the energy signal 'know' where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a single coherent thought? An analogy I utilize is to spread a brain out like a map. Brain cells are represented by towns and cities, brain cell interconnections are represented by roads and highways, and the energy signal is represented by a vehicle traveling between one or more towns and/or cities. A coherent thought is a coherent trip. How exactly does the vehicle 'know' where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a single coherent trip? A higher intelligence has to tell it those things. But, that is a coherent 'trip' (thought) in and of itself. So, how exactly does our brain think a thought before it consciously thinks that thought? And if thoughts can be thought without consciously thinking thoughts, then what do we need to consciously think thoughts for? Just to consciously think thoughts that are already thought? What then of 'freewill' if we don't even consciously think our own thoughts? And then to further that situation, modern science claims that many different energy signals are starting at various places in the brain, take various pathways, and stop at different places, just to form a single coherent thought. (With the analogy, many vehicles are starting at various places on the map, taking various routes, and stopping at various places, all together forming a single coherent 'trip'.) And somehow it's all coordinated and can happen very quickly and very often. So, where do thoughts actually come from? Who and/or what is thinking the thoughts before I consciously think those thoughts? Do "I" even have freewill to even think these thoughts "I" am thinking about thoughts and type these thoughts to you here on this internet? Modern science also claims we have at least 3 brains: The early or reptilian brain, the mid brain, and the later more developed brain. So, are early parts of the brain thinking thoughts before the later parts of the brain consciously think those thoughts? If reptiles can think thoughts, then couldn't the early part of our brain think thoughts, and somehow pass those thoughts on to later more developed parts of later brains? Is our 'inner self' really just our reptilian brain thinking the thoughts that we think we are thinking? Are we all just later more evolved reptiles? Who don't even consciously think our own thoughts? If not, then how exactly does the brain think thoughts? Where exactly do thoughts originally come from so our brain can consciously think those thoughts? So "I" am thinking about thoughts, if it is even "I" thinking the thoughts that "I" believe "I" am thinking about thoughts. Or so "I" currently think, here again, if it is even "I" doing the thinking. "My" thinking is imploding as "I" think about thoughts. But then again, is it even 'me' that is imploding? I will have to think about it some more. Poof, I'm gone. Is just energy interacting with itself the lowest form of sub-consciousness? Is it even consciousness itself?
String Theory supports the idea that there are separate dimensions with separate unique properties: our particular dimension has specific limitations whereas others may be totally different as to limitations/aspects. Would it not be logical that the mathematical theories scientists and physicists describe as the critical basis of our universe - while assuming that those same theories describe EVERYTHING in existence - only be unique to our dimension of reality and therefore alien and un descriptive of all other possible dimensions?
Everything is information, all “matter” has to be simulated. It’s just energy.
if we prove in some way simulation theory, it may help to explain things which are puzzling current science - so it definitely makes sense to. try to do it ...
The brain is figuring out, based on it's input, what objective reality it. But we do have direct access to reality as well as that indirect access, where the mind and it's abstract reality emerges from and connects to 'objective' reality, they must connect for the mind to emerge in the first place. Where we have direct access though, it is not encoded to fit through some sensory signal so we can't analyse it in the same way, it is the mind as it's own sense, also we can't easily separate this direct experience of reality from whatever of the mind is abstract. Or maybe it's not at all abstract, and just seems as though it must be different from 'objective' reality simply because of how limited to the indirect experience rather than the direct one the idea of 'objective' reality had largely become. Funny that that idea and not 'objective' reality is itself if anything the abstract thing , and yet is trusted as being revealing of reality, really only because it is quantifiable not because it is real.
The "we're more likely to live in a simulation" argument fails because it is impossible to simulate the universe inside of a computer for the simple reason that this would require the computer to be more complex than the universe it is simulating, which logically contradictory and incoherent. The computer would have to be simpler than the universe, meaning every time you create a simulation inside of a simulation, it rapidly deteriorates in terms of complexity, and would eventually be so simple that simulating an intelligent being would not be possible within it. You could assume the initial conditions are such that the "real" universe is so complex that it allows for sufficient simulation layers that makes it more likely to be in a simulation than not to be in one, but then the obvious next question follows: why should those be the initial conditions? At that point it's not "more likely" as the simulation proponents argue, but it's more likely given a strict assumption, and they have not shown that assumption is more likely to be true than not.
The simulation idea is just the age old idea that perhaps a dream is reality and reality is a dream. I think therefor I am. Case closed.
Kind of
What happened to Sabine? I was hoping to hear more from her
I'm 10 minutes in and I can already see the panel selection was poor, not with regards to quality as they are all very good but in the balance of the opinion. It would have been far more interesting if there was an equal "for and against".
The discussion was just getting interesting when they were talking about Lorentz invariance and then the moderator had to destroy it with "What is reality"
To accurately simulate the universe you need a computer larger than the universe, unless it is procedural programming and nothing exists unless it is being observed, which is where this gets spooky, as it fits with certain aspects of quantum physics.
If we were in a simulation, we actually don't know much about the laws of physics (or power of computers) in the 'real' universe. It may be possible to simulate a universe like ours inside their 'real' universe, even if computers in our simulated universe could not achieve such a feat.
@@audiodead7302 Valid point. They could limit our physical laws in the supposed simulation to keep us contained. Thought provoking.
A quantum Computer would work much differently than traditional computers
what do u think Black Holes r ? quantum computers
@@hunk2140 LMAO Umm no I do not think black holes are quantum computers.
We all must agree that humanity evolved by trial and error. Same thing was done in the universe. Getting in consideration that physics, biology, life can be explained by math, geometry and we also can simulate and print live cell using 1 and 0 (abstract notion that can replace real numbers) then yes we are creation of what universe simulate for us. The biggest computer in the universe is universe itself. What do you think about that?
Antrophic principle+axiarchic view shore up your view...
Love Sabine. She sat quietly while the kids fought over their Legos.
They carefully avoid inviting anyone to represent the Perennial philosophy. This ensures the discussion remains speculative and superficial.
This panel plus Slavoj Zizek would have been hilarious.
ok if we are not in a simul then what are we in ?
I feel like the psychedelic background of the panel would be helpful to know who has it closest to reality
reality is relative. although our existence may not be reality to a higher plane of existence, our reality is really real to us.
No, we're still living in the November tricks, we still have to wait six months before living in the May tricks.
bah dum tssss
Do you see a paradox in the question itself: „ Do I BELIEVE we are EXISTING in the computer SIMULATION” ? 😅🤦🏻… physical constraints could be perhaps a simulation… just as you can program the Physics engine for the Computer Game… and you can simulate avatars, but … believing requires CONSCIOUSNESS… a living player 🤷🏻♀️… consciousness cannot be programmed… and if it could emerge in the simulated complex enough VR… then it would mean, that higher degrees of freedom system can emerge from the lower degrees of freedom system…