Philosophy Now Forum

There is an overall consensus throughout the scientific community, that reality consists of information. Not matter, but information.

The atom is not matter, it is energy that provides certain information. The nucleus tells us how much gravity influences it, and the electron clouds reflection of light, shows us its appearance. The electron cloud also tells us about its density.

The key element here is how un-importaint the nucleus is. It only decides weight (only importaint on a planet) and the amount of electrons around it. What really matters is the electrons. They decide appearance and density. They decide reality.

That means reality, as we percieve it, is electric. I kid you not. It is!

So we have an electric reality of pure information. But that's just the beginning.

With the double slit experiment, and subsequently the quantum eraser experiment, it has been proven - without a doubt - that particles react to consciousness. If you look, they are there. If you don't, they are not.

Electric reality that is only there when you look? Hmmmm.... What could that mean?

Could it mean that reality is virtual? Or is that too far out, despite the above facts?

Think about it, and let me hear your thoughts.

Next I'd like to introduce quantum entanglement. Something even spookier than particles reacting to consciousness...

Hello,

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:41 pm There is an overall consensus throughout the scientific community, that reality consists of information. Not matter, but information.

I think there may indeed be an emerging majority consensus about this. But it's more like the idea that reality is best described as information. It's the most flexible description/conceptualization, especially when it come to modern physics.
But reality itself doesn't seem to consist of any particular thing. Another idea is to reduce everything to little strings.

Though it's certainly true that nowadays many scientists believe that information is a newly discovered "stuff", something in addition to matter/energy. With all due respect - they're wrong.

The atom is not matter, it is energy that provides certain information. The nucleus tells us how much gravity influences it, and the electron clouds reflection of light, shows us its appearance. The electron cloud also tells us about its density.

The key element here is how un-importaint the nucleus is. It only decides weight (only importaint on a planet) and the amount of electrons around it. What really matters is the electrons. They decide appearance and density. They decide reality.

I think here you may be mixing things up. Some would say that energy is a form of matter, or that matter is a form of energy, or that they are two manifestations of the same underlying thing, but they belong into one type of description/conceptualization. Information is another description/conceptualization.

So the matter/energy itself is the information. Nothing extra is provided/told/shown/decided, things are merely themselves.

That means reality, as we percieve it, is electric. I kid you not. It is!

I don't think it is. Electricity and electrons may play some kind of central role when it comes to individual human consciousness, and there's still a lot of mistery about this. But otherwise electricity is "just" one of the many things the universe consist of.

So we have an electric reality of pure information. But that's just the beginning.

So I don't this holds. Either we see the world as matter/energy, and electricity is part of that. Or we see everything as information; one "subset" of that information is electricity.

With the double slit experiment, and subsequently the quantum eraser experiment, it has been proven - without a doubt - that particles react to consciousness.

Not quite. I think it's been shown that the outcomes of the experiments correlate with the quantum observer. Some part of the human brain/mind probably qualifies as a quantum observer, but it's unknown what a quantum observer actually is. There is no reason to assume that only a human or only something that's alive, can be a quantum observer. Besides, individual human "consciousness" seems to be made of the same things as everything else in the universe, just arranged differently.

If you look, they are there. If you don't, they are not. Electric reality that is only there when you look? Hmmmm.... What could that mean?

Well this is one kind of interpretation. But nowadays, especially since decoherence theory, there is an emerging consensus among physicists that the Copenhagen interpretation - though useful for practical purposes - is no longer acceptable as an explanation of what's actually going on.

Though our "looking" seems to totally correlate with the observed reality, that doesn't necessarily mean that things aren't there when we don't look.
Maybe the whole picture needs to be turned upside down and inside out: the universe is always there, but it always appears in correlation with how the QM observer is "looking at it". So your "apparently objective" reality subset of the universe always appears to you in a way that's consistent with your looking. (Sorry I know what I'm trying to communicate but I just can't put this into words.)

Could it mean that reality is virtual? Or is that too far out, despite the above facts?

Reality could be virtual but I don't think there are any signs of it, and it also sounds extremely improbable to me.
I think this idea is a new fashion, it will die out eventually. Information is actually a human-made concept, used heavily in computer simulations and holographic principles. From there people used backwards thinking and speculated that reality may consist of information, and so reality may be a simulation or a hologram or whatever.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:17 am I think there may indeed be an emerging majority consensus about this. But it's more like the idea that reality is best described as information. It's the most flexible description/conceptualization, especially when it come to modern physics.
But reality itself doesn't seem to consist of any particular thing. Another idea is to reduce everything to little strings.
Though it's certainly true that nowadays many scientists believe that information is a newly discovered "stuff", something in addition to matter/energy. With all due respect - they're wrong.

I agree and disagree. I believe QM tells us, that what was previously considered matter, is in fact information. What best describes this information is math. I do agree that adding new "stuff" on top of old models is a wrong way to go.

I think here you may be mixing things up. Some would say that energy is a form of matter, or that matter is a form of energy, or that they are two manifestations of the same underlying thing, but they belong into one type of description/conceptualization. Information is another description/conceptualization.
So the matter/energy itself is the information. Nothing extra is provided/told/shown/decided, things are merely themselves.

How about electric information?

I don't think it is. Electricity and electrons may play some kind of central role when it comes to individual human consciousness, and there's still a lot of mistery about this. But otherwise electricity is "just" one of the many things the universe consist of.

You are entitled to have an opinion, but fact is, that all we percieve are photons and electromagnetic resistance/reflection. Light and electricity.

So I don't this holds. Either we see the world as matter/energy, and electricity is part of that. Or we see everything as information; one "subset" of that information is electricity.

The electricity IS the information.

Not quite. I think it's been shown that the outcomes of the experiments correlate with the quantum observer. Some part of the human brain/mind probably qualifies as a quantum observer, but it's unknown what a quantum observer actually is. There is no reason to assume that only a human or only something that's alive, can be a quantum observer. Besides, individual human "consciousness" seems to be made of the same things as everything else in the universe, just arranged differently.

I agree and disagree. But we must be carefull not to complicate things. The most simple explanation (the Ockham Razor) is that consciousness is the culprit when it comes to the CotWF. Like the Copenhagen Interpretation says.

Well this is one kind of interpretation. But nowadays, especially since decoherence theory, there is an emerging consensus among physicists that the Copenhagen interpretation - though useful for practical purposes - is no longer acceptable as an explanation of what's actually going on.

I consider that a rebellion from the part of the community that supports materialism. They have deep problems with Ockhams Razor. I don't dismiss anything, I just think they seem more desperate than leading and constructive.

Though our "looking" seems to totally correlate with the observed reality, that doesn't necessarily mean that things aren't there when we don't look.
Maybe the whole picture needs to be turned upside down and inside out: the universe is always there, but it always appears in correlation with how the QM observer is "looking at it". So your "apparently objective" reality subset of the universe always appears to you in a way that's consistent with your looking. (Sorry I know what I'm trying to communicate but I just can't put this into words.)

That is truly an interesting philosophical discussion, that I'd love to take!!

Reality could be virtual but I don't think there are any signs of it, and it also sounds extremely improbable to me.
I think this idea is a new fashion, it will die out eventually. Information is actually a human-made concept, used heavily in computer simulations and holographic principles. From there people used backwards thinking and speculated that reality may consist of information, and so reality may be a simulation or a hologram or whatever.

I agree and disagree. I believe QM tells us, that reality is centrally govorned. The most likely place to govorn a universe, is in a super computer. The idea might die out soon, but that does not make it less real.
Like Ghandi said: In a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pmYou are entitled to have an opinion, but fact is, that all we percieve are photons and electromagnetic resistance/reflection. Light and electricity.

What about things like the elementary particles, strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, Higgs field, (dark matter, dark energy)?

I agree and disagree. But we must be carefull not to complicate things. The most simple explanation (the Ockham Razor) is that consciousness is the culprit when it comes to the CotWF. Like the Copenhagen Interpretation says.

Others claim that the most simple explanation, according to Ockham's razor, is that there is only an apparent CotWF, leading to MWI-type interpretations. Less assumptions, less equations, simpler picture, no violation of unitary evolution. Besides none of this extra-physical consciousness was ever found.

I agree and disagree. I believe QM tells us, that reality is centrally govorned. The most likely place to govorn a universe, is in a super computer. The idea might die out soon, but that does not make it less real.
Like Ghandi said: In a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.

I see that as a common trap. Many arrive at the conclusion that there must be some final observer outside the universe that does all the collapsing. Some kind of ultimate consciousness or God or a supercomputer or something. But there is nothing in QM that would suggest that things would be collapsed from the outside. Nor is anything actually governed, there are only correlations. Collapses by themselves don't govern anything, but "we" as QM observers may have a small influence on spacetime by "choosing" "when" or "how" to make such collapses.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:22 am What about things like the elementary particles, strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, Higgs field, (dark matter, dark energy)?

Electrons and photons are elementary particles. Protons and neutrons, however, are beyond our perception. They are the underlaying elements that define the fabric of reality, but we can only have an indirect perception of them. When you fall and hurt yourself, it might be caused by gravity partially, but it's the electromagnetic resistance that hurts you.

Others claim that the most simple explanation, according to Ockham's razor, is that there is only an apparent CotWF, leading to MWI-type interpretations. Less assumptions, less equations, simpler picture, no violation of unitary evolution. Besides none of this extra-physical consciousness was ever found.

Remember that Ockham lived in the middle ages. His definition was not meant for science or math, but for explanations and hypothesises. So when you use the razor for math and science, you might risk abusing its intended purpose.

I see that as a common trap. Many arrive at the conclusion that there must be some final observer outside the universe that does all the collapsing. Some kind of ultimate consciousness or God or a supercomputer or something. But there is nothing in QM that would suggest that things would be collapsed from the outside. Nor is anything actually governed, there are only correlations. Collapses by themselves don't govern anything, but "we" as QM observers may have a small influence on spacetime by "choosing" "when" or "how" to make such collapses.

Most people I have discussed this with, have a deep aversion against the simulation hypothesis. It's like they can accept any explanation - just not that one!
I wonder why. It's a nice model, that solves all mysteries. And it makes perfect mathematical sense.

Is it because our reality becomes less real? Are they afraid that life is an illusion? That they are less human? That they might be A.I.'s?

I can personally say, that there's nothing to be afraid of. Nothing changes, except one little thing: knowing.
The world will keep spinning. People will act the same. Nothing changes. You just have an answer.

I know that it can never be a certain answer. That's how science works. Certainty is not a part of the package. But it is very probable. And "very probable" is good enough for me. Atleast untill a better model comes along. If ever.

You probably think you have a much better model. And I will not argue with that. We all are free to choose what makes the most sense to us.

What you seem to be talking about is more like the Neumann-Wigner interpretation btw (consciousness causes collapse). The Copenhagen doesn't specify what a QM observer is, the most common observer used in the Copenhagen is a collection of atoms called a measuring device.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:48 pmElectrons and photons are elementary particles. Protons and neutrons, however, are beyond our perception. They are the underlaying elements that define the fabric of reality, but we can only have an indirect perception of them. When you fall and hurt yourself, it might be caused by gravity partially, but it's the electromagnetic resistance that hurts you.

I don't follow at all how you can single out electromagnetism and discard the rest.

Most people I have discussed this with, have a deep aversion against the simulation hypothesis. It's like they can accept any explanation - just not that one!
I wonder why. It's a nice model, that solves all mysteries. And it makes perfect mathematical sense.

Is it because our reality becomes less real? Are they afraid that life is an illusion? That they are less human? That they might be A.I.'s?

I can personally say, that there's nothing to be afraid of. Nothing changes, except one little thing: knowing.
The world will keep spinning. People will act the same. Nothing changes. You just have an answer.

I admit having a deep aversion against it too. Who wants to be senselessly controlled from above? Being at the whims of some kind of godfigure programmer geek? Good thing I see zero evidence for it.

But although I admit that simulation is a theorethical possibility (especially in my worldview since I'm a multiversist), my main problem with it is that I see it as extremely improbable, not the objections I wrote in the other comments.

Let's assume that all this is a simulation. But I have never, ever, seen a glitch in it. But our universe is huge, absolutely huge. And yet everything seems to be just in the right place at the right time, without fail. Even if we look at galaxies 10+ billion light years away, everything is always in place without fail.

Wherever we look into the universe, everything is in place. Everything seems to be connected / "interacting with" everything else. How do you make a simulation that big and that perfect? That computer must be of unimaginable proportions and speed.

A computer like that probably needs to be situated in a universe far bigger and complex than ours (and that universe would have to function somehow too, so maybe they would think that that's a simulation too, requiring an even bigger universe and so on). This is spiraling out.

So I see this as extremely unlikely. What's more likely is that our universe simply is. To me the simpler explanation is that our universe is nonlocal (in the correlation sense of the word), which can lead to the misunderstanding of the universe being made of information. Nonlocality pretty much seems to be a natural form of magic we have to accept, our Newtonian common sense was wrong.

The gist of what I tried to explain, goes something like this:

Assume there is this bigger and more complex universe hosting this supercomputer. The argument usually goes something like this: such a species would run several simulations at the same time. Okay so let's say they are running, I don't know, 10^3 simulations?

However, within the infinite possibilities, such a big and complex universe may be much rarer than ours. I don't even really know how to address this number, I'd very vaguely estimate that such a universe would be somewhere between 1 in 10^10 to 1 in 10^1000 rarer than ours. Divide this number by 10^3 and we still have a massive improbability.

So in short, 1000 natural universes containing intelligent life may be more common, than 1 universe containing 1000 universe simulations. But such numbers are really wildly speculative.

(I guess one could make the counterargument though that they really are just creating simulations that create the illusion of everything being in place in our universe, but the simulations are actually small.)

My other problem with the simulation hypothesis is that for me, it strongly resembles a mass brainwashing technique. It seems to be funded heavily for some reason, maybe with the intent to make people doubt that they are real, that makes them more confused, helpless, submissive, controllable.

Let's first establish that, when we're talking about the complete truth about the nature of our universe, we're dealing in "if's". But to make the conversation smoother, we should skip the constant correctness, and just agree they (the ideas) are all depending on a chain of thoughts, that might or might not be true (we will never know).
Agree?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:21 am What you seem to be talking about is more like the Neumann-Wigner interpretation btw (consciousness causes collapse). The Copenhagen doesn't specify what a QM observer is, the most common observer used in the Copenhagen is a collection of atoms called a measuring device.

Measuring devices does not make themselves. They are extensions of human consciousness, in my opinion. So our disagreement is basicly if the CotWF should be interpreted technicly (like you seem to favor), or logicly (wich is my prefered approach).

I don't follow at all how you can single out electromagnetism and discard the rest.

I'm not directly discarding the rest, I'm just saying that we are only in direct contact with electromagnetism (electrons) and light (photons). The others are hidden from our 5 senses.

Let's assume that all this is a simulation. But I have never, ever, seen a glitch in it. But our universe is huge, absolutely huge. And yet everything seems to be just in the right place at the right time, without fail. Even if we look at galaxies 10+ billion light years away, everything is always in place without fail.

Wherever we look into the universe, everything is in place. Everything seems to be connected / "interacting with" everything else. How do you make a simulation that big and that perfect? That computer must be of unimaginable proportions and speed.

A computer like that probably needs to be situated in a universe far bigger and complex than ours (and that universe would have to function somehow too, so maybe they would think that that's a simulation too, requiring an even bigger universe and so on). This is spiraling out.

Well ofcourse we have never seen a glitch. A glitch affects the whole system, and would only be visible from the outside. Those inside would detect nothing at all. It would all seem just fine and smooth, even if the glitch lasted days or weeks.
There is one tiny possible exception to that "rule" though. One little thing that could be interpreted as a glitch: Quantum tunneling!

Regarding the size of the universe, the computer only needs to create what we look at. Small pale dots are easy to simulate. If you focus on one dot, it's easy to load more info, and so on... In principle our universe is huge, but the amount of data does not need to be equally huge, for it to be simulated.

We can only speculate what the outside universe is like. There was an experiment made recently, that would require more cpu-power to simulate, than a quantum computer could accomplish. The team behind it concluded, that this was evidence that our universe is not simulated: https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/phys ... simulation
What a stupid, narrowminded conclusion

It was, however, not a wothless experiment. It told us one very very interesting thing: You can (apparantly) not simulate a quantum-based universe inside a quantum-based universe!
And since I believe that quantum mechanics only happens in simulated universes, we could assume, that our hosts live in a base reality, and thereby discard the simulation-within-simulation-within-simulation nonsense. There is (probably) just us.

Bottom line: We can't possibly know anything about them, their capabilities or their universe. Speculations running wild is not an arguement.
Just because you imagine a possible chaotic consequense, does not mean it is like that at all.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:49 amMy other problem with the simulation hypothesis is that for me, it strongly resembles a mass brainwashing technique. It seems to be funded heavily for some reason, maybe with the intent to make people doubt that they are real, that makes them more confused, helpless, submissive, controllable.

I see no reason for that to happen. It made me more active and more exploring towards science. I'm here because of it.
What it can do, is make us less worried and scared. World politics seems less threatning, if we're all simulated characters. Death seems less dramatic, if we're not even really alive. We're suddently free from worry. We can embrace the experience. We can challenge what's possible. In fact, there's nolonger any limits to hold us back.
But we must remember to contribute to a good experience for all. Do no harm. That is still important, wether we're real or not.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:49 am Nor is anything actually governed, there are only correlations.

I challenge anyone to explain logicly and naturally, how quantum nonlocality (entanglement) is possible, without "a third party" to link the particles?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:50 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:49 am Nor is anything actually governed, there are only correlations.

I challenge anyone to explain logicly and naturally, how quantum nonlocality (entanglement) is possible, without "a third party" to link the particles?

Or why not just accept that "universal oneness/interconnectedness" is the true nature of reality (well at least in our universe), as claimed by many traditions? And we can directly track some of this "oneness" via direct instances of entanglement. Does it really need a third party?
Yes as I wrote it does come across as a natural form of magic, totally goes against the Newtonian common sense. But after a while it starts to make perfect sense (well to me at least). There are no separate things, separate events. Causality and spacetime may be an apparent "layer" of the actual nonlocal reality (and doesn't need to extend to the entire universe). This apparent "layer" is necessary for us to be here; for a human to exist, to have evolved, things need to happen, have happened in a certain order.

Also, if the "greater reality" where the simulation is running, is not nonlocal, then how can such a computer simulate nonlocal effects? No matter how fast it is, could it ever simulate instantaneous correlations (well unless, again, the simulation is small and it just simulates the illusion of a nonlocal universe, a sort of brain in a vat scenario).

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:50 am Or why not just accept that "universal oneness/interconnectedness" is the true nature of reality (well at least in our universe), as claimed by many traditions? And we can directly track some of this "oneness" via direct instances of entanglement. Does it really need a third party?
Yes as I wrote it does come across as a natural form of magic, totally goes against the Newtonian common sense. But after a while it starts to make perfect sense (well to me at least). There are no separate things, separate events. Causality and spacetime may be an apparent "layer" of the actual nonlocal reality (and doesn't need to extend to the entire universe). This apparent "layer" is necessary for us to be here; for a human to exist, to have evolved, things need to happen, have happened in a certain order.

As I may have indicated before, I would expect a natural universe to be in total harmony - from the smallest parts, to the largest.
Ours is not. When we dig deep, harmony fails.

Also, if the "greater reality" where the simulation is running, is not nonlocal, then how can such a computer simulate nonlocal effects? No matter how fast it is, could it ever simulate instantaneous correlations (well unless, again, the simulation is small and it just simulates the illusion of a nonlocal universe, a sort of brain in a vat scenario).

I believe the effects themselves are not caused by the particles, but by the observation. So nonlocality is connected to consciousness, not to physical rules (like newtonian laws). So both: the CotWF and nonlocality are caused by observation. One could say that the computers perspective is us, not the "matter". The "matter" is programmed to adapt to the observer, because the observer is paramount to the simulation.

What "their" universe is like, is not part of the hypothesis. Like bowel bacteria, we have no clue how the food gets to us, we just eat it.
I have many ideas about who "they" are, and I love brooding about "them", and why they made "this". But that is a totally different discussion

I see QM as a huge traffic sign, pointing towards a profound truth, but scientists are too busy analysing the sign itself, to read what it says.