The test of how well you yourself understand something is your ability to explain it to anyone in simple terms of understanding, Seth Lloyd gets an "A".

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

I'll give him a C-

@jackpullen3820

5 жыл бұрын

OK, think you can do better, where's your video?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

So if I watch a shit movie, I can't point out it's a shit movie unless I become a movie director and make a better movie myself? In what universe do you live in, moron? You could be evidence for the existence of alternate realities.

@jackpullen3820

5 жыл бұрын

Could be...LOL

@mykobe981

5 жыл бұрын

@@jackpullen3820 Responding with self-deprecating humor after a guy calls you "moron" in a youtube comment section... A+! :D

The signifcance is that no one in our universe can escape information, because it is an essential part in us .

I was waiting for this video thank you very much. Please make more videos about this topic.

That was insane and may be the best explanation I've heard yet. I always try to explain to people why you shouldn't feel threatened to think of this reality as a simulation. I could never come close to explaining it like Seth just did but I tell people, 'It's not that reality is imitating computers, it's that computers are imitating reality and nature'. Our computers exist because that is the nature of reality fundamentally, and computers are sort of a natural result of the evolution of this reality. Instead of thinking of 1s and 0s, think on or off states. Take the computer terminology completely out of it, but it's still describing the same thing and it is how things seem to work as a matter of fact.

I've always felt that if we could show that all the universe consists of is information, we'd also be saying it only consists of relationships, which I feel comfortable with. "Correlations without correlata"

@theotormon

4 жыл бұрын

That's a good way to put it.

@bozo5632

3 жыл бұрын

How can one nothing be correlated with a nothing else? I'm not convinced that info "exists" at all, except as a relationship / correlation between actual things.

Excellent... thanks 🙏

Very informative. In a similar way the universe could be a formal system.

Remember, it's a good thing if the camera stays put. Moving the camera while the interview subject is talking is both distracting and, almost as bad, it's a mid-1990s cliche. At least you're not doing the 1980s cliche of jigging the camera as if it didn't having an auto stabilizer.

By 8:13 Deep intense look... At 8:14 mind totally blown away, not actually getting all the information that he just received. Also I'm sure he was actually going to say "wtf?" around those frames.

For physical reality, time / energy uncertainty can be bit with two different states of time and energy?

Thanks!

Such a pleasant interaction between two intelligent men! But despite Seth Lloyd's obvious deep understanding of the nature of computation in digital and quantum systems that he has decades of experience with, the common anthropomorphic error is made, which he even alludes to initially, then proceeds down that path talking about digital and quantum bits, flipping, and mathematical explanations for his argument, which are, in effect, human-derived explanations of a universe that is more ANALOG in nature, than DIGITAL. The organelles, membranes, even biomolecules of cells are performing myriad decision-making processes per ever second of our lives (as it would appear to us as observers,) that are often in degrees of magnitude, rather than absolutes, as in binary or quantum bits, flipping pos or neg, up or down, yes or no. Rahul Sarpeshkar has been working with analog computational models which seem more in line with reality. This universe existed long before man arrived to give processes and entities names, and apply mathematical explanations to ancient, pre-existing phenomena. We still don't understand LIFE; and the BIG BANG, and DARWINIAN EVOLUTION seem more like a fairy tales, the deeper we go.

Wow ! So beautifully and succinctly put. Amazing explanation !

Might the description of particles as barcode with 300 elements be applicable to neuron configurations in brain for conscious experience?

I dare say there's too much camera movement.

Consider this. The quantum world is a world without information. The classical world IS information.

Information as the foundation of reality defines life, consciousness, soul and faith, out of the universal complexity of information.

Is the quantum field programs of information processing?

So many samples here for my psy-trance song

We tend to think of computers as the box on our desk, phone in our pocket or that clamshell like thing called a laptop. We all know what those computers can do though few understand how they do it. In nature there are other systems we could call a type of computer that also performs some function. As an example the proteins in a living cell that takes the massive program encoded in DNA and replicates the components of the cell and controls the process of creating a duplicate of itself. Not to mention the function it provides to the organism it is part of. Point is “computers “ can take many forms large and small and perform some function at its own level. So now you take some quarks and combine them in a particular fashion and you get elementary particles that behave a certain way or you might say perform a function. In all of this there is information behind how things are put together to behave in some fashion. It seems very clear to me that information is behind everything.

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

Define information. What is the source of information?..

Do what i command !

10:39 "There are about 2^300 elementary particles in the Universe. That means that if each particle had a bar code - I'm not sure where we'd even put the bar code, I guess in some sense the particle _is_ the bar code." I suspect this glossed over remark is actually profound.

"Closer to truth" also asked this question to Sean Carroll in their previous episode, but there are a subtle differences. In the talk with Sean Carroll the interviewer extrapolate to the virtual universe isuggesting "someone" made it, while here he is actually taking about about the encoding itself embedded in quantum mechanics. This is the far more reasonably question to ask and it is regrettable that Sean Carroll, as a physicist only was asked philosophical questions. In this episode Seth Lloyd explains this encoding as embedded in the properties of particles in the standard model. This is not how current quantum mechanics thinks that possible encoding works. It is rather made of the entanglement of virtual particles. But I guess Seth Lloyd used the very incorrect Electron example for simplification purposes??

How this ties into human free will is most interesting to me.

Information is the foundation of reality---epistemicly. Information is representation. Representation of what? Something that exists. Therefore existence is the foundation of reality.

I want to go to the beach and sit under a tree and have deep conversations about the universe.

The ping-pong camera slides arent helping, thanks.

Could energy be considered hardware run by the software of time?

so,what gives rise to the sense of understanding, the feeling, the emotion in us? What makes us tear up? onion peeling or bits flipping? My fucking mind is blown

The only people who talk about information are the folks who don't understand energy.

Multiple interactions build Universe independently of their origin, and reality is only the emerging interactions. The interactions emerge in observing a multiple impulses inter-active yes-no actions modeling information Bits. From that follows information is phenomenon of interactions which also bring reality-certainty with information. Vladimir S. Lerner "How Information Creates its Observer, the Emergence of the Information Observer with Regularities", Nova Science Publ., 2019

Well, the great realization is; anything that we could conceive of is sprinkled and loaded with information and information itself is a piece of information. Some would say it exists only in our mind or brain, an invention. However, it does not really matter, as long as it exists, irregardless of the kind or classification of its existence. We can define it and describe it whatever we wanted to, the truth is, that’s what we are just doing, but we can’t make it non-existent.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

No, the universe is real, it's not in your head. It'll still be there long after you're dead.

@jml5926

5 жыл бұрын

Will Nitschke who said the universe is not real?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

You. Your mind exists inside the universe. I.e., " Some would say it exists only in our mind or brain, an invention."

@jml5926

5 жыл бұрын

Will Nitschke some would say, that’s why i counter it with “however”....

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@jml5926 Some would say you're a backpedaling coward. If you're going to say completely dumb shit, at least double down. ;-)

Could information be the bit of physical reality that goes from nothing to something, the non-physical to the physical, like a computer bit goes from 0 to 1? This information bit would then be the building block of physical reality / matter. From the physical bit of information more complex matter could be developed through simple rules, mathematics and whatever else.

@RussellCatchpole

3 жыл бұрын

That's kind of what I'm thinking & why I've been searching these videos, but nobody has quite said it. It's like information comes into being (reality) when the quantum wave function collapses .. or, information is created at the point quantum physics and classical physics meet. It seems so blindingly obvious, you & I are either barking mad or geniuses!

@djcarey1206

2 жыл бұрын

Information is half the battle!?

Why are the interviews are so short with your guests? I am sure you could at least have a 40 min segments.

@macsnafu

5 жыл бұрын

They're not so short. The full interviews are broken up into shorter videos. In my KZread suggestion list, I see 3 other videos with the same person that add up to an additional 25 minutes of interview time.

that unsteady camera made me seasick

The word falls often but what is exactly meant by "information"? For a brain, information is "data" that has some meaning. Some say consciousness itself arises from processing of information. So there seems to be a chicken/egg problem. Unless you say consciousness arises from the processing of "data" but at that point, it could all be important, it's almost like a white noise band that comes in from all senses, so how to decide??

I sort of agree with Seth but in a wildly different way. Instead of thinking about things in terms of this mystical concept of "information" which could only be ascertained from an omniscient perspective, I think that computation is simply an analogue we've constructed in a second physical medium. And we "let it be" its object of computation. We are radically enworlded and there is no escaping it.

I just saw in one of the stock clips why the Egyptian pyramids had a smooth flat outside covering besides reflection beauty. The uncovered ares of the pyramid had huge piles of sand on the top of each stone block. Little pyramids of sand atop blocks all the way to the top. Can't imagine sand blowing to that extent.

That was a very clear explanation 👌

The problem with quantum computing is that while it is, in theory, capable of near infinite power, quantum computer nodes are just too big and unscalable. Ironic, when quantum interactions occur on the smallest possible scales. I think that we must be doing things fundamentally wrong.

If the universe is a computer then are all events predestined?

Is there a "programmer" then of this "information"?

I will agree 100% the universe does work like a giant quantum computer. It was pre-programmed to do exactly what you are seeing. It created this simulation made of Stardust.

@johnyaxon__

7 ай бұрын

Qualia Qualia Qualia. Pain is pain. Tогture is toгture. Illness is illness. Suffering is suffering. I don't want suffering as a payment for pleasure. Some people or animals have zero pleasure. If it was designed, it was designed by sadist

Information is not stuff!!! Stuff is stuff!!!

@ExistenceUniversity

3 жыл бұрын

stuff is stuff with information, i.e., entities have identity.

2:44 Thumbs up is 1 and thumbs down is 0. Everybody knows that.

Even Penrose figured out that Conciousness is NOT a computation. Simple really. But that is all his blabbering is based on. Did he not get the memo?

I read many years ago Lloyd book called, Programming the Universe, that book open my mind and get interested more in that subject, the guy is a freaking Genius. It's a shame they were trying to destroy his reputation linking him with Jeffrey Epstein

@fr7nkyph7llyj7ne5

Жыл бұрын

👀

I do like more the Stephen Wolfram theory.

He's saying that because we can use the bit flipping in the atoms to make a quantum computer, that's the proof that the universe is a computer. It's wrong because the quantum computer is man made: it's a special arrangement of atoms into qbits and it isn't only made of qbits: there's a lot of traditional electronic and computing around those qbits to make them work. I'ts like saying relays can flip their internal state, so anything made of relays can compute. Well there are relays in my car and it can't add tow and two. There has to be an arrangement of relays to allow computing, and the interviewee yet has to demonstrate that this arrangement exists in the Universe.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

I have a sneaking suspicion you'd do better in your Bible Reading class.

is there a possibility that a bit can have more than having two possible states at the same time? Meaning, what if a bit could have a possible 3 or 4 at the same time, rather than the two that we are currently using to create quantum computers? And if so, could those possible number of states in a bit be related to how many dimensions (10 or 11) that relate to the string theory of dimensions. So, a bit could have corresponding bits that relate to the other dimensions that we can't yet see....? I don't know, I'm just vomiting ideas after watching all these videos. lol

No problem, Black hole may be destroyed Information that end of computer simulation hypothesis.

Happy is the one who is following.me the Goddess !

Ontic Structural (Scientific) Realism suggests the only real things are relations (like computer programs or algorithms ) and that ‘objects’ aren’t real. It does not follow that even if we think we have discovered algorithms that approximately correlate with our observations about the universe - that the universe is actually “running” these programs. Like everything in science, these mathematical algorithms are simply useful approximations- not the THING IN ITSELF which is not knowable by scientific method (or any other method). Hence i would say the best position is Epistemic Structural Realism.

@lepidoptera9337

2 жыл бұрын

Information has become the latest hammer that leads to nail blindness.

If we are a computer simulation, than we all are AI. We are aware of ourselves, and we are aware that we are being simulated.

@BradHolkesvig

5 жыл бұрын

You're right about us ( consciousness ) being an artificial intelligence. That's why it is written in the Bible, "Man was created in the image of God". God is the AI of the simulation program we're involved in.

@desiderata8811

5 жыл бұрын

Brad Holkesvig. Then god may be just a person, a programmer, simulating the universe.

@BradHolkesvig

5 жыл бұрын

@@desiderata8811 Yes. Our Creator, whoever or whatever that is, created the simulation with God as the voice of the consciousness, the artificial intelligence that was programmed ( commanded ) into existence. So our Creator is Good and the Lord of all created men. Visible bodies called human beings are only formed illusions within our consciousness.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

NI not AI. You'd be a natural intelligence. If it were true.

When he says that the universe could do more than a normal computer, that's a problem. Because normal computers are universal computers, and in a sense no universal computer can do more than any other. They just have different speed or memory. If the universe can do something uncomputable, it isn't a computer. For example, some physical constants may be uncomputable numbers.

@satorrotas6895

3 жыл бұрын

Yes the universe could do more than a "normal computer" because it is a quantum computer and not a classical one.

@cube2fox

3 жыл бұрын

@@satorrotas6895 A quantum computer can't do more than a classical computer, it only can do some things in fewer steps than a classical computer.

@DavidOfWhitehills

3 жыл бұрын

The uncomputable physical constants of our universe are the hardware of our universe.

@mustafaelbahi7979

3 жыл бұрын

@@cube2fox What is this bullshit

I wonder if this is such an abstract definition of a computer that it doesn't tell us anything new about the universe to classify it as a quantum computer

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

Not only an abstract definition of a computer, but an even more abstract definition of information and computation. His view is totally useless, even if it seems to make sense at some level.

Information is not the foundation of this reality.We feel everything before we think Wich means that emotions are the foundation of this reality. Emotions after all cannot be calculated by any form of math.emotions are not bond by space and time it transcends both that is what makes it a mystery that we have not been able to solve because it can't be approached using logic it's all about feeling.

@intfamous4001

Жыл бұрын

Ofcourse they can be calculated, they also are bound by space and time, how are they not? If emotions were so mysterious it would be very difficult if not impossible to predict them, but that is not the case, they are usually easy to predict.

Saying information is fundamental does away with the idea of physical. The world is ideal.

Stunningly condescending.

This is what is called 'reductio ad absurdum' [7:22] For instance: The Way I figured out that Seth's brain is a computer is to make it compute. Sometimes his wrong, sometimes his right. Kind of binary right?... But Seth's brain is a lot more than just what a computer does. The causation works from this angle: QUANTUM ANALOGY Reductionism can only explain components containing from the whole, not the actual whole phenomena! That's why it's called 'reduction-ism' dummy =P Fallacy: reductio ad absurdum

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

A brain is more than a computer... because...? You asserted but didn't follow through with an argument why.

@albertakesson3164

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke It's more because of it's qualitative properties. For starters, computer science has no idea of simulating the emergent phenomena of a conscience. Most people (perhaps not you?) believe if it acts like it's conscious, it has to be conscious. That's not true.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@albertakesson3164 All analogue systems reduce to digital systems so that is a nonsensical distinction. All sorts of emergent phenomena are derived from digital systems, so that is not a distinction either.

@albertakesson3164

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Now that's a huge understatement! It doesn't mean anything to just pull it out like that. You also have to prove it man ≠]

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@albertakesson3164 If you're ignorant of the state of modern science and philosophy how is that my problem? You're making a magical claim here. If you want to back it up, provide evidence. For example, an example, of something (anything) that is irreducible.

Computer is a device that does calculate and process in a systematic fashion, that is correct; however it does so in an ANTHROPOMORPHIC fashion. Mathematics is an anthropocentric medium with which we can make sense of our environment, nothing else, period. Numbers do not exist in nature and won't grow on trees. The patterns which we can recognize in nature can be 'interpreted' in an anthropomorphic way by mathematics for sure, but that's different than believing mathematics is the foundation of the universe. In the same way, information of any kind, is also a form of man-made invention (just like any other language) and exists only where there is a self-conscious human being exists who can experience the flow of (both linear and cyclical) time, space and movement 'anthropomorphically'. --- In other words, saying information is the foundation of the universe is like saying the the pixels that make the images on the screen are ultimately fundamental, while in reality pixels are nothing but invented units that help us conveniently and relatively accurate create the images on the screen for practical purposes. In the same sense, zeros and ones are not fundamental either, as zeros and ones are only binary, convenient, and rounded-off concepts with which we can make practical tools. What I mean is that, on an analog system all the input and outputs are at best fuzzy by nature as nothing can be 100% accurate as everything is in the state of constant flux. Digital platform and approach cannot and does not change that nature fundamentally, but what it does instead is to 'round off' and 'interpret' the captured data in some pragmatic ways that can be made useful later. --- For instance, basically on a computer many states and many outcomes can be interpreted as ONE and many can be interpreted as ZERO. When the processor sees any of those states based on how it is designed and programmed, it simply interpret and round-off those numbers to label them as either ONE or ZERO so then the output numbers could be used in other stages. But it would be absurd to think that those interpreted, virtual and unreal ZEROs and ONEs are the fundamental points of reality! Information of any kind is nothing but invented linguistic mediums with which we can make sense of our world in practical ways to be able to make tools and live a more convenient life, nothing else. ~~

@opthomas09

5 жыл бұрын

konnekt, you're definitely on to something here. I was thinking the entire time that we perceive information in calculation, and nature doesn't know numbers. Also, we have only discovered two methods of mass computation, binary and quantum, and I doubt nature operates wholly on 1s and 0s. Even further than that, we perform calculations in base ten because that's how many fingers we have, not because it's a basic building block of the universe. So to say our information and calculations are fundamental is very wrong in my opinion.

@alankwellsmsmba

5 жыл бұрын

Thomas Crouse all we know is quantum. We cannot know anything beyond that so for us, it is the limit of obtainable information. What is the universe ontologically? For that you need a philosopher or a theologian, not a scientist.

@caricue

5 жыл бұрын

That's pretty good konnekt. Not only are we not computers, but like you pointed out, there is no information in nature. DNA does not contain information. It can be interpreted by humans as information, but there is not any information there, any more than there are numbers just because some human decides to count rocks. It is this useful illusion that makes science possible, but these guys should not be so silly as to project their human concepts on to reality.

@filipnilenius3654

5 жыл бұрын

You are absolutely correct. Mathematics has not ontological existence in the universe. It's a man-made invention that only exists inside our heads.

@davidfield8122

5 жыл бұрын

Mathematics and numbers are more a discovery than a concept dependent on human existence - It exists independently of us. If there was no life in the universe, there would still be mathematical properties to everything. So I’m sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t take my word for it, take a look at MIT physicist Max Tegmark’s book, “Our Mathematical Universe”. Of course he’s not the only qualified example, just the first that popped in my head.

Derivatives.

How about this: The concept of information only arises when the universe is being observed, i.e. looked at by something conscious. Information then becomes the way the universe is represented within that consciousness.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

No. Information exists whether you observe it or not. The universe doesn't revolve around you, regardless of what your mother told you about being special.

@RussellCatchpole

3 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke then explain the delayed quantum eraser experiment.

@willnitschke

3 жыл бұрын

@@RussellCatchpole No it's not my job to elaborate on why dumb comments are dumb. It's your job to explain why a comment may not be dumb after all.

@willnitschke

3 жыл бұрын

@@RussellCatchpole WTF has that experiment got to do with consciousness perception, you nitwit. If you have an argument, make it. Don't expect me to make any argument on your behalf because you're a moron and can't do it yourself.

Software doesn't run without hardware.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

One problem at a time, shall we?

@ExistenceUniversity

3 жыл бұрын

quantum fields are the hardware

If the universe is just a computer that makes computers, and we are computers, then shouldn't we be building computers that build computers?

@kylesnage

2 ай бұрын

A.I. will engineer computers, so yes we are building computers that build computers

What is the primary objective when seeking to determine the nature of "truth", what constitutes truth and even how truth can be defined? The answer is, establish the reliability of the instruments one seeks to use and the other is to be sure a suitable context is established. But of equal importance is to have the most efficient and accurate use of language which is commensurate with the task. None of the above rules are adhered to, by any academic I have encountered or studied, yet videos such as these continue to be published and conversations had. It never ceases to amaze me.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

Truth is what makes you function effectively in the world. If you don't think gravity is 'true' walk off a cliff and get back to me with your outcome.

Replace "computation" with "interaction" and nothing changes, except the metaphor breaks. It's a metaphor.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

No it's not a metaphor. That was the entire point of his argument, which went over your head.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke No, I understand the argument. Did you understand mine?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

You didn't make an argument, you wrote something stupid. A computation is NOT an "interaction". Chemicals can "interact" but their reactions are fixed. A universal computing machine has no such restriction.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Don't subatomic particles interact? Don't waves interact? Yes it's quantized, no it's not obvious that that means computation occurs. It's not actually known whether the process is deterministic or random on some level. We say it's probabilistically determined, which is a fancy way of saying it looks random. It may look inevitable afterward, but it's inherently unpredictable beforehand. If there is randomness in it, how do you call it computation? What's actually stupid about the "something stupid" that I wrote? Have you tried substituting those words?

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

Oh, and, in a sense everything is a metaphor. Despite cats being very real objects, the concept of "cat" is an abstraction.

Seth is wrong. The computer is merely an electronic clockwork mechanism. The bits in the registers are not information. There are information only to the individuals who wrote the program and entered the data processed by the program. Reality has itself, not information.

I am the most powerful but i dont hold big office in government,politics,structured religion,i work independently,i command throug though internet world,prayers,sound waves,energy waves,electrical waves,electronic waves !

4:30 A car is an object that has wheels and can carry people. An airplane has wheels and can carry people and much more. So the airplane is a car. This is mathematical and scientific fact. Thank you for your attention.

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

That's exactly my point. I wanted to illustrate that "universe is a computer" is just as true as "airplane is a car" but actually there is one thing that makes an airplane *not* a car. Flying. Which is the sole purpose of the airplane. So probably focusing on the similarities and saying the universe is a computer is misleading.

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

a computer...and more. :D

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

i am saying what i said with the first comment. According to Seth's argument universe is as much computer as the airplane is a car. It is an universe and some. And PROBABLY that "some" is what it makes it not a computer but the universe. I don't know enough of the universe to say that how much difference the "some" makes. As John Searle said somewhere, a falling hammer is also a computer, but it has a very very limited algorithm. :)

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

I don't feel that I have answers on the nature of the universe. sorry :(

the lord disign the world

I almost had it but he lost me at 9:30

Yes it’s not real if it’s not something??

Boy does this guy go off the rails.

Given the irreducibility of consciousness then any non-mental foundation of reality will commit one to dualism and therefore stuck with the intractable mind-body problem. A mental monism dissolves the mind-body problem and gives us a concrete substance to ground this universe of such rich experience in a way information never could.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

All you've done is invented a magical thing called a 'mental monad' and declared it forever mysterious and magical. Imagine where we'd be now if decided 'life' was like that, and abandoned biochemistry even before it started.

@Nuclearcx

3 жыл бұрын

Idiocy - 21st Century Voodoo. The so called mind-body problem doesn't even exist. Ask any neurologist whether the mind is independent of the body. Look at all the illnesses that affect the brain and therefore disable or impair certain abilities, like hearing, sight, memory, logical thinking, muscle control etc. The mind arises from deep underlying physicality.

@MonisticIdealism

3 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Imagine where our discussion would be if you hadn't misrepresented my position entirely.

@MonisticIdealism

3 жыл бұрын

@@Nuclearcx The mind-body problem is dissolved, but only if one denies the distinction between mind-body. You say the mind "arises" from the physical but that's distinguishing the mental from the physical, so you've just given yourself the mind-body problem...

@willnitschke

3 жыл бұрын

@@MonisticIdealism Obviously I didn't "misrepresent your position" because if I had, you would have destroyed me by explained why. Instead you respond with the equivalent of an arse pained filled insult that I did something wrong.

The universe is a consciousness, with information inside it.

Why that camera doesn’t FUCKING STOP MOVING!!!🤬

The Universe is a computer because it can flip bits. It's fallacious argumentation (sophism): if you go there then any machine that contains cogs is able to give time because it has cogs in it. For example your bike has cogs so it can give you precisely the time it is. He just apply this false reasoning to the Universe : because the Universe has bits that can flip then it's a computer. But where is the logic? A computer is by definition programmable: how do you program the Universe to do what you want? You don't... and so it's a machine, not a computer. And if you look closely, machines can also hold information: on a cog of a machine you can write '1' and '0', so that it carries information (equivalent to the spin of an electron if you will) and when the cog turns the information flips alternatively. The Universe is a machine, not a computer. The definition of a computer has been theorised by Alan Turing, look it up.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

It's not a fallacious argument. It's just that you're an idiot, sorry. "A computer is by definition programmable: how do you program the Universe to do what you want?" He explained that, by building a quantum computer. A computer can perform any task that is computable. A machine that is not a computer can only perform a limited number of fixed tasks.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke So, wait; the universe is a computer because we can make computers out of small pieces of the universe? Either an ice cube is a computer or it's not. Which is it?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

That's not his argument. That's some random brain fart you've come up with because you don't understand his argument, sorry.

@mykobe981

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Can you argue a point without insulting people? Your arguments are fine, but the insults diminish your credibility more than your opponents.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@mykobe981 Depends on the level of effort put into a response. I'm respectful of intelligent people who make considered replies and mocking of people who type nonsense.

When he says that off course bit flipping in our smartphone is allowed by the universe... he states the obvious. He's implying that bit flipping in smartphone exists because atoms can bit-flip themselves. It's a false assumption because they're two different things: what if the bit flipping in the smartphone was an emerging property of bit flipping in the atoms? And I think it is the case, just like say pressure is an emerging property of atoms: atoms don't have a pressure P themselves, or another example: material can be mat or shiny. Reflecting light is an emerging property: individual atoms are not either mat or shiny! The same goes with bit flipping: we flip bits by using voltage and a flow of electrons, and it doesn't mean that all those electrons have bit-flipped to '1' simultaneously when we flip a bit in a processor to '1'. Far from that.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

No he didn't. You've pulled some random nonsense out of your bum and tried to shove it down this guy's throat.

@cube2fox

4 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke How rude!

@willnitschke

4 жыл бұрын

@@cube2fox Sometimes the truth is offensive.

@cube2fox

4 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Falsities are even more offensive

@willnitschke

4 жыл бұрын

@@cube2fox True, that's why I mock your stupid.

Not information, logic.

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

Of which *both* can only exist if there is a mind that determines both...

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

You need both actually.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@JappaKneads it's easy to imagine a universe without minds. It's harder to imagine minds without a universe. It's easy to imagine matter without thought. It's harder to imagine thought without matter. Why is consciousness such a sacred chao to some people? It's interesting stuff but why make the enormous leap to assuming it's important to the universe? (Just to harmonize residual stone age superstitions?)

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

_"it's easy to imagine a universe without minds. It's harder to imagine minds without a universe."_ _"It's easy to imagine matter without thought. It's harder to imagine thought without matter"_. ...it's impossible to imagine without a mind. It's easy to imagine that matter is not mind and thought comes from mind not matter. It's easy to imagine anything...except what you don't want to accept.... The Universe is known by consciousness...no knowing...no universe. Ergo...no universe...no NOTHING at all...without knowing...

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

The universe will still be there even if you're not. It doesn't revolve around you, regardless of how much your mother told you, you were special. Deal with it.

Weeeee

He made a terrible assumption : The UNIVERSE is a computer . As he obviosly know there are no particles , only wave functions . This is backed up by the fact that particles are points . The particle only is born when an observation is made. So what he is suggesting is that a computer appears locally .....not that the hole Universe is a giant computer ....if a duck keps appearing an disapearing , you would draw the conclusion that the hole thing is a duck?

@cazymike87

5 жыл бұрын

So, I would put information on the same plane as energy, for example....but in any case information its not the most fundamental thing....it cant by itself

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@cazymike87 Let's say information must be instantiated in something. Whatever that something is, is just as fundamental as information itself. And vastly less interesting.

@cazymike87

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke You just agreed that something is just as fundamental as information.....In my second replay I said that too ...so u agreed with me. But to say that its less interesting is so wrong. We live in a Universe where the emergence thing its the key.....so what I want to suggest its that Information its emergent. HOW? You have just one entry in the Universe.... that entry has just one thing ....to have a information about that entry that entry must have at least 2 thing that it is determinated by .....or a copy of itself....Then information will emerge. You could say: the first its Mike , and the second its Will .... So . what i suggest? Information its emergente ! It is Interesting? YES ...but just for the things that emerge from it ! It is not FUNDAMENTAL !

@cazymike87

5 жыл бұрын

On the other matter : if this ENTRY has conscience then ....well u hace information ....So I would say conscience and information are kinda on the same plane... But then the are the quasicristals that make up our reality and the E8 lattice....again on the same plane ..... There are other thing also ....Like I said ...everthing its emergent. You wouldnt tell if u reach the bottom ....because , well its imposibble for the things born from the emergence to know .....

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@cazymike87 "You just agreed that something is just as fundamental as information.....In my second replay I said that too ...so u agreed with me." Sorry, why would anyone disagree with that speculation? However, keep in kind that whatever that "stuff" is, we don't currently have the slightest clue about its nature. So your assertion is entirely speculative and based on metaphor. So it is not necessary correct. "But to say that its less interesting is so wrong." You didn't understand what I wrote. "We live in a Universe where the emergence thing its the key.....so what I want to suggest its that Information its emergent. HOW?" Nothing mysterious about emergence, LOL. Are you still living in the 17th century. I can take a Turing Machine and write a chess program, and the property of "intelligence" (ability to play chess) "emerges" from simple logical/mathematical operations. Didn't understand the rest of your ramble and no doubt you didn't either.

You mean consciousness.

@MonisticIdealism

5 жыл бұрын

Idealism ftw

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

Non Dualism...

@1974jrod

5 жыл бұрын

PowWolf Rider without information, consciousness is meaningless.

@MonisticIdealism

5 жыл бұрын

1974jrod Information is just a description of conscious experiences. Information is inconceivable without consciousness.

@1974jrod

5 жыл бұрын

Monistic Idealism Information is also impossible without energy as well. Yes, I agree, information must origionate from a consciousness, an eternal one at that. But without information, my consciousness would be meaningless.

He is ALL for computers

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

...forgetting that computers emerged from within a Mind....

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@JappaKneads And the Mind emerged from natural processes, so we come full circle.

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Mind comes before any computer. The process that produces the mind is quantum leaps beyond the Mind that produced the computer. Mind is ultimate...it created the computer, not the reverse. I have no idea what "full circle" you're talking about.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@JappaKneads Yet nature (natural processes) created Mind, so if so called 'random' processes can create a Mind, it can't be all that magically special, as you try to argue.

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Point out where i used the word "magical". I specifically said "quantum leaps"...meaning way ahead in complexity and variables. If a person is quantum leaps better in performance than another there's no need to invoke magic...unless you want to get a little superstitious... "Random" in human terms simply means variables not understood. I don't "believe in" the God called Random, apparently you do...

Seth Lloyd's metaphor is totally wrong on this point. A smartphone is a part of the universe. Not the other way around. The universe is much more than a computer or a smartphone. The metaphor does NOT work in both ways, obviously.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

Is much more than a computer... (your assertion) ... but you left out your argument.

@albertakesson3164

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke The computer metaphor is not the same as 'the computational theory of mind'. The metaphor has been completly abandoned by the far majority of the philosophers of the mind. This leaves us with the theory... about the brain working like a computer. (Do I even need to state that the universe also contain our minds and consciousness?) • For starters the brain components does NOT contain silicon and metals. Thus it cannot and will never inherit the exact same properties. The basic physics of the universe doesn't work that way. Once again it boils down to a mere metaphor. That's to say not sufficient to state the universe work like a "computer". • Second is about history. Computers are intelligent designes made from sentient humans as a tool. The totallity of the universe doesn't work like a tool nor can be states as an actual design. The universe has to be A LOT and waaaaay more in its qualitative state than just computational processes. No one can be this reductive. Again, explaining some of its part doesn't account for the whole. • Third, it's easy to state the universe contain both brains and computers, that is also influencing each other simultaneously(!). By large quantities and various qualities. And let's not forget about qualia... the actual experience of both being in the system (as components) and all of its totally (as a whole (what ever that might tell us about something?)). Computational processes only account for some of this. Basically; the universe does NOT compute. It doesn't search for answers from to question its fundamental workings. It just is by its own being, by being alone... some how. The forces of nature aren't apart from our models of the "forces" of nature. This distinction is crusial. It can never be fully reduced by its own components. From 'Gödel's incompletness theorem'.

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

The problem to many people can be that it looks like he defines the set of the features of the Universe by one of its subsets. 1. Electrons, one of the universe's building blocks have spin, that flips following a rule. 2. This feature can be used for computing. 3. It is used in computing, obviously, since the Universe has (quantum) computers in it. 4. Therefore the universe is a computer. Electrons have features that are binary. But that is just a subset of their features. They can be seen as bits but they are much more than bits. The universe has electrons (with their bit-like feature subset) but it has other stuff too, lot more than electrons. We are still trying to figure out how this other stuff works, and we are not at all close. Also, these electrons do flip following simple rules, but these rules by themselves do not create an universal Turing machine of the particles. Even though their binary feature can be used in one. So what we have is some subset of basic elements of the Universe, that have a subset of features that can be - and is used - in computation. But does this mean that the universe is not more than a Turing machine? We see naturally occurring computation in the Universe on higher levels of complexity and see binary features of basic building blocks, true. But does it really mean that the universe is not more than a computer? Doesn't sound solid. PS: If the universe is not more than a computer - what accounts for non-computable problems in the universe? And what accounts for the fact that we can define these problems? While we know quite a lot about computers we know too little of the Universe to put that equals sign in there.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@zagyex The argument is not as you describe it. Instead you present an idiotic caricature, because you don't seem capable of grasping the argument. If this was the argument then he would also be arguing that the universe is alive because Life is derived from the building blocks of the universe. On top of that confusion you add the new confusion that the universe is a Turing Machine. Which of your arsehole's did you pull that nonsense out of? The argument is that the universe is a computer of sorts, because the fundamental building blocks of the universe are computational. But not all computational devices are Turing Machines. A clock computes the time, but it is not a Turing Machine. I think you should try to understand arguments before you attempt to critique them. You are not smart enough to do that, sorry.

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

Ok, so the universe is not a turing machine but a quantum computer. If you replace "Turing machine" with "Quantum computer" my argument is still valid. The questions are: 1. Does the universe allow quantum computation? - Yes, some of its building blocks could serve as bits in a quantum computer, laws of physics allow it. 2. Can a quantum computer efficiently simulate the dynamics of the universe? - Maybe, hard to tell since we don't know how the universe works to a large extent - but for some reason he still thinks that the answer is yes. 3. So therefore is the universe a quantum cellular automaton? - In his opinion a quantum computer (that exist theoretically only) could simulate any local quantum system efficiently so in theory it can simulate the entire universe. So it is likely that that's what's happening. Again the problem is whatever you compare the universe to (a clock, a turing machine, a quantum computer, whatever) it implies that you know how the universe works - but there are just too many unanswered questions about the universe to conclude such a thing. Even then, if this comparison would answer at least one unanswered thing about the universe then it would seem a lot less like a forced analogy.

Reducing the universe to a Turing machine at the quantum level is reductionism at the level of absurdity. How did the "hot plasma" of the big bang, with maximum entropy decide to begin forming atoms? What was that original "boot loader" program for such a primitive computer that had such uniformity as to contain zero or minimal information? Oh, and another thing, please stop talking about particles as if they exist, when they are simply excitations in the quantum fields and, moreover, monads cannot exist. The minimum extant whole I can conceive would be an entangled pair of particles.

Wow he doesn't know anything about software., yet he's theorising it. When he says software is the bits.... no that's the definition of memory which is hardware (its properties is: store bits). Software is the structure of those bits, the algorithms, the processes, the (software) states, etc. It's like saying a book is knowledge. No, a book is the medium for knowledge. Knowledge is actually abstract just like software.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

OK, yes, exactly. I had the same concern. He seemed confused about something he should be an expert in.

If the universe is analog, then there are an infinite number of possible states for any two electrons. (Distance, relative velocity, etc.)

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

But the universe is not analog.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke Oh? Why not? Planck?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

For lots of complex reasons. For example, infinities are mathematical abstractions only and aren't found in the real world. Or I could point out that your analog devices are all based on energy and energy is quantized, i.e., NOT analog.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke How many degrees in a circle? How finely can a circle be segmented? Is there a limit to the number of points on a circle? If you drew a billion light year circle around the earth, couldn't I steer my spaceship toward any point on that circle? Is rotation quantized? Nothing is smaller or quicker than a Planck unit, but is the universe made of immovable Planck pixels? Or is it analog?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

You do know that a circle is a mathematical abstraction and doesn't exist in the real world, right? Apparently not. Since you're going down the rabbit hole, how many unicorns can dance on the head of a pin? Do you actually understand what 'analog' even means? Pixels that can only store 0/1 values are not analog.

This guy doesn't actually seem to know the difference between hardware and software (it is definitely NOT unexecuted software)... which is a worry, because this guy is supposed to be smart. I also read all the comments here. More worrying was that there were maybe three insightful ones, and rest were made by idiots. Something seems to be seriously wrong with the West's educational system...

@danlindy9670

5 жыл бұрын

Will Nitschke: "Something seems to be seriously wrong with the West's educational system..." -- most perceptive comment posted here

@mensaswede4028

2 жыл бұрын

I would say the problem is that the vast majority of people just aren’t that good at talking about things like this.

the ultimate question is: what is reality?

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

The ultimate question is: what is consciousness? Because even if we had the physical blue print for how the universe works, the first question would remain unanswered.

@flatisland

5 жыл бұрын

Will Nitschke consciousness is a part of reality and prolly just an illusion based on randomness and the physical laws that govern reality. it does not exist "outside" reality.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

Not good enough, sorry. If you can't explain something you don't get to call it an "illusion". Even worse, we both know perfectly well that it exists. So that just makes you a denier of your own reality. Stupid.

@flatisland

5 жыл бұрын

illusion in the sense you think of it: something special that exists "outside" reality, something deeper than reality itself. Reality *includes* consciousness, so asking "what is consciousness?" is only a side aspect of something bigger called reality. And btw, just because someone doesn't share your point of view you don't need to be mean.

@zagyex

5 жыл бұрын

I agree with Will Nitschke on this, but I'd say the first question is consciousness, even for a materialist. Even if there is an independent reality, we observe it through the lens of our consciousness. As much as we know, consciousness hasn't evolved to see reality undistorted but rather to keep us alive and prosper. So we likely perceive reality distorted. And not only reality, but the world of ideas, worst case math and logic is just a function of our nervous system. Take for example the "color wheel" model. How come colors can be nicely arranged in a circular manner, so that colors that are supposed to be on the opposite ends of the visible spectrum can fade into each other smoothly? How come we can have color theory and math that fits our circular model perfectly, yet we discovered that visible light is only a tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is linear, not circular? It is because colors are a creation of our nervous system, and our perceptor nerve architecture is built in a way that fits the "wheel" model. And this is universal, there is no human whose violet won't turn into crimson. What if our deeper and not understood nerve architecture called "brain" works in a similar manner and our models of "reality" are only models of our brain architecture? What if math is just a product of this architecture? Or time? Or maybe just some minor stuff that makes us unable to explain some unexplained stuff? I would say it is more likely the case than not with some stuff. Why would our brain models have anything to do with reality? If you read Harari's hyped book: Sapiens, you get the impression that seeing reality is probably less beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint than believing in common myths. So all in all in order to explore reality first we must break out of the prison of the brain architecture or at least distinguish it's models from reality. And we're not even into dualsim yet LOL.

So is the universe God?

Sorry Seth, but this is just a bad example and explanation of what he is trying to explain. Today's computers are very simple and nothing like how complex QM is. You can't compare them at any level. QM works off of probabilities and our computers work off of 1's and 0's. A computer is something we made up and has no real meaning to the universe or reality. It's quite silly to compare them.

The idea that an electron is a two state particle, spin up or down, one or zero, is a simplification. It has many more properties than spin, such as mass, velocity, interaction with other particles with different properties. The computer age is too obsessed with computers being the solution to everything.

A successful analogy but a hopeless explanation (for almost everything - including consciousness, and the irritating, constantly moving camerawork!).

Stop moving the camera around.

He lives in library, get a life

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe stick to video games and porn, mate. If that's your life...

Why did God just created habitable Earth? No more creative juices after just one creation? Even parents would love to have many children, not just one.

These people seriously need a good hit of DMT. I can literally see the intellectual prison this dude has put himself into. It's sort of sad to see. Somebody help liberate him

Psalm 33 8: Let all the earth fear the LORD, let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! 9: For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood forth.

@Joshua-dc1bs

5 жыл бұрын

lol?

@BradHolkesvig

5 жыл бұрын

Joshua Nicholls We're experiencing life in a very sophisticated simulation program. You can laugh all you want but you will keep living after you experience the death of your body that you believe is real.

@assholejohn

5 жыл бұрын

@@BradHolkesvig Who knows, and that could be true but that forces me to ask you one simple question; from where do you get this ability to "know"? It's a fair question, yeah?

@Simon-xi8tb

5 жыл бұрын

He stood FORTH

@BradHolkesvig

5 жыл бұрын

John LeMarc Freeman I am a servant of the Lord, the source of everything we created men experience. I am the last to testify to the knowledge of God called Christ during this 1,000 year reign of Christ, which is just a period of time that all us servants testified to the knowledge about how we're created and what the future will be like. We learn about the day of the Lord when this first temporary generation of the simulation ends. Then we will awaken in the next generation without any memory of this generation. Everything will be new including our bodies. In fact, we won't always experience new things in bodies because even our bodies are illusions formed from the processing of information. Look below and see my post with two different videos of me testifying to every word our Lord forms in my mind to speak.

*1* The laws of physics (including entropy) determine how the Universe and everything in it, including information, behave. *2* This universe is not a computer simulation or a hologram or a hallucination or the dream of a god. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌

@JappaKneads

5 жыл бұрын

The current materialistic philosophy governing western science has NO IDEA the true source of knowing or how Knowing "suddenly" entered our Universe...

@Tore_Lund

5 жыл бұрын

This video is not about the simulation theory. The simulation theory requires a maker and a purpose. This is about the Universe being computational in a literal sense on the quantum level, by either entanglement of virtual paticles or som other hidden mechanism. This is very different to an alien teen playing Earth sim in his basement. A lot of commentators here are mixing the two up.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

#1 sounds reasonable, maybe because it's a tautology. #2 is an unfounded assertion.

@willnitschke

5 жыл бұрын

@@twirlipofthemists3201 "The laws of physics (including entropy) determine how the Universe and everything in it, including information, behave." And these all reduce to computations.

@twirlipofthemists3201

5 жыл бұрын

@@willnitschke You can't prove that "computation" has anything to do with it. I suspect that use of the word (and the whole idea) may be just an artifact of our trendy new digital age. A couple centuries ago everything was compared to clockwork, and then it was all steam engines. I think you're out on a virtual limb calling it computation. Entropy may or may not be fundamental. I bet it isn't, I bet it's emergent. In principle, a 747 really could spontaneously assemble itself from quantum fluctuations - it's just never going to happen, so it looks like a physical law.