Simulation Theory 2017, We are waking up!!!!

A great discussion on the Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated — for example by computer simulation — to a degree indistinguishable from “true” reality. It…

by Nick Mercer

What would we be without science? Enter the intriguing world of science and browse thousands of videos on a daily basis! This video has received 3167 likes and is highly recommended to you.

  • Duration: 38:21
  • Views: 289786
  • Date & Time added: 2017-10-02 15:19:55

Our Rating is:
4.44

Source: Youtube.com

Follow us on FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, TWITTER

48 thoughts on “Simulation Theory 2017, We are waking up!!!!”

  1. this person is attemting to pshyonicly alter our perception collectively that we want less from life … watch how its made mate have a little dig about … reality is a multifractional 11 dimentional lattice reacting to billions of stimuli, and that is us the internal speaker, the spirit the brain , the chemicals are alive!!! electrifed, dimentionally translucent organising replicating and innovating , hey allah you out there lets playy

  2. Physical objects then are a solution to the problem of representing fitness functions, so is this the building blocks of materialism and capitalism. Used to represent you space and time in the universe. I've got the latest technology, fastest cars, biggest house. This means I'm 'making' it in the universe at this time and space??? Chills, this make sense.

  3. He's a little off here. He's trying to explain abstraction, which is necessary to reduce complex. A transistor is no more real than an email icon. What he calls eye candy is NECESSARY to reduce complexity. He is stepping in front of the train(a little to the left) on his desktop… and it didn't kill him. He is confusing levels of abstraction. He has a point, but makes the same mistakes he is arguing that everyone makes. He should be a little more careful in his thought structure. There is a 3D cube there, it is not "hallucinating" Thee cube is white on a white background with the dots allowing the cube to be visualized. Yes, our brain fills in the dots, but if the cube wasn't there we would not see a cube. He is confusing ambiguity that exists in reality as some sort of psychological dysfunction, and that isn't the case and I think that is a big problem here… otherwise good information, but the way he push his view, and it is wrong… he is misinterpreting much of the data.

    These things we experience are Ambiguities and they exist outside of us(it is a mathematical equation with multiple solutions… We choose one… but the problem is the ambiguities, not our brains). Seems he has some type of agenda to show that basically everything we experience is just arbitrary… and it is not. If it was, we wouldn't have been so successful.

    For example, if one writes a message in white on a white background vs someone writing a message in black. The only difference is the color… yet in his view, in the first case, the message does not exist, and in the second view it does… yet the message exists in both. In one case we cannot see it visually… but it still is a message(one can't just take the visual part, one must take the wave function of the whole experience… that someone wrote a message, took the time to take the lid off the pen, etc. In both cases everything is very close to each other but one is ambiguities when projected to the visual senses and the other is not(white on white is ambiguous)… But it is not in our brains as if we are pretending a message is there for the white one… but not pretending if it is the black either it is or isn't.)

    All he really does is show these ambiguities but then adds his own nonsense on top just making people more confused. Stupid people that are conned will run around saying shit like "The world is meaningless, I the stuff I see is made up imaginary things, how do I know the world is real… maybe you are fake! bang bang! does it matter?". The message is there, just don't be confused by ambiguity(know it exists, and learn to deal with it the best you can with your finite sensing equipment).

  4. I dunno what the hell's going on, but I know it's one or more of the following:

    (a) PURPLE IS A LIE.
    (b) I'm a color racist (and so are hue).
    (c) Jimi Hendrix (Purple Haze) was the anti-christ.
    (d) The second coming of Jim Henson is nigh.

    Q: What's red & invisible?
    A: No tomatoes 🙂

  5. If our perceptions aren't real, then all of our observations are wrong. Since science requires observation, this would mean that all of science is wrong about everything. Therefore you cannot use science to prove that our perceptions aren't real. Because if you did that you would be trying to scientifically disprove science. I hope you can see the contradiction there.

  6. Interesting idea: the physical universe as a construct of a "cognitive" evolutionary process. What about the arrow of time? Cups fall from tables and break. And not the other way around, i.e. they don't unfall, or unbreak. Time seems to be clearly going in one direction – into that of the future. The Theory of Evolution, even of the most abstract entities (like memes for instance), if I understand correctly, depends on this. So there must be some passing of time (may we call it duration) or not? Perhaps the error is merely in lumping space and time together into one reality called Space-time? Also must there not be causality for there to be evolution? I have always wondered about the search for elementary particles, thinking it is going to get us stuck somewhere. Also, what constitutes information? If we make it ones and zeros are those then the elementary particles of information. On one level, it seems simpler than going the quantum root in trying to explain the nature of reality. Many interesting things to ponder on, but I still just bumped my toe against the table. Ouch!

  7. Hmm don't see anyone commenting on the white screen over top of i'm guessing was originally a green image being displayed. (can see the light bouncing off people and other objects) His arm and hand disappearing behind the white screen as well. (very distracting) Also was at least one subliminal message it flashed very quickly anyone read what it said? I only caught the one word and couldn't stop the video to catch it happens to quickly. It was a full sentence that was flashed. please post what it said if you caught it as well or any of it.

  8. good talk, but implying that there is an "objective world" is the real problem
    there is none
    its the same thing as the subjective

    Also, this man doesn't understand that consciousness isn't real. If you define it as real then you must extend it's presence to ALL things in the universe as a spectrum

  9. Because we were biologically adapted to have a certain perspective on reality (we need to see/experience what is important for our survival), doesn't mean there is no external reality, or that external reality is not physical/material. To equate the material world with "information" (although any physical reality is always associated with information) is clearly an error. Information does not exist outside or apart of physical systems, neither can information be processed without physical systems. The information we have (through scientific theories and measurements) about physical matter that allows us to make mathematical models does not imply that the model = physical reality. We can only approximate it.

  10. hes good at talking but hes talking about it like its fact hes provided no legit evidence this sounds a bit mason wrote.. evolution did care about smart we have cars now we didn't years ago so how can you keep talking rubbish il go code in a new video game VR HD set.. cause theres more people on the planet it looks like we are all dumb down but really in real reality we are clouded by poor lack of self judgement and trust in people like this guy… cultish this guys is making you thick

  11. As Specie our brains are still in the process of evolving. Most Animals have only two dimension vision. A cat cannot perceive the Third Dimension. It cannot perceive the movement of an object it is moving towards or away from it. Similarly a fly is unable to perceive Depth. Human Brains can and does, however, it is still developing to perceive the Third Dimension. The fourth Dimension is Time. Its Affect on most objects is very minuscule that perception is virtually impossible. As Tyson said: Brain Teasers are Brain Failures. Perception of a Cube coming towards the observer or going away is the failure of the Brains. One day, in the future, we might be able to live in the Third Dimension?

  12. BTW. chaps

    Let us keep this simple.

    If we sort of exist within or without a simulated reality, which it would seem science proved to be the case over 90 years ago, THEN WHO or WHAT MADE IT? For a highly complex necessarily reprogrammed computer simulation had to be created, by something at least as smart, or indeed almost infinitely smarter. It could not have possibly evolved itself into existence, however many times a presenter of a particular theory uses the word EVOLUTION, or quotes from the likes of Dawkins, Darwin, Denit, or any other class room dunce.

    It would seem apparent, that just as science has all but proved the necessary existence of an intelligent creator, all it intends to do with this revelation, is come up with, and expensively promote, any theory, however smart or silly, as long as it does not include the words, CREATION, or CREATOR, or indeed any other words which could possibly be interpreted as some kind of, Supreme Being, Creator of All Things, or dare I say, GOD produced it.

    Is there no limit to the depths to which many so called scientists will willfully descend, simply to keep, getting their leg over the younger students, and their vastly overgenerous research funds on stream?

  13. don''t worry, collectivist religions will degenerate us quite quickly, maybe even finish humanimals off completely – be it socialist parasitism or islam-induced degeneration (google "muslim inbreeding")… in other words, collectivism needs and creates dumbasses

  14. Interesting theory, but it is very hard to change your whole way of thinking. I'll admit he really won over the crowd when they started asking questions, but I'm not 100% Sure this played as well as he thought it would… He just tried to be too funny. Kinda threw off the whole thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *