T Nation

Reasons Why Our Universe Is A Virtual Reality


#1

Pretty cool.


#2

Just watch the matrix.


#3

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Just watch the matrix. [/quote]

“Quantum realism isnâ??t The Matrix, where the other world making ours was also physical. Nor is it a brain-in-a-vat idea, as this virtuality was in play long before humans came along. Nor is it that a phantom other world modifies oursâ??our physical world is the phantom. In physical realism, the quantum world is impossible, but in quantum realism the physical world is impossibleâ??unless it is a virtual realityâ??as these examples demonstrate.”


#4

I wonder where Dr. Matt is.


#5

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Just watch the matrix. [/quote]

“Quantum realism isnâ??t The Matrix, where the other world making ours was also physical. Nor is it a brain-in-a-vat idea, as this virtuality was in play long before humans came along. Nor is it that a phantom other world modifies oursâ??our physical world is the phantom. In physical realism, the quantum world is impossible, but in quantum realism the physical world is impossibleâ??unless it is a virtual realityâ??as these examples demonstrate.”[/quote]

What?


#6

I’ve read stuff like this before, it’s an interesting thought experiment, however I don’t really like the article because every point basically goes like this:

“We observe this thing but we don’t understand it and we can’t explain it yet”

“A computer programme could be set up to do this thing”


#7

I raised the exact same question, namely interpretations of quantum mechanics. I got accused of “new age hocus pocus” bible thumpery; then a few trolls; then relation to PWI:

http://www.tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_fundamental_nature_of_reality

Anyway, the “multiverse” theory has always seemed to be nonsense to me for many reasons. The hologram or virtual reality theory in the OP is interesting. Bohmian mechanics interprets matter as “virtual” in the sense that elementary particles don’t physically exist in a physical realist sense; they don’t occupy a fixed position. They’re more theoretical than actually there. This is consistent with many “mentalist” interpretations. “Mentalism” essentially removes body from mind/body dualism; all matter being “thought” or more correctly “consciousness”. The virtual reality interpretation also fits in with the fact that reality is “quantised” by which I mean it can be broken down into elementary parts or “Planck” parts; reality is finite in the sense of it having a “resolution” like the number of computer pixels on a computer screen. I think the OP article mentions this.

The thread I started was about the primacy of the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation and the fundamental existential relationship of observer and observed; subject/object dualism. The CI also leans towards a “mentalism” resolution of Descartes’ mind/body dualism. Interesting stuff. As I said however, I’m not a physicist and I’m sure I’ve probably got some things wrong. Hopefully, someone who knows physics can dispel some of the “new age hocus pocus” stuff and the “bible thumpery”.


#8

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Just watch the matrix. [/quote]

“Quantum realism isnÃ?¢??t The Matrix, where the other world making ours was also physical. Nor is it a brain-in-a-vat idea, as this virtuality was in play long before humans came along. Nor is it that a phantom other world modifies oursÃ?¢??our physical world is the phantom. In physical realism, the quantum world is impossible, but in quantum realism the physical world is impossibleÃ?¢??unless it is a virtual realityÃ?¢??as these examples demonstrate.”[/quote]

What?[/quote]

The Matrix was a real world constructed virtual world. The Matrix was about a “real” world of physicalism and causality; a “classical” world that then creates an artificial virtual world. Quantum realism doesn’t postulate a “real” world of causality and physicalism. It postulates that the “real” world is the quantum mechanical world and that the world we experience and observe is a virtual or fake world created by the real quantum world. To me it makes sense that the classical world is just a “result” - for want of a better word - of the quantum world. But “result” in the classical sense of causality and physical realism is not the same thing as “result” in quantum mechanics.


#9

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I raised the exact same question, namely interpretations of quantum mechanics. I got accused of “new age hocus pocus” bible thumpery; then a few trolls; then relation to PWI:

http://www.tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_fundamental_nature_of_reality

Anyway, the “multiverse” theory has always seemed to be nonsense to me for many reasons. The hologram or virtual reality theory in the OP is interesting. Bohmian mechanics interprets matter as “virtual” in the sense that elementary particles don’t physically exist in a physical realist sense; they don’t occupy a fixed position. They’re more theoretical than actually there. This is consistent with many “mentalist” interpretations. “Mentalism” essentially removes body from mind/body dualism; all matter being “thought” or more correctly “consciousness”. The virtual reality interpretation also fits in with the fact that reality is “quantised” by which I mean it can be broken down into elementary parts or “Planck” parts; reality is finite in the sense of it having a “resolution” like the number of computer pixels on a computer screen. I think the OP article mentions this.

The thread I started was about the primacy of the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation and the fundamental existential relationship of observer and observed; subject/object dualism. The CI also leans towards a “mentalism” resolution of Descartes’ mind/body dualism. Interesting stuff. As I said however, I’m not a physicist and I’m sure I’ve probably got some things wrong. Hopefully, someone who knows physics can dispel some of the “new age hocus pocus” stuff and the “bible thumpery”.[/quote]

I find it very interesting but, am no where near being capable to add much to a discussion. Like you I hope some people can help with the explanations etc.

What would something like this being true mean to us? Would it change anything?


#10

After I start reading articles like this it only takes seconds for it to reinforce my faith in GOD.


#11

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I raised the exact same question, namely interpretations of quantum mechanics. I got accused of “new age hocus pocus” bible thumpery; then a few trolls; then relation to PWI:

http://www.tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_fundamental_nature_of_reality

Anyway, the “multiverse” theory has always seemed to be nonsense to me for many reasons. The hologram or virtual reality theory in the OP is interesting. Bohmian mechanics interprets matter as “virtual” in the sense that elementary particles don’t physically exist in a physical realist sense; they don’t occupy a fixed position. They’re more theoretical than actually there. This is consistent with many “mentalist” interpretations. “Mentalism” essentially removes body from mind/body dualism; all matter being “thought” or more correctly “consciousness”. The virtual reality interpretation also fits in with the fact that reality is “quantised” by which I mean it can be broken down into elementary parts or “Planck” parts; reality is finite in the sense of it having a “resolution” like the number of computer pixels on a computer screen. I think the OP article mentions this.

The thread I started was about the primacy of the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation and the fundamental existential relationship of observer and observed; subject/object dualism. The CI also leans towards a “mentalism” resolution of Descartes’ mind/body dualism. Interesting stuff. As I said however, I’m not a physicist and I’m sure I’ve probably got some things wrong. Hopefully, someone who knows physics can dispel some of the “new age hocus pocus” stuff and the “bible thumpery”.[/quote]

I find it very interesting but, am no where near being capable to add much to a discussion. Like you I hope some people can help with the explanations etc.

What would something like this being true mean to us? Would it change anything?
[/quote]

It depends what sort of person you are. If you’re a “spiritual” person you’re fundamentally haunted by ontology - the need to know the most important questions. Some people are completely lacking this drive and are exclusively interested in materialism, the everyday, mundane.


#12

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Just watch the matrix. [/quote]

“Quantum realism isnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t The Matrix, where the other world making ours was also physical. Nor is it a brain-in-a-vat idea, as this virtuality was in play long before humans came along. Nor is it that a phantom other world modifies oursÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??our physical world is the phantom. In physical realism, the quantum world is impossible, but in quantum realism the physical world is impossibleÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??unless it is a virtual realityÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??as these examples demonstrate.”[/quote]

What?[/quote]

The Matrix was a real world constructed virtual world. The Matrix was about a “real” world of physicalism and causality; a “classical” world that then creates an artificial virtual world. Quantum realism doesn’t postulate a “real” world of causality and physicalism. It postulates that the “real” world is the quantum mechanical world and that the world we experience and observe is a virtual or fake world created by the real quantum world. To me it makes sense that the classical world is just a “result” - for want of a better word - of the quantum world. But “result” in the classical sense of causality and physical realism is not the same thing as “result” in quantum mechanics.
[/quote]

Buddhists call the physical realm “Maya” meaning illusion. Interesting to see how different religious and spiritual texts reflect on the same ideas as physicist theories like Einstein.


#13

Brain in a Jar is very first day of first year Pholosophy crap.

Be sure to stroke a sparse rookie goatee whilst musing upon it.


#14

so science


#15

At least if you get falsely accused of rape you know it’s ok, because none of this is real


#16

Surely if it was virtual reality I’d be wearing a helmet of some sort?


#17

.


#18

[quote]Nards wrote:
Brain in a Jar is very first day of first year Pholosophy crap.

Be sure to stroke a sparse rookie goatee whilst musing upon it.[/quote]

Quantum realism isn’t synonymous with the brain in the jar thought experiment. The brain in the vat addressing epistemology from the perspective of Cartesian dualism. Quantum Realism is not about the mind separate from the body and the problems of sensory knowledge. QI is the postulation that physical reality and the classical world is merely a kind of hologram created by the quantum world; primacy being given to the quantum world as an “ultimate reality” and the classical world of physical realism and causality relegated to a secondary lesser version of reality. The philosophy 101 analogy would be physical reality as the shadows on the walls of the cave created by the quantum “real” world outside.


#19

[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
At least if you get falsely accused of rape you know it’s ok, because none of this is real[/quote]

Quantum mechanics is a literal gold mine for legal defences. For example, you’re given a speeding violation. How can he prove how fast you were going? According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle it’s impossible to know the exact location and momentum of a particle at the same time. In fact, it’s impossible for a particle to even have an exact location and momentum at any point in time. And the car is made of particles; it obeys the laws of quantum mechanics.


#20

[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
At least if you get falsely accused of rape you know it’s ok, because none of this is real[/quote]

Best Post

But to the topic, I do find this interesting, but I do agree this list doesn’t do much for me, seeing as it’s just saying “This stuff doesn’t make much sense to us right now, so it must be virtual!”.

Plus there is a sense in that, while I agree with SexMachine about their being a certain yearning to know the deeper questions that dive into ontology and epistemology, I’m not really sure what consequences that would result from adopting this worldview. this is really my issue with any kind of dualism (obviously this isn’t traditional dualism but the Descartes reference kind of puts it in that category for me) as removing the ‘mind’ from the body doesn’t influence me much. However, I’m also someone who adopts a Strawsonian view of free will, as in it’s not important for moral responsibility.

I do find this interesting, and while I’m no expert I do have a degree that’s partially in Philosophy, so I can try to add any input I can.