The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Josh Mitteldorf Proves We’re Not Living in a Simulation
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Anti-aging scientist Josh Mitteldorf returns to Truth Jihad Radio to offer “Proof We Are Not Living in a Simulation (see Nick Bostrum’s famous essay) and discuss the amazing fact that “The Universe Seems Fine-Tuned for Life.” If we answer those cosmic questions quickly we’ll move on to questions about quantum physics and mind-brain relationships.

Josh Mitteldorf writes:

I The Universe seems fine-tuned for life

The fundamental equations of physics have constants in them that physicists take as a given. They just happen to be what they are. For example in E=mc2, the E is any measured quantity of energy and m is any measured quantity of mass, but the c is the velocity of light, and this is one of those arbitrary constants. The strength of the gravitational force is another example, along with the strength of the electric force that holds electrons in atoms, and the strong force which binds neutrons and protons together in the nucleus. All of these are arbitrary constants. There is no theory to tell us what they ought to be.

About 50 years ago, physicists started asking “what kind of universe would this be if these constants were different”. They discovered a startling fact. Our universe would be VERY different if any of these “arbitrary” constants were changed just a little bit. In every case, the universe would be much less interesting, and life would probably be impossible.

For example, if the balance between the strong force and the electric force were tipped more toward the electric force, then there would be no chemical elements except hydrogen. Nuclei would not be able to hold together, because the electric repulsion between the protons would make them fly apart. If it were tipped more toward the strong force, then neutrons and protons would clump together indefinitely, until all atoms merged into a giant neutron star. Chemistry is the basis of life. It’s the difference between gold and granite, between air and ice cream. No chemistry means a dull world indeed.

Another example, the gravitational force is just right for stars and galaxies. If it were just a little weaker, the clouds of gas that came out of the big bang would never condense to make galaxies and stars. The world would remain forever a diffuse gas. If the gravitational force were a little stronger, stars would burn much hotter, and they would burn themselves out in thousands of years instead of billions of years. Probably life could not evolve in those circumstances.

One more example: Electrons are much lighter than protons, about 1800 times smaller in mass. If electrons were a little lighter, they would be traveling too close to the speed of light for atoms as we know them to exist. If they were heavier, then …

Before 1970, scientists regarded life as an opportunistic phenomenon that could probably arise in some form with any set of arbitrary constants that Nature chose to throw out. But after these articles in the 1970s, physicists had to face the fact that the very possibility of life depended on a lot of conditions that they (physicists) had regarded as arbitrary.

The “standard” interpretation among physicists is that there are many, many universes, but only a tiny fraction of them have life. Of course, we live in one of those improbable universes because we are here to ask the question. The religious interpretation is that God created a universe hospitable to life. A scientific/spiritual interpretation is that consciousness is “the ground of being”, closely related to fundamental physics, and that consciousness fashioned the universe and living creatures as a home for itself.

II What is the relationship between mind and brain?

In the 1990s, a philosopher named David Chalmers hammered away at challenging philosophers to address this question. He called it the “hard problem”. The world of subjective experience and awareness that each of us knows so well has no obvious relationship to matter or physics. How did the two come to be connected?

Chalmers himself narrows the question to “how does the brain generate consciousness?” assuming that consciousness is generated by the brain. But 125 years ago, William James offered a cogent argument that we only know that awareness is associated with brain activity, and not that it is caused bybrain activity. He offered reasons to think that consciousness has an independent existence, apart from physics. The brain, then, is a transducer that takes sense signals from the world and connects them to the realm of consciousness, while taking willful intention from the realm of consciousness and connecting it to nerves and muscles.

James was offering a lecture on “human immortality.” If the brain produces consciousness, then we can’t expect that there is any consciousness that survives death, when the brain no longer functions. But if the brain merely connects consciousness to the physical world, then it is plausible that our individual consciousness might survive after our bodies are dead.

Note: A lot of activities and programs tacitly assume that the brain generates consciousness. People talk about uploading a brain state to a computer. The idea of a conscious computer is closely related to Artificial General Intelligence. I would bet that you can’t achieve AGI without consciousness, and that consciousness can’t be produced by computation. The idea that “we are living in a simulation” assumes tacitly that a digital simulation would generate what we experience as consciousness.

III The “measurement problem” in QM

How is it that a system described by probability function becomes suddenly a system in a definite, well-defined state whenever a measurement is made?

This question arose out of the wave mechanics of Schrödinger in the 1920s. In the picture that gave to us, a physical system is described by a probability wave called the “wave function” that changes from moment to moment according to the Schrödinger equation. So long as no one is looking. But the Schrödinger equation ceases to apply the moment a “measurement” is taken. Then the system snaps suddenly into exactly one fixed state. The “probability” inherent in the wave function is realized as an actual probability that one of many possible states becomes real, and all the others become “also-rans”.

If the Schrödinger equation describes physics, then what is a measurement? Is it outside of physics?

Most physicists believe that a “measurement” occurs when a small quantum system interacts with a much larger classical system. They say the wave function suffers “decoherence”. They explain measurement as a purely physical process, although they tend to admit that this is mysterious and the “explanation” is too vague to be satisfactory.

A respectable minority of physicists believes that a “measurement” involves consciousness, and that consciousness is its own thing, with an existence apart from matter and space and time. There are experiments that suggest this is the right approach, although they are subject to interpretation, and unlikely to convince the staunch materialist.

IV Why classical systems can be modeled (in what we now call a “computer”), but quantum systems cannot.

Start with the idea of a “configuration” and a “configuration space”.

Sometimes I am home and sometimes I am far away from home. Same with my wife. Sometimes I am home when my wife is out, and sometimes she is home when I am out. Sometimes we are both home and sometimes we are both out.

You can represent how far I am from home as a point on a line. At the left end, I am home. Further to the right, I am farther and farther away from home.

If you simultaneously want to know how far my wife is from home, you can use another line, a vertical line this time. If she is at home, the point is at the bottom, and if she is far away, the point is high above the bottom.

In this way you can encode information about both of us on an XY plot. A point in the XY plane tells you both how far I am from home and how far my wife is from home. During the day, as we both move about, this point moves around the plane.

Suppose you wanted to know exactly where I was, not just how far from home. You would have to plot my position in 3-dimensional space (assuming I might be on a mountain top or up in a plane). If you wanted to know at the same time where my wife was, she would need 3 more dimensions.

For us mortal humans, 6 dimensions is unimaginable. But for a mathematician, there is no problem with a 6-dimensional space. It’s perfectly well-defined and you can compute with it just as with a 2 or 3-dimensional space. The only thing we can’t do is to envision it.

Where I am at any given time can be combined with where my wife is and all that information is specified by a point in 6-dimensional space. If there were three of us, you could represent each of our positions in a separate 3D plot, using XYZ coordinates. Or you could combine all three of our coordinates and plot a single point in 9-dimensional space. A point in 9-dimensional space tells you information about all three of us.

Let’s come back now to how you make computational models in classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics.

Let’s say you are making a model of N atoms or N stars or N particles. In classical mechanics, you have one 3D space, and each particle occupies a position in that space. You make a model that tracks how each of those particles moves over time. Every time the computer clock ticks, you update the positions and velocities of N particles.

In quantum mechanics, you would want to have a wave function for each of the N particles, and then you could track each of the N wave functions. You could update each of the N wave functions each time the clock ticks.

You could, if that was how QM worked. But in QM you don’t have two wave functions for two particles and three wave functions for three particles. You always have a single wave function, but the wave function describes probability of a configuration, rather than separate probabilities for each particle. In other words, the probabilities for each particle are inextricably tied to the probabilities for all other particles. You can’t assign individual particle probabilities. You have to specify the entire configuration, and assign a probability to the configuration as a whole.

This takes enormously more computer power for quantum calculations compared to classical. In classical mechanics it takes twice as long to computer two particles, three times as long to compute three particles, N times as long to computer N particles. But in QM, you have to plot a 3-dimensional space for one particle, a 6-dimensional space for two particles, a 3N-dimensional space for N particles. We say that in classical mechanics the computational demand rises linearly with the number of particles; but in QM, the computational complexity rises exponentially with the number of particles.

You’ve probably heard that quantum mechanics is the world’s most successful theory, and that it is validated to 15 decimal places in the best case. What they don’t say is that all of these fancy calculations in QM are based on two particles at a time. For example, the hydrogen atom — one proton and one electron. For example, a particle accelerator where protons and antiprotons are slammed into each other at high energies. We can do the calculations for 2 particles at a time, but 3 particles is a huge challenge. And no one has ever attempted an exact 4-particle calculation in QM.

Coming back to the question whether we live in a simulation. A lot of smart people who should know better are taking this question seriously, and even producing computations that say there is a high probability that we live in a simulation. Of course, the question cannot even arise if you take William James’s view that the brain channels consciousness but does not create it. In that case, you would say that we know for sure that we are in a real world, not a simulated world, by the fact that we are conscious.

But even for those who believe that brains generate consciousness through a process of computation, the quantum complexity issue is an insurmountable barrier to simulating a universe. In fact, with a computer the size of the universe, you can’t even simulate a single water molecule, which consists of 13 particles.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. JasonT says:

    Very succinct and cogent.

    To paraphrase ‘I am conscious, therefore God is.’

    • Thanks: Spanky
  2. Alrenous says: • Website

    The first problem with slightly changing the universal constants is they are in fact all specific solutions to some general underlying equation. You can’t change just one, because they’re all related.

    The second problem is, while it is true our familiar order would be blown completely to bits by comically tiny changes in any of these numbers, physicists are nowhere near smart enough to re-run the universe from scratch. We can barely work out what the ground state of hydrogen looks like from first principles, never mind figuring out chemistry per se.

    If these numbers were changed in a way that preserved the underlying equation instead of flatly contradicting it, would it lead to a new, radically different form of order? Maybe! We’re nowhere near smart enough to find out!

    It is analytically provable that consciousness is not physical.
    Physics is math. The difference between conscious math and unconscious math is a difference of no difference. 2 + 2 = 4. If 2 + 2, but you really feel it….4.

    A measurement is basically any interaction with anything.
    Particles in superpositions will decohere due to their own thermal fluctuations, never mind running into another particle.

    A superposition isn’t “being in two places at once.” It’s being 50% over here and 50% over there. When something flips a coin and it comes up heads, so they run into one of these patches, it can’t go on being 50% over there. It’s been run into now; there’s no so-called uncertainty. Put another way, the whole state changes due to the interaction, of course the superposition is likely to collapse.

    Even in the rare case that the superposition doesn’t collapse, it means the particle that ran into the superposition is now 50% run into and thus deflected, and 50% kept going. In other words there’s now four regions of space which, when run into, may collapse the superposition. Not to forget, as above, the system’s own thermal fluctuations may collapse it.

    Whether we live in a simulation or not is irrelevant.


    If you live in a simulation, are you going to stop paying your mortage? If you fly, are you going to stop using wings and instead use a software hack? The “theory” predicts nothing and is unfalsifiable. It’s Gnosticism for materialists. Very clever, ultimately nothing but masturbation. Well, that and narcissism.

    The point is permanence. Your dreams are a simulation because the things you do in dreams are wildly impermanent. Vanish almost immediately. The stuff you do in real life is highly permanent – regardless of how “real” it truly is.

    Nobody is going to go all, “Well, I live in a simulation, so I guess I can cut off my arm and it doesn’t matter.” They will find this is very much a falsifiable claim.
    On the other hand, several “real” actions are in fact highly impermanent. Sloshing water around, as a stupid example. Sometimes it doesn’t matter and you might as well season to taste.

    Given there’s no apparent difference between a “real” world and a “fake” simulation, I believe the world is fully real because I find that more comfortable. It makes no other difference so I simply use the belief that satisfies my values the best both in the present and in the future.

    So, but, narcissism. Narcissists live in a simulated social world. They present a wholly fake mask and demand everyone else validate this mask. Then, for some bizarre reason, they feel like they live in a simulation. Like nobody they meet is real. Gee, how did that happen.
    See also: journalists. They project an entirely fake world, then harangue everyone until they feel pressured into pretending it’s real. Then, for some inexplicable reason, their readers feel like they live in a fake world. Gnosticism, simulationism, blah blah whatever.
    Crazy folk be cray cray. You can’t argue them out of being crazy, and it’s foolish to try. It’s a wiring problem; you can’t fix a short-circuit by downloading a clever patch.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  3. @Alrenous

    No other illusory faith comes anywhere near as close to providing immediate and long-term benefits as the belief in reality.

    Good enough for me.

    The infinite possible universes undoubtedly contain a me that thinks otherwise. Good for him; I wish him the best of luck.

  4. martin_2 says:

    My somewhat less mathematical argument against the Simulation Hypothesis (and it is one that applies to any explanation that claims we are here “by design”) is that if the Universe had been planned by Beings then it would never have got past an ethics committee.

  5. _dude says:

    Kevin desperately needs a new microphone.

  6. MarkU says:

    If that is Kevin Barrett’s idea of proof then I must question either his intelligence or his intellectual honesty.

    The author of the piece is implying that a simulation has to correctly model the intricate workings of the ‘real’ world, that is clearly not the case, it is in fact the most bizarre interpretation of the word ‘simulation’ that I have ever heard.

    I invite people to consider actual simulations in the ‘real’ world. Are objects in simulations ever modelled in detail down to the atomic or even subatomic level? of course they aren’t. Are characters or life-forms in a simulation composed of cells? do they have neurons, blood vessels or biochemical processes? When plants are shown in simulations, do you imagine that the computer programme is bothering to simulate the process of photosynthesis? If you look through a simulation microscope at an object on a simulated slide are you really under the impression that the whole simulated world is being modelled at that level of detail? My point is that if the world we live in was a simulation, it would only appear to be intricately detailed and that that appearance itself would only need to be generated if anyone was looking.

    In a nutshell, the ‘real’ world appears to be too complex to model but if it really was a simulation, that complexity would only be an appearance, not a reality.

    The author of the piece should also be aware that modern physics has moved on since the rather silly Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and the equally silly ‘many worlds’ interpretation. I would argue in fact that the ‘many worlds’ hypothesis isn’t even a scientific hypothesis. In order for a hypothesis to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it must be ‘falsifiable’, If it was false there must be a way to show it is false and I have yet to hear of even a ‘thought experiment’ that would successfully establish that. The ‘God hypothesis’ is another unscientific hypothesis, unless someone out there can think of a hypothetical test which would disprove the existence of ‘God’.

  7. “In order for a hypothesis to qualify as a scientific hypothesis it must be ‘falsifiable’”.


    You just burned a large chunk of what passes for “science” these days….

    I am sure your views would be banned almost everywhere that depends on non-falsifiable hypotheses (like “climate change” or “institutional racism”) to justify their government grants.


    • Replies: @MarkU
  8. @MarkU

    Did you listen to the interview? I asked Josh the same question: whether “a simulation has to correctly model the intricate workings of the ‘real’ world” (in slightly different words).

    But regardless of whether or not it has to, Josh’s position is that whatever we are living in, be it “reality” or “simulation,” appears to be so complex that if all the matter and energy in the universe were harnessed for processing power, the resulting computer couldn’t even correctly model a fairly small number of water molecules. Whatever is producing reality—I call it God, you can call it whatever you like—is, according to Josh’s quantum math (which I have not checked) unimaginably more powerful than computer processing of any kind could ever be.

    And that does seem to invalidate the argument for our universe as a simulation.

    • Replies: @MarkU
  9. EH says: • Website

    It’s a good point that simulation requires vastly more computational power than is available in classical computers. Nevertheless, a simulation in a quantum computer would get around this objection. Still, in any simulation argument, there would be an outside natural world in which the simulation takes place.

    I take a different view than most, saying that “particles” are just the vertices in Feynman diagrams, junctions where one line / wave diverges into two, so particles have no more than an ephemeral existence. Particles never travel, only waves do.

    On my blog I summarized what I think is the relationship between particles / QM and consciousness:

    * Quantum Mechanics requires information theory
    *.. Theories, measurements are just information
    *…… Distinguishable states must differ by >=1 bit
    *………. No outside agency besides the 2 minimally differing states can do the distinguishing between themselves.
    *………….. Otherwise the theory would have to explain how the 3rd thing distinguishes not only the 2 original entities from each other but also how it distinguishes itself from the other two as well.
    *………….. This requisite ability to distinguish is logically part of every distinguishable entity.
    *………….. This logical nature, this ability to distinguish information, is not just the basis for consciousness but a basic form of consciousness itself.

    Therefore, I argue, particle interactions (Feynman-diagram vertices) are the basis for consciousness, perception and will. (OTOH the infinite regress hinted at in the above argument is what Feynman himself argued actually happens.)

    I discussed a radical view of the simulation hypothesis in an short essay: Universe, Physics and Simulation, saying that we can expect to see evidence of being in a simulation, regardless of whether we are are not:

    The universe may in fact have characteristics of a simulation; it seems likely that models designed to resemble the universe will do so, and therefore that the universe will resemble the models just as well as the reverse – sometimes in unforeseen ways. Some of the characteristics of models that are commonly thought to be artificial or mere approximations may be capable of telling us secrets of how the universe really works.

    It goes on to say how the compression techniques of simulations would cause weirdness that would explain all sorts of “woo”, which would therefore also be expected to happen in nature.


    An even more radical statement of this from the essay Compression, Entanglement and a Possible Basis for Morphic Fields:

    The universe is analogous to a class of computational processes, some more efficient than others […] this doesn’t mean that the universe is a computation, or that it isn’t, but that it obeys certain rules of consistency that are just like those in some computations, and equally that some computations are also exactly analogous to the rules of the universe, so that if the most efficient way of doing the computational process has certain methods or characteristics, then the operation of the universe will also have analogous characteristics.

    Compression is the essence of the operation of the computational processes that are analogous to the universe.

    [….] the universe is analogous to a class of computational processes, some more efficient than others, with the most efficient being heavily favored as representations, which compress natural patterns of evolution of matter and fields so that required resources are minimized to model or instantiate the universe. These compressed representations of patterns have a supra-physical, informational component which is encoded in the thermal radiations of all matter and fields, which cause a cascade of entanglements which in turn have the history of the universe’s changing patterns encoded within them.

  10. MarkU says:

    I stand by that statement and I even agree to some extent with your response.

    However, the greenhouse effect is real enough and was first identified in 1856, though it wasn’t formally presented until 1859.

    The greenhouse effect is a real phenomenon that has been known about for 160 years. It can be accurately measured and is closely calculable. You could do the original experiments with the glass jars for yourself if you had any real interest in the truth. Get two identical airtight glass jars, fill one with CO2 from a fire extinguisher and leave the other full of normal air, seal them both, allow them to reach equilibrium temperatures and then stick them out in the sun to see how hot they get and how long they take to cool down.

    The temperature rises purely attributable to the greenhouse effect alone would not be dangerous. The real climate change dispute is not about the greenhouse effect as such but about the positive feedback effects resulting from that rise. Given the large number of background variables the eventual extent of climate change is not really reducible to a single scientific hypothesis. If we had some other planets to play with we could do some experiments and learn some more about the subject but Earth is the only petri dish in town and the only real experiment is happening in real time all around us. The only alternative option to ‘lets wait and see’ is to experiment with computer models and computer modelling is hardly the epitome of scientific method.

    • Replies: @Alrenous
  11. MarkU says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    I didn’t listen to the interview, I did read the article.

    I wasn’t arguing that the universe is a simulation, I was arguing that Josh Mitteldorf’s arguments, although reasonable, are not conclusive and do not amount to proof. If the title of your article had been ‘Extremely strong arguments that the universe is not a simulation’ then I wouldn’t have argued otherwise. The problem is that the word ‘proof’ is viewed with extreme distaste by true adherents to the scientific method (except in the mathematical sense) and most would avoid using it. Please forgive my quibbling, it is just that using that word is like waving a red rag to a bull to some people.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  12. Alrenous says: • Website

    Then you look at the actual atmosphere and find the CO2 absorption band is already saturated. ~0% of the relevant wavelengths make to space even at pre-industrial levels. If there was a positive feedback Earth would have become Venus long before human life evolved. Peak historical CO2 is something like 4000 ppm, ten times even our post-industrial level. Anything that could happen has already happened.

    Gaseous carbon actually went up much faster than predicted, while global temperature dropped out the bottom of all the models, rather than breaching the top.

    Finally you can look at other planets and find they have very similar warming curves as compared to Earth. It is true that the weather is noticeably warmer now than it was in 1900. This is because the sun is noticeably warmer, and recent climate tracks insolation nearly 1-to-1.

  13. gepay says:

    What most of us perceive of as physical reality is a simulation created by our consciousness using the sensors of our nervous system feeding into the brain. Obviously there is more to even physical reality than what we sensorially perceive. We only perceive light and heat among the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Intense ionizing radiation can’t be felt but can kill us like what happened to the engineer who was told to look and see what had happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. Dead shortly thereafter.
    How we feel is also a perception of our consciousness. A combination of so many different levels. What shape our body is in. When was the last time we had sex. What have we been eating. How did our parents raise us. In what culture did we grow up in. How have the people we know been treating us or saying to us. What the weather is. Did our dog die. What’s happening with our children. What music do we listen to. The interaction of these and thousands of other experiential happenings.
    It is easy for most of us to change our minds. Harder to change behavior when we like things that may not be best for us. Even harder to heal cancer.
    Whether we live in a simulation made by a computer is just not something to bother about. The Hindus I have read believe our life is a dream in the mind of Brahma or consciousness. Our consciousness does not operate like a computer with its programmed computations.

  14. Sulu says:

    This question arose out of the wave mechanics of Schrödinger in the 1920s. In the picture that gave to us, a physical system is described by a probability wave called the “wave function” that changes from moment to moment according to the Schrödinger equation. So long as no one is looking. But the Schrödinger equation ceases to apply the moment a “measurement” is taken. Then the system snaps suddenly into exactly one fixed state. The “probability” inherent in the wave function is realized as an actual probability that one of many possible states becomes real, and all the others become “also-rans”.

    To me this suggests the possibility that we are indeed living in a simulation. The fact that reality is not available to us until we look, which causes the wave form to collapse, seems very much like what happens in a computer game. Reality there is not displayed until one looks at it. For example, if one is looking at a building, and then turns 180 degrees away from the building so it is no longer in sight one has to ask where the building is. The fact is the building is nowhere and it is only generated again by the computer when you turn back to look at it. This is obviously done so as to conserve computer resources because computing power is not infinite. I would assume the wave function behaves such that it does for just the same reason. To conserve computer power which is a limited resource.

    I admit I only read the article and didn’t listen to the audio. But I think your writing did more to prove the simulation hypothesis that to disprove it.

    As an aside, the sim hypothesis first occurred to me in 93 due to a series of events that happened to me that suggested the Universe might be a simulation. Within 10 minutes of advancing the hypothesis I rejected it on what I now realize was purely emotional grounds. It was only in the early 2000’s that I started running into the subject in scientific publications that I realized it was being taken seriously by people that are far better educated in computer science than myself.


  15. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:

    It was only in the early 2000’s that I started running into the subject in scientific publications that I realized it was being taken seriously by people that are far better educated in computer science than myself.

    Would they be the geniuses who watched
    Lilly and Lana’s Matrix dozens of times?

  16. dimples says:

    If the ‘real’ world is a simulation being run by some cosmic computer, then it implies that if you fiddle with the computer’s programming you can change reality a la The Matrix. The techno-psychic is one who can do this. Note that ‘simulation’, ‘computer’ and ‘programming’ are only cultural concepts and so may not relate to what is actually taking place in the cosmic netherworld.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  17. @MarkU

    So you were critizing the hyperbole, not the claim as such. I don’t think hyperbole is necessarily “intellectual dishonesty.” In any case Josh wrote the headline as well as the article and he may very well think his arguments do constitute proof.

  18. @dimples

    Note that ‘simulation’, ‘computer’ and ‘programming’ are only cultural concepts and so may not relate to what is actually taking place in the cosmic netherworld.

    Great comment.

    The key to doing what has been previously thought impossible is to approach the problem from a totally different angle which may include inventing new concepts.

    Raw computing power may not be the only way to look at the simulation issue. There may be “short-cuts” or “algorithms” that we currently cannot understand or imagine.

    That said, the simulation concept is very powerful in understanding the world around us.

  19. anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    Even though I never made it beyond the 3rd grade and
    no way understand this thing called simulation theory,

    I think our phase is coming to an end. The creators,
    programmers, whatever, are pulling the plug by having
    the lunatics take over DC with nuclear war to bring closure.

    For a last joke, “they” are having an anus redefined as a vagina.


  20. As always, errors in any presented argument tend to be bound up in the unstated assumptions implicit in that argument.
    If the material universe is a simulation then the only real thing is mind and the substance of the program creating the simulation is mind itself, about which we know very, very little in terms of its “substance” because it doesn’t have substance so we have no way to thing about it confidently.

    The issue is addressed in terms of scientific ideas developed from the materium. This might be completely the wrong approach from the get-go.
    All I know is that ‘Simulation Theory’ resolves (to my satisfaction) the Quantum anomalies that so confounded myself (and everyone else) when I studied Physics at University decades ago. Therefore, it is the best theory we’ve got for now.

    The material world is the manifestation of the Divinely created program. The minute particles that constitute the visible are the interface generating the desired illusion.
    Rudolf Steiner said “We think with our blood”. The DNA in our blood (98.5% of which is called “junk DNA”, i.e. we don’t know what it does) is a kind of antenna of spirit/mind that is active/resonant in varying ways depending on the individual concerned. As we experience this similation our mind can bring higher vibrational resonance to various parts of this DNA depending on our spiritual choices and we thus ascend (or are intended to ascend)

    The main obstacle to spiritual ascension is misinformation and outright lies.

    Given that our DNA is composed of 4 nucleotides (a, g, c and t) the program is probably coded in a language based on 4 poles rather than 2 (like our own digital simulations). A system of 2 can have poles like on/off, true, false, good/bad etc …
    A Divine system of 4 would place a spiritual reality somewhere in a field containing a pair of pairs of poles (good/bad/good and bad/not good, not bad) allowing for a greater expression of subtleties in every way.

    Kevin, you should interview Tom Campbell and give him a chance to argue against your guest.

    This article is very, very interesting re Rudolf Steiner and the horrors in which we are currently embedded:

  21. @MarkU

    I agree vehemently with all of your comment. But I’d go a bit further; the “God Hypothesis” isn’t an hypothesis* at all, it is at best a conjecture, and in practice a fraud everywhere and always. “Living god” my arse. Living bullsh*tter more like it.

    * Not an hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable(by design).

    • Replies: @ThereisaGod
    , @Alrenous
  22. @acementhead

    Many millions of humans have experienced the ecstasy of the presence of the Divine directly.

    Part of experiencing it is desiring and inviting such an experience. One who rules out the existence of a Divine creator or such a possibility excludes themselves from the experience. This is simply one of the rules of this realm.

    The spirits we all channel (whether we know it or not) are subject to our will. We are here to learn how to decide for our own spiritual betterment.

    You cannot falsify the most extreme and meaningful experience of my life, an experience it has taken me decades to understand in a way that makes thorough sense to me.

    Neither can I falsify the idea you hold so dear, that you base on literally nothing.

    • Replies: @Alrenous
  23. Alrenous says: • Website

    Only worshippers of fake gods require it to be unfalsifiable.

  24. Alrenous says: • Website

    Thanks for demonstrating exactly the useless and probably-clinically-ill claptrap that acementhead is reacting against.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS