Yes! It is 100% possible our Observable Universe can be fake, but for the same reason it is possible it is literally impossible to know whether our Observable Universe is "Actual Reality" or "Virtual Reality". It is 100% certain that we or a race like us will develop to our approximate level of technological development and be similar in many ways to us, then go thru its local to it in space-time Technological Singularity, just like we are in the process of going through, then survive that evolution to become a race of advanced technological pure minds, like we will if we survive this evolutionary leap, then such races will 100% be able to simulate submersive virtual realities which to our current level of abilities we could not distinguish from actual reality. There will be a large number of reasons to perform vast numbers of such VR submersive simulations. But... it is impossible for us to know the probabilities involved. For one thing, we do not know if we are prior to such a development or after. If we are prior to such a development then we have zero chance of being in such a VR. If we are after such a development then we have a 100% chance of being in such a VR. For another thing, it would in fact be IMPOSSIBLE to know if you were inside such a submersive VR unless the system allowed you to know, because it would be monitoring, controlling, moderating, and such the memory of your VR self.

long winded exposition of miniscule ideas.

Henri Bergson answers this question elegantly. the question why is there something rather than nothing relies on an intuition, a fundamental presupposition that 'nothing' is the base level of reality, of which 'something' is imposed upon. For Bergson, this intuition is misguided, and developed from our lived experience of going from states of nothing to something. e.g being hungry, not having a burger, and then having a burger, and feeling satisfied. this is however, not 'nothing' but is the negation of 'something' I.E a burger. a negation is still 'something'. Nothing does not exist, only absence, and is certainly not a fundamental nature in which something is imposed on. Rather, Nothing is simply a concept in which we have developed.

Before watching… Here’s my two cents… If you were to ask 100 unrelated people/theists on their “death bed” for a detailed description of God, I’ll wager you’d get 100 significantly different answers…. Yet most “denominations” insist that they have THE ONE AND ONLY answer for everyone… That being said, my relationship with a higher power is something I’ll willingly share with anyone who wants to discuss it in person, without expectations. Concurrently, I find it easier to envision a God without a religion, rather than a religious organization without a God…

Pretty lame discussion coming from the guest 🥱

The conversation around 5:44 is really interesting

Humean shift from necessitarian to regularist theory.

What if Einstein didn’t dream

The rotation of masses is "spacetime". Time is a construct of the orbits of the Earth & Sun which we use, other objects in rotation create a different "time" according to their mass & rotation speed. Matter & electromagnetism interact as happens in galaxies & even the charge of particles changing; greater combinations create new atoms - elements. Black holes have no core, they are just massive amounts of super hot plasma circling after a large star has imploded due to the collapse of an unstable core unable to hold. In collapsed neutron stars the atomic reaction is more complex & they spin so rapidly that jets are expelled from a hollow centre. Space does not distort but rather the many waves meeting that pass through it. Plasma is often emitted & the electromagnetic force affects the particles it carries, this either collects to form new stars or is attracted by another. An endless cyclical relationship within the massive & quantum.

Just because cause and effect are consistent within our universe does not mean it works the same way for the entire universe itself. Just like times shorter than the plank time aren't coherent, cause and effect as we see it possibly doesn't hold up at cosmic scales. Just be honest and say we don't know when we don't know.

Energy decaying is the reason why humanity is around.

My definition of religion: a belief that impossible is possible and a lifelong effort to achieve it. And is religion possible without god? Yes: Science is a religion and there's no god there; Why I claim it's a religion? There's masses of believers in the mystical truths that the high priests are telling them, and the handful of high priests who most likely only pretend to understand what they're preaching... The followers of Science strongly believe that their truth is the only truth and everyone else is just stupid, uneducated... Then there's Buddhism. The role of gods in Buddhism is similar to the role of Easter Bunny or Santa Claus in Christianity - it's irrelevant to the core teaching. The masses do indeed treat Buddhism as religion, including the belief in all the superstitious concepts from other religions, imported into it by the converts from those religions. But in fact, Buddhism is psychology, the Buddha's only concern was to end suffering of actual living beings right here and now...

و در نهایت دوست دارم حقیقت رو که برای شماوهمقطارهایتان شیرینترین و حیرت انگیزترین است و برای جاهلان و حتی عوام صوابکار و گناهکار ممکن است به دلیل جهل تلخ و یا تلخترین باشد را بگویم شما اگر بخواهید که جاودانه باشید و کارهایی که حتی در جهانتان ممکن و عملی نیست برای شما، انها را ممکن و عملی سازید به چه عملی دست میزنید برای مثال ما در دنیای خومون محدودیت های بیولوژیک و فیزیولوژیک و محدودیت های مکانی و گره حورده با زمان رو داریم ولی با ابزار هایی مثل متاورس ها و واقعیت مجازی این محدودیت ها رو از بین میبریم و با عینک واقعیت مجازی با سرعت حرکت میکنیم و در لحظه با آن سوی جهان حرکت میکنیم و در بازی میتوانیم بپریم و کارکتر ها را به راحتی به وجود بیاوریم با هر ظاهری و هیکلی و خصوصیات اخلاقی که دلمان بخواهد و اگر این واقعیت مجازی را بتوانیم بر فرض هزار سال دیگر محیط بازی را کل کره زمین طراحی کرده و بدن خودمان را بادارا بودن تمام حواسها لمس و چشایی و تمام خصوصیات خود را وهمچنین تمام حس ها و لذت های جسمانی و معنوی ، وارد این محیط کنیم (توانایی حذف احساسها و دردها رو هم در آن خواهیم داشت و خوب مثل اکنون که براحتی میتوانیم شخصیتها و مکانها را درست کنیم و طراحی کنیم ،با برنامه نویسی و ویژوال ها و بقیه و بقیه خوب در آن زمان هم میتوانیم و چقدر بهتر میتوانیم و خوب اگر خودمان را وارد آن محیط کنیم و محیطی که داخلش زمان رو بتونیم بکشیم تا بینهایت و ابدیت ، پس ما میتونیم در آن محیط جاودانه و بدون درد و بدون محدودیت زمان و مکان و افراد و اجزا و جانداران ، تا ابد زندگی کنیم و با اجازه شما این همون کاریه که که انجام دادیم ✋️🤗💯 و هیچ نقص و ایرادی در ان نیست و همه این محدودیت ها و دردهای بدن یا برای تجربه کردن و دانستن اینکه بعدها چطور باید دردو رنج رو طراحی کرد هستش یا محدودیت ساخت این مدلسازی هستش که باید مثال بزنم برای اینکه بدنمان را حس کنیم و همان Hard problem of conciousnes رو بشه به وجود آورد ،نمیشه بخشی از دردهای بدنی رو حذف کرد چون کل آگاهی و حس ها با همین بدن انجام میشه و همه چیز با بدن هستش و با همکاریه حواس و تفکر ها غیره که اونها هم به بدن مرتبط میشه همشون و همشون و خوب بخشی از داستان به گیزنده های پیزو برمیگرده که گرما و سرما رو به درد و لذت تبدیل میکنه وهمه علمی که در نوبل ۲۰۲۱ پزشکی رو برنده شد و خوب خوتون بهتر بلدید ولی همش گرما و سرما نیست پس اگر بخواهیم لذت ها رو بگنجونیم در برنامه و از طریق بدن تعریف کنیم اونها رو لاجرم نمیتوانیم بعضی از دردها رو از بین ببریم و ممکن نیست محدودیت طراحی هستش و خوب داستان بقا و احساس خطر هم که میدونید از دیگر اصل هاست که با ازمون و خطا به حد اپتیممش در آلارم دادن ها و غیره و غیره طراحی شده و در بقای داستان و انسان لازم و حتمی هستش و از باید هاست و خوب فکر میکنم تونستم حقیقت رو بگم و خوب شما بودید خودتون رو شانس تعریف نمیکردید ؟؟!😄 این چه خوش شانسی هستش که با عذاب و رنج های بسیاری همراه شده میبینید و شاهد هستید که چقدر دردسر و ادونچرداره 🙏🤒🤕🙏 💖💚❤️

There is something called the light in you and me is a perfect God that created a kingdom within us, for one's lifetime. 1 Earth's entropy throughput each second = (((L_☉)/(T_☉)(1.0 α^3))/60 Hz) Is Aloha time, God's time, His Sun dial?

Is mind real or is matter real? What is fundamental to reality? If it is matter, then it's something or nothing. But if it isn't matter, then what is it? Is it mind, or an infinite mind?

Because cheese.

Do an episode on psychedelics and the Bhavacakra or Samsara. For example, smoking salvia induces a psychedelic state of becoming one with the wheel of life and death (reincarnation). The same wheels found within Ezekiel's vision of god on his chariot. And obviously the DMT family needs to be discussed as well.

"God" is a non-referential term. You have to breathe life into it with a pretense or a fictional framework. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there so much nonsense rather than common sense in the world?

"Two, (or more) equal but opposite somethings, sum to nothing." So, somewhere else, in another universe, somebody else just wrote - ".gnihton ot mus ,sgnihtemos etisoppo tub lauqe )erom ro( ,owT"

It's impressive how less interesting the conversations are when God comes into the mix.

این هم مشکلی بود از مشکلها که خدا رو شکر زیر سایه شما حل شد 🙏💖💖🙏💚💚💜💜❤️🤍❤️

استاد میدونید چیه دین های بودایی و هندو هم ریشه ادیان باستانیه ایران زمین رو داره و نمونه غیر قابل انکارش رو میبینیم که والاترین مقام ها ودرجات ادیان بودایی ، راهبان و برهمن ها شون ، کلاه میترا رو به سر میکنند و ریشه میترائیسم دارد ادیانشان و هندو هم اصالتش از زرتشتی و مانوی شاخه گرفته و کمی رنگ و لعاب اسلامی و رو هم درونش داره ولی فرقشون اینجاست که انها وجمعیت بودا و هندو ، در داستانی که بر اساس آن بشریت شروع و تمام شده و یا در اصل داستان بشر تمام شده ودر حال شروع هستش، مستقیما شرکت ندارند و نقش های اصلی رو در این داستان بازی نمیکنند چرا که مکان ها و کشورهاشون و انسانها و بازیگرهاشون در این داستان نوشته نشده اند و نقش های اصلی شون همون هایی هستند که به اون کشورها سفر میکنند و روابط خوبی دارند باهاشون و در مراحل بعد بازیگرانی هستند که ممکن است روابط خوبی نداشته باشند به دلایل سو تفاهم ها و خودخواهی ها و غیره و غیره . ولی از آنجا که تهیه کننده و کارگردان ونویسنده و نقش اول داستان اونها رو هم در داستان آورده است پس آنها هم اتوماتیک در داستان حضور دارند و خواهند داشت چرا که همه زمین و انسانها رو با هم خلق کرده است و جدا جدا نمیشود و ممکن نیست و بحث باطل است ✋️ ولی خوب میدونید که اونها اغلب در محله چینی ها هستند ولی در کنار ما هستند و نقششان کمرنگ هم نیست 🙏😅❤️🙏🙏

I’ve got plenty of nothing. Or I did have until I put it somewhere and now I can’t find it.

If you always do something perfect and everyone applauds you. You don't know how great it is until you can't do it anymore. And so the absolute and it's need to know itself. Created this existence positive negative update on left. Right, happy, sad. So you could experience both and when you go home to the absolute.You'll know it for the first time.How wonderful it is to be absolutely

Wow. Merzenich makes an incredible point about how the brain works during the last two sections. Great question Michael, and a greater answer.

Unfortunately the question in the title was not really addressed. It is basically a conversation about religion.

It's collective consciousness. Everything is one thing. We're choosing certain parts of God to create their entities that don't become physical. You have a lot of sense. No, I'm just kidding, but you have to ask yourself what you think God is. And if you think he's absolute, I'm nepotent omnipotent. I'm the present you have to know what that means

All the great minds on planet earth will be humbled when God reveals himself, for he will not allow man to carry on destroying his earth.

God Became man so man could become god

God is absolute.It's not that he needs wants or anything.But when you're absolute you can't observe yourself unless you put yourself in a dual universe to see the opposite of what you are so when you go home you can know it for the first time

I don't think this world is the best possible world created by God, according to Bible this world is a fallen world where there is good and evil. Mathematics may have been created by God partially to allow human beings to have godlike power, knowledge and control over the natural realm.

Fangirling is strong with these comment section

".. if you soak your intellect in chitta - consciousness unsullied by memory - it can grow razor-sharp, turn into a miraculous tool of bliss and liberation, and deliver you effortlessly to the ultimate."

There is only one way to find out. Take a spaceship and go outside the universe if you are still conscious. It is generated by the brain.

This is a long comment, so sorry about that. To answer the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” (WSRTN), I think we have to start with "nothing" or else there's always something left unexplained. But, we have always ruled out starting with nothing because of the ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) idea. But, I think there’s a way to start with nothing and not violate this principle. If we start with nothing and end up with something, and because you can’t change nothing into something, the only way this could be is if that “nothing” was somehow actually a “something” in disguise. Another way to say this is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking, "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's actually a "something". In other words, the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". So, “something" doesn't come out of "nothing". Instead, the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something" if we could see through its disguise. So, how could "nothing" be a "something"? I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties zero or more things together into a new unit whole and existent entity. An example of tying zero things together is the empty set. But, what is grouped, and how much is grouped don’t matter as long as there is a grouping, a new unit whole/existent entity is created. This grouping is manifested as a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually. This surface or boundary doesn't have some magical power to give existence to stuff. But, it is is the visual and physical manifestation of the grouping into a new unit whole or existent entity. The grouping idea isn’t new. Others such as Aristotle, Leibniz, etc. have used the words “unity” or “one” instead of “grouping”, but the meaning is the same. After all, what does a grouping into a new unit whole do if not create a unity or a one? Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, be the whole amount or entirety of the situation, or state of affairs. That nothingness defines the situation completely. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. That "nothing" is it, and it is the all. A whole-amount/entirety/“the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. “Nothing” defines itself and is therefore the beginning point in the chain of being able to define existent entities in terms of other existent entities. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. This new property is inherent to “nothing” and cannot be removed to get a more pure “nothing”. This means that “nothing” that lacks the property of being a grouping is not possible and thus the “something” that we previously, and incorrectly, called “nothing” is necessary. This isn’t new, but at least, this is a possible mechanism for why it’s necessary. Some other points are: 1. The mind's conception of "nothing" is different from "nothing" itself, a situation in which no minds are present. The "nothing" in the WSRTN question is "nothing" itself. While we can't directly visualize "nothing" itself, we can try to visualize everything being gone as close as possible to "nothing" itself and then try to extrapolate to what it'd be like when the mind is also gone. 2. I don't think we can logically assume that the human definition of "nothing" as the opposite of "something" necessarily applies to "nothing" itself, a situation in which no humans are present and no human can ever see. 3. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "now" (i.e., “now something") in the phrase "there was nothing but now there is something" imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". 5. While a grouping usually groups more than one component, I think it's possible to have a grouping containing "nothing". For instance, the empty set, while abstract, is a grouping containing "nothing".

At first glance when we look inside our own minds, there is also nothing there.

استاد یکی از کارهای اصلیه سایکودلیکها اینه که حافظه بلند مدت رو کات میکنه از کوتاه مدت و حواس پنجگانه ما و شما با دانسته های قبلی و یعنی با قدرت ناخوداگاهتون دیگه قضاوت و تصمیم نمیگیرید چه قضاوت علمی و چه دیگر و این یعنی تمام حواس شما در لحظه روی خود موضوع و تصویر و فرمول و پدیده متمرکز میشه و لازمه اصلیه خلاقیته و در ابعاد بیولوژیک پل ارتباطیه لوب های مغز از کورتکس فرانتال به بقیه همچنین پل میان دو ن نیمکره چپ وراست رو متصل و باز نگاه میداره و این از دلایل اصلی در حقیقت سایکودلیک هاست ببخشید که جسارت کردم و خواستم این رو در محضر شما اساتید بزرگ مطرح کنم 🙏🙏🙏💖💖

و اینجا فیزیک کوانتوم است و پدیده های مربوط به ان که میتواند شیمیه عالی و شیمیه کربن را به وجود میآورد که از ژن ها و دی ان آی ها و آنزیمها شروع میشود ولی برای فیزیک عناصر معدنی این متفاوت است و اشکال انها از کوچکترین شکسته و زاویه دار هستند به جز موارد خاصی مثل سیلیکون که همردیف و شرایط عنصر کربن رو دارد ولی زنده نیست و فقط میتواند مدور باشد و مسئله نرمی و سختی هم بخش بزرگیش به این مسئله برمیگرده که اعضای بدن اجزای نرم هستند و سیلیکون هم مشابه ان و سختیه بیشتر به جز تراکم و مسائل دیگر که جاش نیست اینجا بخش بزرگیش به نوع کوچکترین ساختار اتمی آن برمیگردد و شکل اتمها (چند اتمی بودن)و اتصال انها در مرحله بعد کوالانسی و یونی و هیدرژنی و غیره که فلز را سختتر و سنگ را سخت میکند 🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Perhaps its just all about mind over matter. So without mind there is no matter. And so it doesn't really matter.

I have two main reasons I resist information counter to what I think. The first is that I simply want to believe something and anything that counters that belief automatically triggers my defenses and makes it difficult to truly listen. The second reason is if I've invested too much time pursuing what I want to be true. It's very hard to let go of a belief after you've unwittingly spent years convincing yourself that it's true through bad science and biased opinions. I make it a point to listen to opposing views twice or more until what they're saying sinks in. I will change my views if it turns out the opposing information holds water. I might not like it every time, but the truth is the truth. Facts are facts.

It's Obvious that it takes Something Very Very Extraordinary to Create what We Detect of the Universe. They Don't Touch On Time here. When Considering what a God Might do on Time Scales, You Realise We May have Missed a Lot or We May be at a Middle Period or Close to the Beginning. Hence the God Conclusion.

Old nob doesn't know then, great

"It's checkable in the small" is a fantastic quote with respect to the huge mathematical edifices we've built

و این به دلیل نوع کربنی بودن و حلقوی بودن است که از کوچکترین اجزای حلقوی و شیمی آلی که مرتبط با خاصیت اتم کربن است و مولکول ها و شبکه هایی که میتواند چهارگانه و دوگانه و غیره و غیره را از آمینو اسید و بقیه کوچکترینها با پیوستن به یکدیگر وبا پیوندهای هیدرژنی و یونی و مولکولی که همون شیمیه خودمانی ماست ،بزرگتر و بزرگتر شده و در دنیای ماکروسکوپیک هم تمام اعضای بدن از دستان و پاها و بقیه و بقیه به صورت (‌curve ) دیده شوند 🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️❤️

الان در محضر اساتید بزرگ میشه با اجازه آنها کمی صحبت کرد واگر الان صحبت نکنم چه وقت باید صحبت کنم🙏🙏❤️❤️ استاد با دو سوال شروع میکنم با اجازه شما 🙏🙏 چرا تمام اجزای بدن تمام موجودات زنده از بزرگترین اجزا ماکروسکوپیک (جمجمه و ماهیچه ها) تا کوچکترین اجزای میکروسکوپیک (سلول ها تا ویروس ها ) همگی و همگی در هر اشلی مدور و کروی و curve هستند ؟؟ چه با چشم مسلح و چه با چشم غیر مسلح و حتی استخوانها که مرده ترین و غیر فعالترین اندام های بیولوژیک هستند ,از این اصل پیروی میکنند . دوم چرا تمام موجودات زنده فقط از موجودات زنده و یا محصول انها تغذیه میکنند ؟؟ که همه انها هم حتی عسل و تخم ها که محصول موجودات زنده هستند نیز شرایط سوال قبلی را دارند فقط استثنا نمک است که کریستال میباشد و به همین دلیل قابل استفاده و خوردن توسط موجود زنده است ..

Well, if you want to ask why is there something instead of nothing, you have to first explain why it's not obvious that there should be something. In other words, when in our experience, has nothing been an occurrence? The question implies that something is an option, and the nothing is an option. How is nothing an option? What would that look like? If you can't define that, there is no question to be asked.

Really interesting. But isn't that metaphysics?

When people with academic degrees and authority colonize a subject. Surprisingly people with solid academic backgrounds and real world experience can give you surprising insights. I'm an electrical engineer with a background in computer design, telecommunications, radar and software as well as neuroscience and philosophy. I understand these pholosophers layman's pov on a twchnical subject and why they are not getting there from here

Ask Chris Langan for this.

That was the politest evisceration and nullification of the tired and logically incoherent theistic attempts to elevate Christianity's naval gazing and it's presupposed validity to be in the same ballpark as science. They are polar opposites and have no place in each other's company. Science starts with a hypothesis and then looks for possible answers, tests them and then once they have not been found to be false, tentatively proclaims the answer. Christianity, and religion in general, starts with the answer and then looks for any evidence that may possibly fit while ignoring all the counter evidence that doesn't. It's laughable. Appealing to a mystery with an even bigger mystery gets you nowhere. The channel needs to change its name to "I don't care about the truth, i want God to exist"