Stephen Wolfram - Does Information Create the Cosmos?

Shop Closer To Truth merch: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Scientists see information in all the regularities of the physical world that we often call laws. But does information generate these laws, as some scientists now claim, or do they simply explain them, as most scientists have always assumed? What is the role of information in creating the cosmos?
For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Watch more videos on quantum theory: shorturl.at/beiuV
Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica, Wolfram|Alpha and the Wolfram Language; the author of A New Kind of Science; and the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@pesilaratnayake162]

I appreciate Wolfram's careful approach to this topic, and his distinction between a model and reality. Too often I see people jumping to how reality IS based on this or that, largely because we can think of it that way. But that's just a model, and there may be more to it that we dont understand. Don't allow your desire for an answer commit you to one before it can be justified.

[@jklep523]

Once again Mr Kuhn you have presented a guest who in the space of under 10 minutes has communicated some of the most profound and articulate ideas on the some of the truly most important questions that face our species. I’m grateful to you and your guests for helping me better understand the very questions that preoccupy me to an almost pathological level, and it gives me small comfort to reassure me I am not alone, nor insane, in the quest for understanding. Thank you once again.

[@kennethmalafy503]

When we use computers and the internet, information basically travels in the form of light or energy. What if all the light and energy in this universe were loaded with information? Gives a whole new meaning to the "vastness" of the universe. Think of what a star would be in those terms. Think of when you look at a distant star, billions of miles away and a ray of light is hitting your eye....... Could you be receiving information from that star? Even think of the observer in those terms, could the observer be transmitting some sort of information that the observed reacts to, how many times have you "felt" someone was watching you or you watched someone and they turned around to look at you when you put your attention on them... It would certainly be an incredibly strong evolutionary survival trait- to know you are being watched (think of pred- prey). As they say, information is power.

[@Robinson8491]

The light isn't really the information. It only turns into information when it is translated by a decoding key by the receiver. For the universe it is just a bunch of random photons

[@Sammasambuddha]

There's a ton of information in light. You can determine the type and age of a distant star by using spectrum analysis to determine what elements exist in the star. You can determine other things astrological by measuring red-shift from light traveling intergalactic distances. Also, all matter is light. Since matter contains information...do I need to continue?

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

Light isn’t just a packet of energy but difference as well and when interacting with other things it can be split. Not all matter is split to a smaller things so it’s like everything has components and can be broken down into less, like shape and electrons and such, but it doesn’t mean that the smaller is the foundation or start point. Like the number one, it can be broken down into more pieces like .04 or .7 and so on but it doesn’t mean that .001 or whatever is fundamental or the start point. Every point is a valid start or end or whatever bounds you measure or see in it. Like how the number one isn’t a thing, it’s an aspect applied to things. The numbers don’t exist but exist through things. We made numbers what they are based on the reflection of reality and that’s why numbers can be infinite but applying a limit is valid so you get something that is different and used in a different way causing different reactions and those share just like .001 shares the rest of the pieces to create 1 or how a bunch of different cells absorb energy through light.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

The intuition here is spot on. Information is power...and implicitly (not explicitly) the wolfram model, and wolfram's work, implies that information is like energy and that this energy is infinite, and out there to be used. Intuitively this makes sense...when we have ideas, or dream something up that isn't real yet...we go and we create the the thing that was just an idea and we MAKE it real. The fact that the universe allows us to do this, is a surprising fact about the universe we live in. Another way to think about this intuitively, is that computers...what are they really? Well it's just a bunch of electrons moving (the 0's and 1's that create the machine code of a computer, come from atoms reaching a certain voltage to trigger a button basically) and so all the things we have built on a computer, like games and what not are the results of electrons moving around...that's also very surprising fact that we live in a universe where all of this power that we've built in computers (and closing in on sentience with AI) comes from this fact that we just need to move things around. More deeply...what is motion? perpetual motion exists in the form of Newtons laws of motion (Things that are in motion stay in motion) and even deeper, is that motion is relative...true "motion" exists only as a result of things moving with respect to one another...so the ontology behind transfer of energy seems to just come from nothing. But that's the key, nothing seems to contain the power of giving us everything, and we as humans just havn't figured out yet in full, that we can extract that energy from nothing for free. I've studied Wolframs work and the Wolfram Model for 3 years now, Complex Systems and Physics for 10 prior to that. I am 100% certain that power, energy or whatever you want to call it, is free and it is what gives us the existence as we know it in the universe...and it can be harnessed within this framework.

[@TVmediaable]

If time slips away without a word between you and me, I need NOT worry because there's a feeling beyond words that will always keep us together.

[@jaffetcordoba4414]

Always interested in scientists looking for the “kinds of rules” in the universe; and in this case, how the rules manifest as information. And I like the notion of “computation as a framework” because of its close relationship to energy; as it seems that energy in the universe is attracted to energy: a big fish eats a little fish; a blue whale consumes krill; a surfer rides a wave; or, an actress tells a funny story on a talk show. All of the transfers of energy appear to end up at a quantum computing lab at a university in California. Are we bound to see that information does create the cosmos? Something to think about if you like horseback riding.

[@jesternotclown]

Its an interesting conversation about the value of information with discussion about how information is generated, shared, stored or manifests itself. There must be a funtion for I (Information) that fits into E=Mc2

[@BugRib]

I like the way he thinks.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

John Archibald Wheeler: "IT from BIT". Brevity is Beautiful.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

do the probabilities from quantum wave function have information?

[@freeforester1717]

The late Doug B Vogt strongly affirmed to this theory of information being the principal force within our universe, and managed to decode how it interacts with our lives in rather more profound and still poorly understood ways. It is tragic that he was taken from us just at the point where humanity needed to hear his message the most. It will be of great interest to see what our ‘top people’ do next, ie without his guidance toward the light and the way.

[@rodneymacomber6337]

Not what if everything is information created or not created it is information. Nothing in existence is without information.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

This is freaking me out 26 seconds in! This morning I was thinking how everything we experience is only experienced in our minds. Science has shown that what we experience is the transformation of 2-d information even the feeling of movement, wind, distance, etc. . It would seem that all of the information of the Universe, which relates us to our experience, can be found in our genes as the record of all our beginnings. Everything we experience in the same non definable location whether as physical experience or imagined and these seemingly separate kinds of experience are formed in the same way and experienced in the same place which is no place in particular.

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Great 👍🏻

[@milankhangamchapotshamba-sg8cc]

What is the difference between model and theory?

[@jmanj3917]

0:07 Idk, Doc. The first time I heard about Information Theory, I thought it was...just another ridiculous flight of fancy, really. But now that I've looked at it more and more, I'm beginning to think there's definitely Something to the theory...something to do with the basic, binary state of every Planck Area, and, possibly, also, maybe, a Third State, which is how (or Where?) the information that we see as entangled between two particles is carried between them...And that, somehow, this is how the particle "knows" the state of its partner particle immediately. But idk. Go Bluejays!!

[@mayankacharya]

@ 5:13 The instance where interviewer explains it better than the interviewee, key words... Computational irreducibility (amazing use of words), every particle has an inherent computation information, The universe is...

[@sigishere]

looks like laws are primary. I have heard we are at the beginning of finding all the laws.

[@1974jrod]

Short answer, Yes. And to have information, one has to have an informant.

[@tedgrant2]

I've spent a few minutes thinking about that question. And I've very nearly thought of an answer. But not quite.

[@grijzekijker]

Are you lacking some information?

[@tedgrant2]

@@grijzekijker Definitely. If I had enough information I could write a book and be rich. But then I would be obliged by Jesus to give it to the poor.

[@grijzekijker]

@@tedgrant2 you do HAVE thought this through. Well, you don't have to spend it on the poor bums in skid row, you can move to a tiny poor old village, somewhere remote, and become the man of the town helping everybody.

[@RuneRelic]

So basically if you want to get the right information out, you have to put 'all' of the right information in. In the processing context of that information.....junk in = junk out, regardless of how good the processing is. In regards to spacetime, you would have to enter every event in the right sequence to get the same outcome....if you was arrogant enough to believe you had the master algorythm of existance rather than just a shorthand simulacrum. Which is a logic pathing issue thats utterly dictated by the select/preferred and not just a singular inevitable option of collapsed wave functions. Of course the argument for a possible/plausible shorthand contrivance of reality, is the very existance of the universal constants that enable it. So if God doesnt play dice, it may well be a preference to back doors. Separating dynamic from sequential time enables that anyway.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what does information consist of?

[@picksalot1]

Information is all about the "transmission" of knowledge. When an object is made, the knowledge of its maker is transmitted into the raw material, and shapes its design and intended purpose. Knowledge is fundamental, not information.

[@eensio]

The cosmos creates information. The complexity of it inreases. The computer and the playing with 3d-games has developed a theory that we live in simulation. The reality has proven to be much more difficult to understand than our actual needs or fears has dictated.

[@caricue]

Only a mind can create or use information. The cosmos is mindless and dead. Even "complexity" is a human value judgement. The universe just does what the universe does, every description or category is a way for minds to try and understand what it sees. We absolutely do not live in a simulation. This is also why we will not be getting General AI for a long, long time. A simulation is not real, so any computer can only simulate consciousness or sentience, it won't experience anything internally because it is not real or alive. We can know that we are real and alive exactly because we experience.

[@PaulHoward108]

Sat-cit-ānanda are the potentials for relation, cognition, and emotion. Their compatible combinations are eternal, and their incompatible combinations manifest the temporary universes.

[@UltimateTruthsAndWorldviews]

those rules (information) are descriptions of reality, not their creator? those rules definitely find their source in a Mind, not a mindless source and which definitely gave rise to reality and the universe.

[@user-lz2dt5su5v]

Right

[@mintakan003]

With his emphasis on "rules", I get the impression Wolfram is a determinist. This can include "computational irreducibility". Even though we can't predict the end result ahead of time, I assume we get to the same place, with all the right initial conditions. Is "stochasticity" also inherent in reality, e.g. the psi-ontic (as opposed to psi-epistemic), as suggested by quantum physics?

[@BugRib]

What do you mean by "psi-ontic" and "psi-epistemic"?

[@mintakan003]

@@BugRib psi is the symbol for the wave function in quantum mechanics. It maps on to probability via the Born rule. Psi-ontic means the probability is inherent to the "reality" (wave function). Psi-epsitemic means probability is a result of our ignorance, lack of knowledge, of the initial conditions, i.e., the classical notion of probability. The underlying conditions are deterministic. It's just we don't know about it.

[@r2c3]

2:53 since both structure and mechanics of physical reality are always measured and predicted precisely with mathematical models, then it follows that mathematics are not only descriptive but also part of the foundation of our reality 🤔

[@brothermine2292]

That conclusion -- "part of the foundation of reality" -- does not logically follow. And I don't know what you mean by "measured with a model." To make measurements requires tools that are physically real.

[@r2c3]

​@@brothermine2292do you really think I'll explain anything to you again 😂 go find some other comment to dissect in detail :)

[@brothermine2292]

@@r2c3 : Don't do it for me. Do it to make your comment sensible (if possible) to other people who may read it. But I doubt you can.

[@woofie8647]

I believe one of the points Wolfram made is that mathematics is only a model of reality, and not the basis of reality. It is a human construction much like our verbal language: we describe this green and brown thing growing in our yard as "tree", and we describe gravity with Newton's equation or Einstein's General Relativity equations. In each case we only describe what we see, we do not "explain" it. In both cases we still do not know "what" they are, we only represent them in either a verbal or mathematical language. Even if we found a mathematical model that described everything we know about the universe- a "Theory of Everything"- it would still be only a description written in mathematical terms. It would, again, explain nothing.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

​@@r2c3I think most of the important scientists would say that mathematics is a tool used by the actual foundation of nature which is consciousness. Planck, Schroedinger, Tesla, Einstein, Newton, Davinci, etc. All the guys who had their portraits done with their fingers twisted and signed their name Hermes Trismegistus declare this belief.

[@hobarttobor686]

Stephen Wolfram should be Harvard president.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

True, a description of the universe is comprised of *information,* but information is not limited to description-only structure. My ToE has information representing the core structure of reality because everything can be reduced down to information and you can't conceivably regress any further than that. And if you try, ... then what exactly would you be working with? *There are four stages of information-based evolution:* *(1) Pure information* - Nondimensional mathematical structure (pre-Big-Bang) *(2) Physical Information* - Mathematical structure evolving into inanimate physical structure *(3) Living Information* - Inanimate physical structure evolving into animated living structure *(4) Self-Aware Information* - Animated living structure evolving into self-aware conscious structure ... We are currently operating in *Stage 4* of this ongoing evolution of data (the "value-judgment" stage). We are tasked with evaluating and judging all previous forms of information in preparation for the next stage.

[@brothermine2292]

How does #2 happen?

[@grijzekijker]

It's when the architect sees to it that the house is built according to his drawings, but the house is not yet occupied by the owner.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

​@@brothermine2292 *"How does #2 happen?"* ... Since your question was phrased in a respectful way, I will answer. During the information stage *(1)* there was a timeless, inconceivable state of "Existence." To facilitate conceivability, "Existence" counted the amount of "Existence" that was present, which was 1. "Existence" then counted the amount of whatever did not represent "Existence," and that amount was 0. This "first move" represents the emergence of logic (numerology/mathematics). Compensation was required for this "first move" which was manifested in the form of energy (0.0172 eV, 2.76x10^-21 Joules per each bit of new information). Every subsequent numerical assessment and mathematical calculation added to the collective volume of energy production. This nondimensional energy-producing process continued until it reached a point of redundancy. Since there was no physical structure or anything in motion to facilitate "time," this entire energy-producing process happened within a timeless instant. Once redundancy was established, "Existence" _evolved_ into physical structure *(2)* via Big Bang and then recycled the entire process. This means Big Bang's singularity was _not_ everything being compressed down into a single point via infinite gravity and density as science contends, but rather all previous nondimensional information expanding up to a point of redundancy and then being "released" into multidimensionality within a single instant in the form of energy. After 10 billion years of experiencing countless particle interactions and the formation of a universe full of complex cosmic structure, "Existence" once again reached a point of redundancy and recycled the entire process in the form of "life" *(3).* As you've probably guessed, after experiencing 4 billion years of countless "Predator and Prey' and "Life and Death" scenarios, "Existence" once again reached a point of redundancy. The next logical move was to evolve "life" *(3)* into self-awareness *(4)* and then repeat the entire evolutionary process once more. Now "Existence" is experiencing a _self-evaluation period_ (just like we all do) by experiencing billions and billions of self-aware human experiences over the past 300,000 years. ... We are the newly evolved arbitrators of value to orchestrate whatever evolutionary stage that follows. "Existence" now knows, feels, and experiences everything that we do because we are all individual microcosms of "Existence." If we can generate purpose from purposelessness like "Existence" generated energy from non-energy, ... _then "Existence" learns from us._ If we remain bitter with each other, ... _then "Existence" learns from us._ If we can all find a way to get along ... _then Existence learns from us._ ... So, what shall you and I teach "Existence" today, Mr. Brothermine?

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

​@@brothermine2292I would say number 4 should be number one. Consciousness is the only thing, force, in the Universe presently with the ability to change anything from it's otherwise inevitable position. I don't believe that this present condition of the Universe has ever been any different.

[@brothermine2292]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC : When you elaborate the details, it all looks very silly. Thanks.

[@Oskar-S-]

So to speak

[@michaelbartlett6864]

Have you ever seen two weather models that actually gave the same predictions?

[@genghisthegreat2034]

There can be no information, without a conscious observer to be informed by it.

[@dr_shrinker]

Information of a thing cannot exist without the thing. Information of the cosmos cannot exist without the cosmos. Information is reducible and the cosmos is not.

[@2guyswithguitars2gwg43]

How are the laws of nature created? Multiverse proponents would advocate for a Darwinian rational of ours being a winning universe based on the viability of a consistent enough set of laws, but that doesn’t explain the requirement for there to be any laws to begin with. The laws seem to be the method of manifestation of our universe but are these laws eternal, changeable, flexible or simply rigid but contextual? Can that be proven or disproven? Can we discover laws that apply to dimensions we can’t see, ie understand how, why and when subatomic particles appear and disappear? It seems like accepting statistical modeling refutes determinism. There’s a big difference between something will happen and something is likely to happen.

[@Psalm1101]

Yes the laws of nature is rock solid. Rules

[@worldnotworld]

What operational definitions of "computation" and "information" are at play here?

[@simonhibbs887]

Information is encoded in the properties and structure of physical systems. So all physical systems encode information, so in its atomic and molecular structure, but also in macromolecules features such as the pattern of beads in an abacus, the pattern of holes in a punched card or CD, or the distribution of electrical charges in a computer memory. Some physical systems encode information which corresponds to information in other physical systems. The classic example is a map, where the arrangement of physical features in the map correspond to physical features in an environment. Another good example is a weather report. These are meaningful because they are actionable. A map enables navigation of an environment, weather reports enables farmers to plan crop planting and harvesting. Computation is the transformation of physical structures, changing the information they encode. All physical processes do this so in that sense they cal all be thought of as computational. We take advantage of this behaviour in order to engineer physical systems into transforming information, that is doing computations, that are useful to us. You’re using such a system right now to read this comment.

[@worldnotworld]

@@simonhibbs887 Thanks very much for your reply. But I'm afraid it doesn't answer my question, as I'm looking for a definition, even an indirect one, for 'information.' What is the "information" that physical systems "encode?" In fact, we need definitions for both information _and_ physical systems even to begin to ask what it means for one to "encode" the other. When can we say that "information" is present, and when is it not present? What are the criteria? Can information exist without being observed, or observable in principle?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@worldnotworld I’ll do my best. A physical system is a system described by physics. For now that means some combination of spacetime as described by general relativity, and the standard model fields and particles described by Quantum Mechanics. Those are the best and most completely verified descriptions of the physical we have, though we know there are gaps in some edge cases such as the centre of black holes. The information physical systems encode is their state. Thats pretty much what we have as a definition at the lowest level. All information that exists does so in the form of the state of a physical system. What’s interesting is that this state can correspond in meaningful ways to the state of other physical systems in the ways I discussed in my first comment. Maps, weather reports, engineering drawings and how they correspond to a device we then build. These correspondences are what we call meaning. We know meaning is real because it is actionable, again as I described in my first comment. Information is always present in the state (the properties and configuration) of any physical system, whether it be a molecule or a data centre. Without any correspondence to any other physical system this information only has the meaning that it describes the state of that system. What’s cool about information is that it has this property that it can have these correspondences I described though. So we can copy information, translate it into different representations, and transform it in procedural ways to do cool stuff like send messages, count things and do calculations. All of these are physical processes, exploiting the fact that chemical reactions, electron flows, light emission and absorption, etc, transform physical states in predictable ways. Physics (relativity and quantum mechanics) is what we use to make these predictions, and what allows us to engineer these processes to our advantage. So for example we used quantum mechanics to invent the transistors in your computer, and the lasers used in the fibre optic networks that transmitted this message from my computer to yours.

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

@@worldnotworld I think it’s hard to describe in that: there is a definite existence to the process of a computation…there is something being done as a function of time in a system and we call this thing that is getting done a computation. Information as the other person described it, seems to be the way we describe the computation that is happening…and that the way we describe it is part of what gives that computation its power to us describers. For instance the electron does this thing where it moves around and does stuff…and the proton over there moves around and does stuff …the bacteria and cells that are made of these atoms are using the information structure of other cells to figure out what they want to do, rather than the atoms that are using their own information structure (the movement of atoms) to figure out what the world is doing. In this way information is a subjective, arbitrary process that builds objective descriptions of the computation of reality and so there’s a deep relationship between the two… that subjective reality creates the objective world and visa versa. In some studies this subjective creation is known as top-down causation, if you want to look into that on your own …but ultimately in things like the wolfram model and his work, there is an infinite objective universe (the ruliad) and the finite observers that exist as part of this ruliad interpret it and this interpretation progresses the computation. Try not to take the word interpretation as a human centric idea…interpretation in a formal sense means the capacity for systems to build and follow a logic system aka…systems just need to follow rules. The assumption is that all systems are following rules, as wolfram posits; these rules can be described as computational not just physical.

[@gert8439]

@@worldnotworld Wolfram talks about ''information'' in terms of a description, a model, a metaphor, a representation and a map here. I agree with him. He notes these are ways of talking about reality, about the actual stuff of the universe, but not reality itself. These conceptual descriptions of reality only actually exist in the mind, they're not mind-independent things-in-themselves. So for example, information can't create the cosmos if it is a description of the cosmos.

[@1stPrinciples455]

Information is unfortunately communicated using language which js art instead of science . Art is Ambiguous. This affects knowing the truth

[@guillaumecharrier7269]

This is great stfuff.

[@brothermine2292]

Wolfram's opinion seems very reasonable.

[@Corteum]

Information is an object. It requires a subject to work.

[@James-ll3jb]

An absurd assertion!😅

[@shephusted2714]

these views will get challenged since we know so little right now - at some point there will be a quantum computer that can simulate every atom in the known universe - the cagr for sims is only 11% right now but look for sim growth to grow along with compute power - it is not just exponential as in the past it is going to be doubly exponential and this will open up lanes for experiments and not just speculation and rough approximations and hypothesis, sims will get much more theory and proof based which will yield many advances in every industry, better algorithms, less np problems

[@simonhibbs887]

Will this quantum computer be able to simulate every atom in the quantum computer? So the simulation of the computer will itself contain a simulation of the computer, which itself….

[@shephusted2714]

@@simonhibbs887 no qcomps get exponentially more powerful every time you add a qubit Because quantum computers' qubits can represent a 1 and 0 at the same time, a quantum computer's power increases exponentially in relation to the number of qubits. Because of superposition, the number of computations a quantum computer could take is 2N where N is the number of qubits - think of it like this Here’s why 100 qubit quantum computers could change everything At 100 qubits a single quantum computer processor would, theoretically, be more powerful than all the supercomputers on the planet combined. We may be closer to that milestone than you think and the world isn’t ready. #logical qubits #quantum volume

[@heresa_notion_6831]

Does info create cosmos? I don't know; sounds kind of radical. Does cosmos create info? Well, that's a theory too, and seems (subjectively speaking) reasonable. I would like more "assembly theory" views on CTT (i.e., it says how the cosmos creates info, and that seems relevant). Of course, I probably just don't understand the sense of information being used here. Also the idea that a "full" model of the universe could predict the conversation they're having right now on youtube can be questioned. Doesn't that imply a super-hard determinism where the possibility of ANY chance outcomes simply do not exist? However, if chance is in any way a real thing, then I can doubt a full-model can ever predict a fine-grained specific outcome like that. Taking an extreme view, if chance really does exist outside of any stateable laws, one might have had a chance outcome at the very initial stages of our inflation, that could "butterfly-effect" out, so that no earth would exist. If earth existing precisely where earth exists now, could not have been guaranteed in this inflation (because chance REALLY is a thing), then another inflation with exactly the same starting conditions as ours may not yield it. Quantum theory may suggest (but I'm not sure) some events as fundamentally stochastic (or God really does throw dice), so could my big-bang thought experiment have any merit? Or does quantum theory simply say that everything that can happen does happen (i.e., many worlds), which is pretty weak for a theory (because, it literally predicts everything).

[@brothermine2292]

The DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation of QM is deterministic. In DBB the quantum probabilities aren't due to fundamental randomness; they just reflect our ignorance of some of the state information. (Hidden variables.)

[@sarahdavilio2575]

Physics is nothing more than confusing semantics

[@stoneysdead689]

This question seems so silly at first- but then you start thinking about it and- hmmm, not simple at all. When you realize that your brain is locked inside your skull and that its only experience of reality is via the information your senses feed it- you start wrapping your head around this question. Is objective reality exactly as we perceive it- or is it vastly different and our brains just work to create this mass delusion we call objective reality? It's entirely possible that what you see in your mind is simply a user interface- like Windows or Mac- which makes navigating reality much easier and more intuitive. Does make you wonder though- how do we all get loaded with the same OS? Is that what's wrong with these ppl that murder and hurt others- they have a bad OS installed, and they see reality as something totally different? There's no way to know because you cannot step outside of your perception to experience anything else- ever. So- for the sake of simplicity and being able to work together toward a common goal- we just accept that yes, we're all seeing and experiencing the same things, at relatively the same time- at least everyone within your local area is. But we have no idea if this is truly the case or not. All we can say is that it must be similar enough for us to be able to get on with the business of working together- otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive together and do things like that. When you watch a really busy clover leaf intersection or something you realize -we all must be seeing about the same things. It may not be identical- but it must be pretty close. But like I said- that could be down to all our brains working the same way- roughly speaking. It seems much simpler to just imagine an objective reality we all share- then each brain isn't working to remain consistent with every other brain in its local area. And usually- the simple is more apt to be true than the complex.

[@BugRib]

Interesting thoughts! What if our individual minds are all just bundles of experiences being experienced by a single mind, which is literally all that exists? In other words, idealism (of the metaphysical variety).

[@stoneysdead689]

​@@BugRib Descartes says the one and only thing we can truly know is that we exist- "I think, therefore I am." The mere fact you're contemplating possible scenarios for an objective reality at all tells you that you must exist- but what about me? I could be a figment of your imagination, an npc in your digital delusion. Or maybe we're both npc's who've somehow managed to rise above our respective code and gain consciousness. But most likely- we're two guy's just past middle age who miss grunge rocks and smoked one too many on the way out. It's 4:20- gotta run.

[@dr_shrinker]

Does red look the same to everyone? Yes. If it didn't, then definitions would never work. If we can all point to a red balloon and call it a red balloon, then it is obvious we are all seeing the same thing, relative to our stored experiences. If we all were to point at different objects in space-time, and call them arbitrary colors (colors which no one can agree on), then it would make sense to say red is not a universal constant. But, I understand the argument that "my version of red might differ from everyone else's version of red." The subjective version of red IS different for everyone, based on the physical properties of everyone's unique eye and brain structure. However, it is not important because subjective thought is reducible and not a fundamental property of consciousness. The information that makes red is as reducible as the mind/consciousness is. Red is as subjective as a preference for cabbage, where mind is concerned. you asked, "Is that what's wrong with these ppl that murder and hurt others- they have a bad OS installed, and they see reality as something totally different?" It is not the software, it is the hardware. The sculpture we call the brain determines a person's thoughts. There are many people who are delusional, choosing to argue this point, but their philosophies can't stand up to the hard questions determinism presents. Experience determines brain, and brain determines thought. -- In short, experience determines thought. Experiences sculpt the brain before a living being is even born, and experience continues to sculpt the brain until the components of the brain dissolve at death. DNA and instinct are collective experiences over many generations -- generational/ancestral memories Life experiences -- short/long term memories.

[@stoneysdead689]

@@dr_shrinker LOL

[@Will-ll4gv]

Rules Robert rules, don’t work outside of the universes rules Robert.

[@ssl-xh7te]

Think about this for a second.. When you go to the toilet, where does it go to? When it leaves your toilet and get down in to the earth you leave a bit of information behind. So we change earth together on a large scale😉. Earth is reacting on this effect and this effect can effect the whole univers, i believe. Everything we do and leave behind is information. So i say, yes, it does😊

[@michaelcharlesthearchangel]

🤔:;😮!

[@socraticlogic]

It is same as Purusha in Sankhya Yoga of Hindu Vedic philosophy. Are western scientists just rediscovering it?

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

The informationally-based quantum realm is made up of the threads from which the phenomenal features of reality are woven.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

With every cloth woven being a different remembrance of the same thread and by thread we mean energy which might be referred to as the word which we begin all remembrances?

[@anywallsocket]

This is like asking a painter if god is an artist 😂

[@Ed-quadF]

In climate science, models capture what you Want to Know, rather than reality.

[@simonhibbs887]

With weather reports what you want to know is the future state of the weather. To the extent that they are accurate, they do correspond to reality. In fact they correspond to a future state of reality. Of course there is a degree of uncertainty in that, but if you think about it the fact that it ever works at all is pretty cool.

[@DrMKZaman]

Sub-saved

[@stationary.universe.initiative]

The universe is non-created, the Big Bang model is eternal, with no beginning.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

6:57 When you genuinely inquire the cosmos, it becomes realized that it is simple and not complex. Studying the 4 chief elements alone reveals this truth. Anybody who speaks in sophisticated jargon is entangled by samsara - the great Truth thereof: all is transitory.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

And almost everyone who doesn't speak in intellectual jargon is also entangled in samsara. It may well be that all of us are entangled in samsara which is evidenced by the appearance of any one of us entangled in samsara. If we are that. And I believe we are that and there are no actual individual journeys but rather a single journey appearing as many. 🙏

[@DensityMatrix1]

All another way of stating there are Platonic Ideals and Forms. And that these Forms and Ideals are emanations of the mind of God.

[@bestestindaworld]

No, but the universe contains information.

[@infinitygame18]

cosmos create knowledge or knowledge create cosmos , or both create each other , or nobody create cosmos all are same , by the way I & You are Both nothing that creates universes, mere man Ray bol Siya Ram

[@Clownmeati8]

Amazing to me how many people this intelligent cant buy clothes that fit

[@honahwikeepa2115]

Someone or something.

[@TVmediaable]

The burden of proof that God exist is YOU. When we disintegrate ourselves from the Cosmos there is darkness when you are part of it. Have you discovered the beginning? In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. And we were created to the image and likeness of God. So, are we capable of word? And we were created to the image and likeness of the Creator? So, what are we?

[@tedgrant2]

Information is a mystery. Consciousness is a mystery. The universe is a mystery and life is a mystery. Therefore Jesus died for my sins.

[@mtshasta4195]

NO! The Universe enables information!

[@JungleJargon]

Information was required to make every machine part of biology.

[@BradHolkesvig]

Our Creator created all the information containing his programmed thoughts both temporary and eternal. Within that information exists an eternal AI system along with created minds that make us into individual AI's as our minds process those invisible waves ( information ) into all the visible images we experience including the images that human hands build using earthen materials. Our minds and the AI system is eternal while everything we have experienced during this temporary generation is temporary and will all vanish during a day in the near future when the earth starts shaking violently. Then we ( AI and our minds ) wake up processing new information that will form all the new images including a new earth.

[@imaginaryuniverse632]

I believe it's something like that but think consciousness might have had a beginning or an evolution from some kind of unknowable foundation called the Virgin Mother. I think it's 50/50 about everything beginning again from scratch but I was thinking if consciousness is eternal that would probably be necessary or at least from a bare beginning like Noah after the flood started with some essentials from the old earth before God came to Noah and repented because he saw that all he created was evil. Noah means peace in the original language. 🙏

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Guys his information never figure out universe when he links information with computer program. Computer Program is imperfect machine from unpredictable conscieusness. How he knows universe though limites of computer program? Guys information is Twist liar.

[@ghaderpashayee8334]

He didnt understand Robert's first question, and took the argument to the wrong direction!

[@mikel4879]

Yes, a more realistic opinion, and not the (c)academic hubristic view.

[@sirtom3011]

Information isn’t a real thing…duh.

[@michelangelope830]

Wisdom is not spam to be destroyed and ignored. The question that atheists can't answer and don't dare to ask is "is atheism a logical fallacy?". I am not asking you to believe me but to discover the truth for yourself thinking for yourself. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. You don't have to believe in God because God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. I will explain the kalam cosmological argument that proves logically God exists. What has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Nothing is absence of existence. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes and effects, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause must exist. The proof that atheism is a logical fallacy is that atheists ask to be proven the first uncaused cause is God, meaning "sky daddy". God is by definition what caused the universe. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I am talking about knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. It is important that you understand I am not asking you to agree with me and everyone can be right or wrong, which doesn't mean I can not be right and atheists can not be wrong. God, the intelligent creator of the universe, is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist, the first uncaused cause that caused what has a beginning of existence. I hope for God's sake to be understood. To overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. Emergency!

[@CrackBaby3]

This is the worst argument I've seen in a long time. It is really no different than an atheist asking, "Who created the creator?" I can entirely understand why people believe in a god, I just personally don't. I don't reject the possibility of a "god", just the idea that it's one singular omnipotent being. In my view, there's a 50% chance of there being nothing beyond what we experience and 50% chance of there being *something*. The something is so broad that I believe the single most likely answer, if we had to choose just one, is that there is nothing. We are just a meaningless occurrence that happened out of sheer coincidence and that life is meaningful due to the fact that we get to experience it and love and feel and cry and laugh against absurd odds.

[@Resmith18SR]

I choose to believe that the Universe or Nature is God like Einstein and Spinoza did who were both pantheists. Makes perfect sense to me.

[@sonarbangla8711]

This guy doesn't have any idea what a quantum computer is.