The Simulation Hypothesis

2015 ,    »  -   180 Comments
3.6k
8.60
12345678910
Ratings: 8.60/10 from 454 users.
Storyline
The Simulation Hypothesis

Is everything an illusory simulation? Was the world created by a non-physical force that we can communicate with and possibly influence with our minds, thereby participating in the creation of our own reality? These are the grandiose existential questions central to this documentary, which introduces viewers to the concept of the Simulation Hypothesis.

Teasing that there are cutting edge physics experiments that imply Simulation Hypothesis could be true, the film begins by reviewing two primary philosophies regarding the nature of life: materialism and idealism. First introduced by Democritus, materialism credits the atom as the basis for all reality, making consciousness the result of a material process. Plato, on the other hand, believed it is the mind itself that gives way to matter; therefore reality is borne from ideas.

The Simulation Hypothesis, which the filmmakers parallel very heavily against the hit sci-fi movie The Matrix, argues that matter and ideas are the result of a complex digital simulation, something akin to a video game. Theoretical physicists make their case for a programmable universe, positing that there is evidence of computer code to be found in nature and we are, put simply, expressions of a code.

Are we ourselves composed of binary strings of 0s and 1s? Could it be that subatomic particles are nature's answer to the bits and pixels that digital worlds are composed of? Though dense in scientific jargon, there is an underlying creationist belief to Simulation Hypothesis - if, in fact, the world is a program, someone must have written it. But who, or what? The film suggests that humans have an innate mental connection back to this universal programmer through the subconscious.

The Simulation Hypothesis is a thought provoking exploration of the nature of our existence, playing into the universal curiosity of how and why we came to be. Relying heavily on footage from famous movies, animated models, and the occasional interview to illustrate the concepts being presented, this episode takes viewers to the intersection of theology and science in a way that is equal parts educational and fantastical.

180 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Philio

    This might prove fun. I'll wait to see.

  2. Achems_Razor

    I have watched the doc. A well made expose of quantum mechanics 101, and of the great minds of scientific theory, up to date and of things that may be. Highly recommended!

  3. Philio

    Hey Achems, it's been awhile. I agree with your assessment. The discussion ride should be interesting

  4. AssHat900

    Proving the existence of god through editing.

  5. Janeen Clark

    this is all false. go visit your local children hospital cancer ward and look at all those families praying for their dying kids to kid better, look up the statistics at the millions that die everyday look at the reports of children and people kidnapped and raped and tortured and no matter how hard they beg and pray those that live are changed from that experience forever, look at the endless suffering look at the world's religions and how no god or son of god ever said wash your hands after pooping in any holy book that would have saved billions of lives. this idea of a god is so immature and not well thought out we are terrified to look at what is real and for a moment look at the number of accidents that sever people spinal cords and suffer the rest their life car accidents people in coma this is the world that evolved over billions of years and we are suffering until we accept the reality and how IT works. the problem is those that think their thoughts in their head create reality. how many times have you communicated with a person that misunderstood something said and turned into violence simply because they dont realize there is a difference between ideas and reality?. a human being is not one thing only in your head a human being is trillions of atoms and organs and tissue the brain creates consciousness when you get migraine headache you lose vision, when someone is in car accident they might be retarded afterwards if the brain was damaged, this compartmentalization is ruining us. humans create simplified models in their head using language and imagery it is not real you need to test and do science to find out what is real. quantum mechanics is not telling us consciousness is the heart of reality, think about it all your electronics came from the quantum level , try turning off your tv with your mind see if that works, try effecting any electronics around you it is moronic , god of the gaps is all it is retarded logic, wishful thinking, a failure to accept your mortality and the mortality of those you love. we die. we live and we die and we are gone. once it is lost there will never be you again. face it, and then accept the truth and realize how much more valuable that makes us because we are finite creatures , we are machines made of trillions of cells and organs and flesh and a beating heart , so how could there be a soul? what a soul for each of the trillions things that reality shows us we are, its like saying the galaxy is one thing therefore it has a soul , we are a collection of things, only in our brain we create a model that a human being is a single thing, this is a compartmentalization NOT reality.

  6. Janeen Clark

    here your challenge if you subscribe to this bull, make a list of modern day current quantum physicists that believe consciousness is the foundation of reality. dont you think a nobel prize would have been won by basically proving god exists?

  7. Janeen Clark

    all we have here is some dude talking about topics he hasnt even researched the topics he is talking about then mashing things together to say "consciousness is the foundation of reality" comon.

  8. oQ

    Watching this i was reminded of the book Biocentrism by Robert Lanza, a good read. Very interesting documentary.

  9. Sieben Stern

    interesting until the last 10 minutes. just remember they call themselves 'god science' for a reason.

  10. dmxi

    Fascinating idea but one could come to the philosophical conclusion that 'real life & living' diminishes in worth due to the notion that there are infinite copies of all conscious beings so death looses it's fear/grip which contradicts our self-preservation one day we will be lemmings, if you will.

  11. dmxi

    i understand what your getting at but you're missing the point.you are debating subjective situations against objective observations,my dear.

  12. Fabien L'Amour

    It's an interesting documentary but I'd like more than the double slit experiment as proof that the universe is a simulation created by an external consciousness. There are too many assumptions proposed to come to such a conclusion. There is no denying that electrons behave has waves when unobserved but it's a far fetched conclusion that it proves the universe is a simulation. With such an affirmation, the commentator is getting in intelligent design territory for the basic components of physics.

  13. dmxi

    i can only recommend r.lanza's lectures which can be enjoyed on youtube.

  14. Janeen Clark

    its not that there is no argument of simulation theory, in fact physicists are making progress , learning etc. its just the way it is presented in this film is all wrong , nobody studying it says straight out "consciousness is the foundation of reality" saying this is making your mind up before doing the research, we have a long way to go to find out what it means and why. there is nothing that shows that. we know consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain.

  15. Janeen Clark

    exactly, any detector is made out of atoms that interact with the atoms shot through the slit which is atoms also no-one mentions that in these videos.

  16. Janeen Clark

    all those situations are not subjective they are real, people really suffer , there are really millions of people dying everyday , people that pray to a higher power to get better from accidents that caused brain damage or children with cancer etc.

  17. Janeen Clark

    there is no quantum physicists at the leading edge of their field that do these tests in this day and age saying "consciousness is the foundation of reality": they understand it very well and we have shown quantum level to be 2nd order non differential equations every time. there is no mind interacting with atoms all your electronics are tech coming from quantum study you should be able to effect all your tv's microwaves computers cell phones just by thinking with your mind IF this doc is correct, we know that is rubbish. try it your self do some objective testing of it.

  18. Janeen Clark

    if this doc was true every time you put a cell phone to your head your thoughts would cause it to scramble all up and act up be unstable take a 9v and a light bulb try to turn it off with your mind.people would not have have pacemakers because it would be too unstable depending on human emotional state this is all testable to see if thoughts effect quantum level . all electronics are quantum level and are stable as s*it you should be able to effect it with your mind right? hahahah bullsh*it.

  19. Janeen Clark

    you should be able to go outside your house "observe" your power cable running from your house and watch the electricity turn into a wave and off the power wire just by thinking about it . i just tried it and it failed.

  20. dmxi

    that was a good'n!thanks for the smile.

  21. dmxi

    the message is that particles can take two properties & not go destructivley haywire when observed. it's an in-built mechanism we still have to decipher rather scratching disbelieving brains that conclude :"bullsht!"
    if you want to prove "bullsht" then you have to conquer the repeatable tests & explain in verifiable mathmatics,me ole chap/chapette .

  22. Fabien L'Amour

    I had the same idea, if the behavior changes when there is an observer or an observation instrument, why didn't they research if the effect is caused by the observer or instrument instead saying it is caused by consciousness? One would think a single electron can be influenced by the mere presence of these objects or some other unknown process apart consciousness.

  23. WTC7

    That is a very good point and it actually made me think. On the other hand, the double slit experiment shows that the electron behaves as a single particle when not observed, which would mean that the detector and the barrier are not influencing the change of its behavior - even though they are made of the same substance (just like the observer or the observing instrument). This may lead to a logical conclusion that it is the intent to observe that actually makes all the difference. Intent (a thought) may - from the quantum world perspective - be understood as an action, an activity that disturbs the quantum world status quo and provokes a reaction. And intent is a conscious action.

  24. a_no_n

    I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say no.

  25. Simple Simon Says

    A very very old story, there was a being of light that was free and immortal, the being was captured and trapped in a vessel the shape of a cylinder, in the cylinder they were compressed and slowly their being turned into matter and their body became the universe while their being fragmented and became all life, the pressure was such that only the most stable element would be left when their body had been crushed and turned into matter and that element is gold. this story was told in one form or another thousands of years ago, so someone had that idea many thousands of years ago or was it something they were told?

  26. Fabien L'Amour

    Could be but hard to prove, maybe it should be trialed with different animals to see if they get the same results. Maybe it will reveal that conscience has no link with the events or that reptiles have a conscience when it comes to the quantum world... Or maybe try it with a corpse, it might reveal ghosts really exist!

  27. Fabien L'Amour

    Or was it pure invention by some guy a few thousands of years ago?

    I can make one up too, There was a being of energy that was immortal but trapped in a single point of space surrounded by the great nothing then all of a sudden for reasons unknown he expanded to 10 trillion trillion light years and his energy coalesced into matter which in turn conglomerated into stars and planets. His name was Singu Larity.

  28. Fabien L'Amour

    That is exactly what a simulation would say :D

  29. Janeen Clark

    your confused my response is directly to specific statements made in the film by the narrator not over all in general of topic at hand.

  30. Janeen Clark

    i agree with you that is why the specific statement" consciousness is the foundation of reality" is bull. no evidence of that. no test ever confirmed that or could confirm it as far as we know because consciousness is not a single thing but a description if billions of cells working together to cr4ete an emergent phenomenon we compartmentalize into a word. if consciousness can be or ever has been shown to be something else, please present me to that thanks

  31. Janeen Clark

    so we put any type detector (made of atoms) in a test about behavior of atoms in which we know reacts with other atoms and surprised when get a diff result when no detector (made of atoms) is there to interfere with the atoms tested? this is why the quantum physicists at the top of their field and most knowledge and respect in the community (comparing results with each other and coming to consensus based on totality of current knowledge in field) , none of them are intelligent design proponents.

  32. Janeen Clark

    what ever reality shows us to be i have no choice but to accept it or get hurt by my expectations and assumptions that do not match with how reality works in that specific area. however cherry picking information to fit an already chosen world view is a different approach entirely and is the one presented by this narrator . i do however find the topic itself whether reality is a simulation fascinating, and would love to now the truth not jump to any conclusions . there are more than 10 spots in the film where the narrator cherry picks a portion of information or even quote mining then smashes it together with his pre-existing worldview I call it B.S. (bad science)

  33. Janeen Clark

    he says quantum effects have no limit going into the larger realm that what my comment about also about consciousness being reality deepk chopra woowoo

  34. edgedweller

    In the advent of not being real, its fun to watch and read how quickly those closed minded, ego inflated individuals erupt into denial.

  35. a_no_n

    true...But isn't this whole theory really just re purposed and modernised Judaism?

  36. Simple Simon Says

    "someone had that idea many thousands of years ago " = "Or was it pure invention by some guy a few thousands of years ago", not very bright are you?

  37. Fabien L'Amour

    It's theism for sure, my knowledge of Judaism is too limited to confirm.

  38. Fabien L'Amour

    If you start with a premise that the universe is a simulation, there is no such thing as real life. The whole simulation is controlled by the simulator(s) so not only life but the whole universe can be turned off at any point or the system generating it can malfunction.

  39. Fabien L'Amour

    No worry, they are all simulated denials.

  40. DigiWongaDude

    Not necessarily... it could be self perpetuating, self repairing, self sustaining and so on. For example (on a much smaller scale) try turning off the internet. Besides which, our universe could end at any moment if bumped by another part of a so called 'multi-verse' (universe bubbles or membranes).

    So better then to not 'start' with a simulation premise (which is a philosophical one tenuously stretched to a hypothesis) and focus more on the consequences of a small, yet easily repeatable, experiment that exposes a glaring hole (or two) in how we believed the universe actually works. Waves of probability? Though vague and full of potential, they reveal how far we have come and still have to go. In other words stuff like this teaches us, or should teach us, humility - which to my mind is no bad thing. ;-)

  41. Nick van Gils

    It's quite a leap from finding out the universe has properties consistent with a computer simulation to proving it as fact. However interesting this documentary is, it remains speculation for a large part. I would have reservations about calling the universe a simulation until we understand more about the relation between space and time in the context of quantum physics. The evidence could surely be interpreted as the result of a simulation, that I will gladly admit. But to dismiss other explanations (which, oddly, this documentary does not explore) would be foolish. That includes dismissing materialism until we know more.

  42. dmxi

    thats why this doc is segmented under 'philosophy'!

  43. Fabien L'Amour

    Self perpetuating, repairing and sustaining photons, electrons and so on???

  44. WTC7

    That is another interesting thought. I have a dog and I am certain that animals are conscious, at least to some degree when compared to humans. The thing there would be to make him (my dog Shaka) interested in what happens to an electron during the double split experiment. For some reason, as smart as I know he is, I don't think he would show an interest in the expriment, i.e. I don't think he would display the intent to observe & would probably not influence the change of electron's behaviour.

    But I 100% agree that it would be a good way to further prove the validity of the experiment!

  45. Achems_Razor

    Don't know; try this.

    (Quantum Theory: If a tree fall in Forest...| oup blog)

    blog Dot oup Dot com / 2011 / 02 / quantum

  46. cyberdog

    This was highly entertaining on a technical level. Some food for thought, though it is incredibly difficult to draw final conclusions without a lot more evidence (either for or against this hypothesis) After watching this, I had spent some more time catching up with the more boring (yet also entertaining, only as Neil can make it) documentaries, discussions and meeting with Neil deGrasse Tyson as well as James Gates, in order to try gain some more insight. I have not found much that goes more into depth, so it is still difficult to come to any conclusion. But there is absolutely no doubt that we are living in one of the most exciting scientific times in the history of mankind. Whether technology and A.I will be reaching a singularity in short term is also still up for debate (Understandably that is the opposite side of the spectrum of us finding out that we are part of a technology singularity, though, I personally believe that they will both end with the same result). What is clear is that with quantum computing and with advances in technology, everything about human beings will be irrevocably changed over the next few decades. As much or more than we have changed over the last century or so with the advent of silicon computing. Just think of the possibilities. Quantum communicator that works instantaneously over any portion of space. Instantaneous unlimited bandwidth. Communication across galaxies. And on and on...

  47. cyberdog

    "But to dismiss other explanations" - Point me in the direction where I could find these, I am looking for them.

  48. CapnCanard

    I really enjoyed this doc. I was glad to see Thomas Campbell featured, though I would like to see a doc that goes deep into his ideas of "virtual realiy" as a model for our reality, perhaps exploring his my big T.O.E.(Theory Of Everything). Though I do suspect that that would seriously piss of those tired old materialists. Like Max Planck said: "Brilliant new ideas don't win because they are brilliant idea. The new ideas "win" whenl those old scientist die and are replaced by younger scientists." lol

    However, David Bohm wasn't even mentioned! WTF??? "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"! certainly not a fully developed theory but still food for thought that gives credence to the Holographic ideal/paradigm as well as ideas of a digital simulation(s) etc.

    TDF, this was a good one.

  49. Janeen Clark

    point well taken sir lol haha

  50. Janeen Clark

    love for anyone to jump in on this , but have we ever had evidence that shown consciousness could possibly be something that can exist outside of a brain body etc? its just thrown in their with these concepts and made as an assumption ,but one problem with that and that is that assumption is more extraordinary than our entire universe and multiverse and everything contained within because reality that we do know of is complex interacting systems add up to be something real, say a human being, in reality there is no such thing a human being is not one thing but all the trillions of cells that work together to add up to be what we call a human being , the earth is not one thing the galaxy is not one thing , nothing we know of is one thing that cannot be broken down further yet some people take the word consciousness and treat it as it could exist in reality as one thing. please jump in on this.

  51. Janeen Clark

    this is why a soul is impossible because a human being is not even one thing our sense of self comes from all the trillions interactions in our mind and body and tests confirm, any injuries actually alter your consciousness, a heroine addiction going through withdrawal close to death is experiencing an entirely different conscious than the same person healthy a person with their spinal cord damaged has completely different consciousness. it is only in the human brain using language and ideas anything exists as a single thing, but science shows us in reality the one thing is not real the thing IS everything it is built of. call it materialism , i call it learning. and will go as far to say no matter how much more we learn some things will stay the same except maybe more intricate understanding coupled with a overarching understanding from the interaction with other systems.

  52. Janeen Clark

    docs like this present information in way where they present it like they are unable to differentiate between their thoughts and language used to describe something and concepts and reality itself. consciousness is a word. and that word describes a complex system built from trillions of parts and processes. so to just use language in a way like "consciousness is the foundation of reality" how could that be truth? if it is we certainly have not even slightly uncovered that because we only know of consciousness in the way it relates to being an emergent phenomenon of trillions of interacting systems . we envision in our mind this process and shrink it down to language using a word, but reality is not what we think or language we use. reality exists whether we were born or not whether we like it or not

  53. Fabien L'Amour

    Here are a few :

    A Plausible Explanation of the double-slit Experiment in Quantum Physics by Constantinos Ragazas

    A non-quantum mechanical explanation of the single photon double slit experiment. Karl Otto Greulich. Fritz Lipmann Institute Beutenbergstr

    Superposition revisited: Proposed resolution of double-slit experiment paradox using Feynman path integral formalism.

  54. ButteredBread

    I swear we are all part of a game some kid from another dimension got for the holidays. I like how the developer of that game threw in The Matrix and The Sims as Easter eggs. The reason why time seems to be moving faster and faster as we get older is because he keeps updating his processor. I can't wait til he gets the new DLC where I'm a super secret spy who drinks martinis and gets all the ladies.

  55. TheDanishViking

    This is the most interesting doc I have seen in a long time. I have heard about the double slit experiment before, but I was not aware that it was so interesting - and that so many experiments are still performed on this stuff. The fact that also molecules - perhaps even larger proteins - can also show particle/wave behaviour is new to me!
    Whether the results allows to conclude that the world is a simulation seems a bit far fetched. For example, just because we cannot explain or understand something it does not call for the introduction of even more strange phenomenons, right? However, I admit I was blown away while watching. Great stuff. Very well made.

  56. cyberdog

    Thank you! I will have a look through those in more detail. Though, just on the titles, those do appear to be addressing entirely different issues on entirely different levels, also bearing in mind that what is being proposed in the document is really new compared to any propositions by Feynman et al. And I have little doubt that they would have taken all that older material into consideration when they had produced their conclusion. It should be quite entertaining to dig through that nevertheless.

  57. Fabien L'Amour

    I thought you meant alternative explanations about what is going on in the experiment.

    If you are looking for quantum derived alternatives for the Copenhagen interpretation (42%), here are some you might want to look into from a poll conducted with physicists as their preferred choice when asked the question :

    "What is your favorite interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?"

    Many worlds interpretation (18%)
    Information based interpretation (24%)
    Objective collapse interpretation (9%)
    Quantum Bayesanism interpretation (6%)
    Relational quantum mechanics interpretation (6%)

  58. Janeen Clark

    or time could feel like it is going faster because of mathematics, that is each hour or day becomes a smaller percentage of your total life lived so far , but i could be an id**t to :D

  59. Janeen Clark

    very true. to me it seems slightly suspicious that the only "intelligent designer" possible is the one that is identical to a reality in which there is no intelligent designer at all ;o

  60. Fabien L'Amour

    All I can say is that it's a very anthropocentric hypothesis when it says that consciousness is the key to explain the collapse of the wave. I don't think the scientists behind the experiments went as far as that. Scientists would need to explain what consciousness clearly is before attributing it an effect on the experiment. As far as I know, it hasn't been done and you won't find consciousness in related scientific papers.

    The philosophical concept seems to derive from an interpretation of what scientists describe as the observer. A better term instead of observer might be a measurement or maybe even a perception. What is really going on is still mysterious for scientists.

    Science philosophers aren't held to the same standards so they can elaborate far fetched hypotheses as they see fit such as the simulation hypothesis or the many worlds hypothesis.

    As part of the scientific method, a hypothesis is the stage where a testable statement is generated. A scientific hypothesis is usually an original idea generated from data, or from existing theories, which is tested for its ability to explain and predict phenomena. I am unsure if the simulation statement is scientifically testable.

  61. dmxi

    i recommend lectures by robert lanza on 'biocentrism' if interested by this topic which tries to explain this more specific contrary to the 'intelligent design' approach.you can find him easily on't 'tube'.

  62. cyberdog

    The discussion is centered around the simulation hypothesis. Is that not the title? In particular what piqued my interest was the part of Nick's statement: "The evidence could surely be interpreted as the result of a simulation, that I will gladly admit. But to dismiss other explanations (which, oddly, this documentary does not explore)".
    I am intrigued to find out about alternative explanations for this code. And to this I am keenly looking for any alternative explanations. I think you may have perhaps misinterpreted what was said. Perhaps I was not very clear, I do apologize.

  63. Fabien L'Amour

    James Gates affirmation that he found computer code in string theory equations?

  64. Fabien L'Amour

    You might be interested in an interview I found on Soundcloud. It's titled "S. James Gates, Uncovering the Codes for Reality" (June 6, 2013)

    In the first segment, he talks about his life, the code he discovered in String theory, mathematics, the magic of Harry Potter, The Matrix movie, John Wheeler, Albert Einstein and a few other things including Physicist Eugene Wigner's article "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

    My take is he doesn't sound completely sold on the idea that we live in a simulation. His remark on Eugene Wigner's article is at the 24 minutes mark.

  65. M.LeFaux

    I am just a few minutes into the doc, but is it not the case that we could very well be in a simulated world (as proposed by Bostrom) by our future selves, which would mean that it does not violate the facets of materialism since that future race would need to use something to create/ run this simulation?

  66. cyberdog

    Yes, or as he had specified it several times, the mathematics that describe this "Theory of everything". Currently my only query of this is that it is based on a quantum structure. Quantum systems do not use binary. They use qbits. so would this 'code' really even apply to it or even be relevant? Can this weighted binary structure really be used in a quantum system. After all binary is something that we developed, it is not really something that has been natural.

    Very interesting indeed.

  67. Fabien L'Amour

    In an interview I listened to, it doesn't seem like he thinks it's relevant. He said it just fun to think about it.

  68. Fabien L'Amour

    As many physicist would reply, possible but not very probable. Until a complete testable hypothesis is proposed, it's a possibility amongst others.

    Brian Eggleston of Stanford published an interesting review of Bostrom's simulation argument.

  69. dewflirt

    Double slit confusion! Do they do these experiments in a dark room?

  70. Fabien L'Amour

    You can view the actual photon double-slit experiment if you look for "

    Prof Anton Zeilinger Shows the Double-slit Experiment" on dailymotion. You can view the laser beam and how light is excluded.

    I could not locate a video of the electron slit experiment. There wouldn't be much to see except the apparatus as you can't see electrons.

  71. M.LeFaux

    Lol and this is more probable? I will look into that, thanks :)

  72. My Thoughts

    Really enjoyed this. I would recommend it to anyone that is interested in quantum physics even if you may not be real familiar with it. This documentary answers many questions but can also lead you into wanting to know more....

  73. My Thoughts

    No that is an interesting thought.

  74. robert elliot

    The Vedas were also onto a lot of this stuff 4000 years ago - that material reality is an illusion. I think it's because people didn't have all the distractions back then so they spent a lot of time in meditative states where all the knowledge of the universe is available if one is able to access and make sense of it.

  75. cyberdog

    Thank you for the recommendation. I did enjoy the interview, I was also pleasantly surprised on the interviewers knowledge, or at least her research into the fields, especially considering the highly technical subject matter. Though the interview is really centered around the fascinating personal journey of Mr Gates. And what had influenced his journey. It does not go into discussing the details of the theory. So it is difficult to come away with any finale outcome. I do see your point on him not being entirely sold, it comes across to me as if he is just pronouncing, well this is what was found, this is our interpretation, and do with it what you will. Which is a great way to open discussion and debate. Though it is a bit of a frustrating position for us non theoretical physicists who are hoping for a bit more concrete statement, especially considering we have not developed the abilities to embark upon finding the answers ourselves, rather we are dependent on the ground breaking work of these giants. That being said, I do feel that they are misrepresenting terminology. When they use the word code when they in actuality referring to and mean formula, I feel that this is not being entirely honest. Perhaps it is just nitpicking from my side. Either way, it is very exciting times indeed.

  76. robert elliot

    They *did* do that. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment which was depicted in the video (although I doubt anyone who was unfamiliar with it would have been able to follow - it takes some time and effort to understand.) proved that the detector was not interfering with the results since it uses no detector and finds the same effect. More than that, it showed that the photons were consistent (wave or partlcle/interference pattern or clump pattern) *through time* with their entangled twins before the fate of those twins had even been determined (whether it's "which path" info would be erased or not - 50/50 chance).

  77. Janeen Clark

    ummm call me nuts but watching a film ABOUT quantum physics MAY be a better option if your interested in that.

  78. Janeen Clark

    lets try it ourselves.
    1. human being consciousness? check
    2. 9v battery light bulb a quantum system? check
    3. connect battery to light bulb hold in hand think real hard! express your consciousness! you should be able to disrupt the quantum state and get it to flicker if your consciousness effects quantum level in any way meaningful.
    4. results nothing.
    5. consciousness does not effect the quantum field in a way meaningful to reality and is not tied to it .

  79. Janeen Clark

    the point is modern cell phones would be impossible to work because consciousness with constantly disrupt it this goes for all electronics never would be stable enough to function even for 5 mins, now if consciousness only effects a single photon or electron or buckyball how could that possibly be meaningful in any way given consciousness clearly does not effect anything on larger scale at the level we live our lives?

  80. Achems_Razor

    "No matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities"
    Stephen Hawking; 'The Grand Design'

    Do you wanna-be a scientist? check out M theory, string theory, many worlds theory, parallel universes, 26 dimensions, check the infinite sea of probabilities where (we) flip the universe every Planck second by our probable actions, Shrodengers Cat, Bells Theorem, spacetime is static, an illusion. Richard Feynman " the sum over histories." Read all of Brian Greene books. Julian Barbour, "End Of Time". And on and on. Might give you some answers.

  81. Fabien L'Amour

    It's actually a review of Bostrom's probability equations.

  82. Philip Fong

    Have you heard about water memory? How sound wave and consciousness affect its crystal formation?

  83. Fabien L'Amour

    An adult human being has approximately 100 000 billion living cells. It could be trillions if you include the cells that died and got replaced. I agree that consciousness needs to get defined and studied in depth before affirming it has an effect on leptons and bosons.

  84. Philip Fong

    Have you dream of the future or your own death? What about deja vu in person not the science? Try to void all the terms used to describe God, ghost, spirit, soul, angel... what was it that gave it their meaning?

    Where is the build mechanism or blueprint of all living things? Not found in DNA, the memory system we cannot see that made us automated biological machine but each human has independent thinking unlike other animals that are almost identical be it any species.

    Our tooth are pre-made inside the skull before we are born so are woman's egg, our brain processes information about six seconds ahead of our action proved that we are product of intentional creation, who we think we are is just product of the society.

    I have no religion, used to behave like an atheist but I do believe we are created after comparing science and phenomena experienced in person.
    Evolution is the process of making but if without intention (goal), it will not have diversity and memory system.

  85. Fabien L'Amour

    Sean Carroll from Caltech has a great lecture titled "Particles, Fields and the future of particle physics" which is more interesting to gain knowledge about reality than this video.

  86. dewflirt

    Now I'm torn. Which should I watch first, this or paint drying? Not enough popcorn for both ;)

  87. Don Duncan

    Long before the scientific method theories evolved from entertaining stories. Contradiction was not even identified but it was routine. Some accepted two contradicting ideas, but not at once, alternating or jumping from one to the other. These mental processes are now recognized as pathological. They don't work, i.e., they don't help us deal with reality. They do the opposite, sometimes resulting in injury or death. Thinking, while necessary to survive was taken for granted and varied in effectiveness by individual. Finally, Aristotle took on the task of "thinking about thinking". He invented logic, and laid the foundation for science. He was objective, not subjective, i.e., real meant outside of our fantasy. Fantasy could be based in reality or not, therefore it could not be considered knowledge. It's only logical. If he could have debated Descartes he would have told him he got it backwards, i.e., "I am, therefore I think". We are born with a mind, we don't think ourselves into existence.

    Just because we are aware of our consciousness first, that fact does not mean we are conscious before we exist.

  88. Fabien L'Amour

    You can watch paint drying on your nails while watching the video ;)
    Don't eat the popcorn with your freshly painted hand :D

  89. Janeen Clark

    the evidence shows consciousness that humans has is a simulation or not reality. our brain creates models and virtual concepts that are not the real thing when we think of a object we have a model of it the reality of that object is the components .

  90. Janeen Clark

    the universe around billions of years simple things turn into more complex things by forces acting upon slowly over long time we evolved. what we consider "consciousness" slow and gradually, this is what really happened and this story of reality is not showing "consciousness" as the foundation of reality, it is showing many complex iterations in our body and brain come together where we experience a simulation of our own consciousness being one thing. our consciousness is not one thing and nothing real is one thing but the all the parts that make it up.

  91. Janeen Clark

    yes i am well familiar with the work as well as a person not in that field as a job can be i suppose . what are the conclusions you are jumping to based on quantum mechanics? or what i mean is what are you suggesting?

  92. Janeen Clark

    m theory and string theory have no evidence to be true in any way it is just mathematics and speculation however interesting there is no evidence strings are actually there ,as far as quantum theory , answer why electronic devices are able to be stable if you think consciousness has some connection to quantum level all the way up to the large level we are at which is what this film says.

  93. Janeen Clark

    give me a place where brain greene says consciousness is the foundation of reality.richard feynman huh?

    "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand."
    Richard Feynman

    "..By contrast, almost universally religions are stuck. They talk about
    ageless revelations that were as true several thousand years ago as they
    are now. They claim that a holy book or holy person has revealed all
    that can be known about the ultimate reality of the cosmos, so take it
    or leave it." Brian Greene

  94. Janeen Clark

    “When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them
    that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the
    big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like
    asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it
    doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise. We are
    each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest
    explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one
    directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is
    probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to
    appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely
    grateful.”STEVEN HAWKING

  95. Janeen Clark

    "Nature has no reverence towards life. Nature treats life as though it
    were the most valueless thing in the world. … Nature does not act by
    purposes." Erwin schrodinger

  96. Janeen Clark

    "I cannot imagine a
    God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes
    are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection
    of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the
    death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through
    fear or ridiculous egotisms."
    -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

  97. Fabien L'Amour

    Some people believe we are in a simulation created by humans of the future to research their ancestry. Why they think we are not simply the real ancestry of the future I don't understand but it's their hypothesis. Occam's razor is a problem with that hypothesis as it is a very complex solution to reality with numerous assumptions.

  98. Janeen Clark

    yes, but we have no evidence that shows us that theory is more than a product of our imagination.

  99. Janeen Clark

    the double slit exp works the way it does because the detectors are made of atoms interacting with the atoms in the exp this is common knowledge as quantum mechanics is a deterministic system calculated easily by mathematics this is why electronics are able to work at all . we would see a wildly different reality if consciousness effected the quantum realm and or if realty where intelligently designed.

  100. Janeen Clark

    sit on your butt and for a year and just wish for money to come to you see what happens , wish for your family members suffering from a terrible accident to get better without the aid of science, wish for the world to be a better place and do nothing about it, this was done already for thousands of years before we started caring about how reality actually is we have the evidence the only difference that can be made is the acceptance of reality and do things the way they really work , humans cannot achieve crap through wishful thinking alone or thinking reality conforms to language used in our brain turned into models of reality.

  101. Fabien L'Amour

    You are right but I don't agree that consciousness is proven as the source of the collapse of the wave. The measurement is the source in my opinion.

    I read this paper "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness" by Shan Yu from the Max Planck institute for brain research and Danko Nikolio from Frankfurt's Institute for Advanced Studies published in Annalen der Physik. Here are excerpts :

    "Do the present analyses really tell us something about the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics? One may argue that with the current experimental setup (shown in Fig. 1), present-day quantum mechanics can predict, correctly, no interference pattern in D0. This seems to hold irrespective of what happens with the idler photons (except for “erasing” the “which-path” information that is carried by those photons, see [24]), and certainly irrespective of whether a conscious observer is involved and where the attention of this observer is directed to. Therefore, this setup cannot tell us anything new about the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics that we did not know before."

    "In conclusion, the available evidence does not indicate that the observer’s explicit phenomenal representation about the outcome of a measurement plays a role in collapsing the wave function. Thus, the idea that by mere observation the experimenter creates physical reality does not seem viable. This supports Wigner’s opinion in his later years and promises to fulfill his hopes – that we “will not embrace solipsism” and “will let us admit that the world really exists”

  102. Janeen Clark

    put your head near your computer monitor "consciousness " should be interfering with the quantum reality that monitor works on right?

  103. Janeen Clark

    or it is a possibility that "simulations" are modeled after this world not the other way around. look at a video game the sims. it called a "simulation" because there are virtual chairs and people and houses. it is a cheap copy of this reality that our brain created models of . so for this reality to truly be a "simulation" that means the chair you have in your house and your house are simplistic knockoff versions of chairs and houses in another realm that are more detailed . we simply have no evidence to think that is something other than non-sense , yet we do have evidence that "consciousness" at we have it or anything we know has it is virtual itself compared to reality .this is terrible for the simulation argument the evidence shows the reverse ,reality is real be WE are fake.just a collections of processes that all come together that give us the impression that a human being is one thing, but a human being is no more one thing then our galaxy is one thing, our brain works for no other reason than to make virtual models of what is reality around us at the scale we live at with our senses and time scale.

  104. Fabien L'Amour

    Yes, I am not trying to justify it, only trying to show it doesn't have to be about God. The simulation could be a simulation running in a simulation that is itself part of a simulation. It explains very little about anything really.

  105. Janeen Clark

    people get violent from misunderstanding situations and what other say and mean by language . when we do not deal with things how they actually are we make no progress these are evidence that we must conform to reality , not that reality conforms to our beliefs or ideas or concepts.

  106. Fabien L'Amour

    yes, sorry, I don't really have much time to discuss further, have a nice day.

  107. Janeen Clark

    learning is the way to understand reality. if consciousness was foundation of reality people would be able to gain access to information simply from meditation or wishing but when we look at the history of the world jesus christ knew nothing of bacteria if you dont wash your hands ,people didnt know things deadly things and billions died all because they did not have knowledge pertinent to their survival. when we became interested in conforming our brains to how things actually work ,progress happened .now there are people that want to undo all that and go back to the stone age by thinking reality conforms to your measly brain?

  108. Achems_Razor

    You do not have to follow my lead from Quoting from authority as I did. All the Quoting you have presented does not mean much, what I am getting at is you may ask questions, but do not portray yourself as if you know what consciousness is or not what it is, or what it is capable or not capable of doing. Read all the hundreds and hundreds+ of scientific books/papers and religions/ spirituality/ Eastern Religions as I did and still, as everyone else, I know very little, no one will know everything unless they come up with "TOE" Good Luck!

  109. My Thoughts

    I didn't say that this film was all about quantum physics although it did touch on it. Since I am interested in the subject this documentary helped me understand some beginnings on physics itself and the people from long ago that were great pioneers in this field. I am just a beginner and will never claim I am in anyway well versed regarding the science.

  110. robert elliot

    That is correct. It's not the presence of consciousness but the information itself, generated by the experiment (the "which path" information which, if subsequently erased by the scientists, results again in an interference pattern. For another example, if the detector at the slits is turned on but the results are not recorded, then the wave pattern doesn't collapse, so it's the recording of the "which path" information that is directly causing the collapse). Consciousness is, in a sense, the "reason" for the collapse but only indirectly (since this reality is a kind of playground for fragments of consciousness to evolve through interacting with each other, according to Tom Campbell). TC calls the universe an information-based virtual reality.

  111. robert elliot

    Tom has tons of videos on Youtube. He's been giving lectures around the world and putting them on YT for a few years now. He also does extensive Q&As.

  112. Janeen Clark

    i agree with with you on that,it is the film here that portrays as knowing those things for which you speak.

  113. Janeen Clark

    I am with you on that .that is exactly why i wish in the film the narrator presented hiis view as asking a question instead of making clear cut claims that nobody can have knowledge of and claims that directly go against 50 years of human progress in science.

  114. Janeen Clark

    for example atoms behaving different because a detector made of atoms is placed near by vs no detector , think about that for moment.

  115. Janeen Clark

    no matter what we learn for the future reality is 4.55 billions years older than "consciousness" this means reality created consciousness not the other way around you can learn more about gravity or learn more about laws but science can never learn that reality was intelligently designed , because it goes against how reality actually works. simple things turn into complicated things over mass time scale through forces , this is opposite of consciousness being foundation of reality. consciousness is not real in any shape or form , consciousness is what we experience from trillions of operations and signals coming together from our brain and body it is trillions of things just like galaxy is trillions of stars. ye no person claims the galaxy has a soul.

  116. Janeen Clark

    that is my point of view IF it is a sim too, bu the guy in this film uses pseudo science to claim god is real and science uncovered it.

  117. Janeen Clark

    biggest problem is what we learned is consciousness is a simulation and reality is real that is the opposite of simulation theory.

  118. Janeen Clark

    well i don't know how you could clump together things which are true (science) with things that are conjecture (religion philosophy etc)

  119. Janeen Clark

    it could be a simulation from natural causes with no intelligent design

    or could not be.

  120. Janeen Clark

    Electricity -

    a. The physical phenomena arising from the behavior of electrons and protons that is caused by the attraction of particles with opposite charges and the repulsion of particles with the same charge.
    Electronics- a device that deals with the uses and effects of electrons

    now take a laptop it works by trillions of electrons used in a deterministic calculated way. so accurate as you can manufacture millions of the same model of laptop and they all work the same most part this is testament to accuracy of determinism regarding quantum mechanics.

    If consciousness could effect the quantum level no computer on earth could ever runs without crashing for more than 1 second at a time because a computer only works because quantum realm does NOT interact with consciousness, this goes for every electronic device every created. but i guess the people that purpose "consciousness the foundation of all reality" never thought it that far through yet.

  121. Fabien L'Amour

    mmm, a simulation requires a model, can nature elaborate a model without intelligence behind it?

  122. Belinda Frank

    Finally, proof of The Law of Attraction. Something to be happy about eh?

  123. DigiWongaDude

    OK so you simply prefer Democritus' materialism point of view over Plato's idealism. Well this is philosophy so ok, but as the doc maker says: "this is a very, very old debate." ...until recently. He claims "science has finally accumulated enough evidence to settle it once and for all.".

    So let's not chase our tails debating Plato vs. Democritus anymore (you've made your view clear on where you stand). Instead, has science accumulated sufficient evidence to settle the debate? In the opinion of the doc maker the answer would be yes. In your opinion it has not. It really is just as simple as that. So please, move on.

    There's a lot of interesting science in this one, and plenty to discuss without trying to build a campaign for red vs blue.

  124. DigiWongaDude

    You're talking about the double slit experiment outcomes?? :-/

    ...why are you swapping consciousness for observation / detection? The detector is not necessarily a conscious entity. There are important outcomes from this, deserving serious inquiry, which you seem to be overlooking for frivolous conjecture (the worst kind of conjecture).

    People observing the double slit experiment can see the interference pattern on the back wall, without appearing to have "affected it".

    Trying to observe (detect) which of the two slits the electron or photon went through is what affects it, and the unexpected two-stripe pattern is seen as a result.

    ...But the mystery deepens greatly: did you get through the third iteration where the electron appeared to decide how it would 'behave' BEFORE it was observed by the detector? What a concept! What consequences! Time is an illusion, said Mr Einstein.

    Staring at the experiment (or any other electronic device with your mind's eyes) is not sufficient to produce the evidential changes seen.

  125. DigiWongaDude

    Yeah there's the "problem of mental causation", specifically the "exclusion problem". The "mind-body problem", famously described by Rene Descartes in the 17th century, pre-aristolian philosophers in Europe and also references to it in Asia. Sometimes called dualism vs. monism, it's a similar debate to your materialism vs idealism stand.

    Each side can argue the other because it is not about producing "evidence", it's about asserting philosophical questioning. For example, you have no way of producing evidence of what reality actually is without it being a subjective personal interpretation. These are philosophical ideas and positions. They have no place in the materialist monist world, yet there they are, existing and thriving.

    On a final note, there is "emergent materialism" and the resulting book "The Ghost in the Machine", a 1967 book about philosophical psychology by Arthur Koestler. Highly influential for it's ideas at the time (and not too dissimilar from your own views of emergence), but today is criticized and not taken seriously. That is not to suggest your views are wrong. Just that they are only part of the answer, not the whole answer.

  126. Samantha

    There is not one with out the other the theory itself is very useful it both has and will continue to help us determine and create so many things but is a unsolvable theory because regardless of score they are both true.

  127. Bob

    What about the simulations created by humankind.. Start there. When finished, continue on finding out who created the whole damn thing after that. /Bo8

  128. edgedweller

    explain 100th monkey effect

  129. edgedweller

    what ru supposing we should measure?

  130. edgedweller

    "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." Albert Einstein.

  131. FollowTheFacts

    ...a fascinating and very well made documentary....

  132. Ian Newman

    Didactic and preachy. Just another another future ex-paradigm.

  133. Mox

    All these are entertaining intellectual exercises, but let's admit: we don't know anything and never will. So let's focus on how to put food on the table and pay the bills. Oh, and peace and freedom and justice and the pursuit of happiness :)

  134. Janeen Clark

    materialism is a term psuedo- science people use.

  135. Janeen Clark

    democritis had less knowledge than a 7 year old does today about virus disease bacteria etc. anything he might have guessed right he knew in a context absent of the knowledge we have today about reality. if he had access to what we now ,there is no telling what his views would be this shows arguing about any points of view from thousands of years ago is obsolete and desperate. list all the current master minds of quantum mechanics that actually do the double slit and highly regarded as being honest scientist with long reputation show a list of these that believe the human mind has a soul and a man in the clouds made a video game we are currently playing .

  136. Janeen Clark

    its easy top get suckered into a belief that we live forever and all our family members and friends we love don't really die, the human condition is desperate to believe this built into the ego. especially if under the veil of science because its like "yes, i cant trust this." bu the truth is science has uncovered the opposite . science shows us our beliefs are just language in the brain ,our consciousness is nothing but trillions of interactions in the body and brain collaborating to create what is perceived by us to be a single thing we are not single things. science has shown reality to be opposite of intelligent design on every level all scales , on scale of creation or earth, on scale of creation of solar system on scale of galaxy and on scale of universe and beyond there is nothing significant about us in the sense of being created by something more complex than our own experience of consciousness, instead very simple things affected by laws of nature create more complex things over billions of years to eventually arrive at " human consciousness " the nick name we give trillions of processes. anything we think in our head is nonsensical UNTIL we check reality to see if it makes sense ,if not it is imagination like a painting or creating a song, yet religion and spirituality is the imagination we have not yet recognized as a beautiful painting of ideas with colors and musical notes like a perfect novel or an amazing tv series , this is the gift of evolution , a species slowly arising to look back on where it came from and slowly realizing what we truly are ,from the birth and death of the stars to the oceans and the plants the bugs then the animals all the way up to us we are the universe literally starring back and the truth is much more amazing than any fairly tale , we live and we die gone forever much more precious than if we were immortal. we will pass away and lose everyone we loved but this itself is what makes it all valuable

  137. Janeen Clark

    just because atoms are mostly empty space and quantum mechanics works the way it does , has nothing to do with a human having a soul living forever, there being some type of intelligent designer. reality does not have to be materialistic in the sense of atoms being hard marbles for the rest of what we know to be true about simple things creating more complex , evolution creating one type of life , and all the other stack-able evidence in every field that shows 100 percent there is no afterlife human soul , god or pixie dust or unicorns.

  138. Janeen Clark

    there is no evidence that a human being is one object in reality. all the evidence shows the human being any person alive is trillions of things. how could a soul exist with that information? we compartmentalize in our head to symbolize and represent a human being as one object but that is not real what we think in our head is not real it is words combined into sentences into ideas stored in the brain with memories and models of reality, but not reality it self. reality is what is real not the models in our head they are virtual they are the simulation.

  139. Janeen Clark

    ideas are language in the brain and models of reality by definition a "simulation" what we see smell hear and touch is not reality but a "simulation" reality is what is real and we study it to find out what that is. but our very consciousness is nothing but a "simulation" we never see what is real just look in a microscope or at an x- ray eagles have better vision than us because they evolved a need to have it , this is the same for every sense and touch we have. idealism is an ancient and ignorant concept absent of current knowledge. the thoughts in our head are combinations of words we must actually check to see if non sense or not. we learn about reality an adapt to what is real. we read books and study the lives work of inventors to succeed at a task . if reality was idealistic in nature there would be no need to research or learn because you could meditate your IQ up a notch every hour, no instead we see human beings killing each other over misunderstandings of language used because we cannot even understand other people concepts unless they put it in a language like science or mathematics systems that deal with reality like engineering any and all progress created by human kind is from the hard lessons of changing ourselves to fit to the dictatorship of reality. what we imagine in our heads is imagination. we are virtual. consciousness is the simulation.

  140. Janeen Clark

    people that have genetic imbalance of neuro transmitters have a consciousness of depression and totality dofferent ideas and perspective on the world and what they actually experience as real as the same person with the chemical transmitters and signals balanced in the brain , people that get in terrible accidents and have brain damage have a completely different consciousness and perspective of reality afterwards. hell, even look at yourself just the difference reality seems whether your in good mood or bad with a perfectly normal healthy brain. human consciousness is the simulation. reality is real.

  141. mike

    140 comments....100 of which appear to be Janeen Clark.....mostly replying to her own posts......

  142. Janeen Clark

    you don't have to read mine, if your not interested in the specific information contained within a comment. be nice to hear some of your own contributions on the topic at hand.

  143. Janeen Clark

    this is one topic i am passionate about and have spent a decade researching so i enjoy discussing it. what is your take on it?

  144. Glorianne Hesse

    and educated people use correct sentence punctuation..

  145. Glorianne Hesse

    Janeen, get over it. Not you or anyone else, including our most brilliant physicists and neurologists, yet knows what human consciousness really is, though a very few may pretend to. So stop pontificating as if you do.

  146. WTC7

    Dear Janeen, it is understandable that you are confused about this whole issue - are our lives, your life, a reality or some sort of simulation. I think anybody would be if they went that deep into contemplation about it... The thing is that you are wasting too much of your energy into something that transcends mental capabilities of any human being, given that, most probably, one can find the answers only when we are dead, and even then - maybe. (I tend to believe that that is the case, but can I be sure?)

    But even if everything is a simulation, even if we live in some sort of a matrix type of 'reality' and even if our consciousness is a simulation, as you say, you have to ask yourself a question - who or what is behind that simulation, Because simulation as we understand it, by default means that there has to be someone/something behind the simulation. So, you are perpetuating the same questions at a different level. Trust me, creating an additional layer to the question of our existence that only creates more questions of the same kind is not going to bring you any closer to the answer.

  147. Eddy

    A decade !? On an abstract circular argument ...with yourself? Oh, and your 9v battery test.Check! thats kinda crazy (imo)

  148. Vishal Narvekar

    Really beautiful explanation of wave particle duality and virtual construct.I strongly recommend the users to go through this once.Thanks

  149. Frank

    Just having viewed this presentation, it is difficult for me to discern if the comments are most current at the top or bottom. As everyone else, I have my own opinion. That is all it is. I add to my view from any source which is informative. I don't believe at this level of 'consciousness', we are in a position to make any definitive conclusions. To me, this presentation is as neutral, well balanced and entertaining as I have seen. One comment mentioned Robert Lanza. For anyone curious and not familiar with his work they are in for a pleasant surprise.
    Janeen Clark points out all the suffering. I am glad someone is looking at this but the suffering issue can cloud ones reason. Thinking about this barbaric condition of man in light of what the presentation is stating might instead lead one to a number of possible positive conclusions. These would be the beginning of a much larger conversation. The same one had for thousands of years now and continuing here with new food for thought.

  150. Martin Hedington

    As quite a few people have commented already, this Doc is quite correctly placed in the 'philosophical' category, so entirely open to interpretation depending on one's own world-view. Underpinning the issue however is that as it currently appears, dark matter and dark energy -neither of which can be observed, measured or even interacted with at a molecular level, but can however definitely be proven- comprises at least 85% of the universe. So I guess there's enough wiggle room for either/ both outlooks. Great vid for entertainment value.

  151. The Sims

    WTC7 +1. Well said.

  152. Adam

    Janeen... just stop.

    Stop mixing religion with science automatically. Stop trying to tear something apart that you don't even have (apparently) a BASIC understanding of. Stop applying YOUR moral code/view of the world to EVERYONE ELSE.

    Most importantly, stop acting like you have all the answers when you can't even type with proper grammar for more than a sentence. Thanks a bunch!

  153. rocky

    This doesn't actually establish the existence of God, and really I'm not sure the doc was really trying to push that point, despite Campbell's quote. What it establishes is that the world is a "simulation", which is to say that the emergent whole is analogous to a feature of one of its parts, which actually isn't very conceptually different from materialism in the end on a pragmatic basis. All you are doing is swapping matter for mind. It tells you something about how reality manifests, but nothing about the nature of agency. For instance, agency (consciousness at some level) may be the initial state instead of the emergent state, but so what? You can just see agency as a process that is little different than any other physical law. We presume that some physical state gave rise to the current cosmos, but all that presupposes is that that process is "in touch" or active in the universe we perceive and unguided. But really, all behavior is guided, even if it never changes; we perceive our agency as fundamentally different than "simpler" processes, but I don't think it is. Agency is just part of nature. It is a chicken-or-the-egg argument, rather than a theory that leads to any necessary conclusions about causal nature of said agency. It could well be that agency arises as an initial state in no different a manner than a quantum fluctuation (not in the description of the process but in the fact that it has no antecedent). Both can be seen as fundamental properties, and therefore are total mysteries anyway and do not imply anything deeper than themselves that we can discern. This agency need have no feature we would recognize as "personal" so theodacy fails to apply to it, but if it is personal, there's no way to know if we have the necessary perspective to tell whether or not any amount of evil we experience is actually wrong in the cosmic scheme, since we can't see outside the scheme. Babies cry, and there suffering is real to them, but is bringing them into the world evil because they have reason to cry? Most people who argue against bringing new life into the world are concerned with the greater suffering beyond healthy infancy, but despite the baby's experience, most see the new life as positive in itself, even atheists. Maybe we are still babies and we know it not.

  154. Dood Markey

    It is one thing to say: "I do not understand all of this." It is another thing to say: "This is wrong and here's how it is wrong." Most of the griping here is of the former kind. Those who say it is wrong might help us all by showing HOW it is wrong. SHOW a better theoretical model, one that explains more. If you have a better idea than Tom Campbell, give us a link to YOUR book.

  155. Amir

    I am just wondering if the results of double slit photon shooting will differ if the experimenter was a materialistic or idealistic?

  156. Tron1969

    This was absolutely wonderful! So many thoughts on my mind right now.. Wake up call, totally!

  157. JIJK

    This documentary has been well received has brought forth continued arguments of the polarities between a materialist and an idealist. Rather than arguing against this docu. provide some evidence of other ideas you may have (like a materialist docu) in providing evidence against this one. As for my take I am an idealist to some respect and after watching this there are many parallels on the idea of "consciousness only" to the Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions. "To know thyself" and to know your existence the the wider scope in the universe plays a key role in how we relate to one another. For all who watch this documentary, also read a Sura in Theravada Buddhism that will further the linkages of this Later Platonic ideal in the Ancient Greco-Roman world.
    -Much Love- JIJK

  158. Frank

    Does anyone else wonder who Janeen Clark REALLY is?

  159. Charles

    Janeen, the one point you don't seem to get is that you have to make a very specific observation in order to affect it's outcome. You cant just put your head close to your monitor (which isn't necessary anyhow - non-locality) and think about "stuff" and hope to have some effect. An observation, like that described in the experiment, is directed at specific information which we can ask these fundamental, "true or false" questions about. Hope this helps.
    Very interesting doc and concept!

  160. Bella

    Interesting idea. I always support the collaboration between science and philosophy to explain the mystery of the world. Even quantum physics and simulation theories are not totally touched like classical physics, I still believe in the power of mind to create the reality. This reality that with all optimism is nonsense. At least there might be a reason, but not god!!

  161. John

    Holy **** Janeen you are ********. Your argument for why the universe doesn't have a creator is because there's suffering? Makes a lot of sense. Maybe your conception of whatever it was before it just too narrow, did you ever consider that? Maybe god doesn't give a s*** about your little bit of human suffering?

    "no matter what we learn for the future reality is 4.55 billions years older than "consciousness" this means reality created consciousness not the other way around you can learn more about gravity or learn more about laws but science can never learn that reality was intelligently designed , because it goes against how reality actually works. simple things turn into complicated things over mass time scale through forces , this is opposite of consciousness being foundation of reality. consciousness is not real in any shape or form , consciousness is what we experience from trillions of operations and signals coming together from our brain and body it is trillions of things just like galaxy is trillions of stars. ye no person claims the galaxy has a soul."

    This just shows your tiny little mind can't even grasp the breadth of the information. REALITY IS CONSCIOUSNESS.

  162. roberto

    nice exchange, sort of reminds me of what we used to call epistemology. It seems to me that what is being discussed is SYMBOLIC CONSCIOUSNESS which appears to be but is not totally exclusively human. ( I recommend the documentary: Animal Sapiens a nice summary of experiential evolution) If we consider awareness, perception, and response a form of consciousness then photo-taxis is a form of consciousness as is the simple reflex arc.

    We know from our languages that symbols are interchangeable and when combined into metaphors and then into mythic stories designed by our cultures, inform us in their pedagogical functions of what our realities are. Joseph Campbell did a great job of illuminating us in that regard building on a foundation of Platonic, Freudian, and Jungian thought among many others. The Vedas, Buddhism, and Taoist philosophy all addressed this issue of materialism vs idealism metaphorically and so did Lope DE Vega ( La Vida Es Sueno, Life Is But A Dream) , Cervantes, Shakespeare and a bunch of other thinkers and playwrights.

    It seems to me that we forget art too readily when considering these matters especially given the subjective nature of our experience. Perhaps there is no objective reality in our experience and we each project a dynamic evolving hologram that constitutes our reality in conformity with the demands of our destiny (DNA) subject to fateful circumstances. Lest we forget, we are all connected electromagnetically at the least and the notion of separateness is an illusion. Thanks Janeen and all.

  163. roberto

    oh yeah, and I liked the discovery of fractal geometry in Jackson Pollack's paintings. How's that for woo woo?

  164. roberto

    oops meant to say Calderon De La Barca's "Life is But A Dream.
    The Simulation Hypothesis is after all a hypothesis that has been pondered by artists for millennia. Perhaps when science can explain the behavior of quarks with certainty the thought bubbles will burst and we'll see ourselves in a sea of primordial plasma, being and non-being.

  165. svrabl

    Great documentary!

    I have a question - around 40:00 - what if the "half" mirror decides in which way to pass or not to pass the photon (simmilar to an if-clause), depending on a property of the photon? Wouldn't that go hand in hand with the materialistic view?
    The photon's attribute "observed" is the only one that we see as being changed. Then we say that the attribute doesn't belong to the photon itself, but the observer. But is it really so? Or is the attribute truly that of the photon, and some can not be observed, due to some (other) attribute that is in its nature an attribute of the photon and not of the observer? And we can only observe the effect of such photons, not the existence.
    Another explanaiton would be, we just don't have the knowledge/technology to observe these "different types" of photons.
    One idea: how do you tranform the clump pattern into the quantised/wave pattern. There has to be at least one function that allows this. Such function would point to the nature of the before mentioned attribute of the photon.

    Is luck, coincidence... regulated on a different scale?

  166. svrabl

    With all the interference experiments mentioned here, we're studying only the nature of photons. There is a simmilar experiment (Millikan - charged oil drops) where we study how the charge is quantized. We don't observe light itself, but it still is part of the the experiment. Is there a correlation between these 2 experiments?

  167. Mike

    Change the word "virtual" to "created" and it makes it sound like a fundamentalist Christianity documentary.

  168. Pedro D

    It's hard for scientist to acknowledge the existent of a GOD. Or at least opening up the possibility of a creator. But the most common believe systems tel us that our reality is actually noting more than a illusion.

    Actually if you look at Christianity/Judaism believe. Their creation story starts with a supreme consciousness creates the reality with his words (thought). It's so hard for us to imagine and accept. But if we have a Scientific way to create a plausible theory of this story, we have to explore it. You have to truly look with open mind to all path's, if plausibility presents itself.

    Exploring this reality with a predetermined idea of what it must be is a foolish endeavor. It will slow progress down instead of accelerating it. Nothing is bull**** then plausibility is knocking at our scientific door.

    Really interesting documentary.

  169. Juno

    Jannen is so right. Although I'm naively attached to the more traditional theories of the quantum physics/states, there is a huge difference between consciousness, and the subatomic state. I feel like I need lsd to watch any kind of pseudo science documentary posing as scientific theory

  170. JDBean

    While this doc might be entertaining, it is complete bunkum. There are no physicists, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists, psychologists, etc... who subscribe to the idea that reality is anything like virtual reality and that through our consciousness we can alter reality. The most recent advances in understanding consciousness actually DO localize thought in regions of the brain, and that mind is the activity of these thoughts. There is nothing mystical hear, just mysteries that can be studied by real people. The strangeness of quantum mechanics has been abused for many years by people who do not understand the nature of a theory of science. This strangeness is always interpreted as something mystical and magical. It is nothing of the sort.

  171. Mthobisi

    its no use being emotional about this subject, after all everything in nature suggests to be a product of intentional design. e.g how a seed responds to the soil, and time forming a tree in the process, the way earth is fine turned for the existance of life cummon wake up. yes people die and bad things happen but thats also no proof that the universe is not a product of design, your very own human body and its response to food and water suggest it is, you cannot over ride that, its too perfect to be anything else but design

  172. Sir Bananas

    I don't really think that we live in a digital system of simply"on" and "off", but at least a ternary system of yes/no/maybe, and basically there's a whole lot more "maybe" going on than anything. The wave form is the indication of the "maybes" and the observations are yes/no. As we flip a coin in the air its analogous to the wave moving through space. When it lands/when we make the observation, we won't predict that it is still spinning, we will predict that it lands on one side or the other, so in that way our observation is made at a particular point and affects what we observe.

    I also think that perhaps dark matter is made up of, or stores all the unused possibilities.

    Anyways, it was a cool documentary and I'll be sure to pass it on to my best friend who is of the idealist type even though I'm more of a materialist myself.

  173. KiefChief

    Using scenes from movies to explain your ideas is crazy to me and I could have done without the terrible music as well. I felt like someone made a movie and used fiction to explain their facts while simultaneously hearing someone try to explain something they don't understand in the slightest. This was just awful.

  174. MondoCongo

    I have just 3 letters for you DMT. This is very likely a simulation. The simulation would be written by many not just a one. So no god there just someone creating it. Probably a model of a truly natural world. Prob caused by other humans. Just real ones.

    Who knows why they would do it. Simulate global disasters to avoid them in the physical world? Who the hell knows.

  175. DavidOdhi

    @JaneenClark you're a bit of a closed minded prick, emotional no doubt, I would suggest that you be wary of critiquing things you do not fully understand. You seek to solve an equation that you do not have the right tools for.
    An exercise for you, assume for 1 month that reality is in fact a product of consciousness and seek to change your world from that assumption. Remember the word 'product'. It is the cause of all things. I think you might have saved yourself 10 years of agony.
    Furthermore, after you have made this assumption, continue to choose to expose yourself to more positive material from news to research papers to social interaction, you will find that the change in the perspective you feed your consciousness (through your brain of course) will lead to a more satisfactory life.

    The Documentary was fantastic work, a good first step in the development of our feeble wisdom. Thank You

  176. Dr.C.K.Rao

    Its been long since people spoke of eternity, conscious awareness, cosmic energy and omnipotent, omnipresence etc. to give words for their EXPERIENCED FEELINGS. So experiences are experiences and can not be expressed fully. In such a state of things, trying to objectify the comprehension looks a futile effort but to have ones own satisfaction...Good documentary.....

  177. mike m

    Here's all I know;
    People, places and things don't cause your bad feelings.
    Your attitudes towards people, places and things are the cause of your problems with them.
    Change your attitudes and everything out side changes.

    This science vs religious attitude is so problematic for so many of you deep thinkers.

    Reminds me of the seagulls in finding Nemo:

    MINE MINE mine MiNe
    mine MINE mine

    mine mine mine

  178. Clan

    Wow this has opened my mind .... People have to think fr a minute here .... Are we looking for an explanation to the universe in order to satisfy our current understanding or are we looking for an explanation in order to actually develop our understanding. ........ It may seem a bit weird this doc but it's really good at making u think .. Particularly one major point I took from this wowed me ..... Think of it like this , you don't know everything so shut the **** up and don't try redicule someone's explanation when all u as a person is doing is claiming everyone else's explanation . Unless if u give reasons on why u don't think so and offer ideas . Remember we all use to think that the earth was flat till someone thought different .

  179. Rodrigo

    @Janeen Clark, Triggered much? Lol.

  180. mike m

    it seems most of you are home bound

Leave a comment / review: