The Simulation Hypothesis

The Simulation Hypothesis

2015, Philosophy  -   247 Comments
Ratings: 8.48/10 from 811 users.

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.

More great documentaries

247 Comments / User Reviews

  1. This documentary entertains many misinterpretations of quantum physics and space. Also, it argues that since the physical world shares many similarities with computers, then it is one, and an intelligent agent runs it. This is humanizing nature.

  2. The argument is irrelevant because all of reality is intrinsically just information. It doesn't matter what we think is reality.
    To a ghost, another ghost is real.. Doesn't really matter what its 'made of'.
    To consider it otherwise is just a reflection of our innate need to consider a Creator.
    There is no Creator in the sense of what the thousands of religions consider IT to be.
    The circular argument being "What created the Creator"
    Lets go back to the argument "If I kick a rock and it hurts, then that's reality"
    Which is all we need to know.

  3. What a load of garbage. If you seriously consider the universe to be nothing but a computed design than you are neither brillant nor intelligent in any way. You are a re***d. There is nothing logic about the mere thought. And not a single relevant scientist agrees or partakes in these "studies".

    1. and who are you with your opinion????

    2. we can never know .. what if its all fake ?

    3. Actually, scientists find it hard to argue against the theory. There’s 3 possibilities: all civilization goes extinct before reaching simulation technology, civilization reaches such technology but is uninterested in pursuing it or we are in a simulation. There’s a one in billion chance that we are in base reality aka original reality. Elon musk actually believes this and finds it hard to disprove such a theory. You should do research on it before insulting others intelligence on a topic you clearly haven’t done sufficient research on.

    4. you are argument is void of premises and logic only with insulting.
      physicists including Leonard Susskind consider it as posibilities. and all the evidence here is related to features of simulation

  4. If sim theory is true then we likely created the simulation bc if we are on the precipice of true ai and quantum computation then we have already embarked on this journey in a previous simulation

  5. Excellent!

  6. Isn' this idea just modern variation on God & religion? There is no higher purpose to our existence. If there was who created this higher power? So many theories now everyone thinks they're right. All this proof & knowledge humans think they have but actually we know absolutely nothing.

    1. There must be a first cause...a God who was not created, but always was. No one created him...He is eternal.

  7. This documentary should have cited the CTMU, which for the last thirty years has been the only well-developed mathematically formulated theory of reality simulation. The CTMU was first introduced in a 1989 paper describing the first detailed application of the simulation hypothesis (years before any other theorist enunciated it). Since that time, the CTMU has advanced considerably. The most recent paper, "The Reality Self-Simulation Principle: Reality is a Self-Simulation", was published recently in the journal Cosmos & History.

  8. Comparing Einstein to max plancke is disgusting. Theoretical physics is the realm of hucksters like Einstein who don't invent anything, are parasites and contribute nothing to society. Plancke actually did experiments and made huge advances in quantum mechanics.

    1. I have to agree.

    2. That is one of the weirdest opinions I have come across. Was gonna write a long-ass reply but I don't even know where to start. Could you elaborate?

  9. einstein was a fraud proven by Bjorknes

    1. Yeah he has been discredited. He stole all his equations and ideas with his partner in crime Mileva. Olinto De Pretto an italian geologist published e=mc2 in a northern italian scientific journal when studying radioactive decay in heavy metals in 1902. Einstein would have had access to this study where he was in Switzerland. All the relativity ideas came from Poincare the frenchman.

  10. @Janeen Clark - your "confusion" stems from the fact that you don't differentiate between waking consciousness (5 senses) and subconsciousness. That's why you cannot light a lightbulb by focussing your mental power onto it. You CAN, but at a heavy price!

    Fact is that creation is and HAS TO BE subconscious. You only perceive the end result by means of your senses. The rest escapes your senses - and it HAS TO, because your senses are way too volatile and impermanent in order to accomplish anything worth mentioning.

    And as people by and large have NO CLUE about the power of their subconscious mind, never mind its actual role and purpose in the greater scheme of things, they get confused and therefore utter things and ideas that are half-baked. Well, yes, half-baked because they only see the one side of consciousness.

  11. A whole documentary and almost no original footage. The information was good, but the stock videos of atoms and clocks been thrown in a bin is super dull. Get an animator or shoot some interviews.

  12. Interesting documentary but I would check Simulation Hypothesis book by Riz Virk and also Answers In Simulation by Vovchenko. They give a much deeper insight into what is possible.

    1. Thanks for the recommendation of the two books. Can’t wait to read! I’m actually writing a thesis of my own on the theory of simulation hypothesis so I can use all the sources I can come across! Thanks. A copy of the paper and simulation blog can be found at:

      Critical feedback is appreciated!


  13. If we are in a simulation what happens when it ends do we wake up or are our minds wiped and we restart

    1. No, we simply cease to exist like a computer program. Although our hardware can still exist. If we’re using quantum conscious theory in tandem with simulation hypothesis then are conscious like any other returns to the essence and we are technically part of the universe. However, for the aliens to make us in the program it would require there own knowledge of conscious theory and how to harness it. Therefore, making it impossible for the two things to work together. Therefore, we can assume that we cease to exist.

  14. What reason is there to think something cannot be known? Just because it's not yet known doesn't mean that it's not true, or that it can never be known. How can one find truth? It begins with contemplation and an hypothesis. It's not wise to ridicule others because they aspire for truth. What is the true nature of reality? If we knew it would enable more clarity and meaningful purpose in our lives. Information resolves uncertainty. I truly wish people would be more tolerant of other's opinions, especially those that are non-threatening. I applaud the thinkers of this world for at least trying, and not just accepting an existence void of truth.

  15. It should be no surprise that some people waste a lot of time thinking on such things they cannot know, when they could spend that time doing useful things. It just shows how much ego certain people have that think they know, desire to believe they know.

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? And who pays these physicists or whomever, to waste time on such? I hope it is not tax funded. Unfortunately it wouldn't surprise me for that to be the case.

    These famous time wasting people should be ridiculed rather than heralded. Solve a real problem if you are so smart. It would seem they would if only...

    Why are these silly people made to be famous with such ridiculous hypothesis that some mistakenly call theories? Because the powers that be would prefer you to believe these ridiculous ideas ...which makes it much easier to push their agenda.

    One could waste as much time on pondering why we die, if so much time and energy goes into growing and learning. Would that be time well spent?

    Since time wasting thought seems to be the theme, I will waste another minute:

    When I cut myself, computer code doesn't come oozing out. However, if an ant farm is a simulation of how ants behave in nature, then we could be in that type of simulation.

    If nothing man has designed or created, occurred without first having an idea about it ...and if man is a product of "this" (universe?), how can one logically come to the conclusion that in every other area of whatever "this" is, it just occurred? No reason, no thought, no purpose, no desire, no intention, it just happened. Yet where did the matter/material come from to have that happen? Oh, it magically appeared from a big bang... that magically happened. Wow, impressive, make that guy famous.

    Silly people are serious about ridiculous things and ridiculous about serious things.

    1. When you cut yourself, you will see blood oozing out, the blood contains dna, that dna is like high level programming language that in and of itself carries more instruction sets like assembly language, which in turn carries out low level instructions that the higher level can't access.

      Every living thing generates frequencies and light, same as a computer processor, they also calculate in the exact same manner, computer units work same as mitosis /cell division. and the digital roots repeat every 6 digits, 1,2,4,8,7,5 and Fibonacci series does the same thing every 24 digits with a different set of numbers. You will find the Fibonacci series and golden ratio everywhere in nature.

    2. By the way, the egg came first, it is the single cell, when fertilized kicks off the cell division, you can't have 2 with out 1.

    3. It strikes me that if people determined not to think about things they cannot possibly know, nobody would ever come up with a string of ideas that led us to have laptops, cars, internet, baloons, space rockets, mobile phones and numerous other things. I don't feel in the position to dictate to people what they should or should not think. Frankly, as long as they do (and lots don't), I am happy.

    4. Why do you get to decide what is a waste of time or not, perhaps us trying to understand our existence is not a waste of time!

    5. Easy, the egg came first.There were eggs long before chickens evolved.

  16. The problem I see with this is the same one that faces creationists.
    If the cosmos is a simulation it follows that an intelligence constructed it.
    By the same logic, that intelligence has to be a simulation constructed by a "higher" intelligence.
    Turtles all the way down......

    1. S.Hawking said similar "if there is a supreme creator,is there a creator of the creator"?
      Idealism seems to be the logical answer from experiments but then maybe there are things going on that we just cant conceive of. Nobody can prove the simulation or disprove it.The artist Escher said we are incapable of imagining the notion of nothing hence our need to believe in a hereafter. With the rapidity in discovery maybe more conclusions will be reached but I'm not sure.
      Many things puzzled me,one being if we indeed are in a simulation does that mean our consciousness (and action)? are pre-ordained by the designer..if so,does that in turn make us just innocent bystanders to our own journeys? I wonder what others on here think.Maybe my thinking,or expression,on this matter is a bit simplistic,if so go easy on me..any ideas comments appreciated!

  17. I can't believe this video is no longer on youtube...i keep telling people to watch it. So upset :(

  18. I have never encountered a better explanation of the simulation hypothesis. I am by no means a materialist; however, I do not accept the simulation hypothesis. In my view, the non-local realm of consciousness predates and underpins the physical universe. I see no need to introduce an intermediate program or some kind of computer-like simulation into the picture. The "rules of the game" were present at the moment of the Big Bang; and, the universe has been on its own ever since.

  19. Bell's theorem is so difficult to understand.

  20. This was very well articulated and put together. I have never been a big fan of the simulation theory, but the director effectively builds communicates the context in which this hypothesis had spawned: technically and culturally. I've looked at others' comments in which they falsely dichotomize the possibility of living in a simulation with "well because of x, then definintely y" (i.e. being able to engage in telekinetic actions) - there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance at play with this hypothesis (especially one that is heavily founded, logically and intuitively.) and I can't blame necessarily blame that reaction, this is heavy stuff. Though, if you have an open mind and are receptive to the thoughts, statements, work, and sentiments of the bonafide physicists cited, this is a mind-opening documentary. Bravo.

  21. Programming due to curses done by those beings whom are programmed because of their belief of their existence to be immune to being other than ignorance, which becomes their ignorance. In essence we are they whether as above or so below, left or right. It is unknown, because us and those beyond don't know, because, the us or me are unable to comprehend, because we or me are not built to handle that beyond comprehension. Reality then becomes your wisdom is your ignorance, this in fact then comes from the illusion, and a real solid matrix, where any wisdom is nothing more than ignorance because a construct, whether abstract or concrete. It is built based upon a foundation of false becoming true. Hence then this documentary, part of the illusion.

  22. Until one can "see" that there was no beginning, any other discussion is completely futile! No event can ever occur without a precursor. This is such a simple hypothesis it amazes me that most people fail to grasp it, so on that basis, a beginning for no reason, from nothing, is completely impossible. The cosmos is a recycling machine.

  23. "We are living in in a simulation" physicists and cosmologists.
    Yeah, right..............But when a religious person talks about God , they are ridiculed.
    Who made the simulation?
    Are the people who made the simulation living in a simulation?
    Who made them?
    But say the word "God" and people can't handle it.

    1. You just demonstrated why positing a supreme being only complicates the problem.

    2. You presume that whatever being created this simulation has features of human, when in fact, reality outside of simulation can be whole different in terms of time, space, dimensions

      and I think major reason people ridicule regigion when it comes to finding a true, is because they belive what's written in the book literally

  24. I have read book from Dr. Lanza, which seems to be the inspiration of this documentary. I don't always read comments or comment but here I was looking for some clues from the Materialist supporters who could guide me in the direction to negate all the scientific events/facts the documentary shows, or at least put their point of view but to my surprise I failed to find a single solid argument. And my search continues..

  25. Also,for your education and enjoyment, you might want to read Alexander Marchand's "The Universe is a Dream," a graphic-novel type book. A great introduction and summary of A Course in Miracles. (ACIM)

  26. I have not been in this 'dream.' (1977) I now find myself in this 'dream.' (2017)
    I know that Only One Mind exists, and because of massive 'unconscious guilt,' that 'mind' has split, and split, and split again, trillions of times. So, there seems to be millions and billions and trillions of 'different' beings, when there exists only YOU, the reader of this comment. You are the only one here and you are reading a comment by another portion of Your mind that doesn't seem to be You, written to that portion of Your mind that seems to be currently reading this comment. What You experience here remains Your Personal Spiritual (not organized religion) curriculum. You Life remains Your Curriculum. You are here to learn how to Wake Up from this Dream and Go Home.
    Pay attention!

    While I was 'not here,' I had a conversation, w/three entities and learned from them that, when I went back into the dream, I would be provided with a curriculum that would lead me out of this Dream of Death. This Curriculum is not easy. It is simple, though it doesn't seem simple, and at the same time it remains very challenging. To introduce this curriculum to you, I will give you the definitive ideas from the Course below:
    #1: "There is No World." (only Oneness remains real.)
    #2 “The secret to salvation is but this: You are doing this to yourself.”
    #3 "The World you see remains but an illusion of a world." Everything and everyone in this "World" changes constantly. That which humans call "God" did not create this Dream of Death, because what 'God' creates must be as eternal as himself. (Metaphorically speaking.)
    #4 "The 'world' you see remains the outward expression of an inward condition."
    #5 "Whatever is true remains 'eternal,' and cannot change or be changed."
    #6 "Anger is never justified.
    Note: If there is no one out there, toward whom could you feel angry?
    #7 “The guiltless mind cannot suffer.”
    The body remains a “learning device,” a communication tool.
    #8 It’s this life, Stupid!; If peace is the condition of the Kingdom, then the mind must be at peace to fit in. And in order for the mind to be at peace, you have to "forgive.” All that appears to happen is just a dream. To wake up from the dream, you have to forgive every event, situation and person, because nothing ever happened and by forgiving them, you practice “advanced forgiveness.” By forgiving them, you are forgiving yourself for having dreamed them.

    Repeat: The way to awaken from this Dream of Death is through total, uncompromising forgiveness of people, because they haven’t done anything, which is how you forgive yourself.
    (for having dreamed them all up in the first place.)

    #9 In regard to the ego’s many questions: “There is no need to further clarify what no one in the world can understand.”
    There is no answer, only an experience.
    There is only one Teacher of this Course ————— and only one Student. (You)
    This curriculum was given the title, "A Course in Miracles." Ultimately, it remains absolutely necessary for you to learn it. Only the time and place for your learning remains up to you.
    While this curriculum may not be for everyone now, you can familiarize yourself to it by reading these books: ACIM = A Course in Miracles
    DU = The Disappearance of the Universe by Gary Renard
    YIR = You Immortal Reality by Gary Renard
    {Gary Renard’s books help make ACIM easier to read.}

    That ought to be enough to pique your interest in Your Personal Freedom of choice in waking from this Dream of Death. Its not easy, as you have been asleep for millions of years.
    Remember to forgive - the fastest way to wake up. Anyone your forgive remains an act of forgiveness toward yourself for having dreamed them up in the first place.
    Good fortune and Peace on You,
    Steven Blue

  27. Reminded me of my favorite movie the 13th Floor. Simulationions staked on simulations.

    Unfortunately we are stuck in a loop. No matter what you come up with you are still stuck with how did that become into being.

    How did enegery or matter come from nothing.
    Or it has always been here, hard to comperhend.

  28. This is NOT a documentary. Its a copy/page video of a gamer guy.

    1. Thank you! It pisses me off how people actually take this garbage seriously.

  29. Best doc on here. Everything is 100% true. You have a closed mind if you cannot see the truth.

    1. This is not a documentary. Not even close to it. Considering this to be true is actually the definition of idiocy. I bet you also believe in horoscopes and that you are generally gullible aka "spiritual" aka esoteric.

  30. If we really are in a simulation, there are a lot of corrupted lines of code that need to be deleted.....Janeen Clark............

    1. Donald Trump

  31. I have done a lot of reading about the simulation hypothesis & surrounding ideas like matrioshka brains, dyson spheres, post-scarcity civilisations, post-organic evolution, brain emulations & so on. I think it is important to understand these ideas before joining any argument about simulated existence because they provide some kind of context in which such a thing might be possible. I am not saying that a simulated universe is or is not possible. I have no way of knowing.
    I do find the idea intriguing in itself & also the ways in which people respond to it. I have noticed that even highly qualified experts like theoretical physicists, philosophers, quantum physicists, mathematicians & so on, often make rookie errors when dealing with this debate. These include assumptions about the possible objectives of such a simulation, the nature of base reality or original universe & what is being simulated. This has led me to conclude that we have never really ventured one step toward disproving this hypothesis. Again, I am not saying that I believe we do exist in a simulation. What I would say though is that I do find the idea useful when rationalising notions like synchronicity, absurdity & so on. Between certain of my friends & I, the phrase "simulated universe" has become a kind of running joke in particular circumstances.

    1. You just said a lot of nothing.

  32. if a photon was the size of a marble it too would give a non wave like pattern as it is a question of scale. looking at the photon collapses the wave pattern as the act of obesrving effects the path.


  34. In 1931 Kurt Gödel proved two theorems ... the computer says no... funny how each age tech fashion becomes the new model of universe... in the past it was clockwork, now for some it is computer simulation metaphors...

  35. Now I am looking for hacks for this game called life. Any leads folks.

    1. Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Start, Select

    2. Press C, then enter "marvin", then press F2, then enter "cheat god". For bird perspective and hovering around, keep "F8" pressed.

      For Innos!

  36. Even if our finite earth and neigboring planets within our solar system were an illusion and subatomic particles or bits of energy behave differently when observed by a concious individual this theorized simulation still has rules and laws. We all learn from birth till death that there is a certain order to the chaos of the universe. There is a polarity duality that everyone feels when things get out of balance... call it the tipping point between good/evil positive energy negative energy revolution invention or birth pains and cycles of a changing and evolving humanity of people toward some future... The hyper intelligent and ruling class of humans through unlimited greed and selfishness, culminating in 2 world wars not learning from the suffering of their ancestors might be doomed to repeat history yet again, but this time toward a religiously prophecyzed apocalypse. People have armed themselves to the point of nuclear annihlation. Evil does exist and through the ages has reared its ugly head pushing boudaries through the severe sins of individuals that today it is more deceptive. Because people have become numb passive and accepting that this the only way and this must be the way and there is no way to overcome inequality greed pollution war crime lies deception perverting truth and nature, but if you stop and think for a moment there absolutely must be and there is a better way before we all kneel before our creator and pound our chest in guilt we can easily take a step back and pound our weapons into plowshares and usefull tools for peace. God willing... He will restore the hearts and minds of some group of men who will so clearly and devotedly see this that they would be granted some even more powerful
    Than nuclear force of immunity that together they would absolutely never allow armageddon to take place... nature is perverted and flipped upsidedown and the truth and guide book of life which sustained us for so many centuries and should still be carrying us forward with great examples of what a harmonious family and society should be... blossoming sharing, caring and bearing forth into being good fruit. But istead this journey into the future is today mutated, cloned, chemically engineered, processed, genetically modified mostly corrupted and teetering on the edge of self destruction... But with each life saved and new baby born I still have faith and hope.... my only hope is and a personal theory that I strongly believe is that we our bodies and souls are a form of energy... and with each passing minute we are compiling an exact record of our continuum which can be and will be played back like a movie... and by a jury of our peers like here on earth we will collectively decide and perhapse judged by an itelligence far beyond our own... An intelligence knowing every detail of our circumstances and motives and influeces that may have impacted our minds and health or development by a societal neglect or perversion of nature and truth by the vast media of informatio...that higher power or intelligence will decide if we remain on the great family tree of humanity which may get to continue on as some form of energy on a new planet bound by a more perfect easier set of laws and not a cruel primitive homosapian society hellbound toward self destruction... Imagine a divine ultra intelligent perfect alien race visiting earth and observing us humans from a distance with a telescope... It would be like us observing maccac monkeys at the zoo, now how would you and your young ones react when a dominant monkey terrorizes exploits or kills others in the group... In advanced alien societies in far away galaxies where hopefully our earthy energy or soul may be granted access or not.. there will simply be no room for this absurd and time wasting self defeating behavior. Everyone will have a purpose perverting and destroying nature might become impossible and the evil energy of destruction might once and for all be eliminated out of the equation of our coexistance and survival. Harmony happiness cooperation and an inclusive system of advancement based on hyper developing our strengths not exploiting one anothers weakness lifting one another up toward collective advancement for the good of the commonwealth and never reverting backward toward the darkness and ignorance of apes bashing their skulls in over posessing controlling finite recources food, water, a mate, land or power to make decisions or to exploit and control others toward a non harmonious and unagreed upon future state of reality... if divine prophets like Jesus, Mohammed, Siddartha (buddah), and many other famous ancestors and writers revealers of the truth and guide book of how to live a guilt free and resisting evil lifestyle were
    Themselves tried and tested by the evil force like Jesus being told to bow to the devil only once and and all kingdoms would be his imagine how much easier and with exponentially increasing swiftness you weak humans will fall into the temptations that the evil one knows you are weakest against
    The ancient guide books repeatedly warn of the fate of those who tried to swim against the current of righteousness... So wake up and at least try to make the rest of your temporary existance an acceptable one. You be the judge of your life time spent... observed as an outsider and consider if it is acceptable or would you be rejected by your earthly family tree and ancestors and the great variety of individual souls in the universe.

  37. Crawl back under your rock.

    1. This. A thousand times this. Thank you, Sir!

  38. Why did God Create Mankind?
    He must have wanted people who love Him to spend eternity with Him. So He either creates people with no choice (who can’t love Him) or He gives people the choice to love Him or not. When you are born again, your spirit is born again, and God’s spirit dwells with your spirit. Your sin nature is not born again. So you either choose the spirit (truth) or the flesh (a lie).
    Most people think a temptation is just an annoyance that gets in the way of life. The truth is, temptations are the reason God created mankind and the earth. Without temptations mankind would have no choice between good and evil, and would not be able to love God. When you chose the spirit (God) you are choosing to spend eternity with God (heaven). Obviously this is very valuable to you. Which comes first the joy because of the value you will receive in the future or the ability to overcome the temptation. You would think the ability to overcome the temptation would have to come first and then the joy. How can you have the joy of success until you have success?
    1 Corinthians 10:13
    There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
    If you believe this verse then you can rejoice before you actually overcome the temptation because you trust God. A funny thing happens when you rejoice before you have overcome the temptation. The desire to yield to the temptation just goes away with no effort on your part. You can’t feel the joy of the Lord and temptation at the same time. So all you have got to do, to overcome temptations is to praise the Lord.
    Boost Post

    1. Didn't read, because your first question is already dull and pathetic. god... what idiocy to still believe in "god" in 21st century. Some people really are learning resistent. And this was said in a euphemistic manner...

  39. it seems most of you are home bound

  40. @Janeen Clark, Triggered much? Lol.

  41. 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 .

    1. This is opening your mind? Oh really?! Maybe you should keep your ridiculous proclamation to yourself, because it makes the necessity of someone ridiculing you abundant.
      There are more than enough answers as to why this "doc" which is NOT a documentary is utter garbage.

  42. 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

    1. Except that science is right. Religion is not. Never has been. Never will be.

  43. 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.....

  44. @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

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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

  49. 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.

  50. 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

  51. 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.

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

  53. 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?

  54. 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?

  55. 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.

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

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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!!

  60. 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!

  61. Does anyone else wonder who Janeen Clark REALLY is?

  62. 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

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

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

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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!

  68. WTC7 +1. Well said.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

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

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. 140 comments....100 of which appear to be Janeen Clark.....mostly replying to her own posts......

    1. 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.

    2. 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?

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

  75. 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.

    1. 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.

  76. 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 :)

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

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

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

  80. 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.

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

  82. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. materialism is a term psuedo- science people use.

    3. 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 .

    4. 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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. and educated people use correct sentence punctuation..

  83. 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 .

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

  84. 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.

  85. 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....

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

    2. 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 .

    3. 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?

    4. "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.

    5. 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?

    6. 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.

    7. 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

    8. “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

    9. "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

    10. "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)

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

    12. 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.

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

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.

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

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

      or could not be.

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

    21. 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!

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

    23. 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.

    24. 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.

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

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

    27. 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.

    28. 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.

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

    1. 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.

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

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

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

    5. what ru supposing we should measure?

  87. 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?

    1. 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.

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

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

    4. 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.

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

  88. 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' can find him easily on't 'tube'.

  89. 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.

    1. 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

  90. 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.

    1. 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

    2. No that is an interesting thought.

  91. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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

    3. explain 100th monkey effect

    4. 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.

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

    6. 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.

  92. 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.

    1. 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.

  93. 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...

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  94. 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.

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

    2. 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.

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

    1. No worry, they are all simulated denials.

  96. 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?

    1. 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.

    2. "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?

    3. 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.

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

    1. That is exactly what a simulation would say :D

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

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

  98. 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.

    1. 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 .

    2. 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.

    3. 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)

    4. thats why this doc is segmented under 'philosophy'!

    5. point well taken sir lol haha

    6. 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

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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

    10. 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.

  99. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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!

    7. 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!

    8. Don't know; try this.

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

      blog Dot oup Dot com / 2011 / 02 / quantum

    9. 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.

    10. 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).

    11. 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”

    12. 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.

  100. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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. ;-)

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

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

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

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

  103. 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.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. I never realised that a computer could generate this stream of consciousness.

  104. Proving the existence of god through editing.

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

    1. 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!

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