The Basement: Thomas Campbell | NASA Secrets, Binaural Beats, Simulation Theory

[01:35:30] the physicists kicking and screaming into the future. you know, when it gets to a be a a big enough crowd, then they'll have to listen. But until then, they're not interested. >> I mean, this was before Nick Boston's trillemma, before Elon Musk was talking about it. You were you were first. >> Yeah, pretty much. >> Were you frustrated or annoyed? >> Bostonramm came along not that far after me, I think. And we were we would almost say we were in around the same time, but >> he was more philosophy. You get into the [01:36:00] science. >> Yeah. And I didn't really care for his his his arguments. Yeah, okay, you can make those arguments, but I didn't find those very satisfying. You know, I'm I'm a sc I'm a scientist. I want, you know, I want arguments based on facts. Well, his argument was that uh >> the technology is already the point that things that are animated look real. And at that time, there really wasn't goggles and so on when Nick Boston did [01:36:30] that. But he was just saying the techn is going to get better to where we won't be able to distinguish, you know, if we're in something real or not. >> And then is this big assumption then well if we're doing this then others are doing this too. And if if you can simulate reality and we're in a you know we're not in the the oldest part of the universe. There's other things been around a whole lot longer than we have like a billion years longer than we have. Mhm. >> And he was saying that if simulated and [01:37:00] real are equivalent, then the probability that we are in a simulation is higher than that we're not. Well, okay, there's some logic in that. >> Yeah. >> But this is not a very convincing argument to a physicist. >> What about Elon Musk's argument that this base reality is one in billions? Is that >> Oh, that this base reality >> that the odds that this that we're [01:37:30] living in the actual base reality is one in billions. >> Yeah. Well, I would agree with that. The you know, that's sort of the same thing. If everybody's out there making simulations and there's they're as good as real, then what's the probability that we are the base reality? Well, that's very unlikely. Again, we don't live in old part of the universe. We live in kind of a mediocre. There's another part of the universe that's younger than us, but there's a whole lot of it that's a billion years older than us. And a billion years is a long time. >> Yeah. I mean, I might even be 9 or 10 [01:38:00] billion. >> Yeah. I just say a billion. That's enough. But yeah, billions of years. Yeah. >> So, anyway, yes, you have that logic, but you know, that to me is not a real solid argument. It's a it makes it a strong conjecture, but I'd call that a conjecture. you know, if this and if that, then probably this is the way it is. It's that kind of a thing. It's not a you let go of the rock, it falls down. [01:38:30] You know, that's a that's a you know, there's not conjecture there. It's a thing. So, this was kind of conjecture-based. But yeah, I was on it around that same time. And if I had known, I would have sent John Ultrabald Wheeler a copy. >> Oh, yes. >> But I didn't really know because >> he was he was there. He already understood that. He just didn't have the he didn't have the the tools to develop it because he was really really old and [01:39:00] kind of beyond you know beyond new theories. >> Yeah. His it from bit was kind of late in his life. >> Yeah. It was Yeah. So I don't know he may have been too old to even read it. I'm not sure. But he died then a couple of years later. So he was at the last part of his life when virtual reality became a a thing. >> Yeah. >> The idea that this is a virtual reality. I base it on two or three things. One, [01:39:30] the scientists themselves will tell you that this is an information-based reality. Now, not all scientists. A lot of scientists still believe that this physical matter is the is what's at the bottom. Probably a majority of physicists probably believe that. >> Sure. >> And non-physicists, but all the people who are smashing atoms together and doing that sort of stuff, their their own work, their experiments tell them that's not the case. >> I've had them in this room. They you're right. >> Yeah. That that's not the case. And we [01:40:00] had a little discussion earlier, but I'll tell your people. that is that that um the people who smash these atoms together if they assume that say an electron is a little piece of mass with a charge they cannot get the right answer if that's where they start from. The way they get right answers which actually tells them what's going to happen when they smash these particles together is they assume that an electron is a point with the attributes of mass [01:40:30] and the attribute of charge. That's just information. A point with information of attributes is the way you model an electron in a computer. >> So they know that this is not a physical world. This is an information-based world. But they won't take the next step. If you take the next logical step, you could say, well, what would that mean? That reality is information-based. Well, there's only one answer to that, and that is it's computable, [01:41:00] right? Computer is an information system. Creates information manipulate. This is information based then it's computable. Well, what does that mean? That it's computable. That means that it could be computed. All right. Let's say it could be. What are the other possibilities? None. There aren't any other possibilities that gives you a computed reality other than this reality. this reality is [01:41:30] computed. So this reality you have to assume that particles are are information. They're not really chunks of mass. They're attributes. Particles with attributes. So if that's the way this reality is, then coming to the giant step of a of a conclusion that this is a virtual reality is no giant step at all. This is a teeny weeny step. And it takes the reason that they don't take that step is because that step requires [01:42:00] courage because the next thing if you say this is a virtual reality somebody's going to say well who's the programmer? >> Of course you know who's the programmer and you know why is this reality programmed? What's the point? What's the purpose? Well the physicists can't answer those questions. So they don't want to trigger that because then it's I don't know. And of course, you don't seem smart when you say I don't know. So they don't go there because they don't [01:42:30] have any answers. If they had any answer at all, they'd say that's outside of physics. You know, we don't we don't do that. If it's not this if it's not about this physical reality, then it's not physics. So it's out of our realm. Now you're in theology or psychology or some other space, but that's outside of physics. So we don't do that. we just deal with this this objective universe. So rather you know they don't want to go there so they just stay quiet. >> They know that this reality is [01:43:00] informationbased and you don't have to be very clever to realize there's only one answer to that and that is that it's computed. Tell me about um Lawrence Krauss and his paper say saying that this can't be a simulation and then I think you had a rebuttal paper about LCS, right? >> Well, physicists have every every four or five years we get a paper that says this can't possibly be a a simulation because they're trying to distance themselves [01:43:30] from that because if you're a materialist that's very anti-materialist. Mh. So if you're a materialist then unfortunately physics is has almost [clears throat] become you know a religion. Materialism has become like a religion to them. It's a very deepbased belief that they have a really hard time getting around. So, one of the arguments that this couldn't possibly be a simulation is that if you started at the bottom and you you simulated, you know, [01:44:00] you computed all the tiniest particles and from those you'd make up bigger particles and from those you'd make up, you know, maybe neutrons and and protons and electrons and from that you make up atoms. Atoms. Yes. And from atoms you make up molecules. And if you start at the bottom and do all this, which would be necessary, of course, otherwise you wouldn't know what was going to happen next, then it's impossible because there's just too many particles and too many things and too many calculations. [01:44:30] And the calculation necessary to run reality that way would just be ridiculous. >> That's not how simulations work. >> So that's not how simulations work at all. Nobody does simulations like that except in very small problems that are well defined. So anyway, that's that's one. And there's another ridiculous thing that they go into. They say that they try to they know that reality is non-local. They know that there's things happen [01:45:00] that aren't supposed to happen. That there's, you know, there's entanglement, that this changes in a a zillion light years away that changes. So they know these things. So they want to make a physics that can address those. They can't. >> And they can't without being really silly. And one of the silly things is many worlds. >> Yes. >> They say okay now you know since there isn't anyone in charge because that's not physics. It has to so every particle. >> Every particle. So just say every [01:45:30] electron in the universe not just here in planet Earth but in the whole universe. If one particle, say an electron, goes from a spin up to a spin down. Ah, we need a whole new universe. >> Whole new universe >> where it did where it did the opposite. >> A whole new universe. >> Not just the opposite, but everything in superp position. >> Yes. >> So infinite. >> Exactly. So what happens is that if every time something moves, if I raise this arm, there's someplace else that I didn't raise that arm. I raised [laughter] this arm and there's someplace else that I did this and [01:46:00] someplace else that I did that. And every one of those, me just doing this, this, this, just spawned off a zillion new physical universes just like this one, but different. And so we have everything that could possibly happen. And the probability, you know, that's my database. You see, my my database that I talk about, you know, this probable future, that's that really. Yeah. >> And the probable is the future turns into the present to the past. That's [01:46:30] that. But they can't do it without creating physical worlds. >> Yeah, I don't buy it. >> Yeah, you shouldn't buy it. It's ridiculous. [clears throat] It's just as ridiculous as doing the little particles and you know, you have to model everything in the universe from the ground up. That's ridiculous. The many worlds is ridiculous. >> Copenhagen interpretation. >> It just doesn't work. Copenhagen interpretation is right on. >> Right on. Okay. >> Those guys in at Copenhagen knew what they were doing. And you know every one of those and if any of your listeners want to verify this I have a I have a uh a video on YouTube called breakthrough [01:47:00] and it starts with Copenhagen and every one of those guys said consciousness is at the root consciousness I think it was what plank you know you can't get behind consciousness there's nothing else behind it that's that's the fundamental >> so they all came to that conclusion and later physicists said well they just were confused you know and they they brought that aside, but they were probably the best physicists, you know, of the 20th century. Still probably the