A computer big enough to accurately calculate the position and properties of every "particle" (and ever decreasing subdivisions of energy and matter) would need to be the size of the universe in the first place. We can't even simulate enough particles in an n-body simulation to match the number of stars in a galaxy, let alone individual molecules, or shall we go further and say atoms, or further and say protons, neutrons and electrons? And that's for ONE galaxy amongst hundreds of billions in the OBSERVABLE universe... using only ONE force - gravity!

The guy has a great point about the Big Bang - a billion billion galaxies worth of matter and energy created in a split second from nothing? Doesn't sound like like the conservation of energy that is so fundamental to physics, right? But that's no reason to throw out hundreds of years of evidence and research which has proven conservation of energy to be true since then. The big bang makes the most sense given what we see today... if you want to propose a better theory, it has to make more sense than the Big Bang theory. Saying that the big bang doesn't make sense is not an appropriate starting point for a new theory, and doesn't lead to "so therefore we're in a simulation."

And it's not good enough to appeal to simplicity like @robdot is doing - basically saying that everything we see could very easily be an illusion for our benefit. That's an argument for God, in my opinion... just like how religious fanatics say "it was God's will for this to happen" we'd instead say "well, that's what the simulation wanted to show us" and call it a day. Furthermore if the manifestations of physical laws out there in the universe are illusions, they are at least consistent illusions that we can calculate and predict. And in that case, what is the difference to our lives whether we call it "reality" or "simulation" or "computer"? It it still what we always knew it was. If something created our universe and allowed it to run like a simulation, it is almost certainly intangible to us and for all intents and purposes meaningless too, because we can't touch, feel, see or understand it on any level.

This is one of the topics i asked of my favourite professor - how can we trust what we see if it could be faked, and what exists beyond our universe? His answer was, if i have to doubt what i see, i might as well not do anything at all, and if you want an answer to the second question talk to a philosopher. This is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. The scientific method doesn't care what you call the place you live in nor "who" we think "created" it. You can't hope to understand anything if you don't base it on the evidence you have. You certainly can't form a theory on the basis that all evidence is untrustworthy.

So if someone is gonna make a simulation of the universe..

It would likely be some Fermi Lab scientist who wanted to study the Big Bang.

They would reverse engineer the expansion of the universe as much as possible..

[ a thing that's already been done and being tweaked to get even better Planck length "resolution", as it were ]

And once they got the best estimations..

Would dump all those rules and variables into a quantum computer and run sim after sim, checking to see WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END!

Much like The Game of Life sim developed by mathematician John Conway.

*ban3.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqgZSCOC-L4


*related=

http://videosift.com/video/BIGBANG-NOW-IS-BIG-BANG-NOWIS-electro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=985bw09PR3s

*ban2.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPMxE13GKo


*related=

http://videosift.com/video/NOW-IS-BIGBANG-NOW-IS-classic

http://videosift.com/video/BIGBANG-NOW-IS-BIG-BANG-NOWIS-electro

You clearly have a misconception of the theories being discussed here.
Not being rude or anything

Even the Matrix was a continuously running program, that only crashed & rebooted occasionally.

So don't think it the theory as a videogame with logins and save states..

It's more like.. popping in a dvd and watching until the end.

The big bang is when you pressed play.

So while, I guess, you could pause without anything knowing the simulation was paused..

If you stopped and started, that would create an entire collapse of the universe and another big bang..


So yeah, not World of Warcraft.

More like Cookie Clicker
..with browser cookies disabled..
close the window and you'll have to start from scratch.

you dont need to recreate every event in the universe at all,,if you are living in a simulation, then there were no dinosaurs,,,see?,,there was no WW2,,the big bang never actually happened,,etc...,and you only need to do it,,for one person,,,,

*ban

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=985bw09PR3s


*related=

http://videosift.com/video/NOW-IS-51-NOWIS-Optical-Illusions

http://videosift.com/video/BIGBANG-NOW-IS-BIG-BANG-NOWIS-electro

He seem pretty confident about a bunch of theoretical stuff..

Wouldn't you need an enormously powerful computer to stimulate a universe?

In what reality or universe does that computer exist?

Aren't we right back at the "big bang doesn't work because what happened before it" paradox?

Interesting.. but sorta silly.

I feel like the Tenth Dimension theory explain things better.

Understood. And it is upsetting to watch and comforting to see the dog's reaction. But on the other hand this is the first I'm reading that self-abuse, depressive episodes and panic attacks are now included in Aspergers, so I question the accuracy of the video's title. Or else I have been skimming the subject all this time, which is entirely possible.

I always read about it being socially inept, not being able to interpret facial reactions and body language of others, retaining reams of trivial data in memory (serial numbers, license plates), sitting awkwardly, being committed to certain routines, in general being smart and odd, etc.

People seem to cherry pick some aspect and now they have a "touch" of Aspergers, or they are now an "Aspie" just like their favorite character on "Big Bang Theory".

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

Comedy is about the most subjective thing on the planet. I think she's genuinely funny.

There's plenty of shit comedy around, but there's also plenty of great stuff too.
I think SNL is most overrated show in existence and I am utterly baffled by the success of 2 Broke Girls, Two and a half men and the Big Bang Theory, but Brooklyn Nine Nine and Community are great.

I don't have much time for Bill Burr or Bill Maher, but I think Doug Stanhope and Charlie Booker are geniuses.

YMMV.

That's pretty much my favourite physics fact right there. From the point of view of a photon, travel is instantaneous. From the sun, from the next nearest star, from the big bang... It seemed to the photon that it was emitted and absorbed instantaneously.

We also had a brilliant bunch of lectures by Don Kurtz who told us about a book called Mr Tompkins in wonderland, in which the narrative was written by a guy who was a bicyclist in a world where the speed of light, c = 10 metres per second or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Tompkins

We then did a bunch of questions about what that man experienced, what colour traffic lights were, what length his bike and roads were, and what time it said on the clock tower. Just great, that's what makes me want to lecture one day.

Yahweh has NEVER given evidence of his existence. No more so than any other god anyhow. They all answer prayer equally and randomly well. They all claim to have made the universe/world, they all claim to be the true one... Near death experiences differ by culture expectations of that culture and don't all conform to the supposed Christian expectation... he has done nothing to make himself stand out from the rest of the gods that Christians dismiss. Heck, I've never seen a Frost Giant or evidence they ever existed, so clearly Odin has one up on Yahweh.

In the 4,000 years or so from Adam and Eve's time in the Garden to Jesus, Yahweh couldn't or wouldn't make himself known to the other races. He didn't reveal himself to those in Africa, Asia, the Americas or Europe, just to one tiny specific group of people in the Middle East. If couldn't then he's not the omnipotent, omnipresent god he claims, if he wouldn't that makes him a racist ass not worthy of following by picking one people to be his chosen people.

The only reason Europe became Christian was forced conversion when the Christian armies of Rome forced them to, which setup a tradition of most Europeans and later Americans being born into a faith. Were the exact same people born in Saudi Arabia they "would know that they know" that Islam is the true religion, or same in India but applying to Hinduism.

And saying that atheists have had supernatural experiences and can change to theism when talking about it, ignores the whole point of the video, especially the part when he talks about the linked Darren Brown video, which demonstrates that it is easy to make a spiritual experience happen that has no basis on any real god.

By way of example: I used to be a heavy evangelical Christian, I watched TBN and Fox News religiously (pun intended, see this old post of mine here on the sift from an old account that I couldn't recover http://videosift.com/usercomments/Charon... heck see my Revelations from the Word posts on my blog, http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/religion/revelations-from-the-word/ or more embarrassing my older political posts http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/politics/ which while progressive now, go to page 4 or so around June 2008 and back and you see a Libertarian and further back Republican with some crazy anti-vaccine paranoia , climate change denialism, science denaillism and other things I'm deeply ashamed of now)... I've had deep and meaningful spiritual experiences with god. After Republicans ruined Christianity for me (as the Republican party is clearly 100% against every teaching of Jesus... and yeah we can tick that off as being humans, but god does nothing to correct them, he may have spoke to my heart or whatever one wants to say to have more empathy, but over half the Christians in this nation still vote for a party 100% devoid of the teachings of the Jesus of the Bible while claiming to do it for Christian reasons) and I eventually lost faith (while Republicans are the reason I initially lost faith, they aren't the reason I stayed away, god is a dick is why I stayed away). After I lost faith in the Christian god, I gave paganism a try, and I've had just a meaningful spiritual experiences while worshiping at a Druid rite as I have at any Christian church. This is why people pick a religion, first by accident of birth (most people are Christian in the US because their parents were, and back to Europe where going back further they were forced to convert by invading Christian armies), second by choosing one that connects more personally with them... for many they see the hypocrisy of Christianity (and its general lack of empathy) but do connect with some form of paganism, and pagans generally have a patron god they serve above most others, and that god is the one they have a deep connection to, the same deep connection that Christians claim to have with Jesus/Yahweh... One doesn't drive a plane into a building killing 3,000 plus people without a deep and meaningful relationship with their god, and to dismiss t hat relationship as being deceived is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Now, I will allow the possibility that god does exist, but not in the form Christians propose, but perhaps closer to what the US Founding Fathers believed, but perhaps expanded a bit with more modern knowledge. A Deist like view. That this god somehow this god, created the energy and set into motion the laws of this physical universe that spun out from the big bang, but he's had nothing to do with anything since then. Perhaps all religions actually worship the same god but with their own culture's expectations and interpretations. However this would mean that all religions and lack there of are equally valid, which most faiths (aside from most modern paganism) doesn't allow for as their claim rests on being the true one.

I've rambled on far too long already so I'll leave it at that.

Your video, "Big Bang Theory" season 4 bloopers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

I like how she says "science wasn't even as certain as it is today. It is very certain today" and ignores the fact that science is very certain also of all the things they refused to accept like evolution, big bang, climate change...

Meanwhile yes, get vaccinated. Even if the studies against it were true, it in the end would mean less overall complications and deaths by more and more people not being vaccinated because religious nut jobs say not to and spread false information. Even at Copland's mega church, one of the biggest anti-vax churches in the country is now encouraging vaccination after an outbreak there, though they blame it on somebody visiting the church who had it... which is of course the f'n point, to be immune when, if somebody who has it, comes by.

Even nearly 11 years ago when my eldest son was born, we had a moment of skepticism over it, but in the end decided to risk it. He did end up with Aspergers, but we don't blame the vaccinations. And his own personal hard work (and those around him), he no longer needs an IEP or regular counseling. Even if it was remotely possible that the Aspergers came from it, still better the risk of that than the risk of what would happen if nobody was vaccinated and he got measles. The right loves showing pictures of the twin towers as justification for torture, how about seeing pictures of children with measles before the vaccine came out?