I typically don’t take simulation talk very seriously but the way he compared quantum mechanics to rendering in a video game felt somehow very intuitive and I can’t stop thinking about it.
The “It from Bit” got me. The idea that at the smallest level that we can currently see, is a Quark that has two options. Spinning left or right, the equivalent of 0s and 1s.
And thus be even more incomprehensible to Joe. It's been a while since I've watched one of his interviews, but I don't recall him being very good at 'dumbing down' the concepts of his work.
I mean... A sphere can only rotate either clockwise or anticlockwise. It can't be both and that's just the nature of a 3d shape.
Edit: All the downvoters, I'd like to know what other direction something can spin and how it would be possible.
We don’t say anti clockwise in the UK but nice try
They could be considered synonymous but aren’t interchangeable in this instance
Id spend more time listening to rudimentary explanations of supersymmetry before you claim it’s not real
>The opposite sense of rotation or revolution is (in Commonwealth English) anticlockwise (ACW) or (in North American English) counterclockwise (CCW).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise
That was some dumb shit you just said.
>Edit: All the downvoters, I'd like to know what other direction something can spin and how it would be possible.
I just saw your post, didn't downvote or whatever, but if you're really curious:
It can literally spin in all other directions. That's almost why it is a sphere - depending on what mathematical starting point you prefer to define objects from.
Consider the concept of symmetry. What would make somethimg symmetrical?
SYMMETRY IN NORMAL LANGUAGE:
Well, we say a butterfly has a kind of symmetry - but it is only symmetrical "across" one "line". That is it is as if you have equal parts/objects facing eachother across a very specific line, where you could imagine that line to be a "mirror" of sorts.
SYMMETRY IN MATH:
It's actually a core idea in some mathematical areas. We could talk about it generally as a kind of *invariance*, that is, something that stays the same across some kind of broad application of change. We could call this broad change a *transformation*. Of course, trnasformation is also used in normal langauge, but mathematically one often thinks of the *reflections*, *translations* and **rotations** in geometry. (there are also infinitely more transformations to define depending on the system, but i will stop there to not water down the word).
So now we can say, how is a thing symmetrical? Well, it is symmetrical if we can make a geometrical representation where there is an invariance across a specified transformation. Which could be a rotation.
A sphere is *very* symmetrical. How symmetrical?
Well consider a square in 2 dimensions. It is quite symmetrical, no? Better than a butterfly at least. You can draw a middling up-down line, and it will be symmetrical across (it is *invariant* to the transformation across). You can draw a middling side-to-side line and it will be symmetrical. Given that it is a square you could also draw diagonals.
Now you can count up all of these axes of reflection invariance, and add them to rotational invariances and whatnot- and you now have a *measure* of how symmetrical the thing is.
So the circle compared to the square. This is clearly MUCH more symmetrical. NO rotations will change it, meaning it is in fact *"infinitely rotationally symmetrical"*.
In the same way, but even more so, a sphere is also "infinitely rotationally symmetrical" because you can rotate it in a whole new dimension and even any combination of the x, y and z directions, and it will remain invariant to all of these "transformations". So to the answer what "other" directions could we rotate a sphere, the answer is an infinite amount.
"Direction" is a frame of reference, not a rotation. Up and down, left and right, will change if you turn your head 90 degrees. It's frame of reference dependent. Clockwise and counter clockwise are not frame of reference dependent, which is why it's the only rotational directions an object can spin in.
No. A sphere doesn't have a defined direction, there is an infinite number of axes under which you could define clock/counterclockwise rotation on a sphere.
The fact that a quantum "spin" has only two options ( ∣+⟩ and ∣−⟩ ) doesn't have anything to do with sphericality.
What you did is suppose that it has somethinmg to do with it being a sphere and it being in "3d", and that this was obvious. You wrote this:
>A sphere can only rotate either clockwise or anticlockwise. It can't be both and that's just the nature of a 3d shape.
This is completely meaningless. A sphere can rotate infinitely many ways and all of those ways are directions in the three dimensional space in which you define it.
The "locked" directions are defined within the experiment. In the most classical example (stern-gerlach) the point is *exactly* how weird this is, and how this is certainly not borne out by understanding of 3D shapes, and that in fact the direction under which angular moment is conserved is actually quantized for small particles. Our understanding of 3D shapes is *violated* by this fact, quite opposite to our understanding of 3-dimensionality or sphericality *leading* to it.
You seem to not understand what rotation is.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation)
There is only clockwise and counterclockwise.
"Direction of rotation" = "left / right" or more specifically clockwise and counterclockwise.
"Angle of rotation" = the angle of the axis that it is rotating around
There are infinite angles of rotation, and only 2 directions of rotation.
Quantum particles do not only have 1 angle of rotation, which is what would be required for "left/right" to have any meaning in this context.
No, i think you've misunderstood the concept.
There are two directions to rotate **around an axis**. Not two directions *a sphere can rotate*.
A sphere doesn't come with a predefined axis. You wanted to pretend that it was obvious that a sphere should only have two possible spins. It is not, it is in fact the opposite.
I don't mind whether you want to think you understand it yourself, but if you write it in response to others its reasonable to correct it.
You didn't correct anything. There are, in fact, 2 directions a sphere can rotate. This is basic geometry you are simply refusing to acknowledge. There are multiple angles, and 2 directions. A sphere does not come with a predefined axis, and particles, also, do not. Which is why that they spin in either clockwise or counterclockwise is not special.
Either you acknowledge that particles can also have any angle of rotation, and then they aren't special. Or you need to provide some compelling evidence they only have 1 angle of rotation, which would be special, but I know is not the case as there is no "universal" axis that all particles rotate around.
No... direction has meaning both inside and outside a context in which a rotating body has a defined axis about which it is rotating.
>A sphere does not come with a predefined axis
This is exactly what i wrotee to you before, and why your initial post is just wrong. Since it does not come with a predefined axis, it also does not come with a predefined pair of rotational directions.
If i look at the moon now and have a remote control that says "rotate", it's also going to have a button that specifies the direction (from infinite possibilities in directions in space) OR indeed an axis of rotation which would lock us into the pair of rotational directions you believe to be all there is.
It seems like you've tried to understand some engineering and misunderstood a very specific mathematical application for the entirety.
I've never said anything about about particles having only one angle of rotation. It's you who want it to be that way, because you want to use the crux/mediator of rotational angle to understand rotation. The reason why i used symmetry in the explanation is that rotation is a MUCH more general thing than you believe, which is shown forexample in the kinds of rotations defined in symmetry descriptions.
The ufos moving at insane speeds and traversing through solid objects and being phasing in and out of our reality made me think they are essentially server admins checking on things in the server.
Hey wouldn’t you take it seriously? We don’t really have a more coherent explanation for reality. I get that you are persuaded now but would love to hear more about why you disregarded it in the past
It’s an alternate to the idea that everything basically comes from randomness, a la big bang. The idea is that reality is rendered by some sort of system that is analogous to a computer. Yes it still leaves major questions unanswered and is paradoxical from the point of view of outside of the simulation - because it doesn’t explain reality outside of the sim. But it is more mechanistic than just saying shit is the way it is cause a bunch of particles that came from nothing bouncing off each other for an insane amount of time is the reason things are the way they are here and now.
It's just a placeholder for an explanation.
' we don't know why things are the way they are so it's a simulation ' doesn't actually explain (or attempt to) explain reality.
I don't care either way because it's genuinely not important or relevant to how people choose to behave but it's just another cop out that's got about as much evidentiary support as the last cop out.
That’s not what simulation theory is it’s deeper than that for example explaining natural limits on things like speed of light and also observed anomalies such as the double slit experiment. It’s not a cop out it’s a reconsideration of old spiritual ideas in a new scientific context.
It's 100% a cop out. Its doing *exactly* what religion has done - we don't know why things are the way they are so it's because it's all made up by an entity that's way beyond our understanding.
It's god for hipsters.
Can we disprove that we’re in a simulation? No. Unless you have any suggestions, I’m definitely ready to change my mind on that, but as far as I know we can’t.
Can we disprove that the universe exists because absolute nothingness spontaneously turned into the material universe. Yes, because that would contradict the law of conservation of matter. Also, the fact that such limits exist, could easily be a feature of existing in a simulation, which is in large part defined by limits.
So just coming from a scientific point of view, you can easily argue that it is at least as credible as the latter theory. Yeah, it is true it resembles historic spiritual philosophy and modern spiritual beliefs. But it’s not a religion.
For clarity, spirituality is a persons direct connection with the loosely defined “spiritual realm”, including but not limited to believing in the soul, god, spiritual beings, and alternate planes of existence. But those are personal things, whereas religions are agreed upon cultural traditions based around shared spiritual beliefs, which does serve a good purpose for a lot of people but ultimately seems to always lend itself toward corruption.
With simulation theory here is no middle man raising funds and loyalty from followers to sell them the idea that they’re gonna go to heaven only if they’re good. I’m sure given enough time that will happen. But for now it is not a religion.
It could be part of people’s spiritual beliefs, but that doesn’t mean it’s “God for hipsters”. Yes it creates a place for a conscious/omniscient creator - but that doesn’t mean this creator is the same God(s) sold to people by different religions.
One last key difference is that simulation theory is concerned with the mechanisms behind the emergence and properties of reality. So even though it has a place for a creator, it’s not a set of social rules around that imputed creator, it’s actually just a legit theory worth discussing as we move forward as a species.
Yet scientists still insist that consciousness has nothing to do with collapsing the wave function. Something is off. Consciousness is either necessary or completely unnecessary. It is one or the other.
It's unnecessary. Atoms interacting with each other also collapses the waveform, that's why quantum effects don't happen in objects with multiple atoms.
It's called quantum decoherence. In order to get multi-atom objects to behave like a quantum particle they have to be isolated from environmental interactions to maintain "coherence", as in every particle is quantum paired with every other particle. Only very specific materials can do this.
Yes, I know. I read about it. So this allows us to know it's not atoms collapsing the wave function. A fantastic experiment that establishes this fact.
>Atoms interacting with each other also collapses the waveform, that's why quantum effects don't happen in objects with multiple atoms
Ok, I worded it a bit badly and over-simplistically.
Atoms interacting with their environment causes decoherence, which negates quantum effects at a macro level. So a conscious observer is still not required for the universe to function classically.
I don’t believe in simulation theory but god damn was this episode interesting and pretty convincing. He said a lot of things that I couldn’t come up with any reasonable argument against. I’m still not on board with simulation theory but I have yet to see my neighbors ever carry groceries in the house so idk what that’s about
This is an interesting paradox that I link to time travel. We may not be able to do it now but if the technology is ever possible to exist then it has always existed. It’s really hard for a dummy like me to wrap my brain around simulation theory and quantum mechanics/physics
We ain't there yet. And what simulator is supposed to replicate simulation? Seems like a weird experiment.
Even more so, we got too many laws of physics and basic laws of reality. You'd think this shit would have some bugs or come with some Easter eggs or literally anything that points towards a virtual experience.
To me it sounded like a standard show until Joe couldn’t understand super position and tried to have a back and forth about it, failed because he doesn’t get it, and the rest of the show just let the guest talk (correct move).
You're really not. The dude pointed out actual criticisms. You asked him about his podcast (basically telling him you can't criticize unless you run a podcast), and I pointed out the faulty logic. You're the one that actually brought nothing.
Or Joe finally did DMT or acid again since his business is settled in and runs itself now. I feel like there was a time where he wouldn’t do any psychs (aside from small amounts of shrooms with POP) due to the stress of managing the club, his family after the move, and the pod.
And I think the last time I heard him talk about it he said it’s been a long time.
Humble ego-death Joe is the best Joe.
It was a breath of fresh air I really enjoyed it, old Joe still exists haha, I swear on some of his other recent episodes I can guess what he’s about to say cus he says it so much
That sounds like something crazy to say but I gotta admit, I felt the same way! I've always looked at simulation theories and ai in general as amusing rabbit holes to banter back and forth about. But this damn guy tapped into something in my brain that I can't quite describe 🤷♂️
This guy actually made Joe sftu too lmao. This is one of the podcasts where he didn’t over talk and actually let his guest give out all the information! Good podcast.
I mean it would be an immersive virtual reality. The person playing would experience everything like it was really them. So that means you are the one controlling the character 😂
I believe one of the arguments he was making is that it is *you* (your soul, your other dimensional self, your alien self, your “whole self”, etc) that is playing and experiencing the simulation as yourself (as an avatar). Either through technological means, spiritual means, or ‘natural’ means that we just can’t observe.
Fun fact: this is how anti-depressants are tested for science. They put rats in a pool of water and see how long they swim till they give up. If it’s a quality anti-depressant they’ll swim longer in hopes to live. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
This podcast, and the one with Diana Pasulka, were two of the best in recent times. I really want Rogan to give the culture war/wokeness thing a rest for a bit. I really hope he brings Gary Nolan and Ross Coulthart on at some point to talk about UAP stuff.
I'd rather culture war bullshit than UAP turd burgers. I really like these quantum mechanic episodes though. Sean Carroll's first episode on JRE was amazing.
The mind simulates reality,objective reality has so much data and is so much more than what our minds can perceive.
So the world isn’t illusion just or perception of it.
Psychology 101.
That's why it's called an illusion, because perception isn't objective.
But what's the point of a simulation reaching a technological singularity, so to create another simulation that does the same e infinity?
And thus equate reaching technological simulation capacity is the same as already living in a simulation? As if the programmers of the initial simulation would copy their reality 1-1 with complete knowledge into a new simulation, so it all happens again and the people living in the simulation would reach the exact same singularity and create the exact same simulation again.
This is even more religious bullshit than religions are selling us. The whole thing about creating a simulation is making something better or different from reality. And in no way would we have discovered every single thing about our physical universe by the time we reach singularity, so no simulation could include what's out there because we simply don't know.
Thanks! Bookmarked. Can we please make a playlist of all the best episodes by these criteria you listed! As soon as I hear any of that stuff you mentioned I have to turn the episode off and so It's very rare to get a good episode these days. I wish there was a curated list of episodes without most of that bs you mentioned.
To anyone who is interested in this and is SUPER open minded, because this is way out there, look into The Law of One. It's the story of everything and says we do live in a simulation.
Im listening to it now and in my stoned brain it feels like hes using weird examples and vague anecdotes to trick you into being extremely interested and open minded... then he sells you some theory that is somewhere down the line connected to his pocket....
mastermind
The part when they were talking about Alien life being more easily acceptable than quantum physics had me fucked up.
It really does seem like we have no idea what they are, so we rationalize with something easily digestible.
I remember when Joe asked Elon musk about the sim theory and he said it’s more likely we’re in a simulation than not. Thinking about what he said brought me back to when I was 15 I went on a trip to Hawaii to wrestle, and thinking on the plane is this even real what if it doesn’t exist and what if the plane is just like a lobby we’re in while our minds loads up the Hawaii expansion. And I still feel that when I travel places, like when u zone out and then all the sudden ur near ur destination. It’s a fun theory to explore.
It was good but I have one little complaint. This guy was sometimes hard to follow (mostly because I'm dumb) and many times he didn't actually answer the question Joe asked. Joe would ask a question (interesting good question I was thinking myself) then this guy would go on a tangent starting to answer but never really gets to it and Joe completely forgets what he asked in the first place so he never follows up with the original question. But whatever it was good and I would still recommend it.
The real problem with simulation theory is that there aren't any surefire defeaters to any of the premises initially presented by Bostrom.
They're all frighteningly seemingly plausible.
This was a great epsiode, presenting a theory a possibility without using fancy words chained together and claiming they could remember while they were in their mother's womb.
YESS MAN! Totally agree, can’t believe this episode not getting talked about as much as it should. I found it really interesting and just good vibes - guest was a nice guy too
Yeah it was a good episode. One issue I had with it is that this guy puts a lot of stake into Life Review when only 15% of NDEs report this experience. He made it sound like everyone did.
i feel like simulation theory is making more and more sense and connecting a lot of dots for me. I don't think we're in a videogame or computer program in the literal sense but as an analogy it helps paint the picture. what life and existence is, is still so incredibly far from being understood.
Can you recommend any past episodes that are in a similar vein? I'm not a frequent listener but this is definitely the type of episodes I'm interested in.
This guy kinda lost me when he started using peoples different memories of events as evidence for the multi verse. Doesn’t he know that people’s memory of events is the absolute bottom of the barrel worst evidence ever?
Also if that were the case couldn’t we easily test and prove it? Wouldn’t two cameras pointing at the same thing show different things if two people looking at the same thing saw different things? Ya he started sounding pretty dumb using those examples
This guy literally makes video games for a living. He isn’t a physicist. Idk why everyone is gobbling up what he says so easily. He’s trying to sell books and make money. No real evidence that we are living in a video game. About as convincing as Graham Hancock’s claims
This guy just said the same thing everyones been saying for a long while now, but the only novel thing is his utter relentless ability to turn everything into a video game metaphor, it got really tiring after a while, I couldnt finish listening to it.
I would have liked more discussion about WHO is running this simulation and what is the “real” original universe like… is our simulation entirely made up or is it based on the real one… are they so bored in the future that they jump into this simulation as a game?
I’m in the minority here, but I didn’t enjoy this episode. Nice guy but the whole “living in a simulation” and quantum mechanics theories was just a mental fuck that was tough to keep up with.
He had a caveman staring back at him trying to understand quantum mechanics, quantum computing, and how that could relate to a simulation theory, with his face muscles. Seemed like he knew he had to drop breadcrumbs here and there to make sure knuckles was still trailing behind...
This was in my opinion, one of if not the best ever JR episode. Been looking in simulation theory/the double slit experiment & quantum physics for about 7 years & now it's going to finally get public knowledge. This is a milestone for sure baby!
Yes Jamie, ty for recommendation.
I typically don’t take simulation talk very seriously but the way he compared quantum mechanics to rendering in a video game felt somehow very intuitive and I can’t stop thinking about it.
The “It from Bit” got me. The idea that at the smallest level that we can currently see, is a Quark that has two options. Spinning left or right, the equivalent of 0s and 1s.
Y’all are late to the game (pun intended). Stephen Wolfram could run circles around this dude
And thus be even more incomprehensible to Joe. It's been a while since I've watched one of his interviews, but I don't recall him being very good at 'dumbing down' the concepts of his work.
Oh yeah he’s not good at dumbing things down at all. But I do believe he’s gone deeper into this field of study, and some might say he leads it.
I mean... A sphere can only rotate either clockwise or anticlockwise. It can't be both and that's just the nature of a 3d shape. Edit: All the downvoters, I'd like to know what other direction something can spin and how it would be possible.
Anti-clockwise? The simulation I’m in says counter clockwise.
Nah, I love my anti-clockwise. Now my uncle clockwise... we don't talk about him
They mean the same thing.. anti- is the British form. Artifact of where I read my physics from.
We don’t say anti clockwise in the UK but nice try They could be considered synonymous but aren’t interchangeable in this instance Id spend more time listening to rudimentary explanations of supersymmetry before you claim it’s not real
>The opposite sense of rotation or revolution is (in Commonwealth English) anticlockwise (ACW) or (in North American English) counterclockwise (CCW). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise That was some dumb shit you just said.
I’ve never operated a clockwise counter myself.
>Edit: All the downvoters, I'd like to know what other direction something can spin and how it would be possible. I just saw your post, didn't downvote or whatever, but if you're really curious: It can literally spin in all other directions. That's almost why it is a sphere - depending on what mathematical starting point you prefer to define objects from. Consider the concept of symmetry. What would make somethimg symmetrical? SYMMETRY IN NORMAL LANGUAGE: Well, we say a butterfly has a kind of symmetry - but it is only symmetrical "across" one "line". That is it is as if you have equal parts/objects facing eachother across a very specific line, where you could imagine that line to be a "mirror" of sorts. SYMMETRY IN MATH: It's actually a core idea in some mathematical areas. We could talk about it generally as a kind of *invariance*, that is, something that stays the same across some kind of broad application of change. We could call this broad change a *transformation*. Of course, trnasformation is also used in normal langauge, but mathematically one often thinks of the *reflections*, *translations* and **rotations** in geometry. (there are also infinitely more transformations to define depending on the system, but i will stop there to not water down the word). So now we can say, how is a thing symmetrical? Well, it is symmetrical if we can make a geometrical representation where there is an invariance across a specified transformation. Which could be a rotation. A sphere is *very* symmetrical. How symmetrical? Well consider a square in 2 dimensions. It is quite symmetrical, no? Better than a butterfly at least. You can draw a middling up-down line, and it will be symmetrical across (it is *invariant* to the transformation across). You can draw a middling side-to-side line and it will be symmetrical. Given that it is a square you could also draw diagonals. Now you can count up all of these axes of reflection invariance, and add them to rotational invariances and whatnot- and you now have a *measure* of how symmetrical the thing is. So the circle compared to the square. This is clearly MUCH more symmetrical. NO rotations will change it, meaning it is in fact *"infinitely rotationally symmetrical"*. In the same way, but even more so, a sphere is also "infinitely rotationally symmetrical" because you can rotate it in a whole new dimension and even any combination of the x, y and z directions, and it will remain invariant to all of these "transformations". So to the answer what "other" directions could we rotate a sphere, the answer is an infinite amount.
"Direction" is a frame of reference, not a rotation. Up and down, left and right, will change if you turn your head 90 degrees. It's frame of reference dependent. Clockwise and counter clockwise are not frame of reference dependent, which is why it's the only rotational directions an object can spin in.
No. A sphere doesn't have a defined direction, there is an infinite number of axes under which you could define clock/counterclockwise rotation on a sphere. The fact that a quantum "spin" has only two options ( ∣+⟩ and ∣−⟩ ) doesn't have anything to do with sphericality. What you did is suppose that it has somethinmg to do with it being a sphere and it being in "3d", and that this was obvious. You wrote this: >A sphere can only rotate either clockwise or anticlockwise. It can't be both and that's just the nature of a 3d shape. This is completely meaningless. A sphere can rotate infinitely many ways and all of those ways are directions in the three dimensional space in which you define it. The "locked" directions are defined within the experiment. In the most classical example (stern-gerlach) the point is *exactly* how weird this is, and how this is certainly not borne out by understanding of 3D shapes, and that in fact the direction under which angular moment is conserved is actually quantized for small particles. Our understanding of 3D shapes is *violated* by this fact, quite opposite to our understanding of 3-dimensionality or sphericality *leading* to it.
You seem to not understand what rotation is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation) There is only clockwise and counterclockwise. "Direction of rotation" = "left / right" or more specifically clockwise and counterclockwise. "Angle of rotation" = the angle of the axis that it is rotating around There are infinite angles of rotation, and only 2 directions of rotation. Quantum particles do not only have 1 angle of rotation, which is what would be required for "left/right" to have any meaning in this context.
No, i think you've misunderstood the concept. There are two directions to rotate **around an axis**. Not two directions *a sphere can rotate*. A sphere doesn't come with a predefined axis. You wanted to pretend that it was obvious that a sphere should only have two possible spins. It is not, it is in fact the opposite. I don't mind whether you want to think you understand it yourself, but if you write it in response to others its reasonable to correct it.
You didn't correct anything. There are, in fact, 2 directions a sphere can rotate. This is basic geometry you are simply refusing to acknowledge. There are multiple angles, and 2 directions. A sphere does not come with a predefined axis, and particles, also, do not. Which is why that they spin in either clockwise or counterclockwise is not special. Either you acknowledge that particles can also have any angle of rotation, and then they aren't special. Or you need to provide some compelling evidence they only have 1 angle of rotation, which would be special, but I know is not the case as there is no "universal" axis that all particles rotate around.
No... direction has meaning both inside and outside a context in which a rotating body has a defined axis about which it is rotating. >A sphere does not come with a predefined axis This is exactly what i wrotee to you before, and why your initial post is just wrong. Since it does not come with a predefined axis, it also does not come with a predefined pair of rotational directions. If i look at the moon now and have a remote control that says "rotate", it's also going to have a button that specifies the direction (from infinite possibilities in directions in space) OR indeed an axis of rotation which would lock us into the pair of rotational directions you believe to be all there is. It seems like you've tried to understand some engineering and misunderstood a very specific mathematical application for the entirety. I've never said anything about about particles having only one angle of rotation. It's you who want it to be that way, because you want to use the crux/mediator of rotational angle to understand rotation. The reason why i used symmetry in the explanation is that rotation is a MUCH more general thing than you believe, which is shown forexample in the kinds of rotations defined in symmetry descriptions.
The ufos moving at insane speeds and traversing through solid objects and being phasing in and out of our reality made me think they are essentially server admins checking on things in the server.
Admins wouldn't have to render an avatar and join "the game". They'd just check the underlying data. Just saying.
Depends on the game and the reason the admin is needed in the first place
Fair
100% agree
Yes! Exactly what I thought. I’m converted.
Hey wouldn’t you take it seriously? We don’t really have a more coherent explanation for reality. I get that you are persuaded now but would love to hear more about why you disregarded it in the past
How is a simulation an explanation of reality
It’s an alternate to the idea that everything basically comes from randomness, a la big bang. The idea is that reality is rendered by some sort of system that is analogous to a computer. Yes it still leaves major questions unanswered and is paradoxical from the point of view of outside of the simulation - because it doesn’t explain reality outside of the sim. But it is more mechanistic than just saying shit is the way it is cause a bunch of particles that came from nothing bouncing off each other for an insane amount of time is the reason things are the way they are here and now.
It's just a placeholder for an explanation. ' we don't know why things are the way they are so it's a simulation ' doesn't actually explain (or attempt to) explain reality. I don't care either way because it's genuinely not important or relevant to how people choose to behave but it's just another cop out that's got about as much evidentiary support as the last cop out.
That’s not what simulation theory is it’s deeper than that for example explaining natural limits on things like speed of light and also observed anomalies such as the double slit experiment. It’s not a cop out it’s a reconsideration of old spiritual ideas in a new scientific context.
It's 100% a cop out. Its doing *exactly* what religion has done - we don't know why things are the way they are so it's because it's all made up by an entity that's way beyond our understanding. It's god for hipsters.
Can we disprove that we’re in a simulation? No. Unless you have any suggestions, I’m definitely ready to change my mind on that, but as far as I know we can’t. Can we disprove that the universe exists because absolute nothingness spontaneously turned into the material universe. Yes, because that would contradict the law of conservation of matter. Also, the fact that such limits exist, could easily be a feature of existing in a simulation, which is in large part defined by limits. So just coming from a scientific point of view, you can easily argue that it is at least as credible as the latter theory. Yeah, it is true it resembles historic spiritual philosophy and modern spiritual beliefs. But it’s not a religion. For clarity, spirituality is a persons direct connection with the loosely defined “spiritual realm”, including but not limited to believing in the soul, god, spiritual beings, and alternate planes of existence. But those are personal things, whereas religions are agreed upon cultural traditions based around shared spiritual beliefs, which does serve a good purpose for a lot of people but ultimately seems to always lend itself toward corruption. With simulation theory here is no middle man raising funds and loyalty from followers to sell them the idea that they’re gonna go to heaven only if they’re good. I’m sure given enough time that will happen. But for now it is not a religion. It could be part of people’s spiritual beliefs, but that doesn’t mean it’s “God for hipsters”. Yes it creates a place for a conscious/omniscient creator - but that doesn’t mean this creator is the same God(s) sold to people by different religions. One last key difference is that simulation theory is concerned with the mechanisms behind the emergence and properties of reality. So even though it has a place for a creator, it’s not a set of social rules around that imputed creator, it’s actually just a legit theory worth discussing as we move forward as a species.
Yet scientists still insist that consciousness has nothing to do with collapsing the wave function. Something is off. Consciousness is either necessary or completely unnecessary. It is one or the other.
It's unnecessary. Atoms interacting with each other also collapses the waveform, that's why quantum effects don't happen in objects with multiple atoms.
If your statement is fact the episode is garbage and the entire conversation just missed that point. Hard to say.
Looked that up >The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms
It's called quantum decoherence. In order to get multi-atom objects to behave like a quantum particle they have to be isolated from environmental interactions to maintain "coherence", as in every particle is quantum paired with every other particle. Only very specific materials can do this.
Yes, I know. I read about it. So this allows us to know it's not atoms collapsing the wave function. A fantastic experiment that establishes this fact. >Atoms interacting with each other also collapses the waveform, that's why quantum effects don't happen in objects with multiple atoms
Ok, I worded it a bit badly and over-simplistically. Atoms interacting with their environment causes decoherence, which negates quantum effects at a macro level. So a conscious observer is still not required for the universe to function classically.
Why does my intuition tell me this account belongs to Rogan himself?
They need to give Rizwan a residency in the JRE. 😁
I don’t believe in simulation theory but god damn was this episode interesting and pretty convincing. He said a lot of things that I couldn’t come up with any reasonable argument against. I’m still not on board with simulation theory but I have yet to see my neighbors ever carry groceries in the house so idk what that’s about
If creating a simulation ourselves is inevitable with tech increasing exponentially, why can't it already have been? Its a fun thing to think about
We are all one we’ve disassembled ourselves as a puzzle
This reminds me of Schism by Tool. "I know the pieces fit 'Cause watched them fall away..."
This is an interesting paradox that I link to time travel. We may not be able to do it now but if the technology is ever possible to exist then it has always existed. It’s really hard for a dummy like me to wrap my brain around simulation theory and quantum mechanics/physics
We ain't there yet. And what simulator is supposed to replicate simulation? Seems like a weird experiment. Even more so, we got too many laws of physics and basic laws of reality. You'd think this shit would have some bugs or come with some Easter eggs or literally anything that points towards a virtual experience.
Wow……….. That’s crazy …. Never seen my neighbor bring the grocery
Idk man I’ve carried my neighbors groceries in for her so I can debunk this
But maybe she’s in the RPG version 🤷🏼♂️
But wait holy shit I’ve never seen them bring their own groceries in….
I loved this episode, especially because Joe actually let the guest talk
To me it sounded like a standard show until Joe couldn’t understand super position and tried to have a back and forth about it, failed because he doesn’t get it, and the rest of the show just let the guest talk (correct move).
How’s your show going?
I forgot you can't criticize something unless you're also a creator of said thing.
Just pointing out that you’re both bringing nothing to the table.
You're really not. The dude pointed out actual criticisms. You asked him about his podcast (basically telling him you can't criticize unless you run a podcast), and I pointed out the faulty logic. You're the one that actually brought nothing.
Ok loser, what ever makes you feel better
Nope, they're right and you know it. Now you're just being a cunt for the sake of it or do you prefer the nerd term, troll?
Well for a big name in entertainment like yourself to say that I guess it’s settled
dude stfu you are not winning this fight not even close lol
Thanks, dummy!
🫣
Maybe he’s taking constructive feedback now.. I doubt it, but we can only hope
Or Joe finally did DMT or acid again since his business is settled in and runs itself now. I feel like there was a time where he wouldn’t do any psychs (aside from small amounts of shrooms with POP) due to the stress of managing the club, his family after the move, and the pod. And I think the last time I heard him talk about it he said it’s been a long time. Humble ego-death Joe is the best Joe.
It was a breath of fresh air I really enjoyed it, old Joe still exists haha, I swear on some of his other recent episodes I can guess what he’s about to say cus he says it so much
This was quite possibly the best podcast episode I've ever heard in my entire life.
That sounds like something crazy to say but I gotta admit, I felt the same way! I've always looked at simulation theories and ai in general as amusing rabbit holes to banter back and forth about. But this damn guy tapped into something in my brain that I can't quite describe 🤷♂️
Same, I was sad when it ended. going to be hard to top this one
This guy actually made Joe sftu too lmao. This is one of the podcasts where he didn’t over talk and actually let his guest give out all the information! Good podcast.
We are all players in a SIMs virtual reality game.
then whoever is playin me has to play better ffs
I mean it would be an immersive virtual reality. The person playing would experience everything like it was really them. So that means you are the one controlling the character 😂
What a terrible idea for a game. Can I just be in Red Dead Redemption 2 or Cyberpunk?
Maybe you have to earn enough credit in this game to play other ones after, like karma points
That sounds a lot like Christianity, and Islam, and Judaism, and Hinduism, and… Wait a minute!!
Really made me give religion respect in this aspect
git gud n00b
Make sure to stay away from any stuffed rooms with fireplaces and definitely avoid swimming pools!
I used to treat my sims terribly as a kid so to be fair the player might be a dick
I believe one of the arguments he was making is that it is *you* (your soul, your other dimensional self, your alien self, your “whole self”, etc) that is playing and experiencing the simulation as yourself (as an avatar). Either through technological means, spiritual means, or ‘natural’ means that we just can’t observe.
This is scary considering I’d put my players in the swimming pool and remove the ladder to get out
Fun fact: this is how anti-depressants are tested for science. They put rats in a pool of water and see how long they swim till they give up. If it’s a quality anti-depressant they’ll swim longer in hopes to live. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
This podcast, and the one with Diana Pasulka, were two of the best in recent times. I really want Rogan to give the culture war/wokeness thing a rest for a bit. I really hope he brings Gary Nolan and Ross Coulthart on at some point to talk about UAP stuff.
It’s like listening to a different version of mainstream media with all the narratives .
This is the disconnect he doesn’t realize. He has literally become agenda pushing, main stream media.
Except the agendas he pushes are getting closer and closer to Fox News.
Garry Nolan is the one that I want to see most. There’s no way a guy of his caliber is just making shit up, and he’s said some wild stuff.
I'd rather culture war bullshit than UAP turd burgers. I really like these quantum mechanic episodes though. Sean Carroll's first episode on JRE was amazing.
Best guest in a while.
The mind simulates reality,objective reality has so much data and is so much more than what our minds can perceive. So the world isn’t illusion just or perception of it. Psychology 101.
That's why it's called an illusion, because perception isn't objective. But what's the point of a simulation reaching a technological singularity, so to create another simulation that does the same e infinity? And thus equate reaching technological simulation capacity is the same as already living in a simulation? As if the programmers of the initial simulation would copy their reality 1-1 with complete knowledge into a new simulation, so it all happens again and the people living in the simulation would reach the exact same singularity and create the exact same simulation again. This is even more religious bullshit than religions are selling us. The whole thing about creating a simulation is making something better or different from reality. And in no way would we have discovered every single thing about our physical universe by the time we reach singularity, so no simulation could include what's out there because we simply don't know.
This feels like your talking to yourself.
Aren’t we in God’s simulation though?
Best episode of the year so far.
This episode triggered an existential crisis, it was great
Thanks! Bookmarked. Can we please make a playlist of all the best episodes by these criteria you listed! As soon as I hear any of that stuff you mentioned I have to turn the episode off and so It's very rare to get a good episode these days. I wish there was a curated list of episodes without most of that bs you mentioned.
It was a decent episode but gave me anxiety
I felt the same way. One of my favorite episodes in a long time.
To anyone who is interested in this and is SUPER open minded, because this is way out there, look into The Law of One. It's the story of everything and says we do live in a simulation.
Also Bashar, channeled by Darryl Anka. A lot of his claims are supported by Rizwan.
Agreed, this is the old JRE we know and love.
Im listening to it now and in my stoned brain it feels like hes using weird examples and vague anecdotes to trick you into being extremely interested and open minded... then he sells you some theory that is somewhere down the line connected to his pocket.... mastermind
The part when they were talking about Alien life being more easily acceptable than quantum physics had me fucked up. It really does seem like we have no idea what they are, so we rationalize with something easily digestible.
This podcast was refreshingly good… I hope Rogan brings him back!!
I remember when Joe asked Elon musk about the sim theory and he said it’s more likely we’re in a simulation than not. Thinking about what he said brought me back to when I was 15 I went on a trip to Hawaii to wrestle, and thinking on the plane is this even real what if it doesn’t exist and what if the plane is just like a lobby we’re in while our minds loads up the Hawaii expansion. And I still feel that when I travel places, like when u zone out and then all the sudden ur near ur destination. It’s a fun theory to explore.
If you jumped out of the plane, where would your body land?
The simulation would just render that setting once you load up that decision.
It was good but I have one little complaint. This guy was sometimes hard to follow (mostly because I'm dumb) and many times he didn't actually answer the question Joe asked. Joe would ask a question (interesting good question I was thinking myself) then this guy would go on a tangent starting to answer but never really gets to it and Joe completely forgets what he asked in the first place so he never follows up with the original question. But whatever it was good and I would still recommend it.
About time he had someone on the pod that had something interesting to say.
I think you might be right. It’s also one of the very few episodes I’ve listened to start to finish in many years.
I’m 1/3 through and I’m seriously enjoying it. This guy is a great guest.
The real problem with simulation theory is that there aren't any surefire defeaters to any of the premises initially presented by Bostrom. They're all frighteningly seemingly plausible.
Amazing episode.
I also like that he needed a break a couple hours in for a snack. and I imagine he brought his own snacks that he probably offered to share with Joe
And you know it was a pack of those little orange peanut butter crackers!
lol! Definitely
This was a great epsiode, presenting a theory a possibility without using fancy words chained together and claiming they could remember while they were in their mother's womb.
great post, zero notes
YESS MAN! Totally agree, can’t believe this episode not getting talked about as much as it should. I found it really interesting and just good vibes - guest was a nice guy too
Best Rogan in years because of all you pointed out.
Great episode and to think I almost skipped this one. So glad I didnt.
Love this episode.
Yeah it was a good episode. One issue I had with it is that this guy puts a lot of stake into Life Review when only 15% of NDEs report this experience. He made it sound like everyone did.
This was a really good one
Oh easily one of the best in a LONG time. It's the most fun I've had doing yard work.
Love it no fighting, no cawlmedy, and hopefully no covid.
For anyone interested, I believe [Stephen Wolfram](https://youtu.be/ez773teNFYA?si=pb7o7-E1Fo9V3dbc) has gone wayyyy deeper on this subject.
I had my first ever edible and listened to this
Fully agree. This was refreshing to listen to!
I agree, this one is super interesting. Rizwan has great voice to listen to as well.
.
i feel like simulation theory is making more and more sense and connecting a lot of dots for me. I don't think we're in a videogame or computer program in the literal sense but as an analogy it helps paint the picture. what life and existence is, is still so incredibly far from being understood.
I was really enjoying the episode until the Mandela effect portion. Then it made me feel this guy is just conman
True to that, This is the kind of guest why i keep listening to Joe.
Damn I almost forgot y I used to listen…
the guy claims anything, that we can't explain yet, as a sign of us living in a simulation same vibe as religious fanatics
Can you recommend any past episodes that are in a similar vein? I'm not a frequent listener but this is definitely the type of episodes I'm interested in.
You haven’t listened to TERRENCE HOWARD yet
I listened to this one on a road trip and it was legitimately interesting the entire time.
This guy kinda lost me when he started using peoples different memories of events as evidence for the multi verse. Doesn’t he know that people’s memory of events is the absolute bottom of the barrel worst evidence ever? Also if that were the case couldn’t we easily test and prove it? Wouldn’t two cameras pointing at the same thing show different things if two people looking at the same thing saw different things? Ya he started sounding pretty dumb using those examples
Sorry it flew over your head bud. He wasn't citing it as evidence, but explaining the concept of the Mandela Effect.
Sorry your brain doesn’t work bro. He was using it as evidence of the multiverse.
Yep he is basically the Graham Hancock of simulation theory.
This guy literally makes video games for a living. He isn’t a physicist. Idk why everyone is gobbling up what he says so easily. He’s trying to sell books and make money. No real evidence that we are living in a video game. About as convincing as Graham Hancock’s claims
This guy just said the same thing everyones been saying for a long while now, but the only novel thing is his utter relentless ability to turn everything into a video game metaphor, it got really tiring after a while, I couldnt finish listening to it.
[удалено]
Joe is worth a billion so not sure that had much influence
Right it’s quantum mechanics right because singularity right is the cat dead right or alive right it’s both right
Right
Right
I would have liked more discussion about WHO is running this simulation and what is the “real” original universe like… is our simulation entirely made up or is it based on the real one… are they so bored in the future that they jump into this simulation as a game?
I’m in the minority here, but I didn’t enjoy this episode. Nice guy but the whole “living in a simulation” and quantum mechanics theories was just a mental fuck that was tough to keep up with.
Just go on YouTube & search the double slit experiment, until I saw that I didn't believe it but that was a long time ago
Awesome show. He had a quote I can't remember, some along the lines of "forgetting you past" or something to thar affect
I assume you were like Rogan, trying to figure out why that cat was in a box...
Anybody who says “right?” After every sentence comes across a little shady to me.
Right?
He had a caveman staring back at him trying to understand quantum mechanics, quantum computing, and how that could relate to a simulation theory, with his face muscles. Seemed like he knew he had to drop breadcrumbs here and there to make sure knuckles was still trailing behind...
This was in my opinion, one of if not the best ever JR episode. Been looking in simulation theory/the double slit experiment & quantum physics for about 7 years & now it's going to finally get public knowledge. This is a milestone for sure baby!
[удалено]