None of this is real

[The OD]

Would we care? It would change nothing, I don't see how this "virtual" world would be any less real for participants as a "real" world would be.

Exactly - I suppose it would shock you to find out, but who is the say the entire universe is not some hyper advanced simulation, what is to say that the baryonic matter we are made from is not a creation of photonic entities existing separately to us?

Most of the Universe is (and probably always will be) a massive mystery. So far, the only purpose of life as I have discerned it is more life?

Continuation is all we exist for, we already run on psychological programming tied into to physical programming, its not really much of a stretch to think we have been preprogrammed this way by design.

Personally, if I can touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, see it, then I am going to assume its real, this sort of thing can seriously tie your brain up in knots, although its hugely fascinating all the same.

[Seos]

Personally, if I can touch it, taste it, hear it, smell it, see it, then I am going to assume its real, this sort of thing can seriously tie your brain up in knots, although its hugely fascinating all the same.

Indeed if this theory does get accepted in Physics people will just roll their eyes and say "stupid scientists".


Anyway , now that we've established it doesn't matter lets continue to talk about it.
I get the feeling that calling the world if this Theory is correct a "virtual" world is misleading because virtual suggests that it is not, at least not fully, real.
Would it not be better (and easier to stop people instantly going against it) to say in this theory that we live in a purely information based world rather than a matter-energy-spacetime based world(or would it be information-spacetime based?).
For one thing calling it a virtual world and comparing it to the virtual world we create isn't accurate because the virtual worlds we create, while being information are derived from energy and matter. On the other hand this theory sees our universe as the reverse; energy and matter are ultimately derived from information.

(All of the above is of course provided I understand correctly)

[cactusflower]

That's one of the philosophical conundra this paper raises. On a fundamental level, it queries the concept of reality as we understand it.

Not good enough. If the term can't be defined it's not worth talking about.

[cactusflower]

Jaysus, whichever way people put this, it still sounds like Bishop Berkeley to me.
Fetch the tar water and we'll all get cured.

[JCSkinner]

Not good enough. If the term can't be defined it's not worth talking about.

No, the point is that if our comprehension of reality is not what we thought it was, then for all intents and purposes, virtuality is reality.

[The OD]

Indeed if this theory does get accepted in Physics people will just roll their eyes and say "stupid scientists".

Anyway , now that we've established it doesn't matter lets continue to talk about it.
I get the feeling that calling the world if this Theory is correct a "virtual" world is misleading because virtual suggests that it is not, at least not fully, real.
Would it not be better (and easier to stop people instantly going against it) to say in this theory that we live in a purely information based world rather than a matter-energy-spacetime based world(or would it be information-spacetime based?).
For one thing calling it a virtual world and comparing it to the virtual world we create isn't accurate because the virtual worlds we create, while being information are derived from energy and matter. On the other hand this theory sees our universe as the reverse; energy and matter are ultimately derived from information.

(All of the above is of course provided I understand correctly)

People will say ''stupid scientists'' no matter what, its a defence reaction when people feel like they are not being 'let in' on some secret knowledge or feel like they are being made to feel stupid by 'boffins'.

I'd agree about the naming, virtual leads one to understand that what is being experienced is a mimicry of the real, of a standard so high as to be impercievable from the real. By using the term virtual, you could be suggesting a hyperreal existence and then you could almost be drifting into the realms of the metaphysical (could 'heaven' be described as a hyper reality).

One thing though, is your final comment about enery and matter being derived from information - I always thought this was a chicken and egg scenario - matter, in its elemental make up, is simply comprised of particles in certain arrangements - which came first though, the information needed to create hydrogen and all the other elements or did the information arise out of the formation of these elements? The natural reaction is that of course the information didnt come first, they makes no sense, but when you are dealing with quantum reality, logic is something that takes a bit of a battering?

I wouldnt say that it doesnt matter whats real though, just that from where I am sitting, knowing if we were or were not virtual isnt as important as the quality of the simulation - so long as my beef tastes like beef and my pint tastes like a pint, it can be as virtual as it likes.

Being an agnostic leaning more towards the atheistic point of view, I dont think I would be terribly upset if I was to discover I was living a simulated life.

[cactusflower]

No, the point is that if our comprehension of reality is not what we thought it was, then for all intents and purposes, virtuality is reality.

Reality changes all the time
Our understanding of it changes all the time
Our means of understanding it also changes.

In a more advanced culture that understanding deepens and becomes more accurate.

The relationship between thinking and the material world does not change - the former is always subordinate to the latter.