What is the Matrix? Is reality virtual?

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm reading the following chapter by psychologist and computer analyst Brian Whitworth on the idea that ours is a virtual reality, i.e., that the physical universe is the virtual output of a more fundamental information processor.

_http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

Finished chapters available at the bottom of his publications page: _http://brianwhitworth.com/papers.html

I found out about his work from Michael Prescott's blog, who writes about psi, life after death, and has been making posts positing that information is fundamental and our physical reality is processed from that information field (_http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/), often in relation to psi phenomena.

Not being a physicist, I don't know how rigorous Whitworth is, but his idea seems pretty nifty from what I can understand so far. Basically, he argues that quantum physics implies things that are impossible physically - complementarity, teleportation, time and space dilation, entanglement, randomness, big bang, etc. - but make sense in terms of information processing. For example, the big bang is like a boot up, Planck limits are like pixels, quantum equivalence is like repeated generation of the same code, speed of light limit is like maximum processing speed, etc.

I found his discussion of the philosophical theories of reality fascinating: physical realism, idealism/solipsism, dualism, and virtual realism. Virtual realism has the advantage that it doesn't fall into subjective solipsism (i.e., the world is still real, but the world as we experience is not per se, it is a projection of a more fundamental reality: information), and accounts for the seemingly unreal properties of 'matter' at the quantum level.

Any thoughts?

 

[Esote]

Very good find, thanks for sharing Approaching Infinity.

The virtual reality conjecture is a logical option that shocks the ego but fits the physics. It isn’t The Matrix brain in a vat, or a hallucinatory dream, or a fake SimCity type world. It doesn’t deny our experience, as a simulation can be locally real. It doesn’t deny that there is a real world out there, beyond the physical world interface. Nor does it deny free choice, as the observer needn’t be in the simulation. So the physical world is not a dream with us its existential center or a machine grinding out the inevitable, but what happens when quantum reality interacts with itself

What would be so different for us if the physical world is a virtual reality, and not an objective one ?

Some more food for thought !

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine"...

 

[outcydr]

You might enjoy reading this. I just happened to have finished reading it for the first time yesterday.

The Joke's On You
_http://www.joysom.net/home_page.htm

quote from the preface

So it is the intention of this work to present a tangible model of our universe by extending the dimensions of our imagination; or as Einstein put it, “by means of a mental image to which, with some practice, we shall soon grow accustomed”. The correspondence of this image to our physical world leads to a cosmology of profoundly different proportions than what “official culture” has led us to believe. It came about through the labors of many and can be verified by every measure of truth available, including (especially) experience. And its consistency is telling, as is the score of perennial mysteries that it clarifies.

The model given here can free one from the “chains of reverie” which have long imprisoned us all in three dimensional thought and expression. Once realized, it allows one to operate empirically in the startling world of the fourth dimension which evolves from and converges to the fifth, the link (transducer) between all worlds, and the essence of unification.

 

[Thomas Alan]

"a view of the world as inherently physical with the processing view proposed. The virtual reality conjecture is a logical option that shocks the ego but fits the physics. It isn’t The Matrix brain in a vat, or a hallucinatory dream, or a fake SimCity type world. It doesn’t deny our experience, as a simulation can be locally real. It doesn’t deny that there is a real world out there, beyond the physical world interface. Nor does it deny free choice, as the observer needn’t be in the simulation. So the physical world is not a dream with us its existential center or a machine grinding out the inevitable, but what happens when quantum reality interacts with itself."

A fascinating article, thanks AI. The bolded line, is this what is meant by waking up? By choosing the to be the observer, at that moment, stepping out of the simulation?

If so how wonderful our free will can be if we will only decide to use it for this.


Mac

 

[Approaching Infinity]

"a view of the world as inherently physical with the processing view proposed. The virtual reality conjecture is a logical option that shocks the ego but fits the physics. It isn’t The Matrix brain in a vat, or a hallucinatory dream, or a fake SimCity type world. It doesn’t deny our experience, as a simulation can be locally real. It doesn’t deny that there is a real world out there, beyond the physical world interface. Nor does it deny free choice, as the observer needn’t be in the simulation. So the physical world is not a dream with us its existential center or a machine grinding out the inevitable, but what happens when quantum reality interacts with itself."

A fascinating article, thanks AI. The bolded line, is this what is meant by waking up? By choosing the to be the observer, at that moment, stepping out of the simulation?

If so how wonderful our free will can be if we will only decide to use it for this.

I think it can probably be interpreted that way, but I don't think it's what Whitworth means. He's talking more in reference to the different "worldviews" discussed early in the chapter. In a computer simulation where the observer is "in the simulation", the picture resembles that of physical realism: the universe strictly observing itself. But if that universe is strictly physical, then consciousness/experience and freedom are illusions and the program simply plays itself out mechanistically and deterministically. An observer that is 'outside' the simulation can input information from the simulation and output additional information INTO the system (i.e., by free choice, creativity). OSIT.

 

[Buddy]

Any thoughts?

Yes, very interesting.

The great thing about understanding some quantum physics - even if it's just an understanding of theory - is all the ways you can organize your understanding of world and universe around us. IMO, most of this ability comes from the interacting ideas identified as 'the quantum interpretation problem' and 'the quantum measurement problem'. Those two grant much freedon to think about a lot of stuff. Indeed, thermodynamics can explain everything; information theory can explain everything; both explain each other and so forth. Even the "multiple I" metaphor could be viewed as a poly-phasic mind, or multiple phases of a mind staged at quantum level that is in superposition until a 'measurement' is taken (an emotion-laden cue is perceived).

Speaking of information field as foundation, Charles Seife also picks up and develops "information field" as fundamental in his Decoding the Universe. He covers so much material and his explanations are simple enough you might even begin to think of people as 'superpositions' of their various possible reactions to situations. What could you do with that in terms of using ensemble wave stochastics (quantum probabilities) to predict, with a little bit of uncertainty, what might 'collapse their wave function' at a given instance or when such a 'collapse' might occur?

Some of these analogies can only be taken so far, though, without lots of additional work.

Take 'teleportation' for example. An electron tunneling through the structured lattice of a crystal or other material is one thing, but extrapolating quantum level "tunneling through" examples to a macroscopic level like humans or merchandise and speculating about teleportation, meets at least two 'stops' that I'm currently aware of: momentum conservation and the no-cloning theorem. Has he dealt with those yet? If so, I haven't located a corresponding paper.

"Pixels" are an interesting metaphor related to Relativity and used to describe an aggregate of Planck limits like 'least action.' I love pixels.

The main thing I keep in mind is context: what's possible in quantum reality, which is a high-energy reality, cannot be that easily extrapolated to our relative macroscopic reality, which is a low-energy reality. I have no idea to what extent others do or do not think about this.

On a different note, one interesting perspective I've discovered from my quantum research is that when you view quantum reality as the primary reality, then the physical world around us, including all the stuff we see, is stuff that functions like 'shock absorbers', absorbing, slowing down and eventually reversing energy back towards quantum level.

My metaphor: Like a cartoon character speeding into an outstretched rubber-band which stretches more and more until he finally stops 'still'. That's a simple view that describes a force or momentum originating from various quantum-level loci, and that is straining to continue motion. Spherical bends or arcs are formed in 3 dimensional space-time in 'our' general direction (the stuff we see) while being held back by this elastic force which can then classically define form, friction, energy conservation and other phenomena we're used to perceiving and thinking about in various contexts like from the physical to esoteric.

 

[dant]

I hope this is not off-topic...

A thought: "What is the difference between meta-physics and quantum physics?"

Mainstream Physicists seems to attack Meta-physics which may not apply exclusively
with the physical domain (consciousness/spirituality/...), but will accept Quantum Physics
which apply exclusively with the physical domain?

Did the C's say they are thought-forms (non-physical domain) made manifest (physical
domain via gravity)?

 

[Buddy]

I hope this is not off-topic...

A thought: "What is the difference between meta-physics and quantum physics?"

Meaning. That is, to my understanding, Physics, whether classical or quantum or either one from each other's point of view, attempts to discover what specifically is and Metaphysics attempts to describe what it means as this meaning relates to ontology (nature of Being).

Mainstream Physicists seems to attack Meta-physics which may not apply exclusively
with the physical domain (consciousness/spirituality/...), but will accept Quantum Physics
which apply exclusively with the physical domain?

In general, I'd say mainstream physicists have at least one motivation of being driven to find a grand unifying toe (theory of everything). To accomplish this, certainty must be established, consensus must be reached and mathematical and logical arguments must be non-contradictory as well as complete and consistent. Such has not been accomplished and doesn't seem to be forecast for the near future - at least not for mainstreamers, OSIT. Metaphysics seems to have a similar goal, but on it's own level.

Again, in general, 'attacking' probably stems from a desire in people to protect their turf and their modeled understandings which they probably come to believe in and identify with. There are probably many other perspectives on this that are equally valid and probably also true within their contexts, but that's what I'm thinking ATM.

Did the C's say they are thought-forms (non-physical domain) made manifest (physical
domain via gravity)?

I'm not familiar with the "(physical domain via gravity)" part. Maybe others have an answer.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Did the C's say they are thought-forms (non-physical domain) made manifest (physical
domain via gravity)?

I'm not familiar with the "(physical domain via gravity)" part. Maybe others have an answer.

Also not sure about the gravity part, but I think thought-forms made manifest makes sense. Thought forms, after all, are information, I think. So I think the 'realm' from which matter is made manifest is consciousness, an information field that organizes and gives form to matter, defines its possibilities and limitations, and which is the source of our own consciousness.

 

[Buddy]

I think thought-forms made manifest makes sense.

I do too, now that I understand Gurdjieff better. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree with the concept in the way that it relates more to Gurdjieff's law of process than Plato's static, pre-existing "Ideals" or "Ideas."

Specifically, G's law of Process specifies a seven-fold development of all events and all things on all levels of creation. Law of Process establishes what happens in each phase of growth, timing of phases and their possible completion. Phenomena develop from these stages while seeking their end, which is their beginning, which is a vision internal to the process, thus material manifestation with 'thought-form' as necessary precondition.

Gurdjieff doesn't require manifestation to be an act of creation whose unchanged and unchanging "idea" (a vision internal to an entire process or phase of its development) has existed from some absolute beginning like in the metaphysics of old.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I like this quote from the chapter referenced above:

An objective reality is complete in itself but a virtual reality must be inside a higher dimensional containing reality, e.g. SimCity exists on a two-dimensional screen in our world. In general, a virtual reality runs on a surface of its containing reality, so if our space is a surface, the quantum world must have at least four dimensions. Unlike string theory, the extra dimension proposed is not curled up inside physical reality, too small to see, but all around us, too big to see. Physics, calls this extra dimension the complex plane, the electro-magnetic amplitude and the quantum field vector, but adds that it is imaginary, unreal and purely theoretical. Like Mr. A. Square of Flatland (Abbott, 1884), we resist the idea that our world is just a surface in a containing reality.

 

[Esote]

What if reality can be objective at some point, virtual from another point of view, and none of these from a higher perspective, but may be something we can't even imagine ?

Thought doesn't exist without any form, which is kind of an objective statement.
An information field could originate from a higher dimension, one of spirit or consciousness for instance, which is close to being virtual...

"the physical world is ... what happens when quantum reality interacts with itself", from the observer's point of view, from its ability to view and its interpretation...

Thought-forms made manifest for 3D manifestations of form-thoughts... How does it look from 4D, above our space-time limitations ?

My 2cents guess

 

[Buddy]

I decided to spend some time and really dig in and pay attention to the paper at:
http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

Also, a 2007 paper posted at arxiv.org:
_http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

And an image of a book review hosted at MIT:
_http://web.mit.edu/asf/www/PopularScience/Friedman_TheFabricOfRealityReview_2001.pdf

AI, I now see where many of my comments above were irrelevant and I apologize for the noise.

The Virtual Reality theory is very interesting and makes a lot of sense from a classical perspective. As a conceptual framework, it seems as virtual as the reality it attempts to explain. I say Bravo! This guy is evidently very smart and well informed in physics, virtual reality and computer technology, though he makes unannounced context switches between Newtonian physics, General Relatively, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum physics in general. If I weren't already familiar with those frameworks, I wouldn't know what statements go with what theory.

I'm wondering about two issues that can be referenced by this:

It is suggested that whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve. Modern information science can suggest how core physical properties like space, time, light, matter and movement could derive from information processing. Such an approach could reconcile relativity and quantum theories, with the former being how information processing creates space-time, and the latter how it creates energy and matter.
_http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

The first issue concerns his definition of "objective." He appears to limit the definition of "objective" to that which is substantial and self-contained, needing nothing outside itself for its own existence.

With the above in mind, what about constituent parts of the processor that is producing, maintaining and recycling pixels for virtual reality? Should we expect some stability and "last-forever-ness" from the processor? Otherwise his definition is fine, to me, except that's only one definition, I think, or one context for its meaning. Even if our multiverse consists of one million billion virtual realities, wouldn't his admission that the observers in their virtual realities who real-ize their own realities because they are "made of the same stuff"... wouldn't that demonstrate that definitions of "objective" are relative to the observers who are doing the defining based on their sensory and discernment bandwidth limitations and acts of sharing their views with each other? This seems to be the case.

So, in relation to this classical 'objectivist' influence, I'm noting his reference to, and conceptual foundation in, physicist David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality written in 1997. That's also fascinating reading.

Deutsch is probably a genius. He certainly won the Dirac Prize and I genuinely think he did a marvelous job tying his four threads together. As well, I couldn't help but smile at his seemingly arrogant claim that he can and does explain physical reality even while still contradicting himself via inference and working under his own objectivist influences.

I say that because when Deutsch said that he can put any concept in a framework and then explain it and then later goes on to say that time has no framework, the reader must then infer that time cannot be explained. And when he states his bet that the human brain, when thought of as a computer, is a classical one (IOW, Not quantum), his bet sounds like a losing one; especially in light of a quantum fundamental: quantum systems compose physical reality, hence quantum fundamentals, like the fact that 'entities' have both particle and wave properties, cannot be negated (Mae Wan-Ho is just one person whose work can provide more references on the nature of quantum systems). Then there's his "one place, one time" statement related to when he and a colleague demonstrated a classical double-slit experiment and ended up denying that photons, and in general, quantum systems — are wavicles. In summary, Deutsch blatantly assumes that a classical subject-object dichotomy is a proper framework for physics.

Despite my complaints, though, I really think David Deutsch's understanding of the superiority of quantum science led him to produce valuable work on the fabric of reality and his thinking led to proposing the use of virtual reality to prototype theories. I can now see Whitworth's influence and can admire them both. I certainly enjoyed reading their work.

The second issue relates to the purpose of Whitworth's theory when he mentions "Such an approach could reconcile relativity and quantum theories...".

I assume he means the contradictions between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, because Special Relativity is already harmonious with QM, OSIT. If so, then I was under an impression the contradictions and the circular definition underlying GR about the two concepts of particle and of space-time being defined with the help of each other, had been resolved. The resolution being in the explanation about what happens at and below Planck limits when we lose any distinction between our 'rulers' and what we are wanting to measure and are beyond incommensurability issues due to length being composed of momentum and position.

As far as my understanding goes at the moment, the issue of virtual reality VS objective reality is more a non-issue. It's more about why don't we understand it's both and more - like hologrammic? But not like the apparitionally apparent holograms...more like a scale of 'embodiment' of thought-forms on a spectrum like from 'full-embodiment' to much, much, much less embodiment but no less 'real'?

I have no problem with any idea of information being at bottom of things, just that Virtual Reality theory is unneeded to explain anything. I dunno, though. I feel like I might be missing something important. Maybe related to outcydr's "The Joke's On You." Anyone have any thoughts they'd like to share?

In any case, thanks for posting this. Do I talk too much?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The first issue concerns his definition of "objective." He appears to limit the definition of "objective" to that which is substantial and self-contained, needing nothing outside itself for its own existence.

With the above in mind, what about constituent parts of the processor that is producing, maintaining and recycling pixels for virtual reality? Should we expect some stability and "last-forever-ness" from the processor?

I think so. As he writes just a couple paragraphs before the one I quoted, "A complete system can't just begin!" This idea is compatible with Whitehead's metaphysics, where OUR universe may have had a beginning, but THE universe must be eternal in nature. That is, the containing reality, must 'predate' the big bang (assuming there even was such a thing).

As for the rest of your post, afraid it's beyond my expertise.

 

[Buddy]

The first issue concerns his definition of "objective." He appears to limit the definition of "objective" to that which is substantial and self-contained, needing nothing outside itself for its own existence.

With the above in mind, what about constituent parts of the processor that is producing, maintaining and recycling pixels for virtual reality? Should we expect some stability and "last-forever-ness" from the processor?

I think so. As he writes just a couple paragraphs before the one I quoted, "A complete system can't just begin!" This idea is compatible with Whitehead's metaphysics, where OUR universe may have had a beginning, but THE universe must be eternal in nature. That is, the containing reality, must 'predate' the big bang (assuming there even was such a thing).

That makes sense.

As for the rest of your post, afraid it's beyond my expertise.

Me too. I just read that other stuff with my stack of handy-dandy dictionaries close by, from college down to kindergarten level. How can you trust most experts when they have a vested interest in their own stuff? :)