Uploaded May 2012 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
UPDATE: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.
The following links have been passed to me as "evidence" that the universe is "information at the bottom", an irrelevance that changes absolutely nothing whatsoever about how the universe is constructed within the framework of its' inhabitants. They are included for curiosity purposes.
nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality
Please bear the following fact in mind: Regardless of the conclusions drawn from the experiment cited above, it's rather a stretch to assume that the results mean that the entire universe is "information at the bottom".
Further, citing Minecraft and the physics engine, which has demonstrable calculation flaws caused by programmer error, as evidence that the universe is information, because "objects can pass through walls in the game engine" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen from anyone, and I've dealt with Creationists. Also, it is equally mindless to require someone to cite "published papers in the peer review where it has been conclusively demonstrated that something exists behind our observations", and all you need to know for this observation is that we are within the universe, and we are strictly limited to the observations we can make... And that there can therefore be NO published papers demonstrating either that the universe IS or ISN'T what we observe.
To paraphrase Thunderf00t: We are required to make basal assumptions about the nature of our existence: That the universe exists, that we exist within the universe, and that we can learn things about the universe. None of these assumptions can be experimentally verified to be conclusive. We can only assume that is how we operate because of observations that seem consistent with these assumptions (ie nothing to date has contradicted these assumptions).
Original Description:
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.
This is the fifth part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole". It has taken me a while to have this ready, but it is around 45 minutes long. This change will result in fewer videos but of greater length. Feel free to comment on this and let me know of any issues.
UPDATE: Comment approval now removed. You are free to comment as you wish. This will be revisited if anyone else tries to circumvent a channel ban in future.
The following links have been passed to me as "evidence" that the universe is "information at the bottom", an irrelevance that changes absolutely nothing whatsoever about how the universe is constructed within the framework of its' inhabitants. They are included for curiosity purposes.
nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality
Please bear the following fact in mind: Regardless of the conclusions drawn from the experiment cited above, it's rather a stretch to assume that the results mean that the entire universe is "information at the bottom".
Further, citing Minecraft and the physics engine, which has demonstrable calculation flaws caused by programmer error, as evidence that the universe is information, because "objects can pass through walls in the game engine" is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen from anyone, and I've dealt with Creationists. Also, it is equally mindless to require someone to cite "published papers in the peer review where it has been conclusively demonstrated that something exists behind our observations", and all you need to know for this observation is that we are within the universe, and we are strictly limited to the observations we can make... And that there can therefore be NO published papers demonstrating either that the universe IS or ISN'T what we observe.
To paraphrase Thunderf00t: We are required to make basal assumptions about the nature of our existence: That the universe exists, that we exist within the universe, and that we can learn things about the universe. None of these assumptions can be experimentally verified to be conclusive. We can only assume that is how we operate because of observations that seem consistent with these assumptions (ie nothing to date has contradicted these assumptions).
Original Description:
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
I'm citing "Fair Use" under US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 (g)(f), specifically those clauses covering Comment and Criticism, as well as the DMCA.
aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/asset_upload_file939_6218.pdf
Also "Fair Dealing" under UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c.48, Part 1(Copyright) Section 79.4a
opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4
Censorship is NOT a valid argument.
This is the fifth part of my critical analysis of "What The Bleep Do We Know?! Down The Rabbit Hole". It has taken me a while to have this ready, but it is around 45 minutes long. This change will result in fewer videos but of greater length. Feel free to comment on this and let me know of any issues.
