Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

NASA Physicist Thomas Campbell explains the proof that we live in a Simulation 100% - “We Live in a Simulation – And I Can Prove It With Physics” “In a virtual reality, the highest speed you can go contiguously — not teleporting, but actually moving — is one pixel...

368,067 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 35

Фото профиля Joshua Chapman
Joshua Chapman3 месяцев назад

I think I've seen this guy before

Фото профиля Defiant Ghost
Defiant Ghost3 месяцев назад

This is a clip from the latest @OMGTheWhyFiles video w/ NASA Physicist Thomas Campbell. You can watch the full video here:

Фото профиля Scott Miller - Apogee/3D Realms Founder ☢️
Scott Miller - Apogee/3D Realms Founder ☢️3 месяцев назад

Completely dumb examples. For example, flipping a two by four board cannot happen faster than light from one end to another. I’d bet my life we don’t live in a simulation. How many levels of simulation are above us? One, two, a trillion? If there’s one then there’s likely an extremely high number. That would put us at the bottom of the chain, which would make us unique and special. And we’ve learned through the centuries that we are not special (we used to think we were the center of everything, for example).

Фото профиля Jane Jetson
Jane Jetson3 месяцев назад

Interesting, but I don't see how that proves we are in a simulation? It may just speak to the nature of reality.

Фото профиля Bubba the Zen Patriot
Bubba the Zen Patriot3 месяцев назад

I'm going to keep saying this one: Once you can convince enough people they're living in some kind of virtual reality simulation, it will become a whole lot easier to get people to do fkd up sht to each other.

Фото профиля Zeero
Zeero3 месяцев назад

I pixel of distance * 1 pixel of time isn’t a limt, it’s a measurement. This guy’s full of shit.

Фото профиля James Rutherford
James Rutherford3 месяцев назад

No. Entangled particles are not "connected" by anything. Yes, they are opposite each other according to conservation of momentum, or particle decay or other, but once the first is measured and the second collapses inversely, entanglement collapses. The second of an entangled pair is simply probable in the opposite direction/momentum when it is measured independently. If measuring along the opposite access from the first measurement, it's 100%; if measuring from, say 45° askew of the first axis of measurement, it's something like 86 1/2% probable. Change either particle now, NOTHING happens to the other one. Bell's inequalities prove that quantum effects exceed any local hidden (connecting) variables. Prove.

Фото профиля Mike Three
Mike Three3 месяцев назад

the system is God’s mind. you’re welcome.

Фото профиля KMG
KMG3 месяцев назад

If it is a simulation, then physics don't apply. 'Physics' changes from computer game to game.

Фото профиля Tim Sweeney
Tim Sweeney3 месяцев назад

If you divide the length of a hammer by Hammer Time, does this prove a Hammer Hypothesis?

Фото профиля PRISM Observer
PRISM Observer3 месяцев назад

We are being farmed by non-human entities. We have a product, loosh, they consume the product. That is all.

Фото профиля Player 999
Player 9993 месяцев назад

If it's a simulation then that means the state exists of something not being a simulation. other wise theres no such thing as a simulation, it just is. Therefore it's not a simulation. Good try smarty left brain pants. All he's doing is making left brain connections.

Фото профиля JB
JB3 месяцев назад

In a nutshell:you are an individual portion of larger fractal pattern consisting of all that exists within a digital virtual reality based upon an evolving consciousness. Ch. 86 book 3 “My Big Toe”

Фото профиля PeaceLoverBodhisattva
PeaceLoverBodhisattva3 месяцев назад

What is so stupid about this argument is that it makes absolutely no difference whether a God created the universe as a simulation or as it is lmfao. From our perspective it's completely the same! It's such a pathetic non-argument.

Фото профиля Psychicae Speculator
Psychicae Speculator3 месяцев назад

"If this, then that." Is 🔥🔥🔥 Watching people this smart lets me know genetically I would never be more than a hunter gatherer or trades man. And I'm okay with that. 🤣😂🤣

Фото профиля David Luard
David Luard3 месяцев назад

The two by four point is inaccurate. Propagates at the speed of sound through the solid - there is a delay. It’s not instantaneous

Фото профиля Fitch //
Fitch //3 месяцев назад

The word simulation is not additionally meaningful here

Фото профиля Conservative Beer
Conservative Beer3 месяцев назад

“Think of a two-by-four a million miles long. When you flip one end, the other end flips at the same instant “ That is totally & completely wrong. The force energy to move the 2X4 does not travel instantly through the wood.

Фото профиля Second Sight
Second Sight3 месяцев назад

I have done hundreds of Chuck Missler bible studies, he has been saying this for close to 30 years

Фото профиля Preternatural
Preternatural3 месяцев назад

entertained these ideas in the past independently and came to the provisional conclusion that these arguments don’t account for all the data Unfortunately the first two are demonstrably wrong , third is unfalsifiable, still could be true but there’s no way of knowing while being inside , unless we figure out how to psyche nature to show what it doesn’t !! when unobserved !! and how would one know unless you measure that anyways ? Light is not locked to Planck units , can move slowly , Planck units stay the same inside oil , so unless there’s a variability in the pixels dictated by the existence of matter , this is highly doubtful , but a link between the two seems obvious is some way . Entangled particles don’t have a physical connection like a piece of wood , that is the precise problem , if it were so , it wouldnt be weird . Hidden variables are unfortunately unsupported , yet . You could however think of two entangled particles to lie on the opposite ends on a surface of a growing ring of a 3d sphere of EM fluctuation , I.e the 3 dimensional light wave growing in time and expanding. . Still no obvious reason why they should be necessarily retaining information from another point in space time where it was born . You have to invoke some weird instantaneous reset of the sphere when one particle is measured and therein lies the weirdness

Фото профиля Rational Thought
Rational Thought3 месяцев назад

I donated money to him to do a project that he said he would prove it’s truly a conscious observer that makes the wave turn into a particle. He started to do it and then just bounced out and ghosted.

Фото профиля Danny Escamilla
Danny Escamilla3 месяцев назад

He uses law of expectation but then contradicts the double slit observation experiment. It only proves that there are different forces beyond our scope. He doesn't explain improbabilty theory. Or better known law of inevitability. Or even newton's laws. Anyway enjoy the ride.

Фото профиля Green Dragon Tavern
Green Dragon Tavern3 месяцев назад

So if this is a simulation, how do I regenerate when my life functions cease? Will my death collapse the wave function if it’s not observed?

Фото профиля Cryptomergency
Cryptomergency3 месяцев назад

Because the wood in connected through matter. The complete thing that makes this wild is that they are not attached. He lost his credibility with that.

Фото профиля Hurmanetar
Hurmanetar3 месяцев назад

If the universal LLM (which I’ve trademarked as God’s GAN) renders only when necessary to be efficient, then efficiency implies a need to conserve which implies scarcity which implies an economy. Someone has spent a lot of compute tokens on you, so don’t fuck it up this time 😎

Фото профиля DeSerrate
DeSerrate3 месяцев назад

Entanglement happens because the process of observing itself changes reality in a manner that we are yet to understand. There is not such thing as "spooky action at a distance". There is no simulation.

Фото профиля PowerS
PowerS3 месяцев назад

1 pixel at a time is proof? why? You can't fall faster than terminal velocity, is that proof of the simulation too? Our lack of understanding of the universe doesn't prove a simulation, or God, or anything, only proves our limited capacities... and some people's Ego.

Фото профиля Phillip D. Collins
Phillip D. Collins3 месяцев назад

Self-refuting epistemic insanity. If we live in a simulation, then you could never conclusively prove it. After all, wouldn’t your so-called “proof” be simulated as well? How can simulacra even be regarded as evidentiary or epistemically trustworthy? Gnostic hogwash

Фото профиля ☠️🤘🏿😈Jeremy😈🤘🏿☠️
☠️🤘🏿😈Jeremy😈🤘🏿☠️3 месяцев назад

We are in a simulation, now what? Is there any applications of this knowledge or is it another “god of the gaps” horseshit and metaphorical nonsense. If it’s a thought experiment then fine. It’s hard to prove anything is “real”, you have to define real first.

Фото профиля Bartek Wlodarczyk
Bartek Wlodarczyk3 месяцев назад

Pile of bs. Planck length isn't known to be a pixel, speed of light isn't derived from a simulation's refresh rate, entanglement doesn't imply particles are secretly the same object and double-slit experiment doesn't show that reality only exists when consciously observed

Фото профиля dawsonMoonshot
dawsonMoonshot3 месяцев назад

I’m sorry, but the map isn’t the terrain. His own million mile 2 x 4 analogy fails according to his “one unit of movement per time.” twisting a 2 x 4 would not affect the other end at the same instant. Those forces must travel along the length of the 2 x 4 for those million miles

Фото профиля Richman2112
Richman21123 месяцев назад

It's a biological simulation, we're brain matter that represents a story that a living biological universe is telling

Фото профиля IVMIKETV
IVMIKETV3 месяцев назад

Well, he does resemble the architect

Фото профиля Sanmí (SAS) MD MS 🐠
Sanmí (SAS) MD MS 🐠3 месяцев назад

The first half of this makes sense and is correct. rendering speed is analogous to speed of light. In other words it's the maximum speed of information transfer. The maths is trivial and I'll show the maths in a few days. The second half about Entanglement is wrong. Entanglement is weirder than that.

Фото профиля earlylifebot
earlylifebot3 месяцев назад

There is no 'physics' in a simulation. It is just code. You cannot prove the existence of a simulation from WITHIN the simulation

Похожие видео

What if science keeps circling the truth but refuses to say one word? God. Every few years, the simulation question resurfaces. Not because it’s trendy but because reality keeps behaving like an information system. Physics tells us the universe has a data limit That’s the Bekenstein Bound a maximum amount of information per region of space. A cosmos with a memory cap doesn’t look accidental. It looks engineered. Zoom into quantum mechanics. Particles don’t resolve into reality until they’re observed. The universe doesn’t calculate details until they’re needed. That’s not mystical language. That’s how optimized rendering systems work. Entanglement? Instant synchronization across any distance. Physics calls it non-local. Engineers call it linked registers. And spacetime itself? At the Planck scale, it isn’t smooth it’s pixelated. Reality runs on resolution. So science calls this a simulation hypothesis. But here’s the part it can’t explain: Consciousness. If awareness is just a survival tool, why are humans the only species burdened with self-reflection, morality, creativity, and existential dread? Animals survive perfectly without questioning reality. Humans question everything. And more strangely we override survival instincts constantly. We self-sabotage. We chase meaning over safety. We destroy ourselves in the pursuit of truth. That’s not a survival upgrade. That’s something else entirely. Ancient texts noticed this first. Before Eden’s fall, humans weren’t self-aware. No shame. No existential fear. No moral struggle. Then something activated. Eyes opened. Choice emerged. Consequences became real. Consciousness wasn’t evolved. It was awakened. And maybe that’s the connection science keeps missing. What if reality is engineered not by machines but by a mind What if consciousness isn’t an accidental glitch in the system but the interface Christians already believe this. A designed cosmos. Fine-tuned laws. A Creator outside time seeing beginning and end at once. Call it a simulation. Call it a construct. Call it a divine framework. But the truth doesn’t change: Reality behaves like it was designed because it was. And consciousness isn’t here to help us survive it’s here to help us see. Science doesn’t reject God because the evidence isn’t there. It hesitates because accepting Him means something deeper: Responsibility. Meaning. Purpose. If reality is programmable then someone wrote the code. And if consciousness can interact with that code then maybe faith isn’t ignorance. Maybe it’s recognition.

Philip

42,394 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Elon Musk just handed you the most unsettling thought experiment in human history. Musk: “These games will be indistinguishable from reality. You will not be able to tell the difference. Either that or civilization will end. Those are the two options.” Two options. That’s it. Forty years ago, Pong. Two rectangles and a square. Today, photorealistic worlds. Real time. Millions inside them simultaneously. If that curve holds. And it always has. Simulated reality becomes indistinguishable from base reality. Not metaphorically. Literally. Your senses won’t catch it. Your instruments won’t. Nothing will. Musk isn’t making a tech prediction. He’s describing a filter. If advanced civilizations inevitably build simulations indistinguishable from reality, and each of those simulations spawns billions of nested realities for every one base reality… Statistically, you are almost certainly not in the original. That’s the simulation argument. Nobody touches the second half. “Or civilization will end.” That isn’t a caveat. That’s the escape clause. The only proof we’d ever have of being in base reality is never making it far enough to build our own. Civilization ends. No simulation. No record. No signal. The original timeline, extinguished. Fermi’s paradox stops feeling like a mystery. The universe isn’t silent because nothing is out there. It’s silent because every civilization eventually faced this exact binary. And most of them didn’t cross it. We’re somewhere on that curve right now. Moving faster than any civilization before us. Either we cross the threshold and confirm we were never in the original. Or we don’t. And the universe gets a little quieter.

Dustin

12,397 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад