Leo, why do physics work?

[tatsumaru]

@Leo Gura I watched your video about "Why reality can't be a simulation" and I resonate deeply with your message of consciousness being everything. Not from a belief or wishful thinking perspective but simply due to having experienced for myself that the conceptual worlds we create in our minds in order to communicate are actually imaginary and that once they reach a certain level of complexity they can fool us into suspending disbelief and thinking that they are alive and real and can become a major distraction from direct experience. Same way once movies reach a certain threshold (24fps) we forget that it's just moving pixels and start thinking the people are actually there in front of us. When you say that science is as real as fiction, I know exactly or at least partially what you mean.

However what puzzles me in that whole scenario is, if everything is just pure potential and creativity, then why does physics work so reliably and consistently? Why isn't it changing and morphing all the time? As far as we have experienced there are certain natural laws that have never ever changed even the slightest bit, such as the law of conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics. I understand that these laws are just made up shit, but they seem to work nevertheless. Are there actually some principles to creation and destruction, some actual laws that govern the formation and dissolution of this dream that is the interplay of form and emptiness?

Thank you

Edited May 31, 2021 by tatsumaru

[Adamq8]

Perhaps the view of a virtual reality aint that bad but there is not a computer behind the simulation, it is conciousness. 

So there are certain "laws" and "rules" to have in order to have an experience which is consistent and that we can make reality out of.

It is the rule set of the game so to speak.

But it is still a human construct of laws and so forth, nature does not make laws, nature is the way it is because it is what it is ?

 

[snowyowl]

This is a subject that's sometimes used by creationists as evidence of the traditional creator God: the  laws and constants of Physics appear fine-tuned for the emergence of biological life. It also reminds me of the Anthropic principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle which states that the universe appears the way it is, because we are here to observe it. Other universes may exist with different rules of nature, but they'd be incompatible with our type of life, so we can't see it. I find it all a bit mind-bending to try and understand it to be honest, but it kinda makes sense that our consciousness affects what the world looks like, and how we create our science. 

 

 

[RMQualtrough]

Why would they change or stop working? Persistence or the lack of it does not prove whether something is real.

[Leo Gura]

On 5/31/2021 at 3:46 AM, tatsumaru said:

However what puzzles me in that whole scenario is, if everything is just pure potential and creativity, then why does physics work so reliably and consistently? Why isn't it changing and morphing all the time?

You can do physics of any video game world and code whatever physics you want.

There is nothing special about our physics. It's all relative. All the laws are imaginary and could be otherwise.

Ask yourself why you take consistency vs inconsistency as proof of anything? Just because a thing is consistent does not make it any more real or true. A thing that melts and lasts 0.0001 seconds is as real as a thing that sticks around for 10 billion years.

On 5/31/2021 at 3:46 AM, tatsumaru said:

As far as we have experienced there are certain natural laws that have never ever changed even the slightest bit, such as the law of conservation of energy or the laws of thermodynamics.

They change in your dreams, they change inside a virtual world, etc.

On 5/31/2021 at 3:46 AM, tatsumaru said:

I understand that these laws are just made up shit, but they seem to work nevertheless.

Of course they work locally, within a narrow contect.

These laws do not work inside a dream, for example.

On 5/31/2021 at 3:46 AM, tatsumaru said:

Are there actually some principles to creation and destruction, some actual laws that govern the formation and dissolution of this dream that is the interplay of form and emptiness?

The only ultimate law is: consciousness is completely unlimited.

INFINITY is the only law.

[Javfly33]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

.

The only ultimate law is: consciousness is completely unlimited.

INFINITY is the only law.

You always say that but What does that mean in practical terms Leo

It's Absolute or is unlimited?

It's ONE or is infinite?

You guys constantly contradict yourselves. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Javfly33

[RMQualtrough]

15 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

You always say that but What does that mean in practical terms Leo

It's Absolute or is unlimited?

It's ONE or is infinite?

You guys constantly contradict yourselves. 

Why can't one single thing be infinite?

[Brenzo2]

48 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

You always say that but What does that mean in practical terms Leo

It's Absolute or is unlimited?

It's ONE or is infinite?

You guys constantly contradict yourselves. 

It's multifaceted! Theres no contradiction. And even if there were, that don't mean shit? You never experienced a paradox in your life???

[RendHeaven]

Does gravity exist for a fish? I ask this sincerely on a literal, "physical" level.

You see, as humans we would say, "Oh yeah gravity always exists for all beings, and any being that denies the existence of gravity is just not intelligent enough."

But such a narrative is inextricably tied to our experience of being a human - and very conveniently so.

I dare y'all to contemplate with extreme seriousness the possibility that if you were a fish, gravity would literally, "physically" cease to exist (such that it was never even there to begin with), and this "nonexistence" would have nothing to do with your "limited intelligence."

(Sidenote: there's nothing actually physical about gravity but I'm just phrasing things this way to appeal to our common notion that gravity is independent of our minds)

Or in other words, notice that the absolute conviction that we have of the mind-independent existence of a so-called "gravity" is necessarily relative to our frame of reference of "being a human."

No human - No gravity. Period. Not even as a word game, but in terms of literal existence.

Obviously, don't just believe me though, work through this yourself. Matters of Existence/Being are wholly on you to investigate - no scientist or external authority can bestow knowledge of Beingness upon you, for you yourself are Being first and foremost; the authority of the hypothetical scientist here in regards to Being is necessarily second-order.

(Science will, however, measure and explain relationships between the preassumed existence of two or more things, and insofar as you also preassume the existence of these same things, the scientist has more knowledge and authority than you specifically with regards to measuring and explaining these aforementioned things.)

Edited June 6, 2021 by RendHeaven

[Willie]

The map of physics is a complex and very reliable model for the territory of reality. It’s still just a map. It’s all made up, and not reality.

[snowyowl]

The humanly constructed rules of science dictate that you have to repeat experiments multiple times and get consistent results before the hypothesis is proved and becomes a theory. So, no surprise that science is stable?

Remember when you did experiments at school, eg say you're measuring the speed of light. Most of the measurements fit nicely into the expected value, but there's always a few outliers. Do those outliers mean the speed of light isn't constant? No, science rejects them as errors and ignores them. But is that rejection itself scientific? Science takes consistency as a dogma and uses that to "prove" the nature of reality based on a majority of the experimental data. 

[Shin]

10 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

You always say that but What does that mean in practical terms Leo

It's Absolute or is unlimited?

It's ONE or is infinite?

You guys constantly contradict yourselves. 

It makes no sense unless you experience it directly.

And it's impossible to explain because of that.