Spacetime is just a headset: An interview with Donald Hoffman

For starters, it's the silly headline claim about truth and fitness, I mean we're not talking about truth vs lies, or fitness vs unfitness. He stupidly keeps saying the truth organism in his paper is somehow less fit and dies, in his interviews, with no qualification or statement of the obvious limitations of his paper... it's stupid... his paper uses a classical theory of what is truth, it doesn't involve QM at all, and we're talking about information ain't we! Classical stuff died in the 1920's, now even QM needs to be qualified... QM adds up outside of spacetime/transcends spacetime... how on earth can he use the word 'truth', when he doesn't use QM/Quantum information in his paper... they are the truth... I mean, at least more truthful/accurate, compared to old classical approximations.

And that spoon/headache thing... and that 'no public space'... and those early papers I read...

Yeah there was some brief mention of QM in parts 2 & 3 of the breakdown which I'll post for completion's sake, but I don't know if Hoffman has tried to further his work on the Interface Theory of Perception to properly consider information at a quantum level.

I personally think there is some basic truth that what we see is a User Interface of sorts, but I don't know if it makes sense to say there is 0 representation of truth in the brain's UI.

I did the videos provided a good basic understanding of what Hoffman's argument actually is, but it's difficult to see how to make sense of the spoon/headache stuff we discussed years back.

 

We address 10 common critiques to Don Hoffman's FBT theorem. Through a mathematical model and evolutionary game theory simulations, cognitive scientist Hoffman claims there's a 0% probability you and me perceive base reality, or the world as it actually is. We thoroughly examine objections to his Fitness Beats Truth theorem.

🎬 Chapters

0:00 Intro
0:17 Hoffman's game theory simulations are too basic
2:27 This game is rigged against the truth strategy
4:22 Isn't fitness-only still seeing the "truth"?
6:53 What about other testable structures?
8:10 Wouldn't a mixed fitness & truth strategy be better?
8:42 Why is there dispersion in the perceptual model?
9:33 Is there additional computation cost to truth?
10:29 Are there exceptions where truth wins?
11:08 What about quantum game theory?
12:00 Isn't this circular logic?

=-=-=

We cover the holographic principle and error correcting codes (ECC) as they relate to Don Hoffman's Fitness-Beats-Truth Theorem. Our third and final chapter on Hoffman's revolutionary claim, backed by mathematics and evolutionary game theory, that we do not perceive base reality. The holographic principle and error correction found in physics, biology, and information theory may be clues Hoffman is right.

0:00 Intro
1:55 Holographic Principle
5:41 Hamming Code (Type of ECC)
7:58 Error Correcting Codes in Physics
9:40 Error Correcting Codes in Biology
11:10 Error Correcting Codes in Information Theory
12:07 Fitness-Beats-Truth Finale
13:29 Map-Territory Farewell

In this conversation with the brilliant Dr. Donald Hoffman, we question whether space-time and the world we experience with our senses is fundamental or merely a shallow projection of something deeper. Drawing on Plato’s cave, physics, cognitive science, mystical traditions, quantum theory, and Hoffman’s own framework of conscious agents, we explore the possibility that reality emerges from consciousness rather than the other way around.

Don also shares what could be a mind blowing breakthrough in his theory. What is reality? Will science ever find a final theory of everything? Are we locked inside a simulation designed for survival, not truth? If consciousness transcends space-time, what does that imply about our potential, our perception, our purpose and our fate as beings? We riff on all of this and more in this mind meld.

So now we have to deal with reality vs. 'base reality' as if that proves his nonsense claims?

So now we have to deal with reality vs. 'base reality' as if that proves his nonsense claims?

It's obviously a reference to the underling or overarching metaphysical reality, if you had even bothered to try understanding his particular vernacular?

It's obviously a reference to the underling or overarching metaphysical reality, if you had even bothered to try understanding his particular vernacular?

And again with the attacks and mud slinging. What is wrong with you that you can't debate or carry on any meaningful conversation?
Metaphysical is not reality, plain and simple.
His particular vernacular doesn't automatically qualify something to be true.
What planet are you visiting from?

And again with the attacks and mud slinging. What is wrong with you that you can't debate or carry on any meaningful conversation?

I suppose I am just matching your tone from other comments you have made. I have an unfortunate habit of mirroring people.

Metaphysical is not reality, plain and simple.

The metaphysical is about the study of the nature of reality ~ of course models cannot be reality themselves.

His particular vernacular doesn't automatically qualify something to be true.

Obviously not ~ but you don't seem to care to understand what he's referring to...

What planet are you visiting from?

Earth, apparently.

but you don't seem to care to understand

This is again what I am referring to... that is an insult, in case you weren't aware of what makes people toxic.
You are toxic, you are making the claim that I don't seem to care to understand, or that I'm not interested in understanding what he is referring to.

I do care and I do understand, I just don't buy into things because they fit some biased belief system or support my own version of reality. I don't look for things to support my own beliefs like props holding up a house of cards.

If that is what you want to believe, I'm not here to try and convert you, but I will insist on my own understanding of things and what I choose to believe in or what I choose not to. I am entitled to my own opinions, my own beliefs, my own theories. You don't get to manipulate or control me, and when you try, I will fight you.

You again don't seem to comprehend that what you are doing is steering and manipulating by dismissing and insulting people. Then you act all butt hurt when somone finally calls you out on how toxic your statements are to others.

Get a grip.

You certainly know how to gaslight, I'll give you that much. But I have little remaining patience for your nonsensical ranting.

So now we have to deal with reality vs. 'base reality' as if that proves his nonsense claims?

What claim is nonsense?

For example, someone claiming non-conscious matter can become conscious because it takes the shape of a brain is a "nonsense claim" to me.

What claim is nonsense?

For example, someone claiming non-conscious matter can become conscious because it takes the shape of a brain is a "nonsense claim" to me.

I'm taking the critic side to generate conversation and debate.
And yes, the claim that that space, time, and physical objects are data structures CREATED BY CONSCIOUSNESS, it total crap to me. I totally despise all versions of simulations, or mind projected reality, or that the human brain is doing anything but participating.

His claims, often labeled as radical or "nonsense" by critics, suggest that space, time, and physical objects are not fundamental, but rather data structures created by consciousness...

The ego behind the idea that we are behind some created reality, or projecting it, or that it is all a simulation, is a mental health problem, likely created by too much exposure to electronic media during critical brain development stages. It is an ego out of control to think that we are doing anything but participating in an already existing environment that is real and solid, and follows linear time all by itself.
Human beings are not the center of any universe, and have no power to model or create anything but fantasy nonsense like his.
He is obviously, like so many others, milking the spotlight and feeding the lemmings.