The universe from nothing pdf Videos

+Josh Traffanstedt also biology, meteorology, geology.......

+Sebin Puthenthara Suresh it's ok, his book is called "A Universe From Nothing"

+MadScientist3000 Which one? I wasn't aware he wrote books (I know, shame on me)..He, in my opinion, seems like a guy whose visual presentations and speech are better than written work. It could maybe change too, once I do read the book.

+Sebin Puthenthara Suresh read his book

i agree. I wish he'd dab a little more into how exactly the nothing theory becomes something

+IelfphilRV Thanks for telling me so. It's good to know that it's not always a waste of time. 

+antiHUMANDesigns just want to say thanks for this detailed argument, it's brilliantly reasoned .. too bad it's wasted on a numbskull, but that's okay atleast your comment is out here for people like me to appreciate it, and be thankful that there are at least a few more people who value reality enough to understand and communicate their stand on God in such detail :)

Something from nothing. You even cannot understand nothing in ur mind and still you believe in it. You brain could not imagine this. If I ask you to prove you will not able. yet you believe in it. When I talk about God I have the reason to believe in it you do not understand it that the reason you do not believe. Now I will show you the reasons.At some stage the world become difficult to live. There is in equality in the distribution of wealth. There are good people and evil. As in most of the developing countries these problems exist at this time. God send prophets to teach people good. People differ like there are sects in religions and other believes. God send prophet to decide what is the actual truth and what is wrong. God turn the table weak people become strong when God send prophet. God punish evil in this world through prophet. Regarding hear after. This world is incomplete. this is another reason to believe in hear after. l have reasons to believe. Just because you do not understand. This is the reason you do not believe. simple.

+Khuram Hafeez "The problem is you assume things with your mind and consider it to be true and ask other to believe in it."No, if something cannot be demonstrated to be true, I do not ask anyone to believe it. And I won't believe it myself, either."You are assuming if newton is there at this time he might be an atheist"I wouldn't say I'm "assuming". What I'm saying is that if Newton was born today, I'd bet you $1000 he would not be a theist. Taht is, I'm resaonably certain, based on teh fact that there no longer is a reason to assume gods exist, and scientists tend to understand that, especially within specific fields of science.Since Darwin, we've no longer had a good reason to assume gods exist. Life was the last big mystery that we've assigned to "god", so to speak.Don't get me wrong, there was never a reason to assume gods exist. But when most of the world seems too strange to explain, it's not strange that people did fall back on such explanations.But with the modern scientific method, we do not accept things that cannot be demonstrated. And the modern scientific method is only about 100 years old." Stephen Hawking is the scientist of this generation and He said "no body dis prove God". "OK, it seems you've completely misunderstood this...See, I'm not saying gods do not exist. I'm saying I don't have a reason to believe that they do. They might or might not, but if I am supposed to know which is true, I need some kind of evidence to be able to know that. Since there is no evidence of gods, I am not justified in believing they they exist.And since I can't prove that they don't exist (like Hawking said), I cannot say that they don't.So we're simply stuck in the "middle", where we don't know either way, but we have no reason to believe either way, either.Atheism is not to say "I believe that gods do not exist", it is simply to say "I don't believe that gods exist".I hope you see the difference. Atheism doesn't make a statement about truth, it simply makes the statement that we are not convinced either way.You can't prove that there isn't a tea pot orbiting Pluto. But you have no reason to believe that there is, until there is reason to do so. So you're an "atheist" when it comes to tea pots orbiting Pluto.Some people wrongly call this "agnosticism", but yeah... they're wrong. Agnosticism is to say you don't know (not believe), and that it may not be possible to know. Agnosticism isn't about belief, but about claims to knowledge.Atheists tend to also be agnostic."according to Krauss something can come from nothing but He says that empty space contain energy. When there is energy in empty space where is nothing? There is energy. "You're mixing things up a bit. The "nothing" that Krauss says a universe can come from is not empty space with energy, it is nothing: No energy, no matter, no space, no time, and no laws. Only "uncertainty", which is fundamental principle in quantum physics.And I think you can agree to this: Either the nothing is stable or it is unstable, it cannot be neither. If it is stable, then why is it? Is some law keeping it from becoming something? Then where does that law come from?But somethign that is unstable because it is uncertain is similar to saying it's chotic, it has no laws. And then it can become "anything", because there is nothing preventing it from doing so.But no one says this is easy to understand."Krauss type scientist need popularity thats the reason they talk against religion. "Yeah, some scientists are more about communication and writing books and talking in public, while other scientists quietly do their work and just write papers for science journals.But it's the same thing with christians. You've got loads of these "charismatic" christians who go around talking crap.The difference is that these charismatic christians actually lie about things, while scientists don't. I mean, you can say that the scientist is wrong, if that's what you believe (?), but they're not intentionally lying, I can tell you that much.But people like Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind , for example, have been corrected a gazillion times and they still tell the same lies. They are conmen, and that's much worse than what you're talking about. Krauss is just a bit "rude" to religion. (And religion deserves it, imo.)I don't think Krauss talked so much about religion a while back, but I think that when he became friends with Dawkins, that's when he started talking more about it."There are many scientist who believe in GOD and they are still scientists."Yeah. But it also depends on what field of science you're talking about. People who study some things do not come in contact with claims about gods.And then you also have to ask what kind of god they believe in. You can theoretically call anything "god", since there is no proper, strict definition of the word. Einstein called cosmos itself "god", but that is not a personal god, which is what we mean by theism.You can always believe in some god and be a perfectly fine scientist. It doesn't have to interfere at all.However, you saw what happened to Newton. When he couldn't explain the orbit of Mercury, he just gave up and said that God probably makes it move that way.Had Newton not been a theist, he might not have given up, because then he would insist that there probably is a natural cause.And then comes Einstein and solves the problem of the orbit of Mercury, without needing to claim a God has anything to do with it. So Newton was wrong, and his theism was in his way."We believe what we choose to believe "No, absolutely not. You cannot choose what to believe. Either you are convinced of something or you are not.Can you choose to believe that there isn'ta cup of coffee in front of you, even though you can see it and feel it and taste the coffee? No, you can tell yourself that you don't believe it, but you do.If I got to choose what to believe, I would also follow some kidn of religion. I also want to believe that there are gods and magic and dragons and afterlife, and that I get to live forever, and so on. Taht would be absolutely fantastic.But I can't believe something is true just because it would be great if it were true. I can pretend to, but I'll never actually believe it.Perhaps this is simply the difference between people like you and people like me? You can choose what to believe, and I can't.

The problem is you assume things with your mind and consider it to be true and ask other to believe in it. You are assuming if newton is there at this time he might be an atheist. LOL...C'mon it is actually not worthy talking with a stupid minded jerk who is living in his imagination but yet I will give you a reply to your statement that most of the scientist are atheist. Stephen Hawking is the scientist of this generation and He said "no body dis prove God". What does it mean? it simply means there is uncertainty about God weather he exist or not and according to Krauss something can come from nothing but He says that empty space contain energy. When there is energy in empty space where is nothing? There is energy. You are talking about a simple bull shit which even you dont understand in ur brain. Krauss type scientist need popularity thats the reason they talk against religion. There are many scientist who believe in GOD and they are still scientists. We believe what we choose to believe weather we are scientist or religious minded still there are plenty of things to learn. nothing is final.

+Khuram Hafeez Whether or not you believe in god is irrelevant. Science shows us nature, and Krauss is communicating what we know about nature.Because of science (and irrespective of god-beliefs), we have technology like computers and the internet. Either you respect science, or you don't. If you think taht science is bad, then how do you explain that you use its fruits constantly, and that you're most likely only alive because of science?No scientist who ever believed in god was able to change nature to conform to their belief about god. I don't know if gods exists or not, but science will still tell us about nature. And that is of great use to us.Also, Einstein did not believe in a god in the way that a theist does. He was not a theist, because he did not believe in a personal god. At best, we was a form of pantheist, where nature itself is god. I don't disagree with that concept, I just find it pointless. It's like using "god" as a metaphor, that's all.As for Newton, he lived a long time ago. If I lived back then, I would probably have been religious, aswell.And had I lived 50 000 years ago, I would probably think that mountains were gods, and so on.But now, in the 21st century, there is no longer a reason to assume gods exist. Had Newton been born today, he would likely not have been a theist, as most scientists aren't theists, today.I wasn't aware that the owner of Microsoft was a theist. But his belief in a god doesn't mean he cannot make an operating system, or that he would be worse at it. (Not that the owner of Microsoft actually makes Windows.) Like I said, religion cannot change nature. A religious person still has to rely on science to be able to make working technology. Religion itself, without science, has never produced any scientific knowledge.

LOL...When your stupid Lawrence cruse or you make a computer than ask me to stop using it. The window you are using is made by Microsoft and Microsoft owner believe in GOD. Albert einestine believe in GOD. Newton believe in GOD. You athiest are dumb ass. some low caliber people who always try to prove them scientists

Then stop using that computer. It relies on the work of scientists, so I don't see why you want to use it.

+samdomding hahahahahahahahahahhhhhhno

+Nick Appleby I am not a scientist, but think I can answer your question better than some scientist, suppose you could travel at a Million times faster than the speed of light, you could then catch the light that bounced off our earth a billion years ago, and see what earth looked like a billion years ago, but it would take you 1000 years travelling at million times the speed of light to catch up with that point in time, so the faster you travel than the speed of time, not only time stops, but it starts to reverse, and if you manage to do that you would also see history of earth unfold in a fraction of second, you may also see you take birth, grow older, you would see your conception, your mother taking birth herself, her mother and so on, you only need about 2 billion dollars and about 1000 scientist to come up with a machine that can accelerate you at a million times faster than speed of light. Might be possible if just your conscious can be taken to hadron collider and accelerated at a million times faster than speed of light and when you have reached that they can send you off into space to catch up, your return is no guaranteed as when you come back you may not find your body and so your conscious will have to take a birth in a new child.

+T Samuel Harrison That's an interesting thought, imagine that :) Thank you

+T Samuel Harrison but not vaporized

+Nick Appleby Absolutely. But it is not a well lit mirror, it is the earth that must be brightly light. So theory has it that if Earth were illuminated by perhaps a GRB but vaporized and your mirror were large enough and properly curved then you could see Earth from the past.

Album : In Space and TimeTrack : Inner Imagination

Exactly like WZRD702 said. The simple fact that we are aware of this is a huge step. No species would ever ask these questions if it would happen that the specie would destroy all other life by just being they would never know this. We may be infinity away from knowing everything (and everything cannot be known ) but we are aware of our awareness and the next step, if we survive, awaits.

Maybe not "created" so much as "nurtured to exist", whatever the beginning was, it set up the parameters, basically just stacking the odds in favour of complex life, and let the simulation run.

Our knowledge is too limited to come to accurate conclusions.

+Roshawn Terrellbut there is a point where space is moving away faster than the speed of light.

That's not the edge, that's just edge at which we can see.Also, your life span is infinite, it matters not how long the journey will take.But we are making vast assumptions. Such as whether "humans" will even exist 100 years from now (which I highly doubt).

+Roshawn Terrellwouldn't that require some kind of faster than light travel though? I mean even if the universe is infinite, we still have the horizon which is the effective edge of the universe as far as we are concerned.

+alienzenThe universe is infinite, that is an assumption. But yes Based off of previous observations, I think the universe is likely infinite as we'll.IF the universe is infinite, then yes, you would be able to decrease entropy for eternity. This also means that anti entropic systems, can continue to get infinitely more complex, for as long as the universe exists.

+Roshawn Terrellif the universe in infinte though, doesn't that mean that it is possible to decrease entropy indefinitely within a finite local space?

+alienzenThat's exactly what I'm saying.We are simply the byproduct of the entropy trying to increase entropy in a high energy dense space.

+Roshawn Terrellwhat you are saying that having areas of low entropy is the most efficient way to increase entropy overall?

+Roshawn Terrell Oh, so anti-entropy is just a name on that process. By it's name it sounded for me like it was something that would reverse entropy for the universe as a whole, or in a system without the speeding up of entropy outside. But you mean it is anti-entropy when an open system, in a sense reverses the entropy for itself while making more entropy outside itself.

Anti entropy, derives from entropy.When large amounts of energy build up in small spaces in the universe. Because entropy wants to spread out the energy in the universe as far and as fast possible. Entropy forms structures to emit more energy.It is the same reason why stars form. Stars are anti entropic, and they form because so much energy was packed into a tight spot due to gravity.

+Anirban Chatterjee All it takes is energy and intelligence!

Well, considering that this anti-entropy is primary relative to a small domain of observation, the second law of thermodynamics does hold well when we consider the macroscopic picture. Roshawn's comment reminded me of what Michio Kaku wrote in his book Physics of the future - We can essentially reverse ageing and death by shifting our positive change in entropy to another part of the universe. Outsourcing at its best. :D

F=T∇Sτ

Oddly enough, it is entropy, that drives anti-entropy.

Ewww a monkey

drop dead, shitskin

+Mendelbrak hahahaahhahaha...this is hilarious. Sounds like a Dave Chapelle skit. Thanks for the laughter. OneLove

+MrBasilGanglia Actually Latinos make up 15% of the population and Blacks make up 13%. Anyway the entire point is that there should be more diversity since people of color make up about a third of the population. America is becoming browner which means that there diversity is increasing; the films should embrace diversity. Also race is a social construct. It was constructed between 1676-1677 (Bacon Rebellion). Race was invented by the ruling class to get social control of labor unity. You should read more about this.

+hannah60000 The fact that she's "mixed-race" really doesn't have anything to do with this though. She had brown skin and she fit the book's description perfectly as I might add.Now Katniss on the other hand. Even though Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress. She does not, under any circumstances, have olive skin.

+Josh Boykin She acted the part perfectly, but she does not have dark brown skin and she is mixed race. The black male character was undeniably black though. It's easy for black males to ignore or mis-acknowledge the erasure of black women, predominantly of African descents, presence in the media. They are replacing us with ambiguous women, when the characters are suppose to be undeniably black. I guess since it's not happening to black males many fail to see this. I stand by my comment.

+hannah60000 Well the book said she had dark-brown skin and Amandla Stenberg fit the part perfectly.

Respect ...been watching your videos for some time now and I am really blessedGod bless you Brother

+Increase Peace I don't know what they're doing but I just said it's possible. Also, this could take place in another universe/ timeline from the comics and the original movie.

+Josh Boykin Is that the story they're going with? Hmmm. If I were the people in charge, I would have simply cast the both of them as black.

+Increase Peace Ah. though it's uncommon it is possible to have twins with two different skin colors and hair textures.

+Josh Boykin Yeah, they were twins I think.

+OldPkeFan Did The Fantastic Four comic ever clarify that they were blood relatives? Johnny could have been adopted or perhaps their parents were an " interracial couple" for lack of a better term.

+emolovesblack28 Thanks for the heads up! They've changed the website a bit, we'll have to wait until December when new links are posted.

+Daniel V Great question!One explanation is that Christ's death is traditionally recorded as falling on March 25th (Nisan 14 in the Jewish calendar). Since He is "the alpha and the omega," the beginning and the end, Christ's death and birth (or at least His conception) Fall on the same say. If Christ was conceived on March 25th (the Annunciation), then He was born exactly nine months later on December 25th. You may notice that the conceptions and birthdays of the Theotokos and St John the Baptist are also celebrated, though these don't fall exactly nine months from each other. This perfect nine months period also symbolizes Christ's perfect humanity.

+Toni Milak Thanks for the great feedback!  We actually filmed for the few months on just an iPhone before we got a real camera, hopefully the focus has been better the last few months.  God bless you!

Which one is your first favorite?

Allah said in the holy Quran the Book of Allah And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah, but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds. ------------ ( 38 ) Or do they say [about the Prophet], "He invented it?" Say, "Then bring forth a surah like it and call upon [for assistance] whomever you can besides Allah, if you should be truthful." ------------- ( 39 ) Rather, they have denied that which they encompass not in knowledge and whose interpretation has not yet come to them. Thus did those before them deny. Then observe how was the end of the wrongdoers. -------------- the holy Quran (( And indeed, the Qur'an is the revelation of the Lord of the worlds.))

I respect both Books and recognize each as the Word of God reveled to man. However traditions of their origins demands any judgement to be valid only if it is treated in context. While the bible if far in time and has gone through many traditions in history because of it's liberal treatment of variations, the Koran which is earlier in time has not undergone such changes based on it being pinned down by it's authorities from being varied across cultures. However they all boil down to LOVE of GOD.

شفت المقطع اكثر من مره ,... كم اتعجب من اسلوبك يا شيخ يوسف وكم اتمنى ان يكونون مشايختنا حقين الفلوس مثلك بالطريق واللين والحب والاخاء واللطف انت يا شيخ يوسف الشيخ الي نرفع روسنا فيه ونتشرف فيه كل ما اشوف الفيديو تنزل دموعي يا رب هادني واخواني المسلمين اجمعين يا رب العالمين

the only reason islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is because absolutely all the muslim population lives in underdeveloped countries who experience a severe population growth, apart from the fact that the oposite movement to conversion, leaving islam, is forbidden in many countries, therefore, islam grows, but not because people are converting to islam, but because muslims have more children than westerners and once you are inside you cant leave

Assalam alaikum khouya. I saw your comment on that terrible person, Laila?. Please brother, when you read things like she writes, don't use bad language to answer. This is what they want. To show that we Muslims are bad and if we loose our temper, we give them proof. We do not need to give any attention to the ones who work against Islam. They are like flies buzzing around making small noise and so easy to blow them away... Allahu akbar. Fi amani ALlah khouya.

that is not true do u know why ?!! it because its right !! and prophet Mohammed was escaping i think from the non Muslim people and he went to a cave and do u know what happened a spider did its web after he went inside so they thought in possible he will be there and when they saw the desert the said imposable the black gold will be there so god made all this happen in not LUCK no !! can i ask you something what religion are you ?? :))

*- [الأنعام: 125] {فَمَنْ يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَنْ يَهدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلإِسْلامِ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ أَنْ يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ} .

(( O people Say No God But Allah, Achieve Eternal Salvation ))) " Laa illaha illa lah ." (There is none worthy of worship except Allah.) (I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger)

كلامه ماشاء الله تبارك الله يفتح انفس وتندمج معه الله يسر امره وامر من اسلم على ايدينه ماشاء الله ٤ اسلموا بإدينه سبحان الله ، اللهم اهدني ):

الله يثبنتا ويجزاك ربي خير من رفع هذا الفيديو كأني أنا من تحتاج إلى لأسلام بكيت وبكيت وبكيت يارب الثبات والحمدالله على ديني الأسلام

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله. اللهم لك الحمد ولك جزيل الشكر يارب أسألك التوفيق والنجاح والفضيلة في الدنيا والآخرة

لا اله الا الله وحده لاشريك له. له الملك وله الحمد وهو على كل شي قدير الله اكبر الله اكبر الله اكبر لا اله الا الله...

Islam means submission to Allah (or God in English and same God in Christianity and Judaism) as the one and only one God with no partner, no companion, no son, no father, no associate and no equivalence.

لا اله الا انت ربي استغفرك وتوب اليك وربي اني بكيت لما شفت المقطع تكفون ادعولي بالهدايه والله اني مقصر بالصلاه :(

God ! God ! God ! Many people in the west are good people; Oh God For Those whom have a little bit faith in theie heart guide them to the right way . The way to YOU. Al hamdulillah for islam

سبحان الله .. و الحمد لله .. و لا اله الا الله .. و الله اكبر .. و لاحول و لا قوة الا بالله العلى العظيم ♥♥

لا اله الا الله سآلت دموعي هم يدخلون في السلام وغيرهم ينسلخون منه بآخلآقهم يآآآآرب هدايتك يارب

اضيفوا المقطع الى المفضله لتساهم في نشره Add this vedio to favorit for share لايك عشان الكل يشوف .. Like this comment plz

الله أكبر مقطع مؤثر جداً اللي يسأل عن اسمه اسمه يوسف استس كان مغني وهداه الله وتاب واصبح داعيه

اللهم صل وسلم وبارك على سيدنا محمد وعلى صحبه اجمعييين ... الله أكبر . الله أكبر .. الله أكبر

اتفرج على المقطع و دمعتي في عيني وانا بين اهلي واستحيت انزلها ماقول الا الله يثبتهم

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله اللهم اعز الاسلام والمسلمين واذل الشرك والمشركين

لا الة الا الله وحده لا شريك له له الملك وله الحمد وهو على كل شيء قدير

i have no idea why the music or humming is necessary!!! it is very close to music! it is like the chorus in a church!

+Trevor Martin Well I'm an idealist. I don't say that physical reality is something objective and 'out there'. The reason I call dreams physical is all the ordered activity involved. There's causality involved across consciousness. So I refer to consciousness as physical in that sense, not as a 'thing' out there.

+q railroads There would be no reason to call them objectively physical. You can tell quickly that your dreams are generated by your mind- just as you can generate a daydream with your mind right now. The dream is merely generated by a larger part of your mind- one beyond your ego- and if you note dream characters, they appear fully conscious and intelligent, and may very well be both. With that in place, there is no need for anything physical to be objectively real and external to mind. All that's necessary is that you grant that mind extends beyond your ego-which you already know to be true. The physical world, then, is as objectively real as your dream world, only you have less control, since the mental processes involved are deeper than the ones producing your dreams. All science we know only predicts things about what scientists will experience upon measurement. Thus the only physical that can ever be known to begin with is mental, as it is our experience and the models themselves are mental knowledge. An objective physical world outside of that mentally experienced world cannot truly be said to have any of the properties physicists have found. The most that could be said, if it existed, would be that there's some mathematical relationship between that world and the world science is done on. Since nothing else can be said, it may as well not exist, as all that's necessary is what we actually can measure and experience- which is necessarily mental. Even if one held to the actual existence of mathematical entities, even those could only be known as mental, and thus would not have to genuinely exist outside of mind. All idealism says is that reality is mental all the way down, rather than postulating an eternally elusive non-mental world outside experience- which one can never verify the existence of in principle.

+Trevor Martin Is it impossible to think that dreams and experience are physical in a certain sense?

+q railroads Consciousness is experience. Experience generates the illusion we know as becoming. One doesn't need to have any physical reality to comprehend activity, because all activity can just be the result of consciousness, just as it is in your dreams.

+Trevor Martin "The difference is that the subconscious is the same mind, just another part of it."-as you kind of note later on, this is true in theistic idealism to. it's all one mental substance, one 'mind' and we're all just other sub minds."In the purely solipsist world, your existence would start out absolutely blank, and then a bit of information will show up"-how? would this just be another anomaly? also, where does time and change come from? would't all possible permutations simply exist, timelessly?"Of course, the subconscious could simply catch onto this and either harshly forbid doing such a thing (with extreme consequences) or be smart enough to detect such intentional changes to the data and negate them"-but why on earth would it do that? If we're trying to treat the subconscious as a kind of mental computer and not a theistic 'self' distinct from the conscious, what would cause it to perform that function?in either case, solipsism doesn't work. there's simply no reason for a single consciousness to be favored by the subconscious. you either have a self aware subconscious (god) that creates only one mind and favors it for some reason, wanting to provide it with a consistent reality, or you have a selfless mind-computer being born from the randomness and (from the permutation of information) slowly developing semi-deterministic laws which then creates a multitude of self aware minds. p.s. sorry if i say something which in some way goes counter to something in quantum physics. i'm not well educated in that area. just point it out, (perhaps give me a link to research), and after searching it up i'll return and correct myself. 

+frank dunleavyThe difference is that the subconscious is the same mind, just another part of it. If you dream, for example, most things you encounter are permutations of what your conscious has encountered. In the purely solipsist world, your existence would start out absolutely blank, and then a bit of information will show up, and then that bit would be permuted into different ideas that you interact with, becoming a world that gets more complex as you go. Your subconscious  would start actually giving your conscious this information after it has made enough information for one to actually experience something in a seemingly concrete manner. After this, the conscious - which has the same shared memory space as the subconscious, would be leaving the memory of the states that it encountered, along with its general perception of those states (which themselves are permutations of those states), and the subconscious would retrieve those, update them in a way that doesn't break the general pattern of progression (at least on average), and then feed them back into the conscious. The end result is essentially a cycle....and since the conscious had never experienced anything outside of that cycle, the conscious mind would assume that it's living in a "real" universe, and may not even be aware of the subconscious' existence, except for in the most direct manner as the subset of it's mind that carries out functions while it isn't intentionally acting. The larger part of the subconscious that records the information and updates the universe could easily go completely unnoticed. As you can see, this hypothetical scenario extremely closely resembles our own universe, and there would be literally no way for us to tell the difference personally. Actually, this is much more scary, because it agrees with the way that observation interferes with the wavefunction  in this universe via things like the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle (and is demonstrated very well via the double slit experiment and the seemingly retro-causal delayed choice quantum eraser experiment). This is a form of solipsism since there is only one mind creating and experiencing it's own mental constructs. Thus solipsism is not only conceivable, but virtually identical to reality. The only difference I can see is that in this analogy, it may be possible to intentionally permute the information consciously experienced in such a way as to change the experience entirely. We can do this easily in our dreams, but there is very little evidence of us being able to do that in this world. Of course, the subconscious could simply catch onto this and either harshly forbid doing such a thing (with extreme consequences) or be smart enough to detect such intentional changes to the data and negate them. As you can see, in this scenario, the subconscious is omnipotent (since all information goes through the shared inner space), omniscient (since it literally controls and defines all information), and omnipresent (since location is actually a concept made up of the information that it streams). The main difference that the solipsist world has with the idealist world is that things like the experiments showing that the universe reacts to input in a way resembling cognition (such as those listed above) would generally not be accessible to an individual who merely looked them up in a paper - unless the unconscious had the intention of later letting the conscious perform the experiments. There would be no reason for the "false" agents that are merely simulated beings to come up with data that would agree with the universe being a mental simulation. In an idealist world, since the "simulated beings" are actually other consciousnesses budding off of the grand subconscious, such experiments would actually show that the universe is working in a way that closely resembles information processing, because the subconscious would necessarily have to display this information to the other consciousnesses in order for the shared informational experience (what is encountered as "the universe") to remain self-consistent. The numerous quantum effects in this world (such as the ones found in the experiments above), as well as the fact that violations of Bell's inequality, violations of Leggett's inequality, and the Kochen-Specker theorem all show that both local hidden variable models and non-local hidden variable models of the universe are false, leaving only the extremely unparsimonious and incoherent many worlds/minds interpretation  (which cannot even account for time-dependent probability) as the scenario that can explain the universe while maintaining realism. Idealism, either in the form of the Copenhagen interpretation or the digital physics interpretation (simulation hypothesis), is the only explanation of the universe (as what has been determined to be fundamental in this universe is not matter, space, time, or energy, but rather informational states - the very same building blocks of consciousness) that actually accounts for all the data and gives any form of predictive power (and such interpretations are the only ones that have successfully predicted anything thus far). As such, solipsism is not only conceivable - if you want to get rid of God, it's really your only alternative to Idealism (but all you're really doing is essentially redefining your "self" so that your "self" involves the universal unconscious which creates the shared experience).

+Trevor Martin i'm not sure how there could be a subconscious in a solipsistic universe though. our brain grounds subconscious processes, but in a solipsistic universe, this doesn't seem possible. This is also one of the reasons why in idealism, god is omniscient, he literally can't be unconscious of anything, thus he knows everything.however, you could just say that it just sorta happens. call it, anomalous solipsism or something. Then we have to worry about unconscious things. sleep, for example, shouldn't be possible. if you ever go unconscious in a solipsistic universe, you should cease existing, there is no material or mental substrate (the brain and/or the god-mind) from which your consciousness could reemerge. Perhaps for every issue i put forth, you expand the power of the subconscious. problems with memory, consistent personal interaction, laws of physics, all of it is mediated by the subconscious. To me, this seems to make the subconscious and conscious so distinct as to be different entities. To lay it out; in this view, the subconscious has all power, knowledge and authority over the conscious. it can even manipulate the memories of the conscious, having complete control of it's personal identity. The subconscious has the power to erase the conscious. This seems more like theistic idealism than solipsism. It's just that there are only 2 minds (the self and god) rather than a whole bunch of them. However, with all this established, you could already parsimoniously say there are other minds, because if the subconscious is 'simulating' the conscious, then there is no reason to believe all other simulations are minds in the self. (after all, why would the subconscious favor you and simulate the others any differently?)

+frank dunleavy A dream is a real-world equivalent to a solipsist scenario. In the case of the dream-universe, your subconscious mind plays the role of "God".

+frank dunleavy The solipsist mind has two parts - the conscious and the subconscious. "Learning" in the solipsist scenario is merely uncovering the unconscious. All that happens in the solipsist scenario is that the unconscious mind streams information to the conscious.

+Trevor Martin No, I rejected the idea of the mind as a substance.  I never said there was no mind.  And I don't believe the mind could be a machine either, or explained by materialism, which would really be just another form of substantivist metaphysics anyway.  "if you actually have any experience, your mind must be a real entity, and furthermore, a substance."Totally false.  Where is the reasoning to justify this?

+ex0gen You basically just claimed that you yourself don't exist. I hope you're aware of that. If the mind is not an entity, then there is nothing through which you can understand things, and indeed, there is no "you" to understand anything. The only thing that we know for certain actually exists without reasoning is our own mind. Everything else must go through the filter of our mind to be understood. While it's possible that you're just a machine taking in data and spitting it back out, if you actually have any experience, your mind must be a real entity, and furthermore, a substance.