Yep, it is, jdlaw. The content, the animations and everything else about it are superb. A second viewing is a must to really absorb its contents. Russell's Paradox, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and Turing's Halting problem all in the one video, what more can one want (or maybe, not want, if it leaves you more confused than ever!).

Something for us to bear in mind is William Shakespeare's quote about wisdom from 'As You Like It': "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." No matter how much you know, it is nothing compared to everything that there is yet to know.

And, this one, by Confucius, which really hits home for me: "By three methods we may learn wisdom. First by reflection, which is the noblest. Second, by imitation, which is easiest, and third by experience, which is the bitterest."


I suppose if nothing is provable then one can't go wrong by taking the Taoist/Buddhist 'Middle Way' approach to life. It shows us the paradox of the Universe, within and beyond the opposites. Neither a path of denial nor of affirmation. A way to peace and liberation in this very life.

Great video - thanks for sharing, jdlaw.

A few random observations...

1. My brain hurts and I need to watch it again
2. He narrates this from my favorite hiking trail, which isn't far from where I live
3. Unknowable things makes intuitive sense in the "physical" world (dynamic reality generation). In the mathematical world, they are almost more interesting. Not sure if there is anything fundamental about it though, rather than it being due to forced inconsistencies.
4. The gapless quantum system bothers me. I feel like even the so-called continuous energy band is really just a finite set of energy levels; the gap between which is just way smaller than a gapped system.

Well hopefully this is not too nonsequiter, but would you rather be, or a duck?

The universe is "computable" (quotation marks) because the universe is the universe. If the universe is programmed, then it computes itself in order to be.

On the other hand if "computable" means 1s and 0s -- then probably not?

We are talking about the same "computabilty." I am thinking that the first step to understanding computability is the realization that more things exist than are observable (by us).

I define "reality" along the lines of observability. Things are "real" because we can "see" them ("see" as in both observing and comprehending something). "Existance" is a much bigger realm than reality in this model.

This goes back to my notion that all "first person experience" is -- is nothing more than highly evolved data error.

In other words it is nothing more than computational error for us sentient (sensing) creatures—to use to complete a free will act. We do this by transforming sensory input data after storing it somewhere in the brain, to then actually fathom its existence.

For example, not just "seeing" that something is red with a 700nm wavelength relection of light, but "seeing" and contemplating what it means to be "red."

Your very "being" (or sense of "is" in the abstract) is by very definition uncomputable (in a Turing Machine construct). Some call it "epiphenominal." You cannot program (compute) a data error. But, you can register the parsing of sensory and personality data input that occurred immediately before that data error crash occurred. This hedging effect is turned into what we call a belief or doubt, which in turn are two sides of the coin. We can freeze like a deer in the headlights or react. In the end, it is more efficient in nature to have that data crash happen rather than to instinctively just carry out a predetermined programmed response. In other words, better to mistakenly "see" that tiger lurking in the shrubs and react than it is to not see it and be eaten.

But, when we enlarge our concepts of existence to include the unobservable (or beyond just observable reality) -- we then begin to fathom that the universe is computable in the mere fact that it computes itself. We can never compute it, because we are a "nested variable" within it.

To me this all goes back to my work on the understanding of "nested variables" (and borrowing those concepts from Jon Stewart Bell) to realize that quantum computers "compute" many things, but those computations are only useful when the output is given in a classical computing form (or "1s" and "0s") . Nested Variables - "The Son"

Just like "the law of attraction" we hear about, I think that the sub rule of attraction is that the created (or "programmed") nature of the Universe prevents our mutual understanding of how data error can be the cause of first person experience.

I think that these concepts of "nested variables" affecting all observations is pretty straight forward, but.these attraction forces in the Program matrix (that is our reality) prevent a broad swath of the population from ever truly understanding it.

I guess in this exchange (here in this forum) I have just fully become a deciple to Jim's "The Universe Solved" way of thinking (though I have been following this forum since about 2007). It all comes full circle. Somebody actually read and made a cogent comment about how "nested variables" affects our entire concept of reality.

As that famous animated character played by Michael Myers once said to his animated donkey, "Onions have layers" and so do Ogres.