I really enjoyed watching this. It gave an interesting perspective and I loved the analogy with the desktop. I usually am fascinated by topics of reality and I suppose that this one isn't much different, but I couldn't help but think "so what?"

This is not necessarily saying that the idea is wrong, but wouldn't you think the purpose of philosophical thought or all sciences in general be to have an understanding that leads to change? Let's say that there is a more complex layer behind or simplified perception. What are we to do with that. Is Hoffman suggesting that with a more precise understanding we may be able to "tweak" the background, or "mess with the programming" if still using the analogy? If that's the case, then sure, let's explore.

If not, and it turns out to just be a bunch of 1s and 0s behind our reality that we can't really do anything with, then what's the point? Is there a reason to divulge ourselves with information that we are obviously not able to comprehend? I'd argue that if there is something there in the file folder that's different from what we are perceiving, it is so complicated that there's really no point.

As an aside, Paul Rudzuski, in the comments on the TED website for this video, writes:

Here is a simple test of reality.

Close your eyes and just walk. You know that table you bumped into? That flight of stairs you just fell down? That car that hit you? That's reality.

Whether we construct it or not with our minds.

Easy enough?

I'd like to think he completely missed the point. If I were to open my eyes and look at whatever table I just bumped in to, that would be the construction. Hoffman's argument was that the "table" might really not be what we perceive, and even commented on that with his analogy of jumping in front of a train.