Hello beautiful people. Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:53 The Problem with the Simulation Hypothesis 11:15 How Physics Impacts Free Will 18:13 Misunderstanding the Universe’s Origins 27:09 Is There Something Better than Mathematics? 32:00 The Fine-Tuned Theory 37:45 Boltzmann Brains 45:10 Can We Compute Consciousness? 53:37 Where to Find Sabine
Hey Chris. You asked "how can there be something better than mathematics ?" We've had mathematical ideas drilled into us as axioms since we were very young, and never questioned them. Mathematics itself hasn't always been the same. Historically, we haven't had a way of dealing with the square roots of negative numbers, or the concept of zero, or even of negative quantities. A starting point for understanding that we need something better than maths is Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Mathematics is a translation of man to nature, not as social, but a physical, it's a learned tool of mankind, but not as universal, if anything it's like a Google voice to voice or text foreign languages, which regardless, causes mystery of interpuration & variations of meaning.
Sabine is one of my favorite physicist and I follow her since at least 4 year. She is wonderful in her "no-bullshit" approach and she is very knowledgeable.
No-gobbledygook* approach. It's rather refreshing. She says the things I think when reading some new hypothesis about something we have no way to test. It's like watching a comedy roast. She's relentless and I love it.
Professor Hossenfelder is VASTLY far beyond any other physicists on the Internet. I can say that with certainty as I am a now long retired Professor of Electro-Optics/Plasma physics and Quantum Electrodynamics, with much more knowledge beyond that such that I am not allowed to mention. Professor Hossenfelder has my utmost respect. How I wish that there were billions more Ladies on her level, instead of the low-life Femi-Nazi curs that now exist, especially in the top Universities and in government employment. No one ever dares to tell the truth about "Why" America, Western Europe and more have become so degenerate: the Rothschilds, the Rothschild Cabal, Bilderberg Group and more, all under the total control of the Rothschilds. Do some homework yourself. Everything is freely available.
There is a lot of BS out there that indeed needs to be called out. But sometimes I feel like she calls out BS everything she disagrees, I think that’s counterproductive for science.
There’s nothing better than waking up in the morning and listening to a discussion of the intersection of physics, philosophy, and human autonomy. Life is great!
You are assuming “Because you open your eyes in the morning you are awake”..... Consider that you Are never fully awake, at anytime!? Just partially awake 0.0001% and 99.9+% asleep! Understand understandings “A Priori” can help. Regards
What "human autonomy"? The poor creatures are the abject slaves of their functions and thus have about has much experience of autonomy or any sort if inner freedom as fish have of cycling
I’ve been searching for this exact sort of conversation for over a decade now. Thank you for hosting this guest. It brings me a lot of peace. I’m definitely buying her book. I’ve been given a lot of ridicule for talking about this subject.
Sabine's very German straightforward approach to science communication is a breath of fresh air. Great interview, even if you were just nodding and smiling at times Chris 😁 Most of us were too!
@@vmasing1965 LOL. Oh yep, you did it. You've proven that your interpretation of Chris's reactions are irrefutably correct. Wow. Amazing. You win the internet. Again I say - agree to disagree. The end.
@@itzakehrenberg3449 Being "straightforward" is a well-known German trait. Many people, such as we Americans believe we're straightforward, but that is self-delusion.
Sabine does a great job explaining concepts. She also is one of the very few brilliant people who have no hesitation describing things that aren’t known.
Only the idle and dull suppose their supposed betters to be "brilliant which is one of those asinine and idle terms like genius, which does not mean what the idle and vlgar suppose it to mean and is an epithet which few -if any attract on the grounds of merit, both being merely some mouse (nothing and nobody) using meaning better- than- me To quote a great Master;" there are no brilliant or geniuses, there are only dreaming machines." Simulation *Of_what*? What an asinine question! Whichever ass uses universe_s has no idea what it means by universe - an idea or concept best avoided by the small and equine, not to say asinine.
Nah. Overrated. Always trying to push materialistic philosphy. Never recognizing the subjective that cannot be accounted for by purely objective processes. --- Check out the clip where her and Bernad Kastrup discuss perspectives titled "The Mind-Blowing Theory That Challenges Everything We Know"
@@CorteumThe logical solution for this problem is: The subjective IS in last instance materialistic. However, it emerges "from" the materialistic through a high level of complexity(but in last instance, like I said, it IS all a hypercomplex organization of atoms). However, the subjective is a different form of information processing(in last instance also materialistic though) in the structural form of of meaning. To a certain degree we can observe correlations between the subjective and materialistic, like in neuropsychology, but not (yet, maybe we never will) on a level where we could say: "The connections of these exact neurons is the memory x". This means, we can only see the subjective as subjective, but this is a general thing with emergence: We also don't view human organs as quantum states, instead we view it biologically. It's the same with conciousness and also society. We view the specific emergent layer as what it is and not as quantum states, 1. because currently that's the only thing we can do and 2. it doesn't make sense to do science different right now because it would be too time consuming and expensive.
@@CorteumBernardo is selling the most easiest story to sell ever (we were all god and we will be become one with it after we die) Sabina can do that too easily like for example deepak chopra does and others who has an opinion that can never be desprove or proven, but they claiming that they know for a fact. that's not just pretentious and unscientific it's borderline delusional. I'm sure that she has intellectual capacity to "sell" the same story but she won't because she's a serious scientist not a professional bullshiter
@@Corteum that was a fiery encounter, I am not sure who came out on top, whether Bernardo was out of his depth or was holding his own in critiquing the physics. As far as I can tell quantum physics is a science of subjectivity, since measurements are all observer dependent. Sabine does seem to be a materialist, but someone has to be, in some sense it is part of her job to believe in the causality of physical processes. I am an idealist, but I see it as practical in the same way, not correct or incorrect.
I used to find her so frustrating, like an annoying skeptic who just seems angry all the time. Then I realized she’s actually right on most things, and now I think she’s extremely important and must be protected at all costs.
Fair enough, but has she written anything related to a simulation, and things she discounts are things that are actually done in simulations, so it is not convincing me at all. Like the grid idea, simulations scale things at points of focus, this is pretty standard. It almost sounds like she is trying to prove it can't be a simulation and in so doing is proving that it could be, or am I the only one that sees that??
Maybe I misunderstood her, but the Simulation Hypothesis suggests that one of these things is true: 1. Humans go extinct before gaining the ability to make ancestor simulations 2. Humans, even with the technological means, are not interested in running ancestor simulations 3. Humans become able to, and are interested in, running ancestor simulations. If 3 is true, and there are two ancestor simulations running, it becomes more likely that we are in a simulation. Given that more than two will probably be run simultaneously, it becomes progressively more likely that we are in a simulation. An ancestor simulation doesn't need to be possible NOW; it needs to be possible at some point in human existence. Is she referring to an idea that somebody from our level of technology can build a simulation? Because that's not what Nick Bostrom suggests with the widely discussed "Simulation Hypothesis".
To be sincerely honestly in my humble opinion without being sentimental of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from point of view and without hiding any thoughts in my mind and without lies, to the actual truth with my clear open mind and clear heart, expressing whatever is embedded inside me for a long time which I didn't say just because I was nervous. But today by gathering all courage and motivation, I just want to say that I actually feel and think that I have absolutely nothing to say .
Successful people don't become that way overnight. What most people see at a glance- wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life..
This lady reminds me so much of my late wife. My wife was German by birth, but, like this lady, had truly mastered English. I used to measure my German against my wife's English. I never came close. Whoever David "what's his name" Chalmers is, he has achieved, in this alter ego, a measure of immortality.
This is a collab combination that never entered my mind, two of my favourite UA-cam creators. Thank you for this Chris! Also, I dreamt last night that I met you, your hair was longer and curly like it was a couple of years back. After a minute of talking to you I realised you were absolutely smashed and trying to act sober. So I kept you company and tried to work out where your friends were who had wandered off. You were still a decent person and I was still happy to have met you! 😂
Sabine Hossenfelder is excellent. Her videos have thought and proven many of the idea's I have pondered about, for example: the free will argument. Saw her name and instantly clicked on this video. I know this will be a great and interesting podcast, asking the biggest questions.
She is so very right. We have no idea how to make said algorithms, nor do we have the raw materials needed to make the hardware necessary for anything close. This "simulation" stuff isn't just NOT science, it is almost ANTI-science (since all the data and math suggests the opposite of the "Theory").
it is SO refreshing to hear an actual scientist say things like, "We just don't know..." so many of my friends who claim to love science believe wholeheartedly that we've basically got it all figured out for the most part. I've had heated debates trying to point out that we still have so much work to do. Much of our theories don't even go back a couple of hundred years. It's still so young and to think we have anything substantial figured out is just kind of sad and laughable. We're quite literally at the tippy top of the iceberg.
@@WakeUpEternals I'm happy to take your word for it. A faulty pay as you go gas appliance did me a great favour back in 91. Truly dull, are the senses.
I’d say we’re not dealing with a “simulation” bound by the laws of physics in a natural universe….this is more like a dream in a universe where consciousness is foundational (and not the material).
I agree, and I find it quite naive (or at least very presumptuous) of her to base her refutation of the possibility on the fact that we can not do it currently with our computers which are, in the grand scheme of things, probably extremely limited machines.
love the fact that we have people who have the maturity to say we don't know! our universe and our reality in this has a finite start and a finite end imagine how narrower our perspective will be based on who, where and when we are, the trick is to just to not fall for the perspective but to learn to expand it, and it all starts with the acceptance of this limitation and to learn what we can do understand it better, more finer alternatives will dawn on us once the understanding becomes more finer.
In spite of the fact that I struggled to understand much of Sabine Hossenfelder's discussion, I watched and listened intently the whole way through because I knew there was something profound in what she was saying. It was refreshing to see a female 'expert' who really knew her stuff, was super intelligent and had not just been promoted on the grounds of gender equality (hope I don't get banned for saying that!) But judging from the early list of comments I've read here, I doubt this will be one of your more popular videos, Chris. Cheers!
I agree with your general qualm about female expertise nowadays; I will also add the expertise of those considered to be of underrepresented populations, of which I happen to be myself. The fact of the matter is that the ideology underpinning the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing rotates on what's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, and correct me if I'm wrong, I doubt you'd have made such a comment about female expertise if not for all of the propaganda behind "diversity, inclusion" in addition to some of the results which range from individuals like Kamala Harris to the utter failure of once successful companies. All of these failures have resulted from this apparent need to be inclusive and diverse, which leave many doubting the abilities who are said to need such representation.
@@inelhuayocan_aci G'day Arsonist! Thanks for the fantastic reply ... it's the best response I have ever had. Your expression is lucid and the discussion erudite ... loved it Mate. So what "underrepresented population" are you part of? I gather you have never felt especially oppressed (at least, that's how you come across)? Thing is, I used to be a big supporter of women's rights to equality, I have had many female friends and colleagues and always believed I treated them as equals. But even here in Australia, the positive discrimination in favour of women and women's issues is completely out of control. What drives me crazy is that the media here in Australia has been taken over by female presenters, women's topics/ issues and they always clearly go out of their way to interview female 'experts' ... even in fields where the vast majority of expertise is male they'll manage to find a female expert to interview. And in my work/ Organisation "diversity and inclusion" has completely taken over. The irony is that I also happen to be part of what was once considered an 'oppressed minority' ... I'm gay (but apparently that doesn't count anymore because I'm also a white male?!) But I have never felt the least bit oppressed or discriminated against. I guess the unusual thing about being gay is that people aren't aware of it unless you tell them. Anyway, I should stop now - apologies for the lengthy reply. But I'd like to know more about you if your up for it? Thanks again, your reply is much appreciated.
Now that you’ve had Sabine Hossenfelder on you ought to invite the truly excellent Luboš Motl. He and she don’t exactly see eye to eye on quite a number of things.
@@Madonnalitta1 how do we know that ? Maybe god had to mix gases or whatever to create the Big Bang. It’s all hypothetical as no one was there to witness it
‘Free Will’ is a theological matter of Judeo-Christian origin; It allows for us to make judgements between right and wrong; - No free will, no right, no wrong = no functional societies.-
With our guilt and shame consciousness, it doesn’t allow us free will. We intuitively know the difference. The Bible says God has written into our hearts. I’ve researched it for hundreds if not thousands of hours and have found physics, biology and numbers theories are all correct in the Bible much before any scientists discovered it. Thus far, it has never been proven wrong.
@@nothingbutthetruth3227Concerning your claim of the science of the Bible never being wrong: What about two of every animal (seven of the clean ones) and birds not being able to fit on the ark? What about there being no geological evidence for a global flood? What about there being no evidence of Nephilim? What about us knowing there are different languages older than when the Tower of Babel? What about there being human remains a lot older than 6000 years when Adam and Eve were made? What about us knowing the Earth won't remain forever?
It just seems logical on the face of it. Of course they're are predetermined rules of physics that I cannot break but I still have freewill within those parameters. I am free to press send on this comment, or to delete it.
Wow, Sabine! Basically, all the major existential questions of physics are thrown at you totally randomly and your explanations are immediate and crystal clear. It's beyond impressive. I also loved when you pointed out that math might not be the ultimate paradigm for us or for aliens for that matter---we need to allow room for things we cannot yet possibly imagine. That for me includes the workings of astrology which do presuppose a simulation hence an underlying algorithm as well (that is quite hard to hack as it would involve changing the physical laws of the universe) and you are a classic Virgo if I ever saw one ----clear, articulate, critical, detailed in your explanations and your caveats, precise perhaps to perfection, conscientious and fair. I also appreciated your admission of " we don't know" to some very basic questions, so many arrogant physicists could learn from you. Thank you.
Sabine Hossenfelder seems to be in a class all her own. Insightful, authentic comments presented in ordinary terms provide an exceptional interview here.
her arguments ain't logic anyway, she says that we're not in a simulation coz it's too hard to create one but that we could create one theoretically, so if it's the case we might be very likely to be in a simulation as just the possibility of being able to create one opens the door to the new sim recreating other sims, basic reproduction.
it's this funny little thing that everyone seems to forget: you can't REALLY go back to the same spot in SPACE either, since we're hurling through the space along with our planet, solar system and entire galazy, so it looks like we can go back and forth in space because the spaces we inhabit are familiar, but we can say we're achieving the same illusion with time where we can spend similar evenings in the same space every day as if we're going back to the same spot in time too. While we're actually not able to do EITHER of those.
It seems to me that the main cause of many of the questions we can't answer is that we're dealing with a sample size of one, i.e. we've only experienced one universe, one species, one evolutionary timeline, one biology of life, etc. One of the things (among many others) i like about Sabine is that she won't hesitate to say "We don't know."
@@yoannycorominas221 I wonder if her dislike is because the concept is too close to intelligent design. That would be disappointing if true. Kind of like Hoyle's disregard of the big bang because he thought it opened the opportunity for God to be creator. Neither is taking the ideas on their merits, and shows bias.
It’s adorable she’s basing the possibility of simulations off what we can do now. Later she states we might not even have the correct math. Cavemen would not believe what we do today could happen.
Thank you Chris, discovered you recently and subscribed. We live in such an interesting period of history. Consciousness, quantum mechanics and the large hadron collider are topics of conversations these days along with UAPs and the possibility of far advancement in physics.
I’m mostly on board with Sabine. I’m even a patron of her excellent vlog. However, she doesn’t hold climatology to the same standard as physics. IPCC’s 2001 report chapter titled “Model Evaluation” contains this confession: “We fully recognize that many of the evaluation statements we make contain a degree of subjective scientific perception and may contain much ‘community’ or ‘personal’ knowledge. For example, the very choice of model variables and model processes that are investigated are often based upon subjective judgment and experience of the modeling community.” In that same report the IPCC further admits, “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Here, the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted. Why Sabine trusts them is a mystery. Hint: I went to university to study climatology and was told my credit would have been a distinction had I handed in my assignments on time.
@@carbonnieferrous2689 About 20 years ago Hans von Storch said there are only about 40 alarmists who’d seized control of the climate journals. The vast majority of climatologists were skeptical of imminent catastrophic climate change. Since then Henrik Svensmark has conducted great research and in the teeth of fierce opposition from the alarmists. CERN have given him the use of a “spare” accelerator and ~50 physicists so they don’t seem so enamoured of the alarmists. Go figure...
Wow I have underestimated Chris Williams! Really good questions sir! Great interview! I just subscribed today. Now I’m going to have to go back and check out all of your work!
She’s also tacitly saying that long term climate predictions can’t be accurate. Which I hope people will remember the next time someone starts telling us we have ‘ten years to save the planet’
It is always a pleasure to hear our local (she has that quality of being accessable) savant, Sabine Hossenfelder. Thanks, Chris, for the interview questions.
Throughout the ages of man, people have always thought they knew what there was to know about the world, physics and the universe. Science keeps on exponentially advancing. Most scientists, including her are confined in their thinking to what we know at the current time in our history..
@@sirus312 For example, she insists the universe cannot be a simulation because she cannot fathom how that would happen. Very much like 1st century human stating that a human would never be able to fly. The whole point of something like the simulation theory is WE DON'T KNOW how it would be done. She says it cannot be strictly because of that very limitation. She says there is no way to fit it into an equation. She doesn't seem to think about the future AT ALL. There are many ideas that seemed impossible a hundred or a thousand years ago because humans could not comprehend HOW something they thought impossible would be able to work. Well.....we don't know what we don't know. She seems to think we do know what we don't know.
Science actually can't really be said to be advancing because every 100 or so years we come to realize that 90% of the previous corpus is total bunk. Every now and again we hit the jackpot with something like the internal combustion engine, but for a lot of fields we have no tangible results. IE we have been 10 years away from curing cancer for 100 years. The same deal with nuclear fusion, etc, etc. In fact NASA even claims we "lost" the ability to go to the moon. The concord is no longer flying. Automobiles and appliances are far less reliable than the ones made thirty years ago.
@@gps9715 Yes, my thoughts exactly. She bases her refutation on our current computational abilities, which were only invented extremely recently. Unbelievably short sighted and also kind of conceited I would say. As if we what we know now dictates what can be known. The history of science is littered with huge U turns when scientists realised everything they were so sure of was actually, totally wrong.
How can she make the major logical error of saying that we can't be in a simulation because we can't make complex simulations ourselves? If we exist inside a simulation we have no way of knowing what is possible outside of it.
But what does it even mean to say we are in a simulation then? Normally the simulation idea is that we are a historical simulation made by the "real" humans.
Please please please get Sabine to talk about electric universe theory and please delve into this yourself it will alter your life! Thanks for your great content!
I don't think sabine has thought about the simulation argument enough it's not about "show me the code", but disproving it by showing it's impossible. games have hard-coded rules and it's a world from the perspective of the characters inside it. inability to replicate physics and the science of that reality by the characters inside doesn't make the simulation argument invalid.
I think we can be confident that this universe couldn't be simulated by a system which is bound by the laws of this universe. If we're going to ignore everything we know of physics, then all bets are off. Saying "we live in a simulation" is like saying "we live in the dream of God".
I am bothered by the people who say that our world/universe is not "real". Whatever our universe is, it is real. Some people think that their special meanings for words are the last word but that is just wrong. You do not get to redefine words and our universe is real by the definition of the word "real".
Sabine's understanding of the simulation argument by Bostron is similar to my grandma's ideas of what Chatgpt is. To start with he DOESN'T say we live in a simulation. Ok, that's enough to disregard anything else she has to say on that matter.
We are living in a simulation, but not the way you would think. We imagine ourselves to be an entity in a body, moving around in a world. But if you actually pay attention to what you really perceive, the raw data of the 5 senses, that image turns out to be nothing but a mirage, created in the human mind!
Sure, but there is a strong correlation between the mirage in our mind and the outside world. and how it works. I have a model in my mind of how a cooker works and it maps pretty well onto the cooker in my kitchen which converts raw food into cooked food even when I am not present or thinking about it.
We are living in a “self-generating simulation”, which is logically distinct from an infinite regress of mechanical and/or computational simulations (computation does not self-generate).
Self-generating multiverse is more accurate to my eyes so many people are in their own universe tied together to other peoples universes via different types of culture out there so a type of string theory thing to hold the web of bubbles that people both create and reside within. A spider web with the morning dew drops all over it is best example nature shows of this idea i have
@@Self-Duality It's pure nonsense. Hornet stings, car crashes, cataracts, blindness, amputations and death are VERY real. "Pop science" is simply and obviously a ridiculous distraction from the certainty of disease, injury and death. Americans are in love with repulsive infantilism peddled by charlatans.
To my understanding of this discussions, the essence of Sabine's position about popular acceptance of unscientific assertions has more to do with the domain of psychology than the far stricter sciences of physics, cosmology, biology, etc.
Whether we are In a simulation or not, people need to still understand that this life is real. Actions have consequences. Pain still hurts, love still feels great. When you tell people we are living in a simulation, rather than taking themselves to the next level, alot of people act worse than normal because they think, nothing matters, feelings aren't real and there are no consequences to their actions. People show their true colors when given the chance. All of our problems are caused by people and their arrogance, not caused by climate change. Our climate will always change, it is our responsibility to change with it, not resist the change and think our egos are the biggest thing in the universe.
Thanks for this Chris, it's very interesting this interview to understand a little more about the directions of research of the brilliant Professor Hossenfelder
There is a contradiction in her thinking: the reason she doubts reality could be simulated is because she’s skeptical there will ever be a theory of everything, but if she doubts that physics will ever explain everything, what makes her so sure things like FTL comms/travel, inter-dimensional travel, time travel, etc. are impossible? Her disposition ought to make her one of the simulation argument’s biggest proponents. I guess she’s so skeptical she doubts her own skepticism. I think this conclusion is inescapable, no?
Good conversation, but I was a little put off by how she seemed flippant towards anyone who speculates and theorizes about things that we “don’t know”. Science itself is based on human curiosity and a desire to understand - we wouldn’t have physics without it. So she should try not to be so dismissive about our natural urge to wonder and philosophize
I’ve thought for a long time that computer modeling has been a huge problem. In economics I think that the models have grossly simplified and ignored the true complexity of the markets.
the reason why moore's law is coming to an end is a silicon atom is .2 nanometers in diameter and the latest node is 2 nanometers wide. This means a transitor is at most 10 atoms across, and we don't yet know how to transmit signals through quantum media. Sure there is quantum computing, but that's a different paradigm, or maybe they'll run on light or something, but the idea of a transistor being at the heart of a computer can't get any smaller than .2 nanometers.
Take what we know today and, add a billion years of time to it and, answer the question if it is possible at that time. Do not worry about what is possible at todays level of knowledge. No one believes a simulation is possible at today's level of knowledge.
She proved simulation hypothesis is bunk with the chaos problem. Currently no computer can create random, only simulate it. Not even quantum computers because of the measurement problem.
Sabine is a lovable scientist who manages to be popular despite her surly skepticism. So I was delightfully surprised by her suggestion that there might be a more sophisticated language superior to mathematics. If she would allow herself to progress in that path I think she would come closer to spirituality.
Some of the oddities of quantum theory, such as the fact that the act of observation is what converts a wave into a particle - not just now, but then retrospectively back in time, is to me one of the most compelling questions that leads to a degree of suspicion related to simulation. Because that is fundamentally weird, but at the same time exactly how a simulation works now: until consciously observed by the player, there is only ever the potential for something to render. The universe appears to work in the same way.. I don’t know how we explain that yet, but the simulation hypothesis has some weight as a possibility, that for me cannot be ruled out at present.
...So because humans have computer-simulated aspects of reality...reality must be a computer simulation? Seems like a non-sequitur. Why is observational rendering "weird"? You seem a bit too hung up on the "objective physical universe" model of reality...which is of course merely _a model._ And why would "weirdness" count as evidence? If reality is a simulation... ...what is it a simulation of?
@@Vincent-gt5qr Simulation does not just mean an imitation of something, it also means not as it appears or a sham. So here, it is used to suggest that what we see and experience may not be an objective reality but a construct. I see this more as an intellectual exercise, and not one to take too literally. The weirdness and oddities we observe lead to questions, hence we can extrapolate our own simulations and ask the question of our own universe similarly. Note I’m only saying it is worth not discounting.
@@Libertas_P77 ..."...not as it appears or a sham..." Things which are not "as they appear" or which are "shams" are masquerading as SOMETHING ELSE... ...so once more: What is reality a simulation OF? What "weirdness and oddities" do you observe? Why is an arbitrary, superfluous hypothesis which explains/predicts nothing "worth not discounting"?
The problem is that people assume that _simulation hypothesis_ automatically means we are all a bunch of zeros & ones on somebody's computer. Omg. For the simulation hypothesis to work, it means someone created the simulation. This would likely be a being/beings/civilisation so far in advance of us as to be incomprehensible. Such beings would be likely to literally create a universe wirh parameters built in to facilitate the development of such life forms as necessary to properly satisfy the parameters of whatever problem or system they are trying to model. If there is a simulation it is extremely unlikely to be installed on someone's bloody laptop! For another thing, consciousness appears to be relevant to the core function of the simulation; assuming this is accomplished by a digital electronic computer using binary code and linear electronic computation (with all its thermodynamic penalties and limited processing avenues) is ridiculous. The term AI is being used a lot now, but it really is not ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, as some of Chat GPT's more ludicrous essays show. Quantum computing may offer the way forward, but we are not contained in some MacBook in some nameless alien kid's basement. I do not understand how people went right to YEAH WE ARE ALL COMPUTER BLIPS. No. We. Are. _Not._
I love Sabine's no bull shit approach. I tend to agree with her on many things, of course one of her basic tenets is to admit there is a lot we simply don't know.
The Navier-Stokes equation is also highly nonlinear, giving rise to scale-invariance, chaos problems, turbulence scales, and an unclosable string of explansions that can only be crudely approximated depending on assumed time & boundary conditions. Finitely-limited computers are largely bounded by linearity.
If it is an illusion, then it is likely a prison of confinement. Whatever technology that we are allowed to be familiar with would not be enough. Because if it WAS enough, we would do as ALL life tends to do - we would break out of prison.
You're damn right it's a prison ! Especially for normal, average working folks struggling to survive while watching, elite superrich , degenerate , billionaires , doing as they please, when they please , to whomever they please , no consequences for them whatsoever ! These degenerates makes this planet , which could be a paradise , a prison for the rest of us !
I don't know anything for certain, but at the age of 57 I have had a number of experiences over my lifetime where things that should not be possible have actually happened, and over time it has caused me to question just how real this reality actually is. The worst part for me is that it's so strange that no one takes what I say seriously because they did not witness it. Except for the most recent event which occurred about 4 years ago when I had a migraine headache and I was curled up in a ball on my sofa gripping my temples. I suddenly saw my friend who lives 400 miles away and her head was rotating in 3D before me with these strange curls in her hair and 2 white hair clips. I ignored it and opened my eyes briefly and closed them again but the image reappeared so I texted her and asked her if she had done something with her hair. Immediately she texts me a photo of the curls and the hair clips but the clips were blue and not white in he photo and it was her daughter's hair she was styling at that very moment, not her own which was as if the images I was receiving were somehow scrambled. I showed the text message exchange and photo to my wife and daughter immediately because in a way it served as proof that all the other things I had told them happened to me were also true. Other things have included staring at a deck of cards and suddenly one after another the cards begin slipping off the top of the deck and falling onto the table. The thing here was that I stared at them with no intention in my mind for what should happen. I just randomly sat down in front of them and stared and I do not know why. Or the time something prompted me to mentally prepare for an attack scenario where someone comes from behind and chokes me. I was walking to lunch at the time and I had no idea it would actually happen but seconds after I had rehearsed it in my imagination someone actually did attack me and every move I rehearsed in my mind actually worked and I left the person with a bloody mouth. The person was from my job and he had been bullying and threatening me for about a year. After this event he never bothered me again. How could this be? how could I somehow be prepared for it but not actually told it was going to happen? Was it my higher self protecting me? But why do I not hear anyone else talking of these things? What about all the people harmed or murdered, why were they not protected? so many questions. These are only a few events, there are others including seeing alien symbols on my wall rapidly changing, or suddenly having a level of expertise at something that I really did not have expert knowledge of. I know how ridiculous it all sounds, I would be the first one to be skeptical, but all of this and more has happened. This is why I feel whatever the rules of this universe are, we somehow exist within something else, a place where the laws of physics as we know them here do not apply and our own reality in this universe can be manipulated in ways that should not be possible because the reality we experience here actually stems from outside of this place, a place that is timeless and has no rules, where all things are possible.
I take you seriously as at 60 I've had my own set of unexplainable experience. All I know pretty much for sure is that when we die a portion of us continues on. Beyond that is is all speculation for me and you must realize that you are alone in your experiences just like me but because people on youTube have talked freely about their near death experiences, etc I realize that not only am I not alone but also that my experiences were real. Don't worry about people who try to invalidate you as they are only doing it for their own protection and not with you in mind. My oldest brother is always trying to invalidation me and others, saying I am anti-science even though I have PhD in physics and he is a high school science teacher. To him science is what the authorities say is true.
So you can't simulate it but you can creat a universe ? I think her big problem is a god that's what she seems to be against Witch makes since because she is a woman she doesn't like or except the control part Very very interesting
The only boundaries in physics are those that our human minds construct for ourselves. WE are the limiting factors of our own learning. When we say that a theory is absolute, we deceive ourselves, lest we could no longer call the concept discussed a "theory".
My understanding of the simulation theory is that it it holographic and has something to do with fractals. We already have the ability to produce both of those. Why do scientists never take consciousness into consideration even though they are aware that consciousness can change physical reality.
Morris Kline wrote: "By 1900 mathematics had broken away from reality; it had clearly and irretrievably lost its claim to the truth about nature, and had become the pursuit of necessary consequences of arbitrary axioms about meaningless things."
Yeah... but when you get down to quantum physics at a micro level, particles go in and out of existence which can't be explained and you also see everything in the universe is made from vibrating energy kinda like an electric current going through a computer.
Hello beautiful people. Here’s the timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:53 The Problem with the Simulation Hypothesis
11:15 How Physics Impacts Free Will
18:13 Misunderstanding the Universe’s Origins
27:09 Is There Something Better than Mathematics?
32:00 The Fine-Tuned Theory
37:45 Boltzmann Brains
45:10 Can We Compute Consciousness?
53:37 Where to Find Sabine
She looks like Yeardley Smith...
Fascinating woman.
I stumbled onto this episode looking for a different one. Very engaging and interesting to hear this discussion!
Hey Chris.
You asked "how can there be something better than mathematics ?"
We've had mathematical ideas drilled into us as axioms since we were very young, and never questioned them.
Mathematics itself hasn't always been the same. Historically, we haven't had a way of dealing with the square roots of negative numbers, or the concept of zero, or even of negative quantities.
A starting point for understanding that we need something better than maths is Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Mathematics is a translation of man to nature, not as social, but a physical, it's a learned tool of mankind, but not as universal, if anything it's like a Google voice to voice or text foreign languages, which regardless, causes mystery of interpuration & variations of meaning.
Wish it would start simulating something nice.
Look for it 👁⚡️🪄⭐️🐉👍
LOL
😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣
It's kinda dumb when you put it that way lol
Sabine is one of my favorite physicist and I follow her since at least 4 year. She is wonderful in her "no-bullshit" approach and she is very knowledgeable.
No-gobbledygook* approach. It's rather refreshing. She says the things I think when reading some new hypothesis about something we have no way to test. It's like watching a comedy roast. She's relentless and I love it.
Professor Hossenfelder is VASTLY far beyond any other physicists on the Internet. I can say that with certainty as I am a now long retired Professor of Electro-Optics/Plasma physics and Quantum Electrodynamics, with much more knowledge beyond that such that I am not allowed to mention.
Professor Hossenfelder has my utmost respect. How I wish that there were billions more Ladies on her level, instead of the low-life Femi-Nazi curs that now exist, especially in the top Universities and in government employment. No one ever dares to tell the truth about "Why" America, Western Europe and more have become so degenerate: the Rothschilds, the Rothschild Cabal, Bilderberg Group and more, all under the total control of the Rothschilds. Do some homework yourself. Everything is freely available.
Amen to that , love her.
Yeah, underestimated her just based on her "That 70's Show" years.
There is a lot of BS out there that indeed needs to be called out. But sometimes I feel like she calls out BS everything she disagrees, I think that’s counterproductive for science.
There’s nothing better than waking up in the morning and listening to a discussion of the intersection of physics, philosophy, and human autonomy. Life is great!
i hope there was not any sarcasm intended. thank you.
You are assuming “Because you open your eyes in the morning you are awake”..... Consider that you Are never fully awake, at anytime!? Just partially awake 0.0001% and 99.9+% asleep! Understand understandings “A Priori” can help. Regards
@@1SpudderR or, what if you are never really asleep?
What "human autonomy"? The poor creatures are the abject slaves of their functions and thus have about has much experience of autonomy or any sort if inner freedom as fish have of cycling
It's important I reckon but life's not great.
I’ve been searching for this exact sort of conversation for over a decade now. Thank you for hosting this guest. It brings me a lot of peace. I’m definitely buying her book. I’ve been given a lot of ridicule for talking about this subject.
Check out Donald Hoffman "The case against reality"
Sabine's very German straightforward approach to science communication is a breath of fresh air. Great interview, even if you were just nodding and smiling at times Chris 😁 Most of us were too!
@@vmasing1965 Nice attempt at a dig. Agree to disagree. Unless Chris makes a statement we'll have to live with our own interpretations eh?
@@vmasing1965 LOL. Oh yep, you did it. You've proven that your interpretation of Chris's reactions are irrefutably correct. Wow. Amazing. You win the internet. Again I say - agree to disagree. The end.
Is a straightforward approach to science particularly "German"? That is open to argument.
@@itzakehrenberg3449 Being "straightforward" is a well-known German trait. Many people, such as we Americans believe we're straightforward, but that is self-delusion.
Heh, that's why she's the physicist and we're not 😉
Sabine is one of my fav scientists nowadays. Such a bright and sharp mind. Love her.
simp
Sabine does a great job explaining concepts. She also is one of the very few brilliant people who have no hesitation describing things that aren’t known.
Hmmnn
Only the idle and dull suppose their supposed betters to be "brilliant which is one of those asinine and idle terms like genius, which does not mean what the idle and vlgar suppose it to mean and is an epithet which few -if any attract on the grounds of merit, both being merely some mouse (nothing and nobody) using meaning better- than- me
To quote a great Master;" there are no brilliant or geniuses, there are only dreaming machines."
Simulation *Of_what*?
What an asinine question!
Whichever ass uses universe_s has no idea what it means by universe - an idea or concept best avoided by the small and equine, not to say asinine.
How does one describe unknown things? That doesn't make sense.
@@seraeirian2 'I don't know'.
@@musicbro8225brilliant
This Sabine is absolutely necessary voice in the science community ☺️ very enlightening
Nah. Overrated. Always trying to push materialistic philosphy. Never recognizing the subjective that cannot be accounted for by purely objective processes. --- Check out the clip where her and Bernad Kastrup discuss perspectives titled "The Mind-Blowing Theory That Challenges Everything We Know"
@@CorteumThe logical solution for this problem is: The subjective IS in last instance materialistic. However, it emerges "from" the materialistic through a high level of complexity(but in last instance, like I said, it IS all a hypercomplex organization of atoms). However, the subjective is a different form of information processing(in last instance also materialistic though) in the structural form of of meaning. To a certain degree we can observe correlations between the subjective and materialistic, like in neuropsychology, but not (yet, maybe we never will) on a level where we could say: "The connections of these exact neurons is the memory x".
This means, we can only see the subjective as subjective, but this is a general thing with emergence: We also don't view human organs as quantum states, instead we view it biologically. It's the same with conciousness and also society. We view the specific emergent layer as what it is and not as quantum states, 1. because currently that's the only thing we can do and 2. it doesn't make sense to do science different right now because it would be too time consuming and expensive.
If you find halfwits and imbeciles enlightening.A simulation of_what by_ who that is trying to simulate what?
@@CorteumBernardo is selling the most easiest story to sell ever (we were all god and we will be become one with it after we die)
Sabina can do that too easily like for example deepak chopra does and others who has an opinion that can never be desprove or proven, but they claiming that they know for a fact.
that's not just pretentious and unscientific it's borderline delusional.
I'm sure that she has intellectual capacity to "sell" the same story but she won't because she's a serious scientist not a professional bullshiter
@@Corteum that was a fiery encounter, I am not sure who came out on top, whether Bernardo was out of his depth or was holding his own in critiquing the physics. As far as I can tell quantum physics is a science of subjectivity, since measurements are all observer dependent. Sabine does seem to be a materialist, but someone has to be, in some sense it is part of her job to believe in the causality of physical processes. I am an idealist, but I see it as practical in the same way, not correct or incorrect.
I'm glad this interview happened, Sabine is amazing. I'm also glad you prepared so well for this interview Chris, not an easy interview to have.
simp
I used to find her so frustrating, like an annoying skeptic who just seems angry all the time. Then I realized she’s actually right on most things, and now I think she’s extremely important and must be protected at all costs.
Fair enough, but has she written anything related to a simulation, and things she discounts are things that are actually done in simulations, so it is not convincing me at all. Like the grid idea, simulations scale things at points of focus, this is pretty standard. It almost sounds like she is trying to prove it can't be a simulation and in so doing is proving that it could be, or am I the only one that sees that??
Two things can be true ;)
Sabine is one of my most favorite physicists. I think her view point and explinations are practical and grounded and often hilarious.
Thank you for bringing more science topics to the channel….great episode
Sabine is my new favorite public physicist. She's great. She was trained very similarly to me on certain fundamentals.
Maybe I misunderstood her, but the Simulation Hypothesis suggests that one of these things is true:
1. Humans go extinct before gaining the ability to make ancestor simulations
2. Humans, even with the technological means, are not interested in running ancestor simulations
3. Humans become able to, and are interested in, running ancestor simulations.
If 3 is true, and there are two ancestor simulations running, it becomes more likely that we are in a simulation. Given that more than two will probably be run simultaneously, it becomes progressively more likely that we are in a simulation.
An ancestor simulation doesn't need to be possible NOW; it needs to be possible at some point in human existence. Is she referring to an idea that somebody from our level of technology can build a simulation? Because that's not what Nick Bostrom suggests with the widely discussed "Simulation Hypothesis".
To be sincerely honestly in my humble opinion without being sentimental of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from point of view and without hiding any thoughts in my mind and without lies, to the actual truth with my clear open mind and clear heart, expressing whatever is embedded inside me for a long time which I didn't say just because I was nervous. But today by gathering all courage and motivation, I just want to say that I actually feel and think that I have absolutely nothing to say .
You made my day. I love you
The only difference with most people is that you are aware of it.
Sabine! what a great guest choice, love your stuff!
Sabine is such a breath of fresh air. I am a faithful watcher of her channel as well as yours. Great interview, long time coming.
Successful people don't become that way overnight. What most people see at a glance- wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life..
@Pierre Dubois You're right, Investing in bitcoin now is the best thing to do especially with the current rise in the market
people are really making a lot of money from it... . .
please I have been hearing about this Mr Aitor Lorenzo from my colleagues at work. How do I easily contact him
@@jameswest416 info 👇
+13
This lady reminds me so much of my late wife. My wife was German by birth, but, like this lady, had truly mastered English. I used to measure my German against my wife's English. I never came close. Whoever David "what's his name" Chalmers is, he has achieved, in this alter ego, a measure of immortality.
Absolutely interesting. Dr. Hossenfelder is brilliant! Thank you!
I'm very glad to see Sabine at your podcast! Super choice!
I understood so little of what is being discussed here and yet I watched the entire video. It's Sabine's charm that kept me watching.
Yes, same here!
This is a collab combination that never entered my mind, two of my favourite UA-cam creators. Thank you for this Chris!
Also, I dreamt last night that I met you, your hair was longer and curly like it was a couple of years back. After a minute of talking to you I realised you were absolutely smashed and trying to act sober. So I kept you company and tried to work out where your friends were who had wandered off. You were still a decent person and I was still happy to have met you! 😂
Your username made me chuckle. I’ve used Space Dog for years in various ways. Tori Amos song ref
Sabine Hossenfelder is excellent. Her videos have thought and proven many of the idea's I have pondered about, for example: the free will argument. Saw her name and instantly clicked on this video. I know this will be a great and interesting podcast, asking the biggest questions.
She is so very right. We have no idea how to make said algorithms, nor do we have the raw materials needed to make the hardware necessary for anything close. This "simulation" stuff isn't just NOT science, it is almost ANTI-science (since all the data and math suggests the opposite of the "Theory").
EXCELLENT choice for a guest! Bravo!
it is SO refreshing to hear an actual scientist say things like, "We just don't know..." so many of my friends who claim to love science believe wholeheartedly that we've basically got it all figured out for the most part. I've had heated debates trying to point out that we still have so much work to do. Much of our theories don't even go back a couple of hundred years. It's still so young and to think we have anything substantial figured out is just kind of sad and laughable.
We're quite literally at the tippy top of the iceberg.
@@WakeUpEternals Is that so.
@@WakeUpEternals How did it occur ?
@@WakeUpEternals I'm happy to take your word for it. A faulty pay as you go gas appliance did me a great favour back in 91. Truly dull, are the senses.
How exciting! I love Sabine and this is a very pleasant surprise to see on your channel, Chris. Just tucking in now…
I’d say we’re not dealing with a “simulation” bound by the laws of physics in a natural universe….this is more like a dream in a universe where consciousness is foundational (and not the material).
I agree, and I find it quite naive (or at least very presumptuous) of her to base her refutation of the possibility on the fact that we can not do it currently with our computers which are, in the grand scheme of things, probably extremely limited machines.
no point watching this video then.
That's just what the simulation makes you think.
@@campyc40 😜 true
Sabin hossenfilder is just always awesome
Have you ever considered that the theory of everything cannot be expressed in your reality because of the very nature of reality.
She is Great, Discussions about what is the best path, not the fantasy path. Very Good Sabine !!
I'm just obsessed with the contrasting production levels. It's like watching an interview between an M&S Christmas advert and found footage.
Hahahahahah
love the fact that we have people who have the maturity to say we don't know! our universe and our reality in this has a finite start and a finite end imagine how narrower our perspective will be based on who, where and when we are, the trick is to just to not fall for the perspective but to learn to expand it, and it all starts with the acceptance of this limitation and to learn what we can do understand it better, more finer alternatives will dawn on us once the understanding becomes more finer.
Excellent! Sabine speaks so very well and makes complicated topics a lot more approachable. Thanks!!
Sabine is a reality check, which is often times needed.
In spite of the fact that I struggled to understand much of Sabine Hossenfelder's discussion, I watched and listened intently the whole way through because I knew there was something profound in what she was saying. It was refreshing to see a female 'expert' who really knew her stuff, was super intelligent and had not just been promoted on the grounds of gender equality (hope I don't get banned for saying that!) But judging from the early list of comments I've read here, I doubt this will be one of your more popular videos, Chris. Cheers!
I agree with your general qualm about female expertise nowadays; I will also add the expertise of those considered to be of underrepresented populations, of which I happen to be myself. The fact of the matter is that the ideology underpinning the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing rotates on what's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, and correct me if I'm wrong, I doubt you'd have made such a comment about female expertise if not for all of the propaganda behind "diversity, inclusion" in addition to some of the results which range from individuals like Kamala Harris to the utter failure of once successful companies. All of these failures have resulted from this apparent need to be inclusive and diverse, which leave many doubting the abilities who are said to need such representation.
@@inelhuayocan_aci G'day Arsonist! Thanks for the fantastic reply ... it's the best response I have ever had. Your expression is lucid and the discussion erudite ... loved it Mate. So what "underrepresented population" are you part of? I gather you have never felt especially oppressed (at least, that's how you come across)? Thing is, I used to be a big supporter of women's rights to equality, I have had many female friends and colleagues and always believed I treated them as equals. But even here in Australia, the positive discrimination in favour of women and women's issues is completely out of control. What drives me crazy is that the media here in Australia has been taken over by female presenters, women's topics/ issues and they always clearly go out of their way to interview female 'experts' ... even in fields where the vast majority of expertise is male they'll manage to find a female expert to interview. And in my work/ Organisation "diversity and inclusion" has completely taken over. The irony is that I also happen to be part of what was once considered an 'oppressed minority' ... I'm gay (but apparently that doesn't count anymore because I'm also a white male?!) But I have never felt the least bit oppressed or discriminated against. I guess the unusual thing about being gay is that people aren't aware of it unless you tell them. Anyway, I should stop now - apologies for the lengthy reply. But I'd like to know more about you if your up for it? Thanks again, your reply is much appreciated.
Now that you’ve had Sabine Hossenfelder on you ought to invite the truly excellent Luboš Motl. He and she don’t exactly see eye to eye on quite a number of things.
The simulation hypothesis just strikes me as a more modern, high-tech version of God.
but we are eventually becoming God Via technology and synthetic biology.
@@sirus312 no, God could wave his hand as say things into existence. If we want to make something we actually have to put it together.
@@Madonnalitta1 how do we know that ? Maybe god had to mix gases or whatever to create the Big Bang. It’s all hypothetical as no one was there to witness it
‘Free Will’ is a theological matter of Judeo-Christian origin; It allows for us to make judgements between right and wrong; - No free will, no right, no wrong = no functional societies.-
With our guilt and shame consciousness, it doesn’t allow us free will. We intuitively know the difference. The Bible says God has written into our hearts. I’ve researched it for hundreds if not thousands of hours and have found physics, biology and numbers theories are all correct in the Bible much before any scientists discovered it. Thus far, it has never been proven wrong.
@@nothingbutthetruth3227Concerning your claim of the science of the Bible never being wrong:
What about two of every animal (seven of the clean ones) and birds not being able to fit on the ark? What about there being no geological evidence for a global flood? What about there being no evidence of Nephilim? What about us knowing there are different languages older than when the Tower of Babel? What about there being human remains a lot older than 6000 years when Adam and Eve were made? What about us knowing the Earth won't remain forever?
It just seems logical on the face of it. Of course they're are predetermined rules of physics that I cannot break but I still have freewill within those parameters. I am free to press send on this comment, or to delete it.
Wow, Sabine! Basically, all the major existential questions of physics are thrown at you totally randomly and your explanations are immediate and crystal clear. It's beyond impressive. I also loved when you pointed out that math might not be the ultimate paradigm for us or for aliens for that matter---we need to allow room for things we cannot yet possibly imagine. That for me includes the workings of astrology which do presuppose a simulation hence an underlying algorithm as well (that is quite hard to hack as it would involve changing the physical laws of the universe) and you are a classic Virgo if I ever saw one ----clear, articulate, critical, detailed in your explanations and your caveats, precise perhaps to perfection, conscientious and fair. I also appreciated your admission of " we don't know" to some very basic questions, so many arrogant physicists could learn from you. Thank you.
Sabine Hossenfelder seems to be in a class all her own. Insightful, authentic comments presented in ordinary terms provide an exceptional interview here.
There may be something superior to mathematics that we haven’t yet discovered. We need to think outside the box.
You don't have to simulate a universe, you have to simulate an observer.
Interesting thought , that never crossed my mind. Thanks
But there is a problem here, you simulate an observer who knows nothing about physics it will work out well, how about a genius physicist e.g?
her arguments ain't logic anyway, she says that we're not in a simulation coz it's too hard to create one but that we could create one theoretically, so if it's the case we might be very likely to be in a simulation as just the possibility of being able to create one opens the door to the new sim recreating other sims, basic reproduction.
Exactly right. And only every moment, with some consideration of state for continuity. A laptop computer is easily capable
it's this funny little thing that everyone seems to forget: you can't REALLY go back to the same spot in SPACE either, since we're hurling through the space along with our planet, solar system and entire galazy, so it looks like we can go back and forth in space because the spaces we inhabit are familiar, but we can say we're achieving the same illusion with time where we can spend similar evenings in the same space every day as if we're going back to the same spot in time too. While we're actually not able to do EITHER of those.
... There's no evidence that earth is moving.
Love Sabine. Top nerd and very entertaining.
It seems to me that the main cause of many of the questions we can't answer is that we're dealing with a sample size of one, i.e. we've only experienced one universe, one species, one evolutionary timeline, one biology of life, etc. One of the things (among many others) i like about Sabine is that she won't hesitate to say "We don't know."
Exactly
So why didn't she simply say that about the simulation hypothesis? She dismissed it based on a very surface understanding of the concept.
Because she is very intelligent and dont like the issue
@@yoannycorominas221 I wonder if her dislike is because the concept is too close to intelligent design. That would be disappointing if true. Kind of like Hoyle's disregard of the big bang because he thought it opened the opportunity for God to be creator. Neither is taking the ideas on their merits, and shows bias.
@@brendanh8193 maybe she dont like to have another intelligence doing things besides herself
It’s adorable she’s basing the possibility of simulations off what we can do now. Later she states we might not even have the correct math. Cavemen would not believe what we do today could happen.
Thank you Chris, discovered you recently and subscribed. We live in such an interesting period of history. Consciousness, quantum mechanics and the large hadron collider are topics of conversations these days along with UAPs and the possibility of far advancement in physics.
I’m mostly on board with Sabine. I’m even a patron of her excellent vlog. However, she doesn’t hold climatology to the same standard as physics.
IPCC’s 2001 report chapter titled “Model Evaluation” contains this confession: “We fully recognize that many of the evaluation statements we make contain a degree of subjective scientific perception and may contain much ‘community’ or ‘personal’ knowledge. For example, the very choice of model variables and model processes that are investigated are often based upon subjective judgment and experience of the modeling community.”
In that same report the IPCC further admits, “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Here, the IPCC openly acknowledges that its models should not be trusted. Why Sabine trusts them is a mystery. Hint: I went to university to study climatology and was told my credit would have been a distinction had I handed in my assignments on time.
She does seem to have a blind spot there. Its dangerous for people in her position to step out of line with the emergency.
@@carbonnieferrous2689 About 20 years ago Hans von Storch said there are only about 40 alarmists who’d seized control of the climate journals. The vast majority of climatologists were skeptical of imminent catastrophic climate change. Since then Henrik Svensmark has conducted great research and in the teeth of fierce opposition from the alarmists. CERN have given him the use of a “spare” accelerator and ~50 physicists so they don’t seem so enamoured of the alarmists. Go figure...
Wow I have underestimated Chris Williams! Really good questions sir! Great interview! I just subscribed today. Now I’m going to have to go back and check out all of your work!
V good interviewer by asking straightforward questions and not talking over the guest.
She’s also tacitly saying that long term climate predictions can’t be accurate. Which I hope people will remember the next time someone starts telling us we have ‘ten years to save the planet’
It is always a pleasure to hear our local (she has that quality of being accessable) savant, Sabine Hossenfelder. Thanks, Chris, for the interview questions.
Throughout the ages of man, people have always thought they knew what there was to know about the world, physics and the universe. Science keeps on exponentially advancing. Most scientists, including her are confined in their thinking to what we know at the current time in our history..
meaning?
@@sirus312 For example, she insists the universe cannot be a simulation because she cannot fathom how that would happen. Very much like 1st century human stating that a human would never be able to fly.
The whole point of something like the simulation theory is WE DON'T KNOW how it would be done. She says it cannot be strictly because of that very limitation. She says there is no way to fit it into an equation. She doesn't seem to think about the future AT ALL. There are many ideas that seemed impossible a hundred or a thousand years ago because humans could not comprehend HOW something they thought impossible would be able to work.
Well.....we don't know what we don't know. She seems to think we do know what we don't know.
Science actually can't really be said to be advancing because every 100 or so years we come to realize that 90% of the previous corpus is total bunk. Every now and again we hit the jackpot with something like the internal combustion engine, but for a lot of fields we have no tangible results. IE we have been 10 years away from curing cancer for 100 years. The same deal with nuclear fusion, etc, etc.
In fact NASA even claims we "lost" the ability to go to the moon. The concord is no longer flying. Automobiles and appliances are far less reliable than the ones made thirty years ago.
@@gps9715 Well put
@@gps9715 Yes, my thoughts exactly. She bases her refutation on our current computational abilities, which were only invented extremely recently. Unbelievably short sighted and also kind of conceited I would say. As if we what we know now dictates what can be known. The history of science is littered with huge U turns when scientists realised everything they were so sure of was actually, totally wrong.
How can she make the major logical error of saying that we can't be in a simulation because we can't make complex simulations ourselves?
If we exist inside a simulation we have no way of knowing what is possible outside of it.
But what does it even mean to say we are in a simulation then? Normally the simulation idea is that we are a historical simulation made by the "real" humans.
Please please please get Sabine to talk about electric universe theory and please delve into this yourself it will alter your life! Thanks for your great content!
I don't think sabine has thought about the simulation argument enough it's not about "show me the code", but disproving it by showing it's impossible. games have hard-coded rules and it's a world from the perspective of the characters inside it. inability to replicate physics and the science of that reality by the characters inside doesn't make the simulation argument invalid.
I think we can be confident that this universe couldn't be simulated by a system which is bound by the laws of this universe. If we're going to ignore everything we know of physics, then all bets are off. Saying "we live in a simulation" is like saying "we live in the dream of God".
I am bothered by the people who say that our world/universe is not "real". Whatever our universe is, it is real. Some people think that their special meanings for words are the last word but that is just wrong. You do not get to redefine words and our universe is real by the definition of the word "real".
There are two kinds of scientists. Some like to push our boundaries, others like to reinforce them.
Sabine's understanding of the simulation argument by Bostron is similar to my grandma's ideas of what Chatgpt is.
To start with he DOESN'T say we live in a simulation. Ok, that's enough to disregard anything else she has to say on that matter.
We are living in a simulation, but not the way you would think. We imagine ourselves to be an entity in a body, moving around in a world. But if you actually pay attention to what you really perceive, the raw data of the 5 senses, that image turns out to be nothing but a mirage, created in the human mind!
@@dertythegrower like infra red light? That's just evolutionary adaptation.
Sure, but there is a strong correlation between the mirage in our mind and the outside world. and how it works. I have a model in my mind of how a cooker works and it maps pretty well onto the cooker in my kitchen which converts raw food into cooked food even when I am not present or thinking about it.
We are living in a “self-generating simulation”, which is logically distinct from an infinite regress of mechanical and/or computational simulations (computation does not self-generate).
Self-generating multiverse is more accurate to my eyes so many people are in their own universe tied together to other peoples universes via different types of culture out there so a type of string theory thing to hold the web of bubbles that people both create and reside within. A spider web with the morning dew drops all over it is best example nature shows of this idea i have
@@Beederda I fully agree! I was just adapting the term “multiverse” to the topic of this video 😌💭
@@Self-Duality It's pure nonsense. Hornet stings, car crashes, cataracts, blindness, amputations and death are VERY real. "Pop science" is simply and obviously a ridiculous distraction from the certainty of disease, injury and death. Americans are in love with repulsive infantilism peddled by charlatans.
Thanks for getting Sabine in a interview. Wait for the next one. Meanwhile read her new book, it's not depressing, it's spiritual and hopeful 😊
To my understanding of this discussions, the essence of Sabine's position about popular acceptance of unscientific assertions has more to do with the domain of psychology than the far stricter sciences of physics, cosmology, biology, etc.
Thank you for your choice of guests and for your art and likely work in keeping the dialogue active and interesting... :)
Whether we are In a simulation or not, people need to still understand that this life is real. Actions have consequences. Pain still hurts, love still feels great. When you tell people we are living in a simulation, rather than taking themselves to the next level, alot of people act worse than normal because they think, nothing matters, feelings aren't real and there are no consequences to their actions. People show their true colors when given the chance. All of our problems are caused by people and their arrogance, not caused by climate change. Our climate will always change, it is our responsibility to change with it, not resist the change and think our egos are the biggest thing in the universe.
Thanks for bringing more science-based guests on.
I'm an aeronautical engineer and hearing the words Navier-Stokes immediately got my attention. Thanks.
But Sabine's description was very imprecise, and naive !
Thanks for this Chris, it's very interesting this interview to understand a little more about the directions of research of the brilliant Professor Hossenfelder
There is a contradiction in her thinking: the reason she doubts reality could be simulated is because she’s skeptical there will ever be a theory of everything, but if she doubts that physics will ever explain everything, what makes her so sure things like FTL comms/travel, inter-dimensional travel, time travel, etc. are impossible? Her disposition ought to make her one of the simulation argument’s biggest proponents. I guess she’s so skeptical she doubts her own skepticism. I think this conclusion is inescapable, no?
Likelihood is a construct of our universe not the other way around
Good conversation, but I was a little put off by how she seemed flippant towards anyone who speculates and theorizes about things that we “don’t know”. Science itself is based on human curiosity and a desire to understand - we wouldn’t have physics without it. So she should try not to be so dismissive about our natural urge to wonder and philosophize
I’ve thought for a long time that computer modeling has been a huge problem. In economics I think that the models have grossly simplified and ignored the true complexity of the markets.
the reason why moore's law is coming to an end is a silicon atom is .2 nanometers in diameter and the latest node is 2 nanometers wide. This means a transitor is at most 10 atoms across, and we don't yet know how to transmit signals through quantum media.
Sure there is quantum computing, but that's a different paradigm, or maybe they'll run on light or something, but the idea of a transistor being at the heart of a computer can't get any smaller than .2 nanometers.
Take what we know today and, add a billion years of time to it and, answer the question if it is possible at that time. Do not worry about what is possible at todays level of knowledge. No one believes a simulation is possible at today's level of knowledge.
Thank you.
She proved simulation hypothesis is bunk with the chaos problem. Currently no computer can create random, only simulate it. Not even quantum computers because of the measurement problem.
Sabine is a lovable scientist who manages to be popular despite her surly skepticism. So I was delightfully surprised by her suggestion that there might be a more sophisticated language superior to mathematics. If she would allow herself to progress in that path I think she would come closer to spirituality.
define spirituality.
Wouldn’t a superior language still be communicating the same laws of reality/universe?
Check Stephen Wolfram’s computation language
A wonderful interview! Honest and straight!
Some of the oddities of quantum theory, such as the fact that the act of observation is what converts a wave into a particle - not just now, but then retrospectively back in time, is to me one of the most compelling questions that leads to a degree of suspicion related to simulation. Because that is fundamentally weird, but at the same time exactly how a simulation works now: until consciously observed by the player, there is only ever the potential for something to render. The universe appears to work in the same way.. I don’t know how we explain that yet, but the simulation hypothesis has some weight as a possibility, that for me cannot be ruled out at present.
I agree ..Not everyone's belief of a simulation comes from the theory of a computer algorithm..
...So because humans have computer-simulated aspects of reality...reality must be a computer simulation?
Seems like a non-sequitur.
Why is observational rendering "weird"?
You seem a bit too hung up on the "objective physical universe" model of reality...which is of course merely _a model._
And why would "weirdness" count as evidence?
If reality is a simulation...
...what is it a simulation of?
@@sambadham1404 Indeed, consciousness or the soul is the only reality.
@@Vincent-gt5qr Simulation does not just mean an imitation of something, it also means not as it appears or a sham. So here, it is used to suggest that what we see and experience may not be an objective reality but a construct. I see this more as an intellectual exercise, and not one to take too literally. The weirdness and oddities we observe lead to questions, hence we can extrapolate our own simulations and ask the question of our own universe similarly. Note I’m only saying it is worth not discounting.
@@Libertas_P77 ..."...not as it appears or a sham..."
Things which are not "as they appear" or which are "shams" are masquerading as SOMETHING ELSE...
...so once more:
What is reality a simulation OF?
What "weirdness and oddities" do you observe?
Why is an arbitrary, superfluous hypothesis which explains/predicts nothing "worth not discounting"?
I love that Sabine understands that the scientific method is a way of thinking. Evidence, evidence, evidence!
Sabine is my fucking hero. Enjoyed her first book, I'm into the next one.
Considering where we have come from evolving as any other animal the really surprising thing is that we can get any real understanding of the universe
my favorite physicist
The problem is that people assume that _simulation hypothesis_ automatically means we are all a bunch of zeros & ones on somebody's computer.
Omg. For the simulation hypothesis to work, it means someone created the simulation. This would likely be a being/beings/civilisation so far in advance of us as to be incomprehensible. Such beings would be likely to literally create a universe wirh parameters built in to facilitate the development of such life forms as necessary to properly satisfy the parameters of whatever problem or system they are trying to model. If there is a simulation it is extremely unlikely to be installed on someone's bloody laptop!
For another thing, consciousness appears to be relevant to the core function of the simulation; assuming this is accomplished by a digital electronic computer using binary code and linear electronic computation (with all its thermodynamic penalties and limited processing avenues) is ridiculous. The term AI is being used a lot now, but it really is not ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, as some of Chat GPT's more ludicrous essays show. Quantum computing may offer the way forward, but we are not contained in some MacBook in some nameless alien kid's basement. I do not understand how people went right to YEAH WE ARE ALL COMPUTER BLIPS.
No. We. Are.
_Not._
Today's episode is almost nuts, a little too deep. It's like that saying; "the more you learn, the more you know that you don't know".
That is increasingly the case for me also and it’s just such a frustrating state of affairs isn’t it…
I love when someone knows the right questions to ask.
It is possible that not only do we have free will but the whole universe could effectively have free will.
I love Sabine's no bull shit approach. I tend to agree with her on many things, of course one of her basic tenets is to admit there is a lot we simply don't know.
If we did live in the simulation, the food would be better😂
In my simulation I would be beautiful, thin, rich and smart
The Navier-Stokes equation is also highly nonlinear, giving rise to scale-invariance, chaos problems, turbulence scales, and an unclosable string of explansions that can only be crudely approximated depending on assumed time & boundary conditions. Finitely-limited computers are largely bounded by linearity.
If it is an illusion, then it is likely a prison of confinement. Whatever technology that we are allowed to be familiar with would not be enough. Because if it WAS enough, we would do as ALL life tends to do - we would break out of prison.
You're damn right it's a prison ! Especially for normal, average working folks
struggling to survive while watching, elite superrich , degenerate , billionaires , doing as they please, when they please , to whomever they please , no consequences
for them whatsoever !
These degenerates makes this planet , which could be a paradise , a prison for the rest of us !
I don't know anything for certain, but at the age of 57 I have had a number of experiences over my lifetime where things that should not be possible have actually happened, and over time it has caused me to question just how real this reality actually is. The worst part for me is that it's so strange that no one takes what I say seriously because they did not witness it. Except for the most recent event which occurred about 4 years ago when I had a migraine headache and I was curled up in a ball on my sofa gripping my temples. I suddenly saw my friend who lives 400 miles away and her head was rotating in 3D before me with these strange curls in her hair and 2 white hair clips. I ignored it and opened my eyes briefly and closed them again but the image reappeared so I texted her and asked her if she had done something with her hair. Immediately she texts me a photo of the curls and the hair clips but the clips were blue and not white in he photo and it was her daughter's hair she was styling at that very moment, not her own which was as if the images I was receiving were somehow scrambled. I showed the text message exchange and photo to my wife and daughter immediately because in a way it served as proof that all the other things I had told them happened to me were also true. Other things have included staring at a deck of cards and suddenly one after another the cards begin slipping off the top of the deck and falling onto the table. The thing here was that I stared at them with no intention in my mind for what should happen. I just randomly sat down in front of them and stared and I do not know why. Or the time something prompted me to mentally prepare for an attack scenario where someone comes from behind and chokes me. I was walking to lunch at the time and I had no idea it would actually happen but seconds after I had rehearsed it in my imagination someone actually did attack me and every move I rehearsed in my mind actually worked and I left the person with a bloody mouth. The person was from my job and he had been bullying and threatening me for about a year. After this event he never bothered me again. How could this be? how could I somehow be prepared for it but not actually told it was going to happen? Was it my higher self protecting me? But why do I not hear anyone else talking of these things? What about all the people harmed or murdered, why were they not protected? so many questions. These are only a few events, there are others including seeing alien symbols on my wall rapidly changing, or suddenly having a level of expertise at something that I really did not have expert knowledge of. I know how ridiculous it all sounds, I would be the first one to be skeptical, but all of this and more has happened. This is why I feel whatever the rules of this universe are, we somehow exist within something else, a place where the laws of physics as we know them here do not apply and our own reality in this universe can be manipulated in ways that should not be possible because the reality we experience here actually stems from outside of this place, a place that is timeless and has no rules, where all things are possible.
I take you seriously as at 60 I've had my own set of unexplainable experience. All I know pretty much for sure is that when we die a portion of us continues on. Beyond that is is all speculation for me and you must realize that you are alone in your experiences just like me but because people on youTube have talked freely about their near death experiences, etc I realize that not only am I not alone but also that my experiences were real. Don't worry about people who try to invalidate you as they are only doing it for their own protection and not with you in mind. My oldest brother is always trying to invalidation me and others, saying I am anti-science even though I have PhD in physics and he is a high school science teacher. To him science is what the authorities say is true.
So you can't simulate it but you can creat a universe ?
I think her big problem is a god that's what she seems to be against
Witch makes since because she is a woman she doesn't like or except the control part
Very very interesting
The only boundaries in physics are those that our human minds construct for ourselves. WE are the limiting factors of our own learning. When we say that a theory is absolute, we deceive ourselves, lest we could no longer call the concept discussed a "theory".
Chris! What platform do you use to record remote podcast videos? Keep up the great work! 🙌🏼
The best parts of the universe are shrouded in mystery. We don't know the inner workings because what would we do then. Xman
My understanding of the simulation theory is that it it holographic and has something to do with fractals. We already have the ability to produce both of those. Why do scientists never take consciousness into consideration even though they are aware that consciousness can change physical reality.
Plenty do. Donald Hoffman, Tom Campbell, Dan Winter. Slow moves, Ellie. Slow moves…
Morris Kline wrote: "By 1900 mathematics had broken away from reality; it had clearly and irretrievably lost its claim to the truth about nature, and had become the pursuit of necessary consequences of arbitrary axioms about meaningless things."
Yeah... but when you get down to quantum physics at a micro level, particles go in and out of existence which can't be explained and you also see everything in the universe is made from vibrating energy kinda like an electric current going through a computer.