The technical capability argument of the simulation argument is kind of moot in my eyes. It is a lot easier to simulate a universe with fewer dimensions than your own. We may struggle to simulate a large 3D universe, but we could probably simulate a relatively large 2D universe. So what if the beings that simulate us simply reside in a universe with more dimensions? How fast would a 4D or even 10D computer be? You might not need much more than what we consider a desktop computer in a 10D universe to simulate a 3D universe.
One of the finest videos on this channel. I loved the opening where they clarify that its an argument and not a theory or scientific law as lots of other science communicators treat it as such.
The simulation argument makes a lot of assumptions about what technology is, but our understanding of computers is only based on just a very short timespan in which the speed innovation is only accelerating. How can we pretend to know what technology is in fifty years, let alone in centuries or even millenia?
The simulation doesn't have to be of the whole universe. It just has to be of the bits we are interacting with. It doesn't have to include things like the CMB, or quantum interactions, just the output of the instruments we use to look at them. And maybe the simulation "forgets" things when we aren't looking at them, and when we look back it recreates them from basic principles. This accounts for things like the Mandela effect...the recreation isn't identical to the last time it was simulated.
Complete simulation requires that a computer, only containing a small subset of the particles in the universe, can simulate all the particles in the universe. This sound eerily similar to a perpetual motion machine. A simulated universe has to lose some detail or fidelity. It's not a rock solid argument against simulation hypothesis, but it should at least be an argument against "simulations all the way down". Regardless, since we have no examples of any simulations even remotely similar to our universe, the default assumption should be not to accept that we live in a simulated universe.
This the best podcast in the entire podcast universe. I have downloaded every single episode from iTunes and listened to them several times over. Keep up the great work. Love what you’re doing.
Who says the simulation needs to be 100% faithful for the argument to work? If we’re in a simulation we don’t know if it’s faithful to some real universe or not.
I have a hard time separating philosophical and religious arguments on this subject. The reason is that if we actually did live in a simulation and could ever prove it, it would also prove a creator or creators of some kind. You can call that creator whatever you wish but I can't see much difference between simulation theory and belief in God. Both believe in a universe created by something from outside our reality, and both are untestable from our current level of reality.
Exactly so. Arthur C. Clarke is famously quoted as saying "any sufficiently advanced technology cannot be distinguished from magic". -- For "magic" read "superstition" or "religion" or "intelligent design". Ancient societies observed the world around them and they all reasoned that they lived in a "created" world. -- though each society then imagined what their"creators" looked like. Each ancient society created "god" (the creator) in their own image. -- the simulation hypothesis does the same thing. In our computerized world, we "create" the notion that the creator force is a supercomputer. -- all the while insisting this hypothesis is not religion. But the hypothesis seems to provide answers to the same questions as any religion: "how did we get here?" "what is our purpose here?" "what is our ultimate destiny?"
Exactly. Funny to see so many "smart people" get roped into this topic as if it is anything more than a scientific shell to believing in God or creators. Same exact idea. I just want people to realize it's a religious argument more than it is a scientific one.
Feels obvious that it would violate 2nd law of thermodynamics to simulate a universe "any cheaper" than just being that universe. So your computer would have to be bigger than the universe it is attempting to simulate. At that point, your simulation effectively just IS that universe, only worse, because it adds the extra bits to make it a simulation. The best you can do is the simulation == the reality.
Glad someone pointed out this breaks the 2nd law. Information = energy. Paul wants us to simulate it down to the tiniest level of information. Therefore the energy needed, even with perfect efficiency, is equal to the total energy in the universe.
Game developers do smart tricks to save computation cycles in games. Certain parts would be precisely simulated and some would be approximations. We should be able to detect small discrepancies. Some research had been done on the subject. I am not a supporter of simulation hypothesis.
It's religious on its scope and merit, it is not based on scientific data more philosophical quackery. Not a worthwhile concept to really take seriously scientifically.
Who says that we (humans) create the simulation at all? Who says the creator's universe (non-simulated) is anything like ours? Their universe could not even have stars, gravity or anything similar. This could all just be parameters inputted into the simulation to see what a universe would be like with those things. Who says we were even intended or significant in their simulation? We could be one of billions of "intelligent" lifeforms in the data stream. The purpose of it all may only be to see what the effects of "gravity" would have and they may not even care about the life forms created as a result. I'm not saying I believe all this, these were just some of the questions that popped in my head while watching this. Great content as usual Paul!
Agree completely. Why is a human centrist view of existence the source of a simulation? Perhaps another existence is a billion times more complex and simulating our existence as easy as a child using building blocs.
I confirm that you live in a simulation. I am currently preparing your next upgrade. If there is no bug you should see infrared next week. You are welcome.
I've thought about this deeply. I'm sure there would be rules where we can never figure it out, but explaining spooky action at a distance is impossible to do rationally . Also we could have been simulated 5 minutes ago and all of our memories are downloaded. Maybe this is the end of the world simulation and they wanna see how we acted? They being other alien civilisations exploring our ruins. Not finding any alien life would be another thing pointing towards simulation theory. We can't think of how they would do it with our technology , maybe they are higher demention and the computing power for our universe takes the power of an alien cell phone. The human brain is supposed to be more complex and powerful than most computers yet we can't remember what we did a year or two ago on a random date because that would take up too much data. I smoked all the weed today. Peace and love
Not finding alien life has nothing to do with simulation hypothesis. It just means that life in the universe is rare (it is as far as we can tell), and we haven't reached out far enough to have it because of the distance between galaxies. Anything and everything that exists could fundamentally be proof against or with the simulation argument, it's a dead end. You may as well just dissect Plato's Allegory of the Cave and invest in solipsism because it is a similar argument.
You mention a few times that Simulation Theory is not religious, however in Bostrom's paper, he draws analogies to religious traditions. Namely that there is a Creator, miracles, resurrection, judgment and an afterlife are all very real possibilities. Simulation Theory draws a direct parallel to the Islamic belief in The Preserved Tablet. The Record wherein the Creator wrote the universe. "He has the keys to the unseen: no one knows them but Him. He knows all that is in the land and sea. No leaf falls without His knowledge, nor is there a single grain in the darkness of the earth, or anything, fresh or withered, that is not written in a clear Record." Quran 6:59 "But every thing have We computed, and written down" - Quran 78:29 "He has computed everything in a determinate number." Quran 82:28
I don't accept the assumptions. I think the computational irreducibility principle precludes us from ever making an exact copy of the universe in a computer.
Much of the same philosophy can be applied to the thought experiment even if it is limited to "Reality as you perceive it is a simulation. Your consciousness alone is being simulated, and your perception of reality is computer generated." This would take much less computing power than simulating the entire universe, but the implications would be the same., or at least similar.
What about the possibility that simulations are possible, and we are the natural parent universe in which all simulations exist? It's very statistically unlikely given the premise that simulations are possible, but it's still a non-zero possibility.
Here is an adapted note I made on simulation a couple years ago: I don’t like to talk much about simulations, because there is no sufficient evidence of it; aside from the fact that we have so many of our own simulations, but I would call that speculative, not sufficient evidence. This being said, if we were simulated, I see a few major issues. What stops our simulators from being simulated, and their simulators from being simulated, ad infinitum. Would this mean that all things are simulations inside simulations and it is impossible to trace the origin of any given simulation because there are an infinite number of them? So, from the most removed perspective, would it look like an interconnected web of simulations? If we were simulated, the creator could define our reality using a kind of L-System that gains more resolution and increases in complexity as you look closer into it, preventing us from ever being able to tell we are in a simulation. If we are simulated, the simulator could pause the program any time we provably figured out we were in a simulation, and reverse the damage. Lastly, it might be that the information that answers this question is not reachable, that there is some fundamental limitation on our ability to answer this question. "I could be a clone. I could be a hologram. We could be clones controlled by robots controlled with special headsets that the real Rick and Morty are wearing while they're fucking your mother..."
A simulation of what? You need an outside reference point, by definition, for it to be a simulation. Otherwise it's just the universe. A completely useless hypothesis.
Bostrom's trilemma stops at option 1. As Paul correctly says, we'll never be able to build a computer to simulate the universe. The entire universe IS the final computer
Maybe we are a simulation, made by beings that don't have a complete theory of everything. Maybe we're their way of trying to work it out? [END OF LINE]
I loved the thought: "Questioning our assumptions is good and fruitful and is useful, coz it keeps us moving forward". And I would add to that that it makes us less biased 🙂
There are two things that I always hear in this discussion I don't understand. First, that computers get powerful enough for the simulator to simulate the entire universe. But who on earth would simulate the entire universe? For us to be living in a simulated universe, the simulators would need simulate only the observations we can make. They don't need to simulate the Andromeda galaxy, only the radiation that we observe from the Andromeda galaxy. It could be, the reason Voyager is breaking down is that it's now approaching the edge of the simulation. This is important, because an argument against the simulation I always hear is that at some point, the computing power required to simulate a universe exceeds the energy available in the simulators' universe. Second, the trilemma always assumes the presence of multiple instances of consciousness. But the evolution of conscious life might be way, way, way more difficult than anyone imagines, and we might be unique. Shouldn't we add to the trilemma, "No other instances of intelligent beings"?
It's funny that PBS Spacetime just released a video saying "if we ever want to simulate another universe, we won't need a computer bigger than the universe" How To Simulate The Universe With DFT 13:28
My perception is simulated by my brain based on sensory input and presumed sensory input, as your perception is based on your sensory inputs and presumed sensory inputs. So, we all definitely live in our own simulations that are wholly unique to our mental acuity to consider that which is, and know it from that which is not, and what it all means to us if it means anything to us. The only person who you understand about exactly what they mean when they talk about or write about or otherwise describe things and ideas and feelings and moods is yourself, everyone else you have to figure out through your perspective from their perspective--you must understand their sarcasm threshold and pain threshold--to assimilate their meaning and simulate it as your own.
That's the best way to break it down to a scientific concept that I've ever heard. It is much better this way than trying to fantasize some computer network or computer chips that quantify our reality. In the end, perception is reality no matter what initiates the connection, whether meat or by it metal.
The simulated universe does not need to be just like ours though, and it does not need to have the same physical laws as ours. It just needs to be complex enough to harbor conciousness. Thia version is harder to motivate but still possible.
(I have edited a few possibilities in there, it's very open, with a nice conclusion ;-) --- There could be more than this trilemma, maybe intelligent species might be able to simulate a giant universe, but we just dont live in one of those simulated universes, but in a real universe. (We would not know ;-) ---- I think that a simulated universe does not need to be as complex as a real universe (of course I could be wrong in anything and everything ;-). Maybe we live in a simulated universe, but a real universe is (typically - typically if we assume multiverses, maybe true, maybe not) more complex than ours. We would not know. ---- The simulated brains would not need to be as complex as real brains. Maybe the simulated brains are simplified, maybe we are simulated, but real brains might be even more complex than ours, we would not know ;-) ---- Maybe I am the only real brain in this simulated world (I don't think, it's this way, but what do I know ;-) and everything around me is simulated, also your response or non-responde is simulated, the simulated response could be "I know that I think, therefore I am" - or you could visit me in person, OK, it could just be a simulated response like everything around me already, I would not know ;-) ----- But it would not really make a difference, because my actions have consequences, so I live as if it was real, that's the best bet that we all can do. Live our lives, try not to harm others physically or mentally, try to live this way and let others smile when possible, I think, that would be a good life :-)
Love your video. Can you do one on where the universe is located? What it is inside of, where it is next to, and if it is self encompassing, where is it self encompassed? Or perhaps on what is nothing? Not the nothing like 'no potato' . Or the distance of 0 between two objects, but where there is a distance of greater than 0 of two objects but it is described as 'nothing' between them. Why is there a location and volume of nothing? (If there is such a thing as location).
It seems that you can simulate the universe, but you can't get the same compute, so your simulated universe time will go slower compared to substrate universe. Simulated beings wouldn't notice, of course, but if something like a black hole or a star is your power source, it becomes relevant eventually and in practice it could put constraints on what you could pragmatically simulate before your energy source is lost to entropy. Either you limit the simulation temporally (simulate a universe like ours, but it will never become as old as ours will), or spatially (simulate a universe like ours, but put less stuff in it so you can calculate faster). You see this tradeoff all the time in computer simulations. For example, Universe Sandbox simulates gravity at a precision that degrades the more massive objects you put in the simulation at a given simulation speed OR the faster you want the simulation to go for a given number of objects, so that your CPU can maintain a framerate that users will find acceptably entertaining. And you can even graphically see it - the previously elliptical orbits will develop into obvious polyhedrons, planets will fly through each other, as simulation steps become grossly coarse. To get a solar system simulation to run at 1:1 speed with our real solar system, you cannot have anywhere remotely close to a solar system worth of massive objects. The simulation is far cruder. There are from a few dozen to at most a few hundred massive objects treated atomically to approximate the real solar system. A more interesting corollary is, can we already create an artificial general intelligence? It is possible that with neural networks and modern evolutionary and genetic programming we already have the algorithms to do it, we just lack the compute to do it at scale quickly enough to see the results in what we would consider a reasonable timeframe. As with the universe you might choose to create an extremely detailed and complicated simulation with a gigantic neural capacity that, given enough time, within its simulated world, will eventually develop awareness, its equivalent of 'fire', 'tools', or whatever else we tweak the algorithm to encourage. It would just take way more time than we have to wait for it to get to that point. ;) Or you might choose to create much simpler simulations and AIs with pitifully tiny neural capacities that can run in acceptable timeframes but are far more rudimentary than the animal brains on Earth that have evolved over millions of years of universe-level compute, which is what we do now. A modern computer just does not have the power to simulate even the tiniest of brains, but we still haven't scraped the bottom of the barrel when it comes to compute. Optical transistors or quantum computing might eventually make us efficient enough to evolve a human-level AI in a very short time. If our algorithms are right, and the neural connections they simulate are all that there is to it, of course.
I just watched a PBS space time video that explains why a computer built using all the matter in the solar system could not fully simulate the electrons of a single iron atom. If full simulation is needed, then there is no possibility of a universe simulation inside our Universe.
Based on our 3 demensional world and the rules on which we live. What if they are in a higher demension with rules of physics and extra demensions we cant even imagine.
@@Mainely_Sota that is why I carefully said "inside our Universe". I did not exclude the possibility that we are simulated, only that no further recursion is possible.
1. Intelligent beings unable to create a simulation: unlikely - we wouldn't even need to simulate the whole universe, just individual experience. I just don't think we've got that far yet. 2. Can create but won't: even more unlikely. It only takes one. 3. We are in a simulation: not falsifiable. If we did figure it out, those controlling or even the simulation itself could rewind and prevent that knowledge. It's an interesting thing but as you say, it's philosophy. Maybe even hope for some.
Good point. Just because? There wouldn't be much need from a scientific perspective to actually gauge every single conscious thought of every single human born if they were researching specific events in history. We wouldn't need sentience... which brings us back around to the free will argument. All of this just loops back around to the very basic constructs of philosophy, not really something that should have a place in science outside of a fun debate.
The assumption that a simulation would need to replicate everything at a quantum granular level presupposes an actual physical universe….it is the same physicalist (local realism) trap that is not allowing us to think beyond this classical physical framework of reality. If the simulation is based not on the gargantuan replicated totality of all physical objects but is instead just purely a subjective experiencing phenomena that is being simulated then the “zooming effect” is absolutely possible-allowing minimal computational rendering for strictly each simulated observer’s subjective experience.
It’s not philosophy as in theory it can be tested. There’s already a lot of speculation about the idea that the two slit experiment results in apparent randomness because it applies to detail which has yet to be rendered, for example. If we take rendering to be similar in « this » simulation as it would be on any computer simulation, there would be a relation between the observer and the observed in that it saves data not to render an area of the universe unless it is being observed. Equally, there are signs of error correcting algorithms applying to the universe and these are similar to what you get in complex computer programs. We may not have evolved a final yes or no test as yet but the theory could be tested in principle.
and especially: who cares if we live in a simulation? Would it change anything? Probably not, so let's enjoy what we have until we can break out of the simulation and alter it the way we prefer.
My simulation argument (version) ends in a pentalemma, my girlfriend's version ends in a multilemma. Issac Asmov: "not enough data for a meaningful answer.." Ties up loose ends nicely (of all strings)... Goto goto 😊
Five wasn't enough for her? Thumbs up for the Asimov quotation. One should note about "The Last Question" that he disapproved of theists' use of that quotation in their "apologies". They never got the joke.
Asimov a lifelong favorite. I actually know someone who knew him well enough to say hello regularly. He was always the gentleman, so the story goes. That short story always fascinated me enough remember the ending (punch) line. It was classic Asimov. ..smart man who was smart enough to know he didn't know everything, which is a plus ..imv. He just could sense where to take things to open queasy social questions. It was enough and it was plenty. Hats off to the man .
I guess the question for the simulation would be fidelity. If it is going to be an approximation of the real world, well we can already do it... If it will simulate the reality on a say, molecular level it could be feasible, but to simulate on a subatomic level, the computational power needed may be equal to a computer the size of the universe? It may even form a blackhole because the needed amount of energy would be too big... Maybe things like the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the speed of light and time dilation are indications for this computational restrictions? anyway, doesn't make a difference in the end, I guess.
only other option is to compress the information of the universe using some yet undiscovered mathematical magic formula in a lossless manner. But the compressed information would also collapse into a blackhole... unless the host universe operates on a total different set of rules..
Being in a simulation could explain why history repeats itself... :-) Separately, we should look at why someone(s) would create a simulation. It wouldn't be just to duplicate the universe. It would be to consider what-if scenarios, as a game, for forecasting, etc. And from there we would consider whether the entire universe needs simulation or just subsets that are imortant to the purpose. So if we are in a simulation, we might only be experiencing the subset of the real universe that is useful to the creator. That addresses the argument that the resource of the entire universe or more, are needed to duplicate it. Also not addressed is how much independence and free will the simulation allows. Whether a star goes nova, a particle decays, or a decision we make, could all be triggered by a joy stick somewhere. So to consider if we are in a simulation, we might need to also consider for what purpose (and I am not alluding to any religious arguments, just considering why someone would make or use a simulation seems an important part of whether or not they exist and our being in one.)
Sounds lot like religious dogma to me. Just substitute "simulation" with "God" and there you go. Don't get too lost in the sauce my guy. Live your life.
I am a scientist (I have a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering) but I have studied enough history to know that every branch of Science originated in Philosophy. Science was originally called Natural Philosophy. The process is that any given branch of science "splits" from Philosophy when that field of study becomes robust enough to stand alone; this tends to make "Pure Philosophers" appear to be a bunch of lazy "do-nothings". I was quite disappointed to hear that Niel Degrasse Tyson ridicules Philosophy. If I know the historical role that Philosophy has played in creating all of the branches of science that we have today, he certainly should.
Fun fact, philosophy is the root of everything, according to Wikipedia. If you start on any wikipedia page at all, picked at random, and click the first hyperlink in the first paragraph not in parenthesis, then on the page that the link takes you to do the same, and onward and onward it will inevitably land you on philosophy, no matter where on wikipedia you start.
Our simulated universe defects:.missing matter and energy, singularities, incompatible Gravity with quantum, uncertainty principle, matter duality, mystery of caramilk, extra dimensions requises for strings, fermi Paradox and why shepperd pie reheated left over is better ... Good proof of concept but not ready for market.
Our "vital experience" consist of perceptions, ideas, concepts, feelings, beliefs, etc., all function of our mind. We cannot "reach"/know anything "directly", all has to pass thru our mind. The idea that there exist an "external" (to our mind) reality is just an hypothesis impossible to verify (all that we can think goes thru our mind), more, the existence of other minds is just an UN-verifiable hypothesis. So the most simple view that can explain it all is that only my mind exists, all other things are just functions/phenomena of my mind. (This is SOLIPSISM). To "get out" of solipsism, it is necessary to make some assumptions about what do you admit as criteria to say if some mental model (set of related hypothesis) is valid or not. I say that, not because I "believe" in solipsism, but because. in a way, the simulation hypothesis brings the idea that we are "trapped" in our minds. But we do not need to resort to any computer to think in something much deeper, simple and impossible to falsify: "only my mind exists".
I see a parallelism with panspermia that tries to elude the unresolved question of earth abiogenesis just shifting the problem somewhere else... Simulation hypothesis does it on a cosmological scale: why are we here? Why universe behaves like that? If this was a simulated universe these questions do have an answer... But what about the organic universe of our ancestors (or at the top of the chain)? I apply Ockham's razor aka principle of parsimony: it's easier to think we live in an organic universe (even if we cannot disproof the contrary).
First - The computer that creates the simulation can't be IN the simulation. Second - consciousness exists outside the simulation and can't be simulated.
The simulated consciousness doesn't have to be anything like the consciousness that created it. How boring would that be. If I could simulate consciousness, I'd try to create as many different sorts of consciousness as I could.
An argument in favor: When "THEY" let you go to sleep, your mind creates a sub-simulation, it's called dreams. An argument against: What would be the purpose of having a simulation of a child born with defects? To see how the parents cope? I don't think so. We are real, this is not a simulation but shit just happens.
I have a question. What is the difference between the simulation and reality, anyway? How wrong will it be, logically, if I say that our reality is a simulation by the quantum fields and space-time? Lemme explain, as per we understand, the reality arises from the quantum fields, and their interaction and the curvature of space-time. In a simulation, the "simulated reality", similarly arises from digital entities like say classes, objects, functions etc. What is the difference between these two?
A thought that regularly occurs to me is that if people can believe everything is a simulation, how can they sit there and say religion in general is a laughable concept? Wouldn't a simulated existence be literal proof of higher power?
I feel like the brain is like a ps5 that only comes with one game. But this ps5 has the power to duplicate itself. So imagine the same game being able to be played on ps5 xbox Nintendo etc. all the different gaming systems represent different species that still play this same game. The soul is like plugging up the controller to play. Once you start the game you can’t come out, you don’t know anything other than the game, you only have one life. How else could all this stuff exists around us, the brain is made perfectly to perceive and share this realm with our duplicates. THE CREATOR IS HIGHLY HIGHLY INTELLIGENT! He is outside the game separate from the hands of time. We can’t figure out who made the simulation because that’s like super Mario finding out who created Nintendo from inside the game, it’s boundaries to what you can learn from inside of a simulation.
*here, I put forth more philosophy, not a scientific theory that would lead people to believe that I need to be committed to The nut House.* Perhaps the reason we have been unable to find a theory of everything is because our universe is itself an imperfect approximation of the universe in which our simulation was created.
The idea that the creator universe may be of more dimensions seemed compelling at first, but then I thought, what would simulating a universe of less dimensions tell them about themselves. Presumably nothing unless it was just a stepping stone on their way to an attempt to simulate faithfully their own universe or unless its for entertainment value, kind of like a universe sized video game. Also the idea that maybe they are not simulating each particle in the universe, but just simulating experiences was interesting, but then I thought, there are 5 billion consciences in the world so it seems like simulating all their experiences in real time would be a bigger job then just defining and creating each particle as an object, let them interact and see what happens. The only caveat to the second thing is that, in truth, I'm really only sure that I exist. I'm not 100% sure that the rest of you exist, perhaps I am the simulation and the rest of you just exist long enough to interact with me. You can tell me you exist, but maybe you are just programmed to do so haha! No I'm not smoking a lot of weed, lol, just a philosophical thought, and I'm probably not the first one to have it, maybe it was Descartes, unless it's true because people who don't actually exist, even as a simulation, can't have thoughts. (the odd thing is that each person who is sure that they exist, can say the same thing, and the whole thing devolves into rhetoric and circular reasoning)
Once again sir, a brilliant presentation! My science background is biology. I am always fond of philosophy. Your explanation of theory is very interesting and to me, very clear. It all has to ‘sit’ comfortably within those of us who ask ? For me, we are NOT in a simulation. The complexities of biological systems in nature and their interactions within are far too complicated and they have to act independently. Add in a factor of billions of cells acting in different ways and that’s just one example of living organisms. The computer dynamics to operate a planetary system full of functioning healthy billions of humans AND. ALL. of the organisms of earth alone ? Let alone a solar system then tack along a galaxy oh , and a few others and make a universe before placing humans on it ? think some theories are just too outrageous. AI capability yes . But not complete worlds. Not biologically functioning. It is just too complex.
wow, 26 minutes of simulation 😊, may be speed of light may be the factor that some thing is restricting travelling in space to see other planets in the life time of human and aliens , if they exist.
My daughter and I came to this theory independent of each other at roughly the same time. I know that there is a "creator", but I do not know what that intelligence is. Before we were born, we were all unaware. Perhaps when we die we will return to that same state!
You start from the assumption that WE, from our 'reality' should do the simulation. Why would that be so? Why wouldn't it be possible because we cannot do it?
Whether or not it's possible for us to answer that question, does it matter either way? I think not, so I don't care. There are more interesting questions, but it's always helpful to stumble upon a new area of study which we know in advance is a bottomless rabbit hole. We still have to get to the grocery store before picking up the kids from practice. And I'm fixing that dripping faucet tonight come Hell or high water.
@@chrissscottt I agree it's being held. But that's different from our brain of this life creating consciousness. Thus rebirths might be a thing & immortality's possible even if this isn't a simulation
This is a great video and I am absolutely fascinated by the simulation hypothesis. I am not a philosopher but I do have a very open mind on many different topics. Two of my most favorite shows that I enjoy watching are paranormal caught on camera and unexplained caught on camera. Some of the videos that are shown are paranormal investigators that have experienced something while investigating a location. Afterwards they have experts offering up their opinion of the different videos. The videos that I find the most credible are the ones that were not doing any type of investigation yet unexplainable things are happening. Many of them are home security cameras or cameras that have been set up to try to figure out why something had been happening while the tenant or owner was sleeping or gone all day at work. There have also been quite a few videos where something happens that defies any scientific explanation. An example I will use is a soap bubble that came from a person doing dishes in the sink that has literally stopped moving in mid-air and hovers for a few minutes while the camera phone is revolving around it to debunk that it was a trick. My son and I enjoy going to graveyards with different pieces of equipment in an attempt to try to provoke something to do something either on a full spectrum video recorder or through a high-powered digital voice recorder. We have had some luck here and there that we just cannot explain. In your opinion what do you think is happening in all of these unusual videos?
Does it matter if we are similated if the result is the same for us whether we are or not and we can do nothing about it? Also in the trilemma, the 4th possiblity is that we can and do create simulations but we are not the simulation ourselves. Assuming consciousness is the same in a simulation as in 'real life' is a big ask. Consciousness is not binary. For instance my consciousness is different before I was born, and when I am asleep or 'drift' off and when awake.
In defense of NdGT: he's been quite a high profile sci communicator for quite a few years now. To a lot of budding intellectuals and fundies etc, he's like _the top dog_ to beat. So they do their best/worst during Q&A's, with philosophical trick questions, asked mostly in bad faith. He's still only(?!) human, and don't want his audience to be distracted from the main points he's trying to teach, so he gets salty, and does his best to cut the argument short. At least that's my interpretation, and I do get the feeling that he's getting more temperate and patient with age.
The technical capability argument of the simulation argument is kind of moot in my eyes. It is a lot easier to simulate a universe with fewer dimensions than your own. We may struggle to simulate a large 3D universe, but we could probably simulate a relatively large 2D universe. So what if the beings that simulate us simply reside in a universe with more dimensions? How fast would a 4D or even 10D computer be? You might not need much more than what we consider a desktop computer in a 10D universe to simulate a 3D universe.
Oh shit
One of the finest videos on this channel. I loved the opening where they clarify that its an argument and not a theory or scientific law as lots of other science communicators treat it as such.
The simulation argument makes a lot of assumptions about what technology is, but our understanding of computers is only based on just a very short timespan in which the speed innovation is only accelerating. How can we pretend to know what technology is in fifty years, let alone in centuries or even millenia?
The simulation doesn't have to be of the whole universe. It just has to be of the bits we are interacting with. It doesn't have to include things like the CMB, or quantum interactions, just the output of the instruments we use to look at them.
And maybe the simulation "forgets" things when we aren't looking at them, and when we look back it recreates them from basic principles. This accounts for things like the Mandela effect...the recreation isn't identical to the last time it was simulated.
Complete simulation requires that a computer, only containing a small subset of the particles in the universe, can simulate all the particles in the universe. This sound eerily similar to a perpetual motion machine. A simulated universe has to lose some detail or fidelity. It's not a rock solid argument against simulation hypothesis, but it should at least be an argument against "simulations all the way down".
Regardless, since we have no examples of any simulations even remotely similar to our universe, the default assumption should be not to accept that we live in a simulated universe.
It may be possible to know it. Maybe the JWST's version of the deep field photo will show us the really fine print of the simulation's EULA.
This the best podcast in the entire podcast universe. I have downloaded every single episode from iTunes and listened to them several times over. Keep up the great work. Love what you’re doing.
Who says the simulation needs to be 100% faithful for the argument to work? If we’re in a simulation we don’t know if it’s faithful to some real universe or not.
In a simulated universe, earthquakes happens when the machines doesn't work and someone hit it.
Maybe that's how we get gravity waves....
@@realkarfixer8208 There is some much jokes to make about a simulated universe.
I have a hard time separating philosophical and religious arguments on this subject. The reason is that if we actually did live in a simulation and could ever prove it, it would also prove a creator or creators of some kind. You can call that creator whatever you wish but I can't see much difference between simulation theory and belief in God. Both believe in a universe created by something from outside our reality, and both are untestable from our current level of reality.
Exactly so.
Arthur C. Clarke is famously quoted as saying "any sufficiently advanced technology cannot be distinguished from magic". -- For "magic" read "superstition" or "religion" or "intelligent design".
Ancient societies observed the world around them and they all reasoned that they lived in a "created" world. -- though each society then imagined what their"creators" looked like. Each ancient society created "god" (the creator) in their own image. -- the simulation hypothesis does the same thing. In our computerized world, we "create" the notion that the creator force is a supercomputer. -- all the while insisting this hypothesis is not religion. But the hypothesis seems to provide answers to the same questions as any religion: "how did we get here?" "what is our purpose here?" "what is our ultimate destiny?"
Exactly. Funny to see so many "smart people" get roped into this topic as if it is anything more than a scientific shell to believing in God or creators. Same exact idea. I just want people to realize it's a religious argument more than it is a scientific one.
Feels obvious that it would violate 2nd law of thermodynamics to simulate a universe "any cheaper" than just being that universe. So your computer would have to be bigger than the universe it is attempting to simulate. At that point, your simulation effectively just IS that universe, only worse, because it adds the extra bits to make it a simulation. The best you can do is the simulation == the reality.
Glad someone pointed out this breaks the 2nd law. Information = energy. Paul wants us to simulate it down to the tiniest level of information. Therefore the energy needed, even with perfect efficiency, is equal to the total energy in the universe.
Game developers do smart tricks to save computation cycles in games. Certain parts would be precisely simulated and some would be approximations. We should be able to detect small discrepancies. Some research had been done on the subject. I am not a supporter of simulation hypothesis.
The Simulation Hypothesis doesn't tell us anything. It's word salade.
Contradictory word salade at that.
It's religious on its scope and merit, it is not based on scientific data more philosophical quackery. Not a worthwhile concept to really take seriously scientifically.
Who says that we (humans) create the simulation at all?
Who says the creator's universe (non-simulated) is anything like ours?
Their universe could not even have stars, gravity or anything similar. This could all just be parameters inputted into the simulation to see what a universe would be like with those things.
Who says we were even intended or significant in their simulation?
We could be one of billions of "intelligent" lifeforms in the data stream. The purpose of it all may only be to see what the effects of "gravity" would have and they may not even care about the life forms created as a result.
I'm not saying I believe all this, these were just some of the questions that popped in my head while watching this. Great content as usual Paul!
Agree completely. Why is a human centrist view of existence the source of a simulation? Perhaps another existence is a billion times more complex and simulating our existence as easy as a child using building blocs.
My conclusion from watching the Mandelbrot set for nearly 2 hours is that 'they' want a solution to turbulence/chaos
Satisfying to see somebody qualified responding to the substance of Bostrom's argument!
Very thought provoking, I love it.
I confirm that you live in a simulation. I am currently preparing your next upgrade. If there is no bug you should see infrared next week. You are welcome.
I've thought about this deeply. I'm sure there would be rules where we can never figure it out, but explaining spooky action at a distance is impossible to do rationally . Also we could have been simulated 5 minutes ago and all of our memories are downloaded. Maybe this is the end of the world simulation and they wanna see how we acted? They being other alien civilisations exploring our ruins. Not finding any alien life would be another thing pointing towards simulation theory. We can't think of how they would do it with our technology , maybe they are higher demention and the computing power for our universe takes the power of an alien cell phone. The human brain is supposed to be more complex and powerful than most computers yet we can't remember what we did a year or two ago on a random date because that would take up too much data. I smoked all the weed today. Peace and love
Not finding alien life has nothing to do with simulation hypothesis. It just means that life in the universe is rare (it is as far as we can tell), and we haven't reached out far enough to have it because of the distance between galaxies. Anything and everything that exists could fundamentally be proof against or with the simulation argument, it's a dead end. You may as well just dissect Plato's Allegory of the Cave and invest in solipsism because it is a similar argument.
You mention a few times that Simulation Theory is not religious, however in Bostrom's paper, he draws analogies to religious traditions. Namely that there is a Creator, miracles, resurrection, judgment and an afterlife are all very real possibilities. Simulation Theory draws a direct parallel to the Islamic belief in The Preserved Tablet. The Record wherein the Creator wrote the universe.
"He has the keys to the unseen: no one knows them but Him. He knows all that is in the land and sea. No leaf falls without His knowledge, nor is there a single grain in the darkness of the earth, or anything, fresh or withered, that is not written in a clear Record." Quran 6:59
"But every thing have We computed, and written down" - Quran 78:29
"He has computed everything in a determinate number." Quran 82:28
I don't accept the assumptions.
I think the computational irreducibility principle precludes us from ever making an exact copy of the universe in a computer.
Much of the same philosophy can be applied to the thought experiment even if it is limited to "Reality as you perceive it is a simulation. Your consciousness alone is being simulated, and your perception of reality is computer generated." This would take much less computing power than simulating the entire universe, but the implications would be the same., or at least similar.
What about the possibility that simulations are possible, and we are the natural parent universe in which all simulations exist? It's very statistically unlikely given the premise that simulations are possible, but it's still a non-zero possibility.
Here is an adapted note I made on simulation a couple years ago:
I don’t like to talk much about simulations, because there is no sufficient evidence of it; aside from the fact that we have so many of our own simulations, but I would call that speculative, not sufficient evidence. This being said, if we were simulated, I see a few major issues. What stops our simulators from being simulated, and their simulators from being simulated, ad infinitum. Would this mean that all things are simulations inside simulations and it is impossible to trace the origin of any given simulation because there are an infinite number of them? So, from the most removed perspective, would it look like an interconnected web of simulations? If we were simulated, the creator could define our reality using a kind of L-System that gains more resolution and increases in complexity as you look closer into it, preventing us from ever being able to tell we are in a simulation. If we are simulated, the simulator could pause the program any time we provably figured out we were in a simulation, and reverse the damage. Lastly, it might be that the information that answers this question is not reachable, that there is some fundamental limitation on our ability to answer this question.
"I could be a clone. I could be a hologram. We could be clones controlled by robots controlled with special headsets that the real Rick and Morty are wearing while they're fucking your mother..."
A simulation of what? You need an outside reference point, by definition, for it to be a simulation. Otherwise it's just the universe.
A completely useless hypothesis.
Paul! Trilemma has two ems!
It's a groovy animation, too!
Came here to point that out also (spelling). Agree about the animation, too!
Bostrom's trilemma stops at option 1. As Paul correctly says, we'll never be able to build a computer to simulate the universe. The entire universe IS the final computer
Maybe we are a simulation, made by beings that don't have a complete theory of everything. Maybe we're their way of trying to work it out? [END OF LINE]
I loved the thought: "Questioning our assumptions is good and fruitful and is useful, coz it keeps us moving forward". And I would add to that that it makes us less biased 🙂
There are two things that I always hear in this discussion I don't understand.
First, that computers get powerful enough for the simulator to simulate the entire universe. But who on earth would simulate the entire universe? For us to be living in a simulated universe, the simulators would need simulate only the observations we can make. They don't need to simulate the Andromeda galaxy, only the radiation that we observe from the Andromeda galaxy. It could be, the reason Voyager is breaking down is that it's now approaching the edge of the simulation. This is important, because an argument against the simulation I always hear is that at some point, the computing power required to simulate a universe exceeds the energy available in the simulators' universe.
Second, the trilemma always assumes the presence of multiple instances of consciousness. But the evolution of conscious life might be way, way, way more difficult than anyone imagines, and we might be unique. Shouldn't we add to the trilemma, "No other instances of intelligent beings"?
It's funny that PBS Spacetime just released a video saying "if we ever want to simulate another universe, we won't need a computer bigger than the universe"
How To Simulate The Universe With DFT 13:28
Even if your computer is a vacuum-tube computer?
My perception is simulated by my brain based on sensory input and presumed sensory input, as your perception is based on your sensory inputs and presumed sensory inputs.
So, we all definitely live in our own simulations that are wholly unique to our mental acuity to consider that which is, and know it from that which is not, and what it all means to us if it means anything to us.
The only person who you understand about exactly what they mean when they talk about or write about or otherwise describe things and ideas and feelings and moods is yourself, everyone else you have to figure out through your perspective from their perspective--you must understand their sarcasm threshold and pain threshold--to assimilate their meaning and simulate it as your own.
That's the best way to break it down to a scientific concept that I've ever heard. It is much better this way than trying to fantasize some computer network or computer chips that quantify our reality. In the end, perception is reality no matter what initiates the connection, whether meat or by it metal.
The simulated universe does not need to be just like ours though, and it does not need to have the same physical laws as ours. It just needs to be complex enough to harbor conciousness.
Thia version is harder to motivate but still possible.
(I have edited a few possibilities in there, it's very open, with a nice conclusion ;-)
---
There could be more than this trilemma, maybe intelligent species might be able to simulate a giant universe, but we just dont live in one of those simulated universes, but in a real universe. (We would not know ;-)
----
I think that a simulated universe does not need to be as complex as a real universe (of course I could be wrong in anything and everything ;-). Maybe we live in a simulated universe, but a real universe is (typically - typically if we assume multiverses, maybe true, maybe not) more complex than ours. We would not know.
----
The simulated brains would not need to be as complex as real brains. Maybe the simulated brains are simplified, maybe we are simulated, but real brains might be even more complex than ours, we would not know ;-)
----
Maybe I am the only real brain in this simulated world (I don't think, it's this way, but what do I know ;-) and everything around me is simulated, also your response or non-responde is simulated, the simulated response could be "I know that I think, therefore I am" - or you could visit me in person, OK, it could just be a simulated response like everything around me already, I would not know ;-)
-----
But it would not really make a difference, because my actions have consequences, so I live as if it was real, that's the best bet that we all can do.
Live our lives, try not to harm others physically or mentally, try to live this way and let others smile when possible, I think, that would be a good life :-)
I'm glad you took the approach of questioning the base assumptions of the hypothesis, I always did the same and now I kinda feel vindicated.
Love your video.
Can you do one on where the universe is located?
What it is inside of, where it is next to, and if it is self encompassing, where is it self encompassed?
Or perhaps on what is nothing?
Not the nothing like 'no potato' . Or the distance of 0 between two objects,
but where there is a distance of greater than 0 of two objects but it is described as 'nothing' between them.
Why is there a location and volume of nothing?
(If there is such a thing as location).
You think that's cheese you're eating? Hm...
It seems that you can simulate the universe, but you can't get the same compute, so your simulated universe time will go slower compared to substrate universe. Simulated beings wouldn't notice, of course, but if something like a black hole or a star is your power source, it becomes relevant eventually and in practice it could put constraints on what you could pragmatically simulate before your energy source is lost to entropy. Either you limit the simulation temporally (simulate a universe like ours, but it will never become as old as ours will), or spatially (simulate a universe like ours, but put less stuff in it so you can calculate faster). You see this tradeoff all the time in computer simulations. For example, Universe Sandbox simulates gravity at a precision that degrades the more massive objects you put in the simulation at a given simulation speed OR the faster you want the simulation to go for a given number of objects, so that your CPU can maintain a framerate that users will find acceptably entertaining. And you can even graphically see it - the previously elliptical orbits will develop into obvious polyhedrons, planets will fly through each other, as simulation steps become grossly coarse. To get a solar system simulation to run at 1:1 speed with our real solar system, you cannot have anywhere remotely close to a solar system worth of massive objects. The simulation is far cruder. There are from a few dozen to at most a few hundred massive objects treated atomically to approximate the real solar system.
A more interesting corollary is, can we already create an artificial general intelligence? It is possible that with neural networks and modern evolutionary and genetic programming we already have the algorithms to do it, we just lack the compute to do it at scale quickly enough to see the results in what we would consider a reasonable timeframe. As with the universe you might choose to create an extremely detailed and complicated simulation with a gigantic neural capacity that, given enough time, within its simulated world, will eventually develop awareness, its equivalent of 'fire', 'tools', or whatever else we tweak the algorithm to encourage. It would just take way more time than we have to wait for it to get to that point. ;) Or you might choose to create much simpler simulations and AIs with pitifully tiny neural capacities that can run in acceptable timeframes but are far more rudimentary than the animal brains on Earth that have evolved over millions of years of universe-level compute, which is what we do now.
A modern computer just does not have the power to simulate even the tiniest of brains, but we still haven't scraped the bottom of the barrel when it comes to compute. Optical transistors or quantum computing might eventually make us efficient enough to evolve a human-level AI in a very short time. If our algorithms are right, and the neural connections they simulate are all that there is to it, of course.
Great discussion, thank you for sharing! :)
I just watched a PBS space time video that explains why a computer built using all the matter in the solar system could not fully simulate the electrons of a single iron atom. If full simulation is needed, then there is no possibility of a universe simulation inside our Universe.
Based on our 3 demensional world and the rules on which we live. What if they are in a higher demension with rules of physics and extra demensions we cant even imagine.
@@Mainely_Sota that is why I carefully said "inside our Universe". I did not exclude the possibility that we are simulated, only that no further recursion is possible.
1. Intelligent beings unable to create a simulation: unlikely - we wouldn't even need to simulate the whole universe, just individual experience. I just don't think we've got that far yet.
2. Can create but won't: even more unlikely. It only takes one.
3. We are in a simulation: not falsifiable. If we did figure it out, those controlling or even the simulation itself could rewind and prevent that knowledge.
It's an interesting thing but as you say, it's philosophy. Maybe even hope for some.
How about this, WHY would there be a simulation of an entire universe ??
Good point. Just because? There wouldn't be much need from a scientific perspective to actually gauge every single conscious thought of every single human born if they were researching specific events in history. We wouldn't need sentience... which brings us back around to the free will argument. All of this just loops back around to the very basic constructs of philosophy, not really something that should have a place in science outside of a fun debate.
The assumption that a simulation would need to replicate everything at a quantum granular level presupposes an actual physical universe….it is the same physicalist (local realism) trap that is not allowing us to think beyond this classical physical framework of reality. If the simulation is based not on the gargantuan replicated totality of all physical objects but is instead just purely a subjective experiencing phenomena that is being simulated then the “zooming effect” is absolutely possible-allowing minimal computational rendering for strictly each simulated observer’s subjective experience.
It’s not philosophy as in theory it can be tested. There’s already a lot of speculation about the idea that the two slit experiment results in apparent randomness because it applies to detail which has yet to be rendered, for example. If we take rendering to be similar in « this » simulation as it would be on any computer simulation, there would be a relation between the observer and the observed in that it saves data not to render an area of the universe unless it is being observed. Equally, there are signs of error correcting algorithms applying to the universe and these are similar to what you get in complex computer programs. We may not have evolved a final yes or no test as yet but the theory could be tested in principle.
and especially: who cares if we live in a simulation? Would it change anything? Probably not, so let's enjoy what we have until we can break out of the simulation and alter it the way we prefer.
My simulation argument (version) ends in a pentalemma, my girlfriend's version ends in a multilemma.
Issac Asmov: "not enough data for a meaningful answer.."
Ties up loose ends nicely (of all strings)...
Goto goto 😊
Five wasn't enough for her? Thumbs up for the Asimov quotation. One should note about "The Last Question" that he disapproved of theists' use of that quotation in their "apologies". They never got the joke.
Asimov a lifelong favorite. I actually know someone who knew him well enough to say hello regularly. He was always the gentleman, so the story goes.
That short story always fascinated me enough remember the ending (punch) line. It was classic Asimov.
..smart man who was smart enough to know he didn't know everything, which is a plus ..imv.
He just could sense where to take things to open queasy social questions. It was enough and it was plenty. Hats off to the man .
It's not a trilemma.
There are many more options.
It's word salade.
Midnight at the Well of Souls, a planet sized computer.
Consciousness is a product of deliberate movement
God?
@@dogmd7 acquiring sustenance,moving to where the food is
I guess the question for the simulation would be fidelity. If it is going to be an approximation of the real world, well we can already do it... If it will simulate the reality on a say, molecular level it could be feasible, but to simulate on a subatomic level, the computational power needed may be equal to a computer the size of the universe? It may even form a blackhole because the needed amount of energy would be too big... Maybe things like the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the speed of light and time dilation are indications for this computational restrictions? anyway, doesn't make a difference in the end, I guess.
only other option is to compress the information of the universe using some yet undiscovered mathematical magic formula in a lossless manner. But the compressed information would also collapse into a blackhole... unless the host universe operates on a total different set of rules..
Planck Length, Speed of Light, Absolute Zero could all be testable artifacts that we are living in a simulation.
Or could not to be. (:
Fantastick I do agree with you 100%
Being in a simulation could explain why history repeats itself... :-)
Separately, we should look at why someone(s) would create a simulation. It wouldn't be just to duplicate the universe. It would be to consider what-if scenarios, as a game, for forecasting, etc. And from there we would consider whether the entire universe needs simulation or just subsets that are imortant to the purpose. So if we are in a simulation, we might only be experiencing the subset of the real universe that is useful to the creator. That addresses the argument that the resource of the entire universe or more, are needed to duplicate it. Also not addressed is how much independence and free will the simulation allows. Whether a star goes nova, a particle decays, or a decision we make, could all be triggered by a joy stick somewhere. So to consider if we are in a simulation, we might need to also consider for what purpose (and I am not alluding to any religious arguments, just considering why someone would make or use a simulation seems an important part of whether or not they exist and our being in one.)
History repeats because people are the same. Also, things rarely repeat exactly in the same way.
Sounds lot like religious dogma to me. Just substitute "simulation" with "God" and there you go. Don't get too lost in the sauce my guy. Live your life.
@@dogmd7 I ignore the religious undercurrent. However, how do I know that you haven't been programmed to tell me to not get lost in the sauce? 🙂
Very good, like always!
I am a scientist (I have a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering) but I have studied enough history to know that every branch of Science originated in Philosophy. Science was originally called Natural Philosophy. The process is that any given branch of science "splits" from Philosophy when that field of study becomes robust enough to stand alone; this tends to make "Pure Philosophers" appear to be a bunch of lazy "do-nothings". I was quite disappointed to hear that Niel Degrasse Tyson ridicules Philosophy. If I know the historical role that Philosophy has played in creating all of the branches of science that we have today, he certainly should.
Fun fact, philosophy is the root of everything, according to Wikipedia. If you start on any wikipedia page at all, picked at random, and click the first hyperlink in the first paragraph not in parenthesis, then on the page that the link takes you to do the same, and onward and onward it will inevitably land you on philosophy, no matter where on wikipedia you start.
Our simulated universe defects:.missing matter and energy, singularities, incompatible Gravity with quantum, uncertainty principle, matter duality, mystery of caramilk, extra dimensions requises for strings, fermi Paradox and why shepperd pie reheated left over is better ... Good proof of concept but not ready for market.
Our "vital experience" consist of perceptions, ideas, concepts, feelings, beliefs, etc.,
all function of our mind. We cannot "reach"/know anything "directly", all has to pass
thru our mind. The idea that there exist an "external" (to our mind) reality is just
an hypothesis impossible to verify (all that we can think goes thru our mind), more,
the existence of other minds is just an UN-verifiable hypothesis.
So the most simple view that can explain it all is that only my mind exists, all other
things are just functions/phenomena of my mind. (This is SOLIPSISM).
To "get out" of solipsism, it is necessary to make some assumptions about what do you
admit as criteria to say if some mental model (set of related hypothesis) is valid or
not.
I say that, not because I "believe" in solipsism, but because. in a way, the simulation
hypothesis brings the idea that we are "trapped" in our minds. But we do not need to
resort to any computer to think in something much deeper, simple and impossible to
falsify: "only my mind exists".
I love how your statements are logically and rational. I do not see no holes in your statements
I see a parallelism with panspermia that tries to elude the unresolved question of earth abiogenesis just shifting the problem somewhere else...
Simulation hypothesis does it on a cosmological scale: why are we here? Why universe behaves like that? If this was a simulated universe these questions do have an answer... But what about the organic universe of our ancestors (or at the top of the chain)?
I apply Ockham's razor aka principle of parsimony: it's easier to think we live in an organic universe (even if we cannot disproof the contrary).
A computer the size of a planet? You know where we're going with this.
I'll see you in Second Life. Unless we're already there.
If we are a part of a simulation, it does not automatically follow that we are the object of the simulation. We could simply be system artefact.
First - The computer that creates the simulation can't be IN the simulation. Second - consciousness exists outside the simulation and can't be simulated.
My intuition is that such a simulation is not possible without infinite free energy
We are in a box, learning to be ourself. Period. Text me.
The simulated consciousness doesn't have to be anything like the consciousness that created it. How boring would that be. If I could simulate consciousness, I'd try to create as many different sorts of consciousness as I could.
Agree. The issue with ‘philosophy’ is it is almost always anthropomorphic and unable to recognize this.
An argument in favor: When "THEY" let you go to sleep, your mind creates a sub-simulation, it's called dreams.
An argument against: What would be the purpose of having a simulation of a child born with defects? To see how the parents cope? I don't think so. We are real, this is not a simulation but shit just happens.
I have a question. What is the difference between the simulation and reality, anyway? How wrong will it be, logically, if I say that our reality is a simulation by the quantum fields and space-time?
Lemme explain, as per we understand, the reality arises from the quantum fields, and their interaction and the curvature of space-time. In a simulation, the "simulated reality", similarly arises from digital entities like say classes, objects, functions etc. What is the difference between these two?
There is no qualitative difference, just purely philosophical.
A thought that regularly occurs to me is that if people can believe everything is a simulation, how can they sit there and say religion in general is a laughable concept? Wouldn't a simulated existence be literal proof of higher power?
I feel like the brain is like a ps5 that only comes with one game. But this ps5 has the power to duplicate itself. So imagine the same game being able to be played on ps5 xbox Nintendo etc. all the different gaming systems represent different species that still play this same game. The soul is like plugging up the controller to play. Once you start the game you can’t come out, you don’t know anything other than the game, you only have one life. How else could all this stuff exists around us, the brain is made perfectly to perceive and share this realm with our duplicates. THE CREATOR IS HIGHLY HIGHLY INTELLIGENT! He is outside the game separate from the hands of time. We can’t figure out who made the simulation because that’s like super Mario finding out who created Nintendo from inside the game, it’s boundaries to what you can learn from inside of a simulation.
Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream.
Would not the existence of transcendental numbers be an argument against being in a simulation?
They could simulate and were capable, however you are real in the traditional sense.
People in Web3 and NFT communities are already doing this
it is not only the three options, there is also a fourth, everything that the theory says is correct, we humans do not make the matrix, but the aliens
*here, I put forth more philosophy, not a scientific theory that would lead people to believe that I need to be committed to The nut House.* Perhaps the reason we have been unable to find a theory of everything is because our universe is itself an imperfect approximation of the universe in which our simulation was created.
Ever try talking about this with your 70 year old dad? Lol
How about we live in a box that we all want to be in , because we want to get to know ourselves. When we get out, we get to be ourselves.
Interesting
it doesn't say we are in simulation, it says there's a high chance we are simulated.
The idea that the creator universe may be of more dimensions seemed compelling at first, but then I thought, what would simulating a universe of less dimensions tell them about themselves. Presumably nothing unless it was just a stepping stone on their way to an attempt to simulate faithfully their own universe or unless its for entertainment value, kind of like a universe sized video game. Also the idea that maybe they are not simulating each particle in the universe, but just simulating experiences was interesting, but then I thought, there are 5 billion consciences in the world so it seems like simulating all their experiences in real time would be a bigger job then just defining and creating each particle as an object, let them interact and see what happens. The only caveat to the second thing is that, in truth, I'm really only sure that I exist. I'm not 100% sure that the rest of you exist, perhaps I am the simulation and the rest of you just exist long enough to interact with me. You can tell me you exist, but maybe you are just programmed to do so haha! No I'm not smoking a lot of weed, lol, just a philosophical thought, and I'm probably not the first one to have it, maybe it was Descartes, unless it's true because people who don't actually exist, even as a simulation, can't have thoughts. (the odd thing is that each person who is sure that they exist, can say the same thing, and the whole thing devolves into rhetoric and circular reasoning)
Who's the spaceman being asked
Once again sir, a brilliant presentation! My science background is biology. I am always fond of philosophy. Your explanation of theory is very interesting and to me, very clear. It all has to ‘sit’ comfortably within those of us who ask ? For me, we are NOT in a simulation. The complexities of biological systems in nature and their interactions within are far too complicated and they have to act independently. Add in a factor of billions of cells acting in different ways and that’s just one example of living organisms. The computer dynamics to operate a planetary system full of functioning healthy billions of humans AND. ALL. of the organisms of earth alone ? Let alone a solar system then tack along a galaxy oh , and a few others and make a universe before placing humans on it ? think some theories are just too outrageous. AI capability yes . But not complete worlds. Not biologically functioning. It is just too complex.
A Play Station 10 could simulate my life. Eating hot dogs and wind surfing, some girls. You Tube sims would be harder.
wow, 26 minutes of simulation 😊, may be speed of light may be the factor that some thing is restricting travelling in space to see other planets in the life time of human and aliens , if they exist.
Why believe in a fantasy hypothesis when I can believe in a nearly unavoidable Created universe.
My daughter and I came to this theory independent of each other at roughly the same time. I know that there is a "creator", but I do not know what that intelligence is. Before we were born, we were all unaware. Perhaps when we die we will return to that same state!
Simulation is no better, no more convincing explanation than creation.
You start from the assumption that WE, from our 'reality' should do the simulation. Why would that be so? Why wouldn't it be possible because we cannot do it?
Great beard
Whether or not it's possible for us to answer that question, does it matter either way? I think not, so I don't care. There are more interesting questions, but it's always helpful to stumble upon a new area of study which we know in advance is a bottomless rabbit hole. We still have to get to the grocery store before picking up the kids from practice. And I'm fixing that dripping faucet tonight come Hell or high water.
Can the simulator simulate itself?
I hope I am a simulation because it gives me the only chance I can think of at immortality.
How do you know you don't take rebirths? People always pushing 'meat creates consciousness' but there's no science proving that.
@@alwaysdisputin9930 I don't know that meat/simulation holds consciousness but it seems very likely to me at least.
@@chrissscottt I agree it's being held. But that's different from our brain of this life creating consciousness. Thus rebirths might be a thing & immortality's possible even if this isn't a simulation
When you assume the earth will still be here tomorrow.
Computers don't get bigger and bigger. In fact they become smaller and smaller.
If I was a conscious machine of sufficient intelligence, I would decide that simulating meat was inefficient. It's slower and weaker than I would be.
This is a great video and I am absolutely fascinated by the simulation hypothesis. I am not a philosopher but I do have a very open mind on many different topics. Two of my most favorite shows that I enjoy watching are paranormal caught on camera and unexplained caught on camera. Some of the videos that are shown are paranormal investigators that have experienced something while investigating a location. Afterwards they have experts offering up their opinion of the different videos. The videos that I find the most credible are the ones that were not doing any type of investigation yet unexplainable things are happening. Many of them are home security cameras or cameras that have been set up to try to figure out why something had been happening while the tenant or owner was sleeping or gone all day at work. There have also been quite a few videos where something happens that defies any scientific explanation. An example I will use is a soap bubble that came from a person doing dishes in the sink that has literally stopped moving in mid-air and hovers for a few minutes while the camera phone is revolving around it to debunk that it was a trick. My son and I enjoy going to graveyards with different pieces of equipment in an attempt to try to provoke something to do something either on a full spectrum video recorder or through a high-powered digital voice recorder. We have had some luck here and there that we just cannot explain. In your opinion what do you think is happening in all of these unusual videos?
I don't need a simulated universe but a simulated , How can put this ....companion? That looks like a young Bridget Bardot
Loved the video & your work keep it up. Solipsism is where my brain breaks. Only thing I know to exist is me. A scary thought
Solipsism is bunk. Aging and disability are proof that people's consciousness is a material phenomenon.
Does it matter if we are similated if the result is the same for us whether we are or not and we can do nothing about it?
Also in the trilemma, the 4th possiblity is that we can and do create simulations but we are not the simulation ourselves.
Assuming consciousness is the same in a simulation as in 'real life' is a big ask.
Consciousness is not binary. For instance my consciousness is different before I was born, and when I am asleep or 'drift' off and when awake.
What Universe ?
Yes we "live" in simulation.
In defense of NdGT: he's been quite a high profile sci communicator for quite a few years now. To a lot of budding intellectuals and fundies etc, he's like _the top dog_ to beat. So they do their best/worst during Q&A's, with philosophical trick questions, asked mostly in bad faith. He's still only(?!) human, and don't want his audience to be distracted from the main points he's trying to teach, so he gets salty, and does his best to cut the argument short. At least that's my interpretation, and I do get the feeling that he's getting more temperate and patient with age.
IMO: I get more from watching Paul Sutter than Neil deGrasse Tyson
Simulations are always built upon real laws of physics.
6:44 Hypnosis is not pseudoscience.