Do we live in a simulation? | David Kipping and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • David Kipping: Alien C...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com...
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get free trial
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com... to get 3 months free
GUEST BIO:
David Kipping is an astronomer at Columbia University, director of the Cool Worlds Lab, and host of the Cool Worlds UA-cam channel.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/uZN5xjoS6TU/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: David Kipping is an astronomer at Columbia University, director of the Cool Worlds Lab, and host of the Cool Worlds UA-cam channel.
"Not a chance" I say to myself as I watch this and play The Sims in the background
U have a star in sim above ur avatar. U have star in the sky
Are you really comparing a Sims game to a simulation of a whole universe and more
@@CrnogorskiNacionalista compare . Not same
When people say simulation, do they actually mean they think they are a computer program created by artificial intelligence, or do they mean their mind the only thing that is “living” and everything we can experience through our 5 senses is really just an outward projection from our own brain? (That is, people or objects don’t exist except us.)
@@tonyg5132 not artificial intelligence. Brain is in the game. Its just an receiver
Imagine if you made the simulation and were watching people debating whether they're in one
Kind of like what parents do..
Imagine you were God and made everything and you’re watching people debate whether you exist
I mean look at games like SecondLife it has its own economy and even people who sell digital real estate, clothes etc. People who play it can and do let it consume them. I could definitely see this having happened on a much larger scale. I couldn't tell you if this current experience is real or not. And technically all I know is the data and sensation that gets put into my brain and then my brain tells me what that means.
And you know what else.... I've never even seen my brain. I just assume its there because someone else told me it's inside my skull .
So what even is reality. And what's yours. Pretty much just what ever you are experiencing at this moment is reality. Whos to say it all isn't a big trick or a facade and something is happening somewhere behind it all
I contemplate this everyday… unfortunately
Imagine you're the guy in the simulation who made another simulation, and is watching people in *that* simulation argue about whether they're in a simulation.
*simulationception*
Such a pleasure to listen to this guy. Here and on Cool Worlds.
The scariest thing wouldn't be that we live in a simulation, but the possibility that in that simulation you are the only human/player and everybody else is an AI from strangers to your love ones. They you really would be alone in this universe.👀
we here to fuck with you homie, beware
It should bring you some comfort that I've had the exact same thought.
This doesnt make sense. Why would everyone be an AI except you??
@@orbit1894 it makes plenty sense. You just don’t get it because you’re obviously a stupid AI, while I’m the only human.
Alright I confess, I made this simulation so I wouldn’t feel alone but it didn’t work because I realized you’re all npcs
Oh yeah, I can just imagine:
*Humans develop technology that can run advanced simulations*
Humans: "Nah, we're good"
Yeah, I commented in detail on this above.. That's impossible.. Heh.. We would absolutely positively do it and use Ancestor Sim's is we had the capability to do it. We would absolutely do it.
if anything can simulated then everything is simulated.
We are not bodies. We are beings having a human experience.
You are God wearing infinite masks playing hide and seek with itself.
Imagine dipping your penis in cold water water then stroking it very sternly woth slightly warm cocunt oil.
In front of a mirror
@@SqueeblesMcklooflin I am the Walrus
@@joshlongmusic LMAO! 🤣
It seems that the 2022 Nobel Prize awarded to the physicists who were able to prove the violation of Bell’s Inequalities demonstrates that the entire Universe consists of information originating from a singular point, or singularity; and thus, all of time and space are an illusion rendered by our ability to interface and interpret that information. This intuitively seems similar to information on a microchip, or potentially what we think of as a black hole. We may not live in an ancestral simulation, which seems absurd to me, but it does seem likely that we do live in some form of complex simulation.
As soon as they said that everything is information it implies a simulation. So does QM. As does the anthropic principle.
To me the Planck length is the pixel
If I'm in a simulation it's the most boring ass simulation possible. 💯
Why? Don’t you have any skills, passions, or goals? What is so boring about it?
I could understand bad or painful situations, but boring confuses me deeply.
@Anthony B I mean life is monotonous. Work-sleep-eat-repeat type of thing. Why would that be a life you'd bother simulating?
@@nickgoodlock263 Who said your life has to be this way?
@Steve M my point is if everyone was going to choose to live in a simulation. Surely we would expect to be living our best life or in some epic situation. There's no reason to simulate a life in a small town with very little opportunity and in a financial position where you have no choice but to work 7 days a week.
@@nickgoodlock263 If we would live inside a simulation, I dont think it would be simulated for our cause and instead we would be just biproducts of it. Simulated universes would probably be made to test different physics and also to test the simulators own physical theories to see if they are correct. If they tested their own physical theories with a simulation it would make sense that life would develop in it because they, themselves are alive in a universe with the same physical laws, real or not.
Unless the creators of the simulation provide the information that allows its discovery, we will never be able to catagorically state that we are or are not simulated. Our code may be intentionally limited in scope. In the same way that NPC's in current video games are not aware of the reality of the players and cannot comprehend 'human' and 'life'.
But NPCs are only limited in scope because we thus far are only able to make them so complex, with advances in technology we will make them as complex and smart as we can. I mean that's the entire point of a simulation right, to be as close as possible to the original base reality. We wouldn't want to limit their potential , we don't learn anything new that way.
OK, how is this theory at all different from the discussion of whether God exists? I see no difference between the conversations. If that is the case, then why don't we see people apply Hitchen's razor to this discussion very much?
@@SublimeWanderers I suppose it's all to do with what's likely to be true, so we already make computers, we haven't built them yet but we can envisage much more powerful ones that can be linked, we already simulate everything already, a ship in the ocean is simulating the weather for a safe cost effective journey, a kid playing GTA has a simulation of a city in his bedroom, neurologists simulate brain activity. So all these things already exist. And in the future we could have millions of programs running that each contain millions of AI's NPCs that are just as smart as you or I inhabiting a world that's virtually identically complicated as ours. So it has all that and more going for it. But God ..... There is zero reason to believe any of what's in those books are true, and even if we and our universe were created, doesn't mean it's by some god, it could be just an alien kid running a homework assignment on his computer.
@jedaaa yeah what you just said sounds a lot like deism. "God exists he's just a kid playing with his computer as a homework assignment" not particularly different from Constantine "God is a kid with an Ant farm" a story that includes the existence of God. It seems to me like "Simulation Theory" has taken the idea of God and attached programmer language to theological concepts, and now we have a bunch of self declared "atheists" asking the God question. Theism is the belief in God. Each specific religious text then ascribes attributes to the creator. There have always been people who suggest God doesn't actually care about humans. If I can dismiss the existence of God by saying "what can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence," why can't I say that to simulation theory? Keep in mind that arguing about the nature of existence has always been part of a Theistic argument for the existence of God. I don't really mind if people believe in simulation theory, but it perplexes me that people don't realize they are talking about "what the nature of God is" AND that they would have to throw out the disdain for other Theists believing in God.
@@SublimeWanderers Sure, I have no problem with that, I find simulation theory a fascinating prospect but it's not something I'd wed myself to without evidence. It just seems vastly more likely than a god, whatever that even is/means
Ive def witnessed many things in my 35 years on this planet to have my suspicions
The lower level simulations could just run at a lower tick rate, like a gear reduction, and have the same fidelity. People running at a slower simulation speed wouldn't notice since time is relative.
Let’s just say we found out by tomorrow that we were in a simulation.. I honestly feel like we would just keep going to work & do our normal tasks.
Would it make any difference if we live in a simulation or not? In both outcomes one could believe (or not) that there is a contiguous mind in the "afterlife".
My same exact same thoughts, is almost like a religion.....we could be playing a game as far as we know, and that is also a theory,
@@itsalive1488 afterlife is still in the simulation. And it shows u see what u wanna see and lure u back in to life. It's called reincarnation
@@cupidok2768 reincarnation is another idea that implies a simulation. Once you know that we are in one it comes right out of the initial conditions. There is a lot that can be learned about it by observing the results.
@@ronaldreagan5981 told u so
@@cupidok2768 I wrote a book about this in 17,and this was one of my conclusions. There is a lot of evidence for the simulation if you are interested.
the bottom layer won't necessarily be pixelated, but it will process a lot slower (perhaps few order of magnitude more time step in the upper layer for one time step in the bottom layer) , but the conscious being inside it would never notice it because their thought process and physics are also slowed based on the time step.
The whole top down things implies that there is total free will. It doesn't seem that there is. It would be easy to guide us away from a secondary sim,or to not allow one in the coding. But we are definitely on a sim.
Maybe we are travelling through the cosmos right now over thousands of light year's and we are put into a simulation whilst travelling, living thousands of lives before we reach our destination.
The logical flaw in his argument is at 5:47
"Each layer is necessarily going to have less computational power then the layer above it."
See this is not true...experiments have proven and shown that this isn't true and Stephan Wolfram's Principle of Computational Equivalence is the exact statement, that systems perform computation at a maximally complex ceiling (Turing universality).
If you really think about what a Turing machine does, a Turing machine can produce Turing machines within it, therefor both can simulate the other...and the limit of that simulation is "all computable functions."
If you live in a universe that has a Turing machine inside of it, then the universe is Turing universal, and therefor, the universe is highly likely to be a simulation. This does not mean that simulation is somehow "separate" from reality...it is more the case that reality IS fundamentally computational and that simulation is a feature of scale invariance in the universe's operation. Even if it was performing on "slower hardware" at the right scale you wouldn't notice that it is slow, because time is relative to your perception of time and the events that occur through it (space).
There's an interesting Minecraft video, where they of course, simulate Minecraft inside of Minecraft. In that video, they have to x2 million the speed of the simulation in order to see the simulation in a time frame we understand. Obviously if we were beings that had a different sense of time (experiencing time at a different scale...), that is how we would perceive it, and as the universe grows in complexity, time will remain relative to the information content and computation taking place. Think about a super fast particle, like a photon and how it would experience watching that Minecraft simulation...it would appear to play normal time to that particle, and our original Minecraft game would actually be just incredibly faster.
So you disagree with him by agreeing with him? Watch the video again Einstein and re-read what you wrote.
@F H You're right in that I didn't fully recognize what his position was. However, the reasoning still places a hole in his own 50/50 model. The argument is that the sewer reality hypothesis contradicts simulation hypothesis and that argument is based on the assumption that each layer of simulation has less computational power than the previous. I said in my first paragraph that that assumption is wrong. Every simulation must have THE SAME computational power because of Turing universality being true. Because Turing universality exists in our universe (we are typing on Turing universal computers as we speak) then all subsequent universes must also be Turing universal and therefor able to compute all computable functions, including the universe itself (because if Turing machines exist in the universe, then the universe is itself Turing universal)
The 2nd part of my comment was that additionally, even if sewer reality hypothesis was true the agents in that reality wouldn’t be able to tell that their universe had less computation power than any other reality because the perception of time and space is RELATIVE to the agents inside that reality.
In both cases the argument against simulation hypothesis based on that assumption is wrong. The first counter proof is the strongest because we know Turing universality even in its finite case is true, the second counter proof asserts that space time is invariant under Lorentz transformation which is scientifically established. Both counter arguments are strong arguments. In order for the sewer reality hypothesis to be upheld means proving space time relativity false AND proving Turing Universality false.
If you are wondering how to prove Turing universality false, you need to be able to solve the halting problem (proving that all Turing machines will halt). Why? Because like he said, the sewer reality has to be incapable of making further simulations...meaning that a Turing machine must be impossible to make there, and therefor the halting problem would be solvable in that sewer reality (that all Turing machines halt). So
A) we don't live in a sewer reality because the halting problem isn't solvable
B) we don't live in a sewer reality because Universal Turing machines exist, and we use them.
C) The assumption that each layer has less computational power must be false, because if it was true, then sewer realities must exist and therefor means the halting problem must be solvable which is false.
You're right in that Kipping does state that Sean Carrol's argument within Bostrom's Setup of the problem leads to contradiction. I'm here pointing out that Carrol's argument is an open and shut case of being baloney, and that there is no support for a 50/50 model, that it's a 0/100 model in favor of simulation.
I do state that simulation is misunderstood and that it's not our universe is being run in some nerd's basement, but rather that computation is fundamental and is a symmetry feature of our universe (That our universe computes all computable functions over infinite time, meaning it will produce Turing machines that also compute all computable functions over infinite time, making all Turing machines isomorphic/invariant constructs to one another). Wolfram's statement about Computational Equivalence gives a lot more incite into why that equivalence is true, along with the experiments he produced to prove that.
"All worlds are predetermined (spirit worlds/other realms); there is no individual self. It's a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, and so on. The ONE appears as all of this (awareness, consciousness, God), and you are that."
So, if I understood this correctly, the logic is: either we're in a scenario in which such simulations occur, or we're not. There's a 50% chance for each. But even if we're in a scenario in which such simulations do occur, there's a slight chance we're in the base reality, which means that the chance we're in a simulation has to be somewhat under 50%.
But isn't that an artefact of the phrasing? If we're in the scenario in which siulations occur, there would be a vast number of sims, similar to us, and if we're not special, there's a greater chance that we're sims, than that we're not.
-“We live in a simulation”
-“Prove it”
-“Oh…”
End of segment
Feel like I’m watching the first day of a 100 level philosophy course on repeat.
This podcast is awesome. I'm glad there is an intelligent conversation like this on UA-cam. Y'all please use your superhuman brains for good. Much thanks🙃
I mean, since early childhood I’ve intuitively assumed that we are in a simulation. Long before I knew about computers and simulation and philosophy. And to this day I can’t even conceive of what the alternative could be. Like what, you’re seriously going to tell me this real. What does that even mean? But maybe I’m just nuts.
Same I was shocked this was a theory I thought of it a nine, and was sure if it at 12 everything just makes sense but it'll take long for me to explain, but simulation isn't necessary what people think it is
Whether we develop the ability to or choose to one day 'do' a simulation like Mr. Kipping lays out shouldn't be a factor in the equation. We have no way of knowing the capabilities or factors involved in the decisions of whatever it is that created the simulation we would be living in. Trying to factor in what our capabilities are or our choice to create a simulation has zero bearing on whether we are in one or not.
Exactly. To assume that someone advanced enough to make one would think exactly like us is just plain ignent.
Lex you should interview JOHN MICHAEL GODIER…exo-planets, Astro-biology, radio astronomy, SETI…
9:00 I'm not sure if I should be excited or concerned about that idea, probably more concerned
I think the main problem with the simulation theory argument is that the assumptions don't consider the impossibility/improbability of the engineering due to physics and resource requirements. First, the notion that an indistinguishable simulation of the universe could be created is, I think, tenuous. Even with some clever programming tricks, the resources required would be astronomical. Beyond that, even if it were possible, each subsequent simulation would have less resources available than the previous. You'd probably have an exponential decline in the quality of the simulation to the point that, after just a few levels deep, it wouldn't be lifelike at all. You have to deal with things like availability of silicon, thermal regulation, general loss of energy due to inefficiency, etc. I just don't see nested lifelike simulations as viable.
What would make the case that WE never are able or willing to produce a simulated reality indistinguishable from our accepted reality have any bearing on whether a prior civilization has produced a simulation in which we currently exist? In other words, just because we could exist inside a Matryoshka doll series of simulations, there seems nothing in that which would lead automatically to our creating the same and the lack of a simulation going forward doesn't negate the possibility of being in one.
I don't understand why people think a simulation would need to be infinitely complex and everything would need to be running at once. I always assumed it would be optimized like a video game and only calculate and render the things it needs to at a time. For instance it would only need to render the room you're in now and not what is outside of it until you went outside. Bathrooms save a ton of processing power 😂 The rest would be determined by random seeds and fed back into memories whether it actually happened or not, we would all be updated to believe the events had taken place.
The biggest misunderstanding about our simulation, is that the actual universe bears any resemblance at all to our sim. Nothing about this sim indicates the nature of the true reality.
There are a lot of overlapping considerations between simulation theory and the Fermi paradox (great filter solution). 2 different sides of the same coin 🪙 The farther you lean towards a great filter, the farther you go from the simulation conjecture
very true
A slight qualification/reversal from my post here of 3 days ago: Our brain simulates reality by being highly correlated (physiology-wise) to important aspects of reality; whereas, another part of our brain appreciates the simulation of the brain world-model, by being "conscious" of it (i.e., finding the meaning in the simulation) and acting accordingly (e.g., flight, fight, or other, like stopping at #RED traffic lights). Brains in vats (that is brains in bodies) can ONLY live in simulated reality, but our evolution constrains the simulation to be similar (within evolutionary variation) for the individuals of the species. In other words, God might give meaning to existence; however, existence most certainly DOES give meaning to every video game that is or will ever be created, and therefore the ultimate meaning of any higher-level simulation built on existence. You do have to treat the "standard" (aka brain in body) model of reality as axiomatically true; however, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will remain an a-simulationist, except for the evolved standard model.
So if we can't create simulated worlds, we must be in one?
Why does there have to be a limit on the computing power though? That’s only based on our current understanding of how things work. Who’s to say a whole new way of computing won’t exist that won’t have limitations?
I'm dizzy. Did Rhianna drop her new album yet?
Holy cow, pixelated?
if a species could simulate an entire universe, how did they not make it past low resolution first?
I’m still just figuring out how to do laundry
Ok so those who say "If I found out all this was a simulation, I am not going to work etc.."
Well seeing how incredibly ultra realistic the simulation is... Then you will really enjoy the "Living under the bridge in a box eating pigeons" simulation. The " 10-20 years in prison not paying your taxes" simulation...
I agree with alot but who's to say that the computational power wouldn't be infinite. Gotta stop thinking completely from a human mind. They could have the power to power all the simulations that branch from the one.
Even in a world that is totally operated in VR - wouldn't you still need some people that aren't in the VR world to monitor it, repair it, improve it etc?
that's what AI is for.
@@mikeellchuk3787 Singularity Net (AGIX)
Not to mention that your biological "real" instance still needs to eat, drink,,shit,work out... That's not just a mere detail, it's a nuclear torpedo that sinks the whole ship
Consciousness
It's not vr. There are no bodies. All in a computer.
What's crazy is to think about if simulation does happen someday, think about how silly they'll think of us debating this topic today 😅
When you smoke dmt, PROPERLY, you know the truth
We are the sewer but once we get our simulations powerful enough they will be the sewer and we will rise to tier 2.
More like Existenz film w/Jude Law & Jennifer Jason Leigh which came out slightly before Matrix
Lex have you ever noticed how the smartest people are so against simulation theory? I think that is nothing but ego. That can't possibly be true, because then my big brain and status would be irrelevant. Well...isn't that the entire point? The big bang was someone turning on their screen and logging in to play this crazy sim. If you want to call the user God, that is on you. But I prefer to keep hunting for more information. At least we still have that ability. Although the game does seem to updating in the background more frequently...I wonder what that could mean? Oh well, I will make a note to investigate that in my journal. Till we next talk my friend. Keep the hunt for truth alive and well.
I’m glad you state that musk is not smart 😉.
Simulation theory is just speculation or a thought experiment. Unless we have evidence that’s all it will remain.
@@kentonian Yeah that is kind of how all things get proven over time. Thanks for stating the obvious.
I agree it's scary because it takes away their seemingly inherent uniqueness to, well it's all design and you're just masturbating
If the dream is dreaming the dreamer?
Its not an option not to develop a simulation world, its like saying nuclear bombs could have not been developed, someone will develop these things because technology moves forward the same as greed.
It isn't a computer simulation, it's the whole universe dreaming itself into existence. We are part of the universe's dream.
Or the memory of the past being played back
Which is a simulation
If the universe dreamt itself into being it would be less mathematically precise, the matter and space would be continuous without limits. Reality rather seems computational than natural at the quantum level.
IMO, being agnostic about any level of life in the universe is the same as too many expressing agnosticism about other planets existing (see 80s, even in beginning of 90s).
I think the burden of proof shifts the opposite way, instead. Kind of like saying "I have to be agnostic that there exists any other solar system with an asteroid belt at last similar as ours in-between Mars & Jupiter." To hold the position that very well may not be true, given countless stars -- is an error.
Life appearing on Earth so swiftly after it was cooling off only shows it's not that difficult, for basic forms of life. But what if we got lucky and it delivered it here from somewhere else carrying it? Okay, even worse to be agnostic about it -- it came from somewhere else - lol.
The real issue is complex multi-cellular life forms. We spent over a billion years with only single celled life. THAT is the real issue.
MASSIVE ERROR you made there.
We are a sample size of one, abiogenesis could have happened on earth yet been a trillion trillion to one possibility.
You jump straight to the conclusion that if it had happened her it must be common. No evidence that this would be the case.
@@kentonian But why would you assume it's a trillion trillion to one possibility when appeared SO quickly? Why does the arrow point to a trillion trillion to one?
I can see the Multicellular organisms being Super unlikely, given it was over a Billion years for them to form here and how they're constructed here. But basic living unicellular life forms happening SO quickly, and the universe being a chemical factory with countless stars and such? It'd be Quite foolish to assume the default position would be a trillion trillion to 1.
whether or not we live in a simulation isnt important. at the end of the day were stuck in it and its our only life.
We are also assuming that there is such a thing as a “base reality”
And it just so happens the time of the video is 12:34…..
I always wondered about this thought experiment I created which relates to simulation theory:
Imagine you are at the end of your life, in "purgatory" and waiting to move on. A time goblin approaches you, and offers you a deal: Relive your entire life once again, including this very moment, or move on to the beyond. If you accept, you understand that you will make every decision throughout your entire life exactly the same, including this decision to relive it again. Therefore, if you accept, the chances of it being the first time you have ever had this conversation with the goblin is essentially null. However, if you decline, you are guaranteed to be the first iteration of this ever in existence.
Personally, I feel like the "answer" if there is any answer to this is that the question of how many times you have made the same answer is essentially meaningless, since time moves linearly and IS existence. Regardless, its a fun thought experiment I like to consider that relates somewhat to simulation theory.
What if there is no option, and we just have the first one. That is in fact the most probable nature of reality.
This is all on a loop, always has and always will be. Every laugh and cry, pain and pleasure of every creature is experienced infinitely.
I paused the video to read this comment. You gotta stop eating lead bro
The Simulation Hypothesis, aka Tech Bros Version of religion or trying to count the number of angels on the tip of a needle.
Bro imagine video games in 100 years
✔️ check
Checking
MYX
It's a nice cope you've come up with to deal with death... but we really don't live in a simulation
0:50 - completely disagree. It doesn’t make a difference if ‘we’ choose to make a simulation. The probability would suggest that we wouldn’t be the first to create the simulation, therefore us deciding to create a simulation or not has no bearing on the likelyhood that we are living in one ourselves.
What the hell would we exist in without a simulation? Of course it's a simulation if anything exists
And who or what came before the simulation? Congratulations, you have a god of the gaps for the 21st century…
what do you mean? if anything exists it must be simulated.
Here we have matter simulated within 4 primary fields corelating fields most recognizably the EM field.
@@kentonian remember learning that atoms are mostly empty space?
I don't buy into to simulation hypothesis for many reasons that David mentioned. Although if this is a simulation, the idea that the Planck length is the "pixel" in this reality is an interesting concept that could support that.
The Planck length isn't a pixel of reality.
@@The_Canonical_Ensemble I agree and I'm not advocating that it is. But it is the smallest unite of length that science can make any sense of just like a pixel is the smallest unit of a screen that the eye can make any sense of. Conceptually, it works as long as you don't take it so literally.
@@tungstentaco495 I don't think it's a good analogy. Also I don't see how a pixel is the smallest unit on the screen that the eye can make sense of. Eyes can't make out individual pixels on most screens so I don't know what you mean when you say that.
@@The_Canonical_Ensemble sounds like your stuck in the weeds of literal interpretations when you should be looking at broader concepts. I do apologize though, I should have used an image, not a screen, for the pixel analogy. Point is, there's a limit to how physically small an individual part of something can be. For the physical world, that's the Planck length. For a digital image, that's a pixel. That's the extent of my analogy.
@@tungstentaco495 You say there is a physical limit to how small an individual part of something can be, but in quantum mechanics, our intuitive notion of size no longer makes sense. So when you say "how small something can be", do you mean the size of the wavefunction in the position basis, the cross section of the particle, or how you write the coulomb term in the Schrodinger equation?
When you realise we are just on some dusty old hard drive in the 0uterverse. Infinite continuous scaling.
50/50? This species that made it has billions of years to get to that level of tech. Seems almost a certainty that given enough time any intelligent species would be able to eventually make it so I guess the would they use it is more the question of relevance.
Its the new hot topic but one with no way of knowing the answer. Its the same as the question of is there advanced alien life in the universe. The answer to those questions is we're nowhere near advanced enough to know.
where Kipping really loses me is his inconsistency. He claims that the possibility is that we live in a based reality or that there is maybe a technology we can achieve that would be able to reproduce simulations etc etc etc. Yet, he total disregards the probability that such technology exists outside our realm or knowledge that is creating such a possible simulation run of infinite amounts of universes. It's all so centric to our limited human minds and influence, something he is totally against in other scenarios or cases.
Fiji water?
The “simulation” is our own brain/mind.
What's up with Lex's hair?
It's Lex's new function to appear more human. Hairstyle#2: casual unkempt.
Does it necessarily end your current stream of existence? It would be nice to have and AI clone of myself to imbue with my blessing.
But we can’t use our perception of reality as any kind of baseline
To live for 10,000 years as one character would end up bored . I want to live forever so I can keep the experiences, the knowledge that creates me.
I guess if you subscribe to the idea of linear causality, you could make an argument that this is real. But come on. Even linear causality has to hyperbolically bend at some point. It’s just an infinite loop. Or so I humbly believe based on my own intuition and evidence based investigations into the subject.
Yep...we live in a simulation. I saw a video on UA-cam that says we do ...
Is it safe to say if we find life on other plants then we are the most advanced beings, and if aliens found us already we don't know then they are probably here or very close by
Leave it to humans to create a simulation, within a simulation.
I'm pretty sure I saw a glitch in the sky today it tough to describe but it was 5 white lines like this
-l
I
-l
It connected tho in a way.
Dark matter is pixels
Maybe the simulation was created by AI to replicate the culture that destroyed itself.
Thats the only time I've ever witnessed his brain fry.
I agree, uploading the brain is killing your current self and allowing a digital facsimile live on forever
Our consciousness is separate from the simulation that we are in. There is evidence.
I don't know about you but I live in a house made out of blocks and mortar.
That simulation believe or idea is just a different story of religion. Now where many people , scientists and other institutions are not believing anymore in god or Allah or what ever god like creature they tend to think that must be a simulation. It is bizarre to believe that, especially today where we use computers. Why do we always think it must be something that is related to us. Why not excepting the fact that we are a product of this universe with specific physical laws and we are a direct consequence of this laws. And no there is no one that created that laws. And there is no one how started that simulation , there is no one who is watching at us no god, no crazy programmer or scientist. And why do I argue this way? Because we have to learn being responsible for us, that we are responsible for our acting for good and for bad and that there is no one who we can make responsible for all that happens.
I don’t think his argument is intellectually sound. He just seems to be on defense. Clearly a smart man but I don’t think that he’s right.
These people now are not cool if they believe that
Well, if so it is still a pay to win simulation.
Especially in the "last Thursday theory " in the 90s rock videos thought time was going backwards... we are 4 sure in a ironic satirical chines som inside of an alien sim insulting some 1800s like tyrannical egomaniac s
it is a sim
Grow up. When I was a kid I thought the world was just a film playing through my eyes. Soon grew up out of that delusion. The Matrix was a film. Stop seeing it as more than that.
Regarding ever decreasing simulation “resolution” or “computation power” there may be a loophole. Imagine we build a simulation on a set of massive servers. Could it not reach back up to this level and interact? Maybe it builds another computer on our level with which to run its sim. We believe in a multiverse. Why must subsequent simulations be “down”? Why not horizontal? Or lord help me, even up.
YES. YES WE DO 🤯😳🤔
We exist in a real fabrication. There is no single rate of time or measure of distance in the universe. Regardless of the cause (acceleration) time slows down in a gravitational well. Gravity is everywhere except between gravitational wells. In deep outer space it is between gravitational wells so there is little or no acceleration to slow down time. That means time goes by very fast where there is little to no acceleration. 🙂
Instead of invoking dark matter and dark energy, do some thought experiments in general relativity and you will understand that rate of time and the measure of distance are relative to the amount of matter and mass there is in the vicinity. The speed of light literally depends on these two variables of time and distance.
As you observe a galaxy you are actually seeing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance. The result is that you are seeing differing speeds of light from where you are observing great distances from galaxy to galaxy since the measures of time and distance are both dependent on the amount of matter (mass) and gravity there is in the vicinity. (The speed of light isn’t actually changing, the measures of time and distance are changing *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over GREAT distances.)*
The result is that distance is greatly expanded (not expanding) where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies (causing redshift) eliminating the need for dark energy and the movement of the outer spiral arms of galaxies is at a faster rate of time causing them to move faster as we observe them while the distance is also expanded away from the center of the black hole eliminating the need for dark matter. This also means that plasma jets shooting out from the center of a galaxy isn’t seven times the speed of light. It’s that the distance is expanded AND the rate of time is faster the less matter there is in the vicinity.
There is no such thing as a nonsensical infinitely expanding universe faster than the speed of light or an imaginary inflaton and there is no such thing as imaginary invisible dark matter to coalesce hydrogen into being stars and galaxies.
Distance is *merely* greatly expanded between the black holes in galaxies (causing the redshift) so the universe is not infinitely expanding as is believed and claimed. An infinitely expanding universe is nonsensical. Not only is distance greatly expanded where there is no matter between galaxies, time runs at a much faster rate where there is no matter. *Both the expansion of distance and the increased rate of time have to be taken into consideration.*
Distances within the galaxies are vast so when we observe another galaxy, we are literally observing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance, still within the limits of other galaxies, not to mention the *extreme* distances *between* galaxies where there is NO matter to dilate time and distance.
That means the distances between the galaxies are greatly expanded, (not expanding) and time between the galaxies is running at a much faster rate *which allows for us to see fully formed distant galaxies in the infrared spectrum in the first place in a short period of time.*
Seems like adjusting perceived time and/or living multiple lives in the virtual world would be possible… maybe lol… ok too much hash YEWWWW
This guys at his sexual peak, women would tear each others eyes out to date him. Its unfair for men.
You okay bud?
@@SqueeblesMcklooflin absolutely
Why do you think we don’t know what 96% of our universe is made? What else explains that and quantum mechanics? We live in a zoo, just like all the other primates, ours is just larger.
What if we live in a zoo but there are never any visitors? And the zoo always existed?
Ohh man must be a nightmare to live inside that head. 😂
Everyone originates from base reality. We separate waves from the ocean, but waves are just extensions of the ocean. Our bodies are just extensions of cosmic bodies and cosmic bodies are just extensions of the our universe. The link between us and our origin is infinitely vast, but infinity happens in the blink of an eye 😉
God is a master programer sitting in his parents basement
The majority of this comment section has like a combined IQ of 81.. not what I was expecting, and kinda sad.
The Bible tells us this is a simulation of sorts.
Listening to people that have had Near Death Experiences they say over and over that once they were “home” they realized our reality is not our base or even real.
We observe things in physics that suggest this is a simulation.
Conclusion: this is a situation. Now the question is why and for what?
IMO - this is the reality that God has created to see what decisions we make when confronted with the direct absence of God and true free will. With all that life offers, do you go to God or away from Him? Do you follow his son Jesus, or go away from His light?
Both religion and simulation theory are made up by men. Simple no evidence either are real.
@@kentonian Proofs: biblical prophecy that has come true including Jesus Christ (where he would be born, what he would do in life, how he would be crucified, etc) and the resurrection of the nation of Israel. There is abundant evidence if you look into it.
If that doesn’t work, stand up and go look in the mirror. It is mathematically impossible for you to exist without a creator. Period. Look into it. Additionally, neither the fossil record or logical deduction supports life as we observe it resulting from evolution. Something created all life and the environment(simulation) we observe.
I tell you this in love, not condemnation. Please please read the book of John in the Bible. Pick a simple to read translation like NLT or ESV. John was a direct companion of Jesus. This book will tell you who God is, who you are, who Jesus is, and what you should do in response.
We already have simulations, all my dwarves just died in their cave 😢
Simulation = God for Reddit atheists