I think Richard is incorrect about the programmer of the simulation needing a natural creation origin. Laws of logic and the way time works could be radically different outside the simulation. Simulation theory is actually a rational prediction that the supernatural exists. (Of course even the concept of things existing might be different outside)
You're absolutely right, and this is the core problem with Richard's thesis on this. We know nothing outside of our own universe which, if it's a simulation, could be simulated by absolutely any combination of any elements we do and don't understand. The level above our universe is so unknowable that it may as well be a god, for all the minimal difference it makes. There's no reason the simulators need to be evolutionary descendants of ours, they could be entirely separate. Evolution may be the only plausible mechanism we know of to generate the creators, but, even if they are evolved, that's disconnected from our actual universe.
@@AndySurtees What Dawkins is trying to say is: explain the programmer. If you again need to invoke a god, we get back to the beginning, you're not trying to explain reality.
@@alexandrebraga3289 If you do not exist in reality, explaining it becomes difficult is the point of the comment. We can only make assumptions, and there's is no reason anything in an unreality would accurately reflect anything in a reality. God is difficult to define, (people have abstracted the meaning) but by going on the notion they're a creator, it is not a stretch. People create things all the time. We understand a mechanistic world because we live in a world that has given us that rule set to understand. Its a complex chessboard.
Exactly, he is operating under the assumption that Base Reality is the same as Simulated Reality. Simulation Theory explains why the Universe is fine tuned for Life to even exist. Richard Dawkins is an Atheist Zealot. Any Theory that would point to a God he instantly dismisses as Hogwash
double existential crisis. the fact of the matter is that people with phds tend to think about this to the point where they have a higher threshold on these kinds of topics.
Forgive me for thinking simply, but doesn't Richard Dawkins entertaining the idea that our brains are like "iPhones that get its power from the cloud" go against his argument against religious and spiritual beliefs? The idea that there is something outside of the physical brain that causes consciousness?
Exactly. But maybe I’m not smart enough to understand this. Sounds no different than religious/supernatural beliefs to me. Why entertain this idea? Where is it gonna get us?
Here is a possible example. Maybe we are all one with the universe and every person is a different variation of a singular consciousness. Think about it, there is no you until things happen to you. if you put your 1 day old brain into billions of different newborn bodies around the world, they would all be different people.
I'm glad to see and hear Richard firing on all cylinders again. Maybe the algorithm has been hiding him but this is the first long interview I've heard since his stroke.
He is in top form, asserting the objective premises of reality, with no evidence. Anyone that wants to disagree with him has to PROVE it, because HIS story is true, by default. Almost as if it passed down from God himself!!! 😆
@@finalform6667 I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but you are precisely correct. An epistemically sound stance is: it is unknown, but all evidence we have very strongly suggests they do not exist, so for pragmatic purposes, we shall assume they do not, until contrary evidence is discovered.
Outside of the space-time we are subject to, but not his or her own. You cannot be outside of the laws which govern the nature around you, it’s a literal impossibility.
@Alan Heyes Well, since “nature,” or the natural world, can only be understood within the framework of the “space-time we are subject to”, if there’s a being who’s “outside of the space-time we are subject to”, then it, by definition, would also be outside of “nature” altogether; &, therefore, it wouldn’t be subject to it in anyway. In other words, to be “outside of the space-time we are subject to” would be to be altogether outside of “nature,” or the natural world, as well; &, so, it would be impossible for that being to be subject to it.
Ok so the interviewer is not switched on...there was an opening after Dawkins said “ I speculate there might be a kind of internet cloud outside of the brain-from where we get our simulated “consciousness”” How the hell could you NOT jump on that statement with a follow up?? “Mr Dawkins does that logically proceed to the idea that there might be a “simulated survival of consciousness after our bodies-brains die-so we get uploaded back to the cloud?” How could you miss that opening-would have loved to hear his musings.
@Stefano Portoghesi Putting aside the fact that you have another account liking your comments (that is kind of psychotic. Don't bother in denying it, it is obvious); I'll have to disagree with your ridiculous attempt to appear wise suppressing the basic semantic definition of conscience and intelligence. Dear lord you are dumb and dishonest.
I never thought I’d hear Dawkins float the idea that any part of the mind was not entirely generated in the brain. To be fair, it’s probably him just being open to the idea even though it’s pretty clear he doesn’t believe it.
How do you know what the reality of the programmer would be like Mr Dawkins? We could be like an 8-bit Super Mario Vs our reality by comparison. The programmer or creator's reality could be far beyond what we could even conceive/perceive and beyond any physical metaphysical constraints that we may observe.
Well an intelligent programmer can't just appear out of thin air. Evolution is the only real possible explanation for the very first programmer. Humans could be creating simulations like this 100 million years from now. The programmer/god theory simply dodges the initial question of how it all started
The only way the programmer can exist without evolution is if he is the source of all things. The source is the beginning & end because it holds reality. When the source dies, everything dies because energy needs to be sustained. The only way we can know the nature of the programmer was if the knowledge was implanted in us.
We do live in a simulation in the sense that our brains take in sensory data and construct it into a meaningful reality that allows us to survive and prosper. The fact that there are things we know exist but which we can't perceive because our evolution hasn't required it for survival, such as seeing ultraviolet light or hearing extremely low and high frequencies of sound, demonstrates that reality is something separate. In linguistic terms, signifier and signified are arbitrarily connected in order to make sense, but will always be separate from one another. We call a spoon a 'spoon' but we could just as easily have decided that object with which cereal is eaten will be called 'shovel', and that object with which dirt is dug up will be called 'spoon'.
06:15 THIS HAPPENS WITH ME, MUCH MORE SO WHEN I WAS A KID, I WOULD SEE PLACES, BUT IT WOULD FEEL AND LOOK DIFFERENT TO ME ALTHOUGH ITS THE SAME PLACE. MUCH LIKE LOOKING AT THE SAME OBJECT FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES AS IF IT WAS A NECKER CUBE AS DESCRIBED
1:30 ...The Daniel Galouye novel Dawkins was quoting was called Simulacron-3 (which was later turned into the Thirteenth Floor movie) in non-UK markets. A great film and novel, which was a much better exploration of the simulation theory than the Matrix films, but lacked the flashy Gun-Fu and petty power fantasies.
“It’s not totally ridiculous by the way” “the programmer must have been created” THIS IS POSSIBLE BUT NOOOOOO NOT GOD THATS IMPOSSIBLE. what a fool Dawkins is
If the “programmer” supposedly grows, as the simulation does, then this means that the “programmer” would be growing in a way which it didn’t itself program, like the simulation does, &, therefore, it would be as subject to programming, beyond its own control, as the simulation; which begs the question of, if this supposed “programmer” isn’t itself as much of a simulated program as the simulation? Now to say that the “programmer” programmed itself to grow isn’t a possible answer, as the “programmer” would have already had to possess all of the information which it encodes in such a program, in order to do so, &, therefore, it wouldn’t have had to endure any kind of growth or process in order to obtain such information in the first place. The only way around this is, the “programmer” doesn’t grow, only the simulation, or what’s in it, does, i.e., the creator doesn’t grow but its creation or creatures do.
You only have to grow the First Simulation. After the First you can then take a Save, and instantly replicate it for all of eternity. So there are likely, MANY simulations, using the same initial save file. Allowing the GM to customize it over time, from a confirmed working point. If we are in a simulation, we are likely not the first, nor the second... but a very very large number... forgotten in a closet. :D Knowing how we operate, there is likely a Very large market, for special simulation save folders.
Dawkins's point about recognizing faces matches my experience. I am unable to visualize or describe in great detail the face of my friends, but after I see the face I can recognize to whom the face belongs. Photos are the same. I can't see them in my mind but I love seeing the actual photographs stuck on the side of the fridge...
Problem with a simulation theory is that you and I perceive ourselves as self aware and have a conscious mind, just because we could make computers with the power to simulate doesn’t mean we can simulate self aware beings. Especially since we don’t even know what consciousness is and likely never will.
@@EuroKoncepts But that would be impossible, according to Dawkins, because there's no evidence. Richard on the other hand, can invoke ESP whenever he wants (in order to enable his cloud theory), because he KNOWS the origin of the Universe: it is based on evolution. We know this, because nothing else has been proven. Therefore, proving that his theory is also a fact! The logic is flawless. 🤣🤣
It an ancient idea known as the aether or fifth element and an element of it is memory storage known as The Akashic...The Cloud is a very accurate analogy though and it's good to see Dawkins not pooh-pooh it...The Christian Gnostics understood this in antiquity but their knowledge was destroyed by the enemies of truth...Basically, most religions run by financial mafias.
@@mihirsathe3482 It's not about betting, it's about an obvious logical inconsistency in his thinking, something he'd be highly critical of if a religious person committed the same error, and also demonstrates that he is prone to flawed reasoning. In a Daniel Kahneman paradigm, he hasn't fully incorporated logic into System 1, and is therefore prone to errors if he isn't concentrating (talking casually, as in this case). I love this topic!!!
Depends on the constraints of the simulation. For entities inside, our actions could be bounded. For the creators, yes, anything is possible. But at that length, the creators are effectively god. Simulation theory in many ways is a soft god for atheists.
I love Dawkins, but am an agnostic... because I apply the scientific method to even matters of faith and avoid dogma like the plague lol... Anyways, it's funny how so many atheist figure heads talk about the probability of a simulation being real, yet fail to acknowledge that the creator of a simulation, and its likely nested simulations, is something that would fit the description of a god. i.e. that which is all, and that which is incomprehensible.
@@TheMrVogue The concept of a god implies a supernatural being. Science refrains from calling the creator a god because science can only study the natural world.
When we can't explain something we call in deus ex machina, the god who turns the cogs. But even if this were so, who made God? And so on infinitum. To resort to God as creator is moral and intellectual cowardice.
@@TheMrVogue no, this is not the case with this thought experiment : is the universe a simulation? , in this model their is no reward or punishment, no worship of the programmer, no ultimate goal or refuge. Or God as creator of the simulation? What process made God? Where does he live? God and simulation don't mix well. Let's leave the god bit out. Simulation is an interesting thought experiment.
@Stefano Portoghesi Not really. Evolution provides some kind of explanation, surely the programmer would like to obscure as much information as possible. A programmer intelligence could be a 6th dimensional form of pure energy and they may have burdened us with 3 dimensions and mass to limit and contain us to observe us more efficiently. The rules of the simulation might ensure that we can never understand it fully.
J Boomhauer - I think the key point that Dawkins is making is that calling the universe a simulation isn’t any simpler an explanation of reality than any other explanation because we still need to explain the nature of the programmer (how they got where they are, assuming they aren’t some timeless entity that’s always existed). I’m sure he’d be open to the idea that the programmer lives in a universe with different rules than ours, in fact he’d probably assume that’s the case, but that doesn’t change the fact that in order to have a complete picture of reality we still need to explain how the programmer got there.
The joke about the simulation hypothesis is that it is just riffing off ideas that come from religion but cast in a naturalistic metaphysics. Distributed cognition in the cloud, hello soul, it’s nice to meet you again.
from a biological programming perspective, odds are they’d be the gender more inclined to be less risk averse, a tool maker and have the capacity to be logically objectively detached to create and run such an experiment. moreover if, for argument sake, the defining gender balance of testosterone and oestrogen were in equal measure, it’ll be inefficient and completely redundant for an infinite being to manifest as the reproductive gender.
Simulation theory doesn't solve absolutely any of the fundamental existential questions, because even if we're living in a simulation of a simulation, of a simulation, of a simulation... the base reality in which the first simulation is created still has exactly the same existential questions to answer as we do from our perspective.
If you are going to be producing a simulation in which the participants won't be aware they exist 'within' the simulation, then one may very well need to provide some distraction (like evolution, fossils etc) in order to distract the participants into believing they came about though some natural process and that there isn't some greater designer. Food for thought. Dawkins is wrong, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a vastly superior being needed to 'evolve' in some naturalistic environment or that the 'real' universe resembles anything remotely like ours. It is tough to grasp, but time and space, as we know it, may not exist outside of a simulation. The only conclusion we can definitively make is that we would be vastly intellectually inferior to whatever created a simulation and cannot pretend that any rules that apply to our simulated universe would apply to the 'real' universe or that we could begin to understand it. Had Dawkins heard of the Boltzmann brain argument? If I were to create a self aware 32 bit integer in my simulation, would it be able to conclude that the creator has a maximum value of 2,147,483,647? We must stop assuming that we are at the pinnacle of being god's, we aren't.
If it is true that there is a "Programmer" type creative intelligence behind our experience of reality, which I do feel is highly possible, we as far inferior beings in intelligence cannot begin to comprehend such a superior beings intelligence to comprehend its abilities.
If you’re gonna talk about simulation theory, you should interview Tom Campbell on his Big “Theory Of Everything (TOE)”. Tom Campbell would be able to speak much better on his theory of it and how it relates to quantum physics and classical physics and everything else since he has 3 books on his theory. Dawkins is good if I want to be made fun of for believing in God.
@@andrewmarkmusic he doesn't push it though and encourages people to match their knowledge with their experiences to come to conclusions for their own life. Overall, I'd say he's still an easy guy to talk to and anything seemingly spiritual can be abstracted away to focus more on his theories - in a scientific manner. Specifically, it's very interesting to hear how he sees all different components of life tying together. For example, the big bang is like a computer turning on. Think of a computer screen with a dot in the middle that turns on, or a virtual world that renders from nothing to everything in a flash. This analogy is so interesting to describe the big bang as it correlates quite well. This new environment is finite just like a program inside a computer. It is not infinite. Same with our world. It makes you think... if our world is also finite... what's on the "other side?" Well... according to Tom Campbell, it may be like a computer program where "the other side" is like the other side of a virtual game environment. It's nothing. But in a different dimension to the game environment, is the programmer!
@@williamx0 What spiritual worldview exists that deceived the WHOLE world? Christianity? 2-billion claim to know! Islam? Same! Hinduism and eastern philosophy? Another few billion who know! Satan sure is crappy at his job when it comes to deceiving:P But if Yahweh is Satan like Christian Gnostics suggest then Satan (Yahweh) has deceived the WHOLE world.
God is the base reality of all existence, His mind simulated lower reality like we do in dreams, and according to scripture there are several levels of angels ranging in power. That is why God is omniscient His power simulated all related and by doing that He can see every event that another consiousness experiences and doesn't render what is not being experiences by anyone else and we may be at the bottom of simulated realities.
Which spiritual teachings? How does religion relate in any way to this interview? Dawkins is by trade an ethologist, an evolutionary expert and theorist. He is the author of many profound and academically respected books on evolution and genetics. And he is atheist, but that is just one of his virtues.
There is a crucial point to consider here. Everything that we are allowed to know rationally belongs to the known Universe, limited to matter, energy, space and time. Any cause originating from that same Universe does not belong to it, so it would not be limited by those same factors. For us, anything beyond the interactions of matter, energy, space, and time is totally outside our cognitive capacity. But the intellectual vanity of many of our scientists does not accept their own limitations, believing that they know everything there is to know.
Since it's a product of evolution, isn't it easy to say that this is a natural outcome of any civilization? Just follow the evolution. What will we be able to accomplish in 100 years, in 1000? Simulating realities seems trivially easy, while being infinitely useful.
Eugene S simulating a reality is computationally expensive and selecting the right rules for such a simulation to get meaningful data is also not trivial
@@David-ck4ep No it's not. Consider video games? Minecraft gives you all the reality you need, and runs on potato. People have literally built fully functional computers inside of Minecraft. Quantum mechanics shows you where all the processing efficiencies are. Also, there are no rules to select. You create a quantum universe, and let it evolve, if you want a natural simulation. And if you want your own personal game, than it's no different than imagining playing Minecraft 2077. Nothing is simulated, unless it has to. Does that sound like quantum mechanics to you? Also, you're thinking of simulating reality on classical computers, yeah, that's hard, if not impossible (because you can't simulate quantum classically). But doing it on quantum computers is trivially easy, the entire universe is doing it as we speak, we would just borrow some of that computational capacity to run localized simulations. Basically, you simulate reality in order to answer questions that would be too difficult or too costly to answer in the real world. In a simulation, you can build anything and everything you want, for free, entire planets, entire universes, it's just arranged code. And as long as only the important stuff gets calculated, the cost is almost nothing to the simulator. But also, consider the fact that the simulator/creator probably has the resources of at least an entire solar system to play with (Kardashev type II).
Mmm a simulation governed by some sort of pre existing programmer who operates within the simulation from the outside? Dawkins says it could be turned on in an instant? Sounds like an analogy for God lol.
Awesome. Someone finally explains the paradox well. The simulation theory is not a solution to anything. It's a paradox that leads into the same rabbit hole. If you travel further into the hole, you'll realize that there is only one way the light could have been switched on. Only 1.
What does outside of time even mean? Time is what governs motion. For motion to occur it means there is time and it can be measured, calculated and proven. If an entity is outside of time it can not exist literally. It could never have existed without motion in time.
If a Kurzweil-style singularity were to occur, it seems to me that it would be a smart machine consciously designing a smarter one, which in turn designs a smarter one, and so on over a relatively short time. Let's say the superintelligent outcome can implement a rich enough simulation that inhabitants feel it as real. Would it be meaningful to say that the programmer of the simulation arose though "evolution"? In this scenario it would be more like intelligent design. It seems to me "evolution" would have to be stretched to include any process where a lesser system produces a greater one (as an alternative to God-created or eternal).
Everyone go and see "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis" no matter what you think of Neil. He is talking about the idea that truly moves our thinking about simulation a bit forward.
Well, if the supposed “programmer” arose from an evolutionary reality that wasn’t itself programmed, then this means that its reality wasn’t a simulation; &, so, this begs the question, why couldn’t we have also arisen from a non-simulated reality, without need for programming, as the supposed “programmer” did as well? Now I’m not saying that I don’t believe in a creator or “programmer”, in fact, I do, I’m just saying that evolution & simulation theory aren’t compatible (from Dawkins’ statement which is quoted in this video’s title, it seems like he’s attempting to reconcile the two), as they’re mutually exclusive; if either one is claimed to be responsible for life, then the other one can’t be as such.
The meta simulations must hit the wall somewhere, which Musk calls "Base Reality". And the Base Reality (aka The Truth) must have always existed. Otherwise it's meaningless.
Not true if the simulations loop on themselves, or otherwise have no beginning. Having to place things into a story with a beginning is an unnecessary limitation. Your use of the word "must" is unfounded. Why does meaning require a base reality, and why does the absence of meaning if it were not so prove that it must be so?
Eli Bain information and computation need a substrate. Also, simulations can’t loop on themselves because the resolution decreases down the chain. You need a single “real” substrate even if there are infinite number of simulations. They must be in a set of (0... Inf), not (-Inf, Inf).
I agree with RD on consciousness ( and intelligence) being eminently present within the Cosmos. Our brains are tuned to receive and transmit on the specific frequencies of our own species ( and potentially, all other lifeforms in our own ecosystem in its entirety).
@Lex Fridman: I think a good guy to whom you could ask such a question is Philippe Guillemant (a Physicist & signal/image processing research director). Herein is his UA-cam channel : ua-cam.com/channels/tNA_FtemZa-EJeh8CAyJFQ.html He actually has got very interesting views about time which, in my viewpoint, challenge Richard Dawkins's perception of evolution.
I think the biggest fallacy of most people is believing that nothing precedes something. Why can’t conscious being have just always been without beginning? Isn’t it foolishness to believe something came from nothing? Why couldn’t something just exist without beginning.
Who's to say the rules of base reality are even remotely similar to our own? What if evolution is a only a relevant principle in our simulated reality? What if logic as we know it is only a feature of this reality?
The programmer still needs a starting point. It's the same argument as god. He too needs his initial existence explained ie The programmer/god had a day 1
We created computers, but computer can control our world , computers can be connected together all over the world , and also human brains has the same capabilities to connect the others if you become conscious
You can't "like the argument" that as technology advances infinitely, you might some day be able to casually simulate universes. Technology can't advance infinitely. It's constrained by the laws of the universe itself. At the point where you start needing a whole planet worth of materials to generate a simulation (or a galaxy worth of materials), the logistics of it are going to start getting very awkward, and you're going to run into normal prioritization decisions... Where there's always something better to do. And nested simulations would require a proportionally greater setup in base reality.
What if the creators of the simulation didn’t evolve Gradually because they are also in a simulation and evolution is something programmed to work in those worlds but experienced in different speed for the ones living in the simulation in comparison to the ones who created it
Consider that the universe came into existence somehow. How? I don't know. No one knows. People have theories that can't be tested. Religious people have beliefs that can't be tested. But we certainly came from somewhere. For right now, I've been calling it the Prime Mover (credit to Aquinas 13th century). Elon Musk calls it the AI (and that we're likely living in a simulated reality). Religious people call it God. Whatever. But there is something that started our reality. No one is arguing for you to believe in God.
People find it hard to imagine something without a beginning or end, like 'God'. But consciousness doesn't have a beginning or end and we can all see that for ourselves. (If we really want to) Of course, one has to make a distinction between the contents of consciousness and consciousness itself. The latter really just 'is'. Why are we even talking about 'God' anyway, since that makes it all so abstract. Consciousness itself is outside of time and therefore eternal. Time is flowing through consciousness. This is our experience, yet so many don't notice this.
really faulty logic here. extrapolating from one planet to other/earlier universes. We don´t even know if darwinian evolution is universal in this universe.
If space could expand forever.. or to a point.. there has to be something past that point.. and on and on.. same with the small.. it just goes on and on smaller and smaller.. Can't the same be said for a creator? There's no beginning and no end..
For anyone interested in this line of inquiry, I would suggest checking out "Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer" by John C. Lilly
Such a shame more people with Richards intellect don't take DMT. I'd love to see him interviewed after that. Personally DMT lead me to believe this is a simulation, i mean its real but not real if you get me.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think Richard is incorrect about the programmer of the simulation needing a natural creation origin. Laws of logic and the way time works could be radically different outside the simulation. Simulation theory is actually a rational prediction that the supernatural exists. (Of course even the concept of things existing might be different outside)
You're absolutely right, and this is the core problem with Richard's thesis on this. We know nothing outside of our own universe which, if it's a simulation, could be simulated by absolutely any combination of any elements we do and don't understand. The level above our universe is so unknowable that it may as well be a god, for all the minimal difference it makes. There's no reason the simulators need to be evolutionary descendants of ours, they could be entirely separate.
Evolution may be the only plausible mechanism we know of to generate the creators, but, even if they are evolved, that's disconnected from our actual universe.
@@AndySurtees What Dawkins is trying to say is: explain the programmer.
If you again need to invoke a god, we get back to the beginning, you're not trying to explain reality.
@@alexandrebraga3289
If you do not exist in reality, explaining it becomes difficult is the point of the comment. We can only make assumptions, and there's is no reason anything in an unreality would accurately reflect anything in a reality.
God is difficult to define, (people have abstracted the meaning) but by going on the notion they're a creator, it is not a stretch. People create things all the time. We understand a mechanistic world because we live in a world that has given us that rule set to understand. Its a complex chessboard.
Exactly, he is operating under the assumption that Base Reality is the same as Simulated Reality.
Simulation Theory explains why the Universe is fine tuned for Life to even exist.
Richard Dawkins is an Atheist Zealot. Any Theory that would point to a God he instantly dismisses as Hogwash
@@LordDirus007
He's a quality person though. God would be impressed.
Can't imgaine how fried my brain would be speaking to Richard Dawkins first then Nick Bostrom an hour later
You probably know how it would be by listening to him
double existential crisis. the fact of the matter is that people with phds tend to think about this to the point where they have a higher threshold on these kinds of topics.
So fried you might become a Fridman...
dude u probably got more education than this joke of a guy Dawkins.
I love the joy in Richard Dawkins voice when discussing big ideas :-)
The man has great passion for learning, his own and other people's.
Forgive me for thinking simply, but doesn't Richard Dawkins entertaining the idea that our brains are like "iPhones that get its power from the cloud" go against his argument against religious and spiritual beliefs? The idea that there is something outside of the physical brain that causes consciousness?
Exactly. But maybe I’m not smart enough to understand this. Sounds no different than religious/supernatural beliefs to me. Why entertain this idea? Where is it gonna get us?
He's just entertaining the idea. It's a topic posed to him .
Here is a possible example. Maybe we are all one with the universe and every person is a different variation of a singular consciousness. Think about it, there is no you until things happen to you. if you put your 1 day old brain into billions of different newborn bodies around the world, they would all be different people.
I'm glad to see and hear Richard firing on all cylinders again. Maybe the algorithm has been hiding him but this is the first long interview I've heard since his stroke.
He is in top form, asserting the objective premises of reality, with no evidence. Anyone that wants to disagree with him has to PROVE it, because HIS story is true, by default. Almost as if it passed down from God himself!!! 😆
@@JohnnyTwoFingers You're right, if I deny the existence of unicorns, I have to present evidence to that effect first.
@@finalform6667 I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but you are precisely correct. An epistemically sound stance is: it is unknown, but all evidence we have very strongly suggests they do not exist, so for pragmatic purposes, we shall assume they do not, until contrary evidence is discovered.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers I thought you were being sarcastic with your comment, but I *was* and you're wrong, I think you just misread.
@@finalform6667 What am I wrong about?
I disagree, the maker of the simulation would be outside space-time and therefore he wouldn't be bound by our physical laws he is outside of them.
Outside of the space-time we are subject to, but not his or her own. You cannot be outside of the laws which govern the nature around you, it’s a literal impossibility.
Who are you disagreeing with? Who claimed that the simulation maker would be bound by our physical laws?
@Alan Heyes Well, since “nature,” or the natural world, can only be understood within the framework of the “space-time we are subject to”, if there’s a being who’s “outside of the space-time we are subject to”, then it, by definition, would also be outside of “nature” altogether; &, therefore, it wouldn’t be subject to it in anyway. In other words, to be “outside of the space-time we are subject to” would be to be altogether outside of “nature,” or the natural world, as well; &, so, it would be impossible for that being to be subject to it.
If that’s true then what’s the difference between “the programmer” and the traditional idea of God?
Exactly !
Ok so the interviewer is not switched on...there was an opening after Dawkins said “ I speculate there might be a kind of internet cloud outside of the brain-from where we get our simulated “consciousness”” How the hell could you NOT jump on that statement with a follow up?? “Mr Dawkins does that logically proceed to the idea that there might be a “simulated survival of consciousness after our bodies-brains die-so we get uploaded back to the cloud?” How could you miss that opening-would have loved to hear his musings.
No doubt....Dawkins is so logically inconsistent it is hilarious.
I think Dawkins and Lex are having this discussion under the assumption that the "programmers" operate under the same laws of physics that we do.
Dawkings is a biologist, he is not very "flexible".
@@DuncanKassel Scientific Materialist Biologist. And his Faith is strong.
@Stefano Portoghesi True. But there's a big difference between COULD HAVE and MUST HAVE (Dawkin's stance). He seems to consider himself omniscient. 😆
@Stefano Portoghesi Putting aside the fact that you have another account liking your comments (that is kind of psychotic. Don't bother in denying it, it is obvious);
I'll have to disagree with your ridiculous attempt to appear wise suppressing the basic semantic definition of conscience and intelligence.
Dear lord you are dumb and dishonest.
Or frequency, even.
Dawkins can’t believe in God; can get down for an external programmer. Wild
@Bedtime Bunnage so he's an idiot then?
Lex “ we’re gonna need a bigger watch “ Friedman.
I never thought I’d hear Dawkins float the idea that any part of the mind was not entirely generated in the brain. To be fair, it’s probably him just being open to the idea even though it’s pretty clear he doesn’t believe it.
How do you know what the reality of the programmer would be like Mr Dawkins? We could be like an 8-bit Super Mario Vs our reality by comparison. The programmer or creator's reality could be far beyond what we could even conceive/perceive and beyond any physical metaphysical constraints that we may observe.
Well an intelligent programmer can't just appear out of thin air. Evolution is the only real possible explanation for the very first programmer. Humans could be creating simulations like this 100 million years from now. The programmer/god theory simply dodges the initial question of how it all started
@@illavitar Well that's perception of what intelligence is. It's relative to what we know. Or think we know.
The only way the programmer can exist without evolution is if he is the source of all things.
The source is the beginning & end because it holds reality.
When the source dies, everything dies because energy needs to be sustained.
The only way we can know the nature of the programmer was if the knowledge was implanted in us.
Did you even watch the video?
Why cant we just say the programmer of our simulation is God, a really advanced, really intelligent entity or species
We do live in a simulation in the sense that our brains take in sensory data and construct it into a meaningful reality that allows us to survive and prosper. The fact that there are things we know exist but which we can't perceive because our evolution hasn't required it for survival, such as seeing ultraviolet light or hearing extremely low and high frequencies of sound, demonstrates that reality is something separate. In linguistic terms, signifier and signified are arbitrarily connected in order to make sense, but will always be separate from one another. We call a spoon a 'spoon' but we could just as easily have decided that object with which cereal is eaten will be called 'shovel', and that object with which dirt is dug up will be called 'spoon'.
Extremely interesting points
Richard Dawkins just said that the existence of God is not totally ridiculous. Interesting.
A programmer of the Universe and the God of the Bible are two entirely different entities. He's always argued against the latter.
06:15 THIS HAPPENS WITH ME, MUCH MORE SO WHEN I WAS A KID, I WOULD SEE PLACES, BUT IT WOULD FEEL AND LOOK DIFFERENT TO ME ALTHOUGH ITS THE SAME PLACE. MUCH LIKE LOOKING AT THE SAME OBJECT FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES AS IF IT WAS A NECKER CUBE AS DESCRIBED
I believe your what your refering to is when the cloud people do thier daily runs the the surface they use dihydroxide monoxide to mask thier travels.
1:30 ...The Daniel Galouye novel Dawkins was quoting was called Simulacron-3 (which was later turned into the Thirteenth Floor movie) in non-UK markets. A great film and novel, which was a much better exploration of the simulation theory than the Matrix films, but lacked the flashy Gun-Fu and petty power fantasies.
“It’s not totally ridiculous by the way” “the programmer must have been created” THIS IS POSSIBLE BUT NOOOOOO NOT GOD THATS IMPOSSIBLE. what a fool Dawkins is
"Growing the universe" (rather than instantaneous creation) makes so much sense! That the simulation and programmer are evolving.
Matrix, evolving everytime when a NEO shows up
Dawkins only said this as a thought experiment. Not as a description of reality. Let's be clear on this.
If the “programmer” supposedly grows, as the simulation does, then this means that the “programmer” would be growing in a way which it didn’t itself program, like the simulation does, &, therefore, it would be as subject to programming, beyond its own control, as the simulation; which begs the question of, if this supposed “programmer” isn’t itself as much of a simulated program as the simulation? Now to say that the “programmer” programmed itself to grow isn’t a possible answer, as the “programmer” would have already had to possess all of the information which it encodes in such a program, in order to do so, &, therefore, it wouldn’t have had to endure any kind of growth or process in order to obtain such information in the first place. The only way around this is, the “programmer” doesn’t grow, only the simulation, or what’s in it, does, i.e., the creator doesn’t grow but its creation or creatures do.
You only have to grow the First Simulation. After the First you can then take a Save, and instantly replicate it for all of eternity. So there are likely, MANY simulations, using the same initial save file.
Allowing the GM to customize it over time, from a confirmed working point.
If we are in a simulation, we are likely not the first, nor the second... but a very very large number... forgotten in a closet. :D
Knowing how we operate, there is likely a Very large market, for special simulation save folders.
the seed in a random number generator
Dawkins's point about recognizing faces matches my experience. I am unable to visualize or describe in great detail the face of my friends, but after I see the face I can recognize to whom the face belongs. Photos are the same. I can't see them in my mind but I love seeing the actual photographs stuck on the side of the fridge...
Jay Fulton I’m like this, I believe it’s called aphantasia
@@HugeUnicornPoop thank you
The Simulation is not totally ridiculous, but the thought of God is? THAT is ridiculous.
Problem with a simulation theory is that you and I perceive ourselves as self aware and have a conscious mind, just because we could make computers with the power to simulate doesn’t mean we can simulate self aware beings. Especially since we don’t even know what consciousness is and likely never will.
we are not in base reality.
The programmer is God. Biological creator essentially. It’s obvious He would leave us a tutorial island manual guidebook. Cough cough, the Holy Bible.
Yes! Absolutely this!! Agreed
Dawkins promotes critical thinking, but ignores critical thought around 9/11?
Donald Hoffman interview coming up?
The cloud idea blew my mind
SOUNDS A LOT LIKE CONSCIOUSNESS. AS IF WE ARE JUST CHANNELS, ANTENNAS FOR INFORMATION. MUCH LIKE TESLA HINTS THAT HE WAS
@@EuroKoncepts But that would be impossible, according to Dawkins, because there's no evidence.
Richard on the other hand, can invoke ESP whenever he wants (in order to enable his cloud theory), because he KNOWS the origin of the Universe: it is based on evolution. We know this, because nothing else has been proven. Therefore, proving that his theory is also a fact! The logic is flawless. 🤣🤣
It an ancient idea known as the aether or fifth element and an element of it is memory storage known as The Akashic...The Cloud is a very accurate analogy though and it's good to see Dawkins not pooh-pooh it...The Christian Gnostics understood this in antiquity but their knowledge was destroyed by the enemies of truth...Basically, most religions run by financial mafias.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers I don't think he's willing to bet on this theory like he is on evolution. It was just an interesting idea.
@@mihirsathe3482 It's not about betting, it's about an obvious logical inconsistency in his thinking, something he'd be highly critical of if a religious person committed the same error, and also demonstrates that he is prone to flawed reasoning. In a Daniel Kahneman paradigm, he hasn't fully incorporated logic into System 1, and is therefore prone to errors if he isn't concentrating (talking casually, as in this case).
I love this topic!!!
If we are living in a simulation, anything is possible, even magic.
Depends on the constraints of the simulation. For entities inside, our actions could be bounded. For the creators, yes, anything is possible. But at that length, the creators are effectively god. Simulation theory in many ways is a soft god for atheists.
The only reason we invented infinity is to describe an eternal. It's simple, the eternal programmer is God.
Why are you guys so afraid to apply eternal to the equation? Why was eternal invented?
I love Dawkins, but am an agnostic... because I apply the scientific method to even matters of faith and avoid dogma like the plague lol... Anyways, it's funny how so many atheist figure heads talk about the probability of a simulation being real, yet fail to acknowledge that the creator of a simulation, and its likely nested simulations, is something that would fit the description of a god. i.e. that which is all, and that which is incomprehensible.
@@TheMrVogue The concept of a god implies a supernatural being. Science refrains from calling the creator a god because science can only study the natural world.
When we can't explain something we call in deus ex machina, the god who turns the cogs. But even if this were so, who made God? And so on infinitum. To resort to God as creator is moral and intellectual cowardice.
@@TheMrVogue no, this is not the case with this thought experiment : is the universe a simulation? , in this model their is no reward or punishment, no worship of the programmer, no ultimate goal or refuge. Or God as creator of the simulation? What process made God? Where does he live? God and simulation don't mix well. Let's leave the god bit out. Simulation is an interesting thought experiment.
Language
The secrets lay within the words uttered
That is the nature of simulation
As the view is a reflection
The view being all energy signatures
how are you able to get the very best guest interviews? awesome.
Loving this topic. Lex-- MORE conversatiins about the Simulation, please.
Why would the programmer live in a world with the same rules? I've never been a fan of Dawkins.
true
@Stefano Portoghesi Not really. Evolution provides some kind of explanation, surely the programmer would like to obscure as much information as possible. A programmer intelligence could be a 6th dimensional form of pure energy and they may have burdened us with 3 dimensions and mass to limit and contain us to observe us more efficiently. The rules of the simulation might ensure that we can never understand it fully.
J Boomhauer - I think the key point that Dawkins is making is that calling the universe a simulation isn’t any simpler an explanation of reality than any other explanation because we still need to explain the nature of the programmer (how they got where they are, assuming they aren’t some timeless entity that’s always existed). I’m sure he’d be open to the idea that the programmer lives in a universe with different rules than ours, in fact he’d probably assume that’s the case, but that doesn’t change the fact that in order to have a complete picture of reality we still need to explain how the programmer got there.
@Stefano Portoghesi Dawkins said the Programmer must have evolved too. That's fucking retarded.
@@smittycity42 you're using too many hypothetical "mights and coulds" to be calling anything fucking retarded.
I love Lex's mobile studio
I think what is important to note here is how evolution is pegged to human perception of time. Could you discuss this further?
Hi, could you explain your question more clearly please?
If the world is a simulation, who is paying for electricity?
If Joe Rogan were to talk to Richard Dawkins, he won’t even make it 20 minutes before lighting up a joint.
Dawkins has been on Joes podcast, Ep #1366
Convos like this remind me of the anime Big O
The joke about the simulation hypothesis is that it is just riffing off ideas that come from religion but cast in a naturalistic metaphysics. Distributed cognition in the cloud, hello soul, it’s nice to meet you again.
..And vice versa.
7:10 happens to me every time i look at myself in the mirror lol
from a biological programming perspective, odds are they’d be the gender more inclined to be less risk averse, a tool maker and have the capacity to be logically objectively detached to create and run such an experiment.
moreover if, for argument sake, the defining gender balance of testosterone and oestrogen were in equal measure, it’ll be inefficient and completely redundant for an infinite being to manifest as the reproductive gender.
Simulation theory doesn't solve absolutely any of the fundamental existential questions, because even if we're living in a simulation of a simulation, of a simulation, of a simulation... the base reality in which the first simulation is created still has exactly the same existential questions to answer as we do from our perspective.
If you are going to be producing a simulation in which the participants won't be aware they exist 'within' the simulation, then one may very well need to provide some distraction (like evolution, fossils etc) in order to distract the participants into believing they came about though some natural process and that there isn't some greater designer. Food for thought.
Dawkins is wrong, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a vastly superior being needed to 'evolve' in some naturalistic environment or that the 'real' universe resembles anything remotely like ours. It is tough to grasp, but time and space, as we know it, may not exist outside of a simulation. The only conclusion we can definitively make is that we would be vastly intellectually inferior to whatever created a simulation and cannot pretend that any rules that apply to our simulated universe would apply to the 'real' universe or that we could begin to understand it. Had Dawkins heard of the Boltzmann brain argument?
If I were to create a self aware 32 bit integer in my simulation, would it be able to conclude that the creator has a maximum value of 2,147,483,647? We must stop assuming that we are at the pinnacle of being god's, we aren't.
Nice to see someone with some thoroughness in logic and epistemology, way too many parishioners in the comments so far.
Exactly...Christian Gnostics called it the Pleroma and the place where Aeons exist.
All those books on the shelves and lex still has a picture of a book shelf full of books behind him. Lol
13th floor is the movie to the book.
Richard Dawkins really is not as close minded as people tend to think. He really engages with concepts even if he doesnt accept them.
He’s a fool. He claims a simulation is possible with a simulator but God. No that’s too far
If it is true that there is a "Programmer" type creative intelligence behind our experience of reality, which I do feel is highly possible, we as far inferior beings in intelligence cannot begin to comprehend such a superior beings intelligence to comprehend its abilities.
This explains why it can take a day or two before I will notice that a person that I know has had a haircut.
Dawkins reminds me of an adult version of Stewie Griffin for some reason lol
The question is "how did complexity arise?"
And that question is well addressed today!
God the eternal programmer.
If you’re gonna talk about simulation theory, you should interview Tom Campbell on his Big “Theory Of Everything (TOE)”.
Tom Campbell would be able to speak much better on his theory of it and how it relates to quantum physics and classical physics and everything else since he has 3 books on his theory.
Dawkins is good if I want to be made fun of for believing in God.
Campbell is too cultish...
@@andrewmarkmusic he doesn't push it though and encourages people to match their knowledge with their experiences to come to conclusions for their own life.
Overall, I'd say he's still an easy guy to talk to and anything seemingly spiritual can be abstracted away to focus more on his theories - in a scientific manner.
Specifically, it's very interesting to hear how he sees all different components of life tying together.
For example, the big bang is like a computer turning on. Think of a computer screen with a dot in the middle that turns on, or a virtual world that renders from nothing to everything in a flash. This analogy is so interesting to describe the big bang as it correlates quite well.
This new environment is finite just like a program inside a computer. It is not infinite. Same with our world.
It makes you think... if our world is also finite... what's on the "other side?" Well... according to Tom Campbell, it may be like a computer program where "the other side" is like the other side of a virtual game environment. It's nothing. But in a different dimension to the game environment, is the programmer!
andrewmarkmusic where do you draw the conclusions towards your last few sentences from...?
@@williamx0 What spiritual worldview exists that deceived the WHOLE world? Christianity? 2-billion claim to know! Islam? Same! Hinduism and eastern philosophy? Another few billion who know! Satan sure is crappy at his job when it comes to deceiving:P But if Yahweh is Satan like Christian Gnostics suggest then Satan (Yahweh) has deceived the WHOLE world.
Perhaps the Aeon Christ, when tempted by Satan, was only offered South America:P
This idea of us in a simulation strikes me as false as the idea that the world was created with fossils in the rocks.
God is the base reality of all existence, His mind simulated lower reality like we do in dreams, and according to scripture there are several levels of angels ranging in power. That is why God is omniscient His power simulated all related and by doing that He can see every event that another consiousness experiences and doesn't render what is not being experiences by anyone else and we may be at the bottom of simulated realities.
The creator also wrote a SCRIPT. We are all playing our roles a script. So, it's much deeper my friend.
´damn the idea of us being like the smartphone to the cloud really struck me. parallels to spiritual teachings...
Which spiritual teachings? How does religion relate in any way to this interview? Dawkins is by trade an ethologist, an evolutionary expert and theorist. He is the author of many profound and academically respected books on evolution and genetics. And he is atheist, but that is just one of his virtues.
@@timkbirchico8542 basically the core of every spiritual teaching
@@timkbirchico8542 The Simulation Theory lines up with Theology. Stop being Dogmatic
Whoever running the simulation must fucking be crazy.
There is a crucial point to consider here. Everything that we are allowed to know rationally belongs to the known Universe, limited to matter, energy, space and time. Any cause originating from that same Universe does not belong to it, so it would not be limited by those same factors. For us, anything beyond the interactions of matter, energy, space, and time is totally outside our cognitive capacity. But the intellectual vanity of many of our scientists does not accept their own limitations, believing that they know everything there is to know.
Since it's a product of evolution, isn't it easy to say that this is a natural outcome of any civilization? Just follow the evolution. What will we be able to accomplish in 100 years, in 1000? Simulating realities seems trivially easy, while being infinitely useful.
Eugene S simulating a reality is computationally expensive and selecting the right rules for such a simulation to get meaningful data is also not trivial
@@David-ck4ep No it's not. Consider video games? Minecraft gives you all the reality you need, and runs on potato. People have literally built fully functional computers inside of Minecraft.
Quantum mechanics shows you where all the processing efficiencies are.
Also, there are no rules to select. You create a quantum universe, and let it evolve, if you want a natural simulation. And if you want your own personal game, than it's no different than imagining playing Minecraft 2077. Nothing is simulated, unless it has to. Does that sound like quantum mechanics to you?
Also, you're thinking of simulating reality on classical computers, yeah, that's hard, if not impossible (because you can't simulate quantum classically). But doing it on quantum computers is trivially easy, the entire universe is doing it as we speak, we would just borrow some of that computational capacity to run localized simulations.
Basically, you simulate reality in order to answer questions that would be too difficult or too costly to answer in the real world. In a simulation, you can build anything and everything you want, for free, entire planets, entire universes, it's just arranged code. And as long as only the important stuff gets calculated, the cost is almost nothing to the simulator. But also, consider the fact that the simulator/creator probably has the resources of at least an entire solar system to play with (Kardashev type II).
Mmm a simulation governed by some sort of pre existing programmer who operates within the simulation from the outside? Dawkins says it could be turned on in an instant? Sounds like an analogy for God lol.
I would like for Richard to meet the simulation programmer:
"Hi Richard, I coded all this. My name is Jesus Christ"
wouldnt it be god that programmed it all?
gods the programmer and jesus is the handy man that goes round screwing in light bulbs and fixing broken pipes lol
@@roygreen2959 and the holy spirit is the programmer's vision of how things ought to be.
@@ONFIREYO the holy spirit could even be the name of the programme itself. i.e programme is named after the father the son and the holy ghost
@@roygreen2959 No, the programme is named the Universe. Which just means "one line of code."
Awesome. Someone finally explains the paradox well. The simulation theory is not a solution to anything. It's a paradox that leads into the same rabbit hole. If you travel further into the hole, you'll realize that there is only one way the light could have been switched on. Only 1.
So your point is that you believe in the argument
What does outside of time even mean? Time is what governs motion. For motion to occur it means there is time and it can be measured, calculated and proven.
If an entity is outside of time it can not exist literally. It could never have existed without motion in time.
People seem almost eager to believe our beautiful world is just an illusion.
If a Kurzweil-style singularity were to occur, it seems to me that it would be a smart machine consciously designing a smarter one, which in turn designs a smarter one, and so on over a relatively short time. Let's say the superintelligent outcome can implement a rich enough simulation that inhabitants feel it as real. Would it be meaningful to say that the programmer of the simulation arose though "evolution"? In this scenario it would be more like intelligent design. It seems to me "evolution" would have to be stretched to include any process where a lesser system produces a greater one (as an alternative to God-created or eternal).
Lex fridman in his super cool spy suit
Everyone go and see "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis" no matter what you think of Neil. He is talking about the idea that truly moves our thinking about simulation a bit forward.
The Universe is a dream dreamed by a single dreamer where all the dream characters dream too.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Well, if the supposed “programmer” arose from an evolutionary reality that wasn’t itself programmed, then this means that its reality wasn’t a simulation; &, so, this begs the question, why couldn’t we have also arisen from a non-simulated reality, without need for programming, as the supposed “programmer” did as well? Now I’m not saying that I don’t believe in a creator or “programmer”, in fact, I do, I’m just saying that evolution & simulation theory aren’t compatible (from Dawkins’ statement which is quoted in this video’s title, it seems like he’s attempting to reconcile the two), as they’re mutually exclusive; if either one is claimed to be responsible for life, then the other one can’t be as such.
The meta simulations must hit the wall somewhere, which Musk calls "Base Reality". And the Base Reality (aka The Truth) must have always existed. Otherwise it's meaningless.
Not true if the simulations loop on themselves, or otherwise have no beginning. Having to place things into a story with a beginning is an unnecessary limitation. Your use of the word "must" is unfounded. Why does meaning require a base reality, and why does the absence of meaning if it were not so prove that it must be so?
Eli Bain information and computation need a substrate. Also, simulations can’t loop on themselves because the resolution decreases down the chain. You need a single “real” substrate even if there are infinite number of simulations. They must be in a set of (0... Inf), not (-Inf, Inf).
I agree with RD on consciousness ( and intelligence) being eminently present within the Cosmos. Our brains are tuned to receive and transmit on the specific frequencies of our own species ( and potentially, all other lifeforms in our own ecosystem in its entirety).
Thank you sir. Keep up the good work.
@Lex Fridman: I think a good guy to whom you could ask such a question is Philippe Guillemant (a Physicist & signal/image processing research director). Herein is his UA-cam channel :
ua-cam.com/channels/tNA_FtemZa-EJeh8CAyJFQ.html
He actually has got very interesting views about time which, in my viewpoint, challenge Richard Dawkins's perception of evolution.
I think the biggest fallacy of most people is believing that nothing precedes something. Why can’t conscious being have just always been without beginning? Isn’t it foolishness to believe something came from nothing? Why couldn’t something just exist without beginning.
Mindless steps do not create intelligent working outcomes.
The idea that we are in a simulation is completely RIDICULOUS. Of course it's from a science fiction novel.
Not a Simulation, a Realization, the Realization of All☯️❤️🙏
Hey Richard loved you in South Park!
Who's to say the rules of base reality are even remotely similar to our own? What if evolution is a only a relevant principle in our simulated reality? What if logic as we know it is only a feature of this reality?
The programmer still needs a starting point. It's the same argument as god. He too needs his initial existence explained ie The programmer/god had a day 1
Then what made the system that produced the programmer?
We created computers, but computer can control our world , computers can be connected together all over the world , and also human brains has the same capabilities to connect the others if you become conscious
The nested simulation idea is an entertaining one.
Although you can't make any true bets about realities with laws different from our own.
You can't "like the argument" that as technology advances infinitely, you might some day be able to casually simulate universes. Technology can't advance infinitely. It's constrained by the laws of the universe itself.
At the point where you start needing a whole planet worth of materials to generate a simulation (or a galaxy worth of materials), the logistics of it are going to start getting very awkward, and you're going to run into normal prioritization decisions... Where there's always something better to do.
And nested simulations would require a proportionally greater setup in base reality.
Andrei Linde would be a great guest for you
Is it necessary for a simulation to be matter? So we can't create a loophole with creationism and existentialism?
Why are we subjecting the programmer to the laws of science within the program?
What if the creators of the simulation didn’t evolve Gradually because they are also in a simulation and evolution is something programmed to work in those worlds but experienced in different speed for the ones living in the simulation in comparison to the ones who created it
If something can’t come from nothing, as the religious argument goes, then how did God come from nothing.
It’s just not a good argument.
outside time and space everything always is, there is no past or future, its just now.
Consider that the universe came into existence somehow. How? I don't know. No one knows. People have theories that can't be tested. Religious people have beliefs that can't be tested. But we certainly came from somewhere. For right now, I've been calling it the Prime Mover (credit to Aquinas 13th century). Elon Musk calls it the AI (and that we're likely living in a simulated reality). Religious people call it God. Whatever. But there is something that started our reality. No one is arguing for you to believe in God.
What religious argument are you referring to?
People find it hard to imagine something without a beginning or end, like 'God'. But consciousness doesn't have a beginning or end and we can all see that for ourselves. (If we really want to) Of course, one has to make a distinction between the contents of consciousness and consciousness itself. The latter really just 'is'. Why are we even talking about 'God' anyway, since that makes it all so abstract. Consciousness itself is outside of time and therefore eternal. Time is flowing through consciousness. This is our experience, yet so many don't notice this.
@@Sydebern Individual instances of consciousness may very well begin and end with the holders biological existence, how do you KNOW otherwise?
Top tier content 🤝
Maybe Dawkins is the programmer
would love to see a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Elon Musk
Musk knows too much and Dawkins knows very much
really faulty logic here. extrapolating from one planet to other/earlier universes. We don´t even know if darwinian evolution is universal in this universe.
Richard Knows.
I agree with you on this point but he's using the term quite loosely.
If space could expand forever.. or to a point.. there has to be something past that point.. and on and on.. same with the small.. it just goes on and on smaller and smaller..
Can't the same be said for a creator? There's no beginning and no end..
It's not turtles all the way down. It is AI programs all the way down:-)
For anyone interested in this line of inquiry, I would suggest checking out "Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer" by John C. Lilly
Our consciousness residing in a "cloud" is a pure Platonic idea. I don't think it's true, but that's more or less the principle of such an idea.
You should have a conversation with Donald Hoffman. He has a really great theory about consciousness
Any books of his you can recommend?
John Chapman The Case Against Reality: How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
@@yaroslavishchuk thanks I'll check it out.
ahhh the old infinite regress problem. classic.
Think of the simulation as coding games.
It takes ages to make a masterpiece no matter how smart you are!
Such a shame more people with Richards intellect don't take DMT. I'd love to see him interviewed after that. Personally DMT lead me to believe this is a simulation, i mean its real but not real if you get me.