As I see it, this whole 1 in x universes is a logical fallacy anyway. It assumes that every universe is equally possible but if you have 1 universe with 3 universes inside and 1 universe with 100 universes do you still have a 50/50 chance of being in each of the bigger universes. What if the number of individual consciousnesses is the same shared out across the universes? To me it's like saying; I'm in a house so I have a 1 in 25 million chance of being in my house cos I live in the UK until you invent the concept of countries and then just be virtue of their possible existence I am less likely to be in my house. It's bad logic.
@R P I mean...correct me if I'm wrong but they're all doing relatively well right? He's clearly making money, he can afford an entire production team for multiple channels. How does it reek of desperation?
This video was recommended to me under a different video I watched. I watched a few other videos first then went through like 8 of his channels looking for this video. I didn't find it and had to use the search bar and try to remember the name of the video as best as I could.
@@themurmeli88 Well, yes and no. It only technically expands "faster than light" from a relative distance. Space is expanding at a constant rate everywhere at once, but at any given point in space, that same rate of expansion pushing things away is, itself, being pushed away, so it looks to us as if everything is accelerating away from us, when it's really just stacking. So nothing is technically moving faster than light, at least not on it's own.
@@Trey5S5S Point being, it's a bad argument for "maximum processing speed" if this was a simulation. Not to mention, there is no way to tell if the "maximum speed" is limited by "performance" or if it's just an artificial cap.
@@themurmeli88 I mean, there's no real way to tell anything about this; it's just a thought experiment, but it's still fun to talk about. By "maximum processing speed", they could just mean the speed which it takes information to "process", and since space isn't information in and of itself, it doesn't have to be "processed" like everything else does.
Personally i'd find being a simulation something of a relief ,if i'm just a pawn (For want of a better word ) being shoved about for someone else's edification, then i'm both serving a purpose while actually not mattering very much .An idea I find both mildly validating and oddly relaxing .My only real problem with the whole concept is why ? Whoever is running me (And an awful lot of other people ) must be insanely bored by my not very interesting existence .I find it incredibly hard to believe that there's any element of entertainment involved .Maybe we are part of some history class program being studied by a lot of unwilling teenagers .If so then i'm really sorry kids .
You don't need to be part of a simulation to accept the possibility that you're just a pawn and don't matter very much. It's the false notion that we have to make something out of our lives or have a destiny that makes so many people unhappy. All we're here for is to reproduce and die like everything else that is alive. Just try to enjoy the ride because it doesn't last that long.
Well maybe our creators are so far evolved that they have reached immortality, which if you think about it, would make life really boring. Watch the last episode of the last season of Alice in Borderland. It really makes sense there, my english is too bad 😂
Consider, that only when its turned off, will you have chance for reality. And what if in reality, you are in fact everything you ever dreamed off, and this is just a challenge mode you wanted to try out, where you are the least version of yourself that you could be without going insane?
I really do appreciate how quickly you speak and how clearly you propose a concept. Most other speakers get pedantic before they get to the point. Thank you, Francis
I could have sworn this video came out months ago. Am I experiencing a glitch in the matrix right now? Did Simon not cover simulation theory like 3 months ago? Edit: ah, it was like a year ago on Decoding the Unknown. Simon, your infinite channels just made me question my reality.
As someone who has done so-called machine learning professionally for over a decade, "[a simulation indistinguishable from our own reality] is clearly a long way off in the future" is an overwhelmingly vast understatement. Never underestimate the stupidity of computers.
If we are in a simulation, then we have already found spacial and temporal minimums defining the resolution, which are called the Planck units. Defining the absolute minimums of time, length, heat, and mass that are possible under known physics
I never got why everyone assumes that the simulation is based on the real world in the past. For all we know, the real Earth could be cube shaped and the programmers are five dimensional squids. It's not like every video game we made was an accurate replica of Earth in the past.
Exactly. Is is much more likely that a simulation will be simplified to run on the hardware used. We often reduce things from three dimensions down to two or simulate fewer particles to get a feel for how a fluid/gas will interact.
True, we could very easily just be living in a fantasy simulation/game conceived by some super intelligent squid like aliens. Let's face it, many people currently play video games where the avatar and game characters are anything but human, that is set in a world that greatly differs and don't fully mirror or represent our own real world. Sometimes those worlds can break the laws of physics, have different technology than our own or playout in a completely made up fictional timeline. Yes, they often share a few simularity's with our own world, however they don't actually aim to represent or to carbon copy our own world or our own real life's. Yes, the simulation could be a fairly accurate representation of the past history of that particular species. However it's far more likely, going by the shear amount and the popularity of fantasy world's in video games, to just be a completely fictional made-up world, with only a few elements within that world that is shared with the real world. We all very easily, could be just either an avatar or a NPC, playing a role in a generated fantasy world. It could simply have been designed by an alien lifeform, purely as a form of entertainment, just like video games, are for us. It doesn't necessarily have to be a simulation, that's designed for the purpose to gain knowledge or some form of insight.
Although briefly stated I find the idea of Simulation interesting when considering subatomic particles; specifically example being the double slit experiment as to whether it is a particle or a wave, and the observers effect.
I have degrees in engineering and physics and I just don't dwell too much on things humans will never know because it could be even crazier than you imagine, but we'll never know.
The trolley scenario is actually not far from the kind of decisions that commanders in wars have to make. They have to make tough decisions where sometimes the outcome is going to likely end up with someone dying no matter what decision you make, but maybe one decision causes fewer deaths
4:49 "given enough time..." That's the thing, though: we don't have infinite time. Assuming we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion, we only have about a billion years before multicellular life can no longer exist on this planet. I'm honestly skeptical that we could create a planet-sized supercomputer in that amount of time.
Very interesting, and a coincidence too. I'm (trying) to get through The Game is Life by Terry Schott. The idea is that children go into a suspended state in a simulation and live a whole life in just a few months. However, as I've found out, it goes much deeper by simulations inside simulations. A very good read.
"The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." -- Morpheus
While the probability of that is never going to be absolute zero I can remember a time before RUclips and a time before Simon Whistler song gonna have to call b******* on that 1
There's an interesting recent documentary film, A Glitch in the Matrix, which delves into this, including talking to some individuals who believe they are in a simulation (appropriately instead of seeing the person interviewed, we see a virtual avatar of them!), some of them had put a lot of thought into it -one concluded it was likely he was in a simulation, but since it still allowed him to live a life, he may as well just get on and enjoy that life. Pretty interesting documentary.
To shoot down the idea that the speed of light indicates a maximum simulator processor speed: I am an R&D video-game programmer. I make game engines for a living. I was a senior graphics programmer on the Luminous Studio Engine at Square Enix for Final Fantasy XV. There doesn’t need to be a universal maximum speed tied to the simulating computer’s processing speed because the simulation wouldn’t be real-time. Meaning that while the computer works on a single update, nothing inside the simulation perceives time as passing. All things in the simulation would be paused until the update finishes, and then the next update would begin with each object paused until the update finishes, repeat. The computer can have as long as it wants to finish an update, so saying that the speed of light indicates some other-worldly computer’s processor speed really has no meaning at all. If the universe just suddenly stops right now, we would have no idea. We would never be aware of the time gap between when it stops and resumes. Every second, the universe could be paused 1,000,000,000 times while some little machine goes around and adjusts every atom or subatomic particle, and we would have no idea this was happening, even if this updating process took trillions of years per single update.
if a person wants to believe we exist in a simulation (I've known such a person) go ahead. Take a few things into consideration. 1. As a simulation, that means it's a program. No doubt. the fanciest and biggest program someone (or a group of people) has ever built. 2. To run this program, the most powerful computer someone has ever built needs to be constructed. Even if a network is used to execute said program we still need to ask, who created the program and the computer/network?
There is a very simple way to test if the simulation theory is real. It's called "forced signing out". I'm planning on executing this experiment in about 20 years from now. We'll see if i respawn to another timeline as a new charachter.
Most of the arguments against simulation only apply if we're an ancestor simulation and our world is anything like the world that is simulating us. Though most of the arguments FOR simulation are that we would sim ourselves for various reasons, so it balances out I guess. But we could as easily be someone's equivalent of The Sims or Dwarf Fortress with only a rudimentary physics compared to them.
worrying about whether we're in a sim or not seems like a waste of time. im more concerned with wether i should be entertaining enough to get plot armor or dull enough to be a nameless npc and therefore less likely to be on the chopping block at all
You can. The laws of physics "change" based on how large or small something is. Scale is not actually just a matter of perspective, it is also an absolute property.
It's a mistake to assume that such a simulation would be an ancestor simulation. It's also a mistake to assume that such a simulation would take place within a super computer. If the universe is a simulation, it could be a simulation similar to the Sims - where each person is an avatar for a conscious being who exists in the world beyond our simulated universe. And while a super computer of some kind might house the physical laws and provide the information for the simulation, the simulation itself could be taking place within the minds of the conscious beings who exist in the world outside the simulation. Thus the simulation might be dependent upon technology that are in their infancy in our universe. Namely, super-computers and neural interfacing. The minds of living beings, through neural interfacing, could provide the memory and processing power necessary for such a super-computer. I think it makes more sense for such a simulation to be an educational simulation in which the memories of those participating in the simulation are blocked so they fully identify with their avatars. When the avatar dies in the simulation, the player (for lack of a better word), moves on to play another avatar until they learn all they need from the simulation. The question remains: What are we supposed to be learning in this educational simulation? We're supposed to be learning how to love and respect each other and our world as a whole. We're supposed to be learning how to be compassionate, to practice justice (balance/fairness) in our society, and to care for the ecosystems we're dependent upon. All of these attributes are necessary for the survival of any civilization, especially a super-technologically advanced civilization. Any civilization that doesn't embrace these attributes is in danger of destroying itself. The simulation hypothesis also might explain the Fermi Paradox and why we haven't found any aliens yet. Either they're not necessary to the simulation; or, if we treat our existence as if it's akin to a computer game in which we must learn to care for one another and the planet while advancing our civilization to a level 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale, then we win the game and we can advance to the next level where alien civilizations will become known to us. Of course, this requires a reworking of the Kardashev scale to not only include advancements in technology but also an advancement in organizing our civilization to a more compassionate and just civilization where everyone has what they need and poverty and exploitation have become things of the past; a civilization where everyone works for the betterment of themselves and society at large; a civilization in which willful ignorance and bigotry have been overcome. We essentially need to build a unified world civilization similar to the way Earth is described in Star Trek.
How else would you explain the duck-billed platypus other than the result of a "bring your daughter to work day" at whatever company designed our world.
One of the problems I have with this theory is that an exact simulation of our own universe would need a computer that is able to simulate the state of everything that exists in our universe. And to be able to do that the computer would need some way to store those states. And as far as I understand it you would practically need everything our universe has to offer to be able to do that. So If we want to exist while this simulation is running, the simulated universe would have to be smaller than our own universe. And if you go along with that then at some point a universe would only consist of one bit of information. If simulating a smaller universe counts than I would say that we are already there. But even if our universe is one of those simulations it would still have to be unique in some way and as Simon said we still do experience life which is special on its own so I don't think the answer to the question has any relevance in deciding how to live our lifes.
The argument for simulation theory I heard which is a bit more compelling than speed of light. When we get to subatomic levels, kvantum theory actually resembles optimization processes a little bit. In a way we don't know what's happening with some particles unless we directly query it. This is how optimization can work... basically "what you can't see, we can "fudge" as long as approximation is good enough".
*here's the thing...if we are living or existing within a simulation or artificially generated construct, would we not be programmed NOT to notice or detect that possibility?*
@@dgoodwin619 *if the program is complicated and advanced enough as one would assume if created by an advance civilization or artificial entity to maintain the illusion of a nonexistent reality and yet provide the sensory and tactile aspects to convince our brains that it is real then the possibility of there being detectable flaws would be unlikely...unless the flaws themselves were part of the program to provide a random element of questioning what is real and what is not..the question then is why would such a flaw be deemed relevant to our presumed projected/generated existence*
@@Juan_lauda *without any challenges or reason to move about we would all become simi- gelatinous blobs of lard obsessed with playing video games...wait a minute*
The speed of light also varies. Changes in different mediums. Even in a vacuum as space, the light that reaches us has been manipulated already by gravity, cosmic lights, radiations, ect ect ect. Our speed of light calculations could be wrong too. As formulas based on others that are even minutely wrong, are more off target exponentially.
Just to add some more counterarguments to the ancestor simulation (i.e. a simulation of a civilisation's own past): 1. If the speed of light is purely an artefact of the computationspeed, any simulated civilisation that eveloped to the point, that it can measure, use and abuse the speed of light would diverge from the simulators own history. Thus making the ancestor simulation pointless. 2. If there is a base reality with no limit to the speed of light, a civilisation in this reality could not evelop electronic devices (such as computers or quantum computers) to our understanding. Afterall, from nuclear fusion to quantum mechanics, electro dynamics to general theory of relativity, everything depends on the existence of this speed limit. A simulation in which a finite speed of light exists, therefore cannot be an ancestor simulation of said base reality as it would not simulate that reality. 3. To generate any meaningfull results for the base reality entities, the simulated time must proceed much faster than the base reality time. If a simulated civilisation evelopes to the point, where it creates its own ancestor simulation, the time within the new iteration mus proceed much faster than in the previous one. However, as all iterations run physically on the base reality computer, this puts a limit on how fast the iterations can become. Furthermore, if N_0 is the number of operations the base reality computer can compute per unit time, the number of operations N_i of any simulated computer per base reality unit time must be much smaller than N_0. Thus, there must either be a limit on how many iterations can be simulated or the time within the simulations have to be to slowed down (and eventually become slower as the base reality time, to the point, were the simulation is probably shutted down, as it is not longer usefull to the base reality entities.)
A few points. 1. There is more "evidence" than just the speed of light. A simulation would also have a resolution limit, and ours does: the Planck length. Things don't actually move smoothly through the universe, they actually jump from one Planck length to the next. Similarly, there is Planck time, time does not run smoothly either, it jumps from one Planck time to the next. 2. Just because it would take more atoms than exist in our universe to run a simulation of our universe, that does not matter. If we wanted to run a simulation of a universe, we would just have to be constrained by available resources, meaning our simulated universe would be smaller or simpler. The universe that created our simulation would therefore, just be larger and more complex than ours is. There is also "evidence" for this in that our universe does not seem to be infinite, but is finite in size. Ultimately, it does not matter if we are in a simulation or not, we can only accept the reality of the universe as presented to us. Indeed, we only experience a vanishingly small range of the universe, from the tiny bands of visible light, to not seeing tiny things or even the vast majority of the universe. So even if we assume we are in base reality, we're still only seeing that reality as simulated and processed by our brains. Hell, we can't even be sure everyone sees a color or hears a sound the same way as anyone else. So don't worry about it.
Personally, i think the weird behaviour of photons & electrons (e.g. interference/ slit experiment/observer effect) could be down to shoddy programming of the simulation we live in. That said, why should it be an “ancestor” simulation. The universe could just be a very long simulation created by someone for a purpose unconnected to humanity, and we’ve evolved within that.
It's not shoddy programming, it's efficiency. If nothing is looking directly at it, it just runs in low-res with statistical probability to save processing resources. But when observed, it switches to high-res to obtain a more precise answer.
Based on HP Lovecraft cosmic horror novels of Cthulhu, we are living in a dream of a monster, if we were to allow to wake up that would end everything, hehe.
They don't need to create an entire universe, all they have to do is limit the tech in a simulation and only create a single ai with the rest being programs. Then once you do that it's much more likely to have a big enough computer
You don't need to do even that. You just need to stimulate the brain to think that things are happening. E.g. you don't need to create a simulated rubber ball and calculate all the physics for it order to make the brain believe that those things "are happening".
also each simulation layer likely has lower limits like a slower speed of light and larger smallest point meaning each layer up in the simulation would have an easier time creating simulations beneath it. meaning it doesn't technically have to be possible in our universe, the theory lets our universe be any level of complexity compared to the base reality. Idk what i'm talking about
“I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.” ― Robert E. Howard, Queen of the Black Coast
There's a very real problem with the premise on which the theory is founded: that it is feasible to both build a perfect simulation of a system within that system to an arbitrarily exacting level of fidelity, and that doing so, and nesting the hypothesized results, will be possible. Suppose that the Universe in its totality is a simulation, and that simulation, without loss of fidelity to its parent universe, takes some energy to simulate. It follows that the sum total of the energy used to simulate the Universe is less than the sum total of energy necessary to run the Universe outside the simulation. This results in two logical flaws each of which would be sufficient for a mathematical Proof-by-Contradiction: (1) As the sums of energy required to run the outer Universe and the inner Universe are necessarily different, the fidelity we assumed was possible is demonstrably not possible. (2) The domains of execution are nested, which means that all of the energy required to run the inner Universe must be less than or equal to the sum of energy required to run the outer Universe, but in the case of equivalence, the outer Universe effectively ceases to exist as all of its energy would be running the inner Universe, which would remain as the only Universe meaningfully extant, thereby violating the assumption that there can be nested simulations. Now, that's all said under the assumption that there are no accessible domains in which we (or other residents of our Universe's space/time curvature) could deploy a nested-universe scheme, in which the laws pertaining to the conservation of energy fail to pertain. If you can throw out the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then gee, yeah, nearly anything would be possible, but there's no evidence that we can reach any such domains of space/time, so the whole thing collapses into implausibility, really. Love the video, though.
You could even add another layer to the theory. What if humans are not the main characters inside of the simulation and another civilisation created the next simulation inside of a simulation. 🤯
the argument by John Richard Gott is only true if every civilization only simulates one civilization. If every civilization instead simulates a million civilizations, we could be one of the last million instead of the last one.
And in a separate post (since the first one rambled a bit) is the sage guidance of the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett, "The Discworld operated on the edge of reality, but no-one tried to prove it wasn't real in case they woke up one morning and found out they were right."
It's basically already just a science fiction twist on God. It explains the unexplained, can't be disproven, and assumes there's a creator. It's just God all over again.
did you hear about the chatAI driven village characters yet? my guess is this was written before that announcement as that was not brought up at all and it was like the lowest level of a simulator as described here.
The problem with the idea that we are a simulation within nested simulations is that any failure along the chain of simulations would end the subsequent simulations in that chain. Base reality is the strongest link, so this is most likely base reality and not a simulation that could be ended by the failure of a simulator or the grad student shutting us down after they get their PhD for making the simulation in the first place. If a simulation keeps going after said shutdown, would that imply a good enough simulation is a reality in its own right? The one thing that does make me think there is a slight possibility of us being simulated is the collapse of a wave form when the conscious observer looks at the individual particle in that waveform; that the waveform is the generalized simulation and the simulation focuses into a particle because the particle takes more computational power that is used only when consciousness is actually looking at the central particle.
it doesn't have to be a conscious observer its more when particles interact with each other which is happening all the time, this whole its a particle and a wave until its observed just means its is what it is until it interacts with anything. not just some scientist measuring it. the fact we have a whole universe around us tells us this is happening all the time from the fist milli second of the universe up until now and all the way into the future until what ever the end is.
The argument of :"Since there is infinity possibilities, then it is infinitly more probable that we are in a simulation then not." is the kind of nonsense you get when you rely too much on math. Like a teacher told me once: "How can movement be possible since to move one meter, you first have to move half a meter. And to move hafl a meter, you first have to move half of that half a meter and so on." If you only rely on math, movement is impossible.
Ive always thought that 1 reason that gravity increases and time slows near massive objects is due to the cpu struggling to render everything in detail
Simulation “theory” is just a modern western “the world is illusion” but while seeing one’s perceptions as subjective is empowering, the idea that we’re all stuck or in prison somehow removes agency. But by all means let’s build a planet sized computer and call it deep thought.
It's not actually a certainty that technology will eventually be able to simulate reality. the reason for this is that reality is infinite, but any system we create will be finite, and that's something that is just mathematically impossible to overcome
The issue with the real world creating a simulation that creates a simulation, etc, is that we do not have a very high chance of being a simulation. We do not yet have the capability of creating an Ancestor Simulation, therefore we have to be either in the real world, or the very last simulation. That gives us a 50/50 chance of being in the real world since there are only 2 possibilities. It's not particularly great odds of us being real, but it's a far cry from basically guarenteeing that we are a simulation. Maybe I should watch all the video first, lol. I see now that he covers this issue.
On the subject of having enough RAM, etc, don't forget that the real universe may have vastly different properties to our own, and running this simulation may actually be incredibly simple and easy there. We create simulations of reality with different natural rules and properties for study or fun all the time, who's to say that this universe we're in, isn't a wild thought experiment that's very alien to the REAL universe?
we've made our own simulation well enough that it's not as big as the one we live in, but the simulation we've made is called the sims, so the fact that we didn't make one doesn't fit, even though it requires thinking away from the box
the funny thing is thinking about it from the point of view from far left field... we wouldnt need to simulate the entire universe, in all actuality all that would need to be simulated in order for the simulation theory to be even remotely plausible is to simulate what each individual person can see/what they can have access to seeing, so on that front if one was to simulate any given persons life they would need to observe what they do on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis even down to the minute and then take it to what they can see/hear/taste/touch, and from there put it into code and theres that persons simulation if they have access to a microscope code that same with a telescope as to what the telescope can see well as a person we cant see whats in space for our selves so what happens we take the word of professionals that work at like the hubble and nasa... so all in all its all thoretically plausible but at the same time if it was a simulation how is it still going? what is the power source as it would need to be huge? so many questions not enough answers... I feel as was said its compelling but ultimately too many questions and a lot of unverifiable variables
I occasionally get a sense of unreality, like something’s not right. It could be unconscious awareness of the simulation or just a nonsense feeling produced by my broken brain
the only thing i would say is that if light was essentially the fastest thing we know of as a law of fact in physics we would be much better off, but the real facts are we have already found things faster than light, light how the universe is expanding for example.
If we are simulated by a "computer" it stands to reason that a further level "down" simulation created by us would tax the primary system/simulator twice as much and every step on such a ladder would do the same if complexity remains equal. Therefore only one level of "simulation" would be likely as nobody builds a computer several times more capable than you imagine you need it to be for the purpose you intend. This would suggest that either we can't build a simulator at that level or if we do we "crash" the whole system rendering our reality destroyed or atleast hard reseted, neither a verry appealing prospect. So if any one are thinking about creating a simulation do keep it as limited as possible will ya.
I always wonder why we have diarrhea and explosive farts,bad teeth, and cancer. Like what is the simulation trying to prove with my grandma's bad breath? I guess without bad breath I wouldn't be here commenting. Although I'd posit a theory that if no one reads a comment then it didnt happen at all.
Ok. I feel like “c” alone is not the real speed limit, as in it can stretch or contract due to the expansion of spacetime as a whole. And not just for time either. The spacial dimensions adding to the time, there’s still a minimum. Maybe my lack of understanding of the relationships between the two, shows that what I am going for, The fact that there are many different, MINUSCULE AMOUNTS that can be formed. All being called with the prefix of Planck? Makes me wonder. There’s the smallest form of time, Planck time. (Prolly not scientific name) Smallest distance, Planck distance. (Not scientifical name) As for the time reference, the Planck time can be analogous to the universal FRAMERATE… Whereas the Planck distance, can be analogous to the resolution (picture a digitally transmitted photo. The size of the pixels limits the level of detail) So the Planck length, coupled with Planck time, gives me a better understanding of the nature of a simulationated reality, than just the speed of causality. If anyone read this far PLEASE fill me in on what I am missing, tho first off nobody will read this far, and secondly I think I am not realizing how Planck’s constants had been derived. Alas I still think bring Planck into the picture will resolve some issues.
"Either we are first or last" only works if each civilization only creates one simulation.
Big brain 🧠
we also could be some sorta side effect or glitch in the simulation, a bug yet to be worked out of existence.
It's like a movie character saying they're not in a movie because they can't see the rolling credits
As I see it, this whole 1 in x universes is a logical fallacy anyway. It assumes that every universe is equally possible but if you have 1 universe with 3 universes inside and 1 universe with 100 universes do you still have a 50/50 chance of being in each of the bigger universes. What if the number of individual consciousnesses is the same shared out across the universes? To me it's like saying; I'm in a house so I have a 1 in 25 million chance of being in my house cos I live in the UK until you invent the concept of countries and then just be virtue of their possible existence I am less likely to be in my house. It's bad logic.
Maybe we're species 3789 of simulation 283
Why did they have to simulate my lower back pain?😢
😂 dude same!!😂
All should be simulated to make it real including your hunger, tiredness and your backpain
You would question it further without it
Lol
It's just a very common bug that almost everyone has, but it's so low prio that it might never get solved
Simon needs to do an episode where he explains all his RUclips clones...I think he's up to 22 now 😂
he has a new channel like every other month
I thought he only had 12?! There are more?
@R P I mean...correct me if I'm wrong but they're all doing relatively well right? He's clearly making money, he can afford an entire production team for multiple channels. How does it reek of desperation?
This video was recommended to me under a different video I watched. I watched a few other videos first then went through like 8 of his channels looking for this video. I didn't find it and had to use the search bar and try to remember the name of the video as best as I could.
Sooo happy I got in on the ground floor...
Are they ALL bald ?
"no slimey rebirth for you" why do i feel like i will see this exact scene, simon and all, when i die...
Speed of light : I'm proof life is a simulation.
Quantum Entanglement : Hold my beer.
Not only that, the universe itself expands faster than speed of light.
These "philosophers" really should read some actual science papers ffs...
@@themurmeli88 Well, yes and no. It only technically expands "faster than light" from a relative distance. Space is expanding at a constant rate everywhere at once, but at any given point in space, that same rate of expansion pushing things away is, itself, being pushed away, so it looks to us as if everything is accelerating away from us, when it's really just stacking. So nothing is technically moving faster than light, at least not on it's own.
@@Trey5S5S Point being, it's a bad argument for "maximum processing speed" if this was a simulation. Not to mention, there is no way to tell if the "maximum speed" is limited by "performance" or if it's just an artificial cap.
@@themurmeli88 I mean, there's no real way to tell anything about this; it's just a thought experiment, but it's still fun to talk about.
By "maximum processing speed", they could just mean the speed which it takes information to "process", and since space isn't information in and of itself, it doesn't have to be "processed" like everything else does.
@@Trey5S5Scpu or something technology game lagging fps
The double slit experiment yields a bit of proof to the simulation theory as well
Only if you accept that something we don't understand must be a bug in the simulation. Which is basically the same as saying God did it or it's magic.
Personally i'd find being a simulation something of a relief ,if i'm just a pawn (For want of a better word ) being shoved about for someone else's edification, then i'm both serving a purpose while actually not mattering very much .An idea I find both mildly validating and oddly relaxing .My only real problem with the whole concept is why ? Whoever is running me (And an awful lot of other people ) must be insanely bored by my not very interesting existence .I find it incredibly hard to believe that there's any element of entertainment involved .Maybe we are part of some history class program being studied by a lot of unwilling teenagers .If so then i'm really sorry kids .
We're all just extra bits to flesh out the background of whatever is really important. Like sims and cars in Simcity.
@@westrim yup, I'm a NPC.
You don't need to be part of a simulation to accept the possibility that you're just a pawn and don't matter very much. It's the false notion that we have to make something out of our lives or have a destiny that makes so many people unhappy. All we're here for is to reproduce and die like everything else that is alive. Just try to enjoy the ride because it doesn't last that long.
@@netgnostic1627 welp im a NPC to the NPCs.
Well maybe our creators are so far evolved that they have reached immortality, which if you think about it, would make life really boring. Watch the last episode of the last season of Alice in Borderland. It really makes sense there, my english is too bad 😂
I pray to whoever is running the simulation, please do not shut it off. Also, I would like a pizza to magically appear in front of me right now. 🍕
😂 more like pls shut off this miserable simulation.
You better specify..... you'll probably get anchovies.
Consider, that only when its turned off, will you have chance for reality.
And what if in reality, you are in fact everything you ever dreamed off, and this is just a challenge mode you wanted to try out, where you are the least version of yourself that you could be without going insane?
Praying seems appropriate since simulation theory is basically just God all over again.
@@Confron7a7ion7 But criticizing a simulation creator is not blasphemous.
I really do appreciate how quickly you speak and how clearly you propose a concept. Most other speakers get pedantic before they get to the point. Thank you, Francis
I could have sworn this video came out months ago. Am I experiencing a glitch in the matrix right now? Did Simon not cover simulation theory like 3 months ago?
Edit: ah, it was like a year ago on Decoding the Unknown. Simon, your infinite channels just made me question my reality.
Same !!
😂
Facts
reality is just Simons all the way down...
I’ve lived in existential distress for years. 😢
As someone who has done so-called machine learning professionally for over a decade, "[a simulation indistinguishable from our own reality] is clearly a long way off in the future" is an overwhelmingly vast understatement. Never underestimate the stupidity of computers.
Good comment
If we are in a simulation, then we have already found spacial and temporal minimums defining the resolution, which are called the Planck units. Defining the absolute minimums of time, length, heat, and mass that are possible under known physics
I never got why everyone assumes that the simulation is based on the real world in the past. For all we know, the real Earth could be cube shaped and the programmers are five dimensional squids. It's not like every video game we made was an accurate replica of Earth in the past.
Exactly. Is is much more likely that a simulation will be simplified to run on the hardware used. We often reduce things from three dimensions down to two or simulate fewer particles to get a feel for how a fluid/gas will interact.
True, we could very easily just be living in a fantasy simulation/game conceived by some super intelligent squid like aliens.
Let's face it, many people currently play video games where the avatar and game characters are anything but human, that is set in a world that greatly differs and don't fully mirror or represent our own real world. Sometimes those worlds can break the laws of physics, have different technology than our own or playout in a completely made up fictional timeline. Yes, they often share a few simularity's with our own world, however they don't actually aim to represent or to carbon copy our own world or our own real life's.
Yes, the simulation could be a fairly accurate representation of the past history of that particular species. However it's far more likely, going by the shear amount and the popularity of fantasy world's in video games, to just be a completely fictional made-up world, with only a few elements within that world that is shared with the real world.
We all very easily, could be just either an avatar or a NPC, playing a role in a generated fantasy world. It could simply have been designed by an alien lifeform, purely as a form of entertainment, just like video games, are for us.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a simulation, that's designed for the purpose to gain knowledge or some form of insight.
The lack of aliens is weird.
not really, we like spiders if you see 1 you know there is more even if you cant hear or see em you know there has to be more.
It's also weird that most of us share a lot of the same experiences.
Although briefly stated I find the idea of Simulation interesting when considering subatomic particles; specifically example being the double slit experiment as to whether it is a particle or a wave, and the observers effect.
I have degrees in engineering and physics and I just don't dwell too much on things humans will never know because it could be even crazier than you imagine, but we'll never know.
We will because simulation theory is just better physics
Or maybe that's just how the creator wants you to think 😉
@@ThomasakaDes I believe we could have been created by higher beings, I'm not on board with any current religions though.
The trolley scenario is actually not far from the kind of decisions that commanders in wars have to make. They have to make tough decisions where sometimes the outcome is going to likely end up with someone dying no matter what decision you make, but maybe one decision causes fewer deaths
4:49 "given enough time..." That's the thing, though: we don't have infinite time. Assuming we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion, we only have about a billion years before multicellular life can no longer exist on this planet. I'm honestly skeptical that we could create a planet-sized supercomputer in that amount of time.
Very interesting, and a coincidence too. I'm (trying) to get through The Game is Life by Terry Schott. The idea is that children go into a suspended state in a simulation and live a whole life in just a few months. However, as I've found out, it goes much deeper by simulations inside simulations. A very good read.
You can't tell me chic fil a employees aren't NPCs.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of people we see every day are NPCs.
"The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." -- Morpheus
Great movie
Simon is so ubiquitous he must definitely be a simulation
While the probability of that is never going to be absolute zero I can remember a time before RUclips and a time before Simon Whistler song gonna have to call b******* on that 1
Simon is ubiquitous! U-B-I-QUIT-O-U-S! 🎶🕺
There's an interesting recent documentary film, A Glitch in the Matrix, which delves into this, including talking to some individuals who believe they are in a simulation (appropriately instead of seeing the person interviewed, we see a virtual avatar of them!), some of them had put a lot of thought into it -one concluded it was likely he was in a simulation, but since it still allowed him to live a life, he may as well just get on and enjoy that life. Pretty interesting documentary.
To shoot down the idea that the speed of light indicates a maximum simulator processor speed: I am an R&D video-game programmer. I make game engines for a living. I was a senior graphics programmer on the Luminous Studio Engine at Square Enix for Final Fantasy XV.
There doesn’t need to be a universal maximum speed tied to the simulating computer’s processing speed because the simulation wouldn’t be real-time. Meaning that while the computer works on a single update, nothing inside the simulation perceives time as passing. All things in the simulation would be paused until the update finishes, and then the next update would begin with each object paused until the update finishes, repeat. The computer can have as long as it wants to finish an update, so saying that the speed of light indicates some other-worldly computer’s processor speed really has no meaning at all.
If the universe just suddenly stops right now, we would have no idea. We would never be aware of the time gap between when it stops and resumes. Every second, the universe could be paused 1,000,000,000 times while some little machine goes around and adjusts every atom or subatomic particle, and we would have no idea this was happening, even if this updating process took trillions of years per single update.
if a person wants to believe we exist in a simulation (I've known such a person) go ahead. Take a few things into consideration.
1. As a simulation, that means it's a program. No doubt. the fanciest and biggest program someone (or a group of people) has ever built.
2. To run this program, the most powerful computer someone has ever built needs to be constructed. Even if a network is used to execute said program we still need to ask, who created the program and the computer/network?
There is a very simple way to test if the simulation theory is real. It's called "forced signing out".
I'm planning on executing this experiment in about 20 years from now. We'll see if i respawn to another timeline as a new charachter.
Most of the arguments against simulation only apply if we're an ancestor simulation and our world is anything like the world that is simulating us. Though most of the arguments FOR simulation are that we would sim ourselves for various reasons, so it balances out I guess.
But we could as easily be someone's equivalent of The Sims or Dwarf Fortress with only a rudimentary physics compared to them.
Look on the bright side, its better than being someones version of rimworld....though that might explain a few things about hitler and stalin
Computer simoulation is one of the best explanations for the crazy behavior of the double slit experiment.
The argument "barrier because of not enough CPU power" makes no sense for a simulation not running in real time.
worrying about whether we're in a sim or not seems like a waste of time. im more concerned with wether i should be entertaining enough to get plot armor or dull enough to be a nameless npc and therefore less likely to be on the chopping block at all
I think my dad's theory was best. He said "we are just a molecule on a table." Never could disprove it or confirm it.
You can. The laws of physics "change" based on how large or small something is.
Scale is not actually just a matter of perspective, it is also an absolute property.
@@themurmeli88 No they don't. They don't literally by definition, thats what the laws of physics are
@@JS-wp4gs That's why I put the change in quotes. Quantum mechanics are a thing for a reason.
"Fuck around and find out" is an excellent description of the scientific method.
It's a mistake to assume that such a simulation would be an ancestor simulation. It's also a mistake to assume that such a simulation would take place within a super computer.
If the universe is a simulation, it could be a simulation similar to the Sims - where each person is an avatar for a conscious being who exists in the world beyond our simulated universe.
And while a super computer of some kind might house the physical laws and provide the information for the simulation, the simulation itself could be taking place within the minds of the conscious beings who exist in the world outside the simulation.
Thus the simulation might be dependent upon technology that are in their infancy in our universe. Namely, super-computers and neural interfacing. The minds of living beings, through neural interfacing, could provide the memory and processing power necessary for such a super-computer.
I think it makes more sense for such a simulation to be an educational simulation in which the memories of those participating in the simulation are blocked so they fully identify with their avatars. When the avatar dies in the simulation, the player (for lack of a better word), moves on to play another avatar until they learn all they need from the simulation.
The question remains: What are we supposed to be learning in this educational simulation? We're supposed to be learning how to love and respect each other and our world as a whole. We're supposed to be learning how to be compassionate, to practice justice (balance/fairness) in our society, and to care for the ecosystems we're dependent upon. All of these attributes are necessary for the survival of any civilization, especially a super-technologically advanced civilization. Any civilization that doesn't embrace these attributes is in danger of destroying itself.
The simulation hypothesis also might explain the Fermi Paradox and why we haven't found any aliens yet. Either they're not necessary to the simulation; or, if we treat our existence as if it's akin to a computer game in which we must learn to care for one another and the planet while advancing our civilization to a level 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale, then we win the game and we can advance to the next level where alien civilizations will become known to us.
Of course, this requires a reworking of the Kardashev scale to not only include advancements in technology but also an advancement in organizing our civilization to a more compassionate and just civilization where everyone has what they need and poverty and exploitation have become things of the past; a civilization where everyone works for the betterment of themselves and society at large; a civilization in which willful ignorance and bigotry have been overcome. We essentially need to build a unified world civilization similar to the way Earth is described in Star Trek.
they be mutually exclusive but I don't see any reason why any of the three has to be true
They don't. The whole thing is just a science fiction twist on God.
How else would you explain the duck-billed platypus other than the result of a "bring your daughter to work day" at whatever company designed our world.
One of the problems I have with this theory is that an exact simulation of our own universe would need a computer that is able to simulate the state of everything that exists in our universe. And to be able to do that the computer would need some way to store those states. And as far as I understand it you would practically need everything our universe has to offer to be able to do that. So If we want to exist while this simulation is running, the simulated universe would have to be smaller than our own universe. And if you go along with that then at some point a universe would only consist of one bit of information.
If simulating a smaller universe counts than I would say that we are already there.
But even if our universe is one of those simulations it would still have to be unique in some way and as Simon said we still do experience life which is special on its own so I don't think the answer to the question has any relevance in deciding how to live our lifes.
That subtle jab at Madden was perfect.
The argument for simulation theory I heard which is a bit more compelling than speed of light. When we get to subatomic levels, kvantum theory actually resembles optimization processes a little bit. In a way we don't know what's happening with some particles unless we directly query it. This is how optimization can work... basically "what you can't see, we can "fudge" as long as approximation is good enough".
*here's the thing...if we are living or existing within a simulation or artificially generated construct, would we not be programmed NOT to notice or detect that possibility?*
This is possible, but to counter your point: how good is the program, are there possible bugs/flaws/memory leaks?
@@dgoodwin619 *if the program is complicated and advanced enough as one would assume if created by an advance civilization or artificial entity to maintain the illusion of a nonexistent reality and yet provide the sensory and tactile aspects to convince our brains that it is real then the possibility of there being detectable flaws would be unlikely...unless the flaws themselves were part of the program to provide a random element of questioning what is real and what is not..the question then is why would such a flaw be deemed relevant to our presumed projected/generated existence*
Exactly- and why would there be suffering programmed in? That’s messed up.
@@Juan_lauda *without any challenges or reason to move about we would all become simi- gelatinous blobs of lard obsessed with playing video games...wait a minute*
Good stuff. Kind of reminds me of the boltzmann brain theory. Make that video next
Planck length and time are starting to look like pixels and clock speed...
The speed of light also varies. Changes in different mediums. Even in a vacuum as space, the light that reaches us has been manipulated already by gravity, cosmic lights, radiations, ect ect ect.
Our speed of light calculations could be wrong too. As formulas based on others that are even minutely wrong, are more off target exponentially.
Dunking on Madden in a Simon Whistler video is gonna be the highlight of my week
Just to add some more counterarguments to the ancestor simulation (i.e. a simulation of a civilisation's own past):
1. If the speed of light is purely an artefact of the computationspeed, any simulated civilisation that eveloped to the point, that it can measure, use and abuse the speed of light would diverge from the simulators own history. Thus making the ancestor simulation pointless.
2. If there is a base reality with no limit to the speed of light, a civilisation in this reality could not evelop electronic devices (such as computers or quantum computers) to our understanding. Afterall, from nuclear fusion to quantum mechanics, electro dynamics to general theory of relativity, everything depends on the existence of this speed limit. A simulation in which a finite speed of light exists, therefore cannot be an ancestor simulation of said base reality as it would not simulate that reality.
3. To generate any meaningfull results for the base reality entities, the simulated time must proceed much faster than the base reality time. If a simulated civilisation evelopes to the point, where it creates its own ancestor simulation, the time within the new iteration mus proceed much faster than in the previous one. However, as all iterations run physically on the base reality computer, this puts a limit on how fast the iterations can become. Furthermore, if N_0 is the number of operations the base reality computer can compute per unit time, the number of operations N_i of any simulated computer per base reality unit time must be much smaller than N_0. Thus, there must either be a limit on how many iterations can be simulated or the time within the simulations have to be to slowed down (and eventually become slower as the base reality time, to the point, were the simulation is probably shutted down, as it is not longer usefull to the base reality entities.)
Me at 1:29 "Jokes on you, I have an existential crisis every day."
A few points.
1. There is more "evidence" than just the speed of light. A simulation would also have a resolution limit, and ours does: the Planck length. Things don't actually move smoothly through the universe, they actually jump from one Planck length to the next. Similarly, there is Planck time, time does not run smoothly either, it jumps from one Planck time to the next.
2. Just because it would take more atoms than exist in our universe to run a simulation of our universe, that does not matter. If we wanted to run a simulation of a universe, we would just have to be constrained by available resources, meaning our simulated universe would be smaller or simpler. The universe that created our simulation would therefore, just be larger and more complex than ours is. There is also "evidence" for this in that our universe does not seem to be infinite, but is finite in size.
Ultimately, it does not matter if we are in a simulation or not, we can only accept the reality of the universe as presented to us. Indeed, we only experience a vanishingly small range of the universe, from the tiny bands of visible light, to not seeing tiny things or even the vast majority of the universe. So even if we assume we are in base reality, we're still only seeing that reality as simulated and processed by our brains. Hell, we can't even be sure everyone sees a color or hears a sound the same way as anyone else. So don't worry about it.
Let’s not forget about the double-slit experiment.
Personally, i think the weird behaviour of photons & electrons (e.g. interference/ slit experiment/observer effect) could be down to shoddy programming of the simulation we live in.
That said, why should it be an “ancestor” simulation. The universe could just be a very long simulation created by someone for a purpose unconnected to humanity, and we’ve evolved within that.
It's not shoddy programming, it's efficiency. If nothing is looking directly at it, it just runs in low-res with statistical probability to save processing resources. But when observed, it switches to high-res to obtain a more precise answer.
I'm with Simon on this, even if we are a simulation it's not like we can interact with the levels above us
The fact that Elon backs the idea is the best argument against it. 😆
Based on HP Lovecraft cosmic horror novels of Cthulhu, we are living in a dream of a monster, if we were to allow to wake up that would end everything, hehe.
it is simulation hypothesis Simon, it is not an accepted theory
For good reason. It's just science fiction God.
Aspen Cho the editing was perfect 👌
They don't need to create an entire universe, all they have to do is limit the tech in a simulation and only create a single ai with the rest being programs. Then once you do that it's much more likely to have a big enough computer
You don't need to do even that.
You just need to stimulate the brain to think that things are happening. E.g. you don't need to create a simulated rubber ball and calculate all the physics for it order to make the brain believe that those things "are happening".
1:40 - Chapter 1 - Inside the matrix
8:00 - Chapter 2 - The downward spiral
10:55 - Chapter 3 - Criticisms
13:35 - Wrap up
also each simulation layer likely has lower limits like a slower speed of light and larger smallest point meaning each layer up in the simulation would have an easier time creating simulations beneath it. meaning it doesn't technically have to be possible in our universe, the theory lets our universe be any level of complexity compared to the base reality. Idk what i'm talking about
“I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.”
― Robert E. Howard, Queen of the Black Coast
3:37 The fact that they're mutually exclusive doesn't mean that they're exhaustive.
How did you manage not to mention the 'double slit' experiment? It fits in with simulation theory perfectly.
...how?
It's possible for sure.. But it's frequency based.
There's a very real problem with the premise on which the theory is founded: that it is feasible to both build a perfect simulation of a system within that system to an arbitrarily exacting level of fidelity, and that doing so, and nesting the hypothesized results, will be possible.
Suppose that the Universe in its totality is a simulation, and that simulation, without loss of fidelity to its parent universe, takes some energy to simulate. It follows that the sum total of the energy used to simulate the Universe is less than the sum total of energy necessary to run the Universe outside the simulation. This results in two logical flaws each of which would be sufficient for a mathematical Proof-by-Contradiction: (1) As the sums of energy required to run the outer Universe and the inner Universe are necessarily different, the fidelity we assumed was possible is demonstrably not possible. (2) The domains of execution are nested, which means that all of the energy required to run the inner Universe must be less than or equal to the sum of energy required to run the outer Universe, but in the case of equivalence, the outer Universe effectively ceases to exist as all of its energy would be running the inner Universe, which would remain as the only Universe meaningfully extant, thereby violating the assumption that there can be nested simulations.
Now, that's all said under the assumption that there are no accessible domains in which we (or other residents of our Universe's space/time curvature) could deploy a nested-universe scheme, in which the laws pertaining to the conservation of energy fail to pertain. If you can throw out the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then gee, yeah, nearly anything would be possible, but there's no evidence that we can reach any such domains of space/time, so the whole thing collapses into implausibility, really.
Love the video, though.
I never thought the trolley problem was a problem. I want to figure out a way I can hit them all.
You could even add another layer to the theory.
What if humans are not the main characters inside of the simulation and another civilisation created the next simulation inside of a simulation.
🤯
never understood the morality of the trolley thing. of course you pull the lever regardless. its the right thing to do. 1 in stead of multiple ...
Any Simon channel is entertaining but this is by far my favorite.
Planck time is processor speed, Planck length is pixel size, etc. Glad they have a good graphics card! 😊
Energy requirements of all that those nested universes must be high better turn them off now to save power.
Love this format, great editor
Trolley problem solution: De rail it, you know when it's on the points, change them.
the argument by John Richard Gott is only true if every civilization only simulates one civilization. If every civilization instead simulates a million civilizations, we could be one of the last million instead of the last one.
And in a separate post (since the first one rambled a bit) is the sage guidance of the late, great Sir Terry Pratchett, "The Discworld operated on the edge of reality, but no-one tried to prove it wasn't real in case they woke up one morning and found out they were right."
if we're in a sim then whoever started it are sadists. Same goes for creation.
I can see this becoming a religion, if it isn’t already. All hail the great programmer from beyond!
It's basically already just a science fiction twist on God. It explains the unexplained, can't be disproven, and assumes there's a creator. It's just God all over again.
did you hear about the chatAI driven village characters yet? my guess is this was written before that announcement as that was not brought up at all and it was like the lowest level of a simulator as described here.
No I haven't
The problem with the idea that we are a simulation within nested simulations is that any failure along the chain of simulations would end the subsequent simulations in that chain. Base reality is the strongest link, so this is most likely base reality and not a simulation that could be ended by the failure of a simulator or the grad student shutting us down after they get their PhD for making the simulation in the first place. If a simulation keeps going after said shutdown, would that imply a good enough simulation is a reality in its own right? The one thing that does make me think there is a slight possibility of us being simulated is the collapse of a wave form when the conscious observer looks at the individual particle in that waveform; that the waveform is the generalized simulation and the simulation focuses into a particle because the particle takes more computational power that is used only when consciousness is actually looking at the central particle.
it doesn't have to be a conscious observer its more when particles interact with each other which is happening all the time, this whole its a particle and a wave until its observed just means its is what it is until it interacts with anything. not just some scientist measuring it. the fact we have a whole universe around us tells us this is happening all the time from the fist milli second of the universe up until now and all the way into the future until what ever the end is.
The argument of :"Since there is infinity possibilities, then it is infinitly more probable that we are in a simulation then not." is the kind of nonsense you get when you rely too much on math.
Like a teacher told me once:
"How can movement be possible since to move one meter, you first have to move half a meter. And to move hafl a meter, you first have to move half of that half a meter and so on." If you only rely on math, movement is impossible.
Look at simon calling out madden! So true
Ive always thought that 1 reason that gravity increases and time slows near massive objects is due to the cpu struggling to render everything in detail
Simulation “theory” is just a modern western “the world is illusion” but while seeing one’s perceptions as subjective is empowering, the idea that we’re all stuck or in prison somehow removes agency. But by all means let’s build a planet sized computer and call it deep thought.
This is one that I feel is not touched on more that I think is becoming more and more realistic the more we think about it.
I don't know
It's not actually a certainty that technology will eventually be able to simulate reality. the reason for this is that reality is infinite, but any system we create will be finite, and that's something that is just mathematically impossible to overcome
you'll note that this is a theory founded on computation that is made by philosophers not computer scientists
The issue with the real world creating a simulation that creates a simulation, etc, is that we do not have a very high chance of being a simulation. We do not yet have the capability of creating an Ancestor Simulation, therefore we have to be either in the real world, or the very last simulation. That gives us a 50/50 chance of being in the real world since there are only 2 possibilities. It's not particularly great odds of us being real, but it's a far cry from basically guarenteeing that we are a simulation.
Maybe I should watch all the video first, lol. I see now that he covers this issue.
Didn't Simon cover this on another of his many channels? This sounds like something that William Gibson would write about in some cyberpunk novel.
On the subject of having enough RAM, etc, don't forget that the real universe may have vastly different properties to our own, and running this simulation may actually be incredibly simple and easy there.
We create simulations of reality with different natural rules and properties for study or fun all the time, who's to say that this universe we're in, isn't a wild thought experiment that's very alien to the REAL universe?
we've made our own simulation well enough that it's not as big as the one we live in, but the simulation we've made is called the sims, so the fact that we didn't make one doesn't fit, even though it requires thinking away from the box
the funny thing is thinking about it from the point of view from far left field... we wouldnt need to simulate the entire universe, in all actuality all that would need to be simulated in order for the simulation theory to be even remotely plausible is to simulate what each individual person can see/what they can have access to seeing, so on that front if one was to simulate any given persons life they would need to observe what they do on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis even down to the minute and then take it to what they can see/hear/taste/touch, and from there put it into code and theres that persons simulation if they have access to a microscope code that same with a telescope as to what the telescope can see well as a person we cant see whats in space for our selves so what happens we take the word of professionals that work at like the hubble and nasa... so all in all its all thoretically plausible but at the same time if it was a simulation how is it still going? what is the power source as it would need to be huge? so many questions not enough answers... I feel as was said its compelling but ultimately too many questions and a lot of unverifiable variables
I occasionally get a sense of unreality, like something’s not right. It could be unconscious awareness of the simulation or just a nonsense feeling produced by my broken brain
That Madden insult was outstanding. I applaud this team.
I am curious about the Venn diagram for people whose favorite video game is Madden and people who watch Simon Whistler's channels.
I have a massive list of bugs and glitches in this simulation, is there a support number or email ?
Sometimes i feel like i am living in a simulation and everyone else is a NPC
the only thing i would say is that if light was essentially the fastest thing we know of as a law of fact in physics we would be much better off, but the real facts are we have already found things faster than light, light how the universe is expanding for example.
I just hope if we are in a simulation that when my program ends its deleted and not started over again, one go at this enough for me
If we are simulated by a "computer" it stands to reason that a further level "down" simulation created by us would tax the primary system/simulator twice as much and every step on such a ladder would do the same if complexity remains equal. Therefore only one level of "simulation" would be likely as nobody builds a computer several times more capable than you imagine you need it to be for the purpose you intend. This would suggest that either we can't build a simulator at that level or if we do we "crash" the whole system rendering our reality destroyed or atleast hard reseted, neither a verry appealing prospect. So if any one are thinking about creating a simulation do keep it as limited as possible will ya.
I always wonder why we have diarrhea and explosive farts,bad teeth, and cancer. Like what is the simulation trying to prove with my grandma's bad breath? I guess without bad breath I wouldn't be here commenting. Although I'd posit a theory that if no one reads a comment then it didnt happen at all.
Vsauce tested the trolly problem
the intro was fantastic!
Ok. I feel like “c” alone is not the real speed limit, as in it can stretch or contract due to the expansion of spacetime as a whole. And not just for time either. The spacial dimensions adding to the time, there’s still a minimum.
Maybe my lack of understanding of the relationships between the two, shows that what I am going for,
The fact that there are many different, MINUSCULE AMOUNTS that can be formed. All being called with the prefix of Planck?
Makes me wonder.
There’s the smallest form of time, Planck time. (Prolly not scientific name)
Smallest distance, Planck distance. (Not scientifical name)
As for the time reference, the Planck time can be analogous to the universal FRAMERATE… Whereas the Planck distance, can be analogous to the resolution (picture a digitally transmitted photo. The size of the pixels limits the level of detail)
So the Planck length, coupled with Planck time, gives me a better understanding of the nature of a simulationated reality, than just the speed of causality.
If anyone read this far PLEASE fill me in on what I am missing, tho first off nobody will read this far, and secondly I think I am not realizing how Planck’s constants had been derived.
Alas I still think bring Planck into the picture will resolve some issues.
My man quoted Ricky Bobby....i love you simon lol