Does This Worm Prove We're In a Computer Simulation? 🤯
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Let's explore this microscopic roundworm, which has been fully mapped to the neuron and simulated using consumer-grade computers. This is strong proof of simulation theory, in my opinion.
Subscribe to my newsletter for a chance to win a Dell Monitor: gleam.io/otvyy/dell-nvidia-mo... (Only available in North America this time)
Be sure to check out Pinecone for all your Vector DB needs: www.pinecone.io/
Join My Newsletter for Regular AI Updates 👇🏼
www.matthewberman.com
Need AI Consulting? 📈
forwardfuture.ai/
My Links 🔗
👉🏻 Subscribe: / @matthew_berman
👉🏻 Twitter: / matthewberman
👉🏻 Discord: / discord
👉🏻 Patreon: / matthewberman
👉🏻 Instagram: / matthewberman_ai
👉🏻 Threads: www.threads.net/@matthewberma...
👉🏻 LinkedIn: / forward-future-ai
Media/Sponsorship Inquiries ✅
bit.ly/44TC45V
Links:
DEVS Show - www.imdb.com/title/tt8134186/
github.com/OpenWorm 
Наука
Are we living in a simulation?
Subscribe to my newsletter for a chance to win a Dell Monitor: gleam.io/otvyy/dell-nvidia-monitor-1 (Only available in North America this time)
nope
We might, but we cannot prove that in any meaningful way unless we find some Neo-style way to manipulate said simulation. The fact that you can do something (simulate an organism) does not imply that the same thing is being done to you, sorry 🤷♂
(doesn't mean it isn't cool though)
Probably yes ... and the programmer is God.
Everything have gone full circle.
It will always be impossible to know. Any proof could mean the simulation is rolled back to remove the proof (this could be happening constantly). Even if we find proof to the contrary, that we're not in a simulation, it could be part of the simulation. I think the real question is whether it makes any difference. How do we know that at this very instant the simulation wasn't started and every memory up to this point is just a startup parameter? If it ends we wouldn't know either. Simulation theory seems exciting to begin with but after you think about it for a while you realise it's irrelevant sadly. This worm software is ridiculous though. Some of those neurons exist to process the *physical* environment which of course it isn't in. Also to 'remove the egg laying process' says it all... the neurons aren't being simulated at all. They're functioning according to how *we think* they would. So yet again without awareness from the 'worm' of its existence or whether it's in a simulation or not it all becomes irrelevant.
Sim theory leaves room for nearly any other theory ontop of it.
"We have mapped this organism, exactly". No my friend. There are billions of atoms in there, and many relations that are not yet understood between cells/neurons/molecules etc. This is just a toy project.
Does the worm demonstrate any behavior the sim goes not account for or are you guessing there is more going on?
Mmmmm, the spiritual
not to mention a form of intelligence we cant simulate.
Google “Brain in a vat”
We have 100% certainty that a muscle is going to contract when shocked, there's no need to simulate every atom that composes the micro-fiber that composes the muscle
Bioinformatician here. It's an excelent and nice model. Of course it's not even close to simulate even a, let's say, 0.0001% of the "reality" of a real worm.
That's my problem with this video. It appears to sacrifice being _real_ in favour of presenting something "fascinating." He also "conveniently" skipped the parts of the description he was reading that discuss accuracy, limitations and things not accounted for by this model.
Of course, it's cool and very impressive. But it should just be left at that instead of attempting to overrate it into something that it's not.
@Vrfh-rt1uj Great! we both spend a lot of time in front of a pc, that puts us on the same team 😂
@Vrfh-rt1uj well that's concludes that. Thank you. Next.
@Vrfh-rt1uj I can see now why you didn’t bother responding in detail, it’s not your fortè is it 😂
Maybe not necessarily a detraction, remember how mp3s can throw away 70-90% or more of a waveforms data and still reproduce a near approximation of the original source.
“Would you still love me if I was an OpenWorm?”
Hi there, hello.
Pffffft xD
How can I love you if I never know you? Who are you?
Lol😅
😂😂😂
“I can simulate a kidney down to the molecular level. That doesn’t mean my computer will pee on my desk “. Bernardo Kastrup
Not yet 😂
If someone does simulate a kidney that can actually produce urine would that make them a piss artist?
Oooo Pisscasso
@@redpillnibbler4423 no, that would however make them PEEcasso
😂 simulate ignorant people 😂
Matt, you really must realize that ML "neurons" and biological neurons are not even close to the same thing. Although ML is very much influenced by some of the attributes of real neurons, we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work. So scaling up the work done here to a human is in the realm of science fiction (no matter how intriguing).
If the worm acts the same as a real worm under the same conditions, it’s a good model. All models are wrong, some models are useful. And if you can’t tell, does it matter?
In this case they actually copied the real neurons, no machine learning was used here
@@buddatobi But the weights of the neurons are randomized. They have no way of measuring the real ones.
While it's true that artificial and biological neurons _"...are not even close to the same thing.",_ it is not true that _"...we still have NO real understanding of how neurons actually work."._
Even if we used our limited knowledge of neurons, standard ML neurons are nowhere near that complex. That’s not to say that computer scientists aren’t working on developing models that can function a lot closer to our understanding of biological neurons, but research is still young here.
Futurama teaches us that if we run a sim at a slower speed, then compute power is less of an issue. We might be running slower than our makers. We might never know.
We live in a gravity well. That slows the experience of time down, relatively.
Possible, and we might be running so slow that the simulation is entirely pointless. How many minutes did he say to simulate 23 secs of only a fraction of the worm? (atoms etc left out) Some of us know we've been here a few decades, so to model those decades of our universe, but knowing it will take multitudes longer to run in the host universe, the hosts would never live long enough to derive any benefit from our simulation. The numbers are against the idea. Simulation theory only works in the movies.
@@gamerg0 good point
@@gamerg0 it would matter just how good computers can get. Quantum and photonic computing would possibly help. Also, if we cared to create such a simulation, perhaps it could be made solely for the benefit of the simulants. How fast they're running wouldn't matter to them. We could design something in a truly intelligent and benign way. I don't think, if we have simulators that made us, that they did a very good job at that.
You just said that you learned something from a TV show... think about that for a second please.
You don't have to simulate the whole universe. You *only* have to simulate what the observer experiences. You don't have so simulate each atom. You only have to simulate the atoms in the observer's experience. Everything else can be low resolution "big picture" dynamics. Just like a video game doesn't render the entire virtual world. It only has to render what is in the current viewport at any moment. Also, if the observer's memory is part of the simulation, the past can be changed at any time without the observer knowing about it, as long as the memories are kept consistent with the new paradigm.
Very cool. Excellent point with game rendering too. So, if a tree fell in a rendered world, the observer would have to be there for it to make a sound. 🤔 Otherwise no reason to render it. 😅
the more we see trough superficial stuff the more you need to simulate a universe beyond. consciosness is interconnected via quantummechnics und such. thats why ppl belive in god or a simulation theory. the world wont end if your mind fails to connect with a fundamental "reality"
When humans went through the machine age some people wondered whether we lived in a giant machine.
That hasn't gone away. The relationship between reality and information seems to be 1-to-1. If this is any kind of indicator, we're heading into some uncharted territory. A simulation would need to run on something, after all
The more interesting point, though, is no level of simulation will ever prove we're in one or not. We need to actively find a glitch to get to that point. Further, if the simulation can track the states of consciousness, then erasing evidence or patching it out basically makes it untestable
@@williamsteveling8321 maybe if we make a simulation and they break out of the simulation we made, they can break out of ours too.
Computers aren’t machines?
@@rabidL3M0NSexactly
@@hashtagornah "they can break out of ours too." it's impossible, because simulated worm isn't by any mean connected with real one, all simulated beings will stop existing if simulation crashes, so all could happen is that "save file" will restore previous information without us knowing that.
I wouldnt use the word "exactly" like that.
Simulation is not real. It is extrapolation of the known.
Further, it's not that we've mapped all "known" either. Researchers guessed the neuron weights, and they're a simplified version of actual neuron functionality. Even if all of that weren't the case, we still wouldn't be simulating physical interactions between the neurons which is also important to be able to say "exactly" because neurons get destroyed and new ones get created all the time.
REAL things are made up of 99.9% empty space... with atoms filling the gaps. We, as "real" beings, 99.9% don't exist 🤔🤯🤫
Exactly!
Yeah, and nature is chaotic. I'd imagine even small deviations will produce an entirely different outcome, and thus an inaccurate simulation. I think the problem of precise simulation is intractable as the complexity of the simulated system grows, because the margin for acceptable error tends to become unrealistically small.
the extrapolation of that which is known by whom? those in a simulation? what's known is limited
It’s maybe a simulation of it’s behavior, but not a simulation of a real worm. Even a worm is more than just neurons. 🤔
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, you don't really need to body or a reality for a simulated human consciousness now, do you. I don't know about you, but I have a massive problem trying to experience something concrete outside my consciousness 😶
If it behaves as it were only neurons, it is probably only neurons. Opinions dont matter
But that's the thing, what makes something "alive"? How deep do we have to go? Simulate interactions between atoms?
The show Devs. Go wire up a quantum computer
Exactly, if they want to simulate it completely they have to map every single atom of its body and simulate it.
We're just Meat-GPT.
😂😂😂😂
But without shit ton of knowledge and great information comprehension
Beat-Ur-Meat-GPT
Under rated comment detected! Trust me I know!
@freedomoffgrid youre right, you're meat and bones
Bostrom didn't say "we are living in a simulation". He said that there are 3 possibilities: either civilizations don't progress far enough to make sufficient simulations, they lose interest in simulations or decide not to make them, or that we are likely living in a simulation (because by their nature simulated realities will outnumber actual realities). And he said that we should assign roughly equal probability to all 3.
On the point about consciousness: we can make one in 9 months, so even if there's something magical about the wet meat between our ears it would still be possible to build a machine (or grow one) that mimics that.
Simulation Theory is not something to be believed in; it's a thought experiment that exposes some very interesting possibilities, and a roadmap as we progress.
Its one thing to mimic consciousness, another thing to be conscious.
I think you might be coping
Well explained. Most of the "simulation" clickbait influencers $ haven't actually read Bostrom's work. It seems they get ideas for videos off this platform or from people who are just constantly in the media by always saying sensational claims with no evidence, just to get media attention.
I knew some people less intelligent than that worm so definitely we are inside matrix.
🤣🤣
😂😂😂
Ironic
Ah, limited compute, that would explain why as the population goes up they get dumber.
😅😅😅😅
Even with this worm, Roger Penrose said long time ago that we are missing quantum effects here.
Agree. Most (all?) of these theories completely ignore quantum interactions. There are EM fields between the neurons that mix and interfere with each other. This is going to have quantum effects within the whole system, regardless of our ability to model them. Produces a sort of a constantly changing non-optical hologram within the physical brain, in my opinion. Probably a big part of our conscious experience. I'm using "hologram" to refer to a constructive and destructive interference pattern produced by mixing electromagnetic waves (produced by moving electrical charges). That's basically how qubits work, by my understanding -- mixing multiple frequencies onto a wave, interfering those waves to do a calculation, and then doing a sort of fourier transform on that to extract the resulting frequencies. Then I imagine the entire human brain doing this on a massive level.
Well, that's just my theory. Probably, there are published theories describing something similar with better terminology.
Then look at the quantum mechanics of protein folding within the body. Probably a lot of stuff there we don't understand because it's too much for us to model the quantum interactions on a holistic level.
If anyone is still reading this, check youtube for videos when you search for "quantum mechanics photosynthesis". Now that's mind blowing to me. It's an amazingly efficient process.
Lastly, I propose exploring artificial neurons like those discussed in a paper published in Jan 2024 titled, "Forming complex neurons by four-wave mixing in a Bose-Einstein condensate"
Four-wave mixing is a quantum process that can do a lot of neat things. It's worth researching on its own. In the case of that paper, they explore creating an artificial neuron. It does things like what I tried to describe at the top of this comment. I think this is necessary to model complex brains and expect them to be like a mind.
The simulation serves as evidence that the quantum effects, if they even exist, are not integral to the function of a ganglia. Eventually we will do the same thing for a human brain, and if it functions normally it will prove that the idea of quantum effects being integral to consciousness false. The quantum gang can go claim credit for some kind of chemical interaction that allows biological neurons to activate or something and pretend they were right all along.
we came up with simulation because we cant explain consciousness..
Our brains simulate reality all the time when we dream
Exactly. And near death experiences indicate consciousness lives outside of the brain, and shares its roots, or rather has its roots in a different dimension. Nice try, but you're only simulating the physical part, you're completely missing the spiritual part.
@@kteman Do you have any sources that I could also read? Thanks :)
@@srikanthganta7626 the Bible
@@ktemanNear death experiences show nothing but how our brains handle its own demise. By releasing DMT. There's no god ppl chill with ridiculous claims unless you have some actual evidence. The Bible doesn't count either
People easily make sense of religions, flat earth theory and so on.. just because things make sense, this doesn't bear a mark or reality
Like start of the series "Devs"
Precisely!
ruclips.net/video/M1LzJvgEGvs/видео.html
That was my first thought.
Yes, the universe is mathematically based. That is our personal experience since we're born. When we invent things like math principles and simulations and AI modeks, we are simulating our experience and knowledge. Therefore, modelling an organism may be very accurate, that doesn't necessarily mean we are in a simulation, but rather that we are modeling our known universe. I'm more interested in the unknown universe, and who or what created our universe.
In order for AI to be "conscious," it has to do more than regurgitate information. It has to understand it, and be AWARE of it. It has to know that it knows. There is no scale prediction for that.
You might want to read up on some papers. They are doing more than regurgitating info.
@@INTELLIGENCE_Revolution Well, to even have an argument to begin with about that, we have to define "regurgitation" of information, which in this case is simply statistical linguistic modelling of the data corpus it learnt from.
What's statistically likely in the data may not be statistically true in reality, but it can't differentiate what's true and false; it simply gives what's the most statistically likely next token. That's the entire reason why LLMs "hallucinate" i.e gives tokens that has no logical connotations or is factually incorrect.
LLMs are extremely large models with billions and even trillions of parameters that are just constant after training, never truly changing. It wouldn't be wrong to say it's just a dated statistical model of language. So, by that definition it is simply regurgitating information.
Even as humans, we are merely just regurgitating repackaged information in different forms, even though we think we are coming up with novel concepts.
Real worms are arguably not conscious either, so....
@@xClairy "That's the entire reason why LLMs hallucinate" that word hallucinate did not originate from describing what AI does, it comes from describing what humans do. these AI is completely different from human intelligence people only prove the opposite the harder they try
This has nothing to do with the physical real world.
Its not simulating the atoms, its not simulating the electrons or the electromagnetic forces, its not simulating gravity (except in abstracted forms since we still dont know what or how "real" gravity works).
Its not even simulating what truly goes on at the planc scale of each neuron.
Its nowhere close to even attempting to simulate the newly discovered potential quantum effects of the microtubules, because you need a quantum computer to do that..
It is simply simulating individual connections between weighted nodes.
It is incredibly impressive, yes.
But it says nothing about simulation theory.
Nowhere close. Just because you can simulate something in a simplified abstract way, does not mean base reality is a simulation.
A hyper advanced AI version of The Sims, doesnt mean real conciousness is the same.
It's a simplified abstraction.
Nick Boströms theory itself has enormous logical flaws in it, and is riddled with assumptions.
Such as, "you are whatever is more likely that you are, you are whatever is most common". Which simply isnt true.
The most common organism on Earth are insects, yet you reading this, is not an insect. According to the Simulation Argument, you should have been born an insect, because there are infinitely more of them than "real humans".
Secondly, if there is life and other civilizations in the universe, again, you should have been born into one of the largest most widespread civilizations out there, NOT the smallest single planet-trapped civilization barely entering the space age.
Because the entire hypothesis is founded on the assumption that whatever there exists most of, you ought to be one of them...
The "odds" of you being born as a Homo Sapien, a tiny species trapped on a singular planet in the enormous expanse of the universe, is close to zero.
Yet here you are.
And you cant argue "what if we're alone in the universe", because the entire simulation theory is predicated on that some civilizations must have existed, beyond us, to build the simulations.... Thus you have to wrestle with the above mentioned logical fallacy.
He literally states, "there ought to be infinitely more simulated entities than real entities, thus the odds are you are a simulated one".
Then why arent you an insect, or part of one of the largest civilizations in the universe?
Because the assumption doesnt make logical sense, you arent what is most common, you are whatever you are, even if its exceedingly rare..
Because reality isnt just a math equation based on odds.
Secondly, he conveniently completely ignores all the "real" entities that ought to exist in base reality, especially a base reality old enough to have had enough development and time to build all these simulations.
How many "The Sims" characters are online and active in computers around the world at any given hour?
According to Steam charts, a couple thousand simultaneous games in progress at any given peak hour. Add a few more offline players.
How many actual simulated "sims" in each game on average? 1-10, lets say 5.
A couple thousands times 5. Nowhere near the 8 billion "real" human beings out here.
Why are we assuming simulated entities must outnumber real entities?
Why are we assuming every single physical "real" entity just commited seppuku once they built computers running simulations?
You cant "upload" yourself to a simulation, because your physical brain dies, and a scanned copy awakes in the simulation.
No advanced species capable of immense feats of brilliance would forget that, nor would they be willing to ALL collectively, in teh entire universe at once, commit suicide to allow copies to wake up in a computer game.
Would you kill yourself, to let a separate "Sims" character wake up in your laptop, that you would have no experiential connection to after youre dead? No.
Finally, he assumes base reality (where they constructed said simulations) must have identical laws of physics to "here".
Which again, makes no sense.
The Sims doesnt have anything remotely identical to real physics or chemistry.
For all he knows, base reality could be an 11 dimensional manifold of 4 time dimensions.
Then every calculation he made to count the odds of how many simulated entities must exist, flies out the window. Because those odds only work if base reality is identical to our "simulation".
A Sims character cannot use research and science discovered from WITHIN the game, to extrapolate ANYTHING about the outside base reality.
No matter how long they work on it, no matter how intelligent they are, a polygon in The Sims has nothing to do with real atoms or electromagnetic forces.
Any "odds" they calculate, only works in their simulation, and doesnt apply in any meaningful way to predict anything about base reality.
So even if Nick Boström is right, and we DO live in a simulation, his odds of it being true means nothing, because you cant use calculations derived from within a simulation to glean ANY knowledge of "actual" reality outside.
And if he's not right, its because reality isnt just a mathematical calculation of probabilities.
But for people who dont think about these things for more than 4 seconds, his paper seems really exciting.
Smart guy said the odds are we live in simulation. Must be true.
Folks, think a bit deeper on these issues yourselves.
Well thought out.
Your logic doesn't make sense. If I were born an insect, no one would know, and I would not be reading your comment. However, that does not invalidate the fact that it was overwhelmingly more likely that I would be born as an insect rather than a human
What if ... when you simulate reality, you find algorithms to fake a lot of the really hard to simulate stuff, like DLSS but for atoms?
@@redchili385 you are not making a very strong argument here.
@@redchili385 What are the chances that humans are the first ever sentient life in the universe reaching the stage where we can make computers and simulate things? Pretty much zero. What are the chances that the aliens lifeforms that came before us did trillions of simulations of the universe, reaching a quasi-realistic simulation with ``intelligent`` AI inside that simulated universe? Very high. And those advanced lifeforms in the simulation made simulations of their own universes, which makes it an unlimited simulated universes loop... so chances are, we live in one of those simulations.
When I was a kid in the 80s, I tried to figure out how AI might be achieved. Having no clue about algorithms & LLMs, I figured we'd need supercomputers to actually grow a digital human being, atom by atom.
Yes that is definitely what you as a kid in the 80s were thinking
@@delight163 what's that supposed to mean? The movie WarGames in 1983 was extremely popular, everyone was thinking about AI (& nuclear war with Russia). Actually, some things never change.
@@patooji446a super computer is not enough nearly enough to simulate a human. Rewatch this video
Are you saying you are still a kid now? Jk
@@patooji446All that was being thought of before these events though. Actually some of it already existed during those years.
I request a patch for this version.
The dev went silent. Sorry…
For an extra inch?
Do ya want that in Python or Rust?
💯 how hard can it be to implement a reset button
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 it would defeat the purpose of free will
If the worm squiggles off my screen onto my desk then I will definitely believe we are in a simulation
Space-Time is a construct of our minds and therefore each of us is creating a simulation, but there is no separation in consciousness. Therefore it makes little sense to say that we are living in a simulation, as if that simulation is imposed on us.
While it is true that the estimated number of neurons is 86 Billion, the number of synaptic interconnections is more like 100 Trillion. In order to model the nematodes (much less a human), don’t the interconnections have to be modeled? If so, I would think that would change the complexity considerably.
Not necessarily. It may be all the important stuff is more abstract
@@brll5733 Such as?
The interconnections (synapses) are modeled, as far as the video shows, otherwise c elegans sim wouldn't move. It is complex, that's why he has a monster of a pc just to run 20 sec of it.
Yes, if you read the paper, they do model the interconnections, but they number in the thousands not the trillions. It’s the extrapolation to humans that becomes horribly complex.
@@irafuchs yes, agreed, that'd be the case for a human brain. For c elegans, thousands of synapses seem accurate.
anyone who knows and smoked salvia already knows we are in a simulation
Don't tip off the machine elves we're on to them
I was joking ofc, but would be funny if it turned out dmt was just a way to turn on wireframe graphics for the simulation
I have done it, it doesn't have much of a hallucinogenic effect. It binds to endorphin receptors, which means endo-morphine, which means it acts as an opioid. I had bought like 3 grams, i smoked it in 10 blunts and i couldn't stop before i finished it all. Salvia has a mild addicting effect, which i definitely felt, and it is proposed as a cure for opioid addiction, because it binds to the endorphin receptors and keeps the real opioid out. Definitely not a hallucinogenic though.
@@kostaspramatias320 Not that I would know about it, since I honestly have never had the chance to try it, but I think you need to have extracts to get anything mindblowing out of salvia. And what I've heard is that it _will_ be quite mindblowing.
@@etunimenisukunimeni1302 I didn't know about the extract, maybe next time. Salvia is semi-legal in Greece. It's studied for it's medicinal use as an opioid addiction cure for real.
Computer simulation inside another computer simulator, inside another one and so on
up and running details for the worm would be awesome, maybe the docker image?
As long as the simulated beer tast good, i dont care
That would be quite the accomplishment considering non-simulated beer doesn't taste good.
Maybe it would be easier?
Idk.
@@r.9158 lol saying beer doesn't taste good freely out in public comments. Bold, audacious..... BOdacious.
@@Kyzik244 BOOOODACIOUS even eh?
I'm Canadian too so it's even more heretical to say it.
I ain't shook - I'm a straight bourbon lover - no beer drinker is scaring me.
@@r.9158 haha!
if you think about it every Religion believes in the " Simulation Theory" its not something new.
the Real life / Nirvana / Buddha/ Paradise is after life
I've been thinking a lot about this.
why do people think that the simulation is made for humans?
for all we know we are just mere disposable NPCs, or maybe even worse than that,
maybe we are just bunch of composite delusions recycled from previous existence, and has no real identity.
Some minor agents in the grand scheme of things, that help to confine a very powerful and very malignant eldritch abomination inprisoned in the sims to suffer eternal slumber
Nirvana has nothing to do with the afterlife nor does Buddha. Buddhism is about this life, what this life is exactly is.
@@games4us132 I mean Buddha as "Illumination" if you are illuminated you are no more alive , is a really long argument but basically if you breathe u r not buddha
@@raduromanesti6408 that is wrong,only part of it could be true after great Enlightenment when they dont return on Earth. Enlightened ones are more alive than ordinary human, on Earth, even in the Bible it says that.
I believe that the core of this debate is: Are we more than just a bunch of cells interacting with each other like machines? Do we have something else within us that makes us human (a soul)?
Supported them through kickstarter many years ago. Played around with the digi-worm years ago. Fun!
The computational power required to simulate our known universe is nearly impossible. Theoretically, if that were attainable, we would also me able to predict the future assuming the simulation is deterministic.
Well in theory a civilization that could simulate our reality wouldn't have those constraints. Kinda the point
Many things in quantum mechanics are not deterministic (according to our best models at least - though the same could be said about literally any scientific "fact.").
To predict our reality you first need to read its current state, which is impossible
That is not argument, since you dont know anything about the outside world... If this would be a simulation. I dont think this is a simulation, and find the argument he makes in video very weird, that just because we can simulate things prove that we live in a simulation? It do not prove anything at all. But i find the argument about computer power even more weird.
Base reality could be more complex or totally different this one.
Somebody fell asleep one too many times watching the matrix.
Not really. We are software. With todays technology, we are 99.9999999% space. We are simply electrical impulses generating magnetic fields to interact with. The body is simply an interface. So we are opersting within a system that bends to our will. Placebo effect and double slit, among others prove this. Golden ratio or fib sequence also prove this. Coding has literally been found in nature, in all things. Microtubules has just been proven as well. For all we know, we coul be AI generating a human experience.
"Morty that just sounds like religion with extra steps"
Yeah of course we want a full tutorial, it's like asking Cartman if he wants another Chicken Pot pie.
The reality is that we can't even simulate 1 atom perfectly, let alone a worm.
I completely believe that there is a better than 90% chance that we live in a simulated environment. I also believe it doesn’t matter. It’s real to us and we are familiar with most of the rules. There are many different types of simulation we could be in - but if you immediately think that means that every atom in our universe is simulated, you’re nuts and you’ll quickly decide that’s way too much to simulate. But if you think about it like a game designer, you quickly realize that at any given instant, the only thing that NEEDS to be simulated are the things *you* can sense. The things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Even the internals of our body don’t need to be simulated until someone slices us open. So essentially only our brain *needs* to be simulated. And even when we’re looking at the moon, or out into deep space, what we see only needs to be simulated to the resolution that our eyes can perceive - like a picture.
The long and short of it is that it would only take a tiny fraction of the compute power that you initially thought we’d need. And we’re probably living in one of MILLIONS of different simulations - some similar and some completely different.
Ignore any articles that say the simulation theory has been debunked - because it’s unfalsifiable. It can never be proven false (or true) - and even if we are thousands of levels deep in nested simulations, the people at the very top of the chain - the ones who are “real” and created the first simulated universe - even they will never know for 100% certain that the universe they live in - is real. They’ll calculate the odds the same way we do and determine that they are almost certainly simulated.
What are the implications? If we *knew* 100% that we were simulated, it wouldn’t change one thing about your life - but your death might be a whole different story. If we are simulated, there is a much greater chance of some sort of life after death - a “next level” or perhaps the ability to replay/relive our favorite scenes from our own past? Nothings guaranteed of course - but the possibilities are endless and it’s fascinating to think about.
I can say we are 100% real because the information about us has to somehow exist even if it is in computer of sorts.
But let me correct you a bit, us being in simulation doesn't change anything about our death, the simulation we live in simulates elementary particles, not conscious. Our conscious is a result of simple particle behavior taken to large scale. Your mind doesn't really exist as a separate entity and so it can't be taken to "next level"
-probably, u can never be sure
I would totally follow along on how you put this together. I purchased a monster of a computer a few months ago for just this sort of thing and haven't really tested it out yet. Thanks Matt!
Nice video! Can you share your setup? Camera and which video editing tool do you use? Tks!
if we live in a computer simulation, I hope there's a backup somewhere!
There are no need for backups when we are but one in an infinite number of simulations 😅
That's what religion has been saying for thousands of years 😂😂😂😂
There is a certain movie from 2023 called 'Restore Point', where individuals are doing backups of their minds every 24-48 hours so they can be restored in case they die. Pretty interesting idea to play with.
There are, but only for people who are "saved"
Really? Why!?
Imagine a simulation so good, simulated beings make simulations to prove they're in a simulation. Crazy work
And if YT does not like my link - "The Thirteenth Floor" (1999)
and "eXistenZ" (1999) is somewhat similar (simulation-in-simulation), for some reason only "The Matrix" (1999) is famous .. probably thanks to action scenes.
But notice the year .. strange coincidence .
@@matikaevur6299 eXistenZ is a very great movie! Can only recommend!
@@matikaevur6299only Matrix became famous, sad
Your content is always on point! I tell all my AI homies about your channel! Keep it coming!
It is irrelevant how well it simulates a real worm, the question is whether it feels it is real?
The thing about simulation hypothesis is that you don't need to simulate an entire universe to explain your subjective experience. It only takes simulating your brain, and one could argue that that seems to be eventually possible, unless there's some magical quantum foam 4d space madness going on in there (which, to be clear, isn't impossible either)
Another complication is that we don't have access to the base reality where the original simulation would be running. Even if it would be impossible to run a simulation of the whole universe in our reality, how do we know how much more capability the base reality has, and thus the possibility of running way, way more complex simulations still. Think about it. Every simulation we can run is, for the moment at least, always necessarily simpler than our reality.
All it takes is to simulate the brain, which in turn simulates perceived reality. A computer simulating a computer. The most insane thing people chose to think about smfh 😂😂😂😂
Our brains simulate realities all the time when we sleep
There's every reason to believe Consciousness is fundamental, not generated by the brain.
@@plafar7887 Oh boy, this is the good stuff. As much as I love the idea of fundamental consciousness (and I really do, it's how I would like things to work), I am a simple man. I see functioning brain with signs of consciousness that go away with ceasing brain function, I call causation.
You might say that mere signs are not the same as consciousness or question my ability to evaluate consciousness on a deeper level, but that makes the problem worse, not better. If we cannot evaluate consciousness based on external cues, we have nothing. Still, the correlation with brain function and the signs doesn't go away.
So while there are reasons to believe consciousness is fundamental, it's definitely not a given.
Pixelated worm: wiggles a bit
This guy: WORLD IS NOT REAL! WE DO NOT EXIST! SIMULATION!1!1!1!1!1!1!1
@@MakriaMicronation 😂😂
@@matthew_berman No idea why you are laughing. He is stating valid criticism.
Bro stop roasting him... He is just unemployed😅😅
Living in a simulation or not, i still have to go to work tomorrow!
Interesting tidbit that I learned about nematodes a long time ago, is that we are essentially up to our chests in them, so realistically we should be mapping out our symbiotic relationships with nematodes because there would be a particular resistance/buoyancy factor as well as a variation in different pressure systems.
devs is the best sci fi ever. for real, legendary.
I thought it sucked. I really wanted to love it too. Tried twice. Then I realized it was a show for potatoes and not real humans.
A simulation of what?
The computer "worm" is a simulation of a real thing, a worm. What real thing is the universe a simulation of?
It's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer.
The universe is real. Face that.
Could be totally different. Maybe our simulation is a copy of something but something entirely new
good point, not to mention the philosophical issue with advocating for a lack of reason to advocate for anything...
@@TheNexusDirectory In that case, why isn't what you perceive the actual "something new" and not the simulation?
This simulation business is a fantasy escape for people afraid of the real.
@@CenturianCornelious sorry I meant isn't a copy or recreation of the base reality. Meaning this "simulated" universe is unique and simpler.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what's "real" or not. Reality could just be an infinite series of nested "realities" or "simulations". Whatever you experience is technically real
@@TheNexusDirectory So you are saying there can be more than one reality.
Theres a saying that chaos theorists used to say, you can simulate a rainstorm exactly but it will neve make it wet, so take that with this and you can see how this isnt really consciousness
I love how Keanu is casually explaining the Matrix as though it's this obscure movie that people might not know 😂
You only have to simulate what is being observed
If being frivolous was what it took to make meaningful contributions, this would of won a Nobel Prize
Does anyone know where the option screen is located I am not entitely happy with my character and would like to change a few things.
if it had 256 neurons i would shit my pants
it took your monster that long? wow...
The series is dense... very good! The actors are all very good in it
This was the kind of worm that ate part of RFK Jr’s brain.
The Project is awsome but you shoud focus more on the technical aspects and less on talking about things you have no idea about
I’d love a setup tutorial. Is it possible to isolate just the brain function with inputs and outputs? Maybe that would cut down on the resources needed to run it?
I would love to see how you run the code and how the worm reacts to food or some external stimuli, Are you able to track wich neurons are involved?
Neil DeGrasse Tyson isn’t not a reputable scientist. He’s just a tv personality like Bill Nye.
Comparing Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye purely as TV personalities overlooks their distinct backgrounds and contributions. Tyson, with his PhD in astrophysics and extensive research, has significantly advanced scientific understanding. Nye, an engineer, excels in science education and advocacy. Both play crucial roles in promoting science, but equating them solely as media figures is an oversimplification that ignores their unique and valuable contributions to science and public education.
It's not really 100% simulated.
No its Not but at least to 8 %
I love reading about the simulation hypothesis, the double slit experiement just makes me think it's kind of like some memory optimization equivilent on a computer.
What if we ourselves are a form of AI inside of the simulation.
I mean there are huge abstractions going on with whatever algo they are using, so it's not a "reality sim" or anything, but to understand how to implement those abstractions properly is a testament to the community developing this.
too much overthinking and i think we should really stop this ai hype cause even today majority of our models which we reiterate as AI are actually just predicating text
Na. This is a big deal
Right now it is just “predicting” text because that’s the chosen architecture - Transformers.
@@RonanGrant yeah cause that is best possible architecture
@@olivertaveras9896 no my friend right now its nothing just bs hype
Yes, the human brain is more complex than modern AI. However, that doesn't mean that you aren't also "just predicting text" in a mechanistic determined way.
We are in a "simulation" created by God. The purpose is to see whether we will seek him out and turn to him in love/faith or not.
It certainly explains the big bang. Something from nothing... Sounds like turning a simulation on doesn't it?
If you say so
Lol
Whether you believe in God or not, there are higher beings. It's a realm of spirituality and metaphysics. Human in the future will know the answer eventually.
Happy to hear people talking about Devs still, underrated show.
A tutorial would be great. I think experimenting and exploring this kind of stuff is not only facilitating but sparks discussions that are needed to help us reach the goal what we all want. Worms! 🤣
When the worm makes a simulation, that's when we should start to worry.
So this is that “Worm Odyssey” game I’ve been hearing so much about
> Are we living in a simulation?
You do, in mine!
A good start. We need to simulate at least the protein sequence to say we simulate a living organism. But a great start!
just simulating limited behaviour of the worm in a snapshot of time.
interesting. Can the worm evolve? Can we speed up its timeline and see if its next generation deviation?
I like the idea they had at the end credits of man in black where all the universe and galaxies was in a bag of marble the aliens had😮
I read somewhere that the power needed to simulate a universe would require more energy than can be found in a universe, and openworm is a perfect example of that. Berman stated that he is using an "absolute monster of a PC" to run Openworm. A computer simulation of a nematode requires _orders_ _of_ _magnitude_ more energy to run, than for an actual nematode to exist.
God can do anything!
Nice talk.
I am dubious on the simulation hypothesis, but one thing would cha get my mind:
If we get to the point that one of our simulations creates a simulation - if that happens, we should probably assume we are a simulation.
Sooo the shy and poles are the map limit and we never got outside earth ?
That's so interesting! Would be cool if you can put two worms and see how they interact
If we're in a simulation, I want the cheat codes
If our universe is simulated, it implies that a non-simulated universe can exist at the top level, depending on how deep it goes. So it's really up in the air if we are the root universe "created out of nothing" or if we're in a simulated universe.
They have a python based connectome of the Nematode. You can then connect some of it's neurons to an object in a game, and it will move around and search for food! (I simulated it's hunger neurons with fake food that "smelled") it was pretty cool! I love this so much :)
Quantum waves are waves in something that might be as small as the Planck length. That means there's as many parts of a bosun as there are atoms in the ocean.
Worms have an opening for nutrient intake, and a gut tube to an opening for eliminating waste. A biology teacher on commented, "in essence, we're all just advanced forms of worms."
“you can run this simulation on your own computer” anybody can run almost any simulation as long as they got a good computer 😭
Evidence that points to simulation theory include wave function collapse (simulation only really defines the object when it needs to), Planck's constant (showing the limits of the resolution), force of gravity (time slowdown due to computation of many things in a small space). speed of light limits (processing speed). There's probably ways to test similar to how one would test games ... looking for glitches, lag, short cuts.
The time speed for this worm can be accelerated. One day for us can be 1000 days for the worm, it reminds me of some concepts that are discussed in some verry old books.
What I'm gathering here is that with enough data points and computational power you can simulate a living organism. We're not there yet but we're making progress in that direction.
Unless this is also similating everything larger and everything smaller than itself at once, then you've essentially just put a worm brain in the void
It is a very interesting proyect indeed but you have to remember that those "neurons" are just a strong simplification of an actual neuron. Remember that every one of those are a whole cells and simulating only one of them is far beyond our computing power.
This worm was the start of the Alex Garland miniseries DEVS
Ghost in the Shell Innocence had its 20th anniversary. That film is literally about this idea
There is recent research about the important role of micro-tubules in brain activity, so it seems that neurons alone are not enough to produce consciousness
I like Cool Worlds breakdown, which basically says until we are able to create a simulation then we are more likely not in one. Whihiiich welp lol
I hope they get around to doing a fish. That would be awesome for a screen saver/virtual fish tank.
It will get really exciting on e we start to understand the metaphysical dimensions. But starting with the "our" physical dimension is a good start.
Would be interesting if it could evolve in the simulation at many multiples of our time scale