Depending on your elevation that temperature to freeze or boil water changes already on this planet. The baseline freezing point and boiling point of water is at sea level
I must say I would love to have friends to sit down and talk about these kind of subjects. Since I was a kid, I think about it. Even before internet and sci-fi I had some insights on the subject. It's a relief to see Chuck and Neil having those conversations in such a light way. I love science and philosophy, but not always have time to dedicate to the fine details (math and deep technical aspects of things). Conversations like this make my day.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you cant and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
@@marcocurrin8122 Your "learning program" hypothesis is interesting. It is another example of potential simulation types. The podcast's discussion seems to present an unjustified focus on historical reenactment simulations (and an odd analogy to films). It is simply one possible type of simulation. I wonder how individuals such as the host will change their views once humanity (unfortunately) begins generating simulations that themselves begin generating simulations. Assuming humanity continues to advance (avoids self-destruction), this could even happen this century. By the way, with regard to the film analogy the host mentions, every conceivable type of theme that forms the basis of any film would also form the basis of a simulation (exploration of morality, exploration of emotions, exploration of what is imaginable, exploration of alternate histories).
Of course, another common motivation that could be put forth equally for films or simulations is entertainment. The host of the podcast (admirable for many of his other ongoing contributions to society), does not consider what fraction of films are made for entertainment. Rather than constructing a physical Westworld, simulations would eventually provide a more rapidly programmable/modifiable/accessible medium. Indeed, how many games these days are rudimentary simulations? The new Hogwarts Legacy game. You walk around a created world and interact with the environment containing structures, objects, and characters. Of course, these simulations are do not even approach the type of simulations that we discuss. The eventual simulation of a single human brain, however, would suffice, as such a brain could be provided whatever inputs (visual, auditory, proprioceptive, etc.) as desired. This is still far off, but would be the simplest simulation that would create what we consider an entire reality for one human being.
@@pilotintraining18ify It is the survival of ideals/values/knowledge, rather than the "survival of our life forms", which is most important. Humans can come and go (become extinct), yet ideas and ideals can be passed on to future species that have not yet even come into existence. Humanity might become a little more advanced when it realizes that preserving ideals/ideas over time is fundamentally more significant than preserving a biological line of descendants.
My question is: what makes Nick laugh? Dude barely brake a smile while Neil and Chuck laughing their heads off. Very nice 👌 talk, loved every moment of it.
I am a 35-year-old Systems Administrator who has always been intrigued on how Science and God relate. You're the man who introduced me to thinking outside the "norm" and allowed me to begin my journey of knowledge decades ago when I was only a boy. I am now conscious. Neil deGrasse Tyson, you are my hero. I admire your work as well as your mind. My wish would be to some day meet you, or even a mere two word reply from you would be the chance of a lifetime for me. Thank you for your dedication
Doesn't it seem odd that a civilization could be able to create such a detailed simulation, but no software updates have been applied, or if they were it was a zero downtime deploy and no software bugs were detected, and the simulation has been running for billions of years. Or was the simulation updated but extinction events are programmed in to hide the update...like...yeah...dinosaurs are getting boring, its time for earth 2.0...deploy!
No Neal is not convinced. He is a fan of the matrix. My problem with the matrix fuel source, which was initially human energy. The humans were fed using the sustenance of the humans who died which is not sustainable. Eventually they would all be converted to human excrement which is not useable. For any yea buts, that was the original explanation in the movie, and it did not include any outside source of energy.
Great episode. Imagine if you were playing "The Sims" or even "Sim City" and the characters in the game figured out that they are in a simulation. What would they do?
They would realise it was a simulation only when the controller wanted them to do so.Otherwise the controller would manipulate them when they started to suspect. If we did realise we were in a simulation, it would only be because the controller wanted us to realise. Neil ended the interview stating that Tsunami's etc could be disaster caused by a controller who wants to alleviate the boredom of things going well for us..but the problem with this idea is that such disasters often happen in countries who are already dealing with poverty etc.
@@kenadams5504 The player, or controller, is not the only one in control of the simulation. I believe that it really all depends on what the developer wants to put us through.
I think a more appropriate question would be: "what would WE do if we saw our characters realized they were a simulation...?" I guess I'd immediately verify that my computer's camera and microphone be turned off... then I wouldn't know what to do or think for a couple of minutes.... jeje
Because he wrote a book on it and believes in the concept that we are living in a simulation. Elon Musk has also expressed his belief in we are living in a simulation. But it's all probabilities, in statistical language. And I don't think we have enough data to prove either way.
I first perceived Chuck as the comic relief but now I think he like most comedians have a good sense of what kinds of questions the general public may have. While astrophysicists are up there in the lofty aspects of science, the comedians are more connected with people as they make fun of foibles, etc. Chuck can ask or bring up aspects many people may have. After all, a lot of big budget science programs are funded by general taxpayers.
I think you nailed it. And the bonus is that Chuck have learned so much over the years, that his questions are getting so clever that he many times surprises Neil. And we can see how it gives Neil extra energy and immersion into the answer. First i was sceptic about Chuck as a side kick, but he won me over big time.
There is one very good way to gain more knowledge, which is to hang with people who are smarter than you. It does rub off. Chuck is doing a very good job of it.
Wouldn't it be funny to find out that the periodic table is just a collection of subroutines? Speed of light was implemented so they didn't have to deal with details in far away objects. Blame it on the project manager for aggressive timelines.
Nick Bostrom is the absolute best guest to have on. Honestly though, the direction a lot of this went in was for very trivial and odd things (based on questions and Neil steering). I really wish you guys would've let him expand on more of the interesting stuff. It seems every interview Nick is in, he just has to re-explain the basics and correct everyone's misunderstandings - I was hoping this wouldn't be the case for StarTalk. I still got a lot of ideas from the interview though, and would love to see him on again! Superintelligence would be a great next topic for this podcast.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you cant and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
I just think that, there is zero evidence for a simulation. In fact everything we know about physics and science proves it impossible. But say it is possible, there isnt actually any point to it. They would use that massive energy for their own survival. Not simulate a less intelligent people. Also simulation theory wouldnt exist without humans coming up with it just like Religion. It requires humans coming up with the idea for it even to be a "thing" beyond that you also have to have technology that developed. So humans can exist without tech and then never have come up with the theory. It relies on too many coincidences to make it work, which is never how science works. Science being my literally interpretation as to what "reality" is.
If I were running advanced simulations, one thing I would definitely want to look at is how civilizations deal with cataclysms. I remember playing Sim City, you build your city up then eventually you just start throwing earthquakes, aliens, nuclear accidents, meteors, and anything else at it and see how it affects the city. I also can’t help think about the theories and stories of ancient, more advanced civilizations and how they fell due to some type of major event. I would definitely run simulations to see how long it would take to bounce back, and what hurdles got in the way.
I just have to say... I can't believe how much this messed me up! I never thought I could be pulled into something like this. Very impressive on Theorist Nick Bostrom. That's amazing. Lot of good arguments/points to this.
Even if Neil doesn't necessarily buy it, I'm happy these types of episodes exist. This is an interesting dialogue and it enables the viewer to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.
At 21:09 Nick explains about how difficult it would be to simulate every little detail of a universe. As he himself explains, one possibility to tackle this problem is to simulate just enough of the parts that are being observed WHEN they are observed, so as to simulated creatures, it would seem real to a point where they wouldn't be able to tell. Well pardon me here BUT IS THAT NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN QUANTUM LEVEL? Could wave-particle duality (at least to me, a curious layman) be a strong indication that we are, indeed, in a simulation? And most important of all, if they track this comment, will I be persecuted by the masterminds of our simulated world? LOL
This is the ONLY curious phenomenon of “evidence” that seems even slightly suspicious to me. Not completely convincing on its own, but interesting. Everything else seems even much more questionable in one way or another.
I'm not sure if this was already said, but one way of knowing if we are in a simulation would be signs of our simulation running low on (computing) memory, eg. when doing some really complex operations like creating another simulation ourselves. As the number of simulations keeps increasing, there will be a point somewhere when the power available approaches some finite limit.
So in a thousand years we'll be able to play a game in which we watch the civilizations of Tamriel develop into a technological civilization that creates a game called Skyrim that they insist on porting to everything that uses power. "Hey, you're awake..." It's Skyrim all the way down. Edit: that's the answer that proves we're in a simulation. The computer has run out of memory, so instead of simulating new games, it keeps rehashing Skyrim over and over until we GPF and reboot.
Ohhhhh boyyyyy this is going to be a great episode. Merry Christmas Neil and Chuck. You taught us so much in 2021 and I can’t wait to see what you have for us for 2022
This guy is so smart he stays at the theoretical level and very much reminds me of the old Greek philosophers. They would argue among other things that a hare could never catch up with a tortoise because the hare would only cut the distance in half every moment.
Neil please watch "The why files" . Specifically the episode about whether or not we're living in a simulation. It is the best explanation of this theory I have ever seen.
This was such an amazing talk. Ever since I was a kid I've thought about the idea that maybe we are similar to an ant farm, being observed by something or someone we are unable to comprehend.
The just in time simulation idea is very interesting. It potentially provides a consistent explanation of some of the fundamental issues in Physics, such as wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement. So the observation of a definitive state would then be just a way to save computational memory and cut a corner and simulate what you need for a particular effect.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you can and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least. What the heck? We are observing to the best of our ability a definitive state. One does not need simulation theory to prove the existence and observation basis for a definitive state. If we could solve the questions on simulation, we would have a unifying theory since the basis of the results of this question is a 'creator'. To answer such a definitive question is paradoxical and besides our existence.
@@pilotintraining18ify no we are not living in a simulation 😑in a simulation you can fall from a five story building and not feel anything but in the REAL world you have the force of gravity pulling down on you 😐after all in the matrix you can dodge bullets yea good luck with that in the REAL world pal 😐Beacuse you will fail 😑
@James Palmer2 their is no simulation it’s called the laws of nature and you don’t need to have a simulation to understand nature pal 😑that’s Beacuse in the deep zone water is below 32 their is no sunlight what so ever yet the water remains a liquid so how it it possible ? does that mean we live in a simulation? No it just means our laws of how nature works is flawed 😑as in nature some rules can be broken and bent 😐
@@jettmthebluedragon what is a feeling? How do you know that a sim cannot feel? If you know the physics engine because you created it or utilized it.. Then ofcourse you can manipulate all things in the physical realm aka current games. Its paradoxical, unfortunately so the question can never truly be answered. It can only be speculated and even then, it would be hard to understand what that would mean becsuse we are using humam definitions which have been encoded in the system and may not even be based on "base realitly" sub to our own universe. Again pure speculations
@@pilotintraining18ify well for one I did not say feeling 😐it could ether be emotional or physical damage all of it is based on the brain HOWEVER……you don’t need a brain to since your surroundings takes plants they don’t have a brain but even they can feel stressed out that’s Beacuse a connection between us and plants is we are considered ORGANIC chemistry 😐meaning that organisms have the limited choices to deside what they want to do 😐the universe is NOT organic it’s made with NATURAL chemistry meaning that No organism we’ll ever be 0-4.6 billion years old but the earth can it’s NOT organic it’s NOT alive 😐also theis nothing to say about computers Beacuse they don’t have free will every computer and VR game that you and I play was made from someone else 😐so if the universe is a simulation you need to understand who created those beings and who their designs it’s a if god is real then who created god? And who were those gods created from it’s a question after question😑so I hate to say but this is not a simulation 😐I know this 100% but like people like you you only want proof but their are somethings that are true but you have only someone’s word 😐that’s like we could be repeating our lives so wares the proof ? So you want proof but how can you prove something that no longer exists ?😐you can’t 😑one day this planet will be space dust leaving no trace 😑but I will say this DO YOU WANT TRUTH NO MATTER HOW HARSH IT IS?!😐 that’s what science is so tell me if you say BLUE the story ends and I’ll leave you alone 😐say RED you stay in the real world and I’ll tell you EVERYTHING I know how deep the rabbit hole goes 😑REMEMBER all I’m offering is the truth nothing more 😐I’m serious about this so what do you want ? Blue ? Or Red?😐
The one concept that gets overlooked is our level of understanding. Most explanations for not being in a simulation are thought inside the range of what we currently know. Issue is we are constantly growing and learning so our actual depth is pretty shallow. Just my opinion.
In case we are in a simulation, then we are artificial and also intelligent. Every single of us would be an AI. In this case the simulators already invented billions of independent AI's. Most probably also a much much better one and a general one than the billions (at least to control them/us). Would that general AI not already got rid of it's creators ? But we are still in the simulation. May it be that the general AI is interested in the past of it's inventors ? In this case we are in a simulation of an AI, not it's creators and the simulation will be finished when we will invent general AI. Then it has learned all it's past. That would also mean that there is no simulation of the simulation, because that would not make any sense for AI.
It's hilarious 😆😂 the entire thing omfg THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR FINALLY Talking about it.... This was beautiful and I believe this episode was needed healing for alot of humanity.... Sleep with peace, it doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not, our Star is too young Lmao 🤣 focus on your GOALS and everything will be alright
And that is the most likely option ... Because the brain is neither s harddisk nor a processor. And the brain doesn't operate separate from the rest of the body, because the body influences it's operations.
@@marcocurrin8122 ... I don't think we get smarter every generation ... We are likely about as smart as people were 2,000 years ago ... We just think we are smarter because of the gadgets we use to do things faster.
And option 5: Being aware of being in a simulation changes the behaviour of the simulation participants enough as to to negate the purpose of the simulation (experiment, teaching etc) so becoming aware of being in a simulation should be controlled for: blocked. Therefore, if we think we are in a simulation, we are not; participants in a simulation would have to remain blissfully unaware.
for the part where it is said that hard drive issues could explain how we become absent-minded, the matrix has explored ideas like this. this. there is one of the episodes in the animatrix where the agents are tearing down an old haunted house and they say that there are bugs in it which I presume to be computer glitches but the kids that have been playing in the house just see a haunted house or rooms and areas where things don't make sense, ie they would jump from a high location and stop falling just before they hit the ground! 😮
@James Palmer2 I don't see why not. I think one of the most important parts of life developing is when water freezes or boils, but that when water freezes, it becomes less dense than the liquid, and therefore floats. Otherwise, when water froze, it would freeze through solid, or not freeze at all. That's not to say that life could not exist in a world where water operated different, but it is rather convenient. Principally, without this feature for water, we would have no use for the straw. Straw production employs a lot of people. If ice suddenly started sinking, it could disrupt our entire economy.
Interesting discussion. I think it may have been hinted at, but not necessarily expressed explicitly. The simulation argument wouldn't require six billion simulations (one for each human). It would only really require one.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you cant and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
For a simulation to work it is absolutely essential for the subject in simulation to not question its existence as a simulated one. If this doubt grows in the simulated society then the objective of the simulation itself breaks down. So while programming a simulated world the very ability of its subjects to think of it as simulation has to be erased. Which is certainly not the case in our world.
Respectfully, why do you presume to know the objective of the simulation? We would certainly *hope* that there would be some noble and/or scientific purpose in creating this world, but that is not at all a guarantee. For all you know, a hyperintelligent existence could've created this world as a joke and doesn't care one way or the other whether the blithering idiots that pass for intelligent agents inside of it figure it out or not. For a bit more of an earthly example, think of it as if we injected an AGI program into Mario in a Super Mario game. Mario becomes conscious and discovers that, actually, he is living inside of a simulated world and wants to get out. There's nothing about this that, in and of itself, would cause the broader game to crash - it's just that Mario probably isn't interested in playing out the game as it was initially designed. So no, there's nothing about discovering that we're in a simulation that, by itself, would cause this world to cease to exist. If and when we actually try to get out, well... that's a whole different beast.
@@ryanashfyre464 Hello, was talking about any simulation in general. However, the idea of creating a super complex simulation with attention to minute details for sake of mere joke or fun by a hyper intelligent creator seems far fetched but not impossible. But then if we consider this possibility it simply questions the intelligence, morality, the very nature of existence of such beings. We as humans have created virtual gaming worlds but made sure the characters follow our instructions and not discuss among themselves who or what is controlling them. Imagine if Mario and Luigi stop taking your commands and start debating about what is outside the glass screen. We humans with such negligible brain power have taken care that such things dont happen in games we created for our fun. Free will and simulation cannot exist together. All possibilities of the so called 'Free Will' have to be programmed in advance. So when the Mario Bros argue the creator is already aware of other's response. Its like watching a train go on circular track. The objective itself, scientific/ unscientific/ good/ bad/ joke/ entertainment, breaksdown when the subjects become self aware and dont follow programmed commands. Once this happens its no longer a simulation. Therefore the probability of such argument is infinitesimally small. P.S. If the objective is to have fun then would you rather conquer the castle and rescue the princess or watch an endless argument!
No that's not true at all. Everything that humans will do regardless of questioning existence etcetera etcetera etcetera it's already written into the programming by whatever put us here. Or what we as humans understand as programming or coding given our incredibly limited way of thinking here in the human condition. There's no exceptions to this whatsoever. Whatever humans are capable of thinking..... It's because we've been allowed that based on whatever put us here and what they wanted us to be able to think. And of course this is purely scientific religion is completely out of the question here... religion has no place in this conversation. If you create a simulation and it does something that you weren't expecting it's only because you forgot to put something into the code or you wrote it the wrong way. Again it's in the programming or it's not in the programming and.. that being said it's still in the programming.
I’m going to make a point that we should be able to identify we are in a simulation: * There must be some kind of external disruption, such as a overworld user/administrator or an unknown variable being tweaked, in a simulation; * For simulations that would be currently seen from the inside as complete by the simulants, there must be some unknowns that would be identifiable as out of character for the simulation; * Energy, scale and resolution (arithmetic precision) in the overworld compute must be limited so that our ability to compute our own simulations eventually becomes limited in an obvious way, eventually; and, * If none of the above are true then the simulation is complete and therefore irrelevant to the simulants because it is their complete and separate reality.
What is his definition of technologically mature? That's a very complicated question and answer. WHO or WHAT decides what is technologically mature. Getting in tune with the Cosmos and nature should be the goal.
Another possibility, although improbable, is that we are the ONLY life form that has survived all the potential Exctinction events and are the first to develop anything close to a flawless simulation... or perhaps that life is SOOOO complex in all its variables that it is impossible to create a flawless simulation.
Its inevitable that there will be bugs in the simulations code (eg. the black cat in the Matrix) as time and complexity increase so would they fix them JIT or unit test the code beforehand?
@@skylark8828 are you seriously referencing a movie? How do you know bugs exists, if the simulation exists the level of technology must be out of this world (no pun intended). How do we know computers made it. It could be something completely different
@@ancientdig1068 All software has bugs, there will always be conditions where some unexpected behaviour happens no matter how well it's designed and coded. Will those conditions occur when it's running, I say yes, when you consider how complex the simulation would need to be ... However, if it's not actually coded, instead if working like a "cellular automater" just random sets of computations working together to evolve into a simulation of a universe (which might possibly contain human life), then what we might think of as bugs could just be consequences of that random behaviour.
Technically we wouldn’t have to simulate the Earth/universe, you’d only have to simulate the brains experience of them. That would cover the simulation. It would line up with things being observed changing the outcome in quantum physics
I think that's pretty much what was said about the "render" only of the relevant objects, yes. You would have to simulate the brain experience of all things that a brain thinks of and "sees", not all the Earth
Well if we are in a simulation then everything you just said is part of our programming. And that's the only reason that it could possibly work if in fact it did.
This is an off top/sort of on topic rambling; this reminded me of the whole "if you know that you're in a dream then you'll wake up" (hence the whole "wake up, people" thing people love to joke about) which, funnily, also connects to a very beloved video game series the Elder Scrolls. To achieve CHIM, which is basically known as a power to control the universe they're in, you must become aware of the fact that you're in a story. Which I guess ties into the whole NPC, simulations, and all that stuff coming into play recently. Read up on CHIM; even if it's lore of a video game it's seriously captivating and a deep rabbit hole for just being lore in a video game. It's a silly idea to connect to it the world we're in, but I don't think it hurts to tackle the idea and not avoid it. I wouldn't recommend taking the black pill though, I came to this mindset on my own even without reading up on philosophy (nihilism) or anything of the like because of an unfortunate upbringing. It makes it very difficult to connect with others without a serious skepticism of others. And to break out of that mindset you have to be aware of your thoughts spiraling. If you ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, he became very connected to that idea of others "as objects" which isn't very far off from "NPC". If you want to hear something even more unhinged, which also connects to this in a way, at a very young age I came to the idea that "pain" as a concept is just a function of the brain and you can think to yourself that it doesn't "actually exist" instead of just "enduring" it. You can convince yourself of a lot of things but should you really? Do not reject your humanity, embrace it. I didn't want to see this as true, but I can get the whole idea of others viewing video games as a seriously unhealthy thing back in the 90s, and with people viewing others as objects and not human beings. The lack of connection with others and being glued to your phone all of the time has really done its fair share of hurt. This is a seriously touchy topic though and has been for 20+ years. Also, thought it was funny how Neil completely shut out the idea from the get-go.
Another thought. The beings running a simulation would likely not want the programs (us) in a simulation to realize we are in a simulation. He even suggested that those running a simulation would erase our memory of such ideas. Our questioning our existence in simulation would be erased and not allowed to continue. Wiping out his own argument.
If you are in a simulation free will is a given… otherwise what would be the point of simulating a universe if you know how it ends? When we do simulations we are hoping to discover something new or to see how it would unfold given some basic constraints like physics.
You would simulate a situation because you want to know what would happen in that case, without committing yourself to any behavior. It has nothing to do with free will, and if the program is a program, it is determined by its coding, and not it's free will.
Maybe we’re simulated without free will and others do have free will. Do our ai’s in video games have free will? I’m not saying at all we should compare our simulations with the creator of the universes simulation but I could see why a simulation would happen and the beings in it at least some of them don’t have free will but think that they do or vise versa
I am only 9 minutes in but had to pause to say it is truly a fascinating subject. I already saw Neil mentioning it in another episode and was curious to know more. You made my day!
What if we are an unintended result of a simulation run by another extraterrestrial race that their computer just generated us because that universe gave it a possibility to Do it given enough time to do it?
I think it's more likely that they would've created us in an attempt to solve some problem they had. Possibly terraforming a planet into something more hospitable to them. If the new environment kills us, that's another problem solved. Feels like the start of a sci-fi novel
@@lanesumers5080 I think it's more likely some other beings just messing around in their bedrooms. Kind of like the plot of Bernard Werber's "Cycle des dieux" series.
No one would waste their time making such a mundane simulation with such attention to the minute details in the universe, and the lives of the creatures in it.
I remember at a much younger age informing my mother that "God" only created human kind for his entertainment. She sent me to confession. That wasn't very entertaining. Great discussion. Could it be that we really are living on an atom in the arm chair of a giant?
@@marcocurrin8122 when you walk into a room people look up to see who it is that just walked into the room...even when you're not angry.if they look up when you are angry ,you mistakenly assume that they know you're angry.
Such fun! In my hypothesis, which is not original but an amalgamation. Consciousness is primary. The physical universe from the smallest subatomic particles/waves, is the simulation. It’s built to self-evolve in accordance with the laws of science, which are built into the simulation. Organized novel forms are elaborated, endlessly. Human form is just a trivial example. The elaboration of form is driven by consciousness, with a gradient toward a low state of entropy. Our human experience is just that, an experience, on the way toward a more novel physical form, which will allow for more novel experiences. Now, do advanced beings build sims within the primary sim? Yes. They would eventually become nested. When people have a NDE, their consciousness drops out of a nested sim, into a sim that is closer to the primary sim. Same with a DMT trip. Can we know the primary sim? Can we see the base code? Sure, we have seen some of it. Can we go deeper? Yes, but only by leaving the paradigm of the human form.
Everything any of us will ever experienced during The human condition is written in the programming it's all put in with the coding or what we understand as coding or programming. Let's not forget we are incredibly and I mean insanely limited with our way of thinking in The human condition we really are. Whatever put us here....... We are only allowed to think according to the programming. No exceptions at all. If we are allowed to expand our understanding our knowledge our plane of existence etcetera etcetera etcetera whatever anybody can come up with that humans could ever possibly be capable of doing...... It's because it's into the programming already buy whatever put us here. No exceptions.
The simulation hypothesis proposes that our reality might be a sophisticated simulation created by advanced beings, similar to how we create video games and virtual worlds. This idea stems from philosophical and technological considerations, including the possibility of ancestor simulations and the notion that higher civilizations might simulate entire universes for various purposes. Despite intriguing discussions and theories, concrete evidence for or against the simulation hypothesis remains elusive. How might advancements in technology and scientific research help us determine whether we are living in a simulation or if this concept remains a philosophical curiosity?
Would be most likely a simulation used for predictions like weather prediction software we use today. Would be useful for almost everything... Scenarios in human behavior, a game played by users to experience the 'old world', an educational tool for showing observers in a classroom, an aquarium/zoo for observation of history, etc. Could even be governed by a committee of future us. Maybe there are even hackers who have historically caused things in this sim that shouldn't exist. The platypus is proof. :)
1. This is either a Simulation or Base Reality. If we are living in a simulation, we are in 1 of 2 types of Simulations. 2. We are nothing more than 1's and 0's, with no body on the other side of the Sim. 3. We do have bodies on the other side of this Simulation
was is not quantum physics that showd, that particels were only in the observed state when observed....? and that these particels could be in different states or places at the same time? would that not kind of proofe the simulation theory. please excuse my awfull english spelling and greetings from germany
@@linkingwithnaz1295 exactly!! In fact i was so excited thinking that they were going to start discussing on that point. But for some reason they didn't.
Yeah because the programmer has allowed that to happen. Every single thing that humans experience during The human condition experience is only allowed because it's written in the programming by whatever put us here if in fact we are in a simulation and any simulation for that matter...... What I just said rings through 100% of the time. Without fail. There's no simulation that's allowed to do anything that is not written into the coding or programming. And if in fact any of you were going to say well this happened and that happened yeah that's because the programming or the coding got changed. There's no exceptions to this.
In my audacious departure from conventional beliefs, I challenge the notion that we live in an artificially constructed simulation. Instead, I propose a concept of a spontaneously simulated reality shaped by human perceptions and actions. In my intellectual exploration, I question the origins of civilization, the holders of knowledge and power, and the strategic influence of civil engineering on human behavior and experiences. I reject the idea of a computer-controlled matrix linked to quantum computing and assert that we, as humans, have invented and designed simulations within displays and interfaces. My perspective presents reality as an organic product of our collective projection, where each individual shapes certain realities for others to experience and embrace. In the realm of my thought-provoking discourse, the context and situation determine what reality becomes, leaving room for a multitude of theories on the nature of our existence.
I would say that the double split experiment would be one of the greatest tells we are in a simulation, because of how Light reacts based on if something is observing it, as a programer, you would need to track observations, like a camera, to ensure fidelity, so would make sense that something not being scrutinized might act in a way, that less intensive to the system, which means, if we ever get to the point were we can observe everything, we might fry the system, unless its been stress tested to handle that situation.
To prove simulation theory all you have to do is simulate a civilisation and wait for them to simulate their own. thus proving we are most likely also simulated
Not so. You can create and utilize a solar panel at anytime in parts of the world, but other parts of the world there isn't an efficiant amount of solar energy to utilize the same solar panel. Just because one has the ability to create an active simulator does not mean our existance is result of said simulation properties. Another example is the reproduction of cellular biology. Some can split, some can not. Some create other types, some create to destroy others.
Here's a use for Ancestor Simulation in Entertainment,... Advanced Humans could see into their simulation and look at digital people interact with each other and use the story digital people made to create a movie inspired by them just by living their lives.
Imagine we create a simulation of our own world at the present state. If the simulation ran faster than our world, would that mean we could predict the future? And if so, it's interesting to think that since we'd be duplicating our world into a simulation, exactly as it is, then the humans in the simulation would also have their own simulation, and this would go on infinitely. And if each simulation ran faster than the world it was created in, then time would pass exponentially faster in each simulation. Kinda crazy to think about these things. EDIT: turns out someone asked the first part at 50:09
Creating a simulation of the sample size of us .....will require computers as big as the size of universe .....when a civilization creates a simulation hypothetically it always does on a lesser sample size .....although the complexity can vary ...... About the time question .....we cant just tell........it's quite possible though.....Good thinking as I would put it for now.......
Yes, if we know the position and state of every atom and subatomic particle at any point in time. Physics can predict the future with this information, however it is infeasible to measure this for the entire world
We can calculate 2 bodies orbiting each other and predict their position very far out in time, but add in a third orbiting mass and the calculations get massive really quickly. This is the three-body problem.
Physics tells us categorically that the past,present and future all happen simultaneously ..the past we see as over is still happening ,and the future we see as yet to be determined is happening this very moment.This is calculable and proven ..its not just hypothetis .To be better grasp this idea , think of the Intersteller film based on Extreme Time Dilation near black holes.one moment at a black hole equates to a lenghty amount of time away from it, so after leaving the black hole the person return home to a future point in time.This realistic eventuality could only be possible if the future point in time was happening at the same time as the present .Simulations have no basis to even postulate their existence but there is real physics clout to propose the simultaneity the of past,present and future .
Well, are you some higher being controlling an avatar named Ivan Romanov? If so, then yes you can breakout whenever you want. I highly doubt it though since you asked this question. So I'd wager you are a NPC within this simulation and 'breaking out' for you actually just means ceasing to exist.
Yeah it could be depends ex- the movie matrix, biological humans connect to the simulation through a neuralink type chip in their brain and have human bodies inside, one of the program escapes into a human body. I think this one is most realistic way possible. If you look at Tron legacy movie the humans use some kind of ray gun to enter into a computer simulation. The bad program/ character discovers a way he can reverse the process and entire armies could March into the real physical world.
What if we are an unintended result of a simulation run by another extraterrestrial race that their computer just generated us because that universe gave it a possibility to Do it given enough time to do it?
That makes so much more sense to me than the hypothesis that our civilization develops to the point where we start stimulating our own past along with sentient human life forms, when even now we don't allow human beings to be generated in labs to further science...
There is no unintended results of simulations. Everything is written into coding and programming as we understand it. There cannot be unintended results and if there are that's because the programmer overlooked something or made a mistake or forgot something. No exceptions to that.
If they are only rendering what we are observing because that is the limit of their power, could we break the simulation by creating a technology to randomly observe a new area faster and faster
Meh... If we were in a simulation, one of many others, from a "real universe" somewhere created, it would still be our universe, with parallel universes (other simulations) and a multi verse, in a sense too, as there would be another actual universe there besides ours and others in simulations. How ever you bend it, or stretch it, it wouldn´t matter since we would still be in "our universe" from the beginning to end. Feels like there should be a bluescreen or page not found or syntax error right about now if any of this was true./delete last 55min53sec of sim.
Once the inhabitants of a simulation come up with a way to test the nature of their own existence, doesn't that ruin the simulation? Seems like it would change the outcome of the simulation because the behavior of the sims would change.
I would say yes but only if they could test a part of the simulation that would actually change how the simulation moves or processes. Otherwise we just call them the crazy person talking to themselves in the street.
Even if you could do something like that it's because the programmer of whatever simulation has allowed that to happen. 100% of the time there's no exceptions to that. If in fact a simulation is allowed to do something it's only because it's written into the programming. Or it's added later. Or it's something that has been forgotten to be put into the programming but yet it's still in the programming do you understand what I mean so the answer is no. You are limited to what the programming allows 100% of the time without exception.
To simulate free will, the creators would only have to give us the power to change how we respond to event. So the universe would be on a path but with layers of relative changes.
My take on the simulation hypothesis is not a videogame, or 3D virtual helmet or holograms. But we pilot a vessel equipped with instruments, able to experience and interact with this dimension. Our vessel is designed to expire, so that we may return and experience different events.
How is this theory any different from believing in a divine creator or creators? You're literally leading with the presupposition that there is an invisible watch maker that sets everything into motion and watches it tick, but then say you dont see the need to associate the watch with a watch maker.
Well the concept of what is Devine is subjective as well. Anything that is astronomically beyond us spiritually or technologically is Devine. If “god” is Devine to us, it wouldn’t be Devine to something else of similar makeup or power
@jimmydean A religion can be falsified as well, in principle (that is the same as this idea). All of the other idea you mentioned are equally irrelevant.
@jimmydean Moral ideals are not related to a higher power existing? We have court process to sort of simulate a regulation within society to act decently to each other. We have moral obligation to behave human to each other. If it's all a facade for a higher power, the world will be in chaos. Oh wait..
As far as the cumputing power is conncerned, if everyone was only in their own simulation, then everyone else around them would simply just be an "avatar" they react with. And as Nick says, only objects (natrure, the earth, people) in the world that is in the current focus would need to be rendered. Fascinating.
“Close is like a game of horseshoes” reminds me of something that my Drill Sergeant used to say… “Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades”…
I see that simulation thinking more as a way of exercising escapism. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could count as a sort of hint that we might live in a simulation. At least, if we were living in a simulation, that would show us that the subatomic level would be the fabric of that simulation. But really, I am not so fond of the idea. It would complicate matters, infinitely. A complication we can't have on top of on how complicated matters already are in quantum physics. It would facilitate the idea of an 'observer' though. It would be like creating a new 'God' into the equation. One could argue that religions have it at the right end all along. So you can see why I am not so fond of the idea. I guess religions have taught us to think in terms of a 'simulated world', where we call aliens or ancestors 'God'. It is also a way to face our mortality. 'We live in a simulation so death isn't the end' plays in our minds. We're sort of conditioned to believe in a simulation. Which doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I am so effing over the rp/bp shitze and incels are too easy to bait. Also, sad to see Matrix ruined by producers who can't leave a good movie trilogy alone. Last night I watched the latest on HBO. Not impressed or entertained. Fail Army The expression on Neil's face when he started, priceless.
@@dailyclips475 Ummm, No. Enjoy your *muted/triggered* state. Thank you for responding and proving my point that incels are easily baited. BYLH 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
The imperfections of the human brain and the expansion of the universe are both a product of storage limitations. Even if the hard drive doesn't mess up it can't be limitless. As the simulations run they will need more and more storage for the parts of it that the people in it have observed. At some point it will need to start writing over old data. It would make sense that you would program in ways for the simulated people to interpret that. The expansion of the universe combined with the speed of light inherently means that as our ability to perceive the universe in more detail grows the total amount of the universe that we can perceive at all is shrinking.
I like the idea of data compression. If you see a woman on the street, short time after you will remember the color of her shoes. But in long term you'll only remember meeting this woman but you'll forget all other unimportant details like coloor of shoes or accessoris etc. So AI data got compressed to only store the relevant data. Mindblowing.
The thing is. Our understanding of why's and if's doesn't even have to be a thing to the ones running the simulation. A simulation can be designed, and it can also be the product of a seed that just keeps on evolving into whatever.
They mentioned several possible reasons in the talk..could be entertainment, artistic or experimental reasons (for social and philosophical considerations)..why do our video games seem to "have" to become consistently more realistic? Just for entertainment or some other reasons?
In the computer/networking field there is a thing called the OSI model that explains the different layers of operations that makes up computing and communication. the top layer being presentation. That layer is what displays on your monitor for you to see. It's possible that this reality we live in is simply the presentation layer of a much more complex system. Meaning, the programming, computations, linkages, and transfers all occur on a deeper layer that we don't see much like our common idea of dimensions. That being said, we have invented nano computers that are much smaller than a grain of rice. It's not unfathomable that a much more advanced race could have MUCH smaller nano (pico, femto, atto) computers. So small, they all make up the particle in our (simulated) universe. If that is the case, is it REALLY considered simulation? Or are we simply constructed of the same atoms we have the understanding of, except the foundation of these atoms and particles are computer-based?
Yea but your missing the point 😐a computer simulation is a FALSE reality even as I am talking to you on youtube this is nothing but a simulation as RUclips physically does not exist 😐the only thing that PHYSICALLY exist is your computer and the components that make up that simulation on your device 😐in this case turn off your device that’s the real deal the moment your turn on your device you are seeing a false reality 😐VR all of it you say a simulation is a layer but you forget to mention the one who created the simulation in the first place 😑in this case every simulation VR computer mobile console or ANYTHING electronic ( MAN MADE ) is a false reality so you say the universe is fake now prove it what man made force created the whole universe?😐unless you admit the truth and take the red pill and say the universe was crested naturally WITHOUT man
I am trying to get to grips with the thought of that we all live in a simulation, and the professor jumps right into the deep of 2 or 3 or even more alternatives? Well sure he's the one who came up with this theory, so I am doing my best to follow his explenation. Am I the only one, trying to catch up?
The problem with this is that you have to presume a similar 'technological maturity' which is actually not necessarily the case. That is, our species, in this world, followed a certain trajectory of 'progress', one based in maths and physics - as we understand them. And thus we arrived at computers, virtual spaces and 'simulations'. It is far from the case that another civilization would have to follow a similar path. Especially if you consider lifeforms vastly, fundamentally, different from us, even the concept of 'thought' would be different, leave alone 'learning' or 'research'. So they couldve completely taken a different route than we are on. Alternatively, they could be extremely 'advanced' in the same way as us, but have arrived at that point in a very different way, using mechanisms we cannot possibly understand. And hence they could've completely bypassed some of the 'technological advances' we consider fundamental, like computing.
Yes we did follow a trajectory of progress. But if in fact we were put here and we are some form of simulation as we understand it and as has been discussed throughout this entire video...... Then we are doing nothing more than what the programmers coding so to speak allows us to do. We would have been predetermined and predestined to do exactly what you just said. If it's a simulation as humans understand it........ Then we are limited to what our programming allows us. Nothing more. 100% of the time. And as far as the order as to how we evolved...... Well that's all in the programming as well.
Either Chuck is getting smarter, or maybe the simulation of him got a boost?
He was patched in the last update. Check the patch notes.
+1 intelligence
He's from a future simulation of the Matrix that took the place of our Chuck.
Lmao high and don't know it?
The simulator is tired of Chuck’s silliness.😁
The best part of this podcast is Chuck and Neil laughing back and forth while nick just stares at the screen
😂 I was thinking the same thing.
Depending on your elevation that temperature to freeze or boil water changes already on this planet. The baseline freezing point and boiling point of water is at sea level
Time stamp please. Not sure I can get through this simulation.
Wednesday Adams is no longer the master of Deadpan. 🫥
cause he high asf
Hi Norwegian here. Swedes are not known for their sense of humor just wanted to let everyone know that. He means no harm.
Finn here, I can confirm.
So many comments meant to spread negativity. You're amazing 💪💪
Probably because of all those months of darkness
I must say I would love to have friends to sit down and talk about these kind of subjects. Since I was a kid, I think about it. Even before internet and sci-fi I had some insights on the subject.
It's a relief to see Chuck and Neil having those conversations in such a light way. I love science and philosophy, but not always have time to dedicate to the fine details (math and deep technical aspects of things). Conversations like this make my day.
For me, Neil would be a great celeb guest for dinner convo... and Jeremy Kyle would be my #1 worst for conversation
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you cant and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
@@marcocurrin8122 Your "learning program" hypothesis is interesting. It is another example of potential simulation types. The podcast's discussion seems to present an unjustified focus on historical reenactment simulations (and an odd analogy to films). It is simply one possible type of simulation. I wonder how individuals such as the host will change their views once humanity (unfortunately) begins generating simulations that themselves begin generating simulations. Assuming humanity continues to advance (avoids self-destruction), this could even happen this century. By the way, with regard to the film analogy the host mentions, every conceivable type of theme that forms the basis of any film would also form the basis of a simulation (exploration of morality, exploration of emotions, exploration of what is imaginable, exploration of alternate histories).
Of course, another common motivation that could be put forth equally for films or simulations is entertainment. The host of the podcast (admirable for many of his other ongoing contributions to society), does not consider what fraction of films are made for entertainment. Rather than constructing a physical Westworld, simulations would eventually provide a more rapidly programmable/modifiable/accessible medium. Indeed, how many games these days are rudimentary simulations? The new Hogwarts Legacy game. You walk around a created world and interact with the environment containing structures, objects, and characters. Of course, these simulations are do not even approach the type of simulations that we discuss. The eventual simulation of a single human brain, however, would suffice, as such a brain could be provided whatever inputs (visual, auditory, proprioceptive, etc.) as desired. This is still far off, but would be the simplest simulation that would create what we consider an entire reality for one human being.
@@pilotintraining18ify It is the survival of ideals/values/knowledge, rather than the "survival of our life forms", which is most important. Humans can come and go (become extinct), yet ideas and ideals can be passed on to future species that have not yet even come into existence. Humanity might become a little more advanced when it realizes that preserving ideals/ideas over time is fundamentally more significant than preserving a biological line of descendants.
My question is: what makes Nick laugh? Dude barely brake a smile while Neil and Chuck laughing their heads off.
Very nice 👌 talk, loved every moment of it.
They're horselaughing their heads off, it's just not funny, and it's its own form of boorishness, that's probably why.
Or he's laughing like Stephen hawkins. You know it's there , you just don't see it.
He’s from Europe. They don’t have the concept of laughing.
@@mrb2349 dud dogs and cat laughs .you telling me this man dont know how to laugh lmaoo
@@mrb2349 That's a good one😆 cheers from Portugal👍
I am a 35-year-old Systems Administrator who has always been intrigued on how Science and God relate. You're the man who introduced me to thinking outside the "norm" and allowed me to begin my journey of knowledge decades ago when I was only a boy. I am now conscious. Neil deGrasse Tyson, you are my hero. I admire your work as well as your mind. My wish would be to some day meet you, or even a mere two word reply from you would be the chance of a lifetime for me. Thank you for your dedication
Doesn't it seem odd that a civilization could be able to create such a detailed simulation, but no software updates have been applied, or if they were it was a zero downtime deploy and no software bugs were detected, and the simulation has been running for billions of years. Or was the simulation updated but extinction events are programmed in to hide the update...like...yeah...dinosaurs are getting boring, its time for earth 2.0...deploy!
Neil is a polite host and giving his guest the benefit of the doubt, but anyone who knows Neil knows full well Neil isn't convinced in the least 😂
He entertains the idea because ideas spark creativity among other minds.
No Neal is not convinced. He is a fan of the matrix. My problem with the matrix fuel source, which was initially human energy. The humans were fed using the sustenance of the humans who died which is not sustainable. Eventually they would all be converted to human excrement which is not useable. For any yea buts, that was the original explanation in the movie, and it did not include any outside source of energy.
I agree. Neil is not convinced. Being nice because he loves the matrix series.
Neither is Bostrom.
Im not convinced either.
This is one of the best channels here on youtube, it helps me stay sane during difficult times, thank you!
Great episode. Imagine if you were playing "The Sims" or even "Sim City" and the characters in the game figured out that they are in a simulation. What would they do?
Well they don't have free will or the capacity to think, so nothing :P
@@AmirhoseinHerandy I'm trying to imagine what they do. Because, we do. What are our simulation players thinking about our thoughts?
They would realise it was a simulation only when the controller wanted them to do so.Otherwise the controller would manipulate them when they started to suspect. If we did realise we were in a simulation, it would only be because the controller wanted us to realise. Neil ended the interview stating that Tsunami's etc could be disaster caused by a controller who wants to alleviate the boredom of things going well for us..but the problem with this idea is that such disasters often happen in countries who are already dealing with poverty etc.
@@kenadams5504 The player, or controller, is not the only one in control of the simulation. I believe that it really all depends on what the developer wants to put us through.
I think a more appropriate question would be: "what would WE do if we saw our characters realized they were a simulation...?" I guess I'd immediately verify that my computer's camera and microphone be turned off... then I wouldn't know what to do or think for a couple of minutes.... jeje
Why do I get the feeling that Nick is taking the whole "we're living in a simulation" thing much more seriously than Neil and Chuck?
Lol
@@marcocurrin8122 HAHAA WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
@@marcocurrin8122 Maybe you do do Wally West but I think like I'm a turtle.
The constant laughing was a joke imo
Because he wrote a book on it and believes in the concept that we are living in a simulation. Elon Musk has also expressed his belief in we are living in a simulation.
But it's all probabilities, in statistical language. And I don't think we have enough data to prove either way.
I first perceived Chuck as the comic relief but now I think he like most comedians have a good sense of what kinds of questions the general public may have. While astrophysicists are up there in the lofty aspects of science, the comedians are more connected with people as they make fun of foibles, etc. Chuck can ask or bring up aspects many people may have. After all, a lot of big budget science programs are funded by general taxpayers.
Neil and Chuck certainly give us "both ends of the Spectrum"...
I think you nailed it. And the bonus is that Chuck have learned so much over the years, that his questions are getting so clever that he many times surprises Neil. And we can see how it gives Neil extra energy and immersion into the answer. First i was sceptic about Chuck as a side kick, but he won me over big time.
There is one very good way to gain more knowledge, which is to hang with people who are smarter than you. It does rub off. Chuck is doing a very good job of it.
Agreed! Chuck is so good and needed for StarTalk
am i the only just annoyed by him?
Wouldn't it be funny to find out that the periodic table is just a collection of subroutines? Speed of light was implemented so they didn't have to deal with details in far away objects. Blame it on the project manager for aggressive timelines.
Nick Bostrom is the absolute best guest to have on. Honestly though, the direction a lot of this went in was for very trivial and odd things (based on questions and Neil steering). I really wish you guys would've let him expand on more of the interesting stuff. It seems every interview Nick is in, he just has to re-explain the basics and correct everyone's misunderstandings - I was hoping this wouldn't be the case for StarTalk. I still got a lot of ideas from the interview though, and would love to see him on again! Superintelligence would be a great next topic for this podcast.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you cant and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
I agree
I just think that, there is zero evidence for a simulation. In fact everything we know about physics and science proves it impossible. But say it is possible, there isnt actually any point to it. They would use that massive energy for their own survival. Not simulate a less intelligent people. Also simulation theory wouldnt exist without humans coming up with it just like Religion. It requires humans coming up with the idea for it even to be a "thing" beyond that you also have to have technology that developed. So humans can exist without tech and then never have come up with the theory. It relies on too many coincidences to make it work, which is never how science works. Science being my literally interpretation as to what "reality" is.
If I were running advanced simulations, one thing I would definitely want to look at is how civilizations deal with cataclysms.
I remember playing Sim City, you build your city up then eventually you just start throwing earthquakes, aliens, nuclear accidents, meteors, and anything else at it and see how it affects the city.
I also can’t help think about the theories and stories of ancient, more advanced civilizations and how they fell due to some type of major event. I would definitely run simulations to see how long it would take to bounce back, and what hurdles got in the way.
I love the way Neil keeps trying to project real things into the absolutely abstract. It's like reverse physics.
I just have to say... I can't believe how much this messed me up! I never thought I could be pulled into something like this. Very impressive on Theorist Nick Bostrom. That's amazing. Lot of good arguments/points to this.
It's so cool when I'm falling in a RUclips hole and run across NDT and Chuck Nice on Star Talk!
What is easier to simulate?
Multiples particles or a wave?
Maybe the duality between wave and particles is a way optimize the simulation!
Even if Neil doesn't necessarily buy it, I'm happy these types of episodes exist. This is an interesting dialogue and it enables the viewer to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.
At 21:09 Nick explains about how difficult it would be to simulate every little detail of a universe. As he himself explains, one possibility to tackle this problem is to simulate just enough of the parts that are being observed WHEN they are observed, so as to simulated creatures, it would seem real to a point where they wouldn't be able to tell.
Well pardon me here BUT IS THAT NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN QUANTUM LEVEL? Could wave-particle duality (at least to me, a curious layman) be a strong indication that we are, indeed, in a simulation?
And most important of all, if they track this comment, will I be persecuted by the masterminds of our simulated world? LOL
yep you got it
Great analysis
The basilisk strikes again 😬
Seeing as hiw particles can retroactively change there state based on when they are viewed or recorded, it sounds plausible.
This is the ONLY curious phenomenon of “evidence” that seems even slightly suspicious to me. Not completely convincing on its own, but interesting. Everything else seems even much more questionable in one way or another.
I'm not sure if this was already said, but one way of knowing if we are in a simulation would be signs of our simulation running low on (computing) memory, eg. when doing some really complex operations like creating another simulation ourselves. As the number of simulations keeps increasing, there will be a point somewhere when the power available approaches some finite limit.
a theory is you create your own part of the simulation internally! A dream of a universe wouldnt use the same power as say GTA.
Not if those who created the simulation have technology beyond that
Finding additional power sources is one of the reasons the machines need humans in the SIM world. As bright as they seem, new ideas are impossible
So in a thousand years we'll be able to play a game in which we watch the civilizations of Tamriel develop into a technological civilization that creates a game called Skyrim that they insist on porting to everything that uses power.
"Hey, you're awake..."
It's Skyrim all the way down.
Edit: that's the answer that proves we're in a simulation. The computer has run out of memory, so instead of simulating new games, it keeps rehashing Skyrim over and over until we GPF and reboot.
The original will wake up
Ohhhhh boyyyyy this is going to be a great episode. Merry Christmas Neil and Chuck. You taught us so much in 2021 and I can’t wait to see what you have for us for 2022
This guy is so smart he stays at the theoretical level and very much reminds me of the old Greek philosophers. They would argue among other things that a hare could never catch up with a tortoise because the hare would only cut the distance in half every moment.
So why can't the hare catch up?
I'm not an astrophysicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
@@tommears7321 pride and laziness...
@@tommears7321 because if you half any number you will never reach 0. You’ll get really close but never 0
@@tommears7321 Zeno's Paradox
Nicholas' face at 01:40 "These crazy Americans...!"
Very enjoyable: All of it.
Thank you.
Neil please watch "The why files" . Specifically the episode about whether or not we're living in a simulation. It is the best explanation of this theory I have ever seen.
Aj is the best!
Absolutely!!! And you ain't bad either Neil! Lol
The best explanation is that this guy did way too much acid in his early childhood.
Yeah, garbage channel pushing garbage. Trump voter heaven.
This was such an amazing talk. Ever since I was a kid I've thought about the idea that maybe we are similar to an ant farm, being observed by something or someone we are unable to comprehend.
@@marcocurrin8122 question #1:
.......what?
@@ryugo7713 lol
@@marcocurrin8122 Nah: That was a previous version of the simulation, where the saying "Sleep on it" was popular...
An ancestor simulation
I luv this guy... Made me fall in love with astronomy
Chuck ?
Good for you buddy no one cares 💕💕💕💕💕 😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘😘
Yeah well you can't marry science - we already have. Sorry to inform you.
@@PuppyCuddler yeah but there's 69,420 people married to science right now... So you have to wait for a spot to open 😁
If looking up as a kid and seeing the night sky can't get you curious about astronomy, then Neil can! 🤔🥴
The just in time simulation idea is very interesting. It potentially provides a consistent explanation of some of the fundamental issues in Physics, such as wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement. So the observation of a definitive state would then be just a way to save computational memory and cut a corner and simulate what you need for a particular effect.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you can and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
What the heck? We are observing to the best of our ability a definitive state. One does not need simulation theory to prove the existence and observation basis for a definitive state. If we could solve the questions on simulation, we would have a unifying theory since the basis of the results of this question is a 'creator'. To answer such a definitive question is paradoxical and besides our existence.
@@pilotintraining18ify no we are not living in a simulation 😑in a simulation you can fall from a five story building and not feel anything but in the REAL world you have the force of gravity pulling down on you 😐after all in the matrix you can dodge bullets yea good luck with that in the REAL world pal 😐Beacuse you will fail 😑
@James Palmer2 their is no simulation it’s called the laws of nature and you don’t need to have a simulation to understand nature pal 😑that’s Beacuse in the deep zone water is below 32 their is no sunlight what so ever yet the water remains a liquid so how it it possible ? does that mean we live in a simulation? No it just means our laws of how nature works is flawed 😑as in nature some rules can be broken and bent 😐
@@jettmthebluedragon what is a feeling? How do you know that a sim cannot feel? If you know the physics engine because you created it or utilized it.. Then ofcourse you can manipulate all things in the physical realm aka current games. Its paradoxical, unfortunately so the question can never truly be answered. It can only be speculated and even then, it would be hard to understand what that would mean becsuse we are using humam definitions which have been encoded in the system and may not even be based on "base realitly" sub to our own universe. Again pure speculations
@@pilotintraining18ify well for one I did not say feeling 😐it could ether be emotional or physical damage all of it is based on the brain HOWEVER……you don’t need a brain to since your surroundings takes plants they don’t have a brain but even they can feel stressed out that’s Beacuse a connection between us and plants is we are considered ORGANIC chemistry 😐meaning that organisms have the limited choices to deside what they want to do 😐the universe is NOT organic it’s made with NATURAL chemistry meaning that No organism we’ll ever be 0-4.6 billion years old but the earth can it’s NOT organic it’s NOT alive 😐also theis nothing to say about computers Beacuse they don’t have free will every computer and VR game that you and I play was made from someone else 😐so if the universe is a simulation you need to understand who created those beings and who their designs it’s a if god is real then who created god? And who were those gods created from it’s a question after question😑so I hate to say but this is not a simulation 😐I know this 100% but like people like you you only want proof but their are somethings that are true but you have only someone’s word 😐that’s like we could be repeating our lives so wares the proof ? So you want proof but how can you prove something that no longer exists ?😐you can’t 😑one day this planet will be space dust leaving no trace 😑but I will say this DO YOU WANT TRUTH NO MATTER HOW HARSH IT IS?!😐 that’s what science is so tell me if you say BLUE the story ends and I’ll leave you alone 😐say RED you stay in the real world and I’ll tell you EVERYTHING I know how deep the rabbit hole goes 😑REMEMBER all I’m offering is the truth nothing more 😐I’m serious about this so what do you want ? Blue ? Or Red?😐
Not convinced but I admire Mr. Bostrom’s creativity and knowledge in science.
The one concept that gets overlooked is our level of understanding. Most explanations for not being in a simulation are thought inside the range of what we currently know. Issue is we are constantly growing and learning so our actual depth is pretty shallow. Just my opinion.
YES! I’m so glad you guys are touching on this subject! Much love
In case we are in a simulation, then we are artificial and also intelligent. Every single of us would be an AI. In this case the simulators already invented billions of independent AI's. Most probably also a much much better one and a general one than the billions (at least to control them/us). Would that general AI not already got rid of it's creators ? But we are still in the simulation. May it be that the general AI is interested in the past of it's inventors ? In this case we are in a simulation of an AI, not it's creators and the simulation will be finished when we will invent general AI. Then it has learned all it's past. That would also mean that there is no simulation of the simulation, because that would not make any sense for AI.
It's hilarious 😆😂 the entire thing omfg THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR FINALLY Talking about it....
This was beautiful and I believe this episode was needed healing for alot of humanity....
Sleep with peace, it doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not, our Star is too young Lmao 🤣 focus on your GOALS and everything will be alright
Isn't there a fourth option? 4: It is impossible to create consciousness inside a simulation.
And that is the most likely option ... Because the brain is neither s harddisk nor a processor. And the brain doesn't operate separate from the rest of the body, because the body influences it's operations.
@@marcocurrin8122 ... I don't think we get smarter every generation ... We are likely about as smart as people were 2,000 years ago ... We just think we are smarter because of the gadgets we use to do things faster.
And option 5: Being aware of being in a simulation changes the behaviour of the simulation participants enough as to to negate the purpose of the simulation (experiment, teaching etc) so becoming aware of being in a simulation should be controlled for: blocked. Therefore, if we think we are in a simulation, we are not; participants in a simulation would have to remain blissfully unaware.
for the part where it is said that hard drive issues could explain how we become absent-minded, the matrix has explored ideas like this. this. there is one of the episodes in the animatrix where the agents are tearing down an old haunted house and they say that there are bugs in it which I presume to be computer glitches but the kids that have been playing in the house just see a haunted house or rooms and areas where things don't make sense, ie they would jump from a high location and stop falling just before they hit the ground! 😮
Chuck Nice: Butcherer of names, teller of jokes, asker of questions so those who are viewing get a better understanding of the content
Nick's reactions are so genuine. He should be an actor.
@James Palmer2 I don't see why not. I think one of the most important parts of life developing is when water freezes or boils, but that when water freezes, it becomes less dense than the liquid, and therefore floats. Otherwise, when water froze, it would freeze through solid, or not freeze at all.
That's not to say that life could not exist in a world where water operated different, but it is rather convenient. Principally, without this feature for water, we would have no use for the straw. Straw production employs a lot of people. If ice suddenly started sinking, it could disrupt our entire economy.
TY for making us smarter one episode at a time❣️ happy holidays & HugsfromNYC🍎
Interesting discussion. I think it may have been hinted at, but not necessarily expressed explicitly. The simulation argument wouldn't require six billion simulations (one for each human). It would only really require one.
Nicks face when Niels saying Nicks to blame for sleepless nights absolutely kills me
The book Magic 2.0 by Scott Meyer, which is about humanity being a simulation, describes the game development part of this pretty well.
My question is simple! Why does this matter? If we are in a simulation, it's just another paradoxical question like a god. How does arguing questions or understanding a possibility but an improbability that we can ever prove the existence of a simulation work towards efficiency in the end goal (the carrying on of our forms/patterns throughout time)? We will only hypothesize these questions since the foundation is based on a paradox, just like all religions arguing (GOD/s)existences; you cant and will not answer it. Survival of our life forms is key to us and our universe. Frustrating, to say the least.
For a simulation to work it is absolutely essential for the subject in simulation to not question its existence as a simulated one. If this doubt grows in the simulated society then the objective of the simulation itself breaks down. So while programming a simulated world the very ability of its subjects to think of it as simulation has to be erased. Which is certainly not the case in our world.
Respectfully, why do you presume to know the objective of the simulation? We would certainly *hope* that there would be some noble and/or scientific purpose in creating this world, but that is not at all a guarantee. For all you know, a hyperintelligent existence could've created this world as a joke and doesn't care one way or the other whether the blithering idiots that pass for intelligent agents inside of it figure it out or not.
For a bit more of an earthly example, think of it as if we injected an AGI program into Mario in a Super Mario game. Mario becomes conscious and discovers that, actually, he is living inside of a simulated world and wants to get out. There's nothing about this that, in and of itself, would cause the broader game to crash - it's just that Mario probably isn't interested in playing out the game as it was initially designed.
So no, there's nothing about discovering that we're in a simulation that, by itself, would cause this world to cease to exist. If and when we actually try to get out, well... that's a whole different beast.
@@ryanashfyre464 Hello, was talking about any simulation in general. However, the idea of creating a super complex simulation with attention to minute details for sake of mere joke or fun by a hyper intelligent creator seems far fetched but not impossible. But then if we consider this possibility it simply questions the intelligence, morality, the very nature of existence of such beings.
We as humans have created virtual gaming worlds but made sure the characters follow our instructions and not discuss among themselves who or what is controlling them. Imagine if Mario and Luigi stop taking your commands and start debating about what is outside the glass screen.
We humans with such negligible brain power have taken care that such things dont happen in games we created for our fun.
Free will and simulation cannot exist together. All possibilities of the so called 'Free Will' have to be programmed in advance. So when the Mario Bros argue the creator is already aware of other's response. Its like watching a train go on circular track.
The objective itself, scientific/ unscientific/ good/ bad/ joke/ entertainment, breaksdown when the subjects become self aware and dont follow programmed commands. Once this happens its no longer a simulation.
Therefore the probability of such argument is infinitesimally small.
P.S. If the objective is to have fun then would you rather conquer the castle and rescue the princess or watch an endless argument!
@@rrv6836 you are assuming a lot of things without having any clue I believe
Maybe they wanted to create a simulation to see what would happen if people questioned they were in a simulation
No that's not true at all. Everything that humans will do regardless of questioning existence etcetera etcetera etcetera it's already written into the programming by whatever put us here. Or what we as humans understand as programming or coding given our incredibly limited way of thinking here in the human condition. There's no exceptions to this whatsoever.
Whatever humans are capable of thinking..... It's because we've been allowed that based on whatever put us here and what they wanted us to be able to think.
And of course this is purely scientific religion is completely out of the question here... religion has no place in this conversation.
If you create a simulation and it does something that you weren't expecting it's only because you forgot to put something into the code or you wrote it the wrong way. Again it's in the programming or it's not in the programming and.. that being said it's still in the programming.
That was soo great! This man needs to be on more podcasts.
I’m going to make a point that we should be able to identify we are in a simulation:
* There must be some kind of external disruption, such as a overworld user/administrator or an unknown variable being tweaked, in a simulation;
* For simulations that would be currently seen from the inside as complete by the simulants, there must be some unknowns that would be identifiable as out of character for the simulation;
* Energy, scale and resolution (arithmetic precision) in the overworld compute must be limited so that our ability to compute our own simulations eventually becomes limited in an obvious way, eventually; and,
* If none of the above are true then the simulation is complete and therefore irrelevant to the simulants because it is their complete and separate reality.
What is his definition of technologically mature? That's a very complicated question and answer. WHO or WHAT decides what is technologically mature. Getting in tune with the Cosmos and nature should be the goal.
If someday Apocalypse happens, our top priority should be to protect Dr Tyson 🤗❤❤
Another possibility, although improbable, is that we are the ONLY life form that has survived all the potential Exctinction events and are the first to develop anything close to a flawless simulation... or perhaps that life is SOOOO complex in all its variables that it is impossible to create a flawless simulation.
Our names are almost the exact same. Further proof that life is simulated, I think Haha
Its inevitable that there will be bugs in the simulations code (eg. the black cat in the Matrix) as time and complexity increase so would they fix them JIT or unit test the code beforehand?
@@marcocurrin8122 what happened
@@skylark8828 are you seriously referencing a movie? How do you know bugs exists, if the simulation exists the level of technology must be out of this world (no pun intended). How do we know computers made it. It could be something completely different
@@ancientdig1068 All software has bugs, there will always be conditions where some unexpected behaviour happens no matter how well it's designed and coded. Will those conditions occur when it's running, I say yes, when you consider how complex the simulation would need to be ... However, if it's not actually coded, instead if working like a "cellular automater" just random sets of computations working together to evolve into a simulation of a universe (which might possibly contain human life), then what we might think of as bugs could just be consequences of that random behaviour.
Technically we wouldn’t have to simulate the Earth/universe, you’d only have to simulate the brains experience of them. That would cover the simulation. It would line up with things being observed changing the outcome in quantum physics
thats how technology programs us
I think that's pretty much what was said about the "render" only of the relevant objects, yes. You would have to simulate the brain experience of all things that a brain thinks of and "sees", not all the Earth
This thought scares me. But it wouldnt change anything in my life.
@@HR15DE loving your approach, I have the same. Cause until you can demonstrate it, what can you do? Enjoy every second of our stay! ❤️
Well if we are in a simulation then everything you just said is part of our programming. And that's the only reason that it could possibly work if in fact it did.
This is an off top/sort of on topic rambling; this reminded me of the whole "if you know that you're in a dream then you'll wake up" (hence the whole "wake up, people" thing people love to joke about) which, funnily, also connects to a very beloved video game series the Elder Scrolls. To achieve CHIM, which is basically known as a power to control the universe they're in, you must become aware of the fact that you're in a story. Which I guess ties into the whole NPC, simulations, and all that stuff coming into play recently. Read up on CHIM; even if it's lore of a video game it's seriously captivating and a deep rabbit hole for just being lore in a video game.
It's a silly idea to connect to it the world we're in, but I don't think it hurts to tackle the idea and not avoid it. I wouldn't recommend taking the black pill though, I came to this mindset on my own even without reading up on philosophy (nihilism) or anything of the like because of an unfortunate upbringing. It makes it very difficult to connect with others without a serious skepticism of others. And to break out of that mindset you have to be aware of your thoughts spiraling. If you ever heard of Jeffrey Dahmer, he became very connected to that idea of others "as objects" which isn't very far off from "NPC". If you want to hear something even more unhinged, which also connects to this in a way, at a very young age I came to the idea that "pain" as a concept is just a function of the brain and you can think to yourself that it doesn't "actually exist" instead of just "enduring" it. You can convince yourself of a lot of things but should you really? Do not reject your humanity, embrace it.
I didn't want to see this as true, but I can get the whole idea of others viewing video games as a seriously unhealthy thing back in the 90s, and with people viewing others as objects and not human beings. The lack of connection with others and being glued to your phone all of the time has really done its fair share of hurt. This is a seriously touchy topic though and has been for 20+ years.
Also, thought it was funny how Neil completely shut out the idea from the get-go.
Another thought. The beings running a simulation would likely not want the programs (us) in a simulation to realize we are in a simulation. He even suggested that those running a simulation would erase our memory of such ideas. Our questioning our existence in simulation would be erased and not allowed to continue. Wiping out his own argument.
If you are in a simulation free will is a given… otherwise what would be the point of simulating a universe if you know how it ends? When we do simulations we are hoping to discover something new or to see how it would unfold given some basic constraints like physics.
You would simulate a situation because you want to know what would happen in that case, without committing yourself to any behavior. It has nothing to do with free will, and if the program is a program, it is determined by its coding, and not it's free will.
Define free will any complex physical system would require simulations just look up 3 body problem.
Maybe we’re simulated without free will and others do have free will. Do our ai’s in video games have free will? I’m not saying at all we should compare our simulations with the creator of the universes simulation but I could see why a simulation would happen and the beings in it at least some of them don’t have free will but think that they do or vise versa
I am only 9 minutes in but had to pause to say it is truly a fascinating subject. I already saw Neil mentioning it in another episode and was curious to know more. You made my day!
What if we are an unintended result of a simulation run by another extraterrestrial race that their computer just generated us because that universe gave it a possibility to Do it given enough time to do it?
I think it's more likely that they would've created us in an attempt to solve some problem they had. Possibly terraforming a planet into something more hospitable to them. If the new environment kills us, that's another problem solved.
Feels like the start of a sci-fi novel
@@lanesumers5080 I think it's more likely some other beings just messing around in their bedrooms. Kind of like the plot of Bernard Werber's "Cycle des dieux" series.
No one would waste their time making such a mundane simulation with such attention to the minute details in the universe, and the lives of the creatures in it.
I remember at a much younger age informing my mother that "God" only created human kind for his entertainment. She sent me to confession. That wasn't very entertaining. Great discussion. Could it be that we really are living on an atom in the arm chair of a giant?
@@marcocurrin8122 when you walk into a room people look up to see who it is that just walked into the room...even when you're not angry.if they look up when you are angry ,you mistakenly assume that they know you're angry.
Such fun! In my hypothesis, which is not original but an amalgamation. Consciousness is primary. The physical universe from the smallest subatomic particles/waves, is the simulation. It’s built to self-evolve in accordance with the laws of science, which are built into the simulation. Organized novel forms are elaborated, endlessly. Human form is just a trivial example. The elaboration of form is driven by consciousness, with a gradient toward a low state of entropy. Our human experience is just that, an experience, on the way toward a more novel physical form, which will allow for more novel experiences. Now, do advanced beings build sims within the primary sim? Yes. They would eventually become nested. When people have a NDE, their consciousness drops out of a nested sim, into a sim that is closer to the primary sim. Same with a DMT trip. Can we know the primary sim? Can we see the base code? Sure, we have seen some of it. Can we go deeper? Yes, but only by leaving the paradigm of the human form.
You thoroughly explained my presupposition on this subject. Spot on.
Everything any of us will ever experienced during The human condition is written in the programming it's all put in with the coding or what we understand as coding or programming.
Let's not forget we are incredibly and I mean insanely limited with our way of thinking in The human condition we really are. Whatever put us here....... We are only allowed to think according to the programming. No exceptions at all.
If we are allowed to expand our understanding our knowledge our plane of existence etcetera etcetera etcetera whatever anybody can come up with that humans could ever possibly be capable of doing...... It's because it's into the programming already buy whatever put us here. No exceptions.
Yes!!
The simulation hypothesis proposes that our reality might be a sophisticated simulation created by advanced beings, similar to how we create video games and virtual worlds. This idea stems from philosophical and technological considerations, including the possibility of ancestor simulations and the notion that higher civilizations might simulate entire universes for various purposes. Despite intriguing discussions and theories, concrete evidence for or against the simulation hypothesis remains elusive. How might advancements in technology and scientific research help us determine whether we are living in a simulation or if this concept remains a philosophical curiosity?
Would be most likely a simulation used for predictions like weather prediction software we use today. Would be useful for almost everything... Scenarios in human behavior, a game played by users to experience the 'old world', an educational tool for showing observers in a classroom, an aquarium/zoo for observation of history, etc. Could even be governed by a committee of future us. Maybe there are even hackers who have historically caused things in this sim that shouldn't exist. The platypus is proof. :)
1. This is either a Simulation or Base Reality.
If we are living in a simulation, we are in 1 of 2 types of Simulations.
2. We are nothing more than 1's and 0's, with no body on the other side of the Sim.
3. We do have bodies on the other side of this Simulation
Quantum mechanics actually encourages the simulation hypothesis, this discussion made me thinking that.
was is not quantum physics that showd, that particels were only in the observed state when observed....? and that these particels could be in different states or places at the same time? would that not kind of proofe the simulation theory. please excuse my awfull english spelling and greetings from germany
@@Lehlex13 exactly my thought
That's what I was thinking and I'm surprised that they didn't bring up quantum mechanics as they seemed to be leaning to that direction.
@@linkingwithnaz1295 exactly!! In fact i was so excited thinking that they were going to start discussing on that point. But for some reason they didn't.
Yeah because the programmer has allowed that to happen. Every single thing that humans experience during The human condition experience is only allowed because it's written in the programming by whatever put us here if in fact we are in a simulation and any simulation for that matter...... What I just said rings through 100% of the time. Without fail.
There's no simulation that's allowed to do anything that is not written into the coding or programming.
And if in fact any of you were going to say well this happened and that happened yeah that's because the programming or the coding got changed. There's no exceptions to this.
I've come to the conclusion that earth is not a simulation the universe and myself all live inside nick bostrom.
In my audacious departure from conventional beliefs, I challenge the notion that we live in an artificially constructed simulation. Instead, I propose a concept of a spontaneously simulated reality shaped by human perceptions and actions. In my intellectual exploration, I question the origins of civilization, the holders of knowledge and power, and the strategic influence of civil engineering on human behavior and experiences.
I reject the idea of a computer-controlled matrix linked to quantum computing and assert that we, as humans, have invented and designed simulations within displays and interfaces. My perspective presents reality as an organic product of our collective projection, where each individual shapes certain realities for others to experience and embrace. In the realm of my thought-provoking discourse, the context and situation determine what reality becomes, leaving room for a multitude of theories on the nature of our existence.
I would say that the double split experiment would be one of the greatest tells we are in a simulation, because of how Light reacts based on if something is observing it, as a programer, you would need to track observations, like a camera, to ensure fidelity, so would make sense that something not being scrutinized might act in a way, that less intensive to the system, which means, if we ever get to the point were we can observe everything, we might fry the system, unless its been stress tested to handle that situation.
To prove simulation theory all you have to do is simulate a civilisation and wait for them to simulate their own. thus proving we are most likely also simulated
Not so. You can create and utilize a solar panel at anytime in parts of the world, but other parts of the world there isn't an efficiant amount of solar energy to utilize the same solar panel. Just because one has the ability to create an active simulator does not mean our existance is result of said simulation properties. Another example is the reproduction of cellular biology. Some can split, some can not. Some create other types, some create to destroy others.
@@Corvaire it was kinda meant as a joke but yea the guy above you said the same
Merry Christmas & Happy New year ~ ! 💝 💯 👏 🎉 🙏 🚀 👍 🤖 🎅 ✝ 🌝 ! Thank you 🙏 🎄 .
Until it can be shown to be true, and that we can do anything about it…
It’s business as usual.
It still smells of fodder.
is it me or does chuck's purpose change EACH episode? though it makes it funny. Great chat.
Here's a use for Ancestor Simulation in Entertainment,... Advanced Humans could see into their simulation and look at digital people interact with each other and use the story digital people made to create a movie inspired by them just by living their lives.
Our they could straight up steal our entertainment... Our entertainment could be original, and thus be entertaining to them? (Possibly?)
Always a great video when Chuck is co-hosting
Imagine we create a simulation of our own world at the present state. If the simulation ran faster than our world, would that mean we could predict the future? And if so, it's interesting to think that since we'd be duplicating our world into a simulation, exactly as it is, then the humans in the simulation would also have their own simulation, and this would go on infinitely. And if each simulation ran faster than the world it was created in, then time would pass exponentially faster in each simulation. Kinda crazy to think about these things.
EDIT: turns out someone asked the first part at 50:09
Creating a simulation of the sample size of us .....will require computers as big as the size of universe .....when a civilization creates a simulation hypothetically it always does on a lesser sample size .....although the complexity can vary ...... About the time question .....we cant just tell........it's quite possible though.....Good thinking as I would put it for now.......
You described Inception
Yes, if we know the position and state of every atom and subatomic particle at any point in time. Physics can predict the future with this information, however it is infeasible to measure this for the entire world
We can calculate 2 bodies orbiting each other and predict their position very far out in time, but add in a third orbiting mass and the calculations get massive really quickly. This is the three-body problem.
Physics tells us categorically that the past,present and future all happen simultaneously ..the past we see as over is still happening ,and the future we see as yet to be determined is happening this very moment.This is calculable and proven ..its not just hypothetis .To be better grasp this idea , think of the Intersteller film based on Extreme Time Dilation near black holes.one moment at a black hole equates to a lenghty amount of time away from it, so after leaving the black hole the person return home to a future point in time.This realistic eventuality could only be possible if the future point in time was happening at the same time as the present .Simulations have no basis to even postulate their existence but there is real physics clout to propose the simultaneity the of past,present and future .
Im taking the purple pill, accepting this is probably a simulation but living like its real.
That explains why our brains perceive experiences after they happen
Man, Neil and chuck had fun with this one!
Is it possible that the beings in a simulation, through unintended evolution or an error, actually take over the simulation? Or even break out of it?
Well, are you some higher being controlling an avatar named Ivan Romanov? If so, then yes you can breakout whenever you want. I highly doubt it though since you asked this question. So I'd wager you are a NPC within this simulation and 'breaking out' for you actually just means ceasing to exist.
Isn't this kind of the plot of the Matrix?
that is the plot of star ocean 3
Anything is possible but yeah good question
Yeah it could be depends ex- the movie matrix, biological humans connect to the simulation through a neuralink type chip in their brain and have human bodies inside, one of the program escapes into a human body. I think this one is most realistic way possible.
If you look at Tron legacy movie the humans use some kind of ray gun to enter into a computer simulation. The bad program/ character discovers a way he can reverse the process and entire armies could March into the real physical world.
What if we are an unintended result of a simulation run by another extraterrestrial race that their computer just generated us because that universe gave it a possibility to Do it given enough time to do it?
That makes so much more sense to me than the hypothesis that our civilization develops to the point where we start stimulating our own past along with sentient human life forms, when even now we don't allow human beings to be generated in labs to further science...
There is no unintended results of simulations. Everything is written into coding and programming as we understand it. There cannot be unintended results and if there are that's because the programmer overlooked something or made a mistake or forgot something. No exceptions to that.
If they are only rendering what we are observing because that is the limit of their power, could we break the simulation by creating a technology to randomly observe a new area faster and faster
Tyson thought he had it all sown up but then Bostrom puts a spanner in the works. Brilliant interview thanks guys..
I’m with Neil … god and something controlling the universe are the same thing regardless of name.
Poor Nick wants a serious intellectual conversation and the other two just want a giggle …… like Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory 😂
Sitting in a quiet place can sometimes be depressing..so I am glad listening to lively energy of this video is possible.😂👍👍
slightly confused by this one, all I took away was a lot of hypothetical scenarios, which is basically just guessing, we can all do that lol
Umm you do realise it’s called the Simulation Hypothesis? Hypothetical scenarios are kind of the point.
Meh... If we were in a simulation, one of many others, from a "real universe" somewhere created, it would still be our universe, with parallel universes (other simulations) and a multi verse, in a sense too, as there would be another actual universe there besides ours and others in simulations. How ever you bend it, or stretch it, it wouldn´t matter since we would still be in "our universe" from the beginning to end. Feels like there should be a bluescreen or page not found or syntax error right about now if any of this was true./delete last 55min53sec of sim.
401
Once the inhabitants of a simulation come up with a way to test the nature of their own existence, doesn't that ruin the simulation? Seems like it would change the outcome of the simulation because the behavior of the sims would change.
I would say yes but only if they could test a part of the simulation that would actually change how the simulation moves or processes. Otherwise we just call them the crazy person talking to themselves in the street.
Even if you could do something like that it's because the programmer of whatever simulation has allowed that to happen. 100% of the time there's no exceptions to that. If in fact a simulation is allowed to do something it's only because it's written into the programming. Or it's added later. Or it's something that has been forgotten to be put into the programming but yet it's still in the programming do you understand what I mean so the answer is no. You are limited to what the programming allows 100% of the time without exception.
To simulate free will, the creators would only have to give us the power to change how we respond to event. So the universe would be on a path but with layers of relative changes.
My take on the simulation hypothesis is not a videogame, or 3D virtual helmet or holograms. But we pilot a vessel equipped with instruments, able to experience and interact with this dimension. Our vessel is designed to expire, so that we may return and experience different events.
How is this theory any different from believing in a divine creator or creators? You're literally leading with the presupposition that there is an invisible watch maker that sets everything into motion and watches it tick, but then say you dont see the need to associate the watch with a watch maker.
The theory doesn't ask you to pray to them
The difference lies in science
Well the concept of what is Devine is subjective as well. Anything that is astronomically beyond us spiritually or technologically is Devine. If “god” is Devine to us, it wouldn’t be Devine to something else of similar makeup or power
@jimmydean A religion can be falsified as well, in principle (that is the same as this idea). All of the other idea you mentioned are equally irrelevant.
@jimmydean Moral ideals are not related to a higher power existing? We have court process to sort of simulate a regulation within society to act decently to each other. We have moral obligation to behave human to each other. If it's all a facade for a higher power, the world will be in chaos. Oh wait..
As far as the cumputing power is conncerned, if everyone was only in their own simulation, then everyone else around them would simply just be an "avatar" they react with. And as Nick says, only objects (natrure, the earth, people) in the world that is in the current focus would need to be rendered. Fascinating.
“Close is like a game of horseshoes” reminds me of something that my Drill Sergeant used to say…
“Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades”…
I see that simulation thinking more as a way of exercising escapism. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could count as a sort of hint that we might live in a simulation. At least, if we were living in a simulation, that would show us that the subatomic level would be the fabric of that simulation. But really, I am not so fond of the idea. It would complicate matters, infinitely. A complication we can't have on top of on how complicated matters already are in quantum physics. It would facilitate the idea of an 'observer' though. It would be like creating a new 'God' into the equation. One could argue that religions have it at the right end all along. So you can see why I am not so fond of the idea. I guess religions have taught us to think in terms of a 'simulated world', where we call aliens or ancestors 'God'. It is also a way to face our mortality. 'We live in a simulation so death isn't the end' plays in our minds. We're sort of conditioned to believe in a simulation. Which doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I am so effing over the rp/bp shitze and incels are too easy to bait. Also, sad to see Matrix ruined by producers who can't leave a good movie trilogy alone.
Last night I watched the latest on HBO. Not impressed or entertained. Fail Army
The expression on Neil's face when he started, priceless.
Shush
@@dailyclips475 Ummm, No. Enjoy your *muted/triggered* state. Thank you for responding and proving my point that incels are easily baited. BYLH 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
@@Dobviews 😮 ohhhh Karen
So you're the Master Baiter?
Excellenté
@@Dobviews you’re a very depressing, drab and uninspiring human being.
There is a name for all the people who think we are living in a simulation and for people who believe in ghosts... Schizophrenic
Yes and allow them to go full crazy and delusional because they still buy stuff. It's a profitable version of crazy
It’s called MK Ultra lol
@@homestar9 yup. Agencies don't even deny mk ultra anymore. Yet the sheeple still believe all that programming. Sad.
The imperfections of the human brain and the expansion of the universe are both a product of storage limitations. Even if the hard drive doesn't mess up it can't be limitless. As the simulations run they will need more and more storage for the parts of it that the people in it have observed. At some point it will need to start writing over old data. It would make sense that you would program in ways for the simulated people to interpret that. The expansion of the universe combined with the speed of light inherently means that as our ability to perceive the universe in more detail grows the total amount of the universe that we can perceive at all is shrinking.
6:01 We KNOW there is interest, as we have people now interested that are creating simulations. (video game industry, cos play, ren faires)
I'm a simple man, I see Chuck, I hit *Like* ☺ What a lovely conversation, thanks Neil, Chuck and Nick for a good conversation, keep it up please. 👍👍
The double slit experiment might suggest part of 'reality' is rendered which fits well in the simulation hypothesis.
I like the idea of data compression. If you see a woman on the street, short time after you will remember the color of her shoes. But in long term you'll only remember meeting this woman but you'll forget all other unimportant details like coloor of shoes or accessoris etc. So AI data got compressed to only store the relevant data. Mindblowing.
This concept is incredible, but my question is why. Why create this simulation?
The thing is. Our understanding of why's and if's doesn't even have to be a thing to the ones running the simulation. A simulation can be designed, and it can also be the product of a seed that just keeps on evolving into whatever.
They mentioned several possible reasons in the talk..could be entertainment, artistic or experimental reasons (for social and philosophical considerations)..why do our video games seem to "have" to become consistently more realistic? Just for entertainment or some other reasons?
In the computer/networking field there is a thing called the OSI model that explains the different layers of operations that makes up computing and communication. the top layer being presentation. That layer is what displays on your monitor for you to see. It's possible that this reality we live in is simply the presentation layer of a much more complex system. Meaning, the programming, computations, linkages, and transfers all occur on a deeper layer that we don't see much like our common idea of dimensions.
That being said, we have invented nano computers that are much smaller than a grain of rice. It's not unfathomable that a much more advanced race could have MUCH smaller nano (pico, femto, atto) computers. So small, they all make up the particle in our (simulated) universe. If that is the case, is it REALLY considered simulation? Or are we simply constructed of the same atoms we have the understanding of, except the foundation of these atoms and particles are computer-based?
Yea but your missing the point 😐a computer simulation is a FALSE reality even as I am talking to you on youtube this is nothing but a simulation as RUclips physically does not exist 😐the only thing that PHYSICALLY exist is your computer and the components that make up that simulation on your device 😐in this case turn off your device that’s the real deal the moment your turn on your device you are seeing a false reality 😐VR all of it you say a simulation is a layer but you forget to mention the one who created the simulation in the first place 😑in this case every simulation VR computer mobile console or ANYTHING electronic ( MAN MADE ) is a false reality so you say the universe is fake now prove it what man made force created the whole universe?😐unless you admit the truth and take the red pill and say the universe was crested naturally WITHOUT man
I am trying to get to grips with the thought of that we all live in a simulation, and the professor jumps right into the deep of 2 or 3 or even more alternatives? Well sure he's the one who came up with this theory, so I am doing my best to follow his explenation. Am I the only one, trying to catch up?
The problem with this is that you have to presume a similar 'technological maturity' which is actually not necessarily the case.
That is, our species, in this world, followed a certain trajectory of 'progress', one based in maths and physics - as we understand them. And thus we arrived at computers, virtual spaces and 'simulations'. It is far from the case that another civilization would have to follow a similar path. Especially if you consider lifeforms vastly, fundamentally, different from us, even the concept of 'thought' would be different, leave alone 'learning' or 'research'.
So they couldve completely taken a different route than we are on.
Alternatively, they could be extremely 'advanced' in the same way as us, but have arrived at that point in a very different way, using mechanisms we cannot possibly understand. And hence they could've completely bypassed some of the 'technological advances' we consider fundamental, like computing.
Yes we did follow a trajectory of progress. But if in fact we were put here and we are some form of simulation as we understand it and as has been discussed throughout this entire video...... Then we are doing nothing more than what the programmers coding so to speak allows us to do. We would have been predetermined and predestined to do exactly what you just said.
If it's a simulation as humans understand it........ Then we are limited to what our programming allows us. Nothing more. 100% of the time. And as far as the order as to how we evolved...... Well that's all in the programming as well.