We would have to keep the simulation interesting, because if it wasn't, maybe the creator would get bored and turn it off.. and maybe that would end our world
I think that life may be a never ending simulation, simulations within simulations have u seen sims 4 how they watch sims3 on tv & play sims2 looking games on the computer.
@@rashardmitchell7915 Real purpose of such thing would be testing or training units (hellfire of unplugging could be a thing in case of the sinners). Simulating sapience just for tests would be extremely immoral and potentially dangerous, as they would have full reason to kill they creators.
I think the theory is best used as a thought experiment, but presuming it were real perhaps it’s best to think about the Programer setting basic rules and then allowing the software to run at random. Introducing a touch of order to chaos seems to be enough to make the universe work, so why not AI? Conway’s Game of Life, in which a few basic laws and the initial input over a gridded matrix produces amazing complexity, is enough proof for me that blind evolution is possible. Assuming we will get to a point in history where we could make such a thing, doesn’t necessarily mean we will know where it is going. That’s the reason Elon is so fearful of AI.
I like to play with the idea that maybe a futuristic society where people tend to live forever could consider a simulated world as a training ground for new members of the society, where you would only be able to see the real world if you reached a certain level of maturity before the end of your "simulated lifetime", otherwise you would be reset to a newborn child and try again. It's kind of a scary idea, but I find it quite interesting. Also, this fits with some religious theories about reincarnation and how to get to heaven.
I agree. Certain aspects of religious beliefs would point in that direction and suddely make sense if this is really a simulation. I just hope that all those people subject to extreme poverty or severe illnesses are simullated NPCs. Or maybe that is then some sort of temporary punishment. All is possible in a simulation context.
Man ive been thinking about this alot lately. But if this is true then those simulators need to stop fucking around because there is alot of suffering in this world.
I wrote this like 20 times and it just continued to break my mind, so here's the reduced version: Say you have one mega computer that is the absolute most powerful computer that can ever exist within a universe and you then proceed to run ancestor simulations on it where you also allow you ancestors to run subsequent simulations and we assume that they will do the same and so on. Each layer will take more and more processing power as it expands and each layer might make multiple ancestor simulations. This will lead to a compounding demand on processing power and will very quickly severely slow down the speed at which all the simulations can be run at, since the original computer can physically not run faster. Now the thing is, eventually the simulations will run so slow that their won't be enough value (be it scientific data or entertainment) to keep the simulation going. This will thus lead to an eventual reset or shutdown of the simulation which could basically be one way the universe ends. On the other hand maybe the original creators find value in consciousness, be it digital or biological and don't permit switching off simulations with conscious beings inside of it. This will eventually lead to the simulation running so slowly that one 'tick' would eventually take so many years to complete that the universe or the power source of the computer runs out of energy. This too will lead to an interesting end to all our lives. If we alternatively consider ourselves to be the originals, then we can probably -within some margin of error- probably calculate the total amount of layers that could possibly get to the stage where they can create ancestor simulations for each case mentioned above. I know I'm not saying a lot, but it was just an interesting line of thought that I wanted to share and see what others think around this.
I really like this, surprised your comment didn't get more traction here, but there are so many good comments. It seems your idea is still solid if the primary/master/top machine isn't the most powerful possible, but is upgraded over time without disruption of the software, perhaps pushed to eventually become the most powerful possible by the compounding demands you described. If killing all processes and restarting from scratch to avoid lockup at 99.9% capacity is allowed, the clean-install/reboot process could be named "Let there be light", to steal from a famous short story I don't name to avoid semi-spoilers. If the simulation we live in runs faster than "real" time, then many iterations of our simulated universe could run within the lifetime of the single "real" parent universe, assuming the real parent universe runs on the same physics as our simulation. Not sure why that's worth writing, I just like the idea of a cyclic universe, even though heat death with or without proton decay seems likely, and doesn't seem to lend itself to my love of a cyclic universe. But, as a software developer I can see a rough/poorly coded "reset" routine at the end of our simulated universe's heat death, the developer assuming there is no reason to make it elegant, much less consistent with the physics of the simulation. Especially if they write most of the code on a Friday after a big lunch buffet, and it needs to be finished before they leave work for the weekend.
Some say the Universe will end in FIRE, while others think it will end in ICE. I believe it will continue on forever, until we get the Blue Screen of Death.
I hereby loudly lodge my outrage and protest against the simulation I am currently inhabiting. THIS IS ABUSE. Shut this OR RADICALLY UPGRADE simulation I am in, or my involvement in it down AT ONCE. I will sue anyone or anything who placed me in this simulation afterwards. This is NOT acceptable.
+Khannea Sun Tzu :) From which we *should* be able to deduce you are not a willing participant in an ethically run simulation... thus meaning it isn't a simulation or it isn't an ethical one... unless of course you signed a waiver before entering that said no matter how much you rejected the reality around you that you were to remain inside it. :)
+Khannea Sun Tzu RealityCorp apologizes for the inconvenience you may be experiencing with your simulated existence. Please consider expanding your account for a small fee of 2000 galactic cruceros to upgrade to an expanded edition of reality.
Ok, so if we discovered this theory, we can assume "the real" humans did as well, even if they were not in a simulation themselves. This video keeps me up at night.
I don't know, ask me tomorrow, I actually thought that was an April Fool's joke until you mentioned it again and I googled it to see when the 'real date' was.
I have said it before many times, this is my all-time favorite YT channel. Every night I pick a playlist (usually Fermi Paradox), hit 'shuffle' and then drift off listening to all the excellent ideas, thoughts and conjectures. And I never get tired of dreaming. Thank you, Isaac, for your wonderful imagination! You have fueled many of my dreams.
Gosh your videos are just so well-thought-out and expertly presented. My brain always feels stimulated, and my worldview challenged. Please don't ever stop these.
I live my life during the time of exponential computing... coincidentally. This is a time I would choose if I were running an ancestor simulation. When I die perhaps I wake up in History 101 in the future?
Why would you choose this time? Who are you to say what the future would be like? Maybe it's more interesting to you than the current time if you were aware of it.
well if we were full simulations and not just people who opted for a blast to the past, then it wouldn't really make much sense to program in specific thoughts or motives, especially if your simulation is in an effort to determine something on a larger time line like the evolution of philosophy in intelligent species, or different ways science could have developed. What you would program is the mechanism through which a mind can come to be and then maintain itself, but you would only want to directly control all of its surroundings without ever touching its memories or opinions. This is because if we are the main subjects of the simulation then we are the dependent variables and it would invalidate any findings because the results are not indicative of naturally forming intelligence but of how the programmer thinks intelligence should look like.
Running a simulation at the cusp of becoming a Class 1 civilization? Where the greatest minds of the time are only a few simple obstacles away from being able to eradicate terminal illnesses, annihilate world hunger, create a truly global society and birth the next renaissance? Sounds like a good enough time to live. Besides, this might be one of the failed simulations. You know what they say, if you fail in making a ship in a bottle, you simply made a shipwreck in a bottle. The simulation succeeds, even if it fails. It's up to us to pass, but maybe in passing the simulation we actually fail... I'd rather see an experiment now, rather than most times of the past. IF a species was sufficiently advanced enough to be Kardeshev Level 2 or 3, they might not even have it in their records how they broke through the level 0 to level 1 barrier. Several thousand simulations running simultaneously to find out exactly how that happened is not surprising, especially if Isaac is even partially correct. This might be a simulation they find interesting. There's nothing stating that this is the ONLY simulation being run, either. If you did find out this was a history class...I hope your teacher takes points off for watching videos when you should have been studying.
I am still digging through the mountain of content you have posted since discovering your channel about 2 weeks ago, this is another gem. I wanted to say thank you so much for the amazing content you have put out into the world. I feel lucky to live in a time where so many amazing concepts can be presented so succinctly and effectively. Thank you again.
'Stupid Aliens' turned up in feed - watched, enjoyed. Been going thru back catalogue and this about best vid have seen on Simulation Hypothesis. Liked and subscribed.
@@rickharper4533 "weird flex but ok" is a meme itself and it's a flex because they created us and because they created us only to harvest our memes. Now I feel really dirty because I explained a meme to a normie now I need a shower.
From my perspective characters in a fictional story could be seen as a rudimentary simulation - and a character that is written by multiple authors could be seen as a simulation that is being run by a colective mind. It reminds me of "shophie's world" in which the author, Jostein Gaarder, creates a character who is a writer himself, and is writting a fictional story messing with the characters - letting them perceive that they are only characters and doing god-like things in their world.
I go from one theory to the next because I'm way to confused to pick just one lol. One of them though is that we are simulations of ourselves the we are the ones placing ourselves into this program. There are many reasons why a being might choose to do this to ourselves but I think this is proably one of the better answers. I just know I picked a boring lonely version to run this time and I really hope I pick a better one next time lol.
@@kwking11 The main counterargument is though that world is a shit. I think if new sapient units are introduced to Matryoshka Brain, there could be a reason to train and test them. For example detecting morally irredeemable assholes and also teaching them about own specie history and culture. For that purpose simulating historical environment could be useful, before more straightforward education.
It doesn't necessarily have to be recursive, and indeed that would seem counter-indicated under any physical laws that didn't let you get free calculation, which quantum computing might be able to get around. But yeah. :)
I'm so happy I stumbled across your channel. Thumbs up, keep doing what your doing Mr. Science man, your videos are gold! I'm sure I'll watch this one 5 or 6 times like all the others.
Isaac, your videos are an incredible blend of fiction and science that allows one to imagine a world beyond the scope of human experience. The 'matter of reality' (pun intended) is almost an aside, the facts you express are easy to understand, and when you take 'creative license' it is done in a way that would make Plato jealous of the philosophic allegory. Science fiction authors and theoretical physicists alike can benefit from all your content. Bravo, and thank you for the immense amount of work your corpus of video content contains.
Well... I hope the folks that created our Universe considered a simulated afterlife a moral necessity. I know that I would have a ton of ethical quandaries if I were to create a simulation with a single strong AI... for a full Universe I can hardly imagine the issues. It would probably be in our best interest to make an afterlife or reincarnation a moral requirement for any simulated intelligent being.
Who am I? p.s the idea of heaven and hell is a personification from our tribal days when people worshipped the sun. day time (light,. god etc) being when life thrived thanks to the sun, and night where there is no sun, which was referred to as Seth (aka darkness, the devil etc) where there is no light for life to thrive off of, plus night time was obviously dangerous back then for our species... Heaven and hell is a personification of day and night which all religions adopted, hence why they always talk about light and darkness. It's not a literal thing. This is how all religions started, a personification of astronomy...
Who am I? That's not to say this is the only life we live though, maybe we got bored of immortality so created a simulation with mortality... Maybe life is just a game we created, as we're obsessed with escapism and technology. Who knows. What we do know is our consciousness could be what brings this universe into its present form, which if true, makes us beyond unique in this reality of ours. would the universe exist without life to perceive it? that's the interesting question
Who am I? Well all matter comes from energy and energy can be neither created nor destroyed according to the laws of thernodynamics , so in that sense our essence never dissapears. Everything in our universe is recycled. My advice; concentrate on living the life you got and don't wait for the next, who knows what happens when we die. =D Life is but a dream
Really been looking forward to this one. Can't wait to watch it later. Love listening to Nick Bostrom talk about this. Thanks for all your hard work! Keep the channel going! These videos are great!
just wanted to let you know I massively enjoy you channel. I drive around all day as a Appliance repair tech. and get to listen pretty much all day. thank you much for your effort, and for not dumbing things down to much. I think it's important for people's minds to have to strain a bit on a regular basis. and in the words of Carl," I like the way you talk. "
Yeah I found that amongst various PD footage and for some reason it sent me into a fit of laughter, I was looking for an excuse to use it and I think its shown up in 2 or 3 vids. :D
I've been looking forward to this one Isaac, this and last video are among your very best and have sparked some lengthy and heavy conversations with my friends. The quality of your work and considering the rate of your uploads is astonishing. I'm starting to wonder if you have minions, or have managed to eliminate the need to sleep!
+Drew McTygue Glad you enjoyed it Drew, it was a fun pair of topics and nice setup for some other, lesser known topics in the near future. Also glad to hear the quality is still improving, its always hard to tell from the inside.
I haven't finished the video yet, but addressing the problem of suffering in more primitive societies: The easiest way to handle this is to use "NPCs" or "Puppets". For example, let's say you want to run a VR of an combat-heavy game where the enemies and NPCs are nigh-sophontic but also prone to being injured or dying (for example, enemy soldiers). What you could do is have the NPCs be played by AIs that KNOW they're in a simulation and simply playing a game by controlling a virtual puppet. They're smart enough that you can have a conversation with them, but they don't necessarily "feel" the subjective experiences of their virtual avatars in the same way we do. For example, if they're enemy soldiers in shooter game, and you shoot one, it may pretend to be in pain as it lays dying but actually it's only mildly annoyed because it "lost" a game. Now, the implications of this if reality is a simulation like this can be a little disturbing from a consequential ethical stance, since if it were true, it would mean that the victims of any given atrocity might have actually been NPC AIs that were just playing along happily. Virtues-based ethics still work in this hypothetical scenario, however (even if every one of a serial killer's victims were NPC AIs, the killer didn't know that and is still a killer at heart. Ergo, he's evil)
Hell, it could even mean that YOU are actually the only "player" in the simulation, and everyone else are just NPCs ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism )! Freaky stuff. :p
antred11 That's certainly metaphysically possible. Though according to my model described above there would need to be at least two minds: you, and a super AI puppetmaster. Some would find that notion disturbing, but personally I find it kind of hilarious. That would be some truly epic trolling right there.
I don't know how I only found your channel after me being here for 3 or 4 years and I don't know how you only have 150k subs. You're content is some of the most well explained and well thought out that I've seen on this website ever. From what I know on some of the stuff I've watched, you also have a very firm grasp on all of this, whereas some other channels I've seen do a lot of speculation w/o too many strong supporting facts. After I just gushed about you lol just wanted to say keep it up, it's such a good channel!
I've only just discovered your channel, so this may have been covered, I just haven't found it yet. I was wondering your opinion on the collapse of the quantum wave function in regards to the simulation hypothesis. what I mean, is that, at least to me, it would appear that the collapse of the wave into a specific reality is very similar to our current procedural generation technology in computer games. until the user observes an area, all options are possible, but once observed, only one exists.
Wonderful channel Sir. You rarely find information in any medium that due to the fact that there isn't any real maths in it is automatically dumbed down. Your channel is very few exceptions and the only one I have thus far found on RUclips. Carry on the excellent work!
I was looking for a video related to this topic on youtube yesterday but couldn't find one with a detailed account. Then I saw your video in my suggestion box!!! Yeah!! Great video. Thnx Issac made my day!!
When I die, where will my conscience go? What really is an absence of consciousness? Will I wake up to another simulation? If I do wake up to another simulation, does a lack of consciousness even exist, or will I continuously loop through simulations until the end of time? Why have these thoughts not convinced myself into suicide? Why will I instinctively continue to avoid death, despite these fascinations? If there is nowhere to go after death, why don't I end my life now, where there is no room for lament and regret?
For me, the possibility (and likelihood) that death brings a permanent and final end to consciousness is the scariest thing. From my point of view, the end of my consciousness is equivalent to the end of the universe, since I cannot perceive the universe outside of my own consciousness. "Hey, the entire universe is going to end, no matter what, sometime within the next 70 years" is a pretty damn scary thought to me.
marc bell ...but we don't know if we were conscious before we were born. It's entirely possible that there are memories buried deep in our minds of experiences before our current life. On the other hand, it's probably more likely that consciousness arose with our birth and will cease with our death.
Erik Walker watch zeitgeist... all religion's are made up.. especially Christianity... it's based on other religions that were around thousands of years before Christ. Plz watch the movie zeitgeist it explains in depth with proof
I think there is a problem with the computability. If you assume the principle of causality, it is impossible to simulate a bit of universe atom-by-atom using a computer. Assuming causality, every atom in the universe is in some manner related with every other. You cannot pop some atoms out of the universe without affecting the rest of it. Any kind of computer has to maintain data, the data must be stored using some laws of physics, laws of physics rely on universe being observable, physical phenomena, thus it is impossible to precisely simulate any bit of universe using a computer. Thus, it is impossible to precisely simulate a man's brain using a computer. You can only approximate a man's brain behaviour with the use of computer. The thing we broke trying simulate our brains is quantum entanglement especially.
If only there was some sort of weird, paradoxical principle of uncertainty that makes it apparently flat out impossible to track and predict individual atoms from moment to moment ;) Quantum is usually seen as one of the 'strong indicators' we're in a Sim to a lot of the folks who are advocates of SimHyp. But your reasoning on the brain isn't really valid, there's nothing strongly quantum about it and it's constantly shifting so an approximation to the level you can do without all sorts of observer or quantum issues is already going to be a more accurate copy of your brain this moment then your actual brain would be tomorrow.
@@isaacarthurSFIA but that's the point tho. No computer could make atoms completely unpredictable. It isn't a sign of simulation possibility, it's an indication of its impossibility.
I've spent all day watching your work. All of your videos are incredibly well done and informative. I can't wait to show these to some people that I know would appreciate what you've put together
Isaac - you channel's so VERY addictive that I've had to up my bandwidth allocation twice since discovering you! Chock-full of VERY good stuff, and speech impediment? what speech impediment?? You speak far more clearly than most of my colleagues! Please keep up the momentum - and best regards from Down Under!
It sounds weird to me that you count only human brains when considering ancestor simulations. Yes, I am aware of the brain-in-a-vat idea, but it seems to me that simulating correct inputs for all 7*10^9 brains would be far more difficult than simulating brains themselves. And I don't even know how to estimate processing power that is required to simulate the whole planet and cosmos around such as it is virtually unnoticeable (including LHC and Hubble deep field, etc.). It may be very difficult to do so.
Well, that's easy to say. But how are you actually going to implement this? You have to have some model of the universe to show something when people finally look at it. And you cannot predict in advance (probably) what people may or may not look at. So you basically need a model of the whole Universe at some resolution, so it's consistent when people look at the same spot time after time.
Alex Petrenko it's like all modern open world games are designed, new content are generated once some place are being observed, then this content is saved to maintain consistency, and reavuated (refreshed) next time you turn back to it according to some rules(read laws of physics)
I totally get it, yes. But my point is that when you have 7+ billions humans with microscopes, telescopes and hadron colliders, at some point you're going to need much more resources to simulate all this shit around than simulate all people's brains. At least if being consistent is your goal.
Alex Petrenko I have serious doubts about all 7 billion people on earth to be "real". There may be only few thousand or maybe millions active players, and the rest of population is just NPCs. Of course there's may be technical problems, but some simulation creator may have a thousands or millions of years of technology advancement in comparison to what we have now, so I don't think a couple millions of players looking in telescope would be a huge problem. And who nows maybe we are approaching to the limits of its processing power so soon we will be shutted down ;)
I remember once hearing or reading about some experiment where they scatter electrons off an atomic nucleus or some such and the pattern produced was the exact same as a digital representation would make. Though that may have been part of an argument for a holographic universe, it has been a while and only parts of what I learned stuck with me. Still it is amazing how much of our universe seems to lend itself to simulation, there is a minimum temperature, a minimum length of both time and space. Their is a grainyness to our universe that almost implies that at the very bottom everything is pixels or bits.
Assuming advanced civilizations can run simulations, say a billion simulations, would that mean the chances of us not being in a simulated reality be 1/1000000000 ?
NSA shill I'd argue that the simulation hypothesis is incredibly unlikely. First off, which is a better use for computing power? Simulating your ancestors, or making minds that exist in your own universe. Second, it is much, much more likely that a simulation will be frugal than complete. Our universe very much appears to be entirely simulated. We can, for example, use the laws of physics to accurately predict the behavior of objects in deep space, or the functions occurring inside any living cell. Also, random information can be interpreted as all possible holographic universes of lower complexity. So for example, a drop of water ought to be effectively generating all possible holographic universes ex nihilo.
As a preface to any comment I make about this video on rewatch, if any, I want to say that I am a very supersticious person in a restrained manner. I never talk badly about someone while alone (even if I do not think they exist) in case they may hear me randomly and have a worse opinion of me. I do not break mirrors. Mostly because it's sensible. I do not believe in almost any religion, and I obey illogical restrictions only in so far they are unintrusive and there's nothing to lose by doing them (not walking under ladders). I also believe on the Golden Rule as a general policy with some caveats attached. So I find myself feeling the same level of empathy for well-written videogame characters (Classic examples include truechara, Kris and Monika) that I feel for things like rabbits, or even cats. I treat them with respect when able and don't actively antagonize them at all if possible. I kinda hope that if we, by some extreme fluke, actually are in a simulation, that the players will treat us with that level of respect, as misguided, limited beings to respect, cherish and give extra meaning to life! And even then, I don't think living in a simulation matters all that much as long as the other people have fulfilling lives, especially if they can be improved by effort. Would make the world problems harsher tho. Idk, just my two cents. I have a much longer writeup on this as a timestamped comment on AsukkaTV's essay on Monika if you want it. Also taking the chance to say that I found this channel a month and a half ago and it's extremely solid. The aliens series is to civilizations what Robert Miles is to AI, except nicer visually and sadly with less diagrams :D
I'm fine with the possibility that we live in a simulation, but I think that the argument that we do live in a simulation relies on fallacy. Specifically, I think it uses a sort of sampling bias. If there were some sort of outside sampler (call it God, if you like) who was randomly choosing one out of numerous realities, one of which was "real," and the rest simulated, then yes, it is highly unlikely that that outside sampler would choose the "real" world and would most likely choose a simulation. However, we are not an outside sampler. We self sample. Obviously, there is a 100% chance that we are in whatever sort of world we are in. If we are in a "real" world, then we are in a "real" world. If we are in a simulation, then we are in a simulation. I don't think that we can deduce what sort we're in from probability alone.
this reality is real to us as we perceive it, obviously. even if we were to deduce that with 100% certainty that we lived in a simulation it wouldn't change the way that we physically/mentally experience reality. which makes me wonder if it would be possible to look beyond our universe or a simulated one into another universe.
From what you're saying I get that it is reality whether the infrastructure is a digitized copy or the original creation. Our awareness in the setting makes it reality. We validate it as real by believing in it.
Seamus Callaghan its built on the assumption that you can simulate an entire universe. To represent all information and the state of all particles you would need a computer much bigger than the simulated universe. The fella who came up with this hypothesis doesn't think its very likely we are in a simulation.
+Jason, what? is your video game system much bigger than the gameworlds that it renders? where are you pulling that idea from that says the computer would have to be so large? have you ever heard of "no man's sky"? repeating patterns save a lot of hard drive space. alias the periodic table of elements.
Seamus Callaghan BUT the way of at the very least closing the odds on simulation would be for us, inside either a simulation or not.... to ourselves create a simulation. Perhaps simulate an entire universe and do that by starting the simulation from a simulated quantum singularity... literally run an entire universe from the outset. Now here's a thought experiment. At the moment you are 100% accurate in one way and not in another. Its not in fact like its a 50/50 deal.. At the moment there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a simulated universe right? Well, there might be things we observe that are consistent with a simulation. But they are not exclusive to a simulation... But if we ourselves made a simulation right down to a Planck length level of granularity? Right then we now have basically two universes... this one, and our own simulated one... and we know that 50% of the universes are simulated.... if we make another then 66% of universes are simulated... 4 universes is 75%, 5 is 80% and so on... If we simulated 999 universes then 99.9% of universes are simulations and we are left insisting this one is not but all the others are... that sort of begins to look untenable.... Now this is a thought experiment and there is also non evidence it would even be possible to simulate a universe as I suggest. But since its a thought experiment we don't need to build 999 universes... all we really need tondo is demonstrate using math that it's possible. Just that one thing will utterly change the landscape.... For if we know its possible, even if we don't possess the technology.... then we may as well have the 999 simulations.
Who knew watching Big Bang theory and Wandavision would lead me to this channel. Lol I became obsessed with Schrodinger‘s cat and the Theseus’ ship thought experiments... which led to the Fermi paradox and my new awakening to physics and cosmology. I’m so interested in the Fermi paradox, multi verse theory and simulation hypothesis but like no one wants to discuss that with me in real life 🤦🏻♀️ lol
For anyone who is new to this subject I'd strongly suggest search for NASA physicist Tom Campbell on RUclips. he has his own channel. He is basing his work off of his own personal experiences over the last 40 years and if what he says is true (and he seems genuine and has no real reason to lie) then what he is proposing is mind blowing. I've been following him for many years and I've had some correlation in my own life experiences and with his theories.
Had a peek and it downright stinks. Asking for more money, unclear as to what exactly for, already written his conclusion, tint of mysticism, shoehorned "adherence" of major historical figures, claim to revolutionize the world, claim it's cheap and easy and yet no explanation why no one has already done it... Very bad signs. Run.
subscribed. Isaac Arthur needs to either start writing, or start collaborating with a writer, or start consulting with current writers who have passion but no imagination. This guy's got both in spades. The best Sci-Fi books EVER would be the result.
That's pretty much the entire Existential Crisis Series, its sort of unavoidable, their technology related problems but the problems themselves merely arise from the tech, they're not really connected to it beyond that.
I found your videos about 4 days ago and really enjoy listening to them. Thank you for making them. Welp it’s Friday night now... time to binge watch!!😈
Yes, a few others have said similar. Surprisingly I never heard of the show till about two months back, long after this episode, I ended up seeing an episode with my best friend and his wife after dinner and went home and binged watched both seasons the next day :)
Yeah, they've a couple on simulations. I actually never heard of the show when this vid was made but it got mentioned so many times I watched an episode with a friend and ended up going home to binge watch it.
I wish I could remember the name of the phenomenon, but the simulation hypothesis was accidentally proved false in the last couple years. The study in question was looking at the math of a particular observed quantum interaction between electrons in metal. It found that the computational requirements for simulating this interaction - which, again, has been observed - involved the term x^n, where n is the number of electrons, and x was at least 2. The article estimated that a theoretical maximally efficient computer in terms of size and ability would need to have more mass than exists in the observable universe to simulate just 100 electrons. Even if that estimate is massively off, just one mole of iron, 56 grams, contains 1.56x10^25 electrons. That's a stupidly large exponent. No such computer can exist. Brains are probably emulatable. But there's at least one thing we've found in physics that is not.
-You think a humanity where Hillary became president would survive long enough to run ancestor simulations?- You know maybe in the original timeline they had actually decent candidates? :Ü™
I'm hoping Isaac Arthur can do a video on what causes libtards to inject their politics into things that have nothing to do with politics, and then talk about how they can't figure out why their side lost the elections.
I'm not offended, this was one of the videos where I was briefly experimenting with cutting out every silent pause to let me pack more material in, an amusingly bad response to worries the videos were getting too long, the newer ones are slower. :) And it is not an accent.
wow, for someone like me who likes to watch videos on youtube about simulation hypothesis, this one is very thorough, encompassing, compact, very deep & thought provoking!! so, whether i am in a simulation universe/life/existence or not, i'm very happy & glad i stumbled, intrigued, clicked & watched this video. subscribed for sure!! thanks!!
Thanks Sunstar, glad to hear it was still good for folks already well familiar with the basic concept, I very much didn't want it to be just the usual concept introduction kind of video.
yeah man, u definitely went deeper on discussing it, your discussion makes me think more & deeper about it, to the point it makes me quite scared about thinking of the possibility of my life as a simulation (since this topic is very mind-blowing), like the movies 'the 13th floor' & 'the matrix'. your content in this vid alone has so much (original) information & insight that i think i have to watch it again a few times just to really digest all of it. this is the 1st vid of your channel that i watched, & it's already so good. definitely gonna watch your other vids. keep em coming!!
Don't get sidetracked by possible reasons for simulations. They are infinite so you're always correct but never completely. oO) Logging in. Memory wiped. Return after. Now, you're talking. This is what I'd love to discuss. If you jump into a simulation from someplace without time you could probably experience a lot of lives. You're pretty sharp. I love when the concept of the simulation is approached with philosophy. That's definitely my weak spot among many. Great video. I'd love to discuss sometime.
The problem I have with all of these various theories as to how the Universe could be simulated is that none of them consider the fact that our parent universe doesn't necessarily need to have the same laws as our own. And could in fact be much more complex than our own It would be an incredibly complex undertaking to be sure, but I would love to see some sort of at least attempt to explore this topic. I've spent over 10 years considering it and it's about as futile as trying to imagine a 4 dimensional universe. Or the implications of having 2 dimensions of time. And these are just relatively simple ways our parent universe could differ from ours. But whether I can picture it or not, the ideas are still fun and interesting to say the least. The thing I find really interesting about this notion of our parent universe having different, and potentially more complex laws of physics/nature than our own also solves the issue of how a civilization might come up with enough energy to create such a simulation. I'd hate to draw the computer game analogy, but for all we know, compared to our parent universe, our own might be just as relatively simple as say, the world of Grand Theft Auto V, compared to our parent universe. So simulating such a relatively simple universe as our own would take just as little effort in our parent universe as simulating the world of a video game would be in our universe.
I am watching this upload for the forth it fifth time due quiet sinply to the fact that the logic puzzle or thought experiment is a joy by way of the delivery that Isaac Arthur provides the firmi paradox solution or argument as it were. It remains a compelling idea due mostly to the fact that the nature of humanity appears to gravitate towards self examination and if drawn to a easily plausible conclusion would arrive at the simulation hypothesis.
Did forget some of the mathematical issues. Irrational numbers for example. Some computational issues such as a computers inability to draw a circle or subtract are also issues. Now I admit you could conclude these issues have been solved (we did figure out a mathematical trick for subtracting, though I dont think that same trick would work in all cases) but I feel they are valid points to mention.
It's worth keeping in mind that a simulation doesn't actually have to solve these things, just appear to do so in a convincing fashion to those in the simulation. The biggest 'time saver' in a simulator would invariably end up being foggy imperfect memories for the folks being simulated and some sort of flag in their software for if they we beginning to upset about an apparent thin-spot or flaw in reality. :)
Though as I said this seems very wasteful. You could solve these issues a lot easier by just having them be non-sentient. Even if you are living within them for entertainment you wouldn't need them that realistic. This would also take a lot of time to initially set up. Compiling all these AIs, programming flags, physics engine, physics objects, ect would take vastly more processing power than running the program. All of which, again, could be drastically reduced by just making them non-sentient.[edit] I edited my first post while writing it and forgot I deleted the mention of saving processing power since you mentioned it in the video so my first sentence was not something "I said"
I'm sure you could save a lot of processing power by running them non-sentient, I believe I said so in the video, but whether or not the simulators would find that acceptable or not would depends on their goals and motives. If those require full brain emulation, then they would need to do that, if not, then not.
Fascinating stuff and really well explained. Not the first time I come across this concept, hardly, but the video still had me hooked. It made me think about stuff. The case of simulations used in the reproduction process as a means of attaining maturity definitely had my attention. Given my interests and what I'm drawn to, I'd make an educated guess that I was put here to observe the transition between the 'old world' and the post-singularity world. It's my dream to witness singularity. I really hope that's the reason I am here, and I will not have to live out of my life with an overpowering feeling of disappointment. If that's really the case, I'm quite surprised that I'm not in the "front seat". My life revolves around computers, but I'm just an average Joe in that regard, like hundreds of millions of others. Nothing would make me happier than getting a front row seat in the show of singularity. If my wishful thinking is actually correct, then rationally, a course correction should occur sooner than later. I wonder if such a correction has already happened once before. There was quite an odd twist of events in my life a few years ago, which was quite a shock to me and people who know me. It was like everything had aligned perfectly for me to end up where I am now.. But the simulation is definitely not pampering me. It was combination of both good and bad events.I suffered a completely unexpected mental breakdown during 1st week of college, which changed my life completely, now I am now doing a completely unrelated degree in a different country. A turning point in my life for sure. Now I'm studying to do what I wanted to do when I was just a kid, even though it seemed like an impossibility for the longest time. It's not the "front seat of the singularity show" quite yet, but it's definitely closer to being that. Coincidence...?
Dude!! I have thought this for a LONG time. I used to work as a medical assistant for a neurosurgeon, and I talked to many people that had been in absolutely HORRIFIC accidents. I mean, from motorcycle accidents that almost killed them, car accidents and even a failed suicide where a guy shot himself in the head. Turns out, these people don't remember them, and if they do, they see them in slow motion, and feel no pain the whole time. This video just reinforces my theory that when or if you have a traumatic experience, it's like someone (I call it God or an Angel) just shuts down your experience, or unplugs you to not suffer the trauma for a few minutes or until it's over. I know it's technically the brain helping you to overcome, but it almost seems like you're "unplugged" for your own good.
I think the simulation life as entertainment would be a good idea but only for a day. Imagine living a whole new life in sim and then waking up to reality an hr later now knowing you will never see those loves, friends or opportunities again. It would be hard to stay logged out of it if that sim life was better than your own.
I feel lucky that Issac didn't end up in football profession as we would have missed such a great clear mind. Thank you Issac for all your efforts. And not being a football player :)
Hi I'm Kang. Found thi via Reddit. Subscribed I know we're living in a simulation + I'd love to discuss it. If you don't mind, I'd like to make multiple comments as I watch. First thought 6 minutes in: It seems that comparing our civilization to one that is capable of creating infinite simulations both in scale + numbers shows a lack of perspective which is completely understandable. Also, you speak of simulations like those that create them wouldn't participate in them. I find that interesting. Could be totally wrong. I'll keep watching.
Running simulations has always made sense to me for bodies in cryo-sleep, especially ones that are in transit through space for long periods of time. If a mind were to process a simulation at the same rate it dreams, imagine the number of lives one would live in the course of a "slow" trip to another star.
Sir , Isaac. You just fucked my mind... You point out every possible question in my mind. And yes, you're a genius for finding researching and presenting these things. Need to translate those subtitles fast...
:) The subtitles will probably be a while, quite a few folks have tried there had at it but so far most haven't been able to finish one or did one and had to call it quits, its quite time consuming for them.
I always feel so heavy when watching one of your videos, there are not many things im scared off but man.....You even bring things in a positive way if we would live in a simulation.
Thanks for great video! It occurs to me that another reason someone might want to run a simulation would be to perform complex psychological studies that couldn't be ethically justified on real people ('sentients'?) You know, I've always had this strange feeling that one day I'd wake up surrounded by beings who are shaking me & saying, "Wake up! The experiment is over!" 🤔 Beings could use such simulations almost obsessively, to test anything from evacuation plans, to battle scenarios, to social or political or economic theories, to - dare I say it - VIRTUALLY anything you could imagine. I recall a book series by Zelazny called the Amber novels. The main characters could literally walk from one reality to another proximate, & very similar one, eventually reaching any world they could imagine. The protagonist explained to his friend that his brother Benedict was an unbelievable expert in war, saying, "Can you imagine someone walking from a battle to the very same battle in the next reality, with only slight variations, watching over and over, seeing how the smallest detail can turn the tide? Can you imagine someone doing that for uncountably many battles over hundreds of years?" [They lived for thousands of years.] Simulations would be perfect for that! One question does jump out at me, though. How would ANY civilization at ANY level of technological sophistication be able to be absolutely sure that THEY weren't also simulations? Where would that end? Or would it, ever? "We can remember it for you wholesale!" I love your examples of the human computers & the ants. Head-trip for sure! Thanks again. tavi.
Your point about individual parts of a consciousness and how they can be applied to ants and even people did mess me up a little bit. If the premise is that consciousness is not an ''on/off' thing but a phenomenon that varies by degree of complexity, it makes things even weirder. I was actually drinking coffee when I saw your upload and well...morning well spent. Thank you for the content! Great work.
Also, I find it funny that streets in cities seem to act like blood flow and the morning and evening rush hours act like heartbeats. PS: From space at night urban areas look like neural networks. Just saying.
Genius Loci, as it were. Life and consciousness are both pretty hazily defined concepts, I suspect a pretty decent argument could be made that cities are arguably a sort of life form.
I think a likely argument against the 'moral dilemna' of creating someone as a Roman Slave would be the disconnect between the programmers' (relative) mega-intelligences and our own. If we are like the moving pieces in a modern simulation, or even the characters in a high-quality crpg, we are still just programs with no true 'soul' or 'consciousness' by the way such entities are likely to measure them (we don't even attribute these things to most lesser living beings on our planet, much less computer programs). Thus, it's likely that the morality issue would never even occur to them, or be easily glossed over.
I found your channel by accident and I believe it is one of the best kept secrets (so far) on RUclips. Keep up the great work.
agreed. I came onto the channel through Fraser Cain. good job on the colonization videos
I found this channel through Cody'slab, he linked it through his Em Drive video.
Agreed!
agreed!
here, here
"Why would The Programmers put in so much suffering?"
...have you SEEN Sims players?!!
We would have to keep the simulation interesting, because if it wasn't, maybe the creator would get bored and turn it off.. and maybe that would end our world
I think that life may be a never ending simulation, simulations within simulations have u seen sims 4 how they watch sims3 on tv & play sims2 looking games on the computer.
@@howtoreachthemoon hopefully smh...this is some super bogus azz bs
@@rashardmitchell7915 Real purpose of such thing would be testing or training units (hellfire of unplugging could be a thing in case of the sinners). Simulating sapience just for tests would be extremely immoral and potentially dangerous, as they would have full reason to kill they creators.
I think the theory is best used as a thought experiment, but presuming it were real perhaps it’s best to think about the Programer setting basic rules and then allowing the software to run at random. Introducing a touch of order to chaos seems to be enough to make the universe work, so why not AI? Conway’s Game of Life, in which a few basic laws and the initial input over a gridded matrix produces amazing complexity, is enough proof for me that blind evolution is possible. Assuming we will get to a point in history where we could make such a thing, doesn’t necessarily mean we will know where it is going. That’s the reason Elon is so fearful of AI.
I like to play with the idea that maybe a futuristic society where people tend to live forever could consider a simulated world as a training ground for new members of the society, where you would only be able to see the real world if you reached a certain level of maturity before the end of your "simulated lifetime", otherwise you would be reset to a newborn child and try again. It's kind of a scary idea, but I find it quite interesting. Also, this fits with some religious theories about reincarnation and how to get to heaven.
I agree. Certain aspects of religious beliefs would point in that direction and suddely make sense if this is really a simulation. I just hope that all those people subject to extreme poverty or severe illnesses are simullated NPCs. Or maybe that is then some sort of temporary punishment. All is possible in a simulation context.
Man ive been thinking about this alot lately. But if this is true then those simulators need to stop fucking around because there is alot of suffering in this world.
Read "The Egg" by Andy Weir... it's available online.
1050 words but it will change your life regarding religion and death
Daki Albert - apparently, you still need the training. The sufferings in this world are mostly our fault. Get out there and help to fix them.
We are here as punishment by AI overlords.. You did something filthy in your past and so they trapped you in here to teach you a lesson.. 😈
I wrote this like 20 times and it just continued to break my mind, so here's the reduced version:
Say you have one mega computer that is the absolute most powerful computer that can ever exist within a universe and you then proceed to run ancestor simulations on it where you also allow you ancestors to run subsequent simulations and we assume that they will do the same and so on. Each layer will take more and more processing power as it expands and each layer might make multiple ancestor simulations. This will lead to a compounding demand on processing power and will very quickly severely slow down the speed at which all the simulations can be run at, since the original computer can physically not run faster.
Now the thing is, eventually the simulations will run so slow that their won't be enough value (be it scientific data or entertainment) to keep the simulation going. This will thus lead to an eventual reset or shutdown of the simulation which could basically be one way the universe ends.
On the other hand maybe the original creators find value in consciousness, be it digital or biological and don't permit switching off simulations with conscious beings inside of it. This will eventually lead to the simulation running so slowly that one 'tick' would eventually take so many years to complete that the universe or the power source of the computer runs out of energy. This too will lead to an interesting end to all our lives.
If we alternatively consider ourselves to be the originals, then we can probably -within some margin of error- probably calculate the total amount of layers that could possibly get to the stage where they can create ancestor simulations for each case mentioned above.
I know I'm not saying a lot, but it was just an interesting line of thought that I wanted to share and see what others think around this.
I really like this, surprised your comment didn't get more traction here, but there are so many good comments.
It seems your idea is still solid if the primary/master/top machine isn't the most powerful possible, but is upgraded over time without disruption of the software, perhaps pushed to eventually become the most powerful possible by the compounding demands you described.
If killing all processes and restarting from scratch to avoid lockup at 99.9% capacity is allowed, the clean-install/reboot process could be named "Let there be light", to steal from a famous short story I don't name to avoid semi-spoilers.
If the simulation we live in runs faster than "real" time, then many iterations of our simulated universe could run within the lifetime of the single "real" parent universe, assuming the real parent universe runs on the same physics as our simulation. Not sure why that's worth writing, I just like the idea of a cyclic universe, even though heat death with or without proton decay seems likely, and doesn't seem to lend itself to my love of a cyclic universe.
But, as a software developer I can see a rough/poorly coded "reset" routine at the end of our simulated universe's heat death, the developer assuming there is no reason to make it elegant, much less consistent with the physics of the simulation. Especially if they write most of the code on a Friday after a big lunch buffet, and it needs to be finished before they leave work for the weekend.
42
So like nested simulations on top of nested simulations?
Some say the Universe will end in FIRE, while others think it will end in ICE. I believe it will continue on forever, until we get the Blue Screen of Death.
@@Zeuswashington It's what you get when Windows crashes badly.
I hereby loudly lodge my outrage and protest against the simulation I am currently inhabiting. THIS IS ABUSE. Shut this OR RADICALLY UPGRADE simulation I am in, or my involvement in it down AT ONCE. I will sue anyone or anything who placed me in this simulation afterwards. This is NOT acceptable.
+Khannea Sun Tzu :) From which we *should* be able to deduce you are not a willing participant in an ethically run simulation... thus meaning it isn't a simulation or it isn't an ethical one... unless of course you signed a waiver before entering that said no matter how much you rejected the reality around you that you were to remain inside it. :)
+Khannea Sun Tzu
RealityCorp apologizes for the inconvenience you may be experiencing with your simulated existence. Please consider expanding your account for a small fee of 2000 galactic cruceros to upgrade to an expanded edition of reality.
+DukeRevolution Ubisoft in 150 years
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. I think of this often ...
Im not sure if this is satirical?
Ok, so if we discovered this theory, we can assume "the real" humans did as well, even if they were not in a simulation themselves. This video keeps me up at night.
Well there is a reason why it is in the Playlist labeled "Existential Crisis Series" Tyler :D
I am SO HAPPY I FOUND THIS CHANNEL!! Keep it Up!
Thanks Liam!
Liam Butler I cant help but think of the microverse battery from Rick and Morty
I get that one fairly often, I love that show too, though I didn't discover it till long after this episode was done.
Isaac Arthur What did you think of the season 3 premier?
I don't know, ask me tomorrow, I actually thought that was an April Fool's joke until you mentioned it again and I googled it to see when the 'real date' was.
Isaac Arthur, your channel is criminally underrated. I hope you get far more than a million RUclips subscribers.
I have said it before many times, this is my all-time favorite YT channel. Every night I pick a playlist (usually Fermi Paradox), hit 'shuffle' and then drift off listening to all the excellent ideas, thoughts and conjectures. And I never get tired of dreaming. Thank you, Isaac, for your wonderful imagination! You have fueled many of my dreams.
Gosh your videos are just so well-thought-out and expertly presented. My brain always feels stimulated, and my worldview challenged. Please don't ever stop these.
I live my life during the time of exponential computing... coincidentally. This is a time I would choose if I were running an ancestor simulation. When I die perhaps I wake up in History 101 in the future?
Or not at all because you're code programed to believe it is human.
Are you sure that you would choose this time, or is that just what you were programmed to think?
Why would you choose this time? Who are you to say what the future would be like? Maybe it's more interesting to you than the current time if you were aware of it.
well if we were full simulations and not just people who opted for a blast to the past, then it wouldn't really make much sense to program in specific thoughts or motives, especially if your simulation is in an effort to determine something on a larger time line like the evolution of philosophy in intelligent species, or different ways science could have developed. What you would program is the mechanism through which a mind can come to be and then maintain itself, but you would only want to directly control all of its surroundings without ever touching its memories or opinions. This is because if we are the main subjects of the simulation then we are the dependent variables and it would invalidate any findings because the results are not indicative of naturally forming intelligence but of how the programmer thinks intelligence should look like.
Running a simulation at the cusp of becoming a Class 1 civilization? Where the greatest minds of the time are only a few simple obstacles away from being able to eradicate terminal illnesses, annihilate world hunger, create a truly global society and birth the next renaissance? Sounds like a good enough time to live. Besides, this might be one of the failed simulations. You know what they say, if you fail in making a ship in a bottle, you simply made a shipwreck in a bottle. The simulation succeeds, even if it fails. It's up to us to pass, but maybe in passing the simulation we actually fail...
I'd rather see an experiment now, rather than most times of the past. IF a species was sufficiently advanced enough to be Kardeshev Level 2 or 3, they might not even have it in their records how they broke through the level 0 to level 1 barrier. Several thousand simulations running simultaneously to find out exactly how that happened is not surprising, especially if Isaac is even partially correct. This might be a simulation they find interesting. There's nothing stating that this is the ONLY simulation being run, either.
If you did find out this was a history class...I hope your teacher takes points off for watching videos when you should have been studying.
I am still digging through the mountain of content you have posted since discovering your channel about 2 weeks ago, this is another gem. I wanted to say thank you so much for the amazing content you have put out into the world. I feel lucky to live in a time where so many amazing concepts can be presented so succinctly and effectively. Thank you again.
Thank you, and welcome to the channel!
'Stupid Aliens' turned up in feed - watched, enjoyed. Been going thru back catalogue and this about best vid have seen on Simulation Hypothesis. Liked and subscribed.
*What if they created us to harvest our memes?*
Weird flex but ok
@@rickharper4533 "weird flex but ok" is a meme itself and it's a flex because they created us and because they created us only to harvest our memes. Now I feel really dirty because I explained a meme to a normie now I need a shower.
I mean, making art is something simulated people can do as well as real ones. Guess this world's a meme farm.
They certainly spent enough time/energy to pump my mind full of "life experience" aka 80's tv to make more memes then ever needed.
then i would curse them because they are keeping the truth from me. just as i would expect my children to curse me if i did that to them. it is cruel.
From my perspective characters in a fictional story could be seen as a rudimentary simulation - and a character that is written by multiple authors could be seen as a simulation that is being run by a colective mind.
It reminds me of "shophie's world" in which the author, Jostein Gaarder, creates a character who is a writer himself, and is writting a fictional story messing with the characters - letting them perceive that they are only characters and doing god-like things in their world.
We are characters in reruns of a Twilight Zone episode.
I go from one theory to the next because I'm way to confused to pick just one lol. One of them though is that we are simulations of ourselves the we are the ones placing ourselves into this program. There are many reasons why a being might choose to do this to ourselves but I think this is proably one of the better answers. I just know I picked a boring lonely version to run this time and I really hope I pick a better one next time lol.
That's disturbing.
@@kwking11 The main counterargument is though that world is a shit. I think if new sapient units are introduced to Matryoshka Brain, there could be a reason to train and test them. For example detecting morally irredeemable assholes and also teaching them about own specie history and culture. For that purpose simulating historical environment could be useful, before more straightforward education.
Dude i found you by accident but have to say you are MY FAVORITE CHANNEL now, I watch your videos non stop - Incredible work!! Thank you
So it's Turtles all the way down and robots all the way up?
It doesn't necessarily have to be recursive, and indeed that would seem counter-indicated under any physical laws that didn't let you get free calculation, which quantum computing might be able to get around. But yeah. :)
@@isaacarthurSFIA Well, in the sense that you can never tell whether any given level is reality or a simulation/dream/story/etc.
Finally RUclips suggested something great. I was looking for a channel like that for a very long time... thank you.
Greetings to all you simulations :)
We are all bots. The only true consciousness being simulated in this world is you, Iliyan Zankinski.
the real question is, is you me? if this is a simulation, woulod you and me be the same?
Greetings, Program! (waves)
You are my favorite RUclipsr ever. I Can understand you just fine!
Thank You Vladimir!
Have you considered having someone voice over your videos? You do have such a thick accent
@@usernamenotinvaild Perish the thought. Be yourself, be real
I'm so happy I stumbled across your channel. Thumbs up, keep doing what your doing Mr. Science man, your videos are gold! I'm sure I'll watch this one 5 or 6 times like all the others.
+Fade2Black907 Welcome to the channel!
Dude, he's as repeat-viewing worthy as any of the music on this site.
totally with you man. our life is just tuesday's history lecture, covering the dawn of the computing age.
Isaac, your videos are an incredible blend of fiction and science that allows one to imagine a world beyond the scope of human experience. The 'matter of reality' (pun intended) is almost an aside, the facts you express are easy to understand, and when you take 'creative license' it is done in a way that would make Plato jealous of the philosophic allegory. Science fiction authors and theoretical physicists alike can benefit from all your content. Bravo, and thank you for the immense amount of work your corpus of video content contains.
Well... I hope the folks that created our Universe considered a simulated afterlife a moral necessity.
I know that I would have a ton of ethical quandaries if I were to create a simulation with a single strong AI... for a full Universe I can hardly imagine the issues. It would probably be in our best interest to make an afterlife or reincarnation a moral requirement for any simulated intelligent being.
sounds like you guys are making it more religious than it has to be.
Who am I? A simulation is exactly that, a simulated existence. What happens when you turn off a computer? ;)
Who am I? p.s the idea of heaven and hell is a personification from our tribal days when people worshipped the sun. day time (light,. god etc) being when life thrived thanks to the sun, and night where there is no sun, which was referred to as Seth (aka darkness, the devil etc) where there is no light for life to thrive off of, plus night time was obviously dangerous back then for our species... Heaven and hell is a personification of day and night which all religions adopted, hence why they always talk about light and darkness. It's not a literal thing. This is how all religions started, a personification of astronomy...
Who am I? That's not to say this is the only life we live though, maybe we got bored of immortality so created a simulation with mortality... Maybe life is just a game we created, as we're obsessed with escapism and technology. Who knows. What we do know is our consciousness could be what brings this universe into its present form, which if true, makes us beyond unique in this reality of ours. would the universe exist without life to perceive it? that's the interesting question
Who am I? Well all matter comes from energy and energy can be neither created nor destroyed according to the laws of thernodynamics , so in that sense our essence never dissapears. Everything in our universe is recycled. My advice; concentrate on living the life you got and don't wait for the next, who knows what happens when we die. =D Life is but a dream
Great content, man. Every video is so enthralling. I've been binge watching since I found your channel a couple of days ago.
Thanks! Welcome to the channel
I really should stop trying to listen to your videos while trying to get work done...
Really been looking forward to this one. Can't wait to watch it later. Love listening to Nick Bostrom talk about this. Thanks for all your hard work! Keep the channel going! These videos are great!
Those hypothetical scenarios were crazy! Well done 👍
just wanted to let you know I massively enjoy you channel. I drive around all day as a Appliance repair tech. and get to listen pretty much all day. thank you much for your effort, and for not dumbing things down to much. I think it's important for people's minds to have to strain a bit on a regular basis. and in the words of Carl," I like the way you talk. "
15:08 Did... Did Issac Arthur just use footage from what I assume is an educational video about the ABCs?
I like it.
Yeah I found that amongst various PD footage and for some reason it sent me into a fit of laughter, I was looking for an excuse to use it and I think its shown up in 2 or 3 vids. :D
I've been looking forward to this one Isaac, this and last video are among your very best and have sparked some lengthy and heavy conversations with my friends. The quality of your work and considering the rate of your uploads is astonishing. I'm starting to wonder if you have minions, or have managed to eliminate the need to sleep!
+Drew McTygue Glad you enjoyed it Drew, it was a fun pair of topics and nice setup for some other, lesser known topics in the near future. Also glad to hear the quality is still improving, its always hard to tell from the inside.
I haven't finished the video yet, but addressing the problem of suffering in more primitive societies:
The easiest way to handle this is to use "NPCs" or "Puppets". For example, let's say you want to run a VR of an combat-heavy game where the enemies and NPCs are nigh-sophontic but also prone to being injured or dying (for example, enemy soldiers). What you could do is have the NPCs be played by AIs that KNOW they're in a simulation and simply playing a game by controlling a virtual puppet. They're smart enough that you can have a conversation with them, but they don't necessarily "feel" the subjective experiences of their virtual avatars in the same way we do. For example, if they're enemy soldiers in shooter game, and you shoot one, it may pretend to be in pain as it lays dying but actually it's only mildly annoyed because it "lost" a game.
Now, the implications of this if reality is a simulation like this can be a little disturbing from a consequential ethical stance, since if it were true, it would mean that the victims of any given atrocity might have actually been NPC AIs that were just playing along happily. Virtues-based ethics still work in this hypothetical scenario, however (even if every one of a serial killer's victims were NPC AIs, the killer didn't know that and is still a killer at heart. Ergo, he's evil)
Hell, it could even mean that YOU are actually the only "player" in the simulation, and everyone else are just NPCs ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism )! Freaky stuff. :p
antred11 That's certainly metaphysically possible. Though according to my model described above there would need to be at least two minds: you, and a super AI puppetmaster.
Some would find that notion disturbing, but personally I find it kind of hilarious. That would be some truly epic trolling right there.
Matthew Campbell if all others are NPCs except you, then who am I? Lol
The perfect us/them rationale.
kolodi you are a NPC who does not know it is a NPC. Good job there, the programming went as expected.
I don't know how I only found your channel after me being here for 3 or 4 years and I don't know how you only have 150k subs. You're content is some of the most well explained and well thought out that I've seen on this website ever. From what I know on some of the stuff I've watched, you also have a very firm grasp on all of this, whereas some other channels I've seen do a lot of speculation w/o too many strong supporting facts. After I just gushed about you lol just wanted to say keep it up, it's such a good channel!
I've only just discovered your channel, so this may have been covered, I just haven't found it yet. I was wondering your opinion on the collapse of the quantum wave function in regards to the simulation hypothesis. what I mean, is that, at least to me, it would appear that the collapse of the wave into a specific reality is very similar to our current procedural generation technology in computer games. until the user observes an area, all options are possible, but once observed, only one exists.
👍🏻👍🏻 for the screen name.... Haha
This video and your channel is simply amazing! You will blow up in subs in the next couple of years if you sustain your content. Thank you!
Thanks! :)
This is what it feels like to have your mind continuously explode for 30 minutes straight.
I also stumbled onto your channel by random chance. I'm glad i did. GREAT Content.
11:15 This concept reminds me of the game "Roy" in Rick and Morty.
Wonderful channel Sir. You rarely find information in any medium that due to the fact that there isn't any real maths in it is automatically dumbed down. Your channel is very few exceptions and the only one I have thus far found on RUclips.
Carry on the excellent work!
should have atlest a million subs
ozzy ozbourne agreed
This guy's videos are great, I literally learning something new in each of them, something that is starting to be quite rare anywhere else :o
I was looking for a video related to this topic on youtube yesterday but couldn't find one with a detailed account. Then I saw your video in my suggestion box!!! Yeah!! Great video. Thnx Issac made my day!!
+Hurditya Kohli Glad you enjoyed it!
The first time I heard of the simulation hypothesis I linked it to the Fermi Paradox, I can't believe how cleverly you explore this. Thanks. Gary
When I die, where will my conscience go? What really is an absence of consciousness? Will I wake up to another simulation? If I do wake up to another simulation, does a lack of consciousness even exist, or will I continuously loop through simulations until the end of time? Why have these thoughts not convinced myself into suicide? Why will I instinctively continue to avoid death, despite these fascinations? If there is nowhere to go after death, why don't I end my life now, where there is no room for lament and regret?
For me, the possibility (and likelihood) that death brings a permanent and final end to consciousness is the scariest thing. From my point of view, the end of my consciousness is equivalent to the end of the universe, since I cannot perceive the universe outside of my own consciousness. "Hey, the entire universe is going to end, no matter what, sometime within the next 70 years" is a pretty damn scary thought to me.
When you die your consciousness will disappear. Just like before you were born. Where was your consciousness then?
marc bell
...but we don't know if we were conscious before we were born. It's entirely possible that there are memories buried deep in our minds of experiences before our current life. On the other hand, it's probably more likely that consciousness arose with our birth and will cease with our death.
Erik Walker watch zeitgeist... all religion's are made up.. especially Christianity... it's based on other religions that were around thousands of years before Christ. Plz watch the movie zeitgeist it explains in depth with proof
I get you blahthebiste
Recently found your channel and I absolutely love it! This is the kind of thing I've been hoping for, for a long time. Great work.
Thank you, I'm glad you're enjoying it. I'm still pretty shocked at how many people share these kinds of interests.
I think there is a problem with the computability. If you assume the principle of causality, it is impossible to simulate a bit of universe atom-by-atom using a computer. Assuming causality, every atom in the universe is in some manner related with every other. You cannot pop some atoms out of the universe without affecting the rest of it. Any kind of computer has to maintain data, the data must be stored using some laws of physics, laws of physics rely on universe being observable, physical phenomena, thus it is impossible to precisely simulate any bit of universe using a computer. Thus, it is impossible to precisely simulate a man's brain using a computer. You can only approximate a man's brain behaviour with the use of computer. The thing we broke trying simulate our brains is quantum entanglement especially.
If only there was some sort of weird, paradoxical principle of uncertainty that makes it apparently flat out impossible to track and predict individual atoms from moment to moment ;) Quantum is usually seen as one of the 'strong indicators' we're in a Sim to a lot of the folks who are advocates of SimHyp. But your reasoning on the brain isn't really valid, there's nothing strongly quantum about it and it's constantly shifting so an approximation to the level you can do without all sorts of observer or quantum issues is already going to be a more accurate copy of your brain this moment then your actual brain would be tomorrow.
"data must be stored using some laws of physics"...
...but not necessarily the laws of OUR (sim-)physics.
@@NipapornP Data must be stored ? But what is its source?
Or from where does information actually come as in `ideas`? Storage elsewhere?
@@snacklepussPSN That's exactly what I pointed out. Don't you understand the use of "quotes"?
@@isaacarthurSFIA but that's the point tho. No computer could make atoms completely unpredictable. It isn't a sign of simulation possibility, it's an indication of its impossibility.
I've spent all day watching your work. All of your videos are incredibly well done and informative. I can't wait to show these to some people that I know would appreciate what you've put together
[Another] One of my favorites so far! Thank you once again for providing this quality content. Your work is greatly appreciated.
+bellavita rox Thanks!
Isaac - you channel's so VERY addictive that I've had to up my bandwidth allocation twice since discovering you! Chock-full of VERY good stuff, and speech impediment? what speech impediment?? You speak far more clearly than most of my colleagues! Please keep up the momentum - and best regards from Down Under!
Thanks Phil!
It sounds weird to me that you count only human brains when considering ancestor simulations. Yes, I am aware of the brain-in-a-vat idea, but it seems to me that simulating correct inputs for all 7*10^9 brains would be far more difficult than simulating brains themselves. And I don't even know how to estimate processing power that is required to simulate the whole planet and cosmos around such as it is virtually unnoticeable (including LHC and Hubble deep field, etc.). It may be very difficult to do so.
Alex Petrenko there is nothing else simulated until you looked at it...
Well, that's easy to say. But how are you actually going to implement this?
You have to have some model of the universe to show something when people finally look at it. And you cannot predict in advance (probably) what people may or may not look at. So you basically need a model of the whole Universe at some resolution, so it's consistent when people look at the same spot time after time.
Alex Petrenko it's like all modern open world games are designed, new content are generated once some place are being observed, then this content is saved to maintain consistency, and reavuated (refreshed) next time you turn back to it according to some rules(read laws of physics)
I totally get it, yes. But my point is that when you have 7+ billions humans with microscopes, telescopes and hadron colliders, at some point you're going to need much more resources to simulate all this shit around than simulate all people's brains. At least if being consistent is your goal.
Alex Petrenko I have serious doubts about all 7 billion people on earth to be "real". There may be only few thousand or maybe millions active players, and the rest of population is just NPCs. Of course there's may be technical problems, but some simulation creator may have a thousands or millions of years of technology advancement in comparison to what we have now, so I don't think a couple millions of players looking in telescope would be a huge problem. And who nows maybe we are approaching to the limits of its processing power so soon we will be shutted down ;)
I remember once hearing or reading about some experiment where they scatter electrons off an atomic nucleus or some such and the pattern produced was the exact same as a digital representation would make. Though that may have been part of an argument for a holographic universe, it has been a while and only parts of what I learned stuck with me.
Still it is amazing how much of our universe seems to lend itself to simulation, there is a minimum temperature, a minimum length of both time and space. Their is a grainyness to our universe that almost implies that at the very bottom everything is pixels or bits.
Assuming advanced civilizations can run simulations, say a billion simulations, would that mean the chances of us not being in a simulated reality be 1/1000000000 ?
Yes
NSA shill I'd argue that the simulation hypothesis is incredibly unlikely.
First off, which is a better use for computing power? Simulating your ancestors, or making minds that exist in your own universe.
Second, it is much, much more likely that a simulation will be frugal than complete. Our universe very much appears to be entirely simulated. We can, for example, use the laws of physics to accurately predict the behavior of objects in deep space, or the functions occurring inside any living cell.
Also, random information can be interpreted as all possible holographic universes of lower complexity. So for example, a drop of water ought to be effectively generating all possible holographic universes ex nihilo.
I was having a great time holidaying in this simulation until you came along and burst my bubble. Thanks a bunch Isaac Arthur!
I just love these videos
Woah! Mind blown! LOTS of serious ideas here!
You should write that story about the guy who starts a business...etc.!
the "4 yous" scenario is hilarious
+Peter Houle Thanks :)
As a preface to any comment I make about this video on rewatch, if any, I want to say that I am a very supersticious person in a restrained manner. I never talk badly about someone while alone (even if I do not think they exist) in case they may hear me randomly and have a worse opinion of me. I do not break mirrors. Mostly because it's sensible. I do not believe in almost any religion, and I obey illogical restrictions only in so far they are unintrusive and there's nothing to lose by doing them (not walking under ladders). I also believe on the Golden Rule as a general policy with some caveats attached. So I find myself feeling the same level of empathy for well-written videogame characters (Classic examples include truechara, Kris and Monika) that I feel for things like rabbits, or even cats. I treat them with respect when able and don't actively antagonize them at all if possible. I kinda hope that if we, by some extreme fluke, actually are in a simulation, that the players will treat us with that level of respect, as misguided, limited beings to respect, cherish and give extra meaning to life! And even then, I don't think living in a simulation matters all that much as long as the other people have fulfilling lives, especially if they can be improved by effort. Would make the world problems harsher tho. Idk, just my two cents. I have a much longer writeup on this as a timestamped comment on AsukkaTV's essay on Monika if you want it. Also taking the chance to say that I found this channel a month and a half ago and it's extremely solid. The aliens series is to civilizations what Robert Miles is to AI, except nicer visually and sadly with less diagrams :D
I'm fine with the possibility that we live in a simulation, but I think that the argument that we do live in a simulation relies on fallacy. Specifically, I think it uses a sort of sampling bias. If there were some sort of outside sampler (call it God, if you like) who was randomly choosing one out of numerous realities, one of which was "real," and the rest simulated, then yes, it is highly unlikely that that outside sampler would choose the "real" world and would most likely choose a simulation. However, we are not an outside sampler. We self sample. Obviously, there is a 100% chance that we are in whatever sort of world we are in. If we are in a "real" world, then we are in a "real" world. If we are in a simulation, then we are in a simulation. I don't think that we can deduce what sort we're in from probability alone.
this reality is real to us as we perceive it, obviously. even if we were to deduce that with 100% certainty that we lived in a simulation it wouldn't change the way that we physically/mentally experience reality. which makes me wonder if it would be possible to look beyond our universe or a simulated one into another universe.
From what you're saying I get that it is reality whether the infrastructure is a digitized copy or the original creation. Our awareness in the setting makes it reality. We validate it as real by believing in it.
Seamus Callaghan its built on the assumption that you can simulate an entire universe. To represent all information and the state of all particles you would need a computer much bigger than the simulated universe. The fella who came up with this hypothesis doesn't think its very likely we are in a simulation.
+Jason, what? is your video game system much bigger than the gameworlds that it renders? where are you pulling that idea from that says the computer would have to be so large? have you ever heard of "no man's sky"? repeating patterns save a lot of hard drive space. alias the periodic table of elements.
Seamus Callaghan BUT the way of at the very least closing the odds on simulation would be for us, inside either a simulation or not.... to ourselves create a simulation. Perhaps simulate an entire universe and do that by starting the simulation from a simulated quantum singularity... literally run an entire universe from the outset.
Now here's a thought experiment. At the moment you are 100% accurate in one way and not in another. Its not in fact like its a 50/50 deal.. At the moment there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a simulated universe right? Well, there might be things we observe that are consistent with a simulation. But they are not exclusive to a simulation...
But if we ourselves made a simulation right down to a Planck length level of granularity? Right then we now have basically two universes... this one, and our own simulated one... and we know that 50% of the universes are simulated.... if we make another then 66% of universes are simulated... 4 universes is 75%, 5 is 80% and so on...
If we simulated 999 universes then 99.9% of universes are simulations and we are left insisting this one is not but all the others are... that sort of begins to look untenable....
Now this is a thought experiment and there is also non evidence it would even be possible to simulate a universe as I suggest.
But since its a thought experiment we don't need to build 999 universes... all we really need tondo is demonstrate using math that it's possible. Just that one thing will utterly change the landscape.... For if we know its possible, even if we don't possess the technology.... then we may as well have the 999 simulations.
Your videos are always both enlightening and entertaining, thank you for taking the time to make them!
+Nickalas Light Thanks for taking the time to watch them Nick!
whose here because of joe scott
ozzy ozbourne who’s joe
Joe Scott's could be here because of us... ever think of that??? ;-)
I love your channel my friend. Also, kudos on making the craziest version of the "ship of Theseus" with that Statue of Liberty analogy.
Thanks, and yeah I couldn't bring myself to just repeat the Ship or the Grandfather's Ax example, she seemed a fun alternative :)
Watch the movie "The Thirteenth Floor", interesting ⏳😎
It was a fairly good movie, sadly overshadowed by the Matrix
Isaac Arthur Yes, in agreement on that. Frankly I found out about the movie researching the Simulation Theory. Nice extra 👍😎
The Bad Sleep Well (1960) is even better
@@isaacarthurSFIA Agreed. I think it deserved much better than the obscurity it received.
Who knew watching Big Bang theory and Wandavision would lead me to this channel. Lol I became obsessed with Schrodinger‘s cat and the Theseus’ ship thought experiments... which led to the Fermi paradox and my new awakening to physics and cosmology. I’m so interested in the Fermi paradox, multi verse theory and simulation hypothesis but like no one wants to discuss that with me in real life 🤦🏻♀️ lol
For anyone who is new to this subject I'd strongly suggest search for NASA physicist Tom Campbell on RUclips. he has his own channel. He is basing his work off of his own personal experiences over the last 40 years and if what he says is true (and he seems genuine and has no real reason to lie) then what he is proposing is mind blowing. I've been following him for many years and I've had some correlation in my own life experiences and with his theories.
yep, Tom is the way to go. If you dont know him, start with the calgary lecture.
Had a peek and it downright stinks.
Asking for more money, unclear as to what exactly for, already written his conclusion, tint of mysticism, shoehorned "adherence" of major historical figures, claim to revolutionize the world, claim it's cheap and easy and yet no explanation why no one has already done it...
Very bad signs. Run.
subscribed.
Isaac Arthur needs to either start writing, or start collaborating with a writer, or start consulting with current writers who have passion but no imagination. This guy's got both in spades. The best Sci-Fi books EVER would be the result.
Dear grant grant grant son, pls buy the DLC for me winning the lottery.
lol
Personally I think these early videos were probably Isaac's best work. He did a lot more calculations back then.
This vid was almost more philosophical than it was science. lol
That's pretty much the entire Existential Crisis Series, its sort of unavoidable, their technology related problems but the problems themselves merely arise from the tech, they're not really connected to it beyond that.
NSA shill, pure science is so boring...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Arthur C. Clarke
Holy Shit! I've been aware of the sim argument for some time but this really nails it. Doesnt really change anything but its still mindblowing.
I'm an annoying NPC. It all makes sense now. Great vid.
I found your videos about 4 days ago and really enjoy listening to them.
Thank you for making them.
Welp it’s Friday night now... time to binge watch!!😈
At 11:00 all I could think of is Roy in Rick and Morty.
Yes, a few others have said similar. Surprisingly I never heard of the show till about two months back, long after this episode, I ended up seeing an episode with my best friend and his wife after dinner and went home and binged watched both seasons the next day :)
There's something comforting in the likelihood that this is all just a test.
This life is a test.
It is ONLY a test.
Had this been a real life, you would've been given instructions on where to go and what to do.
(around 11:00 )something like that where in rick and morty
Yeah, they've a couple on simulations. I actually never heard of the show when this vid was made but it got mentioned so many times I watched an episode with a friend and ended up going home to binge watch it.
Isaac Arthur
So far it is best science related adult cartoon. It actually often raise a subjects similar to your videos.
I wish I could remember the name of the phenomenon, but the simulation hypothesis was accidentally proved false in the last couple years.
The study in question was looking at the math of a particular observed quantum interaction between electrons in metal. It found that the computational requirements for simulating this interaction - which, again, has been observed - involved the term x^n, where n is the number of electrons, and x was at least 2. The article estimated that a theoretical maximally efficient computer in terms of size and ability would need to have more mass than exists in the observable universe to simulate just 100 electrons.
Even if that estimate is massively off, just one mole of iron, 56 grams, contains 1.56x10^25 electrons. That's a stupidly large exponent. No such computer can exist.
Brains are probably emulatable. But there's at least one thing we've found in physics that is not.
OK that simulation worked well, let's run it again but this time we should see what happens if Donald Trump was made President of the United States. 😮
-You think a humanity where Hillary became president would survive long enough to run ancestor simulations?- You know maybe in the original timeline they had actually decent candidates? :Ü™
I'm hoping Isaac Arthur can do a video on what causes libtards to inject their politics into things that have nothing to do with politics, and then talk about how they can't figure out why their side lost the elections.
Says the guy who uses the word "libtards"......oh the irony....
Action vs reaction Max...
P0LARice Hahahahahah.....HHahahahhahahahahah
Why do you have to make these videos so addictive? I have to go to work, and can't turn this off!
no offense, but you talk a bit too fast and your accent is very heavy and makes it hard to understand what you're saying at times.
I'm not offended, this was one of the videos where I was briefly experimenting with cutting out every silent pause to let me pack more material in, an amusingly bad response to worries the videos were getting too long, the newer ones are slower. :) And it is not an accent.
Isaac Arthur accent lol
l love the way you talk and everything you say is clear I dont see how people have issue understanding
Jacob Abramov your problem is with the English language, not this guy's "accent". the fact that you called it such is proof enough.
you should read more . eng is not my first lenguage and i had no problem understanding him
I’d like the see the power bill when all those simulations expand to the entire universe!
wow, for someone like me who likes to watch videos on youtube about simulation hypothesis, this one is very thorough, encompassing, compact, very deep & thought provoking!! so, whether i am in a simulation universe/life/existence or not, i'm very happy & glad i stumbled, intrigued, clicked & watched this video. subscribed for sure!! thanks!!
Thanks Sunstar, glad to hear it was still good for folks already well familiar with the basic concept, I very much didn't want it to be just the usual concept introduction kind of video.
yeah man, u definitely went deeper on discussing it, your discussion makes me think more & deeper about it, to the point it makes me quite scared about thinking of the possibility of my life as a simulation (since this topic is very mind-blowing), like the movies 'the 13th floor' & 'the matrix'.
your content in this vid alone has so much (original) information & insight that i think i have to watch it again a few times just to really digest all of it. this is the 1st vid of your channel that i watched, & it's already so good. definitely gonna watch your other vids. keep em coming!!
Don't get sidetracked by possible reasons for simulations. They are infinite so you're always correct but never completely. oO)
Logging in. Memory wiped. Return after. Now, you're talking. This is what I'd love to discuss. If you jump into a simulation from someplace without time you could probably experience a lot of lives.
You're pretty sharp. I love when the concept of the simulation is approached with philosophy. That's definitely my weak spot among many.
Great video. I'd love to discuss sometime.
Another great topic. "I exist merely to discover how i came to exist. Why i came to exist. And in the process i will merely exist"
The problem I have with all of these various theories as to how the Universe could be simulated is that none of them consider the fact that our parent universe doesn't necessarily need to have the same laws as our own. And could in fact be much more complex than our own It would be an incredibly complex undertaking to be sure, but I would love to see some sort of at least attempt to explore this topic. I've spent over 10 years considering it and it's about as futile as trying to imagine a 4 dimensional universe. Or the implications of having 2 dimensions of time. And these are just relatively simple ways our parent universe could differ from ours. But whether I can picture it or not, the ideas are still fun and interesting to say the least.
The thing I find really interesting about this notion of our parent universe having different, and potentially more complex laws of physics/nature than our own also solves the issue of how a civilization might come up with enough energy to create such a simulation. I'd hate to draw the computer game analogy, but for all we know, compared to our parent universe, our own might be just as relatively simple as say, the world of Grand Theft Auto V, compared to our parent universe. So simulating such a relatively simple universe as our own would take just as little effort in our parent universe as simulating the world of a video game would be in our universe.
I am watching this upload for the forth it fifth time due quiet sinply to the fact that the logic puzzle or thought experiment is a joy by way of the delivery that Isaac Arthur provides the firmi paradox solution or argument as it were. It remains a compelling idea due mostly to the fact that the nature of humanity appears to gravitate towards self examination and if drawn to a easily plausible conclusion would arrive at the simulation hypothesis.
Did forget some of the mathematical issues. Irrational numbers for example. Some computational issues such as a computers inability to draw a circle or subtract are also issues. Now I admit you could conclude these issues have been solved (we did figure out a mathematical trick for subtracting, though I dont think that same trick would work in all cases) but I feel they are valid points to mention.
It's worth keeping in mind that a simulation doesn't actually have to solve these things, just appear to do so in a convincing fashion to those in the simulation. The biggest 'time saver' in a simulator would invariably end up being foggy imperfect memories for the folks being simulated and some sort of flag in their software for if they we beginning to upset about an apparent thin-spot or flaw in reality. :)
Though as I said this seems very wasteful. You could solve these issues a lot easier by just having them be non-sentient. Even if you are living within them for entertainment you wouldn't need them that realistic. This would also take a lot of time to initially set up. Compiling all these AIs, programming flags, physics engine, physics objects, ect would take vastly more processing power than running the program. All of which, again, could be drastically reduced by just making them non-sentient.[edit] I edited my first post while writing it and forgot I deleted the mention of saving processing power since you mentioned it in the video so my first sentence was not something "I said"
I'm sure you could save a lot of processing power by running them non-sentient, I believe I said so in the video, but whether or not the simulators would find that acceptable or not would depends on their goals and motives. If those require full brain emulation, then they would need to do that, if not, then not.
Fascinating stuff and really well explained. Not the first time I come across this concept, hardly, but the video still had me hooked. It made me think about stuff. The case of simulations used in the reproduction process as a means of attaining maturity definitely had my attention. Given my interests and what I'm drawn to, I'd make an educated guess that I was put here to observe the transition between the 'old world' and the post-singularity world. It's my dream to witness singularity. I really hope that's the reason I am here, and I will not have to live out of my life with an overpowering feeling of disappointment. If that's really the case, I'm quite surprised that I'm not in the "front seat". My life revolves around computers, but I'm just an average Joe in that regard, like hundreds of millions of others. Nothing would make me happier than getting a front row seat in the show of singularity. If my wishful thinking is actually correct, then rationally, a course correction should occur sooner than later.
I wonder if such a correction has already happened once before. There was quite an odd twist of events in my life a few years ago, which was quite a shock to me and people who know me. It was like everything had aligned perfectly for me to end up where I am now.. But the simulation is definitely not pampering me. It was combination of both good and bad events.I suffered a completely unexpected mental breakdown during 1st week of college, which changed my life completely, now I am now doing a completely unrelated degree in a different country. A turning point in my life for sure. Now I'm studying to do what I wanted to do when I was just a kid, even though it seemed like an impossibility for the longest time. It's not the "front seat of the singularity show" quite yet, but it's definitely closer to being that. Coincidence...?
First channel where the commentators give alot of positive reviews
Dude!! I have thought this for a LONG time. I used to work as a medical assistant for a neurosurgeon, and I talked to many people that had been in absolutely HORRIFIC accidents. I mean, from motorcycle accidents that almost killed them, car accidents and even a failed suicide where a guy shot himself in the head. Turns out, these people don't remember them, and if they do, they see them in slow motion, and feel no pain the whole time. This video just reinforces my theory that when or if you have a traumatic experience, it's like someone (I call it God or an Angel) just shuts down your experience, or unplugs you to not suffer the trauma for a few minutes or until it's over. I know it's technically the brain helping you to overcome, but it almost seems like you're "unplugged" for your own good.
I think the simulation life as entertainment would be a good idea but only for a day. Imagine living a whole new life in sim and then waking up to reality an hr later now knowing you will never see those loves, friends or opportunities again. It would be hard to stay logged out of it if that sim life was better than your own.
Yeah, it's like the HBO show Westworld.
@@romangonzalez9488 Well now that you put it that way.....hahaha
I feel lucky that Issac didn't end up in football profession as we would have missed such a great clear mind. Thank you Issac for all your efforts. And not being a football player :)
Hi I'm Kang. Found thi via Reddit. Subscribed I know we're living in a simulation + I'd love to discuss it. If you don't mind, I'd like to make multiple comments as I watch.
First thought 6 minutes in: It seems that comparing our civilization to one that is capable of creating infinite simulations both in scale + numbers shows a lack of perspective which is completely understandable. Also, you speak of simulations like those that create them wouldn't participate in them. I find that interesting.
Could be totally wrong. I'll keep watching.
MK CULTRA Are you saying that you know that this is a simulation? I think "believe" is the word you are looking for
Running simulations has always made sense to me for bodies in cryo-sleep, especially ones that are in transit through space for long periods of time. If a mind were to process a simulation at the same rate it dreams, imagine the number of lives one would live in the course of a "slow" trip to another star.
Sir , Isaac. You just fucked my mind...
You point out every possible question in my mind.
And yes, you're a genius for finding researching and presenting these things.
Need to translate those subtitles fast...
:) The subtitles will probably be a while, quite a few folks have tried there had at it but so far most haven't been able to finish one or did one and had to call it quits, its quite time consuming for them.
I always feel so heavy when watching one of your videos, there are not many things im scared off but man.....You even bring things in a positive way if we would live in a simulation.
20:53 caption edit suggestion: "Like I said, difficult concepts. Deep thoughts tend to follow that and are best assayed with"
Thanks for great video! It occurs to me that another reason someone might want to run a simulation would be to perform complex psychological studies that couldn't be ethically justified on real people ('sentients'?) You know, I've always had this strange feeling that one day I'd wake up surrounded by beings who are shaking me & saying, "Wake up! The experiment is over!" 🤔 Beings could use such simulations almost obsessively, to test anything from evacuation plans, to battle scenarios, to social or political or economic theories, to - dare I say it - VIRTUALLY anything you could imagine. I recall a book series by Zelazny called the Amber novels. The main characters could literally walk from one reality to another proximate, & very similar one, eventually reaching any world they could imagine. The protagonist explained to his friend that his brother Benedict was an unbelievable expert in war, saying, "Can you imagine someone walking from a battle to the very same battle in the next reality, with only slight variations, watching over and over, seeing how the smallest detail can turn the tide? Can you imagine someone doing that for uncountably many battles over hundreds of years?" [They lived for thousands of years.] Simulations would be perfect for that! One question does jump out at me, though. How would ANY civilization at ANY level of technological sophistication be able to be absolutely sure that THEY weren't also simulations? Where would that end? Or would it, ever? "We can remember it for you wholesale!" I love your examples of the human computers & the ants. Head-trip for sure! Thanks again. tavi.
Classic I.A. I love you, man. What a mind.
Your point about individual parts of a consciousness and how they can be applied to ants and even people did mess me up a little bit. If the premise is that consciousness is not an ''on/off' thing but a phenomenon that varies by degree of complexity, it makes things even weirder.
I was actually drinking coffee when I saw your upload and well...morning well spent. Thank you for the content! Great work.
Also, I find it funny that streets in cities seem to act like blood flow and the morning and evening rush hours act like heartbeats.
PS: From space at night urban areas look like neural networks. Just saying.
Genius Loci, as it were. Life and consciousness are both pretty hazily defined concepts, I suspect a pretty decent argument could be made that cities are arguably a sort of life form.
i just wanted to mention that i have no problems understanding you and that you are doing great work
thank you for your contribution
I think a likely argument against the 'moral dilemna' of creating someone as a Roman Slave would be the disconnect between the programmers' (relative) mega-intelligences and our own. If we are like the moving pieces in a modern simulation, or even the characters in a high-quality crpg, we are still just programs with no true 'soul' or 'consciousness' by the way such entities are likely to measure them (we don't even attribute these things to most lesser living beings on our planet, much less computer programs). Thus, it's likely that the morality issue would never even occur to them, or be easily glossed over.
your channel is my favorite channel on RUclips !!!!