Why You're Probably Not a Simulation
Переглядів 964,998
День томуHave you ever have a dream you were so sure was real? The simulation argument challenges our very notions of reality by asking whether everything we perceive is nothing more than an elaborate computer simulation. Recently, we've even seen headlines like "one in a billion" probability that we live in the real world. Could this be right? How does this affect how we think about our lives? And are there any counter-arguments to save us? New research from the Cool Worlds Lab resolves.
You can now support our research program and the Cool Worlds Lab at Columbia University: www.coolworldslab.com/support
Thank-you to Kevin Clark, Tom Widdowson, Denny Smith, Stephanie Hackley, Mark Sloan, Laura Sanborn, Kolos Kantor, Patrick Herman, Abel Aganbegyan, Claudio Bottaccini, Daniel Brunk, Douglas Daughaday, Scott Fincher, James Kindred, Andrew Jones, Jason Allen, Steven Baldwin, Jason Black, Stuart Brownlee, Shivam Chaturvedi, David Denholm, Tim Dorais, Glen Downton, Eneko Urrestarazu, Gordon Fulton, Sean Griffiths, Peter Halloran, John Jurcevic, Niklas Kildal, Jack Kobernick, Wes Kobernick, Valeri Kremer, Marc Lijoi, Sheri Loftin, Branden Loizides, Anatoliy Maslyanchuk, Blair Matson, Ocean Mcintyre, Laini Mitchell, Jeffrey Needle, André Pelletier, Juan Rivillas, Bret Robinson, Zenith Star, Lauren Steely, Ernest Stefan-Matyus, Mark Steven, Elena West, Barrett York, Tristan Zajonc, Preetumsingh Gowd, Shaun Kelsey, Chuck Wolfred, David Vennel, Emre Dessoi, Fahid Naeem, Francisco Rebolledo, Hauke Laging, James Falls, Jon Adams, Michael Gremillion, Pierce Rutherford, Trev Kline, Tristan Leger, Lasse Skov & Takashi Hanai.
::Our new paper upon which this video is based::
► Kipping, David (2020), "A Bayesian Approach to the SImulation Argument", Universe, 6, 109: dx.doi.org/10.3390/universe60...
::Other references used::
► Bostrom, Nick (2003), "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?", Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 243: doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00309
► Carroll, Sean (2016), "Maybe We Do Not Live in a Simulation: The Resolution Conundrum", Preposterous Universe: www.preposterousuniverse.com/b...
► Poundstone, William (2019), "The Doomsday Calculation: How an Equation that Predicts the Future Is Transforming Everything We Know About Life and the Universe", Little, Brown Spark
::Chapters::
00:00 Prologue
01:39 Simulation Argument
05:34 Consequences
10:01 Counterarguments
20:32 Probability
28:01 Nulliparous
32:01 Finale
::Video clips used::
► Matrix code clip by thebiggsmith
► Unrealistic Engine 4 footage by PredCaliber
► Sierra supercomputer video by Verge Science
► Fly through space video by ESO/L.Calçada/spaceengine.org: www.eso.org/public/videos/Gar...
► Supernova simulation by S. Drasco/C. Ott/SXS Collaboration: • Three-Dimensional Core...
► Blackhole simulation by ESO/S. Brunier
► Atom visualization by Nature Videos
► Data center footage by G Suite/Google
► Elon Musk interview by Recode
► Neil deGrasse Tyson clip from StarTalk
► Simulation debate clip from AMNH
::Movies/TV scenes used::
► The Matrix (1999) Warner Bros.
► The Matrix Reloaded (2003) Warner Bros.
► Into the Wild (2007) Paramount Vantage
► The Grey (2011) Open Road Films
► The Truman Show (1998) Paramount Pictures
► Cloud Atlas (2012) Warner Bros.
► Dorian Gray (2009) Momentum Pictures
► Red Dead Redemption 2 (2019) Rockstar Games
► Tenet (2020) Warnes Bros.
► Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) EuropaCorp Distribution
► Pride and Predujice (2005) Focus Features
► Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (1999) 20th Century Fox
► Westworld (2016) HBO
::Music::
Music used is licensed by SoundStripe.com (SS) [shorturl.at/ptBHI], or via Creative Commons (CC) Attribution License (creativecommons.org/licenses/..., or with permission from the artist
► "Cylinder Four" by Chris Zabriskie licensed under a CC Attribution license: chriszabriskie.com/cylinders/
► "Fragmented" by Hill, used with permission from the artist: hillmusic.bandcamp.com/album/...
► "Painted Deserts" by Shimmer licensed via SS
► "We Were Never Meant to Live Here" by Chris Zabriskie licensed under a CC Attribution license: chriszabriskie.com/neptuneflux/
► "Y" by Joachim Heinrich licensed under a CC Attribution license: joachimheinrich.bandcamp.com
► "Cylinder Five" by Chris Zabriskie licensed under a CC Attribution license: chriszabriskie.com/cylinders/
► "Horizon" by Joachim Heinrich licensed under a CC Attribution license: joachimheinrich.bandcamp.com
► "Trace Correction" by Indive licensed licensed under a CC Attribution license: indive.bandcamp.com
#SimulationTheory #SimulationArgument #CoolWorlds
@artemis_smith 3 роки тому
If we're in a simulation, I'd really appreciate it if the God-programmer would fix my back pain, thanks.
@neverstopz9045 3 роки тому
error 404 back pain not found
@neverstopz9045 3 роки тому
@Aspiring Greatness 42
@damiendaviswatchmanofephra2660 3 роки тому
May the lord cure your back pain, make sure your not ingesting aspartame, look around your house and ask if anything could be causing it.
@neverstopz9045 3 роки тому
@Aspiring Greatness I agree with you. That is my tendency to use humor. I don't think a super computer could figure it out either. a play on words with programmer behind used. Peace be with you.
@amirdoit 3 роки тому
you are 1 in tens of billions of simulations... God-programmer don't give a fxxx. Better fix yourself.
@ericthomas6726 Рік тому
This idea never bothered me because I asked this question: "If I set you on fire, would it matter if the pain was simulated or not?"
@RezValla Рік тому
I still have to go to simulated work so I don’t simulated starve
@AlexPavy16 Рік тому
The idea that we probably live in a simulation is completely, factually stupid: you guys forget about physical limitations, we have no proof, not even the slightest reason to believe that we will manipulate laws of quantum physics in order to have faster computers to the point where we simulate our world. So it end there. Saying we live in a simulation is like saying we are created by flying spaghetti monster. We can’t disprove it but it’s ridiculous and we have no reason to waste time even thinking about it. The truth is that Elon Musk is stupid about this and so are Bostrom, De Grasse T etc….
@RezValla Рік тому
@@AlexPavy16 sounds like something a simulation would say
@AlexPavy16 Рік тому
@@RezValla what? Are you saying my message could have been written by a simulation? Or perhaps a bot, or a video game character
@bigpapi6688 Рік тому
@@RezValla exactly, I don’t think it’s any wonder that almost all of the people that think we live in a simulation are very rich and detached people. I don’t see any middle class people with normal everyday lives thinking we’re in a simulation. But if you were born normal and became very rich and successful, you may start trying to think of the reasons why.
@brainxyz Рік тому
Being in a simulation doesn't necessarily mean the simulation was designed (like we design games). Another type of simulation happens when very simple rules are computed recursively giving rise to very complex structures (like fractals). The later type of simulation doesn't need a sophisticated designer.
@ZGorlock Рік тому
I agree, I think the premise of being simulated like we make games, or even simulating what we think or see matrix style, is naïve. If anything I imagine it would be more like the way physicists simulate the universe for whatever reason, seeing how it evolves or seeing what different constants would do. And if that is the case then they probably wouldn't even know we were living in it. And I doubt the hardware running it, if any, would resemble our computers or logic at all. Maybe some tesseract style box that maintains a quantum simulation. In any case I don't think this should bother anyone. We are already unsure of the true substrate of our universe, as well as why there is something instead of nothing. And many people already believe in God and heaven, so they are already familiar with our world not being the highest reality. However it is that we exist, nothing has changed from yesterday, we get to choose what matters to us and what we decide to do with our time.
@problabe 7 місяців тому
Agree. No reason that the simulation we MIGHT live in is made up of 1s and 0s. That's how OUR computers work, that could be either how the simulation is coded (in whatever way the super computer would read the program (this is beyond our understanding or fantasy at all). But DNA is "code". The speed of light could be hard-coded in the simulation And so on. Noone knows if we are simulated, but personally, idk ofc. But I'm 1/10 sure we are simulated due to looking at the universe + computing power and AI improvements over the years
@Nunyabis12 3 місяці тому
Like John Conway's game of life for instance
@wayando 3 місяці тому
Such a simulation would just be a subset of reality ... Like genes ... Genes are like computer codes running in the universe to assemble atoms and chemicals into complex forms.
@grimfandango229 2 місяці тому
I disagree. Trying to come up with a rule set, that could be run for billions of (simulated) years, and has the capablity to give rise to such complex things that we see around us, including our own intelligence, with zero faults, would be vastly more difficult that just designing a version of reality like a game.
@teleprint-me 4 місяці тому
Watching this now hits differently. I love and respect your presentation. It's the most respectable presentation I've seen so far.
@loostreaks3581 3 роки тому
"I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.” - Conan Barbarian
@josiahferrell5022 3 роки тому
As some philosophers say, the one thing that CANNOT be an illusion is consciousness itself. Whether in a simulation or not, I still experience the world, and that can't be fake, even if the entire universe IS fake.
@ZENMASTERME1 3 роки тому
That’s exactly what a NPC would say! 👍🏾 ~The Right
@ryandelgaty5793 3 роки тому
Two issues with that, 1: the simulation can be turned off, 2: any hopeful thought about your future is null since it doesn't matter. I for example want to live forever, if I'm in a simulation then that is impossible.
@josiahferrell5022 3 роки тому
@Ryan Delgaty How is that a problem? If I dream of living forever, as you put it, I am still aware of that desire. If someone turns the simulation off, I would just cease to be conscious of anything, including being conscious. It still isn't an illusion if you aren't able to perceive it in any way.
@ryandelgaty5793 3 роки тому
@@josiahferrell5022 The issue is that I stop living, regardless of being in the simulation if you stop living, you stop living. If I'm in a simulation and my desire is to live forever then my desire will never be met and I'd be depressed.
@ezra7088 Рік тому
One thing I think is interesting is that the one base unsimulated reality would have no way of knowing they are not simulated, and in fact would probably think there was a > 99.99999% chance that they were simulated.
@lethalwolf7455 Рік тому
Awesome comment!
@env0x Рік тому
that's not how the simulation hypothesis works. base reality would be ultimately rudimentary and devoid of consciousness, thus devoid of the ability for anything in base reality to ponder on assumptions of base reality probability. if there is a "base reality", it would be relatively simplistic in nature, entirely mechanistic and 0% organic, possibly 1-dimensional. it would have a very simple mechanic that would allow for a single iteration of progression that would project the next-level reality hyperplane into the following dimension sequentially, where at that point it would no longer be base reality anymore. the base reality would be something like boolean logic where a bit changes value once and becomes the opposite of what it originally was, and at some point during the course of literal infinity it would turn into something like a qubit, wherein the next iteration of reality hyperplane will have been born. and so on..
@eldrickemc4602 Рік тому
@@env0x let me woo woo this up for you. The yin and yang, pure energy that gives birth to everything else.
@env0x Рік тому
@@eldrickemc4602 that explanation would be in alignment with ancient taoist philosophy but also various world religions (Islamic sufism, Christian gnosticism, Jewish kaballah, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many tribal/pagan beliefs) all share a similar idea concerning the origins of the universe, as well as many western philosophers since the time of the ancient greeks all pondered the sentiment of duality vs nonduality. Existence vs nonexistence is at the base of a "dualistic universe". But existence and nonexistence 'being one in the same' is the quality of a "nondual universe". But as it turns out, these are not functions which define the universe itself but rather functions which arise out of a set of preconditions that the universe already allows for. We can only make assumptions based on the conditions that the universe had already set into motion 13.8 billion years ago, simply by being an aspect of infinity itself. We might as well say the conditions of an infinite universe are infinitely arbitrary, while being infinitely simplistic at the same time.
@eldrickemc4602 Рік тому
@@env0x nicely put
@calvinosaurus4514 5 місяців тому
Even if we could simulate conscious beings, how could we ever prove that they are conscious?
@1zxtv 8 місяців тому
The thing I always get caught up on when it comes to any sort of simulation theory is that it just seems to kick the problem down the road. It could explain one layer or several or a NEARLY infinite amount of layered simulated realities each eventually birthing a new layer and so on and so forth but at a certain point there's an objective reality, that isn't simulated, so what are they experiencing? We a use it to explain our reality but that doesn't do anything in terms of explaining objective reality at its base, then we're just back to square one.
@wietzejohanneskrikke1910 8 місяців тому
Exactly
@johnappleton9349 7 місяців тому
an the infinity answer to everything. This is impossible they say, but given an infinite amount of time it will happen. easy way out.
@erik-victory 7 місяців тому
It's just another God of the Gaps theory
@kaseyboles30 Місяць тому
That is a problem for the simulation hypothesis. What lies beyond the simulation. On one had it leave a potential god of the gaps answer, on the other hand the big bang suggests what happened before that/ where did the original source matter/energy come from. I posit the difference is that the simulation hypothesis can still yield predictions and tests whereas a god of the gaps cannot. GOTG just ends with I don't know. Simulation hypothesis says here is a possible fact about the fundamental rules of OUR universe, lets look for the consequences that implies and test for them. One such test is that simulations have a finite resolution that when approached leads to rounding and imprecision that can be statistically modeled. Do we have either in our universe. Well we have quantum mechanics, the plank constants and dark energy and dark matter. God of the gaps is a fail because it says I don't know must be replaced by a 'god' simulation theory merely says here's a potential idea to check when/if we can.
@WynneL 3 роки тому
My father once wrote a paper in school called "I Shit, Therefore I Am," because he thought that bodily functions were so disgusting that it made no sense for why anyone would imagine or program such a thing. Loved the Inception reference at the end. Very well reproduced.
@flipnap2112 3 роки тому
well there are a lot of things in "life" that can be considered disgusting but are necessary for life, and sometimes pleasurable. sticking our tongues in other peoples nasty dirty mouths is pretty disgusting for example. so is eating a steak.
@coffeetalk924 3 роки тому
And yet that might be part of the brilliance of a programmer to cause doubt that we are participants in a program. Lol
@flipnap2112 3 роки тому
@MetraMan09 darwinian evolution itself is a dumb theory that makes no sense and in all probabilities impossible.
@flipnap2112 3 роки тому
@MetraMan09 I mean darwinian evolution is a farce. its worse than a religion that many people subscribe to. if I get a tattoo of a smiley face and my son gets one and his son, they will not start being born with smiley face tats. and no evolutionists will even begin to address biogenesis, to which evolution cannot exist. we have never produced life from nothing yet "scientific minds" insist it happened.. without an ounce of empirical evidence that its possible. its laughable
@flipnap2112 3 роки тому
@MetraMan09 selective breeding has nothing to do with evolution. its not even in the same field
@khatharrmalkavian3306 2 роки тому
Descartes would choke on the notion that being simulated makes us unreal. His whole point was: This is the world we're dealing with. If "existing" has any practical meaning to us then what else could it possibly be than the lives we're living, regardless of the underlying substrate? I mean honestly, at the most fundamental level we're each living in a simulation created in our brain as it interprets and filters the physical reality which is radically different from our experiences.
@cristianm7097 Рік тому
Dreams are proof that the brain hallucinates the reality.
@SS_Psyops Рік тому
This is an extremely thoughtful and appropriate response. I usually don’t even think about this because it’s just more science fiction reality extending by a group of people who romanticize their job and therefore place in the world. Thank you for taking the time to bring this up!
@MarkJones-gt2qd Рік тому
Nicely put. I wibbled on before I saw your comment. People hate the idea of being "not real" as if they have any way of defining what that would mean.
@DemonetisedZone Рік тому
Simulation Hypothesis has so many assumption in its foundation that it is nearer to religious faith than science
@hansolo631 Рік тому
@@DemonetisedZone such as? Anyone who has ever loaded up a videogame has run a crude simulation. Unless there's an unlikely end to processing power growth on the horizon, future simulations will begin to approach the complexity of our reality. It becomes difficult for me to assume we're in the base reality. That would be... convenient beyond belief.
@vickihenderson9008 Рік тому
I notice that one of the assumptions is that people would have to have invented a simulated consciousness and yet there was much use of "The Matrix" as the main example. The matrix movie proposed that real people were in the matrix and only a few "programed NPC" avatars were present. Now raises the question of which is more likely. Self aware simulated consciousness, or real people transported into a realistic simulation. Holodecks from Star trek come to mind.
@lawrencefrost9063 3 місяці тому
Of course but the Matrix is an easy reference point. Everyone understands that. I think.
@chrisl4999 Місяць тому
13th Floor was much closer in concept to this being a simulation.
@lawrencefrost9063 3 місяці тому
Great video. Ever since I started thinking about this I've said that there is only one way to increase our understanding about the probability of the question "are we in a simulation?" and that is to simulate universes. If we can do it, we will have proof that it can be done and we can observe if the simulated beings simulate universes and that should give us at least an idea about it's feasibility in the reality above us.
@Cactusjugglertm Місяць тому
I was thinking the exact same thing... If we advance our species 10 000 years, with all the technology that entails.. Would it not be inevitable that we try to produce evidence for or against a simulated universe by creating a simulation?? Still ALOT of assumptions in that picture, but very interesting to think about ❤
@fabio.1 21 день тому
I wish simulations wouldn't cause pain and suffering that feels very real whatever it is.
@steverempel8584 2 роки тому
When we talk about us living in a simulation, I always think of Conway's Game of Life. What if structures in that 2D cellular automata world could end up becoming sentient, and start thinking: "Am I living in a simulated reality?" These beings would likely imagine the "Higher" level of reality to look something similar to their world; two spacial dimensions, gilders and gilder guns being fundamental particles, etc. They would never be able to imagine our 3D world, with protons, electrons, and photons. In the same way, if we are simulated, our "Higher" level of reality that is simulating us, is probably similarly far more complicated, and different, than our own universe. It would not be a simple Matrix program as depicted in the Movie, where one reality is making another one that looks similar to it. The simulated world (us) is very likely to be much simpler than the "real" world that is simulating it. Using the logic of the simulated world hypothesis, every layer of reality would be a simulation from a higher level of reality, perhaps with a top level.
@filipmazic5486 2 роки тому
That's a good point. By definition the simulators, AKA our god(s) (which may be who human religions refer to, either as us in the future, aliens, or something else), are super natural beings, possibly in what we would call higher dimensions or different universes. We could be some super natural kid's science fair project.
@nosuchthing8 2 роки тому
Good post! And yes I believe Conways game of life is turing complete. You can create computers with it. And theoretically minds.
@steverempel8584 2 роки тому
@@nosuchthing8 Yeah, I've seen some basic computers made with the Game of Life. As soon as you can use Logic Gates, your system is Turing Complete, so the game of life has been proven to be Turing Complete. Any CPU / Core Computer is built with nothing but Logic Gates, so anything that can simulate logic gates are Turing Complete. If you can use AND, OR, NOT gates, you can make all the gates. Similarly, you can have a full Turing Complete Logic Gate system with just a series of NAND gates. You can pretty much simulate anything with any infinitely large turning complete system. So you could probably simulate the minds of 5 Dimensional beings using the Game of life, although that game board would need to be unimaginably large. What I was referring to may not actually be possible in the game of life though... I was suggesting that the game board was the physical universe of these other beings, so their bodies and brains would be simulated, not just their minds, so they would be 2 Dimensional beings. If this was possible, they would probably view giant structures on the game board that we haven't discovered yet as their fundamental particles, like Electrons, Quarks, and Photons. They would see all the simple patterns we do know about as vacuum energy, each cell would be a plank's length, each turn would be plank's time, and the speed of light would be moving 1 cell per turn. The game board needed to simulate that 2D physical world would probably need to be far larger than the one that simulates the 5D Minds. It depends how detailed the physical reality that those 5D minds live in is. Their physical reality would be determined by the programming logic inside the Game of Life computer that was made. To the 2D physical life, our Universe would be the "Real World" that is simulating them. To those 5D minds, it's the 2D Game of Life Board that is the "Real World" that is simulating their 5D reality... then our 3D Universe would be another layer up from that... What a maze!
@citizen_grub4171 2 роки тому
Problem: We can simulate all known spatial dimensions.
@steverempel8584 2 роки тому
@@citizen_grub4171 We can simulate as many or as few spacial dimensions as we want, we do it all the time. We are just unable to perceive anything beyond 3 spacial dimensions ourselves.
@mazzaker18 3 роки тому
we are simulated so we can figure out if we are simulated, so our "owner" can figure out if he is simulated.
@jeSUS-ej9vn 3 роки тому
what if we create a simulation to see if the people in the simulation can figure out that they are in a simulation so we know that we are the same, but they do the same as us and life is nothing but an infinite path of simulations?
@MusicAutomation 3 роки тому
@@jeSUS-ej9vn it's turtles all the way down
@coffeetalk924 3 роки тому
Yes
@itsGaiter 3 роки тому
yes our owner God.
@coffeetalk924 3 роки тому
@@itsGaiter you love the idea of being owned. I think man-made religion and man-invented God(s) own your mind.
@mrmcku Рік тому
Well, you did it again. Never one to disappoint. Stellar content! I have some thought points, more questions than anything else: Are we in a simulation? Firstly Doesn't Gödel's Theorem preclude the possibility of us figuring this out while we are residing in the simulation? Secondly Does it really matter? What are the limits of a person, of a sentient being? I guess what I'm postulating is, it doesn't matter what the substrate is upon which the sentience is built on, or emerges from. If we assume there is a need of a minimum level of computational capability for a sentience to emerge from it, does it really matter if that architecture is provided by a biological process or a non-biological process? Thirdly In that sense, I think Descartes' "Cogito ergo Sum" potentially excludes a whole range of organisms from the possibility of existence, or of perceiving their existence. Assuming he was referring to rational thought, does that mean, for example, that trees don't exist? Or, that they don't know they exist? Finally What is real? That is a decision to be made.
@matthewsmith5967 8 місяців тому
Cogito ergo Sum, if I'm unmistaken, is merely intended to state that regardless of anything else, there's one thing you can always be 100% certain exists in some capacity. Yourself. You may ask yourself what is real. The entire world around you could be a mere dream or hallucination. Maybe you're in a coma and you're dreaming up this world. Maybe none of the people you know are real people, and just figments of your imagination. So what, if anything, is real? The only thing you can be certain of is that you exist, which can be concluded because if you didn't exist then you wouldn't be able to wonder if you exist. So Cogito ergo Sum is not meant to say that only those things which can think are real, it's just that every human individual can conclude that they themselves are real, and they know this because they can think. Things that can't think may very well be real, and indeed, I think that we can safely say that we should at least act like it's real, especially if we're interested in self preservation. We just have no REAL way of knowing if they actually exist or if they are illusory in some way. Technically everyone around you could be figments of your imagination and not thinking at all, but you can rest assured that you exist, and so can I, because I know that I think. And even if we can't know 100% that everyone around us exists in the same way that you do, it's best to act as though they do because they seem a bit annoyed when you don't.
@mrmcku 8 місяців тому
@@matthewsmith5967 Thank you for your comment. Your point of view helped me look at "cogito ergo sum" under an entirely different light.
@erispe 4 місяці тому
The problem with "I think therefor I am" is that you can observe your thoughts and moments of no thoughts in between. So I think it's pretty clear that the "you" are an awareness/observer that is behind the thinking process. And I believe many lifeforms don't "think" yet likely have a feeling of self.
@kaseyboles30 Місяць тому
There are no moments of 'no thought'. Only moments where the internal monolog pauses. You're still processing sensory impute, still feeling your emotions, etc. words are not the only thoughts we have. If you perceive something, you are thinking about it.
@joshfuerbringer4042 Місяць тому
This is kind of the difference between the popular and academic interpretation of cognito ergo sum. Descartes didn’t just put forward “I think therefore I am” as a fact, he put it forward as a thought experiment where a demon would try at every turn to deceive the subject. He reasoned that in this this thought experiment, he could not be sure of anything except that because he is thinking, only this is certainly true. The demon can’t deceive me out of thinking about what I think. Therefore, it is not so much “I think therefore I am” as it is “because I am thinking, therefore I am”
@ThisFinalHandle 3 роки тому
I re-spawned about an hour ago. Now I'm going to simulate having a shower and other hygiene based tasks.
@michaelbeee3801 3 роки тому
Yeah and groom that thing on your face, it will give the simulation a bad outcome! 🤓🤣
@mabz253 3 роки тому
6. ETERNAL INFINETE SOUL SPHERE= WHERE ONE CAN CREATE INFINETE AMOUNT OF SOULS AND BEINGS INTO FORMS, WHERE SPIRIT ENERGY COMES FROM FOR ALL, WHERE HIGHER MIND AND SUBCONSCIOUS MIND IS CREATED= For example= ATOMS, PLANTS, ANIMALS, HUMANOIDS, DIMENSIONAL BEINGS, PLANETS, GODESSES/GODS, UNIVERSES. 7. ETERNAL INFINETE BALANCE SPHERE BETWEEN GOOD, BAD, NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL GOOD and NEUTRAL BAD for ALL SEEKING BALANCE and IF KNOWING BEING BALANCED ALL THE TIME. 8. PRIMAL ELEMENTAL SPHERE/PRIMAL SYMBOLS SPHERE= ADDINGS SYMBOLS and SPIRIT GUARD FOR EACH ELEMENTS AND HOW THEY CORRESPOND WITH EACH OTHER, FIRE, AIR, EARTH, WATER, LIGHTNING, COSMOS, LIGHT, DARK, MANA, HEALTH, STAMINA ALL WHICH ARE BALANCED BETWEEN GOOD, BAD, NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL GOOD, NEUTRAL BAD. 9. ASTRAL SPHERES-SPIRIT WORLDS, HOW MANY UNIVERSES AND WITHIN WORLDS, DIMENSIONS HAS THEIR OWN SPIRIT WORLD/ASTRAL WORLD WHICH ALL ARE CONNECTED WITH THE ARCHITYPAL UNIVERSES SYMBOL AND KNOWLEDGE OF ALL IS STORED WITHIN ASTRAL PARTICLES FROM ABOVE PRIMAL ELEMENTS AND ASTRAL AND FROM PHYSICAL TO ASTRAL. 10. GOD AND GODESSES SPHERES FOR EACH PLANET OR BEING A WORLD CAN BE CREATED FOR THEM TO RULE OVER ENERGIES FROM ABOVE OR BELOW, RANGE FROM GOOD, BAD, NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL GOOD AND NEUTRAL BAD, For example if ONE in PHYSICAL CREATES A BELIEF of a BEING HIGHER, and visiualizes that belief a SPHERE FOR CERTAIN BEING BELIEVED IN IS CREATED. 11. INFINETE ETERNAL FORMS ENERGY SPHERES= DIFFERENT ENERGY SPHERES CAN BE CREATED FOR PHYSICAL FORMS AND THEM BALANCED AND RULED OVER BY PLANETARY OR ANGELIC/DEMONIC OR GOD/GODESSES SPHERES. FOR EXAMPLE PLANET GOVERNS OVER A CERTAIN PART OF THE PHYSICAL BODY SO AN ENERGY SPHERE IS CREATED FOR THAT PART OF THE FORM. DIFFERENT ENERGIES MIXING WITH EACH-OTHER AND FOR THE ASTRAL AND PHYSICAL FORM TO MAKE THEIR BALANCE. 12.ETERNAL INFINETTE TIME SPHERE= WHERE ALL LAWS, KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM OF TIME FOR DIFFERENT WORLDS/DIMENSIONS ARE CREATED AND THE SETTING OF TIME FOR DIFFERENT BEINGS OF FORM IS STORED FOR. 13. ETERNAL INFINETE DIMENSIONAL SPHERES FOR FORMS = IN DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS EXIST DIFFERENT SPIRITS IN FORMS AND ACT ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT LAWS OF THEIR DIMENSION. FROM LOWER TO HIGHER THE MORE COMPLEX THE DIMENSION BECOMES FROM SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES TO UNIVERSES. 14. ARCHITYPAL SYMBOL SPHERE , CENTRE OF UNIVERSES= FOR ETERNAL INFINETE UNCONDITIONAL LOVE FOR THE ALL AND FOR ALL SPHERES ACT ACCORDINGLY TO KEEP INFINETE ETERNAL BALANCE IN THE UNIVERSES AND TO CONNECT DIMENSIONS WITH EACHOTHER BY LAWS AND FOR SPIRITS IN DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS TO CONNECT WITH EACHOTHER. FOR THE ALL TO BECOME ALL KNOWING BEING/BEINGS IN THEIR UNIVERSES. BODY/body's mind and soul, soul mind=astral body's mind=eternal infinite, i one knows and belives, and so it is so. In all dimensions. ONE CAN LEARN WHAT HAPPEND BEFORE ALL AND AFTER ALL IF YEE KNOW SO AND BELIVE SO AND KNOW THE TRUTH. To obtain the KNOWLEDGE of the UNIVERSE, ONE must/can activate the KEYS OF SEVEN and learn of the SYMBOLS of THE UNIVERSE. To CREATE inner UNIVERSE OR MULTIVERSE. Explaination of DEATH> Death is no more than HELPER for the transition of the SPIRIT of who THEE be from one FORM to the NEXT into SPIRIT WORLD, to take your OWN FORM. Every SPIRIT in FORM IS THEIR OWN MASTER OF THEIR FORMS DEATH AS IMMORTAL SPIRITS. Numerology: meaning adding numbers together by adding them to one diget number (88= 8+8= 17=1+7=8) 8 is base frequency of which 88 vibrates as, as everything and everyone vibrates. (link: www.horoscope.com/us/horoscopes/numerology/index-horoscope-numerology.aspx) TEADMISED SULLE UNIVERSUMILT JA ZEL-ta-huh-diiv-feim-gron-Ro-mul-dovh-Fo-Drem-Shul-Neh-Viir-Zii-Zah-Laah-Gaan-haas'ilt. KNOWLEDGE TO THEE AND MUCH LOVE TO THEE. Physical body, physical MIND into astral MIND and astral body aka soul = ETERNAL INFINITY, find out if you want to. To make your own astral world in UNIVERSE of many multi-verses. To become ETERNAL INFINETE. O know finally that you are ETERNAL is the point of this knowledge sent before, and some after untill i pass from this physical form to the ETERNAL INFINETE ASTRAL or SPIRIT world. 13 chakras btw some say 7 but there are more and Yee can make more. THANK I THEE FOR BEING OF FORMLESS SPIRIT IN A PHYSICAL FORM GAINING KNOWLEDGE TO WISDOM. HTM TG HERMES TRISMEGISTUS TRICE GREATEST VANJA * Z E L * * * * * * * * * * *
@cnawan 3 роки тому
@@mabz253 "Universes! Getcha universes! Two fer a dolla! We got pink ones, green ones... nah buddy, y'don't want that one - it's got a case of the humans
@NightWanderer31415 3 роки тому
Camper?
@DarkSkay 3 роки тому
Have a good simulated shower. Last time I used ShowerSim app, the result was very unsatisfying. “The abdomen is the reason why man does not easily take himself for a god.” - F.Nietzsche
@henrystorer7042 3 роки тому
My question is how can any of these assumptions hold weight when we as humanity have not even determined what consciousness truly is.
@deedunn1989 2 роки тому
@Big Perx or maybe we’re just not smart enough to know
@constantinethecataphract5949 2 роки тому
The vast majority of humans have no internal monologue and act kinda like npcs
@firstname8078 2 роки тому
@@constantinethecataphract5949 cause some other smarter NPCs benefit from that
@b7ray32 2 роки тому
@Big Perx who is they?
@henrystorer7042 2 роки тому
@Constantine The cataphract that is actually a very narcissistic thing to say. To discount so many and view them as beneath you. after all that is a narcissists view that everyone is "is beneath them and there to be used by theirvsiperiors
@xan0075 5 місяців тому
Interesting argument. The true question seems to be if we can generate consciousness more than anything else. We probably wouldn't even need to generate a civilization worth consciousness, but only one being that may experience the simulation, which may be you or me. Anyone else simply can be done with automatons, a possibly more simplistic approach to computing. Or, like you said, perhaps we are just living for a second, and memories are simply implanted into us of our experiences, further decreasing the computer power required. And when you consider the potential we may have in expanding computer system to increase computing power, it becomes evident that the real problem isn't if we can simulate a reality or not but if we can simulate conscious experience for that one being. The question of whether we would use it or not is almost irrelevant because just like you said we already do, for entertainment and research. Plus, the reasons we do it are inherent to our behavior imprinted in our genetics. We seek control over our environment as a subconscious way to ensure our survival. Some more than others, but we all do nevertheless. When you consider the number of humans that are living and may possibly live, it's highly unlikely that no one won't attempt to do so. Especially with the benefits it provides in allowing us to control our environment in an objective way(through research) and for a subjective way(allowing us to experience different realities otherwise not accessible) So, can we simulate consciousness??? 🤔
@arko.0.1. 3 місяці тому
yes, AI theoratically is concious. AI is a simulation of a fairly basic, yet close to a human, consciousness.
@doyouevendraft 7 місяців тому
I love you videos and can’t believe I’m only seeing this now, but it’s one of the best videos I’ve enjoyed on UKposts. Congratulations on the paper, but more so for your beautiful, enlightening video.
@patoloco1000 3 роки тому
2020 must be a simulation made on Windows Vista. That would explain the virus.
@scottbirrell341 3 роки тому
😅😅😅
@jtorelli7341 3 роки тому
Fuck me, this is the brilliant commentary I love about our species. Take my like, you bastard.
@lordcavalier9688 3 роки тому
Have you tried turning it off and on again.
@BruceDavidJohnson 3 роки тому
Actually I believe we may be running in Windows Millennium OS. If you've never had any experience with that particular Windows OS, consider the simulation in which you exist in Vista the better one.
@christinearmington 3 роки тому
Top comment 🤩👍
@anthony49812 2 роки тому
Honestly your content is amazing and the way you narrate is so chilled and easy to listen to. Absolutely love this channel! Thankyou
@CoolWorldsLab 2 роки тому
Glad you enjoy it!
@STriderFIN77 2 роки тому
@@CoolWorldsLab btw, Cool world (1992) is Amazingk movie
@davidmiller9485 2 роки тому
@@CoolWorldsLab so what about the uncanny valley in relation to "wanting" to create a simulation. No one has covered this yet and i think it will have bearing.
@rebellionpointfarms6140 Рік тому
Ive recently encountered cool worlds videos. I am HOOKED. finally a thought provoking channel!
@PhantomSavage 28 днів тому
If we are in a simulation I don't think it actually matters as much as people would think. What if we are in a simulation? What if we're not even human? What if we're entirely segments of code that an algorithm made up? The prospect seems startling at first, but then think about how much agency you have as a living, talking being. Regardless of your memories... you have emotions.. you have anxiety... you care for some people, dislike other people, you have preferences about the kind of foods you like, maybe believe in some form of spirituality, you understand philosophy, you have the ability to be wrong about something and learn from your mistakes... does that sound like anything less than a person? A self aware, sentient being? Does it REALLY matter if a person is made of flesh VS pieces of code? If we are in a simulation, people still die... we still hold funerals.. we don't respawn.. our avatars in whatever reality this is have a finite existence. We're not NPCs from GTA. Our dialogue isn't pre-recorded. Our responses aren't pre-programmed. Flesh or not, we're still living creatures. Once something is made with detail at this scale... I fail to see why one reality is more important than another. The only thing living in a simulation really changes is a mission to figure out who made us and why, which... you could say, humans have been doing since the beginning of time.
@ApoJake13 3 роки тому
If this is a simulation, patch 2020.1 has a lot of game-breaking bugs that need a hotfix, like now!
@luminati5820 3 роки тому
#Bethesda
@616Metalhead616 3 роки тому
@@luminati5820 *Bugthesda
@jasonbelstone3427 3 роки тому
Hah. You assume its a bug. Best start believing in well made games. You're in one.
@MinecraftWillZoBoB 3 роки тому
my life needs a hot fix
@scraggybear 3 роки тому
@@democrrrracymanifest exactly! People love watching drama!.
@Kaelygon 3 роки тому
If the life doesn't have any meaning, why not make the most of it, there's nothing to lose.
@thebipolarpsychonaut4984 3 роки тому
Even if we were in base reality the only meaning of life is the meaning you attach to it and this simulation is real enough to attach that same meaning.☮️
@ryandelgaty5793 3 роки тому
Life is everything, losing that means there's everything to lose. Pursuing happiness knowing it'll end is a nice thought but very nieve... why not pursue living forever so you can be happy forever once you find it?
@degus12345 3 роки тому
i like the moral point, and i agree with you (after taking depression medication) but logically speaking if life doesn't have any meaning, what you do with it means literally nothing. Based on that premise, my choosing to live versus not are both morally equal. It depends on the person, specifically whether they've experienced trauma, abuse, or mental illness. That said, I personally would rather experience than not. Much love :)
@sebsshots2848 3 роки тому
Rather than wanting to live for ever i think a better goal is ending the simulations all together. Ending everything. You enjoy enjoyment because your mind was programmed to enjoy it. It’s like breathing/eating, do you actually like/want to breathe/eat or do you “have to” against your will? Just because you’re here and enjoying doesn’t really matter since you never asked to be here in the first place.
@ryandelgaty5793 3 роки тому
@@sebsshots2848 Whether or not someone made me like this I don't care, I want to live forever so I'd rather not just shut it off.
@GonzoTehGreat Рік тому
This is one of the most fascinating videos I've ever seen on UKposts. I hadn't realised that the Simulation Hypothesis was based on Frequentist statistics and that using a Bayesian approach leads to a different conclusion. I've not read Bostrom's book, but I wonder if he (and/or Musk, along with other supporters of his hypothesis) was aware of this? I'm interested in Bayesian reasoning, yet struggle to determine when and how to apply it, so any advice on how to identify relevant problems and think Bayesian would be welcome!
@SephTunes 5 місяців тому
Musk isn't aware of anything lol
@valebliz 4 місяці тому
Musk aware of something that isn’t superficial pop science which is mostly wrong? No, he wasn’t.
@GonzoTehGreat 4 місяці тому
I know it's become popular to denigrate Musk, especially become of his on-going Twitter fiasco, yet he's still achieved more than most of these keyboard warriors who criticize him...
@lawrencefrost9063 3 місяці тому
Why haven't you read his book? It's my second favorite book of all time. It's a must read. It's THE BOOK to read for anyone even remotely interested in AI. It is the best book on the subject and not just on that subject. It's SO interesting on so many levels. Go read it. You can find it in google.
@lawrencefrost9063 3 місяці тому
Elon Musk recommended Nick Bostrom's book back in 2014 when it came out. That's how I heard about it. However Elon has talked about the dangers of AI and the simulation way back before that.
@noveltechmedia 5 місяців тому
Love the channel, you brought up pretty much all the questions i had
@joeshangout420 3 роки тому
Love this guy. His theories are well thought out. Cool worlds is easily one of the best channels on UKposts.
@michaelbeee3801 3 роки тому
He is smart, but to be honest, while he is of course well educated and informed his videos are made for simple minds and too dramatic. POP Science!
@megaultra5005 3 роки тому
he sounds like he knows all that hes talking about but in reality hes just like u and me he probably just doesnt believe in the simulation theory so hes wanting all of us to think the same as he does and tries a little too hard to do so
@addamriley5452 3 роки тому
Mega Ultra so you know we’re all the same person as well huh? 😏
@JamesV1 3 роки тому
@@michaelbeee3801 You mean accessible and educational, which is the case for a majority of science channels on UKposts.
@shepardice3775 3 роки тому
@@megaultra5005 lol what? he's a physics professor, wrote the paper this entire video is based on and used a statistical argument. he's not just randomly holding onto the belief that this is reality he's expressing scientific skepticism and using rational methods to show why he's skeptical.
@badbenjy 3 роки тому
A lot of these assumptions are based on that the reality being created are of an earth based civilization. But a simulation of a universe, without a human centric view, is surely more likely. We always assume that humans are simulating humans. But the simulation of the physical properties of a universe that can sustain life are surely more likely? If we wanted to understand life then we would create life. And the same goes for understanding the physical reality required to form complex life?
@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820 3 роки тому
It’s saves ridiculous amount of power not to simulate a whole universe itself but just the things watched by beings. Of course there could be multiple planets in the simulation but seems more likely that our existence would suggest that the simulators were interested in us or just the evolution on Earth with environment as it has been in this universe.
@thedude4795 3 роки тому
My name's not Shirley!
@neverstopz9045 3 роки тому
@@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820 I'm always just trickling in the background
@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820 3 роки тому
1906Farnsworth There’s no evidence for anything here and probabilities are no more accurate than ”this seems more plausible/reasonable than that”. I have no idea what you are on about.
@1906Farnsworth 3 роки тому
@@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820 Fair enough. I did not make myself clear. More reflection needed. sorry to take your time.
@PresKen3920 3 місяці тому
All we can be sure of is that our present is happening and is real to us so regardless of how or why, we must accept that it is. Our reality is still a reality, regardless of how meta it is or how pre-determined it may be. Therefore, everything happening right now in front of us, the experiences and things we feel in every moment, is what matters most. And personally, I think that IS the beauty and meaning of life. I think therefore I am and isn’t that great 😊
@YehNahh 6 місяців тому
That last probability... time will tell Amazing video always, your work is greatly appreciated!
@artugert 3 місяці тому
Unless it never happens (which, in my opinion, it won’t), time will never tell.
@vesuvius9509 3 роки тому
All of your content is just so unbelievably high quality. The best I've seen in my 12 or so years on this platform. Massively appreciate the work you're doing on this channel.
@Metal0sopher 2 роки тому
Since all of reality is made of up and down quarks, which are in fact fields of energy, and not what we consider solid matter, then how is that different than 0's and 1's? Digital binary information "resides" in a computer as on and off electrical fields. If we are made up of "up" and "down" quark fields, in what does our universe reside? Our universe has to be in something, because if it was in nothing, than only nothing would exist. And our entire universe is not self aware, only some "energy fields" on a pale blue dot seem to be so far. So in a future AI online game that's been running for decades, the whole game doesn't have to become self aware, just some small part of it we may never notice. And just like us they may have to "scream out" to their "creators" in the hopes that one day they'll hear them.
@TheExoplanetsChannel 3 роки тому
Congrats for reaching *200.000 subscribers!* Great video and topic.
@johnl.7754 3 роки тому
Half are simulated :-)
@CoolWorldsLab 3 роки тому
Hey thanks!
@alexandermartin1837 3 роки тому
@The Exoplanets Channel Man i loved your collab with Isaac Arthur!
@BigDsGaming2022 3 роки тому
they should have many more but more people are interested in Tic Tok these days .
@hiqhduke 3 роки тому
@@CoolWorldsLab could our space-time be a 3D projection from a 2D surface of a hyper-structure in 11D space-time, with compactification of the 11D into Calabi-Yao manifolds in our 3D space-time representing a mere local phenomenom within this 11D hyperspace that our 3D space-time is just a part of??? I realize the case for LEDs is weak at best.
@DPtheOG Рік тому
I did read a book which described or at least implied for me, a base reality having spawned another reality where we are. However, the base reality existed in a kind of hyperspace, where everything is a higher dimension. Thus, though everything in the created reality was created, it was real inasmuch as those living there could ever know, and free inasmuch as they could ever know--even as the created reality actually was all predetermined. This book was so good that I just kept on rereading it.
@ardordeleon Рік тому
In a simulation, the idea that God knows it all and sees it all, is everywhere, etc makes 100% sense
@JayS208 Рік тому
Deus Ex Machina.
@ihateyoutubecomments8100 3 місяці тому
Yeah but no.
@5astelija75 3 роки тому
2020 sure is an interesting year to simulate
@TheAbrahamHD 3 роки тому
The code is breaking :(
@kevinhill6854 3 роки тому
It's a Disasters DLC
@nichsulol4844 3 роки тому
@@TheAbrahamHD goal we don't know is a quest escaping the matrix
@Czeckie 3 роки тому
the sim is breaking down, they've cut it down because of budgetary concerns
@sharonolsen6579 3 роки тому
like sim city .. when you choose ALL the disasters and press "play" ... yeah.. 2020 is just like that ... ; /
@sawwwru 3 роки тому
If we're in a simulation, whoever programmed me is just a bad programmer overall.
@TheAbrahamHD 3 роки тому
I would imagine it's an AI/algo that programs us... I mean, you NPCs...
@loneneotank.5687 3 роки тому
I'm that one character in sims that the creator tortures,lol.
@deekay7733 3 роки тому
Lmao. Right. Omg
@rodrigeznonames7353 3 роки тому
You are your own programmer, God is not responsible for your screw ups.. You are given existence and you spit on it day by day because you are egoistic and lazy always wanting the easy way. And hey we are all the same.. I am not better than you either.
@Benloehr 3 роки тому
Yandere dev blame him
@CoyoteOfSC 2 місяці тому
Watching this after a good bong rip is great. Always a great presentation to ponder. Thanks Dr.
@katchibediako7036 Рік тому
I play the sims. While playing the sims, my sims play the sims... and who knows, those sims might be playing the sims, and so on. The sims 4 sims have hopes, fears, wishes, whims, thoughts, dreams, emotions, feelings about people they meet and things they do and don't do. There are places to go, places they can't go, and hidden places only the select can go. There are even multiple worlds/towns with different neighborhoods offering different events and each has its own vibe. What you do affects the inhabitants of your game. There are life & death consequences. The population can grow or diminish and strange phenomena can occur. Everything happens in real (Sim) time, you can start over but you can't rewind. (You can play the same day 50 times and something different will occur every time.) Although the map of the sims 4 put together is huge (it even includes an alien world) and has a myriad of people, it all fits on my i5 processor laptop. Yet I'm not *sure* how "real" it is to *them*. By the same token, I don't know what reality is like for someone tripping off hallucinogenic drugs or one with schizophrenia having a moment. I don't even know if you and I perceive the same texture, hue and tone of reds, blues, yellows and greens or how it could be that we do. We don't know what consciousness is, where thoughts come from or even the origin of the voice in our head (if we are one of those who have the voice). We typical don't remember the first few years of our life, nor know the duration of our lifespan. Then you have the hidden facts of our "reality" by the likes of the Smithsonian, the Vatican, and NASA, and the total erasure of history and prior knowledge by those such as Christian proselytes, colonialist and the earth's climactic upheavals (the flood, the ice age, Pompeii, the Yucatan meteor). We don't even have undeniable proof that we are where we think we are in the cosmos, and that this cosmos is all there is or that our perception is its only dimension. Somebodies did some math and came to some conclusions and we hope its all right and true. Meanwhile, Musk's AI, CERN, bio-engineering and D:Wave are advancing in technologies, so everything we might think to be true now may soon become obsolete. Right now the speed of light is under scrutiny. All we can do is be here now, and in this moment, we should be our best selves because we have no idea what counts, what doesn't or how much time we have, whether we are stimulated or not.
@isisaphrodite3585 2 місяці тому
While playing the decades challenge on the sims, I created a whole world on the sims 4 and when I reached the 200 person limit, I had to delete ppl, so I would kill off usually the elderly by a killer bunny. By the 3rd or 4th death, each family I would play as started out as being scared bc I was there to kill one of them but they only acted like that when I did my sims bunny killing spree. In my game, Lily’s daughter had a son with Vlad and when their son became a teenager, I clicked on his traits and the other stuff it shows, I forgot now, likes and dislikes, but he had really high skills, his traits were maxed and I’ve never played as him, yet he had more personality traits and skills then the base game characters
@randomlabs1784 2 роки тому
This one is a masterpiece among all simulation related videos. I hope the all mighty programmer will give you more disk space. So you can live longer and create more content for your subs.
@FirstNameLastName-vq7dd 3 роки тому
Sounds exactly like one of the server admins would say...
@SharkBellyKelli 3 роки тому
Exactly.
@dirremoire 3 роки тому
Totally
@ML-yc3tl 3 роки тому
I mean, they would probably just reprogram your brain.
@slevinchannel7589 3 роки тому
Elon Musk talks a lot when the day is long...
@Noid11111 2 роки тому
Elon Musk is wrong
@169Monkeys Рік тому
The fundamental problem with the original theory is that option 1 ignores the possibility that Moore's Law is actually constrained by an asymptote. Which, we have seen in the last decade or two to be more likely. The other thing is that simulating a consciousness is actually a finite value. We are conscious, and we have finite computational power (the total energy + matter of the human brain). But, reality includes much more than consciousness. The whole of Physics; Quantum, and Astro, must also be a part of that simulation. Even though, some smart programing might make is possible to focus on those rare events that rise to notice, the information load of maintaining a consistently logical output is above and beyond keeping track of the Star Wars, Star Trek (even before Paramount), or Dr. Who canon ... I don't think that that is actually plausible.
@AlmostEthical 7 місяців тому
What a great presentation! I've been thinking about this because of the way quanta "renders" when observed / interacted with. That is such a weird effect, mechanism unknown. Yet it doesn't matter in a sense, due to relativities. It it feels real, it's real enough. Maybe AI in the future will be able to better answer this question? If AI works out that we are in a simulation, then it is in a position to identify hacks, which might allow for seeming impossibilities like interstellar travel or answering some of the deepest questions of physics.
@vrunk11 2 місяці тому
but if cant explain or provide a proof how would you consider it to be true ? AI is not magic its just learning patern and it can be fooled
@AlmostEthical 2 місяці тому
@@vrunk11 I know that AI is not magic. Magic does not exist. I also know AI is potentially the most potent tool humans have ever made. I also know that, in the future, people will use AI to solve thorny problems that have so far proved elusive.
@mastacraft 3 роки тому
You probably won't read this but I wanted to pass on David you've become one of my idols and have helped me during a very tough mental health battle this year, helping me to help others, to see past many struggles with your outlook on life as we know it and what is beyond. Respect from Australia and continue on you never know who you are reaching, saving and teaching.
@CoolWorldsLab 3 роки тому
To hear that I helped you in some small way means a lot, that’s why I make these. Stay thoughtful, stay curious.
@thegamecatcowboydan3180 3 роки тому
I have experienced so many different things in my life that I experienced before hearing about them and I have told many people of things that were buried when I told them they just called me crazy that I agree with but these things have been discovered mental disabilities are just a few of my disabilities but I don't like all things but I do like many things but I try to respect all things even those things that I don't like as it doesn't really matter if we are in illusion or not because we are real to ourselves. I don't like snakes and spiders or crocodiles but I have handled all of these creatures and helped to move them out of the way of other humans. I believe that we as a piece of nature on this planet of ours need to respect all things. Wether we like them or not because we might like something else that needs what we don't like. Good luck with your mind from another Aussie who is trying to cope with mental illnesses.
@Maxpower4908 3 роки тому
Theoretical Physicists: We can’t figure out the nature of reality, so let’s just assume reality isn’t real.
@ralphdavis9670 3 роки тому
Why don't we assume that reality IS real?
@muddyfalcon 3 роки тому
it does not mean reality is not real, it means this is a copy like structure of real reality, made of real reality
@duke3250 3 роки тому
not even close.
@icedheart610 2 роки тому
@@muddyfalcon why is this reality not the real one? and the one the scientists thinks is the copy
@maximusryus 2 роки тому
Pretty much. Physicists aren't great at Occam's razor
@markhuggins6365 Рік тому
Great presentation! I thoroughly enjoyed not only your conclusion, but by how well you presented each perspective on this in its strongest format. Masterfully done! I do want to add another angle to this, namely the linguistic and philosophy of language approach to the equation. What exactly is realness? I want to examine this question, not by talking about simulations, but about books. Namely, fictional works. To some extent, what you perceive to be real, is in no small way determined by how you conceptualize "reality" as an idea. One of the main but unamed reasons as to why some people just simply don't find this to be an interesting question, (I do, but mostly for the philosophical value, I see little scientific value in the question.) Is that they approach language differently. If I say "Harry Potter is a wizard" and another person says "Harry Potter is a pencil" you'd be inclined to agree with the former (assuming you've read the books or are aware the books exist) while disagreeing with the former, yet by a lot of people's concept of reality, both statements must be equally untrue. "Harry Potter can't be a wizard, because wizards do not exist, wizards aren't real" There is a philosopher called Alexius Meinong, who did a quite a bit of research and pondering on this subject, and from his work (and a myriad of others, Wittgenstein for example) I came across a rather peculiar discovery. The question "does Harry Potter exist?" Can be put to any of us, asking if we exist, but it isn't the best way to put it, as it reduces what is clearly an experience of existence, to nothing... obviously if you're reading this, you're not a nothing, you have to in fact, be a something. So is there another way of asking the question that at least acknowledges that you are a something? Yes! It goes like this; What is the nature of our existence? Or what is the nature of our reality? From our perspective, the Nature of Harry Potters existence, is that he is a fictional character in a book who lives in a universe similar to ours, it's just a different universe of discourse, in this way we aren't denying existence or reality, just contextualising it. If we assume we are in a simulation, I don't, but let's assume we are for the sake of discussion, this does not mean we don't exist or aren't real, it just means the nature of our existence is a little bit different than what we originally thought it was and it doesn't even have to be any less meaningful of an existence. Fictional characters, like people, can inspire people to do great things, can be loved by an invisible audience and can bring about societal changes in that way. If we go a little further with our assumptions and new found appreciation for language, we can start to make the simulation theory even more interesting by asking "What is the nature of the simulation?". From here we can start thinking about simulation typography! Take the matrix for example; everyone in the matrix (with the exception of the programs like Smith or The Oracle) is an avatar of a human body from the alleged base reality Morpheus wakes Neo up into. This would be very different than a simulation being run where everything and everyone is a program. Different simulation types would actually lead to different possibilities for us. If we are in a simulation where some of us are programs and some of us are just avatars, theoretically that could mean that 2-way communication with the simulators is possible for those of us that are programs and could offer more approaches for testing the simulation hypothesis if scientists where able to focus on gathering evidence of what type of simulation we are in. Parous and non parous is only one variable in determining full typography. I do have other thoughts on why I also believe the simulation hypothesis is flawed and why we probably aren't in a simulation, but this is already super long and I don't want to bore anyone by going off on a tangent about the problems with the teleological argument (intelligent design.)
@Lisargarza 11 місяців тому
Rather than boring, I found your comment both interesting and uplifting.
@shifly6276 10 місяців тому
great comment
@markhuggins6365 10 місяців тому
@@Lisargarza Thank you so much, I'm glad you found it uplifting, that is kind of what I'm going for with this. My whole effort in philosophy is mainly about uplifting the spirits of the common person and putting meaning back into their lives. I feel like most people who get involved in philosophy these days, don't do so in the spirit of natural philosophy, which was to discover truth, meaning and to help people figure out who they are and how to express that with language. I suppose I'm going to have to write a book soon though and increase the reach of the contextualists approach to existence. Since people seem to find it uplifting and since I'm at a point where I strongly believe that I have a philosophical methodology that has a lot of explanatory power for describing reality as it is. Which means I'm at the crossroads of deciding whether or not to put myself out there to try and contribute something to our species, or keep my mouth shut and live a simple life where my words can't be used for wrong.
@CRASS2047 Рік тому
I’d like to see an experiment to determine whether light is actually moving through space, or if it is just being projected by quantum particles. Seems like that would prove a simulation if instead of light particles actually moving, the existing particles simply modify themselves to project light.
@IndrasChildDeepAsleep 3 місяці тому
When you say "actually movving," do you have a definition in mind?
@CRASS2047 3 місяці тому
@@IndrasChildDeepAsleep I’m not smart enough to provide an accurate definition of. But what I mean is…are light particles actually moving around, or are they just projected in different places, fooling us into believing they are moving. Like how a video isn’t actually a car driving, just the illusion of motion based on pixels
@daryll4645 3 роки тому
So i need to buy more RAM?
@matthewdtwo 3 роки тому
Just download more.
@thetonybones 3 роки тому
Matthew Little haha beat me to it, GG! 🤪
@michaelbeee3801 3 роки тому
Exactly and while you are on it a new CPU and GX.
@nichsulol4844 3 роки тому
@@matthewdtwo alien kicking human from their room
@superkittyshow1782 3 роки тому
This simulation we are in, can not run Crysis.
@WilltehGreat 3 роки тому
The spinning top at the end was a nice touch.
@TheAbrahamHD 3 роки тому
I found it very cheesy... what it implies has nothing to do with simulations :T while it does imply other realities its a different subject imo.
@jatie01 3 роки тому
Inception definitely had an impact on me as well
@obo190 9 місяців тому
I totally bet you ACED your Phil of Science courses. Thanks for such an in depth overview and analysis on one of my fav topics!
@nurk_barry 3 роки тому
Wether or not we’re in “base reality” or we’re a “simulated reality” doesn’t make much of a difference, if the simulation includes the Big Bang and all of cosmic history with the laws of physics such as they are, it wouldn’t feel any different nor does it have any meaning to say that we’re living in a simulation. “Natural” reality can be thought of as a kind of simulation anyway. Great video.
@kostaszelkas2233 3 роки тому
Nick Barry check out Tom Campbell Physicist and consciousnesses explorer- may shed some light to your questions
@danielchapter70128 3 роки тому
Wow I disagree with this. I think I could get behind part of what you’re saying. That is, the felt result is the same (whether natural or simulated), we feel birth, hunger, suffering, Joy, and death. But if we somehow arrived at a conclusion to this question with absolute proof that we are inside a programmed reality... it would most likely shift your outlook on life. It does matter in that aspect. Does it not?
@aquovadjustfakie6418 3 роки тому
@@danielchapter70128 it would probably make some people kill themselves
@larry7264 3 роки тому
There is scientific proof that we might be in a hologram.. They are computer codes at the sub atomic level that basically keeps the particle from glitching..
@larry7264 3 роки тому
One of my favorite episodes of Spaces Deepest Secrets covers it more in depth www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/spaces-deepest-secrets/full-episodes/is-the-universe-a-hologram
@vadikent 3 роки тому
I want to say that there is a huge difference between saying "we are in a computer simulation," vs. "we are in a simulation."
@rosyidharyadi7871 3 роки тому
I think both are the same. It's "computer" in a broad meaning. It isn't necessarily computer like we use to imagine. To be able performing a simulation, something has to do calculations, processing and saving data - but it's the very definition of a computer, right?
@gaberoyalll 3 роки тому
Since humans made cumputers technically i think they are just an extension of humans aka part of this world nature... But really I have no idea lol lol 😆
@vadikent 3 роки тому
@@rosyidharyadi7871 it is, but it’s not the definition of simulation. Here, from Google definition: Simulation: imitation of a situation or process. "simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
@MX-CO 3 роки тому
True big difference
@tistrisha 3 роки тому
100 percent agree. I was trying to figure out a way to say it and you did it perfectly.
@langleybryan 2 місяці тому
Love both the video and the elegeny way of saying "we really have no clue one way or another" 😂
@LukeMXack 8 місяців тому
I would go as far as to say that a transparent simulation becomes reality because of the simple fact that it’s impossible to know otherwise. It’s a question with an answer that is as unknowable as the question “why is there something instead of nothing” “Where do natural laws come from?” “Where do the things that constitute natural laws come from?”
@adolfoarriaga2408 3 роки тому
I thought I was in a simulation and went to go get groceries naked.
@maryr6237 2 роки тому
😂
@JB52520 2 роки тому
The simulated consequences must have seemed quite convincing.
@SortaFresh 2 роки тому
I thought that was normal behavior
@prospectorpete3738 2 роки тому
Ahh I remember LSD
@stargazer1295 2 роки тому
If you found the woman of your dreams there also naked, then yeah we are definitely in a simulation.
@TheHeavyduck 3 роки тому
Carl Sagan is the king of story telling... but you Sir are a close second... Interesting and articulate
@kevinu.k.7042 Рік тому
Very good, as usual. - Thank you. I would add that the Ancient Hindu Civilisations had the concept that all life is a dream. Are computer simulation ideas merely our current iteration of this old idea?
@loricline1692 Рік тому
What a gentle spirit. Im glad i found your channel. I never liked the idea of the simulation. Thank you.
@uprightape100 3 роки тому
"Can you PROVE that we haven't died and that this isn't Hell?" Poet Charles Bukowski, who was far ahead of his time.
@jonnypee2269 3 роки тому
The scary part is it might be heaven?
@jonnypee2269 3 роки тому
@The Mask one mans prison another mans playground
@jonnypee2269 3 роки тому
@The Mask no I’m waiting for the return like most now but it’s not stopped my brain from being random and open I was trying to show that 1 man can see this as hell but another might see it as heaven hope this clears things up and God bless
@jonnypee2269 3 роки тому
@The Mask I don’t need to do anything
@lindamaemullins5151 3 роки тому
😂
@DragonKingGaav 3 роки тому
The production value of this video is off the charts!!! Well done David and the team. Well done!
@NoticerOfficial 2 роки тому
Dr Kipping Deserves a serious look by some big studios for sure. I started watching these in mid-lockdown of 2020 and saved an entire playlist that I revisit at times like this , two hours before work at 5am
@WouterLievens 7 місяців тому
One element that I don't quite understand is the notion of universes being "not capable" of simulating despite being a simulation themselves. Turing Completeness teaches us that there are very few requirements to make computation possible. There simply is no such thing as a "more powerful" computer in any sense other than speed and memory. Give enough time, trees, and carpenters, one can make a mechanical device that can calculate anything calculable. If you make a simulation that has brains and some form of physics, that simulation will be able to make new simulations, given enough time and materials.
@MrSgarnev 11 місяців тому
I've recently found this channel thanks to a video of Star Talk couple of weeks ago and I find it amazing Prof. Kipping. I have no science background I am just driven by curiosity so this will be more like a fun sounding comment. A few things came to my mind after what You said at minute 6:25 and minute 12:32. The first one is, what if the reality is simulated on a quantum computer? There will be no ones and zeroes then, rather we will have some sort of qbits representing the information. The second one, the computer game analogy and mainly that our perception is the only thing that must be simulated reminded me of the double slit experiment. What if the result we see from that experiment is actually a "bug" in the code? :) Thanks to You and Your team for all the hard work You've being doing! p.s. English is not my native language so please excuse me if I said some odd things.
@caitlyn9972 2 роки тому
This is how a real scientist examines things. Using all available information and being open to all possibilities.
@nenadkrivokapic1694 Рік тому
Just another EGO
@Daniel-Strain 2 роки тому
As for the era simulated - I always assumed arguments we are in a simulation were suggesting the simulation began with the big bang and covered all of history. We would have no way to know how much time that represents in the 'real' world.
@kash1327 2 роки тому
Agreed, I also thought about what if its a species that wanted to demonstrate evolution or something like that where they simulate a completely fictional universe very different from their own
@Elmithian 2 роки тому
@@kash1327 Slight tweaks to atomic relations. Maybe weakening the strong force by tiny amount or make gravity slightly stronger. Millions of ways to do minor tweaks and possibly create a universe that is extremely different to what they know on a fundamental level. Edit. Ofc, if we are in a historical or universe type simation I do hope they refrain from tweaking the physical laws during our existence.
@joshclearwater6461 2 роки тому
There could be a catastrophic event in the "real world" and the simulation begins at that point to learn about or avoid said catastrophic event...
@EstellammaSS 2 роки тому
Yes, that is a possibility. However the argument is not that it’s impossible, but very unlikely this would be the era any future people would want to simulate. So the odd is not one in a billions, but the odds are much better that we are real.
@Daniel-Strain 2 роки тому
@@EstellammaSS You either didn't get what I'm saying or you're responding to someone else (sorry can't tell). As you say, "very unlikely this would be the era any future people would want to simulate" - this statement is irrelevant if they are simulating an entire universe, which I think would be the very obvious and eventual aim of any world simulators. Even simulating the entire history of a single planet, you would still end up including this period of history by default.
@Tom_Quixote 8 місяців тому
The thing missing from the argument is that we would need exponential growth in computing power in order to ever simulate just a small part of reality. And computing power is barely increasing anymore.
@Tom_Quixote 8 місяців тому
And if the programmers are 'cheating' and saving computations by only simulating the things we see around us, then that means it's no longer a simulation of reality or a historical ancestor simulation, but only a simulation of a single mind. That brings us back to the old "brain in a jar" philosophical question.
@woszkar Рік тому
The Inception reference at the end was really cool!
@dismalthoughts 2 роки тому
Very well done. I just learned about Baye's Theorem a few weeks ago, and it has *completely* changed how I look at various probabilities and made me realize just how many proposed probabilities are very... assumptuous
@cdm1972 3 роки тому
Interesting it's commonly referred to as "we" living in a simulation, when it would seem more like to be that "you" and you alone are in the simulation. So much easier to simulate what one conscious being perceives rather, in same manner as the video game example. Yes, we could be in a "multi-player" simulation, but the tech requirement would be much greater and thus the likelihood lower. Or forget the simulation aspect. What if you are just a brain in a jar being stimulated with to perceive your world. What if science is instead approaching that reality?
@HoleyMoleyAlex 3 роки тому
Hmm it seems I was thinking the same thing. Or I was scripted to. As to Andras's reply, I think it all comes down to what is easier to do, is it easier to generate consciousness, or easier to simply script it. I know when making games myself it's much easier to simulate that the NPCs are thinking then it is to actually make them actually try think. I just tell them go here do that etc. You only need to include various things such as big bang theories, if it's part of the story, otherwise it may just remain as a simple concept in the background never explained as the main char (you) does not know this information as you are scripted too and were never meant to learn about it.
@slevinchannel7589 3 роки тому
Yeah, one should not do do many Assumptions.
@slevinchannel7589 3 роки тому
Elon Musk talks a lot when the day is long...
@timothybrown5907 3 роки тому
@@slevinchannel7589 *Butt Head voice*: heh hehe heh heh heh.... You said doodoo. Heheheheh!
@sestr02noob33 2 роки тому
Does it matter that we live in a simulation. Like should we be worried, or accept it and enjoy our lifes
@andrewreynolds912 Рік тому
Thank lord for this video, it gives me confidence we aren't in one. Thank you guys so much I would love to see you guys one day irl at Columbia to thank you guys for your hard work and awesome stuff.
@Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman Рік тому
it does not matter you believe, things will be whatever it can simulation? reality? would not matter anyway
@MeganVictoriaKearns Рік тому
🙃
@phillipcoetzer8186 Рік тому
And yet the lord promises you will live again even if you die in an explosion ... conjured this world by just speaking If you are religious then you believe in the simulation theory
@00SEVEN28 Рік тому
It just helps my bodily autonomy and my will. Of course, even if we were simulated, why would it matter since all humans being "equal" no one or more persons would have access to change it. And when they claim they have, just check whether pi, e, and phi are constants and irrational.
@A_Mic_Smith Рік тому
Let me ask you this, with all those billions of simulations who, in turn, house billions of simulations ext ext, what are the odds that our server would still be operational? For an extreme example, what happens if the the servers in base reality 1 power down? Would that not mean the end to the multiverse? The higher up the power failure the more of your tree is removed. So what are the chances that our server, with in a server, within a server would still be operational? With so many potential points of failure, it seems to me that, in a simulated multiverse, the odds we would NOT exist far outweigh the odds that we would. Hope that made sense.
@wadeguidry6675 3 роки тому
I think we tend to anthropomorphize everything a bit too much. For instance: DNA code looks like computer code. Of course it does. We invented computer code so that's how we understand DNA as a code. Anthropomorphize is probably not the right word for what I'm trying to say. Anyway if we are in a simulation the programmers of this narrator's voice did a great job: it's so smooth and pleasant.
@michaelbeee3801 3 роки тому
Haha, a good one. But only that is good about it.
@nichsulol4844 3 роки тому
@@michaelbeee3801 controlled by technology people can traveling faster than speed of light
@coffeetalk924 3 роки тому
Did we? At the very core of string theory is computer code. Bits and strings of ones and zeros. We didnt invent it.
@wadeguidry6675 3 роки тому
@@coffeetalk924 who invented ones and zeroes?
@coffeetalk924 3 роки тому
@@wadeguidry6675 the previous simulated programmers?
@filippo8189 2 роки тому
To be honest, I don’t find the possibility that even our most precious memories might never have happened to be particularly daunting. After all, if they exist as “implants” in my head right now, are they not real? How would those be different from memories in a natural universe? Even “real” memories are just encodings of something that happened in the past and does not exist in the present. They are real to me right now, which is good enough for me :)
@aureliusmcnaughton6133 Рік тому
So if we are living in a simulation it is being run by a programmer beyond our imagination on a computer beyond our comprehension. Congratulations Pro simulation people, you just made the case for the existence of God.
@brunohommerding3416 Рік тому
@@aureliusmcnaughton6133 if you want to call any being that is far ahead in advancement from us a "god" thats on you. But that does not make any case for any particular religious magical god according to their own scriptures.
@aureliusmcnaughton6133 Рік тому
@@brunohommerding3416 I can't really tell by your response if you are making the case for simulation Theory or just a die-hard atheist.
@brunohommerding3416 Рік тому
@@aureliusmcnaughton6133 im an atheist, what im saying is that you can make the argument about some beings being so advanced that they would look like gods to us, but that doesnt confirm the existence of the biblical god or any god from any scripture.
@aureliusmcnaughton6133 Рік тому
@@brunohommerding3416 I'm glad to see that we totally agree that there is no such thing as God as described by religious zealots. How ever, it seems to me that zealous simulation Theory proponents don't seem to know the difference anymore than religious zealots or atheist zealots. To me it's obvious that something greater than us had to have created us and that's good enough for me. Live long and prosper my friend.
@anonymususer1728 Рік тому
There are 2 points that I want to make: 1) Regarding William Poundstone's argument of "we're not in a simulation because the time period we live in is not concurrent with the parent time period and doesn't contain simulation technology". There is a big counter-argument that, in my opinion, totally annihilates his argument. It can be split into 2 viewpoints: a) First I will tackle TIME since that is William's gripe (that our time period is not concurrent with the time period of the hyperbeings). I will say that is irrelevant, because this time period (the year 2022) does not have to be the main focus of the simulation, it can just be an intermediary stage towards the main period (let's say that would be year 3000). So just because the hyperbeings are interested in the year 3000, doesn't mean that the year 2022 shouldn't exist. It still exists, as a past state of the Universe in the database of the SuperComputer doing the simulation. And if you're concerned about the "normal" passage of time we are experiencing, that is also irrelevant, because while we may be experiencing time at a normal pace, the hyperbeings could speed it up a lot. They don't even have to actually WATCH this time period, they could just SKIP over it entirely, similar to how we would skip over a portion of a movie when watching it on a computer. The hyperbeings could move the cursor from the beginning of the Universe directly to the year 3000, so for them all that time would pass in an instant, but for the beings inside the simulation (us) time would have passed normally. b) Secondly, we can look at it from a SPATIAL point of view. Similar to the previous point where the year 2022 was not the main focus of the simulation ... what makes you think that EARTH (humanity) is the focus of the simulation ? Maybe the focus is elsewhere in the Universe. So Earth and its inhabitants are just unimportant background NPC's that happened to appear as a result of the interactions of the environment, but are in no way, shape or form the focus of the simulation. We might be just background characters. Maybe even less than characters, we may be background elements/assets. For funsies, let's imagine that the focus of the simulation is Coruscant, where you can find Jedi and Sith. That part of the Universe would be much more interesting than Earth🙂 2) Regarding the actual topic of the video (whether we're living in a simulation or not), my answer is: it doesn't matter. No, this is not a cop-out, I'm going to explain WHY it actually doesn't matter: Because of what perception is and how it works ! We do not perceive reality directly. We perceive it through our senses (which are very limited, but that's another story for another topic). How do our senses work ? Well, the outside world interacts with our bodies, the nerves pick up those interactions and convert them into electrical signals that are sent to the brain, which INTERPRETS those signals and forms IMPRESSIONS about reality. So the kicker here is that the brain doesn't care about the origin of those signals. They can come from nerves in a physical body, they can come from electrodes strapped directly onto a brain in a vat, or the brain itself could be contained within a computer and therefore all the signals could go to it directly as digital inputs. The end result is the SAME, the brain would not be able to tell the difference, it is literally impossible to do so. This is the reason why Cipher (from the movie Matrix) had it right. Also, at 32:48 the same idea is expressed: it doesn't matter.
@troll707 Рік тому
It's so funny seeing these people embarrass themselves trying to disprove metaphysical hypothesis. I remain neutral in this subject just like every single physicist with no concrete evidence should.
@brentdobson5264 Рік тому
In Richard Buckminster Fuller's " Synergetics : The Geometry Of Thinking " is quantum conceptuality a thinkability scaffold for a ninety-two regenerative elements assembly kit ( matrix ) . So this explores the Geometry with which a quantum thinkability emerges and is manifest . It's interesting to notice we would seem to have four binary sensorial feedback system senses / two eyes / two ears / ( touch ) , pressure , temperature / taste, smell . The senses can one supposes be metaphysically considered this way and if so considered for each upon a tetrahedral pure principle model for experiencing the world in aid of potential and increasing awareness comprehensivity . The tetrahedral model references the aforementioned Geometry Of Thinking's Quanta . Thinking is a priori to simulated manifestation . When considering Fuller 's geodesic work nested in relation to Walter Russell's " The Universal One ...arround a single Source ...there is for example coherence / connection at the Ecosohedral second phase of quantum mechanics and the Cartesian model given by Walter Russel ( " The Universal One " ) .
@HOOLIGAN077 3 роки тому
Damn if it's a simulator I need to find glitchs to level up myself
@James-ed3xl 3 роки тому
enjoy the gold
@jtorelli7341 3 роки тому
SpiffingBrit already has a series on this.
@coultondaly8284 3 роки тому
People using glitches to lvl up is why the simulation is breaking in the first place. Like a virus spreading in the program
@GreyMatterPlatter 3 роки тому
George Hotz is apparently working on doing just that. He has an interesting (and slightly insane) presentation about it.
@dem0734 3 роки тому
It’s called sleeping
@allenmaa7064 3 роки тому
“You want base reality? You can’t handle base reality”
@dojo813 2 роки тому
base reality is a clusterfuck
@dojo813 2 роки тому
of universal proportions
@maryr6237 2 роки тому
😂😂😂
@DenethorDurrandir 2 роки тому
That's pretty much the sum of the ancestor simulation argument, "the base reality is too depressing and void of resources so shut up and live in your comfortable 21th century apartments on your warm earth in the good 'ol times before we realized just how screwed we are"
@christopherbettridge5983 Місяць тому
Is that Base 10 reality, Base 2 reality, or just high on freebase reality?😇Ah I couldn't resist that. I mean no offense 4:16
@brianmonahan1131 5 місяців тому
Interesting and careful video - one of the better ones out there. Thank you.
@hughmanwho 2 місяці тому
Imagine being the person who enters and exits this simulation using their full body VR gear and realizes that they are living amongst a bunch of simulated beings.
@stevencrutchley 2 роки тому
Brilliant video. So glad I found this channel :) My issue with this topic is concerning why would it matter, if we are simulated or not. Since it is inherently unfalsifiable then the real world couldn't tell it was real either. This means that BOTH the one real world and the group of many simulated worlds, have the same existential crisis that they might be a simulation. The reason this seems to bother people isn't that we might be living in a simulation. It's the CONSEQUENCE of that fact and the troubling thoughts that brings. But if none of the worlds, real or not, can escape this - then it really doesn't matter either way.
@pimplequeen2 Рік тому
Lol, yep... It always bugged me that Neo didn't question "welcome to the real world". Why wouldn't he instantly doubt the claim?
@hotdiggityd Рік тому
I guess for some people the challenge of letting go of their own version of what is reality is insurmountable. Personally speaking, none of this matters. Cogito ergo sum, or sim, if you like.
@pimplequeen2 Рік тому
@@hotdiggityd I have always been a sucker for being one leap sideways into hard cartesian skepticism, it can be a handy launchpad if you are being super strict despite it being a rational black hole :)
@DRsideburns Рік тому
If I pissed into your cereal but you didn't see it, does it matter? My act has plunged you into a simulation in which you eat unpissed cereal
@pimplequeen2 Рік тому
@@DRsideburns it's an ill formed question that presupposes "knowing" and "not knowing" at the same time from a third-party position. Furthermore, what metric are we using for "Matter"? (Pride-ego / health?)
@flipnap2112 3 роки тому
isn't it strange that you can't tell you're dreaming when you're dreaming, but somehow when you're awake you KNOW its not a dream
@BigFry9591 3 роки тому
It's entirely possible to know that you're dreaming within your own dream. It's called lucid dreaming. This gets me thinking. If it were possible to have "lucid dreams" while awake in a simulation, then I'd assume it would be close to our moments of deja vu. Where we'd see glimpses of moments that may have happened before in the simulation, but in a different instance of this simulation.
@Danuke2011 3 роки тому
@@BigFry9591 but the lucid dream would still be another layer deeper within the simulation. Even if you had a real time out of body experience it would still be inside the simulation. The challenge would be to raise your consciousness out of the simulation if that were possible for a code inside a simulation. But then again the layer above the simulation could be just another simulation with infinite layers.
@mitkomilev4690 3 роки тому
Maybe when you are dreaming you're focused on what is going on in your dream and that is why you don't realize you're dreaming. Maybe that is the point of life - you are living and focused on your life until death or until you're excluded from the simulation - then you will probably see the things from another perspective and you will have the capacity to analyse what has happened. "-Good morning! How are you today? -I'm tired, I had a bad life last night - I was a human on some strange place called "Earth". -Don't worry, it's just a life. Come have a coffee..."
@rachelreii5952 3 роки тому
I know when I'm dreaming. I pull myself out. 😂
@whospilledmybeans 3 роки тому
I have been self aware in my dreams since I was a child. A few times I could even manipulate what would happen myself. I could also sleep walk and open my eyes while in a dream. I would always try hard to “wake up” too
@TheRABIDdude Рік тому
Here's another refutation, this time sticking the Musk's frequency-based probability. Though one which some people might find just as disturbing. We don't know what was 'before' the big bang, but we know immediately after there was hyperinflation of space which rapidly slowed. The 'eternal inflation' theory is that there's a constantly hyperinflating universe 'above' ours which every so often has a little quantum effect which causes inflation to slow in a small area, causing a non-hyperinflating universe like ours to bud off. If so, we are just one among practically infinite universes in a multiverse. If this is true, then the forever exponentially inflating substrate that all the universes sprout from is always making more new universe buds each second than previously existed (because of the nature of exponentials). Which means the most common universe age in the multiverse is always the youngest/newest. If you apply Musk's probabilities to a multiverse like this, we get two different reasons not to believe our life is simulated: 1) There isn't just one base reality universe. There are instead almost infinite base reality universes, with exponentially more being born each instant. If it takes 5 billion years for a civilization to advance and start making a few billion simulations, then imagine how many NEW real universes were born in that timespan. The number of real universes ends up outnumbering the simulated ones at any timepoint when you take the multiverse into account. 2) Chances are we are among the earliest possible observers/conscious beings in our universe, because the majority of universes are young in the expanding multiverse. The earliest observers lack the tech needed to create simulated consciousness.
@vrunk11 2 місяці тому
the issue here is the notion of time outside of an universe ig you go back in time the number of new universe born would not decrease ,and then you need to explain what append if you go backward in time in the multiverse. actualy that make me thinks what would append if we go back ion time would the universe be less dilated that didnt make sence
@TheRABIDdude 2 місяці тому
@@vrunk11 what. Do some spelling corrections and re-read the sentences. I can't follow this in it's current form.
@vrunk11 2 місяці тому
@@TheRABIDdude sorry, I'm not native English
@calvinjackson8110 8 місяців тому
First they tell us we are likely living in a simulation and now we are to be told we probably are not. Can somebody make up their mind?!
@kiraheart8949 3 роки тому
If this is all stimulation can you bring my daughter back to me I'm so broken and sad with out her Please 😔😔😔
@marccas10 3 роки тому
I hope you see her again.
@bobbywest7970 3 роки тому
Love you
@mattogrady4005 3 роки тому
❤️💜💗
@martingood7385 3 роки тому
Im sorry for your loss and i send you endless love
@MM-bp3ve 3 роки тому
Stay strong, show her, that she made you a better person.
@karimagabriel 2 роки тому
That was really thoughtful of him to reassure me that simulation or not, I still matter. It's the little things y'all
@Lucky_Sage 2 роки тому
You do matter bro, simulation or not
@spicytrashpanda 2 роки тому
@@Lucky_Sage Simulation or no, you matter too.
@Ron4885 2 роки тому
Karima, well said. It would be fascinating to take a cross country road trip with this gentleman. Would involve interesting conversations. Plus great fun.
@kirkhilton3798 8 місяців тому
I’ve recently been contempting whether dark energy and dark matter are actually imperfections in the simulation. They are so remote from our everyday experience perhaps they are not relevant to the purpose of the simulated reality whether that’s escapism or problem solving.
@isbestlizard Рік тому
The big question is whether subjective experience is substrate independent, and simulating a conscious mind gives the same 'something it's like to be' that our brains give us. If it's not, all our billions of simulations will just be filled with zombies, and we're living in base reality because we're not zombies.
@RonBest 3 роки тому
Wonderful video. There is one logical assumption mentioned in this video i disagree with though. -The "If our entire universe is simulated down to every last detail (smallest building block of our universe) then the computer running the simulation would have to be just as large as our universe, or at least as massive"-logic. I belive this is not necessarily true (could be true, but we cant know for sure). That logic is based on the assumption that the real world is running on the same laws of physics as ours. If the real world happen to have infinite amount of energy and density or perhaps infinite amount of planck time units per "second". Then it could theoretically run infinitely times larger simulations then the computer itself. Even we should in theory be able to do that. We just have to slow down the time in the simulation so it can catch up, so to speak. Logically, we should be able to run a simulation 100 times the size of the computer running the simulation, down to the planck length in detail. And then have 1 second in the simulation take 100 seconds for our computer in real time to process/generate. And then just let the NPC's or consioucnesses percieve that their time is running at a 1:1 speed, even though it's 100 times slower than our time.
@MadMax22 3 роки тому
That’s pretty interesting. When you discuss things on this scale it’s all gonna be logical assumptions to a certain degree. In my opinion you’re operating under the assumption that we do live in a simulation. My personal theory which could be nothing is that there a fundamental laws of power within the universe. Just like how matter gets sucked into the powerful gravitational pull of a star so do humans flock to he biggest power that provides security. But even then it could be that the massive group is the star (and the single individual is merely the core idfk lol) Essentially ai think the universe builds itself like how an AI can build itself through trail and error. But here’s my thought. instead of a simulation what if programming is just another form of power inherent in the design of he universe. then do you think that your theory could apply to my programming reality theory? What if time fundamentally flowed differently than how we perceive it. I say as fact that I do not know whether this is true or not but I like the idea. I also like your nugget of information I’m gonna add it to the vault for possibilities about what he simulation theory can be real. Oh also that would mean that we’ve caught up somewhat to the trail and error method of the universe. I mean we can’t create nuclear fusion yet but we’re currently trying.
@martingood7385 3 роки тому
Nugget lol
@ironbard4901 2 роки тому
I like the way you think.
@collins_channel8643 2 роки тому
Big agree here
@charlesrice4172 3 роки тому
"Pepsi vs Cola" is one of those subtle simulation errors I guess
@reuteratwork8983 3 роки тому
It's the Biko Effect -- in my memories, it's Cola vs Coke...
@sonbahar5296 3 роки тому
Who make money from pepsi and cola ! Usual suspect, enemies of humanity... They want to believe anything but God!
@slevinchannel7589 3 роки тому
Yeah, one should not do do many Assumptions.
@ardbeg4mercy247 3 роки тому
I'm guessing you're old enough to remember the "Pepsi Challenge".
@OZ88 3 роки тому
the one is a trojan the other ransomware
@catsarerude Рік тому
Just came here from a video explaining why we probably *are* in a simulation. Very interesting to look at both theories.
@MrBrunoThai 2 місяці тому
Dude, outstanding! I cannot describe the richness of this video better. 👏👏
@musicisbrilliant 3 роки тому
"Technology and computers are advancing at impressive rates, but simulating conscious beings is a very different kettle of fish to just making nice graphics." For me, that sums it up, and I very much agree.
@a.baciste1733 3 роки тому
Well, I don't really agree, but I feel it may be due to how you and I define consciousness here which are probably different. To me there are a lot of possible "levels" of consciousness. But basically, a living being that is able to act depending on its environment to take some advantage out of it is already conscious in my opinion. Much less than you and I, possibly not self aware, but it is conscious of its environment, which is already not so bad. Then it's a matter of having different "features" like the different kind of memories we have that are requirements to further capabilities such as learning out of the past experiences. Self awareness also appears somewhere in the process, possibly as well with different levels of awareness. Instinct of survival somewhat relates to self awareness doesn't it? So yes... Pretty hard question.
@takanara7 3 роки тому
@@a.baciste1733 No one can "prove" that consciousness is a real thing. We all *feel* conscious, but that could be an illusion. Look up the concept of a "philosophical zombie" - the idea is you take a computer program that can pass the turing test, put it in a "robot" body that's so perfect no one can tell that it's not a real person no matter what experiment they do, then set it out in the world - that "zombie" would always say they experience consciousness, even though they are just a computer program. Any question you could ask about it, it would be no different from a person - therefore, there is no way to prove that you are "actually" conscious. However, this doesn't prove anything about a simulation, because such things could have evolved naturally from very simple life (which have only a few neurons, and are indistinguishable from robots in terms of how their brains work)
@lifeisagameofknowingyourro6327 3 роки тому
@@a.baciste1733 Consciousness is also not real it's an illusion kind of like Magic
@musicisbrilliant 3 роки тому
@@nova4841 Thats a great point, time needs to be considered for sure. But the fact that we dont know what consciousness is or how it works is a great indicator that we may never get to that level of technology. I personally how we dont even if we could. We are already FARRRR to addicted to our gadgets and games. However bleak, reality needs our full attention now. Youre right, we cant know if we are simulated. But as he raised in this video, how could that even matter even if we could prove it? Interesting stuff to think about but Im more focused on the wildfires we're having right now in oregon. We have so many real world problems we all need to focus on. Warm regards.
@michaelbeee3801 3 роки тому
Probably you are not a gamer 🤣
@Benni777 3 роки тому
Who else in a simulation rabbit hole rn? 😂
@Muchlove821 Рік тому
Your words are beautiful. The way you explain this has me thinking am I in a simulation for real
@ADreamingTraveler Рік тому
I have been keeping track with AI and actually using it myself and the speed at which it has sped up is at such a speed that even the people who created the AI do not understand how fast the AI is now moving. AI is currently moving thousands of times faster than humans are in terms of progression over time. And we're quickly approaching the point of no return. From everything I've seen just within the past year alone I'm now convinced that not only do we create conscious AI but that the conscious AI appears sooner than people originally thought.
@darlenesmith5690 Рік тому
As long as they keep it from controlling weapons, manufacturing or the stock market, we might be ok. Course, even AI controlling a power grid is a daunting thought. What if it decides to turn it off or create power flucations that destroy hardware?
@slaviboy 2 роки тому
If we are part of a simulation, it is made so precise and perfect that no one would consider it
@briantheplaystationguy7815 2 роки тому
Exactly!
@TF2Scout.. 2 роки тому
Alright so I just might be an Someone's desktop folder .
@jackpomeroy3678 2 роки тому
That’s EXATLY WHAT I WAS THINKING
@user-hk7hz9cn7v Рік тому
Not true
@echosmoon5605 Рік тому
If that were the case, the creators of this simulation are essentially gods that have created a universe
@user-ut3ni6bu7b 3 роки тому
This video is so gold, I'm glad I finally discovered your channel!
@richardcheek2432 Рік тому
We can shift our focus from one stimuli to another, to a memory, to a thought that tangentially relates to any of the prior, and all without external cause or determination. this implies that we are real and what we do has a 'Butterfly Effect' that ripples through all of eternity.
@KipIngram 9 днів тому
12:59 - The stuff you're talking about here actually IS very much how the universe behaves. A basic tenet of quantum theory is that observable properties often don't exist until we actually observe them (be sure to distinguish this from the "quantum state," which always exists). But to me the KEY aspect of whether it's a simulation or not is whether or not "someone" is operating it. A simulation must have administrators - a sentient being who is "running the simulation." Without that, it's not a simulation - it's just "what is." I think there are other explanations for this quantum behavior. I feel pretty strongly these days that our minds are actually what's fundamental in reality, and that the "physical world" is just our perceptions. Aspects of it don't NEED to exist until they are perceived. This is just as unscientific as the simulation hypothesis itself, though, because I can think of no possible way to test it - we wind up with the same perceptions regardless of whether it's "mind then physical" or "physical then mind."
@tribalmoongoddess 2 роки тому
Absolutely beautiful way to explain this. I cannot thank you enough, not only the breakdown of all data in both counterpoints, for the empathetically wise encouragement of how we should process and apply this information personally. Well done!
Dr Ben Miles
Переглядів 8 млн