2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation?

[@adamr4503]

It's so nice to see grown adults talking and debating in a mature environment and not talking over each other or yelling to try and make either point.

[@PaulJackino]

Science mentality does that

[@dannac_8888]

@@PaulJackino What? Emotional maturity and self control are the factors. Studying science doesn't mean you have self discipline and self control and respect for the ability to communicate effectively.

[@youngscrimmage6632]

Very rare in todays world

[@billcarson818]

@@dannac_8888 To be a good scientist you have to be humble in a way, because you have t o be open to change your mind at all times, as soon as evidence comes along. If you cant do that, you are not a scientist. And for that you need a certain degree of humility.

[@gianni206]

Nah uh no it’s not

[@LucasArtCommunity]

There are far too many leather jackets and sunglasses on stage for it not to be an attempt to look as matrixy as possible.

[@daniel4647]

@RANDY WASSUM Yeah, it's an actual word, it's a way to arrange things. Like Sudoku.

[@Ruhama4]

😂👍

[@Post-Alone]

Precisely!

[@bernards6115]

😂😂😂😂

[@ophiolatreia93]

Looks like matrix night at the YMCA

[@Derpadeedooda]

I feel like this discussion would have been more complete if they brought in a proficient computer programmer to give their take on it.

[@NikitsuLaw]

@@homelessrobot speaking of which, makes me wonder how they did not get to a point where they should have felt compelled to at least mention superintelligence to try and draw in some parallels.. Again, would of probably happened if a computer science researcher was included in the discussion, which adds much more flavor.

[@drrydog]

I felt like I learned absolutely nothing? just me

[@Rayrockny]

That's me, and I'm wondering where part 1 to this talk went? It use to be on KZbin 🤨

[@deesaved9174]

All physicists have to learn programming. Just like all engineers do. The only thing a developer, designer or programmer could add would be changes in languages, but the OSI model TCP/IP models are all the same in principal. Besides most computer programmers don't know about mainframe programming at the binary level which this string theory programming is referring to, nor about telecommunications through the different models for data transmission. Those other two disciplines are done by electronic engineers and computer science majors in the specialty of telecommunications.

[@Rayrockny]

Dee Saved I wouldn’t call the basic programming courses that they take “learning programming”. Unless a physicist ventures into the realm of Quantum computing their programming knowledge will remain novice at best. Not even even going to mention civil/electrical engineers.

[@osborne9255]

Every year I come back and watch this, taking away new thoughts and ideas that keep me utterly occupied, and confused. Brilliant. I hope that this topic can be revisited with light of the AI progress in 2023, as the infinite information section of this video could be explored more with AI and the compilation of its data.

[@Cierbhal]

This is my first time hearing of it. I'm binging on knowledge tonight, baby.

[@Tyler-bz1xl]

could have used a computer scientist on the panel as well

[@cassandra9581]

Thats what I was thinking... they even talked a little about programming and code, having someone who knows about complex computational algorithms would have made this a lot more interesting.

[@Alyzzardo]

Tyler Yesssss that really would have helped.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

good idea! I think one answer may lie in computational complexity. Natural systems tend towards a state that is so complex, it is as easy to duplicate the system as it is to model it. Thus, any simulation would be almost as complex as the real thing.

[@MrRedCologne]

dude, that people are called gamers, not scientists. :)

[@chechong2439]

But none of them really think like a game designer. Most high end games these days are simulations. There are games that are pushing the limits of emersion. All a simulation has to do is trick the minds in the simulation.

[@CarnifaxMachine]

7:35 The Oracle 9:25 Neo 11:40 Morpheus 13:30 Twin 16:04 The Architect

[@sabatino1977]

+Kevin Kostyk - that's awesome!! Although I would make one minor change: Davoudi should be Trinity instead of the Oracle, and Tyson should be the Oracle. But still an awesome observation by you.

[@judithannewinters7737]

Yes!

[@redfirekla]

At 46:40 your statement confirmed.

[@ADAMSIXTIES]

More like Bill and Ted

[@goldnutter412]

The Architect is actually in another video🤣 I'll post it later if I can find it but the resemblance is jaw dropping

[@thinkertinker3321]

I wonder how much more colorful the conversation would have been with a coding expert that makes simulations and games and the like.

[@acetate909]

Not very. If we are in a simulation then the technology governing our existence would be so vastly superior and foreign to anything a coder is familiar with that their input would add very little to the conversation. A radical philosopher would be more insightful then any computer expert.

[@acetate909]

@Powerdriller Power You're assuming that they would use contemporary coding systems on analogous hardware. I'm sure a significantly advanced computers would be unrecognizable to us. It's like asking the Wright brothers to explain the Apollo space shuttles and that was only a 60 year gap. What could a computer scientist really tell us about a machine built 600 years in the future? Besides, Gates and Tegmark both have enough coding training and computer knowledge to make any relevant points even though there isn't much modern computers can tell us about machines that might be built a thousand years in the future.

[@acetate909]

@Powerdriller Power Those are very valid points. I didn't think of that. I've taken some basic coding classes but I'm not very well versed in the area. I am an electrical engineering major and have limited knowledge of current computer science. I find this simulation argument very interesting tho and it's cool to see other poeple who are interested as well. When I try to explain the concept to friends they look at me as if I'm crazy even tho it has a scientific basis.

[@bzrkls]

Powerdriller Power hey this might be annoying but do you know any videos I could watch to help me with coding? I’m currently taking a college course (:

[@rubenverster250]

@@bzrkls check udemy

[@erika.ohiyesa]

I'm only 2 minutes in, but it strikes me as notable that Neil deGrasse Tyson passes such personal judgement on the topic while introducing it. Gives me all the more reason to consider the possibilities discussed here.

[@boouyayme]

The problem with the simulation theory is that there is no difference because a real simulation and real reality because they both would have macro properties that emerge from micro properties. Kinda how if u were the the cell inside the body how do you know the body emerges from you and other cells. Photons collapse with our observation but also photons have no masses so how can it be interactive

[@jackiec498]

Anything "Neil DeGrasse Tyson" weighs in on in a supportive sense makes my butthole pucker.

[@SamS-sn4uu]

Exactly!

[@kylorl3]

what is wrong with you people? someone who knows more than you passes personal judgment on a conspiracy theory and that makes you believe it more? how does that make sense to you?

[@deleted.23]

He's not just pushing personal views he spews inaccurate information. 9/11 wasn't a natural disaster... I will just discount everything he says and avoid him in future. Heaven knows how he got where he is...

[@raptorkid7477]

I fell asleep at 3 am and woke up to this

[@moses381]

So around 4 or 5

[@SCYN0]

😂

[@andrevigil8499]

Brooo, wtf! Same!

[@taywong972]

Same here too, it's a sign....woke at 4:44am and this was running

[@gusmanmusic8182]

With which video u went to sleep?

[@KilgoreTroutAsf]

Actually, my life would be pretty simple to simulate. I spend most of my time in front of a computer screen.

[@benbennit]

+Kilgore Trout Your computer exists in a simulation, simulating Windows 95, running Microsoft Flight Simulator.

[@DiosanXaquerry]

+benbennit that sounds like HELL !!!!

[@treasureabove6081]

within a simulation dithering with a simulation it has been said that this place we call our universe is not the true reality. So if this reality we live in now is a programme can we fathom the power involved in making this reality where even our senses are not able to tell the difference.

[@benbennit]

It's a quantum algorithm, unconstrained by scale as well as being infinite. You can fit one mathematical model within another and another and....

[@eezZzee]

I am a computer screen.

[@tdc8795]

From a panel of brilliant minds that know a lot. The phrase that sticks out in my mind is "We don't know".

[@kaneisable9347]

Yes these are not brilliant minds cuz literally they know nothing... A big fat goose egg... 0...zip ....not... zilch

[@dank6617]

This is the inverse of Dunning-Kruger effect.

[@dank6617]

Charles Bukowski summarizes it succinctly: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence"

[@brian4019]

It's telling that humankind has not come up with the answer after thinking about this for basically a million years. I think it is something beyond our imagination or understanding. Assuming we should be able to understand everything is wrong. Afterall, the only thing human about the universe is a thin coating on the exterior of one of the trillion trillion planets in the universe.

[@Jonny-rc4wh]

@@kaneisable9347 the most brilliant mind on the plant knows nothing, no idea what we are doing here, why are we here, or how it began.

[@MixedMelaninshow]

I think the best example of this concept is plainly but beautifully displayed in the movie “Free Guy” where we created a free thinking AI program that can both observe and exist in the simulation.

[@kunalsulekh7845]

At first, I thought that the panel members with black sunglasses represents the Matrix (Simulation) side of the debate.

[@gregk7206]

How can they talk about simulations with a straight face when Morpheus is sitting right there with them, just ask him guy's !

[@Kimberly63]

Greg K 😂

[@jjj25313]

Lol 😂 he just keeps quiet cuz he doesn't wanna ruin the rest of the show. Just occasionally chiming in trippy stuff hahaha!!!

[@jjj25313]

He's probably a simulator here to nudge us in the right direction without spoiling ALL the fun. Hahaha!

[@derekscanlan4641]

I can just see Samuel L saying, 'I am not Laurence Fishbourne!'

[@MrWeareone777]

Thought it was Morgan Freeman. God has all the answers.

[@TheEkainMagix]

My right ear loves this debate

[@i2pjd6hRw5P]

im glad someone else noticed. the stereo field on this video makes it hard to watch

[@TheEkainMagix]

I really wanted to watch it, but it's just impossible for me

[@EfOneAddict]

I slightly unplugged my headphones so that the audio only came from one driver. The stereo mix was making me dizzy.

[@TheWayIRage]

Frost hahhahahahhaa omg

[@andrewlohbihler9121]

I thought my headphones were defective.

[@andrewfollett2300]

What I took from the first lady’s speech about limited computational resources is they lack the tools to answer this question. And they can only begin to answer the question if they make a giant leap and assume the creators of this simulation are limited to finite resources. That’s like saying we have to assume Michelangelo only had black and white paint because we can only look at a limited portion of his masterpiece.

[@Supernovalety]

But she is really interesting because she is talking about rough knowledge ^^ it’s nice , she talks from the pint of what human kind knowledge has until now, imagination is so important but her perspective is what we cab actually confirm with what we know so far, the day she can say it is possible then really the odds would be high in did . She is like a live computer.

[@alexfloyd5730]

They talked a lot about "bugs" in the universe but they seemed to ignore an important point. Bugs are relative to the intention of the creator. For all we know many of the things happening in our universe are actually "bugs", but we would never know it because we are not aware of the intentions of our creator (if there is one). We instead treat them as intended features of a perfect creator. Searching for bugs in the universe doesn't really make much sense unless you have knowledge of these intentions. You can, however, search for bugs in your own understanding of the universe, but I think this panel confuses those two ideas.

[@michil75]

Alex Floyd great insight

[@ryatat]

Alex Floyd good point

[@RoninDave]

God moves in mysterious ways - as do time travelers and universe simulators

[@grammarnazi1469]

I agree. Conversely, some things might very well be features of nature but look like bugs to us. When a pawn has reached the first rank of the opposite side of the board and becomes, say, a queen, it may seem like a "bug" for an observer who does not know the rules. When some exceptional cases appear that do not fit with the laws of nature derived from former observations and experiments, they can be considered as "bugs" in the universe, or we can revise our understanding of the nature and formulate new laws, theories and models to describe and explain them, then they are no longer "exceptional" but are included in the list of "natural" phenomena. The retrograde motion of planets had bugged ancient astronomers until the heliocentric model was proposed. The orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics but could be by general relativity. Dark energy may now seem like a glitch in gravity, but will very likely be explained by future scientists. It has actually been mentioned in the panel that scientists cannot prove anything, they can only provide the best explanation according to the data, information or evidence currently available, so scientific knowledge is constantly changing in response to newly discovered "inconsistencies". Since we do not have access to the "manual" or "program" of the universe (if it is simulated), we cannot know whether the inconsistencies are bugs or are due to our incomplete understanding of the underlying rules.

[@goddesssolaria4509]

" Searching for bugs in the universe doesn't really make much sense unless you have knowledge of these intentions. " Yes you would need a comparison? But sometimes you don't. There is a book entitled 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics' which is along the lines of our math is so good at describing our universe that it is 'unreasonably' good at it. That math should not be so effective a tool. But in the case of finding a bug in a system when one is inside that system with no comparison? Well, it might seem like there is no way to identify such a bug. You'd be surprised though. Plus bugs are one thing, things working as they should another. Both are potential categories of investigation.

[@thefidleronthecouch]

I cant handle the fact that guy is almost wearing Morpheus glasses lol

[@theKing-me2uw]

no. morpheus wears that black guy glasses. he is the inspiration to samuel jackson as a human being.

[@corazoncubano5372]

Those glasses existed before Morpheus.

[@GRAMANATOR1]

Anyone else wonder if those two with glasses are high

[@ZenPunk]

that shit is absolutely on purpose.

[@entusiast1619]

Let me tell you why you're You're here because you know something

[@nightknight669]

This debate should have started with questioning what is meant by a simulation

[@l.m.892]

You can bet good money that they'll never say who the programmer is, or who built the thing. Make more money. Place separate bets.

[@421pothead]

Ooooooohhhhhh, I like this

[@baggybinny]

@@l.m.892 well, it damn sure wasn’t Microsoft as it works.

[@carloscruzarce9424]

A simulation in this case would be writing a computer program where the most import variables are the constants in the universe like the speed of light in outer space for example. Similar to a video game or some model making program. Then you hit enter and watch the code “simulate” the universe. Or multiple universes if you write code that would slightly change up your important constants every time.

[@madtscientist8853]

I agree

[@guillermoa.nerygomez8782]

Well, there is an argument against the "simulation" conjecture. It's called Occam's Razor which is an important part of science. The idea is that if you are looking for an explanation for something, you should look for the simplest one able to account for all the facts. The reason is that the more unnecessarily complex it gets, the less probable it is the actual explanation. Here's why: Sometimes laws or rules that a universe follows are actually constraints on what can happen. Put in too many (complicate it too much that way) and you can constrain your reality out of existence (your model can't explain your universe). Other times, you might make so many things possible, in trying to be able to explain everything, that the amount of significantly different universes your model allows may be so immensely huge that the probability that it actually corresponds to your universe is infinitely small. Even more, that idea is related to a part of Physics called Thermodynamics, which explains why when you mix, say, water and sugar, the dissolved sugar never -on it's own- separates from the water again to form solid sugar crystals: A "state" is where each molecule is, how it's oriented, and what it's doing (rotating quickly in this direction, this part vibrating slowly, going quickly towards the right...) When you give the water and sugar the freedom of mixing, it opens up so immensely more actually possible sugar mixed with water states than there are possible sugar separate from water states that there is simply no significant chance that by random motion and change the sugar and water will reach a "being separate" state again. A "too free" model of the Universe will not give you your universe, but rather one of a much larger group. The "simulation" explanation seems to me as one of the latter, because while a simulation (purportedly "our universe") has to be simpler than the actual universe in which it is made, else it would not be computable, here the "actual universe" in this scenario would be a free for all of anything. Furthermore, this idea shouldn't make you lose sleep because even if you were in a simulation, as long as all those to which we relate are in the same and we are all truly sentient (conscious) and mortal, our relationships are real and an abrupt end to the simulation would simply be our turn to die. Additionally, it is questionable we even need to be truly conscious, as Bhuddists see ourselves as machines made of smaller parts, and if the parts are not conscious, there is no reason to think the whole is, so we only experience the illusion of consciousness. And yet they live their lives. As a final measure, you might also want to apply the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" criterion -emphasis on "reasonable"-. Now, does that simulation idea hit you as reasonable, versus our understanding of a coherent, physical / chemical / biological law-"abiding" universe? Which brings us back to Occam's razor.

[@imurpapa8120]

Occam's razor is not a KEY component to the scientific method. If you see hoove prints similar to a horse you should assume it was a horse rather than a mythological horse being, this is all Occam's razor argues.

[@robertsaget6918]

Are you an educated expert with degrees in astronomy or just a KZbin comment or

[@guillermoa.nerygomez8782]

@@robertsaget6918 I've a Chemical Physics PhD with an emphasis in Materials Science and a long standing interest in Astronomy, what we can classify as reality, and some formal education in Psychology.

[@chesterfumblenutts6935]

No need for a simulation when society has most of us trained to do like the same 5 things everyday on repeat.

[@patrickdreyer5967]

Gosh, why do you need to hit the nail that hard.... Just too true.

[@rayraytofast4u655]

And that training is part of a more localized simulation

[@WitchyWagonReal]

Candy Texture 🤔 ...it's just GTA with better graphics, so go for it! Remember, the cops aren't real either, just game AI bots. Let us know how it goes! 😆

[@Madmaxxxx1984]

This whole debate is ran by complete Normies with NPCs kind, complete distraction and shills , Sad .

[@Madmaxxxx1984]

@Lame Duck possibly it has been proven that the nurses and staff that run the nut houses are crazier than the patient's themselves ...

[@centific]

A real shame they did not have a sophisticated game programmer or generally game developer in there. A lot of their theories or questions can easily be answered from the point of a game dev. They might have gotten much further in the discussion.

[@rh4009]

Indeed. Christopher Domas would have been fantastic. Search for him on youtube, "Psychological Warfare in Reverse Engineering"

[@MyBigThing2010]

Not really, considering that the only part of the world that is active in a game is the part you are interacting with and its being generated as you play. So there's not a whole city going about is business in real time on your PC lol...just what is being used in your current play space.

[@PatrickM-nw3ss]

RUSSIAN ROBOT Explain how his point is incorrect. Are you stating that there is, in fact a city thriving inside your computer while you are not using it?

[@chechong2439]

Read about the Elder Scrolls games. They had the NPCs actually doing just that. Interacting with each other even when you're not around them.

[@WideOpenChange]

And loosely based on the observable quantum physics phenomenon, you can compute a reality like ours at a fraction of the processing power. It’s very suspicious to me that they didn’t talk about the observable quantum physics phenomenon.

[@eudes9179]

can u imagine creating a simulation and seeing them organize to the point that they have a debate about weather or not u exist... lmao

[@ds7483]

Ikr..lol

[@AckzaTV]

It would be so fun to troll them live.

[@Nayshjin]

TheBestKZbinChannelEverTimesInfinity and then comment About it on a virtual video hosting site

[@BarbarossaSC2]

If you could create that simulation, it's likely this wasn't the 1st one, so they'd probably be unimpressed.

[@Jessica-ee5nq]

yesssss@TheBestKZbinChannelEver

[@user-cg3tx8zv1h]

I would have LOVED to witness the identical panel engaging in a debate today, seven years later, considering all the mind-blowing discoveries they were completely unaware of back then...

[@Bananenbennie]

What kind of discoveries?

[@ArchieDBZ]

Mind blowing ones​@@Bananenbennie

[@Justinofalltrades1]

2 hrs on wooden stools... who planned this event?!

[@maxbrooks8905]

The same people who OK'ed those sunglasses...

[@mikehuly4208]

o so your mother?

[@BattousaiHBr]

holy shit, i didnt notice that. truly terrible.

[@jizzfudgsickle3619]

Yeah. Those are BAR stools. Meaning you need a bar to lean against (and a few pints) for them to even be remotely comfortable

[@GibsonLesPaul2273]

Christians and Muslims.

[@faithbobcean4813]

Could they not get these lovely people more comfortable chairs??

[@texasray5237]

Simulated comfort.

[@Rattus-Norvegicus]

You know, I didn't notice until I read your comment but those chairs look like they could seriously inflame some hemorrhoids.

[@mattm12124]

right? they need to be in like smoking lounge chairs in a semi circle so they can have a real conversation. tyson could hardly find a spot to stand to talk with them too

[@fastacker2]

Should have been in Eric Foreman's basement.

[@gegenization]

i know right xd

[@heroofthyme4237]

Oh my! I just thought of a really outstanding theory, what if our universe was a simulation! me at 12 playing the sims: What if we're the sims in an alien computer?

[@ericwilliams538]

The question I'm going to ask is, "If we were truly living in a computer simulation, how would it benefit us to have have the knowledge that we were in one???... To try and figure out how to write more algorithms for our simulation??? To try and decode what makes up our bodies so we could live long???".......

[@CodyCo]

It would benefit us in not fearing death at all. More people would skydive, etc...

[@mcmaldek]

It's pretty closed minded to assume computers are the only thing in any reality that could run a simulation. Think about that.

[@RockerfellerRothchild1776]

@@mcmaldek yup...I've always maintained the simulation may very well be ...... Analog

[@darthclone7]

@@mcmaldek I guess he forgot our Brain is also a computer made by Nature

[@lasfinezt]

The Immortal Pantheon Hello!!! Thank you

[@ArenMook]

They really should have invited a game programmer to that panel. A game programmer could explain how this could be done -- limiting the simulation for example.

[@Toorn215]

+Michael Lyashenko IF the hypothetical simulated universe is coded like our code based creations, it could be an interesting insight but it also could have limited the debate.

[@jordanngolden9341]

+Michael Lyashenko They just as easily could have brought a theologian in because most religions basically believe the universe is a simulation aka creation that was made by (a) programmer(s) aka God, gods, or some other being with powers to control and create aka program greater than mortals aka us. But as the other commenter stated that would have limited the discussion apparently.

[@samplekrate]

+Rita Hajnal No Man's Sky

[@DestinovaDrakar]

+Jordan N Golden The difference is the Programmers are on the outside of the simulation while God is within it.

[@LouisDargin]

+Michael Lyashenko Chris Crawford is a game designer who writes about such things. i.e. erasmatazz.com/library/science/information-is-the-reality.html

[@therealyoda6172]

Life is literally just a dream. It's a collective dream we have got stuck in for various reasons. When you die you wake up

[@therealyoda6172]

When you sleep you wake up as well.

[@mikefugate1367]

@@therealyoda6172 no you just get part way back

[@therealyoda6172]

@@mikefugate1367 existence is a dream. If you fully woke up there would be nothing and everything at the same time

[@darthclone7]

@@therealyoda6172 when i did salvia.. i fking hated it.. because thats what it told me.. and the simulation is outside my control because i am an npc.. my destiny is preprogrammed and is only twisted by key players.

[@dougraddi908]

That's new it's so out there that it makes sense in a freaky way

[@Lopfff]

We know they're in the Matrix, because they're wearing sunglasses indoors

[@rrp6405]

That made me LOL

[@juaneason1976]

same

[@yneshAshanti]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@Joselopez-ix2nv]

the coding in reality is blinding them and only two of them took the red pill

[@orparga140]

😎

[@johnywhy4679]

49:29 CHALMERS: "We just need to move that picture to the next universe up." That's actually next-level meta, and nobody talked about it. The hackers who simulated in the next universe up are, themselves, living in a simulated universe. I mean, why not? "People aren't ready for this."

[@ytrrs]

The panelists sometimes surprised me with basic questions/discussions among themselves: Not all simulations are interactive, like a game. Suppose a physicist simulates the evolution of galaxies in his computer, he will set the inital conditions and the rules for the state change. He will not interfere, while the galaxies evolve! Likewise, a far distant future intelligent beings that evolved technologically so well, can simulate us to see how their ancestors evolved, behaved, survived and innovated. While doing so, they'll not interfere with us, even if we attacked each other with nuclear bombs!

[@dhritimanroyghatak2408]

He meant the interactive feature is already cooked up into the code. So when the physicist simulated the evolution of galaxies with the initial conditions and all he already is taking into account of the astronomical interactions playing major role in Galaxy evolution. So its already interactive

[@TB-in6xz]

M mmm Mmmm m

[@YoMamasfavoriteDJ]

This was an excellent and insightful train of thought to board.

[@fradhilasely4607]

⁰09b866887666hnbb5

[@lyjj]

Simulators: “Hmm..dam they got us.” “Time to introduce coronavirus.”

[@bullydully7428]

Piper Wright well...yes

[@jaquanstallburger1970]

Imagine seeing this post in 2016😂

[@jordynwhite3986]

That's jacked up. lol But possible.

[@MrGooddoctor]

Too soon? lol

[@lyjj]

Jaquan Stallburger ill be arrested

[@jakemaddox76]

The guy on the left eluded to this, and I was thinking the same thing, that the universe appears to run as a simulation because of the codes or laws present in our universe. Whether these codes were predetermined/predefined is something altogether different. However, the fundamental question I had as a boy "how did everything begin from nothing" may be relevant here. How is it possible we're here, because that is impossible, yet not impossible because we are here. How can there be physical things around us that spawned from essentially nothing. Maybe it's not possible, and can only exist as an "idea" or "code", and that's what this whole thing is, a simulation that unfolds from a predetermined (or not) set of codes. Also, there are some anomalies that appear in our world that may indicate something strange is going on, such a the results of the double-slit experiment, where light changes from a particle to a wave if being measured by an outside observer. I used to believe that god did not exist. However, I have lately started to think that there may be a creator or designer or architect, not in the sense man has created, but something different. Everything appears too designed. From those exact numbers in nature that cannot deviate, to our own bodies. Look at some of the animations of DNA replication. It really appears as a designed biomechanical machine. How does taking thymine and connecting it to adenine, and guanine and connecting to cytosine, and put it together in a 6 billion strand specific sequence present a code to alter atoms to present themselves in a extremely complex structure that is in fact.....you. There is something going on here that is fantastic and beyond the confines of our human intellect. My 10-year-old son made a comment to me the other day that resonated, he said "Dad, maybe heaven is a real place, because we're here now, and that is impossible, but we are alive."

[@HansonJP98]

Jacob Maddox well put, read it twice

[@johansalvador3144]

Jacob Maddox Very smart comment by your son.

[@lordjuno7372]

Doctor Acanthamoeba GTFO you just don't want us to figure your ass out lol

[@johnekopy]

Well said, I've thought about many of the things you said. I google every few weeks "where did the original information come from"? All I can say is, I believe in something transcendent from the universe. I know it was a joke, but I was cringing when they were mocking the "programmer" as a 5-year old kid with a toy video game. If there is indeed a programmer who dominates the universe at every moment the thought of that is terrifying to me. That Programmer might indeed have consequences laid out for us after death just like some religions say.

[@mackhomie6]

Sorry to be the guy to gloss over all the important stuff just to jump at the opportunity to correct you, *but* ... a guy alludes to a thing or an idea with his words and eludes the law with his feet. Definitely not his cock.

[@frankguinan9927]

I just have to say one thing: I’ve taken Java 101 and C++ 101, and I know for a fact that all it takes to have anomalies is to write a method in your code that sets a value that picks a “random number” (it’s not really “random”, but that’s a WHOLE other discussion….) and then uses this “random” numerical value to say, for example: when the value equals 1 through 999,999,999…. Then you produce the typical result…. If the value equals 1,000,000,000; then run the anomaly. For any programmers out there: you know what I’m talking about when I say that it would likely be: “0-999,999,998”, and the anomaly would be on “999,999,999; but same difference to the layman. Anyway, if one wanted to run a program with anomalies like the existence of matter, one would simply have to produce a “random” number, and then run a “if then” and “else if” that allowed the program to produce an anomaly. This takes up VERY LITTLE processing power, and wouldn’t be hard for even “THIS GUY”, a C++ 101 student to code myself from scratch. I could run it EASILY on a computer from 1992 in MINUTES…. Just saying….

[@TacticalReligion]

THE CHOSEN ONE...

[@jessejuarez4829]

@@TacticalReligion Ur freaking FUNNY BRO.

[@Llamabotomy]

Yeah, but the Matrix isn't set in 1992 so for all we know 1992 never even happened and we're all just asleep in the Matrix where they don't have computers from 1992 to run your code because we don't know if we're in the Matrix so we don't know if the computers are real to run the code to tell us if we're in the Matrix. But hell, you're probably just an Agent anyways blue pilling all of the sheeple with your robot AI chatgpt nightmare propaganda. Carry on

[@nobodyimportant61]

When you leave autoplay on after you fall asleep.

[@LuisLopez-ve5jt]

My autoplay always "autopauses" It makes me angry 😠

[@emmkingmk]

Yes happening 2020 . Hehe

[@nobodyimportant61]

@@emmkingmk maybe yt is trying to tell us something

[@Layzz_Chipss]

THAT HAPENED TO ME 😂

[@cgoodbgoodtv1153]

Same

[@Soundbuds]

A thing I'd like to mention is that we run highly realistic simulations everynight in our own brains. They're called 'dreams'. I think it's very likely that what we call reality is a more 'stable' simulation with more rules. And perhaps it too is running inside our higher brains.

[@afrozenmind]

This is more accurate than most might think.

[@dghhdfhdjfjfjjd5698]

It's important to think what would be the purpose of such simulations? It would take huge amounts of energy and huge amounts of general resources. Matrix had a definite purpose. The energy was being harvested. IF i am to build such a simulation with a specific result in mind...I'd make sure that the residents will never have the ability to figure it out. If it was a simulation..it will be more like The Trueman Show (non-physical)..than Matrix.The String theoretical results about Universe being a hologram apply to boundary conditions of a black hole, not the current world. String theorist conveniently omit that mention.

[@Skippy0330]

What's the purpose of owning a pet fish. Why would you think something, or someone, would have to be bound by our definition of reason to do such a thing? How do you assume the energy required isn't a simulation bound concept that's not existing in the real world. Just a part of why you need purpose to action? do you think an ant would think why is this child burning us with the sun, curiosity, we have it, why should everything else? If I was a god, I'd tinker too.

[@Meaty33]

+ dghhdfh djfjfjjd This is not true, the original matrix was written for the matrix to be using a collection of human brains for its processing power. However, when it was presented the movie executives had it changed. As for a purpose of such a simulation, it would be somewhat egotistical to assume that we could understand the purpose of such a simulation from beings which are so much advanced. And that's even assuming that the set of laws of physics would be even remotely similar in such a way that humans could even assume.

[@Meaty33]

+Russian Robot If you defer to my statement i was referring to The Matrix. Edit: If you're referring to human reality as the "Game of Life" in which case everything you just said is absolutely nonsensical. You're projecting the reality we perceive to be the reality of the simulators

[@michaelpisciarino5348]

26:40 "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" (Opens door to Eternal Life and Resurrection) 29:14 Value of Parameters, 30:14 Multiverse, Probability (needs a well-defined meaning) 34:07 Simulation breaks down, multiple unique universes do not 35:44 Any evidence against a simulation could be simulated 37:59 Super Mario Laws of Physics (How could inside understanding lead to outside understanding?) 38:22 Simulator cuts corners 40:40 Physical reality to Quantum Level (higher resolution, higher resolution, pixels) 42:17 Screen-Door Effect

[@lucasnakata7146]

Thank you kind hearted person

[@Badmemorycure]

Thank you God

[@Dragondezznuts]

Michael Pisciarino you have no life. Thanks 🙏

[@aaronluckette]

I have done, well, let's say "a lot" of research, and I have, well, "a lot" to comment on, and your post just happened to "set me off" (as it is the first one about religion)...First, the 26:40 Sagan quote is simply the thoughts of a person. I'm not saying he was or was not intelligent, simply that, ironically, just because he CLAIMS this, as he cannot PROVE it, it is not NECESSARILY a fact. To be clear, the keyword there is NECESSARILY. (I do not follow that only claims that CAN be proven with evidence are true). There have been theories that were proven true, and later exceptions were found. Hmm, a simple example...You can't see things in the dark [without fire]...[Fast forward, invention of electricity, then flashllight]. The theory was right, but the "law" was appended. The point is, and Lisa R. pointed this out, science DISproves theories; it rules things OUT, not necessarily in...Anyway: Eternal life (or any textual claims of ANY religion, to be purposefully broad) COULD be true. Although there is no evidence (and even if there were evidence AGAINST this), it could be true. (Even if it were proven false millions of times over, it could still be an exception). Personally, I believe that we (as a species) continue to "append" to our own rules. We have several words for it, too: "news", "discoveries", "inventions", etc. Whether a purposeful product of a creator or an accidental by-product of another, humans continue to smash our quarks together to append our own rules and theories to make sense of our environment. I agree with Neil in that it would be way too self-centered of us to believe we are the most intelligent that ever has been or will be. Further, as soon as WE have the power to do this, we will...Why then would we expect this not to have already happened of a more-capable entity? [edited] Realized I didn't reply to your other comments, and, well, this is fun, so: 29:14 Zohreh - Watch Brian Greene, (kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJeac4uti8qsjdk). He is also published. Until I am as well, I'm going to keep my thoughts secret here. ;-) 30:14 Lisa - Not sure why you pointed this out. It's a great point (and maybe that's why you've noted it). Simply put, she's right. 34:07 Lisa again - "The computer couldn't keep track of stuff" is what interests me about this segment. I have to say I was appalled at how little this group as a whole had (probably HAS still - 2019) about technology), or at-least, if they DO have more knowledge than what was displayed, how little of it they applied in this debate. I felt like when really important concepts of how humans have evolved our technology came up, the group got silly and laughed it off (often literally), when actually the similarities between this evolution and how potentially we ourselves were created should, in my opinion, be researched thoroughly. Don't remember the mm:ss, but Max brings up Minecraft and the "seed" used Markus Persson (inventor of Minecraft) uses in his programming. I think there's a HUGE similarity to this concept and the creation (again, see Brian Greene). I'm aggravated that this topic was discussed by these great minds and technology was laughed at and brushed off like it was. There's another time when David C. (towards the end) mentions something (I may go back and find this because I think it's important to) and again the group laughs it off. At the very end, Lisa does it yet again (makes a comment about what is effectively "God's computer"). To Lisa: Our own technology unfolds exponentially year after year; how could we ever presume to comprehend "God's technology"? (I think of a floppy disk in the 90's versus the Citadel in Nevada (www.switch.com/the-citadel/). It's not just her, though. Throughout this entire debate, they all laugh this topic off as if to effectively say, "Do you know what kind of technology that would require? That's not even feasible." I see our creator laughing at these folks. Seriously, though, they should do this again with at-least one technology professional. 40:40 and 42:17, as you note, also are too-quickly brushed off by the group in my opinion. 35:44 David - This is called Last Thursdayism. Note: www.last-thursday.org/ is a silly fake. Look it up elsewhere. The basic idea is that pre-human history (fossils, the photons coming from the really old universe, etc) were all planted at a given point in time purposely to - at even a subatomic level - factually prove their existence and creation at various times before the were created). Later David notes this concept again (towards the end), referencing the Jim Carrey film, the Truman Show. I kind-of believe this. Again: this can't be disproven and to even try is to believe I am, or WE as a species are, more-capable of fooling God. In-fact, this entire group sort-of implies that relating to "error-correction"....sort-of a "God had to made a mistake somewhere in the galaxy and we're going to find it! 4021 Max to Zohreh "Look for corner-cutting evidence". I'd say, "Umm, probably not. Probably. not, Mario." If you follow Neil's humorous analogy at the very end, that's like thinking your dog is going to figure out how to hack the password to your Amazon account so he can order more dog food...no..steaks. At the same time, though, I agree with Zohreh, that, as the dogs, we must keep trying...must keep looking. :-)

[@Dragondezznuts]

Aaron Luckette legitimately all of ten people over five years will see that book you wrote.

[@ChiefKiif]

Watching this while playing Dark Souls. Love destroying my mind, soul and room all in one sitting lol

[@LeanMan82]

that sounds like a good night

[@unclemunch]

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar; and doesn't.

[@shanejohns7901]

...does NOT walk into a bar, and orders a drink.

[@BallerDan53]

This makes me uncertain.

[@brianlinville439]

Scrodinger's cat is not even a cat, its lines of code?, hence why it can walk in a bar and yet not.

[@kokas466]

Then the cat catn't

[@merveilmeok2416]

Schrodinger's cat into a bar ; that mouse already had that dream last night.

[@AlexanderBatyr]

Wow, that's amazing. Even though it's the longest youtube video I've watched, still I want to watch more of it. I've started like "wtf is it two hours?" and "I'll watch just a 5 min", but then just noticed that my mind has been involved in the conversation as if I were talking to them, so there was no single moment to be bored, it is curious and exciting throughout two hours. Thumbs up if watching in 2017

[@guardmyrift3136]

Well, I -WAS- about to go to bed, however it looks like am going to be up at least 2 more hours, longer if I continue to fall down this rabbit hole. Led here from the Riddle youtube channels video.

[@trinitygregg3060]

Ivan Psimer In the exact same situation man 😂🤷🏼‍♀️ I just keep watching lmao I want to know how much deeper into the internet I will get

[@kikifl4905]

@@trinitygregg3060 ditto! got here from Spirit Science. I kept wondering why are these ppl arguing? lol they're all saying the same thing from different perspectives :D Great stuff!

[@0verIOrd]

Kiki FL are u better

[@nicholastaylor9398]

Our sense of continuity depends on our memory being consistent with the present. If an error occurs, the memory can always be rewritten, and as long as it was consistent it could be quite different and you would not be aware of discontinuity. The universe might be an objective simulation or automaton at the Planck level, but I don't think it's possible to remove the subjective element in practice. Of course, that applies to reality even if it isn't a simulation!

[@darthclone7]

Very true!! Memories are unreliable so whats real is subjective to the individual.. Hell, everyone is rewriting the Matrix with the individuals Mind living our own simulation of Hell

[@TacticalReligion]

which of course, it is.

[@neurophilosophers994]

Space time can be continuous and only appear discretized because of our limited information and Zoreh’s point about Feynman asking why discretized space would require infinite degrees of freedom was definitely my favorite moment about this.

[@rigolgm]

Zohreh Davoudi was great here. Others seemed a bit anachronistic. It's a bit like watching scientists 100 years ago saying "well, even if we WERE in a simulated world, you would need a giant steam engine to power it. so are there giant steam engineers?" But Zohreh transcends that. Great.

[@matthewsmith7759]

Exactly my thought. She was the only one who provided real science to the debate.

[@SoSoKayla]

She's pretty damn brilliant. Also, kinda cute.

[@sapphires786]

cutie with brains ;)

[@Joselopez-ix2nv]

yes! im glad someone else noticed this!!!!!!!!!!!!! like 1:35:30 is amazing she is basically inceptioning the matrix

[@danielwood8778]

How can you stand to listen to her, bless her heart, she’s a terrible narrator! She sounds like a squeaking piece of chalk!

[@NightfallShadow]

So...basically in the beginning god hit the enter key and then there was light?

[@GOCrannell]

Or maybe he hit the delete key and then there was light....hmmm.

[@maxcrit3481]

Lol no that was outside the simulation. The simulation is everyone that chose the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Just guessing tho. Lol

[@PeyoteIguana]

Nope, god is in the simulation, it's actually a 13 year old Korean kid in a natural universe who pushed the button.

[@maxcrit3481]

Carlos Saraiva Or a partially eaten apple 0_0

[@davidhill3421]

Basically ... So if God is controlling all of the universe through channelling dimensions of higher beings It's still God watching over us because the controlling of every program is nothing without the 'prime controller'

[@selahstrong1027]

Descartes already dealt with this question hundreds of years ago. It's the first supposition in his proof popularized as "I think therefore I am." This is better stated as "Cogito ergo sum" or "I doubt therefore I am." The self is a necessary being. Descartes's "Grand Deceiver" is the equivalent of the question "are we living in a simulation."

[@MIsterioStudios]

We create our own reality through thought and its thought that feed a universal consciousness. The more we know, the more we know that we don't know everything.

[@seedplanter7173]

And that they are trying to kill us...Forgot that one...kinda important.

[@RobertR3750]

Mystical mumbo jumbo. The universe exists regardless of whether you perceive it or not.

[@robertromero8692]

@@homelessrobot “Lots of things exist abstractly.” The subject is the Universe, not “abstract things”. “And the universe does not actually exist physically; that would require that it exist 'in' itself, and that is not logically possible. Physics is the system of rules that things 'inside' the universe obey, and a thing being inside of itself makes no sense at all.” It’s a meaningless semantic evasion to say that “existence doesn’t exist” (a self-contradictory statement) because it would have to “exist inside itself”. “It exists metaphysically, which is probably not the sort of existence that you are suggesting that it has.” Saying that the Universe is a computer simulation is nothing but a new technospeak coat of paint on a very old philosophical idea going back to at least Plato - that “true” reality exists on some “higher plane” than what “mere human senses and reason” can perceive, so you’re supposed to ignore your senses and your reason and pay attention to a philosopher-king (AKA the Church, the State, etc.) to tell you what is the “true” nature of reality. It’s utter nonsense and again self-contradictory to say that reality isn’t real.

[@robertromero8692]

@@homelessrobot “The universe is necessarily something non-physical.” Mere assertion without proof. Stick your hand in a blast furnace, then try to tell me that there’s nothing physically wrong with your hand. “I don't know what the true nature of reality is” IOW, as I said, the counsel is to ignore one’s senses and one’s reason in dealing with reality. “If it exists at all” As I said, it is self-contradictory to say that existence doesn’t exist. “If you aren't prepared to discuss philosophical topics, then don't engage in philosophy. This is a philosophical conversation.” You must have missed the part where I said “Saying that the Universe is a computer simulation is nothing but a new technospeak coat of paint on a very old PHILOSOPHICAL idea going back to at least Plato” “It is precise semantics to say 'existence doesn't exist'. Its the same as saying 'the cup is not in the cup'. “ It is precisely nonsense to say that “a cup is not something that exists”, or “existence doesn’t exist”. Existence exists just as surely as saying “A is A”.

[@robertromero8692]

@@homelessrobot It is not 'mere assertion without proof to say "The universe is necessarily something non-physical.". It is implicit in the foundations of mathematics. Thinks like russel's paradox and godel's incompleteness theorems. What does mathematics have to do with proving the Universe is non-physical? “I am not the one saying this. I have just learned it and am repeating it, after coming to an understanding of the implications.” People have been asserting this sort of thing for thousands of years. So what? “the counsel is to ignore ones first impulse and actually apply reason. “ What “reason”? Simply saying “mathematics” is no answer. “It is based on a more rigorous concept of 'existence' an enclosing space is required for the concept of existence to make sense. When we talk about physical existence, we are talking about 'within a physical space'. When we talk about the existence of some abstract point, it is within some coordinate space. No space, no existence. "Existence exists just as surely as saying “A is A”." I was simply borrowing your language for the sake of conversation. 'Existence exists' only seems like it makes sense because of a syntactic similarity between the two words. Existence means 'all that exists', generally in a physical sense. If we are just talking about the contents of the universe itself, then of course that exists. But the system in which it exists” This is nonsensical. If something exists, it is part of existence by definition. It is meaningless to say that there is something that is “there”, but is somehow “outside of” or “beyond” existence. “That think has no physical context inwhich to exist. It exists as a metaphysical object.” You seem to be embracing the idea of nonmaterial reality. There is nothing “beyond” the material world. Knowledge cannot be acquired by non-sensory, nonrational means. "[...]coat of paint on a very old PHILOSOPHICAL idea going back to at least Plato" Oh, I completely agree. But that doesn't make it not meaningful or true. It just means we now have different words to describe this old thing. But to the enclosing sentiment, that simply making a reference to a philosophical concept means you are interested in actually discussing the topic philosophically, is not true. You are essentially saying ontology is pointless to discuss. “ Saying that Plato’s ontology is bunk is hardly refusing to discuss ontology. Talking about reality “beyond” the senses or reason is patently ridiculous.

[@bGzzzzz]

Kind of hard watching this with Morpheus in the centre, Julian Assange on the far left, Fonzie and Steve Harvey with hair and not laugh

[@jordanzlotolow8254]

hee

[@boneyjoe8543]

yeah.. the beings running this simulation should have picked more sensible avatars.

[@khaliobush2577]

Deja vu is from the simulation crashing and being rebooted and we're resuming from an older save and reaching the point right before we crashed.

[@Farrahsworld]

A lot of this was over my head BUT Neil kept interrupting. He could not help himself. Wow.

[@Woltato]

So If my life's just a video game simulation like they're suggesting , how do I find out my current score and does anyone know any good cheats?

[@Oplix]

+Woltato racing a cop is 10,000 gangster points

[@BrionesPalomo]

+Woltato farm money for the better upgrades

[@NuntiusLegis]

Quantum mechanics might be a cheat, but evolution resulting in humans is clearly a bug.

[@benbennit]

+Woltato It's called Facebook friends.

[@steelwall99]

+Arto Kulmala oh man I'm not ready.

[@johnmanett4801]

the simulation theory being fact is every high school kids nightmare math student : "when are we ever gonna use this in the real world?!" teacher "our world is math mf" *mic drop*

[@growlikethewind5788]

Yella Felluh lol.

[@superleipoman]

Kind of true for "real physics" as well though.

[@iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4222]

Yella Felluh what is 10/3 What is 3.3333333333...x3 What is 9.9999999999...? What is math? Is math an invention?

[@Alyzzardo]

"Is math related to science?"

[@Zeutral14]

1/3=0.333... 10 * 1/3=3.333... 10 * 1/3 - 1/3 = 9 * 1/3 = 3.333... - 0.333... = 3 = 9/3 the mistake that people not related too much with math, u cant treat infinity as "almost inifinity", infinity never ends and u keep going with this 3*3.333... for ever so the the last 0. .... ...0000001 which is missing goes forever to the infinite small number which is zero

[@bobaldo2339]

Suppose you were a mean kid with a laptop, and wanted to design a version of Hell. Imagine a world populated by creatures who had to eat each other to survive. - like Earth, for instance. That would do nicely.

[@matthewmorgenstern6115]

Thanks Bob, That survival is based on mutual predation has always bothered me and I've never run into anyone else who gave it any thought.

[@The22on]

I have always thought of that as an argument against a good god. Any 'god' who makes animals eat animals can't be good.

[@ոakedsquirtle]

You could just become lumps of evenly dispersed matter who photosynthesize on a planet with perfect soil content and water distribution. Thing is, that's not very intricate. The complexity of life comes out of a need to resist predation and thrive. When you take this out of the equation, life itself just becauses as stale as a self producing rock. Even plants have to find interesting ways to attract polinators and repell predators. Think of capsasin in chili peppers, the thorns on roses, or simply the petals of a sunflower.

[@The22on]

Great comments here. I'm glad that others are repulsed by the "system" on Earth where living things eat living things... and some of those things are conscious and aware they are being eaten! What a horrible system! Can you imagine the sheer terror a gazelle feels when the fangs of a tiger pierce its flesh? Mercifully it lasts only a few minutes. Of course, the "system" does drive evolution. I read that you can't have intelligence until you have locomotion. Thus, plants will never be conscious (though they do react to stimuli) because they can't walk or swim or fly around. Consciousness is, like all things in nature, a defense mechanism. It helps the organism to avoid predators or catch prey. I don't see why some people make a big deal about consciousness and how it may continue after you die. That's the old Greek "dualism" where mind and body are separate. But I digress. It's just good to know that some people CARE that animals have feelings. I'm not crazy about all animals - though I like the occasional dog. But I do think animals have the same right to enjoy this planet as you and I. When I was a kid, I saw a man on a pier catch a fish. The fish flopped on the deck for a full minute. Even at 4 years old I felt sorry for the fish. I guess I'm just "programmed" by my genes to feel this. Nobody taught me. Sorry to ramble on. IRL, it's hard to discuss stuff like this with friends. I'll close with a line from a sixties song called Reflections Of My Life: The world is... a bad place... a bad place... a terrible place to live... ahhh, but I don't wanna die. Peace out!

[@vidafrutaldivina2632]

Nate God made no one to eat animals. That is a result of our own free will and complete human error! It’s a virus in computer terms. I’m healthier than ever been vegan for 6.5 years and anyone can break free of the meat-eating virus by eating plants 🌱

[@allTimecopsAreBad]

Neil DT is so amazing and has made a career out of interrupting people way smarter than himself.

[@basiliobastardo255]

You just need to be the host...

[@allTimecopsAreBad]

@@basiliobastardo255 Yeah, sounds like you grasped the point pretty well here

[@lovely-zl9kt]

Yeah he disrespected lisa so many times

[@lambro3001]

His gray afro is immaculate

[@vasillir]

TOO immaculate. Must be a simulation.

[@NaughtyBitts]

It's a simulated mullet.

[@gl1tch8]

It's kell with a fake beard

[@breh4141]

best comment

[@TheBoogieman2001]

It’s a judge’s gayfro he is wearing,as he came straight from court,he is presiding on a huge case.He is known for moonlighting as Keenan’s sidekick,along with talking crap about super mario.His day job as a judge consumes much energy and leaves him floppy,lethargic and very sensitive to light.His main objective in life is to discover his paternal spunken generator.Three cheers 🥂 for this ultimate man of many talents.He enriches all our lives.

[@neilwalker8686]

The big bang was the simulator being powered on. We think the universe is expanding but it is being created at the speed of light, hence the speed limit. Black holes are lines of code being deleted to keep the simulation program running without stalling.

[@ordinarybear7037]

Speed Of Light isn't even constant it was averaged out at three locations it has variables.

[@ordinarybear7037]

Rupert Sheldrakes 10 dogma's of science that have held back these subjects. Not sure thats still available !!

[@veralanger8947]

Lisa Randall is my hero! What an impressive mixture. Wonderful sceptical, rational mind with a spiritual, unsuppressed soul underneath . We need more intellectual authorities like Her in nowadays world. Asking, not giving answers. Doubting, not knowing. That’s what we need. Thank you!

[@AlphaKingofGlory]

A pleasure and thank you for being here

[@yallaintit]

The panelists in video: brilliant scientists that genuinely care about this topic and finding the answer Comments: liFe iS (nOt) viDjA gAme!!!!

[@awinelli8880]

Hahahahahsh

[@javzzz_]

The simulations sent us all together once again at 3 am when we’ve fallen asleep...

[@charlieandhudsonspal1312]

I saw this in my recommendations and I had apparently watched it already. So yeah I slept through it one night. I’m glad to know I’m not the only one

[@rcversie7358]

It’s 3 am as I’m watching this wtf

[@AbuSara5]

3am here too ☺️

[@rocky0975-t6c]

WTH I just woke up literally at 3am

[@billmotor8303]

@@rocky0975-t6c bruh it's literally 3:13

[@anonimofied]

a Monk once told me: "What we feels, see, hear etc is only reflections of reality, and reflections is not the same as reality"

[@yougonasorry]

+Vinh Nguyen that monk was probably drunk, wasn't he

[@anonimofied]

you are drunk if you think you know how reality works

[@om3g4z3r0]

A wise man once said "objects in the mirror are closer than they appear"

[@philipcain5093]

Descartes and his meditations describes the same thing as the monk you encounter had told you.

[@philipcain5093]

+Philip Cain encountered*

[@acool6401]

Assuming we are in a simulation then we can only know the universe to the extent that the simulation parameters are discoverable by the program that governs our simulated brains. In other words… If those simulation parameters require an understanding of parameters outside of the simulation (in order to explore them further) then our consciousness or what we like to think of as “consciousness” is only within the context of the simulation itself and that creates an inherent limitation. Therefore we are not conscience in a true sense but only conscience within the context of our limited existence. We might take this analogy to a spiritual level and come to the conclusion that only God is truly conscience and the only creator of this simulation. In this sense, it can no longer be a simulation (as we define “simulation”) and is therefore rendered as our only reality as we can not match the consciousness of God.

[@pinochska]

I think Lisa Randall was killing it. Always grounded to real physics.

[@pinochska]

***** oh you are right random youtube person... you should've ben on that stage lmao

[@dirtclaude3730]

I think the problem was that she was trying to stay a little too grounded. Everyone else was just trying to explore hypotheticals and create a fun discussion of possibilites. After all, the discussion was supposed to be about the universe being simulated, but it seemed like Lisa didn't even want to entertain the idea.

[@zazugee]

sure if you put it that way, it appears that the simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable, but it's related to the computationable and informational universe paradigm, the question is, is information fundamental? if so, then it doesn't matter if we are simulated or not, cause in the information paradigm, there is no difference between a simulated phenomena and the phenomena itself, cause both are informational, and there is no real one!, heck putting it another way, explain to me what you mean by "reality" in QM, more and more scientists are saying that there is no such a thing as reality

[@punisher00109]

even physicists have personality flays and closed-mindedness.. it is up to us to check and balance eachother's flaws when it comes to train of thought

[@sarahatterson2667]

I don't think she was "close-minded." It was clearly her job to be the straight man and she performed admirably.

[@leonidasleonidas1986]

Wonder if they have missed something obvious If we lived in a simulation... Time. A program could be clicked to process at relatively radically different process speeds than that the real non simulated world of the simulators . For example when you load a Computer it can make thousands of process in a second. Theories show that time is relevant to intelligence the more intelligent you are the slower time goes for you. You look smarter because your quicker brain allows time to effectively move slower, giving you more time to get it right. To an outside observer you look quick and smarter. If we lived in an extremly advanced simulation 6 billions years to us might only take the model or computer 60 seconds to process. The whole simulation that we experience including the next 20000 years of human development might be simulated on a computer in an hour. Just like we download an hour long movie in a few mins. The last thing is that our simulation might well be deleted later that morning but we will still have billions of our own relative years to experience within the sim. Why would they do this. Probably research to help them solve their own problems or learn something about their own past,. Like time travel (and indeed our own models on climate) we run models to predict the future. Wouldn't the perfect model be a universal simulation. I wouldn't be surprised that the entity running the sim are humans living on the earth trying to figure out a problem 10,000 years from Now. That's my two pence :)

[@Wild1KY]

And they say Flat Earthers are crazy 🤦‍♂️ these people will believe in ANYTHING other than, wait for it.... GOD!!! Period! They are ALL atheists (at least on the outside) they probably know damn well there is a “Creator”. Yet they Fool the masses with their “so called Theories”. If you look up NDT & Bill Nye it says they are ACTORS!! The German (Blonde Guy) From Rocky has 3 MBA’s & 1 Bachelor from Multiple Universities. What does Bill Nye the Lying Guy Have? 1, in Mechanical Engineering!!! Not Science. Do Not waste 1 minute of your Time With these Lying Actors. Have a great day 👍

[@Brightfur10]

@@Wild1KY How do you know this for sure?

[@walpurgisnacht9234]

You sound crazier than any flat earther lol.

[@jewsh519]

This and flat earth is crazy

[@madalaine1150]

NEUROLINK

[@Messier31NGC224]

This discussion is mind-blowing to a level I can't even describe. How absolutely fascinating!!

[@ThinkHuman]

+iDemandU90 It totally is,great profile pic btw!

[@gizmopossible]

Simulatees: "I think this is a simulation" Simulator: "put a bunch of very intelligent people together in a video, all of whom they will believe, and tell them that it's not a simulation"

[@antagonizerr]

The mistake they make is in thinking that 'error correction' is a stand alone, observable function, when it could easily be a part of a bigger function that just happens to error correct. I.E. A swiss army knife is primarily a blade, but it can also unscrew things. When the blade is put away, and the screwdriver comes out, it can be hard to visualize both these functions as being part of the same 'system' and without knowledge of what a swiss army knife is, you may see either a knife, or a screwdriver, depending on your perspective. More of a computational simulation perspective, but somewhat overlooked.

[@netmx7775]

So the conclusion is that we can't really prove anything

[@jeanclaude6284]

netmx basically.

[@Kostadin_Arolski]

Well duh.

[@Kostadin_Arolski]

Look into quantum physics. The instant ifnormation teleportation is mind blowing. But maybe they talk about it in the debate, i should watch the video first lmao

[@lostdachew1999]

only reason i came to watch the video,, its what everything breaks down to but also the way you interpret things

[@jasonturgeon8647]

@Dhen Phu which allows people to introduce ridiculous ideas like this. Really? Life is a simulation, huh? U people are stupid

[@deathdivine13]

poor Zohreh. I can only imagine how many times she's talking to someone and they're just staring back blankly cuz they got lost 25 minutes ago.

[@deathdivine13]

@livud Jr both :'D although for me it was first because of her words

[@jasonroku4219]

Right?

[@udonnoodlez293]

@livud Jr Between her lack of cohesiveness and sloppy speech, it becomes a headache to listen to her. She needs to sit back and structure her thoughts and convey information to all audiences. Also, she is hot af.

@@udonnoodlez293 I loved everything she said up until the last monologue where she seemed to start rambling a bit. Nevertheless I'll go look up what she's on nowadays...

[@udonnoodlez293]

@ I just wish I had a better understanding of the subject. I'm a recently graduated Chem E. so it isn't easy for me to grasp the full extent of her explanation. I do agree with you, very interesting and I do want to know more about her work.

[@CRASS2047]

To me, if I imagine the universe as a simulation, that would require 3d pixels. If you imagine a computer creating those pixels, they would have a finite refresh rate. This refresh rate would explain the speed limit on light traveling.

[@BB-uz8pn]

Great point! I though the theory on you can’t travel faster than light was disproven? Or maybe I am wrong

[@CRASS2047]

@@BB-uz8pn there are theories about dilation of space, like a warp drive. But it hasn’t been tested

[@purefoldnz3070]

Yes but can it run Crysis?

[@zacharyharrison9612]

Purefoldnz Only at 144p 20fps

[@pyrocolada]

If simulations are made to copy the universe... OF COURSE IT IS doh!!

[@clownbasher2911]

Not in the part of the simulation that simulates shitty computers!

[@hemitheosmax]

I love u for this comment

[@SoCalFreelance]

Yes, first person shooters are an everyday occurrence in our simulation.

[@QuickandDirty]

The panelists today, from left to right: We have Julian Assange, Helen Hunt, Morgan Freeman, Mark Wahlberg and Zohreh Davoudi.

[@mushtaqbhat1895]

The hypothesis has at least two significant axioms. 1. The existence of what we humans can only picture as some sort of a multi verse or the existence of a body or mind or intelligence and information outside our realm. 2. The existence of a universal law of conservation of energy. I am inclined to think that all of the panelists here take it for granted without explicitly mentioning it. If the first one is true, why is it assumed that the laws that govern the phenomenon of existence in the simulation must also apply to those existing in the host universe? Allegedly the problem regarding the need for infinite calculations, as we do here is projected onto the host universe, thereby setting it as an obligatory requirement. If they in the host universe are operating with set of laws transcending ours, they may not need all that, what we assume they need, which is a human projection. They may just need something entirely different than what we imagine. Maybe just small physical gadget or only some information pooled in a minuscule wave or particle or a mental thought or something even entirely different than what our brains at present can imagine. There is inevitably a subtle form of anthropomorphism, albeit a bit more grounded in our mathematics that shines through most of these debates, allegedly free from human bias, something impossible to achieve. An evolutionary biologist or a neurologist does not need Heisenberg, Pauli or Schroedinger or for that matter Poincaré or Fermat to believe in that impossibility. There are indeed some unknown Unknowns, which will become for future species that will evolve organically or for that matter semi-organically or synthetically just a wee bit more accessible but probably even more complex to resolve. Still unknown Unknowns may be? This does not however discredit the human endeavor to explore, which is probably just one of the many properties of life wherever it exists.

[@carlosalbertoteixeira375]

Excellent debate. Thanks a 1,000! And greetings from Niterói, Rio deJaneiro, Brazil.

[@HiddenPalm]

Zohreh Davoudi deserves her documentary series regarding her search for glitches and bugs.

[@J.W1180]

She is hot. I know this isn’t the place for such comments but a woman that smart and looks like that..

[@HiddenPalm]

@@J.W1180 Ahhh man, you're gonna make rewatch this.

[@J.W1180]

@@HiddenPalm it’s still good. Do it

[@HiddenPalm]

@@J.W1180 You know I will.

[@JoeBigSh0w]

At the minute 15:10, where the subtitles go [unintelligible], he said René Descartes. "René Descartes said how do you know you're not being..." Amazing talk btw.

[@thresholdseven8942]

They need to fix the code on that lighting so they don't have to use the sun glasses mod

[@-_Nuke_-]

Exactly!

[@MrKmanthie]

yeah, but they're SO fucking cool, they just gotta wear their shades!

[@fetB]

i the matrix taught us anything..

[@maplenook]

No doubt. And proper chairs.

[@stephencarter6392]

I am an astrophilosopher. This topic is approached by thinking of the universe first, as a Metaverse, then as a mere verse of philopohical verse, quarks or liptons or Asimovs in the monster mashaverse.

[@JesusFan]

"Intelligent people" make me sick... just talking in never ending circles of nothingness... - Plato

[@Dahstin5311]

Isn't that all of us in past, present, and future? -Me

[@jasonspades5628]

I don't think plato said that

[@donlannoch7049]

So don't listen.

[@agreattimetoday]

You didn’t even quote properly McProseph Gaming and your critiquing the panel? - Socrates

[@2LucasKane3]

I wish this was a day long video. I can just listen to these people for ever.

[@basiliobastardo255]

better get back to work… else

[@2LucasKane3]

@@basiliobastardo255 I am at work :P

[@basiliobastardo255]

@@2LucasKane3 I love your work…. watching youtube is allowed... lol

[@chipkrug4191]

I’m surprised Arthur C. Clark’s idea on this subject was not mentioned. In the third book of the Rama trilogy he suppo0ses a device, a hyperbolic surface representing all possible laws of physics. Touching any point produces a universe with certain laws of physics. He imagines an advanced being experimenting with this console to discover what point produced an ideal universe; as I recall, one whose qualities would include intelligence, compassion, and harmony.

[@tylerweathers1658]

whoa I am looking this up

[@Xez1919]

hmm pretty fucked up for the beings living in the other, imperfect universes...

[@fuzzzbuzzz9867]

We definitely drew the short straw out of that device then.

[@fredriksvard2603]

Chip Krug thats kindergarten level stuff

[@johnywhy4679]

29:18 No. If randomness is already part of the model, then you don't need to change input parameters to get a different result.

[@Simon-pl2zi]

Ive had so many experiences that points to a realization that our 3D reality is an illusion and we are constantly shifting through parallel realities seamlessly

[@deehno9018]

I too have tried many drugs

[@PerkolatorTheTerminator]

Personal anecdotes aren’t evidence and tripping acid is not a peer reviewed study lol.

[@i.t.s.t.h.e.c.a.l.z.o.n.e]

Whats hard to discern about LSD is.... are you hallucinating or are you indeed experiencing/seeing quantum shift?

[@douglasraddi4872]

@@deehno9018 lol

[@Tommybouy666]

W H I T E B O Y Z

[@Jens.Krabbe]

36:11 "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't simulate that."

[@madtscientist8853]

Nice movie drop

[@simransingh8501]

Fell asleep and woke up to this, ended up watching the whole video in morning 😂

[@milosheppard7261]

Same

[@basiliobastardo255]

Try turning off your device before sleeping…. it kinda saves energy

[@basiliobastardo255]

@Tacitus G. Kilgore yes

[@barafaraferdast2065]

3:10 introductions 5:50 personal introductions

[@earlmcraw5606]

We are almost in a simulation as the news outlets tells us what to think, music attaches to our memories and envokes flashbacks, film gives us people to aspire to, plays out our fantasies for us and engrains all kind of subliminal messages in our minds. So to me we’re already there just not connected yet.

[@adrycough]

lol ok 👴🏻

[@Evanderj]

The idea of free will is absurd when confronted by the evidence of our programming.

[@martyrmessiah3903]

@@Evanderj So if outer space is physically infinite then the simulation would be too, counting for not having a programmer, therefor contradicting itself as a theory. The ploy for physical infinity would support the vague notion that there is no spiritual dimensional realm. These corporate mind drones are all soulless transhumanists.

[@cjsawhney]

A few days back when I came to know that there are self-replicating robots who can assemble copies of themselves, I told my husband that it is possible that we are also similar robots who have been programmed by aliens of another universe.

[@endoftheearthasweknowit9204]

Creative to be work slaves? Then the alien/ god's return to their world after the slaves repaired their spacecraft?

[@kangtheconqueror9545]

Well, we do "self-replicate".....we produce more human beings.

[@Rlip]

Egyptians have it written in written in stone “humans are a slave race”

[@garyphillips2408]

No such thing as another universe. Uni being the reason why.✌️

[@bigboss-tl2xr]

@@garyphillips2408 Not much of a "deep thinker" are ya Gary.

[@wayneyadams]

This reminds me of the Big bang Episode when Leonard was told this universe could be nothing more than a computer game and he comments that some alien kid paid extra for the asthma and glasses upgrade for his character.

[@JustLikeHeaven77]

If it is a simulation, my life really sucks. Game over please.

[@debshreebasu8137]

Hahahahahhahahahahha omigoshhh

[@karlhungus5554]

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet." - Woody Allen

[@johntonna2235]

Isaac Asimov's Hari Seldon would be an interesting addition to this panel

[@WinmanDesigner]

Here we have a real Asimov fan.

[@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz]

He was supposed to be there but the mutant through everything off

[@Runepriest442]

What she isn't connecting with the dots is The Observable phenomenon of Quantum OBSERVATION. Collapsing a wave function by observation. This is similar to single point draw calls for a computer simulation. All possibilities EXIST until the PROGRAM gets observation input and is prompted for Draw calls upon Observable space.

[@WideOpenChange]

It’s very suspicious they didn’t talk about that while on a panel about this very thing.

[@Madrawn]

The reason might be the misuse of the word "observation" by scientists. If you go and try to learn the equations that underlie the quantum phenomena you realize by observation actually interaction is meant. To measure some small particle you have to interact with it in some way, like bouncing photons of it, absolutely no consciousness required. This whole idea that a observer is needed for stuff to happen is deeply flawed. The reality is you need to interact to make stuff happen. The same problem is popping up concerning "dark matter" it should be called "dark fred" because "matter" supposes it IS some kind of matter. Which has been in no way shown. It could be some matter but we don't know yet. We only know there is gravity out there we can't explain with the stuff we see. Scientists constantly borrow language which seems to imply stuff which simply doesn't hold true in all cases. Another example is the "color" of quarks or the "spin" of electron. Quarks are not colored nor do electrons spin in a physical way.

[@smellcaster]

Hmmm maybe dark Matter and dark Energy were just some Workaround by the Programmers who didn't want the Simulation to collapse. Quantum Entanglement is some Kind of same Page merging to free up some Memory. Most of the Universe is completely empty so not much Memory Usage there. Time itself is not a continuous Flow, it really ticks away in Units defined by Max Planck.

[@AckzaTV]

Its called our universe is procedurally generated. Welcome to Star Citizen. Buy your EOS before its $10,000 USD per token.

[@meadsky]

I haven't watched through the entire video yet, at the 43:18 mark when Neil was explaining needing an infinite amount of space I thought, "No you don't just look at a procedurally generated game like No Man's Sky, which is itself a universe simulator." This brings up an interesting point that quantum mechanics where observation of a system forces an outcome in the system means that is not really about representing a finite anything but that reality is able to resolve things as a result of observation of reality.

[@calliph]

In defense of indoor sunglasses, especially here: those stage lights blind tf out of you.

[@pyrogee9690]

How do I always find myself watching these videos when I’m suppose to be sleepiny

[@Z3sty367]

Appetite for new information human curiosity, entranced. Getting off XD

[@Qui-Dad-Jinn]

Right?!

[@Qui-Dad-Jinn]

@@Z3sty367 and weed.

[@back-to-basics]

because you need no rest for you are already dreaming. "row row row your boat..."

[@JonBernhards66]

It's because of paid propaganda to KZbin at stuff like this fake globe pops-up... 🌎

[@nightangel7239]

25:38 He took a nerd joke and one-upped it with a joke so nerdy only a tenth of the crowd caught it.

[@TheProfesionalGamerGGN]

Night Angel lol....137..OS what exactly

[@collaredgreens1600]

I wish I understood this :( (shhh, just pretend) Hah! I know right, 137! LOL. (...they know. run!)

[@-_Nuke_-]

ok I need someone to explain this to me!

[@ColectivoCrypto]

I'm thinking Rick & Morty

[@archersterling4044]

137

[@askers_]

The audio is weird. It keeps alternating left and right. Its very distracting

[@askers_]

+Corey Ro (BonzoZoso) Why the hell did they record this in stereo? The acoustics make the echo alternate left and right. AMNH, please upload this video again with mono audio, it's unwatchable.

[@thevancouverguy]

doesnt need to be mono, just mixed right. audio aside, the video is atrocious. 480p? Seriously? If this was a video from 10 years ago I would get that. But 2016, thats unacceptable. A GoPro could of shot this in 2K or 4K...with better audio.

[@Greyghostvol1]

+thevancouverguy It was likely filmed at a much higher resolution, as the details don't match that of 480p. They probably decided to upload it at that res to save some bandwidth or time.

[@sebastianpye9328]

Its because of a bug in the simulated universe.

[@askers_]

Someone is attempting to alter the matrix