Are We Living In A Simulation? - Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, quantum gravity researcher and an author.
There are a lot of big questions in the world, like does the past still exist? Do particles think? Was the universe fine tuned for us? Does free will exist? Will we ever have a theory of everything? Are we living in a simulation? And given that we don't have answers yet, why not let a physicist have a crack at them?
Expect to learn why physicists who say they know how the universe started aren't telling the truth, whether we can compute a human brain, why no one gets any younger, if maths is the ultimate basis of reality, why there might be copies of all of us out there in the universe, how your entire life could be the imagined history of a brain floating in space and much more...
Sponsors:
Get 15% discount on Craftd London’s jewellery at bit.ly/cdwisdom (use code MW15)
Get a Free Sample Pack of all LMNT Flavours at www.drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied)
Get 20% discount on the highest quality CBD Products from Pure Sport at bit.ly/cbdwisdom (use code: MW20)
Extra Stuff:
Buy Existential Physics - amzn.to/3Rqbk6F
Subscribe to Sabine's KZbin Channel - / sabinehossenfelder
Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → chriswillx.com/books/
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / modernwisdom
#physics #simulation #freewill
-
00:00 Intro
02:53 The Problem with the Simulation Hypothesis
11:15 How Physics Impacts Free Will
18:13 Misunderstanding the Universe’s Origins
27:09 Is There Something Better than Mathematics?
32:00 The Fine-Tuned Theory
37:45 Boltzmann Brains
45:10 Can We Compute Consciousness?
53:37 Where to Find Sabine
-
Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/
Listen to all episodes on audio:
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2MNqIgw
Spotify: spoti.fi/2LSimPn
-
Get in touch in the comments below or head to...
Instagram: / chriswillx
Twitter: / chriswillx
Email: chriswillx.com/contact/

[@ChrisWillx]

Hello beautiful people. Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 Intro 02:53 The Problem with the Simulation Hypothesis 11:15 How Physics Impacts Free Will 18:13 Misunderstanding the Universe’s Origins 27:09 Is There Something Better than Mathematics? 32:00 The Fine-Tuned Theory 37:45 Boltzmann Brains 45:10 Can We Compute Consciousness? 53:37 Where to Find Sabine

[@nicholasr79]

She looks like Yeardley Smith...

[@genfox9580]

Fascinating woman.

[@sandyoptimismrules2512]

I stumbled onto this episode looking for a different one. Very engaging and interesting to hear this discussion!

[@tonycatman]

Hey Chris. You asked "how can there be something better than mathematics ?" We've had mathematical ideas drilled into us as axioms since we were very young, and never questioned them. Mathematics itself hasn't always been the same. Historically, we haven't had a way of dealing with the square roots of negative numbers, or the concept of zero, or even of negative quantities. A starting point for understanding that we need something better than maths is Godel's incompleteness theorem.

[@rolflandale2565]

Mathematics is a translation of man to nature, not as social, but a physical, it's a learned tool of mankind, but not as universal, if anything it's like a Google voice to voice or text foreign languages, which regardless, causes mystery of interpuration & variations of meaning.

[@doctorcrankyflaps1724]

I'm always so impressed when a person can explain deep concepts clearly in a language that isn't native to them.

[@ARRAM57]

Si.

[@bulldogklaus47]

English is the universal language across all disciplines of science. I think what's even more impressive about Sabine is how she can explain incredibly complex concepts in a way even a dumbass like me can understand XD

[@piccalillies]

it's because you're an American, no doubt.

[@rkalla]

Next level intelligence

[@bulldogklaus47]

@@piccalillies both inaccurate and offensive, no doubt 😆

[@fearthehoneybadger]

Wish it would start simulating something nice.

[@theemanationstation4772]

Look for it 👁⚡️🪄⭐️🐉👍

[@celesteschacht8996]

LOL

[@call_in_sick]

😂😂😂

[@The.world.has.gone.crazy...]

🤣🤣🤣

[@mintybidness6614]

It's kinda dumb when you put it that way lol

[@BigbyOShaunessy]

There’s nothing better than waking up in the morning and listening to a discussion of the intersection of physics, philosophy, and human autonomy. Life is great!

[@vernonosier6610]

i hope there was not any sarcasm intended. thank you.

[@1SpudderR]

You are assuming “Because you open your eyes in the morning you are awake”..... Consider that you Are never fully awake, at anytime!? Just partially awake 0.0001% and 99.9+% asleep! Understand understandings “A Priori” can help. Regards

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@1SpudderR or, what if you are never really asleep?

[@vhawk1951kl]

What "human autonomy"? The poor creatures are the abject slaves of their functions and thus have about has much experience of autonomy or any sort if inner freedom as fish have of cycling

[@dpie4859]

Sabine is one of my favorite physicist and I follow her since at least 4 year. She is wonderful in her "no-bullshit" approach and she is very knowledgeable.

[@fist_bump]

No-gobbledygook* approach. It's rather refreshing. She says the things I think when reading some new hypothesis about something we have no way to test. It's like watching a comedy roast. She's relentless and I love it.

[@wuodanstrasse5631]

Professor Hossenfelder is VASTLY far beyond any other physicists on the Internet. I can say that with certainty as I am a now long retired Professor of Electro-Optics/Plasma physics and Quantum Electrodynamics, with much more knowledge beyond that such that I am not allowed to mention. Professor Hossenfelder has my utmost respect. How I wish that there were billions more Ladies on her level, instead of the low-life Femi-Nazi curs that now exist, especially in the top Universities and in government employment. No one ever dares to tell the truth about "Why" America, Western Europe and more have become so degenerate: the Rothschilds, the Rothschild Cabal, Bilderberg Group and more, all under the total control of the Rothschilds. Do some homework yourself. Everything is freely available.

[@FredrickWendroff-um2kn]

Amen to that , love her.

[@AlchymicusWizardikus]

Yeah, underestimated her just based on her "That 70's Show" years.

[@andregrassi7344]

There is a lot of BS out there that indeed needs to be called out. But sometimes I feel like she calls out BS everything she disagrees, I think that’s counterproductive for science.

[@Rubs0122]

This Sabine is absolutely necessary voice in the science community ☺️ very enlightening

[@Corteum]

Nah. Overrated. Always trying to push materialistic philosphy. Never recognizing the subjective that cannot be accounted for by purely objective processes. --- Check out the clip where her and Bernad Kastrup discuss perspectives titled "The Mind-Blowing Theory That Challenges Everything We Know"

[@bjornrie]

​​@@CorteumThe logical solution for this problem is: The subjective IS in last instance materialistic. However, it emerges "from" the materialistic through a high level of complexity(but in last instance, like I said, it IS all a hypercomplex organization of atoms). However, the subjective is a different form of information processing(in last instance also materialistic though) in the structural form of of meaning. To a certain degree we can observe correlations between the subjective and materialistic, like in neuropsychology, but not (yet, maybe we never will) on a level where we could say: "The connections of these exact neurons is the memory x". This means, we can only see the subjective as subjective, but this is a general thing with emergence: We also don't view human organs as quantum states, instead we view it biologically. It's the same with conciousness and also society. We view the specific emergent layer as what it is and not as quantum states, 1. because currently that's the only thing we can do and 2. it doesn't make sense to do science different right now because it would be too time consuming and expensive.

[@vhawk1951kl]

If you find halfwits and imbeciles enlightening.A simulation of_what by_ who that is trying to simulate what?

[@ThePericsasa]

​@@CorteumBernardo is selling the most easiest story to sell ever (we were all god and we will be become one with it after we die) Sabina can do that too easily like for example deepak chopra does and others who has an opinion that can never be desprove or proven, but they claiming that they know for a fact. that's not just pretentious and unscientific it's borderline delusional. I'm sure that she has intellectual capacity to "sell" the same story but she won't because she's a serious scientist not a professional bullshiter

[@modernlunacy4341]

I’ve been searching for this exact sort of conversation for over a decade now. Thank you for hosting this guest. It brings me a lot of peace. I’m definitely buying her book. I’ve been given a lot of ridicule for talking about this subject.

[@SunnyDayTeaFactory]

Check out Donald Hoffman "The case against reality"

[@michaeljack6517]

Sabine does a great job explaining concepts. She also is one of the very few brilliant people who have no hesitation describing things that aren’t known.

[@pull-pot7120]

Hmmnn

[@vhawk1951kl]

Only the idle and dull suppose their supposed betters to be "brilliant which is one of those asinine and idle terms like genius, which does not mean what the idle and vlgar suppose it to mean and is an epithet which few -if any attract on the grounds of merit, both being merely some mouse (nothing and nobody) using meaning better- than- me To quote a great Master;" there are no brilliant or geniuses, there are only dreaming machines." Simulation *Of_what*? What an asinine question! Whichever ass uses universe_s has no idea what it means by universe - an idea or concept best avoided by the small and equine, not to say asinine.

[@seraeirian2]

How does one describe unknown things? That doesn't make sense.

[@musicbro8225]

@@seraeirian2 'I don't know'.

[@CutleryWonder]

Sabine's very German straightforward approach to science communication is a breath of fresh air. Great interview, even if you were just nodding and smiling at times Chris 😁 Most of us were too!

[@CutleryWonder]

@@vmasing1965 Nice attempt at a dig. Agree to disagree. Unless Chris makes a statement we'll have to live with our own interpretations eh?

[@CutleryWonder]

@@vmasing1965 LOL. Oh yep, you did it. You've proven that your interpretation of Chris's reactions are irrefutably correct. Wow. Amazing. You win the internet. Again I say - agree to disagree. The end.

[@itzakehrenberg3449]

Is a straightforward approach to science particularly "German"? That is open to argument.

[@markrussell4682]

@@itzakehrenberg3449 Being "straightforward" is a well-known German trait. Many people, such as we Americans believe we're straightforward, but that is self-delusion.

[@black-aliss]

Heh, that's why she's the physicist and we're not 😉

[@felipedigre]

I'm glad this interview happened, Sabine is amazing. I'm also glad you prepared so well for this interview Chris, not an easy interview to have.

[@MrSoy_]

simp

[@p.stathis3673]

Sabine is one of my fav scientists nowadays. Such a bright and sharp mind. Love her.

[@MrSoy_]

simp

[@randiaune5219]

Successful people don't become that way overnight. What most people see at a glance- wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life..

[@mathaistyoshom3581]

@Pierre Dubois You're right, Investing in bitcoin now is the best thing to do especially with the current rise in the market

[@mathaistyoshom3581]

people are really making a lot of money from it... . .

[@jameswest416]

please I have been hearing about this Mr Aitor Lorenzo from my colleagues at work. How do I easily contact him

[@logandavies2225]

@@jameswest416 info 👇

[@logandavies2225]

+13

[@Wintermute8888]

Sabine is my new favorite public physicist. She's great. She was trained very similarly to me on certain fundamentals.

[@mikem.6789]

Thank you for bringing more science topics to the channel….great episode

[@stvbrsn]

How exciting! I love Sabine and this is a very pleasant surprise to see on your channel, Chris. Just tucking in now…

[@jamesjames1364]

EXCELLENT choice for a guest! Bravo!

[@henrykkaufman1488]

I'm very glad to see Sabine at your podcast! Super choice!

[@deborahvretis3195]

Absolutely interesting. Dr. Hossenfelder is brilliant! Thank you!

[@Enhancedlies]

Sabine! what a great guest choice, love your stuff!

[@fourthplanet]

Sabine is one of my most favorite physicists. I think her view point and explinations are practical and grounded and often hilarious.

[@arldoran]

As a Boltzmann brain, I don't really understand why I'm imagining that I'm sitting here and watching a podcast between these two human beings...

[@causalityismygod2983]

Maybe you are not meant to understand.

[@frederickwinn6574]

She is Great, Discussions about what is the best path, not the fantasy path. Very Good Sabine !!

[@dixsusu]

To be sincerely honestly in my humble opinion without being sentimental of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from point of view and without hiding any thoughts in my mind and without lies, to the actual truth with my clear open mind and clear heart, expressing whatever is embedded inside me for a long time which I didn't say just because I was nervous. But today by gathering all courage and motivation, I just want to say that I actually feel and think that I have absolutely nothing to say .

[@halwarner3326]

You made my day. I love you

[@martynspooner5822]

The only difference with most people is that you are aware of it.

[@SunnyDayTeaFactory]

Thank you Chris, discovered you recently and subscribed. We live in such an interesting period of history. Consciousness, quantum mechanics and the large hadron collider are topics of conversations these days along with UAPs and the possibility of far advancement in physics.

[@squidandchips]

Excellent! Sabine speaks so very well and makes complicated topics a lot more approachable. Thanks!!

[@SpaceSpaceCat]

This is a collab combination that never entered my mind, two of my favourite KZbin creators. Thank you for this Chris! Also, I dreamt last night that I met you, your hair was longer and curly like it was a couple of years back. After a minute of talking to you I realised you were absolutely smashed and trying to act sober. So I kept you company and tried to work out where your friends were who had wandered off. You were still a decent person and I was still happy to have met you! 😂

[@kt9495]

Your username made me chuckle. I’ve used Space Dog for years in various ways. Tori Amos song ref

[@g7-farrer]

Sabine Hossenfelder is excellent. Her videos have thought and proven many of the idea's I have pondered about, for example: the free will argument. Saw her name and instantly clicked on this video. I know this will be a great and interesting podcast, asking the biggest questions.

[@misterlyle.]

Sabine Hossenfelder seems to be in a class all her own. Insightful, authentic comments presented in ordinary terms provide an exceptional interview here.

[@allbionics]

Thank you for your choice of guests and for your art and likely work in keeping the dialogue active and interesting... :)

[@andygoldensixties4201]

Thanks for this Chris, it's very interesting this interview to understand a little more about the directions of research of the brilliant Professor Hossenfelder

[@Whippets]

Sabine is a reality check, which is often times needed.

[@moriahgamesdev]

I'm just obsessed with the contrasting production levels. It's like watching an interview between an M&S Christmas advert and found footage.

[@tcarr349]

Wow I have underestimated Chris Williams! Really good questions sir! Great interview! I just subscribed today. Now I’m going to have to go back and check out all of your work!

[@tensevo]

V good interviewer by asking straightforward questions and not talking over the guest.

[@rduse4125]

I’d say we’re not dealing with a “simulation” bound by the laws of physics in a natural universe….this is more like a dream in a universe where consciousness is foundational (and not the material).

[@jaspergoodall3206]

I agree, and I find it quite naive (or at least very presumptuous) of her to base her refutation of the possibility on the fact that we can not do it currently with our computers which are, in the grand scheme of things, probably extremely limited machines.

[@tonystephen6312]

no point watching this video then.

[@campyc40]

That's just what the simulation makes you think.

[@rduse4125]

@@campyc40 😜 true

[@notheotherklaus]

A wonderful interview! Honest and straight!

[@samuelhailu4609]

Sabi is a great teacher ...that any English listener can hear ...actually a great physicists... Keep on sabi...

[@martinpopplewell8899]

Have you ever considered that the theory of everything cannot be expressed in your reality because of the very nature of reality.

[@zpettigrew]

She is so very right. We have no idea how to make said algorithms, nor do we have the raw materials needed to make the hardware necessary for anything close. This "simulation" stuff isn't just NOT science, it is almost ANTI-science (since all the data and math suggests the opposite of the "Theory").

[@name-vi6fs]

I only recently started watching Sabine's videos. Great guest.

[@bigbird1weekend]

Sabin hossenfilder is just always awesome

[@poladelarosa8399]

It is always a pleasure to hear our local (she has that quality of being accessable) savant, Sabine Hossenfelder. Thanks, Chris, for the interview questions.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Thanks for getting Sabine in a interview. Wait for the next one. Meanwhile read her new book, it's not depressing, it's spiritual and hopeful 😊

[@bochaba9]

Two of my favourite youtubers. Good choice Chris.

[@squoblat]

Was not expecting this, two of my favourite youtubers having a great chat. You need to get on the Triggernometry boys show.

[@Terry-dl4nf]

In spite of the fact that I struggled to understand much of Sabine Hossenfelder's discussion, I watched and listened intently the whole way through because I knew there was something profound in what she was saying. It was refreshing to see a female 'expert' who really knew her stuff, was super intelligent and had not just been promoted on the grounds of gender equality (hope I don't get banned for saying that!) But judging from the early list of comments I've read here, I doubt this will be one of your more popular videos, Chris. Cheers!

[@inelhuayocan_aci]

I agree with your general qualm about female expertise nowadays; I will also add the expertise of those considered to be of underrepresented populations, of which I happen to be myself. The fact of the matter is that the ideology underpinning the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing rotates on what's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, and correct me if I'm wrong, I doubt you'd have made such a comment about female expertise if not for all of the propaganda behind "diversity, inclusion" in addition to some of the results which range from individuals like Kamala Harris to the utter failure of once successful companies. All of these failures have resulted from this apparent need to be inclusive and diverse, which leave many doubting the abilities who are said to need such representation.

[@Terry-dl4nf]

​@@inelhuayocan_aci G'day Arsonist! Thanks for the fantastic reply ... it's the best response I have ever had. Your expression is lucid and the discussion erudite ... loved it Mate. So what "underrepresented population" are you part of? I gather you have never felt especially oppressed (at least, that's how you come across)? Thing is, I used to be a big supporter of women's rights to equality, I have had many female friends and colleagues and always believed I treated them as equals. But even here in Australia, the positive discrimination in favour of women and women's issues is completely out of control. What drives me crazy is that the media here in Australia has been taken over by female presenters, women's topics/ issues and they always clearly go out of their way to interview female 'experts' ... even in fields where the vast majority of expertise is male they'll manage to find a female expert to interview. And in my work/ Organisation "diversity and inclusion" has completely taken over. The irony is that I also happen to be part of what was once considered an 'oppressed minority' ... I'm gay (but apparently that doesn't count anymore because I'm also a white male?!) But I have never felt the least bit oppressed or discriminated against. I guess the unusual thing about being gay is that people aren't aware of it unless you tell them. Anyway, I should stop now - apologies for the lengthy reply. But I'd like to know more about you if your up for it? Thanks again, your reply is much appreciated.

[@JutkasAstrologyandScience]

Wow, Sabine! Basically, all the major existential questions of physics are thrown at you totally randomly and your explanations are immediate and crystal clear. It's beyond impressive. I also loved when you pointed out that math might not be the ultimate paradigm for us or for aliens for that matter---we need to allow room for things we cannot yet possibly imagine. That for me includes the workings of astrology which do presuppose a simulation hence an underlying algorithm as well (that is quite hard to hack as it would involve changing the physical laws of the universe) and you are a classic Virgo if I ever saw one ----clear, articulate, critical, detailed in your explanations and your caveats, precise perhaps to perfection, conscientious and fair. I also appreciated your admission of " we don't know" to some very basic questions, so many arrogant physicists could learn from you. Thank you.

[@coin321ify]

I love it when you discuss the universe. I learn something every time.

[@ideletemyelf1585]

it is SO refreshing to hear an actual scientist say things like, "We just don't know..." so many of my friends who claim to love science believe wholeheartedly that we've basically got it all figured out for the most part. I've had heated debates trying to point out that we still have so much work to do. Much of our theories don't even go back a couple of hundred years. It's still so young and to think we have anything substantial figured out is just kind of sad and laughable. We're quite literally at the tippy top of the iceberg.

[@anvilbrunner.2013]

@@WakeUpEternals Is that so.

[@anvilbrunner.2013]

@@WakeUpEternals How did it occur ?

[@anvilbrunner.2013]

@@WakeUpEternals I'm happy to take your word for it. A faulty pay as you go gas appliance did me a great favour back in 91. Truly dull, are the senses.

[@infinitestare]

it's this funny little thing that everyone seems to forget: you can't REALLY go back to the same spot in SPACE either, since we're hurling through the space along with our planet, solar system and entire galazy, so it looks like we can go back and forth in space because the spaces we inhabit are familiar, but we can say we're achieving the same illusion with time where we can spend similar evenings in the same space every day as if we're going back to the same spot in time too. While we're actually not able to do EITHER of those.

[@Vincent-gt5qr]

... There's no evidence that earth is moving.

[@user-nz6xd5cu4n]

Thanks for bringing more science-based guests on.

[@stevejones1921]

I didn't understand a word of this. I just love listening to clever people talking.

[@Leaning_Bear]

amazing guest and such interesting conversation!!!

[@rod6722]

The simulation hypothesis just strikes me as a more modern, high-tech version of God.

[@sirus312]

but we are eventually becoming God Via technology and synthetic biology.

[@Madonnalitta1]

@@sirus312 no, God could wave his hand as say things into existence. If we want to make something we actually have to put it together.

[@sirus312]

@@Madonnalitta1 how do we know that ? Maybe god had to mix gases or whatever to create the Big Bang. It’s all hypothetical as no one was there to witness it

[@christianlindhardt]

Throughout the ages of man, people have always thought they knew what there was to know about the world, physics and the universe. Science keeps on exponentially advancing. Most scientists, including her are confined in their thinking to what we know at the current time in our history..

[@sirus312]

meaning?

[@gps9715]

@@sirus312 For example, she insists the universe cannot be a simulation because she cannot fathom how that would happen. Very much like 1st century human stating that a human would never be able to fly. The whole point of something like the simulation theory is WE DON'T KNOW how it would be done. She says it cannot be strictly because of that very limitation. She says there is no way to fit it into an equation. She doesn't seem to think about the future AT ALL. There are many ideas that seemed impossible a hundred or a thousand years ago because humans could not comprehend HOW something they thought impossible would be able to work. Well.....we don't know what we don't know. She seems to think we do know what we don't know.

[@chadpilled7913]

Science actually can't really be said to be advancing because every 100 or so years we come to realize that 90% of the previous corpus is total bunk. Every now and again we hit the jackpot with something like the internal combustion engine, but for a lot of fields we have no tangible results. IE we have been 10 years away from curing cancer for 100 years. The same deal with nuclear fusion, etc, etc. In fact NASA even claims we "lost" the ability to go to the moon. The concord is no longer flying. Automobiles and appliances are far less reliable than the ones made thirty years ago.

[@christianlindhardt]

@@gps9715 Well put

[@jaspergoodall3206]

@@gps9715 Yes, my thoughts exactly. She bases her refutation on our current computational abilities, which were only invented extremely recently. Unbelievably short sighted and also kind of conceited I would say. As if we what we know now dictates what can be known. The history of science is littered with huge U turns when scientists realised everything they were so sure of was actually, totally wrong.

[@robertburatt]

To my understanding of this discussions, the essence of Sabine's position about popular acceptance of unscientific assertions has more to do with the domain of psychology than the far stricter sciences of physics, cosmology, biology, etc.

[@markn866]

I'm an aeronautical engineer and hearing the words Navier-Stokes immediately got my attention. Thanks.

[@anandawijesinghe6298]

But Sabine's description was very imprecise, and naive !

[@ralphacosta4726]

It seems to me that the main cause of many of the questions we can't answer is that we're dealing with a sample size of one, i.e. we've only experienced one universe, one species, one evolutionary timeline, one biology of life, etc. One of the things (among many others) i like about Sabine is that she won't hesitate to say "We don't know."

[@FredrickWendroff-um2kn]

Exactly

[@brendanh8193]

So why didn't she simply say that about the simulation hypothesis? She dismissed it based on a very surface understanding of the concept.

[@yoannycorominas221]

Because she is very intelligent and dont like the issue

[@brendanh8193]

@@yoannycorominas221 I wonder if her dislike is because the concept is too close to intelligent design. That would be disappointing if true. Kind of like Hoyle's disregard of the big bang because he thought it opened the opportunity for God to be creator. Neither is taking the ideas on their merits, and shows bias.

[@yoannycorominas221]

@@brendanh8193 maybe she dont like to have another intelligence doing things besides herself

[@starshiptexas]

You don't have to simulate a universe, you have to simulate an observer.

[@FredrickWendroff-um2kn]

Interesting thought , that never crossed my mind. Thanks

[@iurieceban126]

But there is a problem here, you simulate an observer who knows nothing about physics it will work out well, how about a genius physicist e.g?

[@vfs3774]

her arguments ain't logic anyway, she says that we're not in a simulation coz it's too hard to create one but that we could create one theoretically, so if it's the case we might be very likely to be in a simulation as just the possibility of being able to create one opens the door to the new sim recreating other sims, basic reproduction.

[@sedalia9356]

Exactly right. And only every moment, with some consideration of state for continuity. A laptop computer is easily capable

[@eaf888]

Thank you! Something to start the day with!

[@JCChavz]

I used to find her so frustrating, like an annoying skeptic who just seems angry all the time. Then I realized she’s actually right on most things, and now I think she’s extremely important and must be protected at all costs.

[@TrevorGay]

Chris! What platform do you use to record remote podcast videos? Keep up the great work! 🙌🏼

[@jakubtrzpis2595]

my favorite physicist

[@markharris1223]

This lady reminds me so much of my late wife. My wife was German by birth, but, like this lady, had truly mastered English. I used to measure my German against my wife's English. I never came close. Whoever David "what's his name" Chalmers is, he has achieved, in this alter ego, a measure of immortality.

[@frankfowlkes7872]

I love Sabine's no bull shit approach. I tend to agree with her on many things, of course one of her basic tenets is to admit there is a lot we simply don't know.

[@ajcschmidt]

‘Free Will’ is a theological matter of Judeo-Christian origin; It allows for us to make judgements between right and wrong; - No free will, no right, no wrong = no functional societies.-

[@nothingbutthetruth3227]

With our guilt and shame consciousness, it doesn’t allow us free will. We intuitively know the difference. The Bible says God has written into our hearts. I’ve researched it for hundreds if not thousands of hours and have found physics, biology and numbers theories are all correct in the Bible much before any scientists discovered it. Thus far, it has never been proven wrong.

[@SpaceSpaceCat]

@@nothingbutthetruth3227Concerning your claim of the science of the Bible never being wrong: What about two of every animal (seven of the clean ones) and birds not being able to fit on the ark? What about there being no geological evidence for a global flood? What about there being no evidence of Nephilim? What about us knowing there are different languages older than when the Tower of Babel? What about there being human remains a lot older than 6000 years when Adam and Eve were made? What about us knowing the Earth won't remain forever?

[@Madonnalitta1]

It just seems logical on the face of it. Of course they're are predetermined rules of physics that I cannot break but I still have freewill within those parameters. I am free to press send on this comment, or to delete it.

[@theobserver9131]

There are two kinds of scientists. Some like to push our boundaries, others like to reinforce them.

[@jesshashi]

Great interview, Chris!!👌🏼

[@user-th8cn2wn3u]

Delightfull discussion. Two truly awesome humans.

[@Self-Duality]

We are living in a “self-generating simulation”, which is logically distinct from an infinite regress of mechanical and/or computational simulations (computation does not self-generate).

[@Beederda]

Self-generating multiverse is more accurate to my eyes so many people are in their own universe tied together to other peoples universes via different types of culture out there so a type of string theory thing to hold the web of bubbles that people both create and reside within. A spider web with the morning dew drops all over it is best example nature shows of this idea i have

[@Self-Duality]

@@Beederda I fully agree! I was just adapting the term “multiverse” to the topic of this video 😌💭

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

@@Self-Duality It's pure nonsense. Hornet stings, car crashes, cataracts, blindness, amputations and death are VERY real. "Pop science" is simply and obviously a ridiculous distraction from the certainty of disease, injury and death. Americans are in love with repulsive infantilism peddled by charlatans.

[@domtg1597]

Likelihood is a construct of our universe not the other way around

[@phonic0photon]

Excellent discussion, thank you.

[@wilbers1970]

You are ruling Sabine! Thanks heaps

[@thegritsch]

We are living in a simulation, but not the way you would think. We imagine ourselves to be an entity in a body, moving around in a world. But if you actually pay attention to what you really perceive, the raw data of the 5 senses, that image turns out to be nothing but a mirage, created in the human mind!

[@Madonnalitta1]

@@dertythegrower like infra red light? That's just evolutionary adaptation.

[@jrd33]

Sure, but there is a strong correlation between the mirage in our mind and the outside world. and how it works. I have a model in my mind of how a cooker works and it maps pretty well onto the cooker in my kitchen which converts raw food into cooked food even when I am not present or thinking about it.

[@idrisabdi1397]

I don't think sabine has thought about the simulation argument enough it's not about "show me the code", but disproving it by showing it's impossible. games have hard-coded rules and it's a world from the perspective of the characters inside it. inability to replicate physics and the science of that reality by the characters inside doesn't make the simulation argument invalid.

[@jrd33]

I think we can be confident that this universe couldn't be simulated by a system which is bound by the laws of this universe. If we're going to ignore everything we know of physics, then all bets are off. Saying "we live in a simulation" is like saying "we live in the dream of God".

[@dangaines405]

Well done interview! Thanks!

[@bc9137]

BRILLIANT CONVO!

[@a.f.s.3004]

There may be something superior to mathematics that we haven’t yet discovered. We need to think outside the box.

[@thecorporatelawgroup7093]

I’ve thought for a long time that computer modeling has been a huge problem. In economics I think that the models have grossly simplified and ignored the true complexity of the markets.

[@luvnlago]

Yay! Sabine frees your mind…and disciplines your mind.

[@bimmjim]

7:00 .. Finally, somebody explains "scalar." Thank you.

[@LaQuinta12]

Very good. Nice to see a non 'cheerleader' woo woo theo physicist for once. Great conversation.

[@blotafton]

How can she make the major logical error of saying that we can't be in a simulation because we can't make complex simulations ourselves? If we exist inside a simulation we have no way of knowing what is possible outside of it.

[@MrAngryCucaracha]

But what does it even mean to say we are in a simulation then? Normally the simulation idea is that we are a historical simulation made by the "real" humans.

[@mariomenezes5974]

I LOVE Sabrina. Congrats, Chris.

[@aless5207]

CCC is my favourite explanation story at the moment

[@carlosespinal17]

Sabine is my fucking hero. Enjoyed her first book, I'm into the next one.

[@antoniodonatonobre4615]

Sabine is a lovable scientist who manages to be popular despite her surly skepticism. So I was delightfully surprised by her suggestion that there might be a more sophisticated language superior to mathematics. If she would allow herself to progress in that path I think she would come closer to spirituality.

[@ilonabaier6042]

define spirituality.

[@thinking7667]

Wouldn’t a superior language still be communicating the same laws of reality/universe?

[@ManuelGarcia-fp1nl]

One of the few people i wanna hear for over 3 hours ☹️☹️☹️

[@jillsmiley7701]

A great big thank you to your guest😀

[@jan-olofharnvall8760]

If we did live in the simulation, the food would be better😂

[@genfox9580]

In my simulation I would be beautiful, thin, rich and smart

[@africaart]

Today's episode is almost nuts, a little too deep. It's like that saying; "the more you learn, the more you know that you don't know".

[@matisiekierka6105]

That is increasingly the case for me also and it’s just such a frustrating state of affairs isn’t it…

[@SocietyIsCollapsing]

Love Sabine. Top nerd and very entertaining.

[@stopthatluca]

Well done Chris!

[@js6520]

Agree with Sabine. Thank you. Simulation hypothesis reminds me of "a hammer sees everything as a nail' perspective comment. A computer person sees life and existence as a computer matter. Maybe similar to the "no free will theory". Everything is argued to be programmed, chemical reactions, and caused by the physical mechanisms that transmit, vs people having these mechanisms but maintain some level of control over decisions. All the best

[@Libertas_P77]

Some of the oddities of quantum theory, such as the fact that the act of observation is what converts a wave into a particle - not just now, but then retrospectively back in time, is to me one of the most compelling questions that leads to a degree of suspicion related to simulation. Because that is fundamentally weird, but at the same time exactly how a simulation works now: until consciously observed by the player, there is only ever the potential for something to render. The universe appears to work in the same way.. I don’t know how we explain that yet, but the simulation hypothesis has some weight as a possibility, that for me cannot be ruled out at present.

[@mekareactsandreviews3026]

I agree ..Not everyone's belief of a simulation comes from the theory of a computer algorithm..

[@Vincent-gt5qr]

...So because humans have computer-simulated aspects of reality...reality must be a computer simulation? Seems like a non-sequitur. Why is observational rendering "weird"? You seem a bit too hung up on the "objective physical universe" model of reality...which is of course merely _a model._ And why would "weirdness" count as evidence? If reality is a simulation... ...what is it a simulation of?

[@Libertas_P77]

@@sambadham1404 Indeed, consciousness or the soul is the only reality.

[@Libertas_P77]

@@Vincent-gt5qr Simulation does not just mean an imitation of something, it also means not as it appears or a sham. So here, it is used to suggest that what we see and experience may not be an objective reality but a construct. I see this more as an intellectual exercise, and not one to take too literally. The weirdness and oddities we observe lead to questions, hence we can extrapolate our own simulations and ask the question of our own universe similarly. Note I’m only saying it is worth not discounting.

[@Vincent-gt5qr]

@@Libertas_P77 ..."...not as it appears or a sham..." Things which are not "as they appear" or which are "shams" are masquerading as SOMETHING ELSE... ...so once more: What is reality a simulation OF? What "weirdness and oddities" do you observe? Why is an arbitrary, superfluous hypothesis which explains/predicts nothing "worth not discounting"?

[@budawang77]

I love the humility and honesty of scientists. Remarkable in this age of "my truths" and its attendant ego-centrism.

[@mattythefinger]

This guy asks great questions.

[@TheSpaceLuchador]

So you can't simulate it but you can creat a universe ? I think her big problem is a god that's what she seems to be against Witch makes since because she is a woman she doesn't like or except the control part Very very interesting

[@Azrael__]

B-but Elon Musk said... 😢

[@teemukupiainen3684]

Excellent interview!!! After listening at least 100 of Sabine's videos (including some of her music videos😜), found this interview a great summery of her thinking. Definitely going to read the book! Made me to subscribe to this channel, too...

[@paryanindoeur]

I love when two YTers I watch are on a show together! Chris, try to get Matt O'Dowd from PBS Space Time.