Are We Living in an Ancestor Simulation? ft. Neil deGrasse Tyson | Space Time

Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Neil deGrasse Tyson sits down with Matt to discuss Ancestor Simulations. And check out Matt and Neil discussing how sure we are about our map of the universe • Is Our Map of The Univ... You can subcribe to Startalk right here kzbin.info_...
You can further support us on Patreon at / pbsspacetime
Get your own Space Time t­shirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos! kzbin.info_cs_...
Previous Episode:
The Boltzmann Brain
• Are You a Boltzmann Br...
The Oh My God Particle
• The Oh My God Particle
The idea that our reality is a simulation is not as far-fetched as you may think. Many philosophers, scientists and tech-billionaires are seriously considering not just the possibility but the high probability that our civilization may be a program being run by another, more advanced alien civilization.
Written and Hosted by Matt O’Dowd
Produced by Rusty Ward
Graphics by Kurt Ross
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Comments answer by Matt:
0xFFF1
• The Oh My God Particle
KohuGaly
• Are You a Boltzmann Br...
Henry School
• Are You a Boltzmann Br...
exurb1a
• Are You a Boltzmann Br...
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
Shane Robinson
David Nicklas
Samuel Dean Jacintho
Quasar
Tambe Barsbay
Coolascats
Avan & Kyan Griggs
Max Levine
Hypernova
Science Via Markets
Chuck Zegar
Craig Peterson
Jordan Young
Ratfeast
John Hofmann
Joseph Salomone
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Justin Lloyd
Conor Dillon
Jared Moore
Michal-Peanut Karmi
Bernardo Higuera
Erik Stein
Daniel Lyons
Jade Bilkey
Kevin Warne
JJ Bagnell
J Rejc
Dylan Merida
Anthony Caridi
Avi Goldfinger
John Pettit
Shannan Catalano
Florian Stinglmayr
Yubo Du
Benoit Pagé-Guitard
Ronny Polonia
Nathan Leniz
Jessica Fraley
Kirk Mathews
Carl P. Corliss
Brandon labonte
David Crane
Greg Weiss

[@puffdaddy69]

This universe is definitely pay-to-win

[@gregwaste2594]

you won.

[@kryptoblade501]

LOLOLOL

[@patrickbautista9798]

not a lot of people have enough money to win ^_^

[@dirtysaint5324]

shiddddd

[@thatoneguy9536]

Fucking true 😭

[@gojida2207]

Meanwhile, some alien civilization is probably thinking: "the simulations are becoming self aware"

[@spacealien2174]

Gojida yup, that's our Mother civilization :)

[@redbeam_]

"the pizza is aggressive"

[@beaconrider]

I've seen that movie.

[@stalworth1]

hkistreet google's ai started to show signs of awareness ,google unplugged the project.

[@appledough3843]

Gojida If I were the alien I'd freak out that they figured out my existence and reset them lol

[@aaronsorensen9499]

I saw the full interview with NDT and, Matt, you are one of the most patient people I've ever seen. NDT interrupts you nonstop and you maintain your composure like a champ.

[@markhoward5240]

I agree and I also like listening to NDT but I did not like how he could not keep his hands to himself

[@somefuckstolemynick]

NDT gonna NDT

[@pscyking]

Sounds like every "discussion" involving NDT I've ever seen.

[@EduardoMartinez-fk2pv]

NDT is a science communicator, not a science listener

[@tybogit]

Uhhh how else are you supposed to get your point across?! You’re supposed to talk over them every time they start to open their mouth. So in their mind your words become their thoughts! Duh!! It’s called ‘Quantum Psychological Debate Theory’

[@Shogun1982]

If my user can see this, please enter: Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A.

[@jelordgulle9022]

HAHAHAH damn

[@jelordgulle9022]

it should be Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A. START.

[@AB-wu1om]

Wats the joke 😂😂😂

[@kevinlogan8374]

Good old konami code. Unfortunately life is pay to win or buy a DLC

[@elephant_888]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@samhayes-astrion]

If we're living in a simulation, I demand access to the developer console.

[@Ytremz]

Would probably fry your brain to comprehend the complexity

[@buffdaddy0100]

"Computer, arch!"

Try using "sudo".

[@BachikoiBabi]

player.additem 000001 player.enablegodmode

[@stove5035]

IDSPISPOPD

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Alright, some remarks, off the top of my head: 1) We are not in a position to judge the required processing power to simulate our universe with regards to the available processing power in the real universe. We can't assume it is similar to ours: we might merely be a simplified model, but their laws of physics might also be entirely different from ours. For all we know, the real universe might not even be physical in nature, so how can we judge how feasible it would be in this external universe to simulate ours? The Eternal Dreamer might just have a vast mind capable of very complicated dreams. Apart from that, even if this was a "down to the individual quark or whatever" simulation, just because we perceive it in realtime doesn't mean it actually runs in realtime. For all we know, the real universe is eternally stable, and this program is a simulation of a universe that isn't, running at enormously reduced speed. 2) If we're in a simulation, it doesn't necessarily follow that you lot are real. For all I know, I'm the only "real" mind here (I call it a Meretzky Brain), while you're all simple "bots" without sentience. Placed here for me to interact with, totally oblivious of the fact that none of you are "real". That cuts down drastically on the required processing power, and means the universe does not need to be simulated precisely enough so that all inhabitants experience it the same: you guys don't perceive anything, and when I ask you how you perceive it, the program has you respond consistent with my world model. 3) Neil's "for their entertainment" theory regarding all the shake-ups and disasters is amusing in a Bill Hicks or George Carlin kind of way (and those are good ways), but nonsensical if you really think about it. We put that kind of stuff into our simulations, because it reflects (although it may exaggerate) what we experience in our world. So it's not unthinkable that they put this in their simulation because, well, it reflects their reality. If they're a simulation as well, extrapolate upwards until you reach the outer shell: they put it in their simulation because it happens in their world as well. Therefore, this stuff is plausible without attributing it to "someone putting it in there for their entertainment". As such, the presence of such events does not constitute an argument in favour nor against the simulation theory. 4) The whole numbers game is based on some assumptions that aren't necessarily true. But the video touched on the Fermi paradox, which is where I was going with this as well. 5) The idea that the universe must be simulated to sufficient detail to convince us that it's real is problematic as well. Any universe we inhabit automatically feels "real" to us, because in absence of other experiences, how would we contrast it to what's actually real? Again, we have no basis for assuming anything beyond our universe, if it turns out it is a simulation.

[@Serotonindude]

i was just about to write what you wrote in point 2) ... except, that it's me, who got the only "real' mind :D

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Of course you would. Otherwise the simulation wouldn't be convincing. ;)

[@Serotonindude]

funny, the simulation computer just started a sub-routine to calculate your answer to my response :D

[@TheBitanian]

Thanks for posting these points, now I don't have to! :D

[@EvenTheDogAgrees]

Bit you're welcome. Sorry I couldn't express myself as concisely as you would've. ;-)

[@buddyzee]

wow Neil loves the sound of his own voice

[@SuperSurvivalman]

Hahaha yaa

[@arewecrazyyet]

Most people who make millions of dollars from speaking owe a great deal to their voice and love the sound. It sounds like "Cha-Ching!"

[@zemorph42]

I bet he would not like his recorded voice nearly as much; it sounds very different from the outside.

[@eosapienrancher4045]

Im guessing a lot of people who get paid to speak for a living do. Do what you love!

[@semaj_5022]

I've always just gotten the vibe from him that he gets so excited and carried away by these topics and isn't exactly socially..adept. but it can definitely come off as aggressive and arrogant. I think he's mostly harmless though

[@seancannon3960]

Boltzmann simulation. The computer running the simulation in which we live randomly formed during a severe dip in entropy.

[@valiroime]

More likely a software glitch caused by a power spike

[@nickfriend3629]

"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream." Edgar Allan Poe, 1809~1849.

[@justinakers3196]

Nick Friend I’ve never heard that. That’s an awesome quote

[@laserus3333]

"I Am" an unfinished thought in the mind of God. Eye 1965...?

[@derekm424]

" I am a dream inside a dream, the more I wake the more I sleep, you'll understand when I'm dead." -Marilyn Manson, song title: the reflecting God.

[@jhwheuer]

Awe. Ow you reminded me of Alan Parsons Project

[@ktasantana931]

He only lived to 40 ! : o

[@MrTigerlore]

I’m an NPC?! Ahh, so that explains why I repeat the same dialogue, and sometimes walk into walls.

[@MrTigerlore]

Richie Rich 😂😂😂

[@NotEpoch]

lol. love it :)

[@theway5258]

Tiger H. Lore You are very advanced NPC in a physical computer with a Universe size.

[@Suralin0]

My man! *walk sprite glitches through a tree*

[@namewasstolenstresslevel2111]

i think u need a patch to fix this stupididy.

[@atotheg7652]

Immediately checked the comments about Neil grabbing his arm. That was very “I’m more important and better then you” move.

[@mjkittredge]

That's very cynical. I think as fellow scientists and intellectuals they have great mutual respect

[@atotheg7652]

Agreed. They respect each other. But grabbing someone’s wrist and shushing them isn’t respectful.

[@JB-1138]

Neil deGrasse Tyson has to shut him up because he's making too much sense.

[@JB-gi5ph]

I don't think he's trying to big-time him. You can always tell when Neil gets excited, he goes into touch-talker-mode. It's hilarious when the person is out of reach, and he's still reaching out to them. These are some of his best moments, reminds me of an excited kid.

[@annief2239]

@@galamento9977 exactly

[@khakimzhanmiras]

Hey ancestor, this is all meta and all, but the diarrhea is unnecessary

[@theworldsmostgiantDr]

Underrated gem of a comment right here.

[@Daavlot]

Crying :'D

[@silentwisdom7025]

That's good 😊

[@colorfulrain100]

Can confirm. Currently on the toilet as we speak.

[@rowanrivers3418]

and the toes LIKE WHY

[@shadow105720]

The problem with this is that even if we are a simulation, there is still something out there beyond this that is real. Whether we are in the prime existence or some iterative offspring, something has to be the original. No matter how many turtles it goes down, one of them has to be the bottom.

[@Upstreamprovider]

Someone else thinks clearly...I can't be alone.... :)

[@UncaAlbyGmail]

why is that a problem?

[@Erinnn379]

@@UncaAlbyGmail Because infinite regresses are insufficient to explain existence.

[@UncaAlbyGmail]

@@Erinnn379 yah and you're worried about this, why?

[@dallyh.2960]

gay turtles are responsible for existence confirmed 2019

[@coreydouglas5764]

YOU BEAT CANCER AND WENT BACK TO WORK AT THE CARPET STORE??

[@kouchuujin]

corey douglas lmao great reference

[@patstaysuckafreeboss8006]

He's taking Roy off the grid!

[@26gutshot]

BOO!!

[@robbiehernandez8019]

Lmao

[@unfeelingss5178]

😂

[@ericvelasquez1282]

I've long been a Neil deAss Tyson anti-fan but really love the way Matt present scientific information. Going through a few comments below I can see that I'm not the only one.

[@kennyrosenyc]

You don't need a computer the size of the universe to simulate the entire universe. You only need a computer that can simulate whatever aspect of the universe the viewer is experiencing at a particular point in time for every human on Earth. That is how video games work. The stuff that's out of view doesn't exist as anything other than data, and only then when needed.

[@martinmc0950]

Isn’t this exactly what’s demonstrated when a subatomic particle is left unobserved? It exists only as a probability, which then collapses when observed

[@kennyrosenyc]

@@martinmc0950 I guess. I've worked in game design and we have what are called LODs (or Levels of Detail). Looking at the Moon from the earth, you would be presented with a back drop that has a picture of the Moon. As you move closer, you would get a disc with, basically, an animated texture. Move closer and you get a hemisphere. Move closer and you get a sphere. Land and you get only what would be visible from your perspective. Nothing else would actually exist as anything other than data. And all the changes would occur in a fraction of a second. So, the world outside your room doesn't exist until you enter it. And even then, only what you can see exists. So, unless you're observing 'everything' then you don't need 'everything'. You just need the ability to feed raw data to the observer.

[@realzachfluke1]

@@kennyrosenyc I had no idea that's what LOD stood for hahahaha. I've been aware of the term for a decade, yet only *now,* thanks to stumbling upon your comment at the right time, do I know what it stands for. 😂😂 Thank you! The actual substance of your comment was great too, so there ya go lol

[@enshk79]

Exactly. The philosophical trope of does a tree make a sound when it falls if no one around is nullified! The answer: No! It’s not even there to fall!

[@haanjamiis]

Yes, I'm surprised that many smart people seems to not understand that. You actually don't need to simulate that much, especially in micro scale.

[@SalimonuDavid]

"Holy shit, we made them too smart! They're on to us!!!"

[@omkarparopkari]

David Salimonu they don't need to 'make' us, if they are simulating this universe. We are made by the computer in such a case, inside the simulation.

[@amanw9233]

David Salimonu hahahahahahahhhHahahahaahahahahagahhhahahaahahahahhaa best 1

[@AbsurdAsparagus]

or, "holy shit bro this universe is 13 billion years old and it just now figured shit out" "aw fuck forgot about that one, yeah well turn it off tomorrow."

[@DudeWhoSaysDeez]

The people who made our simulation are also probably a simulation

[@Reragi]

"Oh man! These devs are hilarious! It's like they know theyre just a simulation!"

[@Soldr4hire]

Whoever is playing me absolutely sucks. Or he's playing hard mode.

[@springmage6321]

I think mine is AFK! 😆

[@fabslyrics]

Vanity built-in

[@Congruesome]

UpDownUpDownLeftRightLeftRightABStart!

[@beawarenow8287]

Mines a noob

[@maddiebyfaith]

That player is your true self. Meditate and you'll awaken. You'll become aware once you figure out that you are not your Ego.

[@tsarmi9864]

It gives me anxiety to watch this stuff, but helps me open the mind- understand more possibilities even if this isn't the correct answer, it expands consciousness to new realms.

[@cjuare123]

It makes me want to get out of here.

[@Aklifedesign]

So well put. Even if I disagree, even if it isn’t correct ….it expands my mind. That’s Meta👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾✨💫⚡️

[@travisboatner]

The computing power would be less if it didn’t actually simulate every single interaction of every single particle. It could have a wave function of probability and only decide to simulate the specific interactions if we were to attempt to measure it. It wouldn’t have to compute areas we weren’t observing until we actually attempted to observe it.

[@Treviisolion]

Though there are some limitations with that as well. Simulating even a modern computer with all the errors it has to deal with from quantum physics (and yes we have observed these enough to know that the way we design our chips has a strong impact on what errors we have and their likelihood of happening) requires a nearly fully accurate simulation of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale. Not to mention human brains which are probably at least partially magnifying quantum effects across the brain, or smell which relies on quantum effects to work. While there is a lot that could be simulated at a lower fidelity and be unobservable, as our computational power increases exponentially, the lower bound of computational power needed to compute everything that we observe at a fidelity level high enough to be indistinguishable from a full fidelity simulation by us increases exponentially as well. If we humans are the central focal point of some ancestor simulation, I do not expect our simulation to last long, or to have been lasting long. Though whether long in this case is a few decades, centuries, millennia, or few million years (and in the latter we’re probably near the very tail end as it’s not too improbable to find ourselves as part of the last seven to eight billion humans to exist out of the hundred or so estimates to ever live, or be simulated in this case), I’m uncertain about as it depends on the level of computational power our creators have access to.

[@HaxxorElite]

I love your comment

[@10418]

Double slid experiment… I see what you did there.

[@halolord8212120]

It could be algorithmic. In principle we can already do this, obviously to a much smaller degree. Nothing is stored or computed until observed. Once observed, the algorithm determines with equal precision to reality what must be there and occurring. Everything seems to be both persistent and evolving since time is a variable of the algorithm. This would drastically reduce computational requirements of any simulated universe.

[@mikkel715]

@Travis And so it is. 💯

[@sunnychowdary7506]

Dear operator , Please code my life better !

[@MrMikahT]

maybe your playing on difficult mode

[@andrewjohnston4811]

choices

[@joramarentved4980]

Me, too, operator, pls. take care of it, so I can find out etc., Peace, 'Jartuferatu,' Tachyons, 0056965056701, she doesn't connect till tomorrow afternoon, Sgo., Chile.

[@MrWeareone777]

Code me to win the lottery . You hear me you teenage Alien fuck that's playing my character.

[@UncaAlbyGmail]

@@MrWeareone777 Right, ask for a BIG favor then INSULT the only guy who might be able to grant it for you! That makes PERFECT sense!

[@vinayk7]

If we are truly being simulated then there is no meaning of time for us. What would be like million years for us , would be just a few seconds for "them" . It's much like over-speeding a video game where the hero,villain,clocks,bounties all move and generate faster with respect to you but for them it's the same , we'd have no way of detecting the speed change.Funnier is the fact that if they were to pause this simulation for a bit and then resume it , even that would be undetectable by us.

[@cherrydragon3120]

Vinay K pausing simulations... like when we sleep? ;)

[@vinayk7]

Not exactly.When we're asleep we still dream and experience reality, by "pause" I mean the computer code that is responsible for the AI's consciousness isn't executing anymore ( it's just a program code that ultimately depends on the CPU for its life) without CPU it won't be "alive" or feel its own existence.Once simulation is resumed again all the previous memories are fed into and its code being run would feel all normal to him.It's much like _Last Thursdayism_ because we can't trust our memories in a simulation

[@TheRamboss]

Vinay K What is time?

[@olehusgaard906]

A pause in the simulation would be undetectable to us because time is also simulated.

[@SophiaAphrodite]

Days, weeks, and years are not actual measurements of time but distance traveled. Seconds, minutes, and hours are all representations of time AND distance. It is why time and space cannot be separated, one cannot exist without the other. Days, weeks, and years are all subjective. Seconds, minutes, and hours are objective.

[@Trekari]

Is there a simulation where Neil doesn't interrupt everyone all the time?

[@rtoma1974]

Scientifically impossible.

[@xiaoyu88]

I need to stop watching these videos before I go to sleep

[@itzkaio6802]

That explains why i always lag when i talk to my crush

[@quaidoralious4181]

Genius

[@andrewjohnston4811]

choices

[@JazzFlop212]

this comment is under every single video about the simulation theory.

[@JazzFlop212]

@@quaidoralious4181 It's genius to steal a comment?

[@ihatebutter]

Nah its an actual feature just try to up your charisma stat

[@MadGammon]

The entire universe does not need to be rendered in a simulation -- only the part that is being observed or interacted with!

[@JustinL614]

jaredfocose Just like a video game..the world is rendered within your sight range

[@gmanjapan]

When you observe some part all of causation from the last time you observed it has to be calculated. To get that correct requires running the sim for the entire universe.

[@pentium0077]

You are correct. Only the view point of the players is rendered. And you are the only player.

[@BenjaminCronce]

Causality does not seem to travel faster than light. The speed of light is the speed of causality. Light travels at the fastest rate that cause-and-effect allows in our Universe.

[@bozo5632]

+Gleb Kolpakov - I'm aware of entanglement, and I "understand" the weird quantum behaviors, or at least the layman's version. The superposition EFFECT is surely real, but it may not really be a matter of one thing being in two places, since it's possible to do away with things entirely, and it's no problem at all to have one field in two places. Action at a distance remains spooky, but now it's fields responding instantly instead of particles. Or that's my understanding of it. I don't have nearly 1% of the math or knowledge to assess which theory is really better, but my ignorant, intuitive preference is for QFT.

[@TheZeedler]

PBS is so good. You guys do an amazing job. Thank you so much. I'd be lost without some of these videos.

[@davizitopa7252]

The simulation hypothesis is one of the interpretations of quantum-mechanics. To save on computing power, the universe behaves just like a video game: it only renders what's being observed. Here in my room alone, the simulation algorithm clips off all the things that I'm not experiencing. From the quantum phenomena all around me to the inside of drawers and boxes, those things only exist in compressed statistical states unless I make an observation (like shaking a box to see if it has something in it or not)

[@maidy199]

Meanwhile, the alien who created the simulation is watching this video and laughing :D

[@dario1w894]

Mohamed Abdelhack maybe you are the alien...

[@maidy199]

I can tell you.... but then I'll have to delete you...

[@speedoflight33]

Mohamed Abdelhack their xbox live and psn account must be unlimited ... they can dowload any game. wtf !

[@galaxytraveler5779]

Why would the alien be laughing? Wouldn't it be more surprised that we figured it out?

[@utkarshgupta2943]

GalaxyTraveler if he is worried..this wouldn't be happening

[@chooky4626]

I wish whoever plays as me would buy some dlc...

[@foxnebula145]

i wish mine was upgrading Luck instead of Intelligence

[@dogestranding5047]

foxnebula145 Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

[@asgardiangod23]

Dlc me some space flight tech😢

[@kostam.1113]

Social life dlc would be nice.

[@trusso6117]

@ Sheogorath, 45 got the cheat code for life. It's called daddy's money!

[@giocommentary]

2:45 just some food for thought, the Dark Souls franchise does this amazingly well. You're inside a world, as just one of millions of others and the world is uncaring about you, as you go you create your own opinions/stories/facts and observations. the game doesn't teach you how to evade the thing around the corner, it expects you to learn it, there is no big overarching storyline you create your own story as you go creating unique strong memories of those self made moments. Its these attributes that makes this franchise so amazing to play and experience, its the best a videogame can offer, a experience that you create yourself, like the 4/5 year old you playing with toys. idk why i decided to make this comment, it just sprung into my head at this line in the video, and me being able to convey this message will probably pass within minutes to so i decided to write it down.

[@mcanepa6787]

I love Dark Souls, and have to admit I never expected to see it brought up in a PBS Space Time comment section. Nice observation!

[@cn6519]

Minecraft is similar.. multiple people interconnected virtually, but all creating their own special seeded experience..

[@giocommentary]

@@cn6519 yeah good one!

[@boforotio]

IT doesn't matter , let's just love one another because it is already hard enough.

[@BallerDan53]

Could be that the universe is simulated, but we aren't the focus of the simulation. What if the creators don't know we exist or don't care, but they just want to see how these balls of rock and gases react to each other and we are merely an anomaly within their scientific research.

[@bottlekruiser]

They will probably notice the balls of gas getting covered with clouds of weird spinning thingies

[@hurrdurr3615]

then why bother putting us in there, requiring vast amounts of computational power that is not needed for the planets. In terms of information a human brain is way bigger than anything else in the universe.

[@lindayoung3228]

They didn't deliberately put us in there. We are an accident, like a fart in church, and everybody looks around wondering, "Where did that come from?"

[@darnell8897]

+Hurr Durr CarpRunner is saying we weren't "put in there", rather the resolution of the simulation is of such molecular detail that phenomenon like biological life and eventually humanity crop up from time to time. Even while, perhaps, being a computationally expensive annoyance, to try and prune us from the simulation would skew the results.

[@1invag]

battlekruiser he's not suggesting they wouldn't be aware of the existence of life, just that they maybr don't care as it's not what they're running the simulation for. A bye product

[@gibbyace5077]

*A Simulation* *IN A SIMULATION* *I N A S I M U L A T I O N* *I N A S I M U L A T I O N* *I N A S I M U L A T I O N* *I N A S I M U L A T I O N* *I N S I D E* *A* *S I M U L A T I O N*

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

A simulation within a simulation? Two levels? *leans forward* Three.

[@sbalogh53]

a Stimulation in a Simulation IN A SIMULATION I N A S I M U L A T I O N I N A S I M U L A T I O N

[@oreole9608]

Four.

[@gibbyace5077]

five

[@Aceystone]

Oh, and, by the way, I don't have discolored butthole flaps. That was part of the simulation.

[@orchdork775]

I wonder if people in this supposed future ever, "plug in," to the simulation to interact with their simulated ancestors. That has fascinating implications. Maybe Matt is one of the original observers and is just popping in the simulation every now and then to give us hints 😂

[@InnerLuminosity]

Keep your hands to yourself Neil! Damn!!

[@iLordNoob]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is touchy as hell isn't he, jesus christ

[@patsox2004]

It's a New York thing...

[@MixinUK]

Xavier H Most geniuses are flawed... But it's okay.

[@iLordNoob]

Na grabbing people randomly like at 3:00 is just super uncomfortable and rude, no real excuses lmao.

[@cjbants17]

Did Neil at any point let someone else finish what they wanted to say!?

[@JustinL614]

Cj Okimo Neil is smart when it comes to cosmology but when it comes to proper etiqutte in social situations he's dumb as a brick

[@thegatorhator6822]

JustinL614 And Politics, my god his political tweets are beyond the level you can even call retarded.

[@Oogidahboogidah]

Cj Okimo no because he's a fuckwit

[@kickinon]

Does it matter? the people hes talking to shouldn't be given the time of day with a scientist, they're fucking imbeciles and say a lot of idiotic shit.

[@kickinon]

Lol I went to your profile sky and it is so fucking cringe. You're a living meme.

[@TheCornerCaseMan]

If this is a simulation, then I wish whoever built my character didn't take all the mental illness disadvantages at character creation.

[@radzmpofu9974]

The Corner Case Man you n me both bro

[@Casey-dy2oo]

Exactly what I was thinking when I watched this.

[@danny99000l]

They only did that to see how you'd react.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

Very much agreed.

[@smoozerish]

Haha……great comment……me too

[@TheBuzzBen]

I'm more interested in the question "how far are we from calculating our exact past?" A full statistical knowledge of our past would lead to easy predictions. One very powerful tool I'd love to put my hands on.

[@octavianova1300]

When you think about it, the quantized nature of the laws of physics on their most basic level sorta resembles digitization

[@softgoodsint]

Agree - ya nailed it.

[@chaytonhurlow840]

No, digitization resembles the quantized nature of physics

[@harrkev]

Science: The universe did not have a creator. Also science: The universe has a creator, lives in his mom's basement and has Cheeto dust on his fingers.

[@barryjenkins7109]

he said the simulated universe was created by a snot nosed kid not the actual universe

[@47and28]

he's a bozo for saying so.

[@joaquinel]

Perfectly ok, why not. I just dont go for the Nintendo theory.

[@beurteilung713]

Yeah because science isn't one giant homogenous entity of knowledge. There are scientists. Scientists have different theories and studies. These are compiled together to try and piece the puzzle of the universe together based on which ones are more plausible. It is also not set in stone either. Things like the Out Of Africa theory are nearly being debunked because of much older bones being found in Asia. No where in commonly accepted scientific explanations for the universe does it say there is no creator of the universe. It simply states how we think the universe begun based on studies.

[@GlaciusTS]

The more likely possibility is that it is created by some machine. If you have computers that powerful, you are probably advanced enough that you’ve done away with natural bodies and opted for something more advanced. Assuming of course that our Universe is modeled after a real one. We could be living in a simulated “possible” universe as well.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Interesting and worthwhile video. There may be a means to show that it is highly likely we're in such a simulation. The seed of said means appeared in Research Letter (Utrecht), No. 11, circa 1982. When I have free time, I may expand on this highly speculative, interdisciplinary, and complicated hypothesis.

[@laartwork]

Visit a children's hospital. Go to the cancer ward. No one would simulate that. Also the is no GOD.

[@LarryP248]

What compelling material. A similar book I picked up was a major epiphany for me. "Temporal Echoes: Amelia's Odyssey Through Ancestral Shadows" by Vivian Rosewood

[@beckyzwhite]

I'm growing more and more convinced that all of this is a simulation. I just wish I could get access to the settings page.

[@roshnik5137]

It's scary

[@danny99000l]

@@roshnik5137 Just use Ockham's razor untill further notice.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

Lol me too

[@EmpyreanLightASMR]

I just found out how to turn on Dark Mode

[@justinlavigne9814]

Psychedelics.

[@Marconius6]

Would also solve the Fermi Paradox. Just saying.

[@RaptureReady2025]

Super entertaining... incredibly intelligent. Thank you!

[@hakankarakurt1100]

The funny thing is that even if we are simulated we are still in a mathematical universe. Mathematics seems to persist through simulations just as the SIMS needed mathematical basis to be coded. My question is that can we find a way to out-power our simulators with any sort of operation and calculation...

[@espnky1]

If we out power the simulation wouldn’t it cause a stack overflow or some other error and end our universe

[@hakankarakurt1100]

@@espnky1 Maybe maybe not… Maybe it would only slow down or Planck constant would change to a bigger value as if you are reducing your streaming quality in YT. The interesting question is whether something a simulatee do can overpower a simulator from within…

[@hussnainsamee2603]

Time to zip bomb the universe

[@TheBigboy4u]

Developer console isn't given. It is earned.

[@jackkoffin1]

I have a hangover and have spent all day in bed- sleeping, watching KZbin, and wrapped up in mundane thoughts. Why would anything in the universe bother simulating a day like that?

[@Psiros]

Player is AFK. :)

[@jackkoffin1]

Psiros lol!

[@brandonstilwell8187]

If you're running an ancestor simulator, then it's simulating the entirety of humanity. Most likely there were bums in the original universe too.

[@hypegamer347]

I personally think the main reason for a simulation to be created is creative entertainment and innovation. Think about it, there's a point of which creativity and innovation reaches diminishing returns, and that could slow down progress for highly developed societies . A way around that would be a observable simulation based on set parameters, so that it is just right, tweaked to be compatible with said population. Products we create in the simulation are then advertised in the simulators world. Our design for vehicles, space ships, (both past and present) our Music and etc. Its a unlimited creativity box.

[@xeftones]

Im doing that exact thing too

[@tyleraustin2156]

Very interesting to try and imagine. It makes me wonder if being in a simulation would make explaining black holes easy. I would assume a simulation has a limit in size, so the easiest way to delete information would be a natural almost unexplainable phenomenon where we will never know what happens to the information, as that's done by design? We will never be able to explain what happens on the other side because it's literally deleted from existence due to size constraints 😂 All fun speculation!

[@lukesparkes7009]

Fun comment- nice work bro

[@TommygunnZ06]

I agree with you that the simulation hypothesis is a plausible one, and that there is a good chance that we are living in a simulation. The fact that we are able to create increasingly realistic simulations suggests that it is possible for a future civilization to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality. If we are living in a simulation, then it is possible that we are one of many simulated universes. This means that there may be billions of other simulated universes, each with its own set of laws of physics and its own history. This could explain why the universe seems to be so vast and complex, and why it is so finely tuned for life. The simulation hypothesis also has some implications for our own civilization. If we are living in a simulation, then it is possible that the simulators are controlling our world in some way. They may be able to manipulate the laws of physics, or they may be able to influence our thoughts and actions. This could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the intentions of the simulators. Overall, the simulation hypothesis is a fascinating and thought-provoking one. It raises a number of interesting questions about the nature of reality and the future of our civilization. Whether or not we are living in a simulation, it is important to remember that we should make the most of our time here. We should strive to create a better world for ourselves and for future generations, and we should never give up hope for the future. I think it is also important to be optimistic about the future, even if we are living in a simulation. If we are living in a simulation, then it means that a future civilization has already achieved a high level of technological advancement. This means that it is possible for us to achieve the same level of advancement, and even surpass it. We should not let the possibility of living in a simulation discourage us from striving for a better future. We should continue to work hard to create a world that is free from poverty, hunger, and disease. We should also work to protect the environment and to ensure that future generations have a healthy planet to live on. The future is uncertain, but it is also full of possibilities. If we work together, we can create a better world for ourselves and for future generations, regardless of whether or not we are living in a simulation.

[@karmasutra4774]

I get how optimistic you want to make it. But if they are so advanced and created us to suffer.. they don't care about our feelings too much. We are not important at all, just their end goal of what we do. They allow suffering .. so that is depressing

[@norwoodbuilder7529]

I think Neil is smoking too much of deGrasse

[@lucidanecdote683]

Ha. Can't believe it took 7 months for someone to laugh at this comment.

[@Pablo-xh5ft]

I've just seen the video and laughed out loud at this comment.

[@NotEpoch]

lol if he smoked grass he wouldnt think of stuff this stupid. he literally told the world the earth is pear shaped, and yet we have supposed "photos" of a perfectly spherical earth from nasa. the guy is an actor just like bill nye nothing to see here.

[@burraq1.032]

Degrasse best weed in the world your joke was funny

[@enaid5373]

nah, a perfectly legitimate philosophical paradox.. basically the same one we still have't figured out a completely satisfactory answer for, hundreds of years after it was posed

[@McSchmeed]

But why does the world which simulate us have to have the same simulations as we have? For example: We simulate the world of skyrim. But in our world There arent the same physical laws as in Skyrim. So why are we thinking that the world that simulates us have the same laws?

[@Kyle-nn6sf]

REAL TALK!

[@bozo5632]

Because that would be the most useful kind of world for an ancestor sim; similar to the one they really evolved on. It does presume we are in an ancestor sim, not an mmorpg. Ancestor sims would probably be done for research, not fun.

[@deviantan021]

If they are able to make a million sims per second with that giant ass computer, some of them could be for fun, why not?

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

_"Ancestor sims would probably be done for research, not fun."_ Perhaps u should watch the tv show Westworld. IMDB rating = 9/10.

[@bozo5632]

+UK man loves goddesses - that's not an ancestor sim, it's an amusement park. In an ancestor sim, no one from the "real world" goes in and plays around. It's research. All the people in it are virtual people. But yeah, there'd could other be computerized entertainment of all kinds including some that were like scientific ancestor sims.

[@raunaklanjewar677]

Neil: shuts Matt Matt: cuts the video to shut Neil

[@Screwyourpolitics]

"I speak of a great computer that will come after me....it shall be called...EARTH!" - Deep Thought

[@firsteyeopen4588]

PLANET EARTH 🌍= PLAN IT EARTH 🌍 OR PLAN ET=PLAN EXTRA TERRESTRIAL. WONDER WHY THEY CALL IT THE "HUMAN RACE"

[@StopChangingUsernamesYouTube]

How to know you're in a simulation: Your toilet becomes a fountain weekly, your neighbors are doing pushups in your front yard, and your bathroom door is gone.

[@BouArmy]

WTF

[@Theraot]

I began to suspect when the mail man said "my man" one too many times... >.>

[@DudeWhoSaysDeez]

Sounds like people in Alabama

[@KamiRecca]

William Shreckengost, i see you have been to my hometown. Za woka genava. Dag Dag.

[@wankovich]

wait, so someone in the future cares about me and my life? ಥ ͜ʖ ಥ

[@Nick-sl3ws]

and moby, you can get stomped by obie

[@posadist681]

two trailer park girls go round the outside

[@marshallgatten6465]

The future and past stretch to infinity, so every possible arrangement of particles and fields will eventually exist somewhere. Infinite times, actually. So somewhere, sometime, there's somebody who cares about you and your life. You'll just have to wait for many, many times the age of the universe for such a person to pop out of random quantum fluctuations. ;)

[@jordycarvajal6093]

Marshall Gatten and that's me (that i'll say some day to a cute lady to ...)

[@khushdeepbrar8534]

In some weird twisted universe, yes.

[@TrebleWing]

People usually say there is no evidence for the simulation argument. I have one idea on this. So, when you program a simulation you only have to, and should only, compute what the observer experiences. This is actually consistent with the double slit experiment. You only collapse the wave function when the causality is entangled with our perception of the result.

[@sigmata0]

I'm hoping others have said this too. A simulated universe from the perspective of an individual or a small group does not require a simulation of the entire set of atoms within the universe we think exists. I only reason I have any notion about how big the universe is is due to reports from scientists who claim to have made observations consistent with certain laws. Unless I attempt the experiments personally, I don't have any direct data upon which to claim I have an experience consistent with a large universe. The closest I get is looking into the nights sky, and even with a moderately powerful telescope the simulation required is very minimal. Moreover on the grand scale of things the patterns I expect to see that tell me if the universe I experience is consistent are patterns inside my own mind. If I were connected to a mind of similar capacity and I was tapping into the imagined consistent universe it knows and creates, it would appear to me as that consistent universe I expect to see. Not only that, but my mind deliberately expects consistency and even reinterprets what sensory information it receives to make it consistent. So a simulation requires a great deal less processing power than modelling every particle and every interaction. I never get to see that much detail ever. I just imagine it according to some basic patterns of experience and major assumptions about it needing to be consistent.

[@bonaventureduprat9416]

I clicked the ad because of how good this content is

[@jayyyzeee6409]

It's apparent that Neil got his fill of coffee that day.

[@valvefloatproductions9083]

I’m building a universe out of a video game, After watching this not only is my mind blown, and now I have a god complex relationship with my work, I’m also feeling like that snot nosed alien

[@injunsun]

Great Minerva, I love how you make me think.

[@matpsycic]

1. World is not deterministic. Everyone assumes that if a simulation is created it has to determine all possible operations. Not really. It just has to have the capability to calculate such operations. The result of the operations can be anything. 2. Why do we assume that some kind of sentient form has to create a simulation? The simulations could be self replicating. We are a simulation that creates AI in a simulation which in turn creates another simulation and so on. There is no beginning and no end. It just goes on and on.

[@javiercalvelo2783]

What if distances in the universe are so large because that's a clever way to avoid us to reach anything outside the solar system and save computer power? :O

[@Mlogan11]

+Javier Calvelo If you ever make it to the edge, you just might see we are really in a Salvation Army bin on some city street.

[@romajimamulo]

Or it's just lying

[@marshallgatten6465]

That's another good point, Javier. They don't need to simulate what the regolith of Pluto feels like because we'll never touch it. (If we ever advance to where we might, they can add it in.) All that needs simulation is the details of the immediate environment and the effects of the more distant environment.

[@renendell]

Questions like this are why the idea has so much traction What we perceive as space expands so quickly that we may never see even the nearest star up close. It's strange, and given a certain bias lends credence to the notion that our lives are simulated.

[@veslar]

Good thinking. But if their computer runs out of memory pool, are we going to experience delay in reactions and start seeing polygons?

[@noiszatmari]

this was fun to watch, it is certainly and unsettling yet intriguing idea to think that there may be Boltzmann brains out there or i may just be one experiencing the memories of someone who may be actually dead but of course these are speculations, however truly thought provoking. have a great day everyone.

[@barretprivateer8768]

For once I want Niel to stop talking. Matt is such a brilliant host and educator.

[@Absraction]

Neil is honestly insufferable

[@goldnutter412]

Yes.. sadly this happened with one of the other nice gents at Asimov 2011 when I asked about something other than materialism All i got was unfalsifiable (so.. not false?) and another massive maths dump including illogical assumptions.. it... hurt inside

[@Brighim100]

To support the idea of a simulation, many of the tools that are used in programming a videogame, are being discovered in physics. An example of this would be rendering. Video games are programmed in such sway that only the part of a videogame being observed by a player is loaded by the computer in order to save memory. This is frightfully similar to the way in which some particles travel as a wave of probability until they are observed.

[@420yoloscopes]

HarperOnPC Your idea stems from a misunderstanding of quantum superposition. Your understanding of FOV in games is decent tho lol.

[@JustinL614]

Xx420Y0L0 SC0P3ZxX Typical youtube comment..say someone else doesn't understand something but doesn't even bother explaining why..

[@nameguy101]

He's right though, occlusion culling and the Copenhagen interpretation aren't really related, or even similar... Also, the notion that parts of game architecture "are being discovered" in the physics of our universe is kind of hilarious. First off, it's conceited and dumb. But more importantly, if we were in a simulation, the odds would be that our games would look and work _nothing_ like the simulation in which we were.

[@0Macen0]

> This is frightfully similar to the way in which some particles travel as a wave of probability until they are observed. Except what you call "observation" is more accurately described as interaction. As far as the universe is concerned, it matters not if a particle hits a human retina, or the surface of a deserted moon in a galaxy far far away.

[@dr.catherineelizabethhalse1820]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[@stefantheconqueror8710]

6:45 But can it run Crysis?

[@happygimp0]

When you can run it in the simulation, then yes.

[@happygimp0]

@Skanda bhairava If you make a simulation, and in this simulation there is a computer that runs Crysis, then the simulation can and does run Crysis. It is like a computer that emulates a old game console that runs a old game. Then you can say the computer runs that game even if the computer needs the help of a emulator.

[@averagemilffan]

But can it run Minecraft RTX

[@camerondavis8356]

In the South in the 1980s, I was taught they were the Berenstein (like Albert Einstein) Bears. IF we are the first generation, enjoy your unedited life.

[@rogerfarias4506]

Thanks very much for the portuguese subtitles!

[@jenningscunningham642]

Are we living in a dream. This question has been asked for thousands of years.

[@kjk7611]

Jennings Cunningham Ever since some cave-man woke up from a vi vid dream & wondered if he'd woken up.😫

[@chronikillogical2807]

Yes

[@keepinmahprivacy9754]

"We are like the dreamer who dreams, and then lives inside the dream."

[@keepinmahprivacy9754]

@@jameshoward9081 Ah, I was just quoting David Lynch from "Twin Peaks: the Return", but I think he was actually quoting Plato there. So it's a very old idea indeed and probably one that every culture wrestles with. One thing to think about though, that we learn from computer simulations, but also through our dreams, is that if there is some type of "reality recursion" going on, it seems it must be directional. I can dream of being in a place I know from the "real" world, but my dream will never be a fully accurate replication of that place. Similarly, I can design a computer simulation of something in the real world but I can never simulate it completely accurately. Computers themselves are an attempt to simulate at least some aspects of human thinking, and again, there is a loss of fidelity and the computer can't really duplicate the way our minds work. So I think it's like how entropy and time have "arrows", if there is recursion, then that too has an "arrow", where each level gets simpler and simpler until you must reach a point where you cannot simulate anything of any significance or complexity anymore.

[@MrNodebate]

From a neuropsychological perspective, I always find it funny - and bewildering - to hear physicists talk about the human brain and similar topics... and, oh boy, do they get things wrong sometimes because *they tend to focus on computing power and whether it's possible to simulate anorganic matter like stars, planets, etc. - the easiest part of it all* ;) Just this much: from a neuroscientific perspective, we ARE a simulation - or better, illusion - constructed by our very own brain - or, more accurately, our subconsciousness. So we would be talking about *a simulation for a simulated consciousness...* There are endless questions we need to tackle before we even can begin to grasp this concept, and until we figure out how brains exactly works, we won't be able to construct anything the likes they talk about in this video. Further, they seem very unfocused about the topic: are we talking about a simulation for a *human brain or about an *artificial* brain? Those two topics might seem similar to someone unfamiliar with the matter, but those are very much separate fields of research...

[@Upstreamprovider]

@Hollow Shell But he's right. Most physicists don't know squit when it comes to psychology so they should stick to manipulating atoms.

[@jarzez]

Firstly, he clearly states that the most important part is to simulate the neurons in a brainlike structure, not about the anorganic matter that you claim he talks about. He even states that the input for the brain, ie the anorganic matter around it, is most likely much simpler to simulate and barely includes it in the calculations. I think it has it flaws to claim that we would be a simulation of our own brain aswell. A simulation is something consciously constructed to act in place of something else. I think I understand what you actually mean, but I would argue it is more logical to describe our conciousness as the output given by processing a sequence of inputs. The input is the truth, the output that we see and feel is a processed version of that. Why would there be "endless questions" to construct a sufficiently accurate artificial mind in an arbitrary world? Yes they are very different field of research. I've studied and currently work with "artificial brains", ie AI and machine learning. However, the difference here is not improtant for his point. He is talking about constructing an artificial brain that is sufficiently similar in action to a human brains. There is no one single human brain, it is a cluster of brains that will roughly reason similarly given the same input, but no brain is alike. And to simulate the human brain you would need to place yourself within that cluster, and be just sufficiently accurate.

[@piotrd.4850]

@@Upstreamprovider You do realize, that everything you call 'psychology' (which barely deserves to be called science) ultimately depends on just that: atoms and fields?

[@bigtravis6159]

It’s great that Some1 went ahead and crunches these numbers

[@BlitzOfTheReich]

4:38 this assumes that brains are just classical computers.

[@culwin]

It doesn't have to be a simulation to all lifeforms. It only has to be a simulation to you.

[@stebarg]

culwin you are talking to yourself.

[@sign543]

Aaron H. - Yep. It’s unfalsifiable. It’s almost a pointless exercise, if it weren’t so interesting to ponder.

[@eddiebrown192]

I’m not real .

[@JonathanPoppele]

I enjoy this series immensely and deeply appreciate the time and care you give to presenting extremely complex topics is such an accessible way. This particular episode, however, seems to stray out of the realm of science and into the realm of magic as we muse about creating digital golems. Estimates of the computing power required to simulate the behavior of the brain are, at best, wild guesses that have no basis in modern neuro-physiology. A few points to consider: Researchers have had a complete map of the cardiac ganglion of the lobster since at least the 1970s. Although this ganglion has just 7 neurons, neuroscientists have been unable to develop a complete model of its behavior. The exact relationships between signal inputs and signal outputs remain a mystery. More recently, the entire nervous system of the roundworm, Caenorhabditis elegans, has been mapped in near perfect detail. The nervous system of this tiny creature contains just 302 neurons. While the map has been extremely useful for research, it has given little insight into the worms behavior. As C. elegans researcher Oliver Hobert of Columbia put it in a 2012 article in Scientific American, "it's like a road map that tells you where cars can drive, but does not tell you when or where cars are actually driving." Nor does it tell you about traffic dynamics. Neurotransmitters do not function like the binary switches of a computer. They create complexities of behavior that we do not fully understand, even in the simplest of systems. If we cannot yet model the behavior of a system containing 7 neurons, or of an entire nervous system consisting of just 302 neurons, what is the logic behind estimating the computing power needed to model a system containing billions? What is the logic in assuming that such a thing is even possible? If such logic exists, it is independent of experimental results. Even if we grant these wild speculations, we still encounter a more fundamental problem. We do not know what consciousness is. Neuroscientists refer to consciousness as an "emergent property" of the brain. It is a property that does not belong in any of the component parts, and likely cannot be predicted or explained through a reductionist model of the systems components. But more honestly, "emergent property" here is code for "we have no idea." Neuroscientists, philosophers, physicists and others have speculated throughout history on the nature of consciousness, but no one has yet developed a test that can detect whether or not consciousness is present. I know that I am conscious, because I experience consciousness. I have no way of verifying whether or not you are conscious. I just assume that you are because your behavior seems so much like mine. Even if we could model the behavior of a nervous system--which we cannot do--how can we speculate about the computing power required to simulate consciousness if we don't even know what consciousness is?

[@marjorielange2035]

In fact, I also believe that the time period we live in plays a role in the simulation hypothesis. Come to think of it, we live in an era where we are constantly observed since our birth, a technological era. Since we were born we have taken pictures, filmed, constantly with our smartphone in our pocket which gives our position, hears us, sees us. If a simulation of ancestors has been created, it is clearly the best time, the easiest for them to reconstruct a most faithful simulated universe, the advent of the internet. This is perhaps the furthest place where they could go up. It is also highly probable that some of the creators of this simulation are currently experimenting with this simulation among us, and that the others are observing them.

[@shazanali692]

The brain during dreams is creating environments and scenarios that do not exists, so we have a intelligence that creates something that only it sees we do not need the eyes to create it

[@macaronisalad3038]

duh it's obvious what created our universe rick simply made another microverse battery for his car

[@paulcoy9060]

isn't it more like the game that Morty plays at Blips And Chits ?

[@emjaymj]

Tester I'm not even sure that isn't a distinction without a difference

[@oscill8ocelot]

Pff. Teenieverse.

[@recklessroges]

Pff Microverse

[@ghostofdeletekey]

WUBBA LUBBA DUB DUB!!

[@stagger9660]

lmao. just watched a video of tyson completely rejecting the simulation theory. and here i am watching him completely support it.

[@Polyvalent]

such is the nature of science and debate. There are often valid backings for either side, especially when very little tangible facts exist supporting either side. it's fairly common for men like Tyson to take a side, or play devil's advocate, simply for the sake of constructive debate.

[@jesusthroughmary]

Bubbles That previous video was before Trump.

[@stagger9660]

sTyler ah. great minds do like to feed off eachother

[@ReknCrew]

It's the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without believing it.

[@bmerritt2433]

Rekn Ralph hmm that is a clever saying, but does it actually make any sense? i do not mean to call you out, but I do have a disdain for clever phrases which conveniently permit people the luxury of communication without the drudgery that is contemplation. it is my experience that education has little to do with one's ability or likelihood to entertain beliefs without succumbing to them.

[@PlatyMoose1]

Neil Degrasse Tyson never had his ass kicked and it shows.

[@michaeljaegers7302]

Alright who ever is playing my life needs to take it off extreme mode please need a breather.. thanks 😂😂💯

[@goartist]

stop giving them ideas, extreme mode and such

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

Like Neil deGrasse Tyson, I pretty much cry every day. So I hope the Google masters studying my virtual brain are having fun.

[@J0krswy1d]

Lol.. I remember doing that in SimCity way back when. Throwing in disasters to liven things up.

[@An_Iron_God69420]

10^42 operations per second performed by a jupiter brain, 42 being the answer to life, the universe and everything; this seems accurate according to deep thought :)

[@karmasutra4774]

And some hitchhiker's guide

[@kornklown420]

First of all, I am no physicist, I am not an expert, I find these topics very fascinating, and this is just my take based on my limited understanding. I think it might be flawed to try to predict the size of a computer that would be required to simulate a universe, because we can only make that prediction based on our current understanding of physics and computational capacity. If our universe is infact a simulation, it could be that our physics were designed specifically for the simulation, and the physics of the universe containing the simulation could be completely different. There's no reason to believe that there wouldn't be limits to the computing capabilities of this computer, so it would still make sense that it is beneficial, if not required, to have the reality of the universe generated as it is observed by the simulated minds. I feel like this would actually explain the probability wave. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that our current model explaining existence suggests that nothing exists for certain until it is in a state that could be observed. I'm not saying I believe we are in a simulation, but I do think it is entirely possible. I'm curious what others think about this, and if I'm completely wrong in my understanding please do tell, I'm always trying to learn.

[@Mrkevi123]

We're in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation.

[@harry-eo7xe]

Joao Rocha nah you are the only sad thing here

[@BothHands1]

Simuception. Incepulation?

[@KlingonCaptain]

What about mods?

[@fffUUUUUU]

in ejaculation

[@saulw6270]

Kevin Hinojosa what if a simulation simulated a simulation that can escape their simulation and gad the power to de simulate all simulations

[@FloridaManVal]

Is that why my neighbor keeps asking if I get to the cloud district very often? Of course I don't.

[@Prometheus7272]

Very Valyn I appreciate this Skyrim reference

[@melissawessel9114]

Here I am thinking its about weed lol #TypicalStoner

[@valiroime]

FUS RO **coughcoughcough**

[@MangySquirrel]

Just because we can think of an idea doesn’t mean it’s true or real. This is a great topic to generate interest and that’s all this is really intended to do. This is the same with the infinite universe/multiverse theory. “Infinity” as a mathematical result or parameter usually indicates a lack of data or an error.

[@borregospringsbs]

You don't have to simulate everyone, or what they all think or have thought. You just have to simulate my thoughts and what I experience to include that in the information that adds up to that

[@artificialavocado9652]

Man this is some pretty heavy stuff. How'd I get from cute kitty cat videos to this?

[@martind349]

It isn't unusual to miss cats' meanings, because we want them to be like us.

[@atvickishouse2700]

Artificial Avocado curious minds want to know

[@inertiaforce7846]

The simulation brought you here.

[@davidbeaulieu4815]

Haven't you seen cats vs dogs? The cats are behind it man your in their existential litterbox right now which is why the world is so shitty. 🤣

[@keefealicous]

The great thing is it doesn't matter if we are in a simulation or not - one should still live their life without fear because if it is a simulation then its all good you just had fun it was a game. If it isn't a simulation then thank god you lived without fear and lived life to its fullest potential. Essentially this should lead you to the idea of living without regrets because either way living in fear or not following your heart because it may be a simulation would be a waste whether it is or isn't.

[@TeslaKuhn8]

I just hope someone saves a copy of me and keeps it on their shelf when they're done, and occasionally plugs me back in when they feel nostalgic.

[@goartist]

@@PretendingToBeAHuman or they simply logged in to transfer some valuable loot to the new fav char, and set you back to auto crafting :( :(

[@ummmno3871]

I’m good. They can just delete my file already.

[@dr.withoutthedegree3990]

@@PretendingToBeAHuman um no... We get a new character everytime because we wanna start over

[@xiosagikana28]

"There is no such thing as a , wherever you are it will become your reality". I think that this is the only thing that matters.

[@danielr.]

Oh hey, hello. Existencial crisis, here we meet again.

[@cris-vv1pn]

And?

[@cris-vv1pn]

Hello dude had to look it up haha how's the world treating you today

[@donkeykong4983]

Daniel Reinhardt SAME!!!!!!!!!! I’m having one right now too!!!

[@ChrisCross-nq9ed]

"Hello, darkness, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again."

[@ChrisBrengel]

6:30 "...you can mess with any of those numbers and still remain WITHIN THOSE FEW FACTORS OF TEN." Roughly speaking! LOL!

[@8milestreet]

This just blew my mind

[@calebyoder7547]

The part about the planet sized computer running all those experiences reminds me of something I heard from Alan Watts saying something about dreaming something different every night and eventually you’ll come to wind up dreaming the exact experience you’re having right now in this very moment