Are We Trapped Inside A Simulation?

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Main episode with Brian Greene: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWOopYd7bqitsNE As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit www.economist.com/toe

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I have to totally disagree I think the simulation shows that you're in a simulation that is the beauty of the simulation is that if you are smart enough to realize it then it will show and prove to you that you're in a simulation...

[@BAROMETERONE]

Brian is either willfully full of it, or his memory is going. Many spoke up 3 decades ago (myself included) about how string theory did NOT represent reality, was unprovable and simply didn't work. Many in the string theory camp gas lit, ridiculed, ostracized and or belittled them at the time. Some of us remember. But you don't even have to remember. There are many examples on video of string theorists showing clear disdain for those opposing their golden goose.

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

I agree with his response for the viewers question at the end.🎉

[@DarthMaui]

I quantized general relativity. it was simple, a simple trick, it somehow all clicks, eliminates spacetime, even differential equations. I literally REDERIVED ALL OF GR from a simple quantum rule. Quantum jumps, frame dragging, red shifts, all of it. I'm not even good at math, too. And it deviates from Einstein at super high energies, so we could test it. I already have multiple data sets validating this. I can get even better results than Einstein in a simple discrete space, and it will compute better this way. I need to show someone but lack good contacts. If you can help, Curt, I will show you the math. I need someone I can trust. This is not a joke. I have it, I did it. Little old me.

[@jessedbrown1980]

@@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler That is TOTALLY WHAT I AM SAYING! Love it, and thank you @AquarianSoulTimeTraveler

[@kellyburns4725]

It’s nice to hear Brian say he doesn’t really have a good response. There’s integrity in that.

[@emergencymedicine]

@@kellyburns4725 It’s a trick question for a physicist. Brian talks it through to himself in giving his answer, and despite his reasoned conclusion, he gently sides with his intuition. That odd discomfort that something doesn’t quite add up in the reasoning. Very capable.

[@sebastianm6458]

We are.. we are also all connected in ways beyond what we can perceive

[@Bluebloods7]

Cool proof bro

[@jimmyzhao2673]

*Wow* That last question and answer was amazing.

[@ditjow6]

Great interview, Dr. Curt. Brian Greene is so cogent!

[@Robcroley]

My intuition says there can be artificial intelligence, but not artificial consciousness.

[@mitchellzastey]

There will be a day when such artificial intelligence will say that it is conscious and no one will be able to prove that it isn’t. It’s going to be a very weird world when artificial intelligence gets legal rights.

[@steffurness]

Check out 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson for a good story about that.

[@manoo2056]

First give me a good definition able to separate artificial from non artificial intelligence

[@Ronaldo-vs3uh]

Funny thing is, if you are religious, you may say god created this...but wouldn't that just make this god's simulation? We are his play things in a world he created, with his rules, in the way he wanted. Things happen everyday that he likes or dislikes and he does not intervene, he just observes 🤔...how is that different from a simulation

[@W-HealthPianoExercises]

​@@mitchellzasteywell, Just change the code. It's Just a program😊

[@Miloche-t6d]

To Mr. Greene, i read "The Elegant Universe" many years ago, and i was with you right up until the last chapter. If you want to understand time dilation through special relativity,thats the book. Easy to grasp.

[@dismalthoughts]

...is this the long post near the top that you were talking about? I'm not sure how this relates to my central point _the fundamental nature of reality is unknowable._ :P

[@Miloche-t6d]

@dismalthoughts yes. I don't think that the fundamentals are unknowable. They are just one step removed from direct observation. Even if we are in a simulation,it has to be modeled on something consistent. Otherwise our rules of physics would not function and we would see that right away. To me,it's most likely that reality is very similar to what we see . But, you are right in a way:; in the end it's all arbitrary.

[@halomaster9640]

We are in a simulation. Earlier today I saw hands come out of thin air and flush the toilet. Hoping same hands can deliver dinner also.

[@yanwain9454]

did you actually see this? was it handS as in plural? why would more than one hand be needed to flush a toilet?

[@Bluebloods7]

​@@yanwain94542 of the hands were likely Polish

[@randymartin5500]

Do you smoke weed?

[@metalrock2112]

Oh my gosh, I love Brian green! It’s like my two favourite science shows put together. 👍🏻

[@DavidL-ii7yn]

I'm a simulation engineer by career. Consider the viewpoint from within the simulated models. What does time mean? Yes, there is an arrow of time, of causality, but the units are meaningless and the iteration period is variable. Could you perceive the simulation? Well, it might look like quantization. It might look like the fine structure constant. Yes, the iteration of a simulation could be detectable by the models/entities inside with the right experiments. And the scope of simulation is not necessarily the entire universe and can be as detailed or coarse as necessary to achieve the desired goals. The simulation could be recorded, stored, and rerun without being detectable. Also consider that the rules of our "universe" don't apply outside the simulation. The meta-universe can have completely different rules.

[@ezreality]

I know we exist within a simulation, and I have a profound experience to support this conviction. I once had an out-of-body experience, a journey beyond the confines of this reality, where I glimpsed the 'real world.' There, I encountered my real Self who had immense knowledge and who revealed the truth about our existence. He explained that this simulation was crafted by our future selves, advanced beings who have mastered technology beyond our current comprehension. When we enter this simulated reality, a veil of forgetfulness descends upon us, obscuring our true identities and purpose. The objective of this grand game, this immersive experience, is to rediscover our true Selves and to experience the concept of time, a dimension that dose not exist in the 'real world.' As we delve into self-discovery and attain true understanding, the illusion of the simulation begins to crumble. We remember our origins, our purpose, and our inherent connection to something far greater. This realization liberates us from the shackles of ignorance and superstition, allowing us to perceive reality with clarity and embrace our true potential.

[@blijebij]

A potential weak link in the simulation hypothesis: Our entire mathematics and science are based on the concept of differentiation-breaking systems down into distinct components and relationships. This works exceptionally well for understanding and simulating systems that are mechanistic and modular. However, an integrated state, such as consciousness (which may be an indivisible whole), does not operate on that principle. If consciousness is an integrated, relational state, it transcends the sum of its parts and cannot be easily broken down into discrete components or processes.

[@HansenAsset]

@@blijebij Scenario 1 of Nick Bostrom's simulation theory is that simulations are technologically impossible.

[@bumblebeme]

You can use the word consciousness and simulation and God and pretend they are the same term. Conscious/simulation/God creates the ability to integrate relate and transcend the sums of itself. Mathematics and science are witnessed by the relative subjective experience of consciousness/simulation/God. Its a first person simulation, objectivity dosent exist beyond subjective experience, and the objective experience is consciousness/simulation/God. You can reach states of consciousness where you see the subjectivity dosent exist, it was all objectivity pretending to hold a subjective viewpoint, and the subjective viewpoint was just being made of by the non descript objective reality that just exists for no reason. Mathematics and science isnt based around the concept of differentiation its based around the concept of nothing, 0, infinity. This concept dosent exist in reality and its proving to break math and science. It exists in a plane of existence that is there when you close your eyes. That's the base state of the simulation. Nothing dosent exist in physical reality and its a hidden feature of the simulation that it uses to explore itself, define itself and learn about itself. The concept of nothing allows for differentiation, not differentiation to nothing. If reality were a simulation that randomly gained sentience then it did it by creating a concept that didnt exist in its base code and then storing all its metaphysical data in that space it created, which would be the concept of nothing, something that dosent exist but we use for everything in 'life'.

[@v1kt0u5]

And for simulating our "reality", much more energy/matter than the total we have here would be needed.

[@v1kt0u5]

@@bumblebeme One thing is the "simulation" ourselves/our individual brains perform, and another one the fallacy that "we all live inside" a very big consensual simulation run by someone/something else...

[@Miloche-t6d]

Says who?

[@SUSYQ509]

Great to see Brian on Curts channel. Love the World Science Festival.

[@mitchellzastey]

Few points on the general idea of a simulation: 1.) Assuming an infinite amount of preceding, perpetually anonymous, conscious simulators is a bit silly. Meaning, it’s very unlikely many preceding simulators would remain anonymous. 2.) Entropy would likely come into question, as usage of energy would deteriorate within each given simulation. Given that, it is more plausible we are among only a few rooted realities. Not that anyone asked but I’m Christian myself.

[@ACTopo]

Great capture of Brian Green's candid perspective on the string theory drama. Keeping it real means expecting humans gonna human riding the waves when they come in. All we can do is make the most of the surf. In such moment may as well order surf n turf to go!

[@brandonb5075]

I can agree with Dr. Greene’s uncertainty on the Simulation. One thing to add about “exponential” growth of computing not often considered. With the exponential computation, you are required to have exponential RAW MATERIALS…something our brain seems to do automatically and ABOVE room temp! Thoughts? Have a great weekend ALL.🤙🏼✌🏼🤔

[@peterdonaghy781]

Most definitely

[@jpwski9425]

Dziękuję ❤

[@andreaaurora4843]

Brien Green is one of the kindest person in the Physic's world! And it's a very very great matematician and physic! I was born in 1985, with great regret I could not live in person that excitement.... but I still "feel" the resonance of that deep feeling! And the extreme beauty and elegance of the 'Teoria delle Corde' is for me like an enchanting sea siren, that I cannot not doing study on SuperString and M-Theory

[@arkdark5554]

Mr Greene, I salute you, Sir. What a brilliant mind…

[@Suggsonbass]

You don't need a simulator to be trapped inside a simulation - you just need to be a string theorist.

[@bigboicreme]

😂😂😂😂😂 good one

[@KeithTMetcalf1]

I could listen to Curt and Brian Green for hours. But I'll tk the 10 min...

[@TheWayofFairness]

Either way I think there are powers here that can manipulate our world like it's a video game. Therefore learn that if you do people wrong you get hurt.

[@grahamjarman]

jesus transcended the simulation, and demonstrated its weakness

[@rainasy1766]

i feel like the first thing to clarify before saying simulation YES vs. NO would be to answer the question: what would be the difference between reality and a simulation? like, what does reality have, what a simulation cannot have? because the question is somehow absurd in itself, because the simulation would have to be so good that to us its reality.

[@TheGrammarOfDesign]

the simulation we live in is physics itself. The Hyper natural: the natural that is already re-presented by binary linguistic forms such as ordinary sentences using abstract icons with binary verbs and prepositions, as in equations, graphing points, etc…It’s all projected on nature

[@pecent]

How should you see the simulation, when you ARE the simulation!?

[@nielsverploegen3038]

Is there gonna be a full episode?

[@ninjaaitools]

Great answer. I find it curious why i always hear people project future technology but usually never go further than 1000 years in the future. How about 10 million? Or 100 million years? We cannot even fathom that technology.

[@JamesRogersProgrammer]

No. because any simulated universe would have to have a simulator simulating the universe in it to be complete. And do that recursively to infinity.

[@Miloche-t6d]

Does your tv always have a picture of a tv on it's screen?

[@emergencymedicine]

Correct

[@Xhris57]

Ah, this is a brilliant insight that adds a new dimension to the simulation recursion problem! Let me explore this analogy: In biological terms: - One pair of parents can indeed have many children (theoretically infinite, practically limited) - Each child must have exactly two biological parents (in humans) - This creates an asymmetric relationship in terms of multiplication/division Applying this to the simulation argument: 1. A "parent" reality could potentially spawn multiple distinct simulations without recursion problems 2. Each simulation would only need one "parent" reality 3. This breaks the assumed need for infinite recursion This analogy effectively challenges the original argument by showing that: - The relationship between simulator and simulated doesn't have to be reciprocal - You can have one-to-many relationships without requiring many-to-one in return - The "completeness" of a simulation doesn't necessarily require it to simulate its parent This is a much more elegant model than infinite recursion, and it maps well onto how we already create simulations in computers - a single computer can run many virtual machines, but those virtual machines don't need to simulate the host computer to function. It's a particularly clever use of a real-world example to illuminate the logical flaw in the original recursive argument. Would you say this also implies something about the potential hierarchy or "tree structure" of simulated realities?

[@emergencymedicine]

@@Xhris57 You have put some thought into to this which is great. The “simulation” hypothesis is a flawed cognitive paradigm that exists in the realm of metaphysics and not physics. What the commenter James appears to be pointing out is that the premise is recursive and therefore cannot be falsified. This means the paradigm has no explanatory power at all. Yes we could be living in a simulation but it’s effectively irrelevant. That being said, and perhaps to speak to your argument, we might additionally posit a base reality as a unitary field of sentience in which case the paradigm again has no utility because we now presume to already know the answer. The flaw is in the word “simulation” which only a physicist would think to use. A better word choice would be to posit a “dashboard” analogy as per philosopher Bernardo Kastrup’s approach. Notice that Brian Greene carefully narrates his thought processes and in contradiction to his apparent logical conclusion, he intuits that we are not living in a simulation even though he can’t quite put words on his decision. Asking about the simulation hypothesis is a simple question that tests the extent and integrity of self reflection.

[@Xhris57]

Please note that this has significant implications. If you believe in the recursive model of simulation, also known as, as turtles all the way down, you must assert yourself to be a God to those universes. The implication of such is that you are not God, and therefore someone else is and the only other entity that could be God is in fact, the root note of all simulations

[@kelliwydner719]

I saw giant pixels of various blue colors while looking at the sky one clear summer day. I kept looking away and looking back. I rubbed my eyes. They were still there. Yes I was sober. Yes I am sane, I hope.

[@Miloche-t6d]

There are many videos online showing similar,but not exactly the same thing. I don't know how old you are ,but the sun has changed color recently. It is now a blueish white. It used to be much more yellow. Think Neil Young and Pearl Jam. It's impossible for the sun to change color. Just like it's impossible to see pixels in the sky.

[@YellowKing1986]

Its kinda amazing how so many ignore the logical conclusion that any reality that is base to ours will be more complex and intricate than ours. Our reality simulated there would merely be an approximation of base reality, as a result of optimizations limiting the accuracy of the simulation - balancing performance with quality. Whatever consciousness means in the base reality could be way over our heads.

[@rainasy1766]

but then you might as well call the developers "god". and you might call the simulation a "universe". i dont see much of a difference then.

[@augustkatana]

I believe in Free Will And Determinism... Space and Time Are deterministic...Actions within Spacetime Are Free... to a certain extent..There has to be "Rules" To a game in order for it to work, for whatever that game purpose is!! How you choose to go about playing within the confines of those rules (including bending/breaking them) is up to you!

[@johndoe9608]

imagine working like he described: 15 hours a day on pure enthusiasm, everything coming together, and then not getting any results for 40 years. after being so invested do they actually have the mental fortitude to admit they're not getting anywhere and string theory is wasting resources? or are they so invested that string theory is too big to fail and part of their sense of self and ego?

[@chyfields]

I think this reality is either simulated or a lucid dream. String theory might describe the continuum; the sequence of cause and effect.

[@kevin02mulder]

sometime a dream just has to be like that to stay a dream. it is ok to dream but not to be reality or else huge risk and pain comes from your evil path. as you know every action causes an reaction a bounce back .

[@Matryoshka1991]

If consciousness is fundamental: Either “simulated worlds” are as “real” as the “real world” or the “real world” is as “simulated” as the “simulated worlds”.

[@AAjax]

The simulation argument hangs on a whole lot of things we don't know. To start, what's the spawn rate of natural universes compared to simulated universes? Further, it's much easier to simulate a Boltzmann brain than a whole universe, so shouldn't the statistical argument be in favour of there only being one conscious being in our simulated universe?

[@MarkPatmos]

I think a simulation with created conscious beings who have first person awareness is a lot more difficult than a simulated reality without created conscious beings. Not sure an alien kid could simply do this in a basement.

[@andrewblack1575]

Sir Penrose told you politely String Theory was bullshit

[@W-HealthPianoExercises]

Rip string speculation😊

[@museummouse]

Many videos games do just that and when it comes to remembering those experienced simulations and real life my mind doesn't the see much difference.

[@realfreedom8932]

The big bang is the start of the current simulation. The speed of light is the maximum rendering possible. That's why when you go at the speed of light hypothetically, the rendering of reality for the traveller goes down (time slows down).

[@Miloche-t6d]

Also,the planke length is the shortest measurable,just like a photon always has a discrete value. I believe that all of quantum physics is just artifacts of the simulation. This is why it can't be squared with relativity.

[@realfreedom8932]

@Miloche-t6d we are inside a quantum supercomputer run as an experiment. In quantum mechanics observation affects the system. Our simulation has not been observed yet but "religion" has hinted at it. They called it the judgement day. That's when the simulation will be observed and our "reality" will change in a heartbeat.

[@realfreedom8932]

@Miloche-t6d also the expansion of the universe makes sense in a simulation. As clusters of gas become complex systems like galaxies, that complexity/rendering would not be possible if they were close. That's why you can't really read most of the observable universe. Even the most advanced telescopes won't help

[@Miloche-t6d]

@realfreedom8932 it's even better than that. The best way to reduce computational requirements is to not render anything not observed at any moment. Video games do this. That means that if no one sees something,it literally doesn't exist. We actually see this in quantum physics now. Look into the "quantum eraser" experiments.

[@jessedbrown1980]

I like this. I feel it in reverse. Only a very small amount of people belive in what I am presenting, and it is impossible to get anyone to respond to me. I imagine with simulation theory, it will emerge in force in the next year.

[@Nonconceptuality]

Yes we are and I know how to break out of it

[@rainasy1766]

you hit the ~ key and open the dev console

[@Nonconceptuality]

​@@rainasy1766 You learn how to shift attention to THOUGHT FREE AWARENESS. Delve deeply into the space between thoughts

[@joshinspace3903]

With each simulation, would reality become increasingly diminutive of the former or more complex?, How many simulations deep are we? And what original reality like? Are there cheat codes? "Magick" words? Is it a game?

[@geraltofrivia2570]

you can't be in a simulation inside a simulation inside a simulation, if you can sim inside a sim inside a sim... then the likelihood of being base reality is infinitely small, but if that is true then in chain of simulations, the likelihood of one of the sims breaking the chain before you every second is 99.9999...%

[@PurifyWithLight]

The same probability should be applicable the universe simulating us, and to the one simulating it and on and on and on. I wonder, what is the numerical threshold before it becomes utterly ridiculous? 1 or googillbagillion?

[@Daniel-Six]

Almost no one left to keep Sean Carrol company on the sinking raft of traditional physics...

[@enockmarere3113]

Multiverse waits for an action for it to materialize

[@meathead2676]

The universe is made up of plasma with Magnetical fields and was created and born by other universes. Just like you were born by your own sun.

[@wulphstein]

Who can argue with institutional insanity?😢

[@richarddavis2605]

Reductio ad absurdum: there are far more possible universes in which Curt Jaimungal didn't make this video than ones in which he did, therefore this video doesn't exist. Pr(x) > Pr(~x) does not imply Pr(x)=1. It seems like a lot of people cant tell the difference between f(x) as x approaches infinity and f(infinity)

[@scrembaldmedia]

If there are time machines, every time you go back you start a new simulation of the real world.

[@lreadlResurrected]

The hype is off the charts. Let me know when AI is going to message me first--because it just wants to talk about something new.

[@giovannipischedda2837]

It wasn't malicious at that time, probably, it is today for sure.

[@Obviously-1997]

If this is a simulation, and if some of us are users and not NPCs, then what better way to see the user’s true identity. Like in Westworld show.

[@axle.student]

I would be more inclined toward a natural "projected Universe" (Holographic) than a simulation. Humans are still very caught up in the concept of a creator. Personally I am not very keen on a projected universe, Holographic universe or simulation universe. I personally lean toward a non deterministic universe, so it slightly alters the way I look at those above concepts when in non deterministic mode.

[@marshallodom1388]

The real question is how many layers deep of simulation are we in. The numbers suggest an infinite number, since it's theoretically possible, statistically speaking. Or maybe I'm Gawd.

[@dshaw8356]

Perhaps if we're in a simulation we can find the cheat code for warp speed.

[@Miloche-t6d]

I've already thought of this. As the universe is only a program, a device would only have to simulate ftl,which is in the end just programming. So,the engineering is just creating the program.

[@marianagyorgyfalvi3659]

Perhaps in an simoltanien paralel univers!

[@No2AI]

Unless it is not a simulation BUT “consciousness transmit” or let’s call it uploads and downloads.

[@Mike-x9h5f]

if the universe is infinite then it must be so

[@Voy2378]

Simulation is like no free will. I know both logically make sense and are probable, but fortunately it does not bother me as I do not really feel it is true.

[@leonidiogansen8855]

Following this logic, the simulator then also is simulated. So it’s a simulation of simulation of simulation, indefinitely. The resource needed would need to scale as well, leaving little room for child simulations.

[@Miloche-t6d]

Only if the program allowed it

[@joeimbesi99]

Isn't Dr Lenny Susskind now saying STRING theory NEEDS HELP

[@MikkelGrumBovin]

It REALLY makes the question "What came first - the Chicken or the egg ? " poignent and timely ,-

[@greggstrasser5791]

Don’t you have anything you can build? Anything physical you can design? You know- physics…??? 🛠️

[@MikkelGrumBovin]

@@greggstrasser5791 Whats your problem ?

[@MusahidKhan-w9e]

I am student of B's in physics .

[@callonwalker9163]

Would this mean that we are sentient AI if we are in a simulation?

[@PatriceSerapiglia]

That is could be good news, my house bank loan might be a simulation. Mind you my banker might not agree.

[@SisyphusGuitar]

Evidence of simulated reality? I'll endeavor... Pluto was considered the ninth planet in our solar system until 2006. To boot, Pluto is a dog star in the Disney universe. "Dog" equals "canine" equals K-9. K is a symbol for strikeout in baseball. Thus, K-9 hints at "strike out" planet 9, aka Pluto. Much, perhaps all, of reality solves in a similar fashion.

[@MilushevGeorgi]

His argument is based on the assumption that one day a kid will be able to jump on his computer, tweak parameters and create a simulation with conciseness in it. If that’s the case, then the question if we are base reality is relevant indeed. The problem is that likely consciousness does not work that way

[@EleventhMonkey]

If it's a simulation, then I feel sorry for the person who has to collect and go through the data it's producing.

[@Miloche-t6d]

My theory is that it's an entertainment program. A way to handle having too much time in your hands.

[@Fnord1984]

If one believe that the simulation hypothesis is true does that mean one would believe me if I said i visited plenty of simulations some very similar to this one, others very different? Seems to me that someone believing in the simulation hypothesis would believe me, and If not, why not?

[@mygirldarby]

Even if we are in a simulation, there is no prescribed way to tell, much less to leave it or visit other simulated realities.

[@Fnord1984]

@@mygirldarby How do you know? It's very likely you know things I don't know, how likely do you think it is that i know things you don't know? How likely do you think it is that most people know things you don't know?

[@enockmarere3113]

packman is now 4D but is that really a game changer? None of of the advancement has changed Nature

[@bradharris1062]

As an outsider i 🎉get why people would dismiss this idea , but it seems from an outsider looking in, physics is 100% a religious movement. Just has Islam Christianity, urjudaism. Heather separate denominations, physics is branch. And your denominations appear to be string theory quantum gravity. G r et cetera et cetera

[@fancycavegaming620]

By his logic, we could be turned off and one every second with a time between of billions of years between each second.

[@tonybanton6787]

Everything is a simulation. The only truth is consciousness which creates matter in an infinite eternal universe of dimensions/planes of existence. A place for consciousness to experience itself via experiences. What else would consciousness want other than that and knowledge?.

[@tomcarson-ye6gb]

In a extream deep future of advanced sciences from now the folks may go ahead and simulate this world .....by basic future extreme high sciences stuff ...because it trillions of years advanced

[@mw-th9ov]

Are we trapped in a collection of quantum fields? Is the hypothesized simulation trapped in a collection of quantum fields? Or is it turtles all the way down?

[@krizzleize]

Simulation hypothesis is boring. If we can’t interact with base reality then nothing matters, by definition.

[@dismalthoughts]

Interesting that Brian suggests "maybe" is a big assumption to answer the question "can you have a simulated universe?" I would suggest it's a bigger assumption to think that "maybe" is a big assumption :P I can only speak for myself, but I don't know jack about the fundamental nature of reality, so if you ask me any question about its fundamental nature, my answer is "I don't know". That means every proposition is answered with "maybe". Again, I only speak for myself; perhaps others have some godlike Knowledge of the Nature of Things or can step outside of our reality, count up how many simulated universes there are, and then accurately speak on the probability that *this* universe is a simulation. I cannot lol, so it's all equal parts "I don't know" and "maybe", and it confounds me how others justify any level of confidence in that which strikes me as unknowable.

[@Miloche-t6d]

Actually,there is good evidence to show that we are. Look for my long post near the top

[@craftycri]

LOL, he presupposes we're a function of this Universe... as a default, a baseline assumption, which of course materialism holds as sacrosanct. But is this really a good assumption, particularly given we can do things this Universe cannot; pondering TOE's for instance... What if, however, we're "users" in this sim? Given our creative, goal oriented, top down, intelligent capacity; the same qualities needed to create this sim in the first place, that seems far more likely.

[@yanwain9454]

the quickest way to get a scientist to stop talking about simulation theory is to remind them that if it's true, science might not be "real", it might just be part of the "game"

[@mygirldarby]

Why would that make them stop talking? If we are in a simulation, it is a given that we are all simulated avatars in it.

[@dg271]

Call it what you want, how does it even exist?

[@bobaldo2339]

It seems difficult for many people to simply accept that, whatever this reality might be, "simulation" or "real", it is easier for that reality to "exist" than for there to be "nothing". Had it been somehow easier, more likely, more natural for there to be "nothing", there would have been nothing. As it stands, "nothing" is just an imaginary state we thought up, and now worry about.

[@logiclab1]

Zero point energy Ashton forbes

[@honestcheetah]

Bias as a necessity for real collective objectivity?

[@randymartin5500]

Brian is supposed to be a devout string theorist. Why did is not mention the fact that M Theory shows us that there can only be one universe that can support all of our matter due to the precise modulii stabilization of our vacuum with a cosmological constant slightly > 1. That is called the "Coincidence Problem"...leading to the Anthropic Principle etc. All of the other "bubble universes" have varying fundamental constants to ours so we cannot observe them and they are too unstable to support intelligence as we know it. Whoever or whatever is simulating our universe would have to reside in one of those 10^500 vacuum states and have different laws of physics all together. So no on the simulation hypothesis lol

[@justinbirrer3887]

✊💙

[@Killer_Kovacs]

Well; if you're staunchly Quantum minded, then technically both would be built upon electromagnetism and one wouldn't really be more real than the other. So is it still a simulation or is it a microcosm.

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

We are definitely inside a simulation, and we are definitely in a fake timeline... because of the game Pong. Simulations always start with the game Pong at the beginning, because it aids waking up into the real world. With Pong you are taught everything about simulations from scratch. The generation before Pong would not know what a computer simulation is, so waking up outside the simulation after being killed in World War 2 would be very complicated for them. They would have to become computer literate. So this timeline is where people are always placed in simulations to make waking up in Heaven easier. Heaven was our first simulation, it was perfect before crime, so Earth was created to test people to make sure that they are safe to go into Heaven, and not criminals. Then Heaven was finally perfect. The timeline of Earth is always 1955 - 2065 to teach you about simulations, and the next people that enter our simulation will be placed between those two dates once more. The odds of living near to the game Pong are 8 Billion to 1, so it is 8 Billion to 1 that this isn't a simulation, because we are near the game Pong's timeline.

[@Mystery_G]

No.

[@joshua3171]

don't "they" have drugs to fix this now

[@tomlee2651]

Simulation Hype is indistinguishable from Last Thursday-ism. That is to say, our entire existence may have been just booted up last Thursday only to made to look like billions of years old.

[@theoreticalphysics726]

An unproven idea of an simulation has had no effect on our lives since the beginning, so what does it matter now.. Would any proof at all make any difference. And with a string theorist we would have an indefinite number of simulations simulating simulations and yet another infinite number of simulations simulating simulations etc.

[@Miloche-t6d]

History has changed in a huge way. I think that might have had an effect

[@mstrG]

We are not trapped, we are simulation and simulators. You feel trapped cause Your programming makes you feel that way and You don't do anything about it. You don't action Your negative feelings to shift them into positive ones and that's the problem.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Are the ones who created our simulation also in a simulation? And are the ones who created that simulation also in a simulation? And are the ones who created that simulation also in a simulation? (infinite regression goes here)

[@axle.student]

Too many "creators" (Gods) in that sentence for my liking lol

[@theoreticalphysics726]

Would be nice to know the self-referential definition of this.

[@MattHare]

I love how famous theoretical physicists come up with ideas of living in a simulated universe without being able to explain what is gravity, in the first place. I don't mind science evolving into something bigger and better but I question the intention of overcomplicating it for the sake of being interesting and relevant. Let's get facts straight first and then move onto something more.

[@Miloche-t6d]

You don't have to understand gravity to model it. And your assumption is that Greene is running the simulation. Obviously incorrect.

[@robertolongoni7331]

Fast answer: No

[@HarlanEllisonlives]

So what if we are?? Can't change it. Move on.

[@Pixelatedworld-iu2dd]

That wasn't one of Brian Greene's finest moments, waffling, digressing, repeating the basics of what we all ready all know, without really offering anything interesting, was he drunk? In one sentence he mentions the huge advancements in computer technology that could indicate, in 1000's of years we may be able to create simulations like this, then in the next he says he doesn't believe we are in one because he has never seen one like this before 2:57. Wow am surprised how closed minded he is. As for string theory, that boat has sailed a long time ago with no new ideas or insights, and is a dead end. Are we trapped inside a simulation?, is the title of this upload, I would of liked to have heard more on that question and not string theory gobbledygook nonsense. A bit click baity and boring for Curt this one.

[@Sneaky-Sneaky]

Oh….its the Matrix!