Michio Kaku: No Computer Can Simulate the Universe Except the Universe Itself | AI Podcast Clips

This is a clip from a conversation with Michio Kaku from Oct 2019. New full episodes once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video on all other days. You can watch the full conversation here: • Michio Kaku: Future of...
(more links below)
Podcast full episodes playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast
Podcasts clips playlist:
• Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
Podcast website:
lexfridman.com/ai
Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
apple.co/2lwqZIr
Podcast on Spotify:
spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
Podcast RSS:
lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/
Note: I select clips with insights from these much longer conversation with the hope of helping make these ideas more accessible and discoverable. Ultimately, this podcast is a small side hobby for me with the goal of sharing and discussing ideas. For now, I post a few clips every Tue & Fri. I did a poll and 92% of people either liked or loved the posting of daily clips, 2% were indifferent, and 6% hated it, some suggesting that I post them on a separate KZbin channel. I hear the 6% and partially agree, so am torn about the whole thing. I tried creating a separate clips channel but the KZbin algorithm makes it very difficult for that channel to grow unless the main channel is already very popular. So for a little while, I'll keep posting clips on the main channel. I ask for your patience and to see these clips as supporting the dissemination of knowledge contained in nuanced discussion. If you enjoy it, consider subscribing, sharing, and commenting.
Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, futurist, and professor at the City College of New York. He is the author of many fascinating books on the nature of our reality and the future of our civilization.
Subscribe to this KZbin channel or connect on:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman

[@lexfridman]

This is a clip from a conversation with Michio Kaku from Oct 2019. New full episodes once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video on all other days. If you enjoy it, subscribe, comment, and share. You can watch the full conversation here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXWYqpZngbalprM (more links below) Podcast full episodes playlist: kzbin.info/aero/PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 Podcasts clips playlist: kzbin.info/aero/PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41 Podcast website: lexfridman.com/ai Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes): apple.co/2lwqZIr Podcast on Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 Podcast RSS: lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/

[@theuniverseandlife2904]

superstring theory Theory of the eleventh dimensio Superstring theory is the theory of the unification of the forces of nature and explains the origin of the universe But superstring cannot be discovered because it is the smallest thing in the universe For this reason, please extract new predictions from the string theory of particle behavior In order to obtain indirect evidence on the validity of superstring theory We hope physicists seek to extract new predictions from superstring theory about the state of the universe, black holes and molecules We need more new predictions in order to discover evidence of the validity of superstring theory Because string theory is the theory of everything Please convey my message to theoretical and experimental physicists We wish you to develop a cosmic background radiation detector To discover the gravitational waves predicted by the theory of cosmic inflation and superstring theory Please send suggestions to the engineering and technology team The light capture devices closest to the edge of the universe must be developed

[@johnphantom]

I came up with a model for a new type of computer from playing a game, Counter-Strike (a Half-Life mod) when it was in its original beta phase. The system was very poorly designed, like the accuracy system for the weapons was designed that if you slow down to a walk, your guns were more accurate, but they set the parameters up so that it triggered this extra accuracy just going the slightest speed under a full run. Using +moveup which was meant for swimming in the scripting language, which is the only "language" I used, you could get half way between a run and a walk for movement speed and get the accuracy of a walk and the silence of it, with movement sound being another similar flaw they made in the game. That combined with scripting firing of the gun so it briefly made you do +moveup before actually firing the gun and turning it off immediately after firing the gun effectively gave you a more accurate gun at a running speed. There were many holes in the original CS system, I repeatedly told them about them on their message board, getting repeatedly banned. I remind you: I only used the extremely simplistic scripting language built into the game, so I was exploiting and not cheating, even though in effect it was cheating. CS 1.6 should have been CS 2.0 because they made major changes to the engine due to what I was spreading around. At least one of the hacks that I kept to myself and did not put into my script still exist in the current CS system as far as I know. It was basic to the Quakeworld original engine Half-Life is based on. The script that is part of my work, for CS 1.6, has a fully automated taunt system for giving people a hard time. I built a randomizer and relational database that sometimes spits out a taunt based on the weapon or weapon type you are using just before your gun is actually fired when you fire, only using the one command, alias. Alias just lets you create or reassign a command to an indicated string of commands, and nothing else. We are not digital and nothing in Nature is digital. Digital computers are an exact science with exact results. Nature is based on "good enough is good enough". Oxford quantum physics professor Andrew Steane wrote in his paper about quantum information systems titled "Quantum computing" at arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9708022.pdf : "The new version of the Church-Turing thesis (now called the ‘Church-Turing Principle’) does not refer to Turing machines. This is important because there are fundamental differences between the very nature of the Turing machine and the principles of quantum mechanics. One is described in terms of operations on classical bits, the other in terms of evolution of quantum states. Hence there is the possibility that the universal Turing machine, and hence all classical computers, might not be able to simulate some of the behavior to be found in Nature. Conversely, it may be physically possible (i.e. not ruled out by the laws of Nature) to realize a new type of computation essentially different from that of classical computer science. This is the central aim of quantum computing." From what I understand they are forcing current quantum computers to unnaturally apply a binary state to something that has a infinite evolution of states. Think of the electron and the circle it makes around a nucleus. That 360 degrees circle it makes is infinite in precision, and that movement certainly has an effect on its surroundings. Basically, practical math is the descriptive language of the universe, and not the actual universe because it uses measurements. I propose a "Dynamic Stateless Computer" that operates on "Logic Geometry" based only on connections, or links, or pointers - a much more simple computer than the three basic Boolean logic gates operating on mathematical binary bits that is every computer out there. The shape is the logic and the logic is the shape, sort of like a truth table that is dynamic where the "truths" change as it runs. Quantum mechanics is beyond me, but if this only needs connections, ie a quantum entanglement (short video on entanglement: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGKqdKGvmMeAm6M ), can we build a computer that operates and does its entire run instantly? Like I said, all I need is connections to perform logic... no need for information... the shape is the logic. You are best off going to Github and seeing online without downloading the paper and models. When someone looked at my calculators, they accused me of: "You're not doing math! You're emulating math!" Look at the simple calculator first, it only does addition and subtraction. Then look at the complex calculator that does multiplication and division. As you well know, if I can do those things, I can do anything mathematically. In the main model I created if-thens, complex do-whiles, a randomizer and a relational database. github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer Through the exercise of the most complex do-while I asked a question related to that, and the answer uses the ancient Chinese/Pascal's Triangle (which millions have looked at over thousands of years) in a new way: mathhelpforum.com/threads/combination-lock.17147/ I basically had to count nothing as something to count, as in you can have different items to count the permutations of but a default state of no item is possible for each, some or all to count in the permutations, and it doesn't seem anyone else in history was able to use the really basic mathematical concept of the Triangle in that way for the solution. It is similar to the 4 hats and 4 pegs question of how many permutations you can have that is commonly associated with Pascal's Triangle, but they did not count the empty pegs as part of the permutations that they can have. The technique of the implementation is a little interesting, with it being able to reach any of the 209 possible permutations of 4 wheels with 4 numbers (don't know if I should count 0, it is special in this case - if you do count 0, it is 5 numbers) in 4 keystrokes or less - it's how it scales that is the curiosity, where if I had 18 slots and 18 items to form a permutation it would have almost 3x10 to the 18th power or 2,968,971,264,021,448,999 possible permutations, each reachable within 18 keystrokes or less. I don't have any idea as to how this would be physically built - none of the aspects of it, except for the dynamic logic that I also do not have any clue if it really is what I ask above. I just can do these things I demonstrate and in my extensive almost 50 years of digital computer experience I have not seen anything exactly like it. Maybe you wonder about my computer experience? I have always been fascinated by computers, starting in 1972 using a prototype Cogar 4 that my dad got his hands on, when I was 3. By the time I was 5, Singer wanted to use me in a commercial to sell the computer, because if a 5 yo could start it, load the OS and then load games, that proved anyone could. My first mentor helped develop Ethernet after working for my father, and allowed me to hold one of the first breadboard ethernet cards developed when I was 10. My first real program (programming since at least 5 if you count the Cogar ASM I had to type to get to the OS and games) was in BASIC when I was 11 that I learned from a manual without anything more than a small example for each command, written with pencil on paper; a rudimentary AI demonstration called "Animals". Second program I made I had another computer (we had moved and left the one at my dads company behind when he sold it) and was a dot bouncing around the screen. Third program, with a 12 year old's understanding of math, I attempted to do 3D. I first professionally programmed in 1982, started building computers and networks for a small computer company in 1986 owned by my second mentor, Peter De Blanc who lead ICANN for a period, was an official beta tester and developer for OS/2 2.0 and developed a device driver for it for the extremely complex Truevision Targa+ 64 video editing board (pic: imgur.com/a/hMe21Qe ) directly flipping bits on it in 1991. The code for the model for the dynamic stateless computer is about 640 lines and took me 6 months to complete, with the code for the Targa+ device driver being over 4200 lines and took me one 20 hour sitting that compiled and ran the first time that I have 3 witnesses for. That's almost 30 years ago. My experience has only gone up from there. This dynamic logic is something I found, that I have never seen anything like even searching for it on the Internet for the past 20 years. I think this is basic to everything and is a new science, as it only operates on one concept - connections.

[@araxietyne]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3q5iZ2iabiqjNE kzbin.info/www/bejne/r3q5iZ2iabiqjNE we can do it, will just take lots of time.

[@kratomseeker5258]

people have it backwards tho i think because we was told years ago what is happening in the computer is not real. but it is real so what you get from a computer is just an extension of our reality. yes electricity is in all living things and etc. etc.

[@MarcillaSmith]

I'm sure Mr. Kaku is very competent in his particular area of work. I get the sense that he is more narrow in his thinking than -perhaps - he realizes. At times, it seems to me that Mr. Fridman is humoring him

[@andri3012]

Obviously Kaku has never overclocked his GPU

[@furkansarihan]

Andri laughed

[@meltdown3340]

Funny I laugh.

[@revwroth3698]

Obviously you have never tried to emulate a playstation 3 in WINE through Linux...

[@FantasticHermitCrab]

Haha lol, thanks for the laugh man

[@12Daniel34]

@@revwroth3698 wow, does it run at 1 frame per day?

[@gasolinewine801]

“Why would a computer simulate Saturday Night Live” is the only thing you need to hear from this video.

[@madebymollo1780]

If the simulation has AI and the AI duplicates on and on and on then a Saturday Night Live is possible.

[@drpantz7732]

Why wouldn't it?

[@ArachnoFool]

​@@drpantz7732 Dr Kaku should read more comics: in the end, he is "just a . The world's poses no more threat to me than does its termite.” (Watchmen). The worst episode of Saturday Night Live would be as simple as all the works of Shakespeare, from a perspective even slightly more complex than our own. So according to Kaku's own argument, everything would be so stupid than no one-nothing would care to make it... I prefer Sagan's optimism with our own human role, as presented in 'Pale blue dot'.

[@drpantz7732]

@@ArachnoFool Agreed. Furthermore, Dr. Kaku doesn't take into consideration the unfathomable amount of energy that would be needed to create his many worlds, yet in a "virtual" reality setting, where consciousness IS the computer, this is precisely what is being advanced! It's all streams of data in an information based reality. I hadn't heard of the Pale blue dot, thanks for the reference, I am going to go check it out. =]

[@Qwerty-ks8dn]

Because it's a faulty program.

[@JonasDygd]

If the universe really is a simulation, then we cannot use the limitations of the universe we know as a definite measuring stick for what the fastest possible computer would be capable of. Our universe would be the product of the simulation and not really say much about the world in which the computer exists. For example, just because the speed of light is a limit here doesn't mean it's a limit in the world where the simulation takes place. On the contrary, if our universe is simulated, then it would be safe to assume that it's a little less capable than the universe in which the simulation is run... I'm surprised Professor Kaku hasn't considered this.

[@JonasDygd]

@h - where we are today, this probably shouldn't even be a scientific discussion but more of a philosophical one, where some leaps of faith are allowed

[@gocpng4699]

Good Thinking

[@Viktor-ej9ss]

@Anthony Cooney But that's just basic solipsism.

[@Viktor-ej9ss]

@Anthony Cooney Yeah, time for Ockham's Razor.

[@ez_company9325]

Im with you.... Kaku's assumptions on this topic are way off. Why simulate humans? who said thats what they set out to do? Lex even alludes to this. I feel like Kaku isnt really capable of original thought anymore... he just seems to spout off random facts he has learned.

[@masonm600]

Why would someone simulate something as huge as the universe? How do you know it's huge? What's the point of reference?

[@TraeDSmith]

Good point, its like the end of men in black when the camera zooms out to the point were our universe is just a marble in a bag of other marbles

[@YungNoDussy]

When creating a simulation you could create a simple simulation and it can create complexities on it's own

[@erichkaufmann5284]

Trae D. Smith I thought about this in the 70’s to an extreme point, I suffered Derealization starting September 9th, 1970. I’m still scared just thinking of how awful that experience was, truly worse then anything. Be careful, going too deep intellectually on this subject can affect your Brain.

[@YungNoDussy]

@@erichkaufmann5284 but what if that's just you glitching the system temporarily. It's only happened to me a single time but I definitely thought myself into a mental breakdown and it was very scary like you mentioned

[@antiwiseclock1499]

@@erichkaufmann5284 My question, is how does derealization even exist?

[@willywonka00]

Hes wrong because hes looking at the simulation from inside the simulation. Hes basically in the cave looking at the shadows.

[@vrilmaxxed]

“It’s not a simulation “ said the guy in the simulation

[@victos-vertex]

He's wrong on so many levels simply because he doesn't think simple enough. You can - easily - simulate the universe in such a way that - conscious beings - interpret it as reality. Because lets be real here, that's what it comes down to - our interpretation. If I simulate input to a brain in such a way that it - thinks - it surroundings are real, then that's a sufficient simulation of the universe. Thinking you would need to simulate every particle is bollox. You don't have to simulate complex weather in order to make a stupid species - believe - that it is complex weather. Also time - outside - the simulation is basically irrelevant. If it takes 1 billion years outside the simulation to simulate 1 second within the simulation then everyone within the simulation would still recognize it as a single second. Also all you have to simulate are things that are observed, that's basic game design. You don't render any game content that the player can't interact with anyways, so why would I simulate every particle in the universe, when: 1. most beings (humans) can't perceive even cells, let alone atoms or particles 2. all beings have a finite sensory input For example: If I wanted to simulate - your - life, then I wouldn't have to simulate anything that - I - perceive, or my mother, or my dog, or the ISS. All I have to do is simulate - your - sensory input in such a way that it seems real to - you. And as you're bounded by the simulation, including your memory, I could just rewind the simulation every time you encounter a "problem" with your view of reality. As soon as we have access to the brain in such a way that allows us to manipulate/input sensory data and rewrite memory we would have all we need to simulate reality for a being. That is literally what happens during dreaming and unless you're a lucid dreamer you can't differentiate between reality and dream - while you dream. Does your brain need to simulate all atoms of the universe to do so? Hell no! So yeah, Kaku is just wrong. He should go back and do what he does best - repeat the same talk from decades ago.

[@yomumma7803]

@@victos-vertex but the simulated beings would eventually discover discrepancies between their experiences, and yes, you can figure out if you are in a dream or not, it just takes a while

[@madebymollo1780]

@@victos-vertex good point

[@jhonpaulrollan6160]

He is technically right, assuming class 5 civilizations exist and the beings that are potentially the ones who created this "simulation", beings that can control laws of physics in whichever plane of existence they are. Why would they bother create a simulation out of a super computer when they can start from a scratch? Which is simulating a universe by technically creating one. Another critical question is that why would someone create such vast playground/simulation? Are there universe where beings who doesn't die in ther universe and think death is some sort of heaven for them, the reason why they to created a simulation where they can experience death as much as we wanted an eternal life?

[@lorddread606]

Obviously, Michio Kaku has been assigned by the overlords of the simulation to keep the masquerade going. LOL! 🤣

[@cheetoortiz2361]

Plot twist: He IS the overlord and that was just a crafty dodge.

[@LifeOfATLS]

Lmao but fr tho he did say if the quantum computer can calculate that certain number the world could be a simulation. This is like inception

[@Qwerty-ks8dn]

@@LifeOfATLS The existence of Leo DiCrapio is proof that this is a simulation.

[@calebjaymes9710]

Bro, this guy is so smart I could listen to him for days

[@omniinvestments7128]

BRO that guy is so ghaee I could watch him for days.

[@ScorpionXII]

If we ever build a computer powerful enough to simulate the universe, people will be wondering if it could run Crysis.

[@wotanmiller2985]

The FPS it could run on Skyrim😳

[@jttnc]

But could it run Doom?

[@abhayjaiswal9836]

Never!

[@jimsomers8915]

He is assuming the universe running the simulation will need to have the same physics as this one. It's a baseless assumption

[@yeetwchybaban]

@@Hemlocker hmm

[@mnspstudioful]

"You can't reach any rational or scientific conclusions..." Ah yes. Von Jolly telling Planck "we've learned everything in physics. Change your major." String Theory, Orbifolds, Topology, all were also derided as worthless, unable to produce meaningful results, etc. And yet, every one has pushed physics forward.

[@mnspstudioful]

@@Hemlocker String Theory was a thought experiment until we began finding the symmetry it and M-Theory or other GUTs have predicted. And I find it very analogous, especially in light of Kaku being a pioneer in string theory and Calabi-Yau spaces, orbifolds, p-branes, & a myriad other "thought experiments". I admit, looking outside of the supposed "simulation" is improbable and might be impossible. But it's a hypothesis like any other and to state it has no merit is just wrong. PS: I don't personally believe Simulation Theory is true. I also think String Theory was surpassed by literally every other symmetry GUT and is likely also not true in the sense it is incomplete. But we learn more from our failures than we do from our successes, especially in science.

[@bigmac8574]

Andrew Fender So it’s either or.

[@mnspstudioful]

@Sigma Nayo Don't even start with Objective versus Subjective. Personal reality dictates that my reality is as valid as yours, and likely more so as I can verify I exist simply by the same metrics if "I observe I exist". But you and your reality are possibly constructs and unverifiable. I'll gladly get into a discussion of philosophy, especially Objectivism. But this was a discussion about the possibility, not the probability, of Simulation Theory being valuable to physics, not how well either of us has read a philosophy dissertation.

[@guilhermeal2170]

He is wrong!!! As a matter of fact, the whole interior of the Sun is just a giant overclocked AMD CPU.

[@purpledodecahedron7169]

How do you know that knowledge, though? I am very open minded. I've heard a lot of the Sun. I just wonder a lot. A ton.

[@gadzintu]

or an intel processor

[@KamuiPan]

F off computer god worshiper. Computers are tools, that's all. And micro-chips like processors are basically overprice sand.

[@steves4069]

KamuiPan F off hippie

[@MrSouthsideMuscle]

Daam no water cooling?

[@emrico]

To conserve computing power, a simulation would only render an object when it is observed

[@jamesgillis8122]

A tree that falls in the forest makes no sound because it does not fall unless observed.

[@UochRS]

actually that's highly inaccurate. if we assume an area has one state, state A, and it was simple, that would be true. but in the case of a dynamic interconnected simulation, de-rendering and re-rendering non-observed objects would be extremely inefficient

[@NightNurseMike]

He thinks we underestimate the complexity of it all. I wonder if maybe he underestimates the abilities of computers.

[@NightNurseMike]

Asunda Speed did your comments all get deleted? Stop cursing man smh

[@PresidentialWinner]

@@UochRS Well even if that is the case (i don't think it's true, since rendering and de-rendering would still be more efficient than just simulating everything) you wouldn't simulate THE UNIVERSE, just our solar system and whatever radiation that would enter it, thus faking the rest of the universe for humans)

[@Regan4491]

This is so ridiculous. We’re talking about the simulation coming from outside this universe and there’s no reason to limit the power of a computer that would exists outside this universe

[@maxrossen2369]

So you belief in the theory or not? I'm confused

[@mjolnir_swe]

I feel like the same reasoning can back up any creation myth. "But they came from another universe bro"

[@maxrossen2369]

@@mjolnir_swe i agree maybe there are pizzas in other universes that can create universes and we live in a pizza right now

[@Regan4491]

@chuckstable165 “NEXT” hahahahaha omfg that’s the cringiest shit I’ve ever seen hahaha

[@Regan4491]

@chuckstable165 if the simulation does exist it would come from outside the universe, so yo limit the possibility of simulation theory based on current human technology is ridiculous. By the way you’re whole religion rant it bizarre considering it shouldn’t be brought up so i don’t know why your countering something I didn’t even say hahaha if there is a god or a simulation then the creator could easily make it impossible to be found through science

[@travislawrencemusic]

It's fun to read people's solipsistic and dogmatic scientism perspectives on topics like this. It's pretty easy to rule-out solipsism as well as to think outside of the scientific method to conceive of many more possibilities than Kaku seems to want to consider. In the end, the universe very likely exists in a manner that is totally outside of current ability to imagine. Maybe in our next evolutionary iteration, thru a transhumanist perspective, we'll b able to understand sooo much more than we currently do. Even in my own experiences, I sometimes feel like a chimp trying to comprehend the significance of Hamlet, i.e. I know there is something to experience beyond my current ability to perceive, because I catch glimpses of such a reality every now and then.

[@nickking6371]

firm disagree on this one

[@samrein9919]

The problem is that. People seem to put the computer to reality rather than putting reality to the computer. The computer isn’t the base of reality but reality is the base of the computet

[@user-gk3lu1gg9t]

Your scientific dissent has been thoroughly explained and has caused me to change my view. Thank you.

[@nickking6371]

Couldn't tell you what i disagree with. I love these guys.

[@andod881]

A Matrioshka Brain would solve all this

[@SoldierPrince]

Lex's best guest ever, so far at least.

[@charliestewart885]

good idea lex. great video cheers

[@dud3man6969]

If we lived in a simulated universe we would be as perfect as everything else, and we definitely are not. Instead we are both the most advanced and the most imperfect things we know of in the all of existence.

[@ImUnsn]

What makes you think that?

[@dasaniwaterbottle6247]

I don't see the connection, you say: Because we are advanced and imperfect, therefore: We are not a simulation. Huh? I don't get it.

[@tashfin-xe6nz]

@@ImUnsn this q fits everywhere.. Doesn’t mean you have to ask

[@CentralValleyKings]

Have u ever played red dead redemption 2? In 50 years how much better will games get? Or did we hit our peak?

[@mikevalentino2225]

Not true. The purpose of simulations is often times to find the flaws in things.

[@danzigvssartre]

Every time computer scientists simulate the weather on their computers I put my raincoat on.

[@minecraftepiccreations4597]

Something beyond computers could invent the universe for reasons beyond what we can think here.

[@tashfin-xe6nz]

Yep

[@steveheidelberg]

Michio Kaku is the man. This man is smart enough to know that this simulation talk is gibberish.

[@simdhaliwal4260]

The more people have lost their ability to think the more this idea has caught on. Michio Kaku is from the days of old when gibberish was easy to recognize. Now most people think a businessman is the smartest person on the planet, because of some ideas that he has put forward that has no basis in anything. The businessman is Elon Musk.

[@gregtheone975]

interesting interview thanks for the Post

[@joyboy-zx]

Games don't simulate the whole environment at once, they just render the part that you're looking at. So only the observed universe at a given moment needs to be calculated

[@Jedi_Are_Scum]

And quantum physics behaves differently if you are observing, you can't even cheat the double-slit experiment with cameras.

[@mikevalentino2225]

So you are all parts of the game and don't have consciousness but I do. Or we are all fake and you are the player and the only real person here.

[@dr.satishsharma9794]

Excellent..... thanks 🙏.

[@tonywooten596]

love it when he says ''in other words''

[@Cryaxxx]

You wouldn't need to stimulate everything, just what's being observed.

[@dudeimcoolification]

How would you keep account of all processes and systems running at a specific time without stimulating it in the background?

[@MrCTruck]

Well first of all any answer would be naive because we have no idea how much of our world may be entangled with their counterparts in a completely different part of the universe. In which case you would have to simulate not only what is obvserved but hypothetically what's on the other end. I'm guessing..

[@flashkraft]

@@dudeimcoolification You could but at a very low resolution. It would only become high resolution and detailed when observed.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@@dudeimcoolification Yeah. The mechanism of selection and local staging would have to be based on a full consistent system to in fact be consistent. It would have to be able to create any possible situation for an observer at any moment and place a model of everything else in a dynamic relationship with that. It would have to calculate all forces acting on all observers relative to each other and respond to the possibly random, possibly willed, feedback from the observers. Even if my local perception, as I experience it, is at minecraft resolution, you still need the full system to function at full complexity because all observations are connected to that mainframe of reference and it it's not even static but evolving over time in vastly complex weaves of cause and effect. In fact you'd probably have to simulate every moment from, and maybe even before if such a thing makes sense, the big bang, to simulate all those causal chains. And if the contingent causal thing is not someones cup of tea - well - adding emergent random elements to the equation certainly does not simplify it.

[@jeremywinston7199]

This guy is awesome!

[@rosewhite9476]

Only problem is he's assuming that whoever created us is using the same laws and has the same restrictions as we do.

[@anomalouspossession9415]

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[@anomalouspossession9415]

@@goprojoe7449 By "shallow" I think you mean logical. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

[@scottsound4711]

@@anomalouspossession9415 Never heard of it but I'm gonna google that shit now :)

[@roseblack6342]

woah our names - your comment is what i was thinking btw

[@roseblack6342]

@@anomalouspossession9415 OP isn't trying to claim we are definitively in a simulation the point is to suggest we don't know for sure what the nature of reality is and whether or not it's simulated so there's 0 need to go all "OcCaM's RaZoR"

[@terriensberg5487]

My mind is officially boggled.

[@maxrossen2369]

I would look at Lisa Randall's counter arguments about simulation hypothesis these are really convincing that we are certainly not living in a simulation.

[@Rintesh-Roy]

Mr. Kaku is doing a great work of bringing science to common people. 👏👏

[@opensignal5482]

To this I say, anything is impossible until it isn’t.

[@steves4069]

I love how the majority of you guys in the comment section support the chance we could be in a simulation, when I scrolled down I was not expecting it.

[@Qwerty-ks8dn]

Why? Does the notion that you're nothing insult or scare you?

[@bloonsplayer6774]

@@Qwerty-ks8dn omg shut the fuck up your just mad your daddy elon is Wrong

[@Qwerty-ks8dn]

@@bloonsplayer6774 You must be suffering from "cosmic insecurity"... It happens a lot... to frightened little bunnies.

[@bloonsplayer6774]

@@Qwerty-ks8dn 😂😂😂 elon is depressed because he won't be here to go to mars I think he is the frightened little bunnie

[@Qwerty-ks8dn]

@@bloonsplayer6774 The Mars mission is a joke, always was. Anybody who bought into the hype is mentally a bunny.

[@peaniewilpnips1629]

I would love to see Michio have a one on one conversation with Tom Campbell. Would be interesting to see.

[@zsaxeshed5743]

Kaku knows all, Kaku sees all, Kaku is all!

[@sia692]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[@bloonsplayer6774]

@@sia692 🖕☺️🖕

[@rcarmisin3465]

We are just another locker at the station.

[@theonetruemorty4078]

"If you think about it, most humans are kinda stupid!" True, relative to some of your counterparts elsewhere, but they found you interesting enough to station a few of us here. The Earth is essentially the premier amusement park in this arm of the galaxy.

[@chris_7711]

Answer to 3:51: Because that's their Saturday Night Live

[@ufotv-viral]

👌👽.

[@facepalmjesus1608]

a CGI human is NOT a ''simulated'' human. Is just an electric moving painting people confuse the meaning between ''simulate'' and ''depict/illustrate''

[@england88me]

"Thank God" we got there in the end 🙊

[@hypnogri5457]

I bet that if there is a way of taking all the information stored in the universe then it is also possible to compress it slightly afterwards. (Without losing information)

[@nickpmusic]

Thanks god Michio says in his last sentence.

[@johnniefujita]

The possible states of a system can only be encoded into a not so vast vessel, at the cost of information, this result always into a probabilistical representation that would always express the inner entropy resultant from this small missing chunk of information. Only finite representations can get lucky.

[@entrex7596]

At first place we're wrongly assuming that the " computer "would simulate the universe.

[@fuellerr]

It's funny how Michio Kaku thinks life started by accident but then later says thank God

[@johnphantom]

I came up with a model for a new type of computer from playing a game, Counter-Strike (a Half-Life mod) when it was in its original beta phase. The system was very poorly designed, like the accuracy system for the weapons was designed that if you slow down to a walk, your guns were more accurate, but they set the parameters up so that it triggered this extra accuracy just going the slightest speed under a full run. Using +moveup which was meant for swimming in the scripting language, which is the only "language" I used, you could get half way between a run and a walk for movement speed and get the accuracy of a walk and the silence of it, with movement sound being another similar flaw they made in the game. That combined with scripting firing of the gun so it briefly made you do +moveup before actually firing the gun and turning it off immediately after firing the gun effectively gave you a more accurate gun at a running speed. There were many holes in the original CS system, I repeatedly told them about them on their message board, getting repeatedly banned. I remind you: I only used the extremely simplistic scripting language built into the game, so I was exploiting and not cheating, even though in effect it was cheating. CS 1.6 should have been CS 2.0 because they made major changes to the engine due to what I was spreading around. At least one of the hacks that I kept to myself and did not put into my script still exist in the current CS system as far as I know. It was basic to the Quakeworld original engine Half-Life is based on. The script that is part of my work, for CS 1.6, has a fully automated taunt system for giving people a hard time. I built a randomizer and relational database that sometimes spits out a taunt based on the weapon or weapon type you are using just before your gun is actually fired when you fire, only using the one command, alias. Alias just lets you create or reassign a command to an indicated string of commands, and nothing else. We are not digital and nothing in Nature is digital. Digital computers are an exact science with exact results. Nature is based on "good enough is good enough". Oxford quantum physics professor Andrew Steane wrote in his paper about quantum information systems titled "Quantum computing" at arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9708022.pdf : "The new version of the Church-Turing thesis (now called the ‘Church-Turing Principle’) does not refer to Turing machines. This is important because there are fundamental differences between the very nature of the Turing machine and the principles of quantum mechanics. One is described in terms of operations on classical bits, the other in terms of evolution of quantum states. Hence there is the possibility that the universal Turing machine, and hence all classical computers, might not be able to simulate some of the behavior to be found in Nature. Conversely, it may be physically possible (i.e. not ruled out by the laws of Nature) to realize a new type of computation essentially different from that of classical computer science. This is the central aim of quantum computing." From what I understand they are forcing current quantum computers to unnaturally apply a binary state to something that has a infinite evolution of states. Think of the electron and the circle it makes around a nucleus. That 360 degrees circle it makes is infinite in precision, and that movement certainly has an effect on its surroundings. Basically, practical math is the descriptive language of the universe, and not the actual universe because it uses measurements. I propose a "Dynamic Stateless Computer" that operates on "Logic Geometry" based only on connections, or links, or pointers - a much more simple computer than the three basic Boolean logic gates operating on mathematical binary bits that is every computer out there. The shape is the logic and the logic is the shape, sort of like a truth table that is dynamic where the "truths" change as it runs. Quantum mechanics is beyond me, but if this only needs connections, ie a quantum entanglement (short video on entanglement: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGKqdKGvmMeAm6M ), can we build a computer that operates and does its entire run instantly? Like I said, all I need is connections to perform logic... no need for information... the shape is the logic. You are best off going to Github and seeing online without downloading the paper and models. When someone looked at my calculators, they accused me of: "You're not doing math! You're emulating math!" Look at the simple calculator first, it only does addition and subtraction. Then look at the complex calculator that does multiplication and division. As you well know, if I can do those things, I can do anything mathematically. In the main model I created if-thens, complex do-whiles, a randomizer and a relational database. github.com/johnphantom/Dynamic-Stateless-Computer Through the exercise of the most complex do-while I asked a question related to that, and the answer uses the ancient Chinese/Pascal's Triangle (which millions have looked at over thousands of years) in a new way: mathhelpforum.com/threads/combination-lock.17147/ I basically had to count nothing as something to count, as in you can have different items to count the permutations of but a default state of no item is possible for each, some or all to count in the permutations, and it doesn't seem anyone else in history was able to use the really basic mathematical concept of the Triangle in that way for the solution. It is similar to the 4 hats and 4 pegs question of how many permutations you can have that is commonly associated with Pascal's Triangle, but they did not count the empty pegs as part of the permutations that they can have. The technique of the implementation is a little interesting, with it being able to reach any of the 209 possible permutations of 4 wheels with 4 numbers (don't know if I should count 0, it is special in this case - if you do count 0, it is 5 numbers) in 4 keystrokes or less - it's how it scales that is the curiosity, where if I had 18 slots and 18 items to form a permutation it would have almost 3x10 to the 18th power or 2,968,971,264,021,448,999 possible permutations, each reachable within 18 keystrokes or less. I don't have any idea as to how this would be physically built - none of the aspects of it, except for the dynamic logic that I also do not have any clue if it really is what I ask above. I just can do these things I demonstrate and in my extensive almost 50 years of digital computer experience I have not seen anything exactly like it. Maybe you wonder about my computer experience? I have always been fascinated by computers, starting in 1972 using a prototype Cogar 4 that my dad got his hands on, when I was 3. By the time I was 5, Singer wanted to use me in a commercial to sell the computer, because if a 5 yo could start it, load the OS and then load games, that proved anyone could. My first mentor helped develop Ethernet after working for my father, and allowed me to hold one of the first breadboard ethernet cards developed when I was 10. My first real program (programming since at least 5 if you count the Cogar ASM I had to type to get to the OS and games) was in BASIC when I was 11 that I learned from a manual without anything more than a small example for each command, written with pencil on paper; a rudimentary AI demonstration called "Animals". Second program I made I had another computer (we had moved and left the one at my dads company behind when he sold it) and was a dot bouncing around the screen. Third program, with a 12 year old's understanding of math, I attempted to do 3D. I first professionally programmed in 1982, started building computers and networks for a small computer company in 1986 owned by my second mentor, Peter De Blanc who lead ICANN for a period, was an official beta tester and developer for OS/2 2.0 and developed a device driver for it for the extremely complex Truevision Targa+ 64 video editing board (pic: imgur.com/a/hMe21Qe ) directly flipping bits on it in 1991. The code for the model for the dynamic stateless computer is about 640 lines and took me 6 months to complete, with the code for the Targa+ device driver being over 4200 lines and took me one 20 hour sitting that compiled and ran the first time that I have 3 witnesses for. That's almost 30 years ago. My experience has only gone up from there. This dynamic logic is something I found, that I have never seen anything like even searching for it on the Internet for the past 20 years. I think this is basic to everything and is a new science, as it only operates on one concept - connections.

[@SongWhisperer]

The universe isn't the "computer" simulating itself, our unconsciousness is the "computer" simulating the universe. Our unconscious mind simulates what the conscious mind experiences.

[@sia692]

You are 100 % Correct. Michi Kaku's ignorance on this subject is bigger than his ego.What he said here is total BS. Consciousness is fundamental and everything is simulated virtual reality.

[@SongWhisperer]

@@sia692 Yes, I always thought it funny that consciousness is the basic tool we use to measure our surroundings/reality, yet the ability to measure consciousness hasn't even begun. First we have to convince science/scientists that something is real, than they'll build a machine to measure it.

[@EdgeOffical]

@@SongWhisperer Dreams are also product of unconscious mind, but it's not real from human life perspective, because we are coming back to human experience after the dream. Therefore there is no real way to know if something is real or not. Question is why this moment. (atleast for me)

[@SongWhisperer]

@@EdgeOffical Yes, dreams are definitely a mystery. Another thing I often think about is mass hallucinations, example - the Phoenix UFO sighting. Science was only left with 2 choices after that happened, either UFOs were real or mass hallucinations were real, so science went with mass hallucinations, which opened up a lot of questions for me. If mass hallucinations are in fact a real thing, than it leads to the possibility of the conscious mind having the ability to exist and function outside of the fleshy human brain (at least wirelessly, metaphorically speaking). And if a hallucination can be shared among many people (a collective) at the same time and produce a reality that can't be distinguished from real life, than life itself could possibly be just a shared hallucination (but these are just ideas). Please elaborate (if you don't mind?) on your final thought from your last reply, "question is, why this moment". What do you mean by that. Thanks for the great reply as well, good conversation is hard to find these days, especially on KZbin, lol.

[@EdgeOffical]

​@@SongWhisperer It would be hard to tell if life is a hallucination or a real thing, my idea which I believe in is, reality is infinite just the brain is a filter. And the brain has adapted overtime so it would survive in reality. Also we understand time because we are mortal creatures, and feeling of time comes from consciousness, without consciousness time wouldn't exist which means everything has already happened, is happening, or happens all at once therefore it makes reality(universe,multiverse) infinate. Assuming reality is infinate, why we are here, right now at this moment, experiencing this reality and not other, it seems like we can't choose, and the rules are already dictated, we are just following them. But there are some other forces which we can't perceive, missing peaces of puzzle. I would like to think, that we have a choice what experiences to have, like now, and hopefuly after the death.

[@araxietyne]

if you can use one component of a computer to connect to a specific scenario so that it may represent a specific scenario of real life universe possibility and do the same with another component of a computer, perhaps with a string of computers calculations we could simulate the universe similarly to the way our brains do when we are asleep?

[@SuperNiksus]

I would love to have watched an interview with Michio and Stephen Hawkins, EPIC 😎

[@AA-uu9ik]

This is simply not true because quantum computing can in theory calculate a near infinite number of permutations - much more than the number of events in the universe, even at the subatomic level

[@dscuffman7679]

It comes down to being a certain civilization because if we can harness the power of a planet that can create enough power to create a simulation

[@purpledodecahedron7169]

I completely adore your friggin' picture. "Duffman!!!" I love Duffman.

[@livefree1030]

Dang. never kept track if sub count. Almost at 500k. Remember him at 45k

[@LisaCulton]

He missed the point - the "crazy, stupid things" are what make us special.

[@sonnydey]

I total agree that no computer can simulate the universe except the universe itself, which might just be a singularity that runs this entire "universe simulation" in a more fundamental reality then "ours".

[@madebymollo1780]

With the weather point, if we think of artificial intelligence and that everything came from one point, the possibility of it being a simulation sill stands.

[@zlibz4582]

you can't solve a question when you cant ask the right questions

[@bu1491]

A computer can only do what we tell it to do with the information and data we give it.

[@jc6403]

Not once you teach it to teach itself

[@mitchwilson1969]

@@jc6403 Doesn't really work that way though. That was the point :) Edit: to be clearer, you wouldn't be talking about a computer anymore. A computer is programmed by a programmer. That essentially is the definition of a computer.

[@SmartK8]

But what if our simulated Universe IS simulated by a computer much bigger than our Universe. It might be that "Universe" that is simulating us might be immensely bigger such, that a computer of size of our Universe might be in every home.

[@margaretappleton3437]

Then what is simulating that bigger universe?

[@SmartK8]

That "Universe" might be the real deal or simulated by even bigger one. It can be also just simplification of their "Universe" (like a 3D game physics is a simplification of ours). They don't have to be even humans simulating history, it can be anyone/anything. Useless to speculate, but generally I was just opposing the idea "that our Universe cannot be simulated because it would take computer bigger than the Universe" thing that Michio said.

[@margaretappleton3437]

​@@SmartK8 I agree with you. Of course it's possible for something outside the universe to simulate it, I'd say that's even necessary. What if our Universe is simulator or sustained by a maximally great, powerful and infinite being? Perhaps there's a name for something like that?

[@SmartK8]

We might be the real deal, or it can be just scientists trying to recreate simulation of their "Universe". Or some kid playing a game. They might even be human. They can be anything, therefore it is pointless to guess what they are or are not. From our point of view they can be maximally powerful (they can turn us off at any moment) and infinite (the simulation of our "infinity" can take their 5 minutes). Doesn't mean they are not mortal, their mum doesn't want them to take out trash or their boss is not pissing them off. If something can be anything it is not rational to believe it is a specific thing.

[@margaretappleton3437]

@@SmartK8 Boggles my mind that you think it's more probable that we're created by an anthropomorphized being who has to take out the trash by his mum instead of just saying there's one creator.

[@mirandansa]

"Why would anyone simulate humans?" He should see how Gray plays.

[@jasonsebring3983]

Doesn't it only need to simulate it enough to fool us? Meaning it doesn't have to be comprehensive, just whenever you zoom up, it pretends its zooming up for example.

[@b-manz]

5:30 other scientists have shown evolution has a major issue - there isn’t enough time for us to evolve. The beaker experiment was super interesting and I am wondering how much weight this carries.

[@RealestRealist14]

How is the amount of information in a universe finite if the universe is infinite?

[@peterkastellanos7475]

FASCINATING

[@thomaskist9503]

Michio’s point Is that something as small as a chemical reaction can have global consequences. You’ve heard of this as the butterfly effect. So to do a real simulation you can’t take shortcuts in a biosphere you have to simulate every single atom. So to simulate the earth you need a computer many many times as big as the earth.

[@vram1974]

Thinking as a man with Man's limitations.

[@bem1942]

whose to say that the reality that simulated us is confined to the same limitations we are? ever played grand theft auto? When you drive too fast you can actually see everything being generated infront of you because the game cant keep up with creating everything the map fast enough as you go along. the same could apply to us. How do you know atoms exist until you look at them? Look up solipsism. just as video games work your vision of the world would be generated as you look at it. You would never need to simulate every atom of a universe simultaneously. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to visit it, did it ever actually fall?

[@MichaelPlatson]

@@bem1942 think about it for a second, the only reason you exist is because someone else is observing you.

[@MichaelPlatson]

@Time Hater Databases can timetravel, although the change-log might get truncated at some point. In this scenario it is not you that is time-traveling but the universe itself. Your metadata can be saved and then migrated to a new instance of the database restored at some previous point in time. Time-traveling back would be more complicated.

[@NegraLi34]

People who believe in the simulation hypothesis: "Kaku's assumptions are ridiculous and baseless, my assumptions are correct and superior because they fit what I want to believe. How can he be so close minded to not agree with me?"

[@TheRyanRShow]

My comp runs mine sweeper on 30fps. I think it'll be able to make a universe Dr kaku.

[@buffhorses3632]

This guy has never played elite dangerous.

[@ralphfirst8188]

I want to see Michio vs Musk - Joe Rogan get them both on at the same time wow . JRE

[@brettdillon9554]

Just what I needed to hear

[@noahstuczynski8131]

Same I’ve been flipping out for a while

[@chelseaoctopus1750]

@@noahstuczynski8131 same

[@KinnArchimedes]

A confirmation bias?

[@JakeShadowCitizen]

If it's good enough for kaku it's good enough for me.

[@Maddoxxx]

Im trying to believe what prof said but the video of matrix glitches were not just one or two but quite often as well.. .there was a bird and plane just froze in the sky..

[@VolodymyrPankov]

Thanks Kaku. Finally adequate scientist and popularizer of knowledge... ❤

[@gocpng4699]

The Universe Is Like A CD Player

[@deveyous6614]

As in its all music till you try and run with it

[@lifethrownoutofthewindow]

well. that's the thing about computers. you can keep adding computational power. and there will be a day when a combination of atoms in a computer outperform the number of atoms in it. numbers everywhere.

[@mynameisthis1580]

The miller experiment wasn't amino acids out of "nothing and chaos", it was a controlled environment with all the pieces needed to make amino acids.

[@kowalski4130]

Yes and it was still a million miles away from creating life, the cell itself is extremely complex, more complex than nanotechnology, and hoping enough time will give you anything is wishful thinking, its like hoping that if a tornado swept through a construction site for billions of years eventually you will get a house with doors, windows, walls etc, "but, but, but if you have enough time maybe? right?", it could spin for a trillion years and you would never get a house, chaos and nothing will not give rise to complexity, even a 5 year old could tell you that.

[@golaz3927]

Is that a Dell Optiplex 780 on his desk? I'm sure a powerhouse like that can simulate the universe.

[@ryfree]

quack quack

[@_Sam_-zh7sw]

I have never seen Michio Kaku around Neild De Grasse tyson and his science club....

[@literallynobody25]

The universe is a reality show

[@MrToLIL]

Even if it's possible that we're in a simulation. It's all theory until we can reliably simulate a universe with a similar level of detail as our own.

[@maxrossen2369]

I think that would never happen, because why would we simulate universes if their are far more problems in the world by then. If we can have the power to simulate universes I think we use that power to simulate things that are actually problem solving. Just keep in mind that in the future we have fare more bigger problems then now. Like climate change or something we can't even imagine by now.

[@tashfin-xe6nz]

The one who created this hypothesis, just tried to imagine GOD as something as human being..Nothing else😪 Because computer needs space,and takes time to get built..so who created the space and time there? This que will keep going on forever✌️ Nick Bostrom just thought that because we have computer and we can create games..So highest he could think was a suppermasssivve computer with infinte capability.. This is where it stucks.... If there is a huge pc, than there is space,and building a pc takes time.. Who can build a supermassive pc needs time and have to learn..so what makes you think that they are not a simulation..It looks like they are too!so,this que never ends..

[@saswatsarangi6669]

But if it's a simulation, then the computer might even be inside a simulation

[@prosimulate]

Is the Universe the same size when we dream? We literally create our reality when we wake, we are plugged into our Universe, like it or not.

[@ufotv-viral]

👽👍

[@Carl6801force]

Einstein said once " nature abhors a vaccuum ".

[@Iamrightyouarewrong]

OR you can say "Simulation of what?"

[@ogsebhaze9226]

I think more and more everyday that Michio Kaku is Yoda

[@xwhogafx815]

Michio kaku is my hero

[@AfsanaAmerica]

And even after 13.8 billion years there would be no human life if it was random and not intelligent design

[@snowdon3456]

Nobody can say we are not inside a simulation as outside the simulation, who knows what is possible. All these rules that seemingly can't be broken could just be part of the code.

[@sv9141]

What experiment is he talking about?

[@3lpancho657]

So it can because it is also the universe

[@GasSnake101]

Lex talking about procedural generation? That is a way to generate worlds easily. Old unused data can also be thrown away (old planets?? a limit on the amount of life before destruction over time???)

[@jasonuerkvitz3756]

Dr. Michio Kaku's humble criticism of humanity comes with a flip side. Though the majority of the human race falls short of its potential, there are many humans that have lived and many humans that will eventually live, that have done truly glorious and beautiful things, things that in the scope of our contained existence should be lauded and exalted. History bears only a brief glimpse of our existence and I am willing to argue that there have been members of our undocumented past, since forgotten, that have done incredible things, endured unknowable calamity and persevered. I have faith that there will be future generations bearing such individuals as well. I know that each person is complex. They can be cruel, petty, idiotic, but then produce gorgeous works of art. We are dichotomous and diverse and this in its own right is a type of contentious beauty. I don't know, whenever someone points out how shitty we are as a specie my mind instantly turns to Claude Debussy's music, to Chopin, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, I think of Shakespeare, Thomas Wolfe, Pynchon, Melville, and Cormac McCarthy, and I remember seeing too the works of Michelangelo, Rodin, and da Vinci. Then there's the efforts of lost civilizations that endure through time to this day like the great pyramids of Giza which proves in unity, we are a magnificent force of nature. I am probably one the despicable types he is alluding to here, but I know there are people out there that perhaps even Dr. Kaku would revere as something special, something other, something more, something worth striving to be like. I believe in humanity as a specie and I know we have potential for unutterable greatness.

[@pixlfeed]

3:40 He has clearly never hear of "The Sims" franchise or Civilization for that matter #pcmasterrace

[@simonapanaite3936]

They sound and look like they had a couple of beers just before

[@madebymollo1780]

If we look at the new game Flight Simulator 2020 the whole world is mapped out but the storage space is smaller than that of Call of Duty, the world is loaded as you get closer to it. Therefore it doesnt have to be complex, it just has to have fast loading screen 🛸

[@madebymollo1780]

Nothing has to exist but the user, and anything can be fed to the user and lets face it if there were no humans alive would the universe exist? Or does it only exist if it is in our head?

[@rafaelquinta7541]

hi! so one question... by saying that the amount of information in the universe is finite, does it mean that the universe itself is finite?

[@Qwerty-ks8dn]

Since we exist in a multiverse the answer is yes.

[@paulhayes5684]

@@Qwerty-ks8dn How do you know, unless you have evidence of a multiverse, this is an assumption.

[@huko4266]

Simulating 1/0 in a computer program is a difficult task.

[@IBADSNU]

Sounds like something someone living inside a simulation would say.

[@Sevz101]

Hard to believe this is only last year. I think it's called Abiogenesis, is the process of non living matter becoming an organism. There was a doco that visually described it. Moss forming on the edges of volcanoes where other shit can't survive. It breaks down to better proteins becomes soil for a heartier plant. Methods we plan to use to terraform planets in future. Do love this tho.

[@hybridt]

If it's finite then its knowable info/data?

[@YouJustCantCompare]

this means consciousness creates the universe. We are god experiencing its imagined appearances

[@Kutaah]

Or are only conscious beings able to perceive the universe?

[@YouJustCantCompare]

@@Kutaah everything is conscious otherwise there would be chaos within atoms, electrons, protons and so forth

[@Kutaah]

​@@YouJustCantCompare so what we call god is consciousness and the universe itself is god manifesting into itself?

[@YouJustCantCompare]

@@Kutaah Yes. what else would it be? The substance of all appearances must be god because material is only imaginable through consciousness which is god. In a sense god destroyed a part of its consciousness to be able to imagine being a human. Once you experience pure consciousness and remove attachments, you can experience pure consciousness and realize you are god and so is everything else. God is alone so it only makes sense god would want to imagine separation and experience it through infinite amount of beings. Some with an understanding of being god and most with no understanding of being god.

[@javiersoto5223]

@@YouJustCantCompare omg you're so woke 🤡