0:00

What if everything you know , every

0:02

touch , every emotion , every

0:05

memory was nothing more

0:07

than lines of code in an advanced

0:09

computer simulation ? The

0:12

concept of reality has been a

0:14

topic of intrigue and debate for

0:16

philosophers , scientists and

0:18

thinkers for a millennia . In

0:20

recent years , the theory that we may

0:22

be living in a simulated reality

0:25

has gained much attention . This

0:27

idea is simply known as

0:29

simulation theory . I

0:33

know , I know . While simulation

0:36

theory might sound like some straight

0:38

up matrix type sh** , it's

0:40

not as far fetched as it may seem . With

0:43

the incredible pace of technological

0:45

advancements , especially in virtual

0:47

reality and AI , the lines

0:50

between what's real and

0:52

simulated are blurring . If

0:55

we are in a simulation , what does

0:57

that mean for humanity ? Has technology

1:00

advances in our understanding of

1:02

reality deepens ? The simulation

1:04

hypothesis has transformed from

1:06

a fringe notion to a legitimate

1:09

scientific proposal . Kind

1:11

of Long

1:15

before the age of quantum physics

1:17

and advanced computer simulations

1:19

, the seeds of this profound

1:21

question were sown what

1:24

is the nature of our reality ? Is

1:26

it all just the musings of a philosopher

1:29

, the dream of a poet , or

1:31

have we always been on the brink of

1:33

this astonishing revelation ? With

1:37

the advancement of technology and the

1:39

concept of virtual realities , these

1:42

ancient and early modern

1:44

philosophical inquiries into the

1:46

nature of reality have tanked

1:48

on new dimensions leading

1:50

to the exploration of simulation

1:53

theory has a potential explanation

1:55

for our existence . Modern

1:57

contemplation of simulated reality

1:59

, however , is deeply rooted

2:01

in technology . It's

2:03

influenced by advancements in

2:06

computer science , artificial intelligence

2:08

and quantum physics . As we

2:10

design more intricate virtual

2:12

realities and sophisticated video

2:14

games that emulate real-world experiences

2:17

, the line between them becomes

2:20

not so clear . While

2:23

the idea that reality is an

2:25

illusion has ancient philosophical

2:27

roots , the modern iteration

2:30

that we might be living inside a computer-generated

2:33

simulation has been significantly

2:35

influenced by technological

2:37

advancements and has been championed

2:40

by folks like Elon Musk and

2:42

philosopher Rick Bostrom

2:44

. Nick Bostrom , a

2:46

professor at Oxford University

2:48

, is primarily known for his work

2:51

on existential risks , but

2:53

he gained widespread attention for

2:56

his 2003 paper . Are

2:58

you Living in a Computer Simulation

3:00

? Rather than directly

3:02

claiming our reality is simulated

3:04

, bostrom posited a

3:06

compelling trilemma . He

3:09

suggested that one of the following

3:11

has to be true one

3:13

that advanced civilizations

3:15

would face untimely extinction

3:17

before reaching the technological

3:20

prowess to design ultra-realistic

3:22

simulations , or , upon

3:25

achieving such capabilities , they

3:27

would just lose interest , deterred

3:30

by ethical quandaries , resource

3:32

limitations or changing societal

3:34

values . However , if

3:37

these two scenarios don't come

3:39

to pass , then we are in fact

3:41

dwelling within a vast

3:43

, intricate simulation . This

3:46

paper sparked significant debate

3:48

among scientists , philosophers

3:50

and thinkers about the nature of our

3:52

reality . Enter Elon Musk

3:55

, the CEO of SpaceX

3:57

and Tesla , and Dork Supreme . Musk's

3:59

thoughts on simulation theory gained

4:02

widespread media attention when

4:04

, during a 2016 interview

4:06

at the Code Conference , he stated

4:08

that the odds we are not living in

4:11

a simulation are one in billions

4:13

. Musk's reasoning stems

4:15

from observing the trajectory

4:17

of technological advancements . He

4:19

pointed out that video games , for instance

4:22

, have evolved from the rudimentary

4:24

graphics to near photorealistic

4:26

visuals and vast virtual

4:28

worlds of today's games in

4:31

just a few decades . Given this

4:33

exponential progress , musk

4:35

posits that , assuming any

4:37

rate of improvement at all , that

4:39

games will become indistinguishable

4:42

from reality and if such

4:44

a trajectory continues , it

4:46

becomes statistically more likely

4:48

that we are in one of these

4:50

many simulations rather

4:52

than a base reality . Furthermore

4:55

, musk also speculates

4:57

about the nature of such a simulation

4:59

, suggesting that it could be a way

5:01

for future civilization to understand

5:04

its past or for

5:06

a radically advanced entity to

5:08

entertain or study itself . One

5:11

of Musk's central arguments taps

5:13

into a domain familiar to many video

5:16

games . He took the audience on

5:18

a brief historical journey , starting

5:20

with Pong , a simple 2D

5:22

table tennis simulation from the 1970s

5:25

. In just over four decades

5:28

, the gaming industry has leapfrogged

5:30

from these blocky , rudimentary graphics

5:33

to massive , multiplayer

5:35

online worlds with visuals

5:37

almost indistinguishable from reality

5:39

. Consider games like Red

5:42

Dead , redemption 2 or the

5:44

Last of Us , part 2 . These titles

5:46

offer expansive , intricate worlds

5:49

with dynamic weather , realistic

5:51

character models and physics

5:54

systems that closely mirror our

5:56

own . Musk's contention

5:58

is straightforward If we've

6:00

come this far in a mere 40 years , where

6:02

will we be in another 500 or

6:04

1000 years ? Given

6:07

any positive rate of technological

6:09

advancement , there will come a point

6:11

where our simulations or video games

6:13

are indistinguishable from reality

6:16

itself . It's pretty

6:18

amazing to imagine , isn't it ? And

6:20

it's not all that far-fetched

6:22

. If and when such high-fidelity

6:25

simulations become commonplace

6:27

, there could exist billions

6:29

of these universes running in tandem

6:31

. If that's the future scenario

6:34

, musk argues the statistical

6:36

likelihood that we're already

6:38

currently living in the one

6:41

and only base reality . The

6:43

original universe becomes almost

6:45

infinitesimal . Instead

6:47

, it's statistically more probable

6:50

that we're in one of these

6:52

countless simulations . While

6:55

the concept itself is kind of mind-boggling

6:57

, musk doesn't stop there . He

6:59

delves into the possible purposes

7:01

behind such a simulated reality

7:04

. One proposition is educational

7:06

. Future civilizations might

7:08

run simulations to understand their

7:11

ancestors better , examining

7:13

how they live , interacted and made

7:15

decisions , similar to how

7:17

historians today study ancient

7:19

civilizations , but with a much

7:22

more immersive hands-on approach

7:24

. Another possibility is

7:27

pure entertainment . Just as

7:29

we engage with video games or movies

7:31

today for escapism , enjoyment

7:34

or to experience different scenarios

7:36

, a future hyper-advanced

7:39

entity might use these

7:41

universe-scale simulations

7:43

as a form of recreation , exploration

7:46

or even research . It's

7:49

really fascinating how Musk's

7:51

perspective really brought this

7:53

idea from just philosophical

7:55

debates and techniques into everyday

7:58

chats . Whether or not

8:00

you buy into it , you've got to admit

8:02

that Musk's way of framing it makes

8:04

us think deeply about how tech can

8:06

influence or even change

8:09

how we see our own existence . Several

8:11

other prominent scientists have spoken out

8:14

about simulation theory . Neil

8:16

deGrasse Tyson , for example , the

8:18

astrophysicist and science communicator

8:21

, thinks the simulation hypothesis

8:23

is as valid as any other proposal

8:26

and suggests that there's a better

8:28

than ever chance that we're

8:30

living in a simulation . Then

8:33

there's Max Tegmarc , a cosmologist

8:36

at MIT . Tegmarc has expressed

8:38

that if the simulation hypothesis

8:40

is valid , the universe should

8:43

have signs of being composed

8:45

of finite computational resources

8:47

. So far , he sees

8:49

no clear indication of such limits

8:52

. Do

8:55

you ever feel like you've done or

8:57

been somewhere before ? Simulation

8:59

theory posits that maybe

9:02

you have the Mandela

9:04

Effect refers to the phenomena

9:06

where a large number of people remember

9:09

something in a particular way , but

9:11

it turns out to be incorrect or

9:13

different in reality . It

9:15

is named after the false memory

9:17

some had of Nelson Mandela dying

9:20

in the 1980s , even

9:22

though he actually passed away in 2013

9:25

. Another good example is Sex

9:27

in the City versus Sex in the City

9:30

. Many recall the popular TV

9:32

show's title as Sex in

9:34

the City , but it's actually Sex

9:37

in the City . And

9:39

then there's Jiff versus Jiffy Peanut

9:41

Butter . While some people remember

9:43

Jiffy Peanut Butter , the brand's

9:45

actual name is Jiff . While

9:48

many remember the Star Wars character

9:50

C-3PO as being entirely

9:52

gold , he actually has one

9:54

silver leg in the original trilogy

9:56

. Some remember the chocolate-covered

9:59

wafer bar brand known as having

10:01

a dash Kit-Cat , but

10:04

it's actually just Kit-Cat without

10:06

the dash . Fruit Loops versus

10:08

Fruit Loops . The correct spelling for

10:10

the cereal fruit loops is

10:12

F-R-O-O-T

10:14

, representing the loop-shaped fruit-flavored

10:17

cereal , even though some remembered

10:20

it as being spelled F-R-U-I-T

10:23

. Fruit Loops . Many people

10:25

remember Curious George . The

10:27

mischievous little monkey from children's

10:29

books has having a tail . In

10:32

reality , george is a

10:34

tailless chimpanzee , not a monkey

10:36

. Proponents of the

10:38

simulation hypothesis have occasionally

10:41

pointed to the Mandela Effect as

10:43

potential evidence that we are living

10:45

in a simulation . If we're in a

10:47

simulated environment , there might be

10:49

occasional glitches or updates

10:51

in the simulation . The Mandela

10:53

Effect could be a result of these

10:56

glitches or changes made by

10:58

whoever or whatever is running the simulation

11:00

. For example , maybe a change

11:03

was made in the simulated history

11:05

but not all data points , ie

11:07

human memories , were updated successfully

11:10

, resulting in these discrepancies

11:13

. Or it could be memory

11:15

manipulation . In a simulated

11:17

world , it might be possible for

11:19

the programmers or controllers of the

11:21

simulation to manipulate or

11:23

alter memories . The Mandela

11:26

Effect might be a manifestation

11:28

of such manipulations , either

11:30

intentional or accidental . Some

11:33

interpretations of simulation theory

11:35

posit that there are multiple simulations

11:37

or parallel universes running

11:39

concurrently . The Mandela Effect could

11:42

be the result of bleed-through memories

11:44

from one simulation to another

11:46

. But

11:50

what about the sensation of deja vu

11:52

, where a person feels that they've

11:54

experienced a particular situation

11:56

before , despite knowing

11:59

that it's a new experience ? It's

12:01

a fascinating psychological phenomenon

12:03

. If our reality is a

12:05

simulation , deja vu could

12:07

be a momentary replay

12:09

or reset of a particular scenario

12:12

. The sensation of having

12:14

been there before might result

12:16

from a glitch , where an event or a moment

12:18

is accidentally played more than once

12:20

, causing us to experience a

12:23

momentary overlap . The

12:25

sensation could arise if

12:27

there are multiple simulations

12:29

or parallel universes running

12:31

concurrently and at times

12:33

there might be bleed-through experiences

12:35

from one simulation to another . Deja

12:38

Vu could be a fleeting memory or

12:40

an echo from an experience

12:42

in another simulation . In

12:45

a simulated environment , there might

12:47

be occasions where memory data

12:49

is incorrectly accessed

12:51

or displayed . An unexpected

12:54

memory read might cause a brief overlap

12:56

of past and present simulated experiences

12:59

, leading to the sensation of

13:01

deja vu . If our reality

13:04

is a simulated construct , it

13:06

might use predictive techniques

13:08

to render events before they happen

13:10

, similar to how some video games

13:13

anticipate players' movements

13:15

. If the simulation briefly

13:17

exposes us to a predictive event

13:19

before it happens , it could trigger

13:21

a feeling of deja vu when

13:23

the event actually unfolds . If

13:26

we think of our experiences as software

13:28

, deja vu could be a sensation

13:31

we get when there's a minor patch or update

13:33

in our simulated reality , like

13:36

how a computer might momentarily

13:38

freeze or stutter during an update

13:40

. We might experience deja vu

13:42

during a momentary recalibration

13:45

of our simulated environment . Now

13:49

, while this might all sound like poppycock

13:51

, there are some scientific arguments

13:53

in its favor . Quantum

13:56

indeterminancy , also known as

13:58

the observer effect , is a fundamental

14:01

concept within quantum mechanics

14:03

. It refers to the phenomena

14:05

where quantum systems do not

14:07

have a definite state unless

14:09

they're measured or observed . This

14:12

aspect of quantum mechanics has

14:14

intrigued proponents of the simulation

14:16

hypothesis , they draw an analogy

14:19

between the observer effect and

14:21

resource optimization in computer

14:23

simulations . Take

14:25

, for example , a sophisticated video

14:27

game . In order to conserve

14:29

computational resources , the

14:32

game doesn't render every part of

14:34

its expansive world in full detail

14:36

all the time . Instead

14:38

, it focuses on the portions

14:40

that the player is currently observing

14:42

or interacting with , rendering

14:45

them in high resolution . Particles

14:47

that are out of sight might exist

14:50

, but in a lower resolution

14:53

state , or might not be loaded

14:55

at all until the player approaches them

14:57

. By this logic , some

14:59

proponents of simulation hypothesis

15:02

argue that quantum indeterminancy

15:04

is evidence of similar

15:06

computational conservation . The

15:09

universe or simulation

15:11

we're in doesn't render the states

15:13

of quantum particles until they are observed

15:16

and serving its computational

15:18

power . The

15:20

double slit is a famous experiment

15:23

in the realm of quantum physics . It's

15:26

often used to showcase the bizarre

15:28

behavior of tiny particles like

15:30

electrons or photons when

15:32

observed . Imagine you have a wall

15:34

with two narrow slits close to

15:36

each other . Beyond this wall

15:38

you place a screen . You then

15:40

shoot tiny particles like light

15:43

or electron at the two slits

15:45

. If you think of these particles

15:47

like tiny bullets , you'd expect

15:49

that after shooting many of them , you'd

15:51

see two bands or clusters of

15:53

hits on the screen , aligned with

15:56

the two slits right . After

15:58

all , the particles should just go

16:00

straight through the slits and hit the

16:02

screen behind . But here's where

16:05

things get weird . Instead

16:07

of just two bands , you see multiple

16:09

bands on the screens , as if

16:11

the particles are behaving like waves

16:13

that interfere with each other like ripples

16:16

in a pond . This is odd

16:18

, because you're sending individual particles

16:20

, not waves . But

16:23

here's the twist when you try

16:25

to peek and see which slit

16:27

a particle goes through , by placing detectors

16:29

on the slits , the interference

16:31

pattern , the multiple bands , disappears

16:34

and you get the expected two bands

16:37

or clusters on the screen . It's

16:39

almost as if observing the process

16:41

changes it . When you're not

16:43

trying to directly observe or measure

16:46

which slit the particle goes through

16:48

, it seems to behave in this strange

16:50

wavy pattern , creating multiple

16:52

bands on the screen , as if it's going

16:55

through both slits at once . But

16:57

the moment you put a camera

16:59

, a detector , at the slit

17:02

to see exactly which one the particle

17:04

goes through , the particle chooses

17:06

one slit . In essence , just

17:09

the act of trying to watch or measure

17:11

the particle seems to change how it

17:13

behaves . This is one of the most

17:15

puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics

17:18

. The double slit experiment challenges

17:21

our everyday intuition about the

17:23

nature of reality . It suggests

17:25

that particles can behave both

17:27

as particles and waves , depending

17:30

on how you observe them . This

17:32

dual nature and the role of observation

17:35

are foundational aspects of quantum

17:37

mechanics , making the double slit

17:39

experiment a cornerstone in

17:41

our understanding of the quantum world . It's

17:48

important to note that , while the analogy

17:50

between video game rendering and quantum

17:53

indeterminacy is intriguing

17:55

, many physicists and scientists

17:57

caution against drawing definitive

17:59

conclusions from this comparison

18:01

for several reasons . Even

18:04

the most advanced computer simulations

18:06

we have today are vastly simpler

18:08

than the complexities of quantum systems

18:11

. In current paradigms

18:13

of computational logic , to explain

18:15

quantum phenomena might be a

18:17

major oversimplification . Many

18:20

physicists argue that these phenomena

18:22

don't necessarily point to a simulated

18:25

reality , but are just fundamental

18:27

aspects of our universe's makeup

18:29

. Another reason Lack

18:31

of direct evidence . While simulation

18:34

hypothesis is a fascinating proposal

18:36

, there is currently no direct

18:38

evidence supporting the idea that

18:40

our universe is simulated . Drawing

18:43

conclusions based solely on quantum

18:45

mechanics peculiarities may

18:48

be premature If

18:51

we consider that we might be living

18:53

within a sophisticated digital environment

18:55

, several profound implications

18:58

arise , fundamentally altering

19:00

how we perceive our existence , our

19:03

morals and even

19:05

our faith . If we are a

19:07

part of a grand simulation , our

19:09

entire understanding of life

19:11

and existence would need recalibration

19:14

. Everything we perceive

19:16

, from the vastness of galaxies

19:18

to the intricate details of quantum

19:20

mechanics , might be products

19:23

of lines of code rather

19:25

than naturally occurring phenomena

19:27

, which leads to the philosophical

19:29

question what

19:32

is real If our experiences

19:35

, emotions and perceptions are

19:37

consistent and coherent , does

19:39

it matter if the foundation is digital

19:41

rather than physical ? For

19:44

many , life's meaning is derived

19:46

from a mix of personal experiences

19:49

, societal constructs and

19:51

existential beliefs . If our

19:53

reality is simulated , it begs

19:55

the question is there a higher

19:57

purpose behind the simulation , or

20:00

are we mere entertainment , an

20:02

experiment , or perhaps a

20:04

form of digital evolution ? The

20:07

answers , or lack thereof

20:09

, could lead to existential crisis

20:11

or , conversely , a liberated

20:14

sense of purpose , unfettered

20:16

by previously held beliefs about

20:19

the universe . Paradoxically

20:21

, the simulation hypothesis

20:23

could lead to a heightened appreciation

20:26

for life , whether organic

20:28

or digital . The experiences

20:30

, joys , pains and sorrows

20:32

might be perceived as equally

20:35

valuable . After all , a

20:37

simulated sunset can be just

20:39

as breathtaking as a real one if

20:41

our perception and emotional experience

20:44

of it remains unchanged . Then

20:47

there's the moral implications . The

20:49

simulation hypothesis might challenge

20:52

the very notion of free will If

20:54

our actions are determined by algorithms

20:57

or an external programmer's whims

20:59

. It significantly influences

21:02

philosophical debates about determinism

21:04

and agency . Can we

21:07

be held morally accountable for actions

21:09

that have been predestined or pre-programmed

21:12

? A simulated environment

21:14

might imply different consequences

21:16

for actions . If our reality has

21:18

different rules than we believed or

21:21

there's another layer of existence

21:23

outside the simulation , then traditional

21:25

notions of consequence , retribution

21:28

and justice might need re-evaluation

21:31

. Do moral acts

21:33

have the same weight if there's

21:35

just a possibility of resetting

21:37

the simulation or if the suffering

21:40

within the simulation isn't genuine

21:42

? The

21:46

simulation hypothesis introduces

21:48

a new dimension to the age-old question

21:50

of creation . If we're in a simulation

21:53

, then there is arguably a creator

21:56

or a set of creators , those

21:58

responsible for programming and running

22:00

the simulation . This idea could

22:02

either align with or challenge

22:04

various religious doctrines . Is

22:07

the programmer God or

22:09

is the programmer an intermediary , another

22:12

being seeking answers , much like humans

22:15

have done throughout history ? Many

22:17

religions offer explanations

22:19

about the afterlife or the continuation

22:22

of the soul . If our reality

22:24

is simulated , it could challenge

22:26

the concept of an eternal soul

22:29

altogether . If

22:33

humanity accepts that its

22:35

existence might be simulated , it

22:37

could lead to heightened interest

22:39

in creating more advanced simulations

22:42

. After all , if our creators

22:44

could simulate an entire universe

22:46

, what's stopping us from doing the same

22:48

, given enough technological

22:50

advancement ? While

22:53

we don't have any concrete evidence

22:55

for a simulation , some physicists

22:57

have mused about what such evidence

23:00

might look like . For example

23:02

, there might be constraints on

23:04

physical processes that look like

23:06

computational shortcuts , or

23:08

there might be errors within the simulation

23:11

that manifest as inconsistencies

23:13

in the laws of physics . Just

23:16

as computer games sometimes glitch

23:18

, with characters suddenly disappearing

23:20

or moving unexpectedly , if

23:22

our universe was a simulation , we

23:24

might expect to see unexplained phenomena

23:26

where objects suddenly

23:28

change position or state

23:30

without any apparent reason . Some

23:33

might point to UAPs . The Bermuda

23:36

Triangle , or even some other cryptid

23:38

sightings , has another potential example

23:40

of this repeating patterns

23:42

. Just as tiled video

23:44

game backgrounds reuse the same patterns

23:47

, we find large-scale structures

23:49

in the universe that suspiciously

23:52

repeat in a way that isn't consistent

23:54

with our current understanding of cosmic

23:56

formation . The Fibonacci

23:59

sequence and the Golden Ratio are

24:01

mathematical concepts that frequently

24:03

appear in nature , art , architecture

24:06

and various other realms . The

24:09

Fibonacci sequence is a set of numbers

24:11

that starts with a zero , followed

24:13

by a one and then another one

24:15

, and then by a series of

24:17

steadily increasing numbers . The

24:19

sequence follows the rule that each

24:21

number is equal to the sum of

24:23

the preceding two numbers . The Fibonacci

24:26

sequence begins with the following

24:28

fourteen numbers zero

24:31

, one , one

24:33

, two , three

24:35

, five , eight , twenty-one

24:38

, thirty-four , fifty-five , eighty-nine

24:41

, one , forty-four , two , thirty-three

24:43

. Each number , starting

24:45

with the third , adheres to

24:47

a prescribed formula . For example

24:50

, the seventh number , eight

24:52

, is preceded by three and five

24:54

, which add up to eight . The sequence

24:57

can theoretically continue to infinity

24:59

, using the same formula for

25:02

each new number . Some flowers

25:04

often have a number of spirals

25:07

that correspond to Fibonacci numbers

25:09

. Pincones and pineapples

25:11

also display spirals of seeds

25:13

or scales that frequently adhere

25:16

to Fibonacci numbers . If

25:19

our universe were a simulation , it might be programmed to favor

25:21

or produce optimal configurations

25:24

to conserve computational resources

25:26

, similar to how video games

25:29

are designed for efficiency . Such

25:31

a predictable and consistent growth pattern

25:33

in nature could be seen as evidence

25:36

of a set , non-random rule

25:38

akin to the predictable algorithms

25:41

in computer programs . The

25:44

Parthenon in Athens exhibits

25:46

dimensions that are in proportion

25:48

with the Golden Ratio , has thus the

25:51

great pyramid of Geiza . The

25:53

ratio is often associated

25:55

with aesthetically pleasing designs

25:57

. The reoccurrence of the Golden

25:59

Rule here in human-made structures

26:01

across cultures and time , could

26:04

suggest an inherent design principle

26:06

embedded in our simulated programming

26:08

guiding our preferences . Simple

26:12

rules leading to complex outcomes

26:15

, like exponential growth from straightforward

26:17

reproductive rules , resemble computational

26:20

processes , suggesting our reality

26:23

might be algorithm-based . The

26:25

growth of rabbit populations , when

26:27

idealized and simplified , can

26:30

be modeled using the Fibonacci sequence

26:32

. Starting with a single pair , the

26:34

sequence represents how many pairs

26:37

there are after each breeding cycle

26:39

, capturing the essence of

26:41

exponential growth . The Fibonacci

26:43

sequence could be in use in a simulation

26:46

for several reasons , like resource

26:49

limitations . Just as video games

26:51

have edges or boundaries , there could

26:53

hypothetically be areas in the universe

26:56

where one simply cannot go or

26:58

pro beyond , not because

27:00

of physical distance , but because

27:02

the simulation doesn't extend that

27:04

far . There might be computational

27:06

constraints , for instance , if

27:09

simulating every particle in the universe

27:11

were too computationally intensive

27:14

. The simulation might only render

27:16

particles , when they're being observed

27:18

, a kind of extreme take

27:20

on the observer effect in quantum

27:22

mechanics . Many

27:27

thinkers and scientists remain skeptical

27:30

of the simulation hypothesis . Some

27:32

of their criticisms revolve around

27:34

it being unprovable , while

27:36

others believe it's a non-scientific

27:39

, philosophical or metaphysical

27:41

proposal that can't be tested

27:43

empirically . These detractors

27:46

hail from diverse disciplines , including

27:49

physics , philosophy and cognitive

27:51

science , and their skepticism

27:53

is grounded in a range of empirical

27:56

and logical concerns . One

27:58

of the most potent critiques of the simulation

28:01

hypothesis comes from its perceived

28:04

lack of falsifiability

28:06

. Sir Karl Popper , a

28:08

philosopher of science , once stated

28:10

Insofar has a scientific

28:13

statement speaks about reality , it

28:15

must be falsifiable , and inso

28:17

has it is not falsifiable

28:20

, it does not speak about reality

28:22

. In other words , for a

28:24

claim to be considered scientific , there

28:26

must be conceivable evidence that

28:28

could prove it wrong . Critics

28:31

argue that the simulation hypothesis

28:33

doesn't meet this criterion . Physicist

28:36

and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss

28:39

stated in an interview with the Guardian

28:41

I can't prove it's impossible

28:43

, but I think it's so unlikely

28:46

. We always make these arguments

28:48

that are based on possibilities and

28:50

not on the likely realities

28:53

. Their line of criticism

28:55

pertains to the conflation of

28:57

metaphysical or philosophical

29:00

claims with empirical scientific

29:02

ones . Dr Neil deGrasse

29:04

Tyson , the well-known astrophysicist

29:07

, while conceding that it's hard to

29:09

argue against the possibility of

29:11

a simulated universe , has also

29:14

emphasized the distinction

29:16

between what's philosophically

29:18

interesting and what's scientifically

29:20

verifiable . But he also

29:22

pointed out that without empirical evidence

29:25

, the discussion remains in

29:27

the realm of philosophy . Some

29:29

detractors argue against the very

29:31

premise that it would even be computationally

29:34

feasible to simulate an entire

29:36

universe in all its complexity

29:38

. Dr Sabine Hassenfelder

29:41

, a research fellow at the

29:43

Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies

29:45

, argues that the computational

29:47

requirements to simulate every

29:49

single particle in the universe are

29:52

far beyond what's theoretically possible

29:54

, even assuming a hyper-advanced

29:57

civilization . In a video

29:59

on her popular YouTube channel she says

30:02

to store the data for just

30:04

one human body you'd need more

30:06

memory than there are atoms in the universe

30:08

. So unless you're

30:10

willing to argue that future civilizations

30:13

will find a way to violate the currently

30:15

known laws of nature , then simulating

30:18

an entire universe down to the last

30:20

atom is simply impossible

30:22

. Oh and about those Fibonacci

30:24

numbers we talked about ? There are also

30:27

perfectly logical natural reasons

30:29

for the emergence of Fibonacci numbers

30:32

in nature that don't rely

30:34

on any idea of a simulation

30:36

. Evolutionary processes

30:38

tend to favor configurations

30:40

that are more efficient or increase

30:43

the chances of survival and reproduction

30:45

. Consequences or

30:47

sequences like the Fibonacci numbers , which inherently

30:50

provide some advantages in certain contexts

30:52

, like efficient packing , would

30:55

then naturally emerge more

30:57

frequently in biological systems

30:59

. Many processes in

31:01

nature involve self-similar growth

31:03

, where a pattern repeats itself

31:06

on different scales , like branching

31:08

in trees or the structure of certain

31:10

shells . The Fibonacci sequence

31:12

and the associated golden ratio

31:14

describe one of the simplest and

31:17

most efficient of such growth

31:19

patterns . While the reoccurrence

31:21

of the Fibonacci sequence in nature is

31:23

intriguing , it can be seen

31:25

as a result of natural selection , growth

31:28

patterns and the inherent mathematics

31:30

of optimal configurations

31:32

, rather than an indication

31:34

of an underlying simulation

31:36

. Natural processes gravitate

31:39

towards efficiency and optimization

31:41

, and the Fibonacci sequence

31:43

often represents an efficient solution

31:46

to various biological and

31:48

physical problems . Several

31:50

critics of the simulation hypothesis

31:53

focus on the moral implications

31:55

of such a scenario . Dr

31:57

David J Chalmers , professor

32:00

of philosophy and neuroscience at

32:02

NYU , while open to

32:04

the idea of a simulated universe

32:06

, poses the ethical question

32:08

If we are in a simulation

32:11

, is it ethically okay for

32:13

our simulators to simulate our

32:15

suffering ? He suggests that

32:17

ethical considerations might prevent

32:19

more advanced beings from creating

32:21

detailed simulations in which

32:24

conscious beings suffer . Occam's

32:27

razor is a philosophical and

32:29

scientific principle suggesting

32:32

that , all things being equal , the simplest

32:34

explanation tends to be the right one

32:36

. Some critics invoke this

32:38

principle to challenge the simulation

32:41

hypothesis . The idea

32:43

is that positing an external

32:45

simulating entity introduces

32:48

unnecessary complexity when

32:50

simpler explanations suffice

32:52

. An

32:54

author , paul Davies , commented on

32:56

this , suggesting to postulate

32:59

a multi-layered reality with fake

33:01

layers indistinguishable from

33:03

certain real layers seems

33:05

baroque . The

33:07

simulation argument at its core

33:09

challenges the nature of reality

33:11

. However , some critics argue

33:14

that reality and consciousness

33:16

are intrinsically linked , suggesting

33:19

that even if we were in a simulation

33:21

, it wouldn't diminish the authenticity

33:23

of our experiences . Dr

33:26

Deepak Chopra , while

33:28

discussing the nature of consciousness

33:30

, states reality is

33:32

not in the physical world as it appears

33:34

to be . It is in where we

33:36

interpret the physical world . For

33:39

critics like Chopra , the debate

33:41

becomes less about the material nature

33:43

of the universe and more

33:46

about the subjective experience

33:48

of consciousness and how it interprets

33:50

reality . For critics like

33:52

Chopra , the debate becomes less

33:55

about the material nature of the universe

33:57

and more about the subjective

33:59

experience of consciousness and

34:01

how it interprets reality . The

34:09

simulation hypothesis , while rooted

34:11

in philosophical and scientific discourse

34:14

, has found ample representation

34:16

in pop culture , particularly

34:18

within the last few decades . Films

34:21

, television shows , books and video

34:23

games have all explored the idea

34:25

that the world as we know it might

34:27

be a constructed reality . This

34:30

theme resonates with audiences tapping

34:32

into both existential fears

34:34

and the allure of other

34:36

worldly possibilities . The

34:40

rise of artificial intelligence

34:42

, ai , and the discussion

34:44

surrounding simulation theory are

34:46

intrinsically interwoven . As

34:48

AI systems become more sophisticated

34:51

and our understanding of reality deepens

34:53

, certain parallels and intersections

34:56

between the two concepts emerge

34:58

, making simulated

35:00

reality seem all the more likely

35:03

. In video games and virtual

35:05

worlds , ai-driven characters

35:07

, non-player characters or

35:09

NPCs can display behaviors

35:12

mimicking consciousness , raising

35:14

questions about the nature of their existence

35:16

. If an AI , in a simulated

35:19

environment , believes it's alive or

35:21

real , it parallels the idea

35:23

of humans potentially being

35:25

simulations within a larger system

35:28

. A key question in the AI

35:30

community is whether a sufficiently

35:32

advanced AI could gain consciousness

35:35

. If an AI becomes self-aware

35:37

within our universe , it could be analogous

35:40

to humans becoming aware of a simulated

35:42

reality , just as we

35:44

might use the Turing test

35:46

or other measures to determine

35:48

AI's consciousness or intelligence

35:51

. A hyper-advanced civilization

35:53

could use similar tests to gauge our

35:55

awareness or comprehension of the universe

35:58

, or simulation . If

36:00

we're in a simulation and we create

36:02

AI-driven virtual realities

36:04

, those are essentially simulations

36:06

within a simulation . This recursive

36:09

idea of nested realities can

36:11

continue indefinitely . Ai

36:14

operates based on its programming

36:16

and the data it processes . If

36:18

our universe is a simulation , humans

36:21

might similarly be following a predetermined

36:24

algorithm of set rules , challenging

36:27

our concepts of free will . Ai

36:29

models , especially in machine learning

36:32

and neural networks , often evolve

36:34

through iterative processes

36:36

, learning and adapting over

36:38

time . This digital evolution

36:41

could be seen as a microcosm

36:43

of broader simulated evolutionary

36:45

processes in the universe , suggesting

36:48

a possible mechanism for how a simulated

36:50

universe might operate . Some

36:53

proponents of simulation theory

36:55

suggest that unexplained phenomena

36:57

or glitches in our universe might

36:59

be evidence of our simulated nature

37:01

. In the realm of AI , debugging

37:04

is essential to refine the system

37:06

. Any irregularities or

37:08

anomalies in an AI's behavior

37:10

are analyzed and rectified

37:12

. As AI advances , ethical

37:15

questions arise about how we

37:17

should treat virtual or AI entities

37:19

. If we consider the possibility

37:22

that we might be in a simulation , it

37:24

reframes our understanding of

37:26

existence and the rights of conscious

37:29

or seemingly conscious beings

37:31

, whether organic or digital

37:33

. Ai advancements offer

37:35

not only technological marvels

37:37

, but also profound philosophical

37:40

and existential questions that echo

37:42

and intersect with the ideas posited

37:45

by simulation theory . As

37:47

we push the boundaries of AI , these

37:49

questions will become even more pressing

37:51

, urging us to reevaluate

37:54

our understanding of consciousness , reality

37:56

and the very nature of existence

37:58

. The evolution of artificial

38:01

intelligence has substantially affected

38:03

our perception of reality and

38:05

makes the idea of a simulated reality

38:08

a little more feasible . As

38:10

AI systems become increasingly

38:12

sophisticated , the distinction

38:14

between what is simulated and what is real

38:16

is not so transparent anymore . The

38:20

notion that our very existence

38:22

might be nestled within a grand simulation

38:25

is both breathtaking and

38:27

, in moments , slightly unnerving . It's

38:30

a thought that , like geizing

38:32

up at a starlit sky or delving

38:34

into the vastness of the universe , awakens

38:37

a sense of wonder and a tinge

38:39

of existential mystery within

38:41

us , whether

38:46

we're living within a grand designer's

38:48

construct or the tangible universe

38:51

we've always known . Our

38:53

very journey of questioning , of

38:55

marveling and of ceaselessly

38:57

exploring stands as a tribute

39:00

to the infinite wonder that is

39:02

the human spirit .