Latest / Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History / Are We Living in a Simulation? – The Search for Reality’s Hidden Code

Transcript

Are We Living in a Simulation? – The Search for Reality’s Hidden Code · Lost Civilizations: Ancient Aliens & Forgotten History

0:00
Imagine discovering something strange at the foundation of
0:04
the universe.
0:05
Not a spacecraft, not a hidden planet, not
0:07
a message from an alien civilization, but mathematics,
0:10
and not just any mathematics.
0:13
Patterns that look similar to something humans use when
0:16
we send digital information and try to protect
0:18
that information from errors.
0:20
Error-correcting codes. It almost sounds too perfect,
0:24
because if you wanted to build a digital
0:26
world, you would need rules, you would need
0:29
information, and you would need ways to protect
0:32
the information from errors.
0:34
Now imagine a physicist working with some of
0:37
the deepest mathematics in theoretical physics, and finding
0:41
structures that, in popular descriptions, start sounding suspiciously
0:46
like computer code.
0:48
Then comes the next part.
0:50
The universe follows mathematical rules with almost unbelievable
0:54
precision.
0:55
The constants of nature have specific values.
0:58
The speed of light places a limit on
1:00
how fast information can travel.
1:02
At very small scales, quantum physics takes over.
1:06
Particles behave in ways that challenge our
1:08
everyday idea that objects must always have
1:15
clear properties before they are measured.
1:19
And some physicists have even asked whether a
1:23
simulated universe could reveal itself through tiny irregularities
1:27
in the most energetic particles that we can observe.
1:31
Now take one step back.
1:33
Imagine that none of this is accidental.
1:38
Imagine that the universe is not simply something
1:40
that can be described with mathematics.
1:43
Imagine that mathematics works so well because the
1:46
universe is actually being computed.
1:49
The space around you may not be fundamental.
1:52
Time may not be fundamental.
1:55
The chair beneath you, the body that you're
1:57
sitting in, and the brain that is now
1:59
trying to understand these words, could all exist
2:02
inside a system whose true structure exists on another
2:06
level of reality.
2:07
And then we reach the uncomfortable question. What
2:13
if it were true?
2:15
How would we ever discover it?
2:17
And perhaps even worse, if the simulation was
2:20
good enough, would there even be a difference
2:23
between a simulated reality and a real one?
2:27
That is where we are going today, not
2:29
to prove that we are living in the
2:30
Matrix, and not to laugh at the idea.
2:33
We are going to investigate why a question that
2:36
once belonged mainly to religion, philosophy, and science
2:40
fiction is now discussed by philosophers, physicists, cosmologists,
2:45
and researchers studying consciousness.
2:49
Because maybe the most unsettling thing about the
2:53
simulation hypothesis is not how strange it sounds.
2:57
Maybe it is how surprisingly hard it is
2:59
to dismiss.
3:01
We are still talking about this because human
3:07
beings questioned reality long before the invention
3:12
of the computer.
3:13
Plato's cave is the classic example.
3:16
People are trapped inside a cave.
3:18
They see shadows moving across a wall.
3:21
Those shadows are their entire world.
3:25
They do not know that what they see
3:29
is only a reflection of something outside
3:31
their experience.
3:34
More than 2,000 years later, René Descartes approached
3:36
the problem from another direction. How do I
3:41
know that my senses are telling me the
3:43
truth?
3:45
How do I know that the world around
3:47
me really exists in the way I experience
3:50
it?
3:51
Could some extremely powerful deceiver give me all
3:55
my experiences while making me believe that they
4:00
come from a physical world?
4:02
Descartes did not have computers, of course.
4:05
But replace his deceiver with a programmer, and
4:09
the problem begins to look surprisingly familiar.
4:14
During the 20th century, the idea took a
4:16
technological form.
4:18
Science fiction began exploring artificial worlds.
4:22
And in 1999, The Matrix brought the
4:25
idea to a global audience.
4:28
The movie gave us a dramatic version.
4:31
Human bodies are kept inside machines while an
4:35
artificial world is sent directly into their minds.
4:39
But the more interesting philosophical version does not need
4:44
a human body inside a tank.
4:46
If a simulation could become advanced enough, then
4:49
the body, the brain, the city, the planet,
4:52
even the entire observable universe could be a
4:55
part of the simulation.
4:57
And in 2003, Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom gave
5:02
the idea a form that made it much
5:05
harder to dismiss as simple science
5:07
fiction.
5:08
He did not search for glitches in reality.
5:11
He did not search for pixels in space.
5:13
He did not claim to find the programmer.
5:15
Instead, he asked a statistical question.
5:19
And that question changed the discussion.
5:26
Before we enter the simulation hypothesis, we need
5:29
solid ground beneath our feet with the established
5:32
story.
5:34
Modern science does not need a programmer to
5:37
explain the universe.
5:38
According to modern cosmology, the universe developed from
5:43
an extremely hot and dense early state around
5:46
13.8 billion years ago.
5:50
Space expands. Matter gathers under gravity. Stars form.
5:55
Stars produce heavier elements.
6:01
Some of those stars explode.
6:03
New stars and planetary systems form from what
6:07
was left behind.
6:08
On at least one planet, self-replicating
6:11
chemistry eventually becomes life.
6:14
And over enormous periods of time, evolution produces
6:17
organisms with increasingly complex senses and nervous systems.
6:22
Eventually, one of these organisms sits in front
6:25
of a microphone and asks whether the entire
6:27
universe is actually running on a computer somewhere
6:31
else, which is in its own way a
6:34
rather strange development.
6:36
But science does not need the simulation hypothesis
6:40
to describe it.
6:42
Physical theories normally treat the laws of nature
6:45
as exactly what they are, laws of nature.
6:48
They describe relationships between matter, energy, space, time,
6:52
and fields.
6:53
When physicists write equations, they do not automatically
6:57
mean that the universe is running computer
7:00
code.
7:00
A stone moving through the air also follows
7:04
a mathematical path.
7:06
That does not mean that somebody wrote software
7:08
for the stone.
7:10
Mathematics is our strongest tool for describing regular
7:14
patterns in nature.
7:15
But there is still something strange here.
7:18
Why does mathematics work so well?
7:21
Why can symbols written on a piece of
7:24
paper describe the movement of galaxies, electromagnetic fields,
7:29
and subatomic particles with incredible accuracy?
7:33
The question is much older than the simulation
7:36
hypothesis.
7:37
And still, we do not have a final
7:39
answer.
7:40
Then there is quantum mechanics.
7:43
And here, everyday intuition becomes even less
7:46
useful.
7:47
A quantum state can describe several possible outcomes.
7:51
When we perform a measurement, we get a
7:53
specific result.
7:54
Exactly what this tells us about reality depends
8:00
partly on how we interpret quantum mechanics.
8:04
And here, there are several interpretations.
8:07
And that's important.
8:09
Because we often hear a simple version of
8:11
the story, the particle does not exist until
8:14
somebody looks at it.
8:16
It is a dramatic sentence.
8:19
But quantum physics does not simply tell us
8:22
that human consciousness creates the world by looking
8:26
at it.
8:27
A measurement does not require a human eye.
8:31
It can involve a physical interaction.
8:35
And already, we can see a pattern here
8:37
that we will return to throughout this episode.
8:41
There are real mysteries.
8:44
And then there are interpretations of those
8:46
mysteries.
8:46
Those are not always the same thing.
8:50
But the deeper question remains.
8:53
Because the further physics has gone into the structure
8:56
of matter, the less reality looks like a
8:58
solid, simple world of everyday experience.
9:02
A table feels solid.
9:04
At the atomic level, the story is very different.
9:08
Color feels like a property of an object.
9:11
But the experience of color is created by
9:14
a nervous system in response to electromagnetic radiation.
9:19
Time feels universal.
9:21
Einstein showed us that it is not.
9:24
Space feels like a fixed stage.
9:26
General relativity tells us that space-time itself
9:31
is dynamic.
9:33
And that gives us the first crack.
9:35
Not evidence of a simulation, not proof, just a
9:38
crack in our everyday picture of reality.
9:41
Because perhaps the world we experience is not
9:44
the same as the deepest structure of reality.
9:52
Now let's begin with something very human, a
9:55
computer game.
9:56
The earliest computer games were extremely simple.
9:59
A few pixels, a few rules, a character
10:02
that could move left or right.
10:04
Today, millions of people can enter enormous digital
10:08
worlds with changing weather, realistic lighting, physics, characters,
10:12
cities, and economies.
10:15
We simulate galaxies. We simulate climate. We simulate
10:19
protein folding. We simulate traffic moving through cities.
10:24
We simulate evolution, and we create virtual environments
10:28
where artificial agents learn through experience.
10:33
All of this has happened within only a few decades.
10:37
That does not mean that we will ever
10:41
be able to simulate an entire universe, but
10:44
the direction is interesting.
10:46
For the first time in human history, the
10:48
question is no longer, can an artificial world
10:51
exist?
10:52
Artificial worlds already exist.
10:54
The question is, how complex can they become?
10:57
And this is where Nick Bostrom enters the
11:00
story.
11:01
His argument begins with an important assumption.
11:07
His argument begins with an important assumption,
11:11
the idea that consciousness could be independent of
11:15
its physical material.
11:18
The technical expression is substrate independence.
11:22
In simple terms, it means that consciousness may
11:25
not require biological neurons.
11:28
If the important information processes inside the human
11:33
brain could be reproduced with enough accuracy in
11:37
another physical system, perhaps that artificial brain would
11:42
also have conscious experiences.
11:45
We do not know if this is true,
11:48
but for the moment accept the possibility.
11:50
Now imagine a civilization thousands, perhaps millions, of years
11:55
more technologically advanced than ours.
11:58
Such a civilization might have computing resources that
12:01
are almost impossible for us to imagine, and
12:05
perhaps it could simulate human beings.
12:08
Not characters that only appear conscious, but
12:13
beings that actually experience their world from
12:16
the inside.
12:20
If that becomes possible, we reach a central
12:22
problem, because why would an advanced civilization create
12:27
only one simulation?
12:30
It could create thousands, millions, perhaps an astronomical
12:34
number.
12:36
And if every simulation contains billions of conscious
12:46
people, the ratio between biological and simulated observers
12:51
begins to change dramatically.
12:53
Imagine one original civilization containing 10 billion
12:57
people.
12:58
Later, that civilization creates 1 million historical simulations.
13:03
Each one contains 10 billion conscious people.
13:07
Suddenly, there are far more people inside the
13:10
simulations than outside.
13:12
If you wake up as one of those
13:14
people, without knowing which group you belong to,
13:17
what should you believe?
13:20
And now we have reached the heart of
13:22
the Simulation Argument.
13:24
From this point on, we will enter the
13:25
theory on its own terms.
13:32
The alternative theory. Let us start with Bostrom.
13:35
He gives us three possibilities.
13:37
The first is that civilizations like ours almost
13:42
always disappear before reaching the technological level needed to
13:45
create enormous numbers of conscious ancestor simulations.
13:50
Maybe advanced technology destroys them: war, artificial
13:54
intelligence, biotechnology, environmental collapse, or something we have not
14:00
imagined yet.
14:01
If almost no civilization reaches that point, then
14:04
almost no ancestor simulations will
14:08
exist.
14:10
The second possibility is that civilizations survive
14:14
and reach the necessary level, but they lose
14:17
interest.
14:19
They can simulate their ancestors.
14:21
They simply choose not to, perhaps for
14:24
ethical reasons.
14:26
If simulated people are truly conscious, a historical
14:30
simulation would contain disease, war, loss, grief, and
14:36
death.
14:36
Starting that simulation would also mean creating an
14:40
enormous amounts of suffering.
14:42
An advanced civilization might consider this morally
14:46
unacceptable.
14:48
Or perhaps ancestor simulations simply do not interest
14:53
them.
14:54
But then comes the third possibility.
14:56
Civilizations survive.
14:59
They develop the technology, and at least some
15:03
of them decide to use it.
15:05
If even a relatively small number of advanced civilizations
15:08
create huge numbers of conscious simulations, then
15:12
simulated observers could greatly outnumber original
15:16
biological observers.
15:18
And that leads to a statistical intuition.
15:22
Imagine a container with 1 million balls.
15:29
999,999 are blue.
15:34
1 is red.
15:35
Before you choose a ball, you should expect
15:38
to get a blue one.
15:39
Now apply that idea to conscious observers.
15:42
If almost all people having experiences like ours
15:46
exist inside simulations, why would we assume that
15:51
we belong to the tiny group outside them?
15:55
That is the strength of the argument.
15:56
It does not require a glitch.
15:59
It does not require UFOs.
16:01
It does not require a religious creator.
16:05
It does not even require our world to
16:07
look artificial.
16:09
In fact, the argument works best if the
16:11
simulation looks completely real, because the simulated people
16:16
are not supposed to be video game
16:19
characters.
16:20
They are supposed to be us.
16:21
They fall in love.
16:22
They have children.
16:24
They fear death.
16:25
They go to work.
16:26
They become sick.
16:28
They look up at the night sky.
16:30
They develop physics.
16:34
And eventually, some of them begin building computers
16:37
of their own.
16:39
And this creates another layer, because if simulated
16:42
humans become technologically advanced enough, they may begin
16:46
creating simulations themselves. A world inside a
16:50
world, which creates another world, and another.
16:54
At this point, we arrive at the wonderful
16:57
phrase substrate independence.
17:00
I have to admit that some international academic
17:04
terms were clearly not designed with a Scandinavian
17:07
podcast host in mind.
17:09
But the idea is simple.
17:12
If consciousness depends on the information process rather
17:16
than the material that performs the process, then
17:20
a simulated brain could be just as conscious
17:24
as ours.
17:26
And suddenly, the word artificial changes meaning.
17:29
A person inside the simulation is not fake.
17:32
His world is not a movie that he
17:34
is watching.
17:35
It is the environment in which he exists.
17:38
If he hurts his knee, the pain is
17:41
real.
17:41
If he loses somebody he loves, the grief
17:44
is real.
17:45
Philosopher David Chalmers has taken exactly this problem
17:51
seriously.
17:52
Even if our world is virtual, that does
17:56
not necessarily mean it is unreal. A virtual table
18:01
can still be a real virtual table.
18:03
A simulated planet can still be a real
18:06
planet at the level where its inhabitants exist.
18:11
And this turns the normal matrix idea upside
18:14
down.
18:14
The question is no longer, is this world
18:17
fake?
18:18
The question becomes, what kind of reality is
18:21
this?
18:22
The rules of the universe as code.
18:25
yeah, well, now physics becomes interesting.
18:29
If the universe is simulated, the simulation needs
18:34
rules.
18:34
We would expect consistency. The same basic relationships
18:38
should appear again and again.
18:41
And that is exactly what we see.
18:43
An electron does not follow one kind of
18:46
physics in Denmark and another one on Mars.
18:50
As far as we can observe, the laws
18:52
of nature are universal.
18:53
A hydrogen atom in a distant galaxy follows
18:57
the same quantum rules as hydrogen atoms inside
19:00
a laboratory on Earth.
19:02
From the simulation perspective, that makes intuitive
19:05
sense.
19:06
A program needs rules.
19:09
You do not program gravity separately for each
19:13
stone.
19:13
You define the rule.
19:15
The system applies it.
19:18
In a simulation of ocean water, you would
19:21
not normally have to create every wave.
19:24
You define the physics, give the system the
19:27
starting conditions, and then allow complex patterns
19:29
to develop.
19:31
In the same way, the enormous complexity of
19:33
our universe could emerge from a relatively small
19:36
number of fundamental rules, and that leads to
19:39
another strange feature, the speed of information.
19:43
Our universe has an upper limit for how
19:45
fast information can travel, the speed of light.
19:52
From the simulation perspective, this can be compared
19:57
to the maximum information transfer speed inside the
20:02
system.
20:04
Then there is resolution.
20:07
When we simulate something, representing infinitely small
20:11
detail may be inefficient.
20:13
Perhaps reality therefore has a fundamental scale.
20:17
This is where the Planck length often enters
20:21
discussions about simulation.
20:24
It is roughly 1.6 times 10 to
20:27
the power of minus 35 meters, an unimaginably
20:32
small distance.
20:34
We cannot simply call the Planck length
20:38
the pixel size of the universe.
20:41
But inside the simulation story, it is an
20:45
obvious role.
20:48
If nature has a smallest meaningful scale, it
20:52
could be seen as a resolution limit.
20:56
And if the universe is being computed, perhaps
20:59
such a limit is necessary.
21:02
Then we arrive at quantum mechanics, and
21:05
here the comparison with modern computer games becomes
21:09
almost impossible to ignore.
21:11
A computer game does not always compute every
21:14
part of the world at maximum detail.
21:18
The system uses resources where they are needed.
21:23
Objects far away can be represented in less
21:26
detail.
21:27
Areas the player cannot see do not necessarily
21:31
need to be visually rendered at the same
21:34
level.
21:35
And when the player turns around, the scene
21:38
appears.
21:39
Now apply the idea to quantum physics.
21:43
What if the strange relationship between measurement and
21:46
outcome is the universe’s version of rendering?
21:49
A particle can be described by several possible
21:53
outcomes.
21:54
When a physical measurement takes place, we receive
21:57
a specific result.
21:59
From the simulation perspective, this can look like an
22:06
efficient computing strategy.
22:08
The system may not need to determine every
22:10
detail in advance.
22:12
It produces a specific result when an interaction
22:16
requires one.
22:18
Quantum entanglement becomes interesting as well.
22:21
Two quantum systems can be connected in ways
22:25
that cannot be explained by a simple classical
22:28
local picture.
22:30
If we think of space as fundamental, this
22:33
feels deeply strange.
22:36
But if space itself only exists inside an
22:42
information system, then the physical distance may not
22:46
be fundamental at the deepest level.
22:52
Two points can be light-years apart inside
22:55
the simulated world, while remaining closely connected in
22:59
the structure underneath.
23:00
Think of two characters standing on opposite
23:02
sides of a computer game.
23:04
Inside the game they might be thousands of
23:06
miles apart, but the information describing them may
23:10
exist side by side in the same physical
23:13
memory.
23:14
Then there is the mathematics itself.
23:17
Galileo famously described nature as a book written
23:21
in the language of mathematics.
23:24
Centuries later, physicist Eugene Wigner wrote about something
23:30
he called the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in
23:33
the natural sciences.
23:40
Why does abstract mathematics fit the universe so
23:43
well?
23:44
The simulation perspective offers a simple answer, because
23:48
the foundation of reality itself is mathematical or
23:52
informational.
23:53
If the universe consists of computational relationships, then
23:59
mathematics should not merely be a useful
24:02
tool.
24:04
It should exist deep inside the architecture of
24:08
reality.
24:10
Physicist Max Tegmark has approached this question from
24:14
another direction.
24:16
He has argued for what is known as the
24:19
mathematical universe hypothesis.
24:23
In the strongest form, physical reality itself is
24:26
a mathematical structure.
24:29
That is not the same as a computer
24:30
simulation.
24:32
There does not have to be a computer
24:35
outside, it does not have to be a
24:37
programmer. But suddenly, the difference between saying
24:41
the universe can be described by
24:43
mathematics, and the universe is mathematics,
24:48
becomes philosophically important.
24:53
And then we reach one of
24:55
the most famous elements of the simulation story.
24:58
Physicist Sylvester James Gates Jr. worked with colleagues
25:02
on mathematical structures connected to supersymmetry.
25:07
During this work, structures appeared that were related
25:12
to binary error-correcting codes.
25:14
Error-correcting codes are used in information
25:17
systems.
25:18
When the data is transmitted, noise can change
25:21
the bits.
25:22
A code can add structure to
25:25
the information, allowing errors to be detected or
25:28
corrected.
25:35
It is easy to understand why the story
25:38
became so popular.
25:39
Imagine the headline: physicist finds computer code in
25:42
the equations of the universe.
25:45
If reality is programmed, what could be more
25:47
obvious than finding code?
25:49
Gates himself has publicly discussed how strange and
25:54
interesting the connection is.
25:56
And inside the simulation story, the discovery has
25:59
become almost iconic.
26:02
We study the deepest mathematics of nature, we
26:05
search for fundamental symmetries, and there we find
26:09
structures related to mathematics used in information theory.
26:14
It fits almost perfectly.
26:17
But the simulation hypothesis does not have to
26:21
remain pure philosophy.
26:24
Imagine that the simulator uses a discrete space
26:30
-time grid, a kind of a three-dimensional
26:33
coordinate system.
26:35
If that grid has a specific orientation, extremely energetic
26:39
particles might reveal it.
26:42
This is where cosmic rays enter the
26:45
story.
26:47
Earth is constantly hit by particles from space,
26:50
some carry enormous amounts of energy.
26:54
If our universe were implemented on a
26:59
certain kind of numerical lattice, the structure of
27:03
the lattice might affect the highest energy particles
27:07
or the directions from which they arrive.
27:12
That's a fascinating idea.
27:15
Because we are not looking for a message
27:17
from the programmer, we are looking for the
27:19
limits of the hardware.
27:22
It is almost like a character inside a computer game
27:25
trying to discover the architecture of the graphics
27:28
card by studying the places where the game’s
27:31
physics begins to behave strangely.
27:36
So then comes the next one.
27:39
Why would anybody simulate us?
27:43
And then we need a motive.
27:46
Why would an advanced civilization use enormous resources
27:49
to simulate the year 2026?
27:52
There are many possibilities.
27:54
Historical research.
27:56
Future humans may want to understand their past.
28:00
They could create models of earlier civilizations. Not
28:03
just simple animations.
28:05
Living historical worlds.
28:08
They could change one variable.
28:10
What happens if a certain war never begins?
28:13
What happens if the Roman Empire does not
28:19
fall?
28:20
What if an important technology is invented
28:23
100 years earlier?
28:26
One base civilization could run millions of different
28:30
versions.
28:32
Another possibility is science.
28:35
We already use simulations to understand complex systems.
28:38
A civilization capable of simulating conscious societies could
28:42
study sociology, psychology, evolution, economics, and history through
28:51
complete virtual worlds.
28:54
A third possibility is entertainment.
28:57
That might sound almost insulting, but our own
29:00
civilization already spends enormous resources on games and
29:04
fictional worlds.
29:05
If technology one day allows completely convincing artificial
29:10
realities, why would our interest then disappear?
29:18
And then there's the simplest possibility.
29:20
They do it because they can.
29:22
If computing becomes extremely cheap, an ancestor
29:25
simulation may not require the resources of an
29:28
entire civilization, it could be a research project,
29:35
a museum exhibit, a game, a school project,
29:39
and perhaps the most uncomfortable possibility of all.
29:43
Not that our universe was created by gods,
29:46
but that it was created by beings who do
29:48
not consider themselves divine at all.
29:51
To them, our entire cosmos would simply be
29:55
one file among billions.
29:58
And the simulation
29:58
And the simulator? So what exists outside? This
30:02
is where our intuition begins to fail.
30:05
If our space and time are internal features
30:08
of the simulations, it may not, sorry, my
30:13
dog is calling me, sorry for the interruption,
30:17
my dog needed attention as well, really.
30:21
If our space and time are internal features
30:24
of a simulation, it may not make sense
30:26
to ask where the computer is located.
30:29
Outside may not be a location inside our
30:34
kind of space.
30:36
space.
30:38
The simulator's time may not move at the
30:40
same speed as ours.
30:42
A billion years for us might be calculated
30:44
in minutes.
30:46
The simulation could be paused, copied, restarted, run
30:49
again with different starting conditions.
30:52
And if the simulated beings cannot observe the
30:56
underlying level, they would never know about the
31:00
pause.
31:01
For them, time would simply continue, one moment
31:04
after another, exactly like now.
31:09
If you go down the rabbit hole, we
31:12
could stop here, but then we meet Donald
31:15
Hoffman.
31:16
Hoffman is a cognitive scientist.
31:18
For years he has developed an idea that
31:20
it is not the simulation hypothesis, but fits
31:25
surprisingly well beside it.
31:29
His starting point is evolution.
31:31
We normally assume that evolution has made our
31:34
senses better and better at showing us the world
31:37
as it really is.
31:39
If you see a predator more accurately, you
31:41
will survive.
31:42
If you see food more accurately, you will
31:45
survive.
31:46
So accurate perception should win.
31:50
Hoffman and his colleagues have challenged that intuition
31:52
using evolutionary models.
31:55
The basic point is that natural selection does
31:58
not reward philosophical truth.
32:03
It rewards fitness, survival and reproduction.
32:08
Imagine the interface on a computer.
32:11
There is a blue folder on the desktop.
32:13
The folder is not actually blue inside the
32:15
computer.
32:16
There is no tiny blue folder hiding among
32:20
the transistors.
32:22
The icon is a useful representation.
32:25
In fact, the entire purpose of the icon
32:28
is to hide the truth underneath.
32:31
If you had to control electrical voltages and
32:35
millions of transistors every time you wanted to
32:37
open a document, the computer would be almost
32:39
impossible to use.
32:41
The interface hides the complexity.
32:43
Hoffman asks: what if our senses do the
32:47
same thing?
32:48
Then the red tomato, the stone and the
32:51
tree may not be a direct picture of
32:53
fundamental reality.
32:55
They may be icons.
32:57
Evolution’s desktop.
32:59
That does not mean you should walk in
33:02
front of a truck because the truck is
33:04
not real.
33:05
An icon can still have very real consequences.
33:09
Delete the trash icon on your computer and
33:11
something real happens to the data,
33:15
even though the little picture of the trash
33:18
can does not look anything like the electronics
33:21
underneath.
33:23
If Hoffman is right in the stronger version
33:27
of his theory, the simulation question almost becomes
33:32
secondary.
33:33
Because if we are already experiencing something like
33:36
a virtual interface, the question is simply what
33:40
exists underneath it.
33:43
And Hoffman does not necessarily suggest a computer.
33:46
His own idea moves towards the possibility that
33:48
consciousness is more fundamental than space-time.
33:52
But the rabbit hole goes deeper.
33:55
Because if space and time are not fundamental,
33:59
then the normal objection to simulation,
34:03
“Where would the computer be?”
34:06
may be the wrong question.
34:09
It could exist in a structure that our
34:15
concept of location simply cannot describe.
34:18
And now we reach the document that appears
34:21
again and again online.
34:23
A document carrying American intelligence markings.
34:27
Its title is Analysis and Assessment of
34:30
Gateway Process.
34:31
It dates from 1983.
34:36
And it is important to understand the history
34:38
correctly.
34:41
The document was written by Lieutenant Colonel Wayne
34:43
McDonnell in connection with U.S. Army
34:46
Intelligence.
34:48
McDonnell had been asked to evaluate something called
34:51
the Gateway Experience.
34:53
Gateway was a program developed by the Monroe
34:56
Institute.
34:57
It worked with sound techniques and altered states
35:00
of consciousness.
35:01
In the report, McDonnell tries to create a
35:05
theoretical explanation.
35:07
He combines descriptions of the brain and resonance
35:09
with ideas from physics, holographic models, and
35:13
consciousness.
35:15
And this is where the document becomes interesting
35:18
in the discussions about simulation.
35:20
Because McDonnell describes reality using models in which
35:24
the physical world may not be the final layer.
35:28
Consciousness takes on a much larger role.
35:32
The report discusses energy, frequency, and a form
35:35
of holographic reality.
35:38
Online, the story is sometimes reduced to a
35:41
simple sentence.
35:42
It is more or less that the CIA
35:44
proved that the universe is a hologram.
35:47
Or the CIA knew that we were living
35:50
in a simulation.
35:51
But the real history of the document is
35:54
stranger and more interesting than the headline.
35:57
Because we really do have American military intelligence
36:02
spending time investigating a program
36:06
that claimed to influence consciousness in unusual
36:11
unusual way.
36:12
The document exists.
36:14
It is not an internet fake.
36:16
But what the document actually proves, that's a
36:19
very different question.
36:21
Let's return to that.
36:23
Layers upon layers, at this point several different
36:26
ideas begin to connect.
36:28
Bostrom says, if advanced civilizations create many
36:32
conscious simulations, simulated observers would become far more
36:37
common than biological observers.
36:40
Hoffman says, evolution may not give us access
36:44
to fundamental reality.
36:46
What we experience may function more
36:49
like a user interface.
36:51
Chalmers says, virtual worlds do not have to
36:55
be fake worlds.
36:56
Physics tells us space, time, matter and measurements
37:01
are far less intuitive at the fundamental level
37:04
than our senses suggest.
37:07
And information theory appears again and again in
37:10
modern physics.
37:12
Put all of this together and you get
37:16
an extremely powerful story.
37:19
Reality is information.
37:20
Our senses show us an interface.
37:26
The universe follows mathematical rules.
37:29
Observation has a strange role in quantum mechanics.
37:33
There are fundamental limits and conscious beings inside
37:37
the system have now started creating virtual worlds
37:41
themselves.
37:41
It almost looks like a trail.
37:44
Almost.
37:45
And that word is important because now we
37:49
change sides.
37:54
If you look at the criticism, we
37:56
start with Bostrom.
37:57
The first major misunderstanding is that he proved
38:00
that we are living in a simulation.
38:02
He did not.
38:04
He presented an argument with three possible outcomes.
38:07
Either almost no civilization reaches the technological level required,
38:12
or civilizations reach that level but create almost
38:16
no ancestor simulations, or we are probably among
38:22
the simulated observers.
38:24
The argument does not automatically tell us which
38:26
possibility is correct.
38:28
Bostrom himself has made this clear.
38:30
So a headline like “Oxford philosopher calculates a
38:34
99 percent chance that we are living
38:36
in The Matrix.
38:38
That one goes far beyond what the argument
38:41
actually establishes.
38:43
The main problem lies in the assumptions.
38:45
We do not know whether consciousness is
38:48
substrate independent.
38:51
We do not know whether a digital copy
38:54
of a human brain would be conscious.
38:57
It might behave exactly like a human while
39:01
experiencing nothing at all.
39:04
That is one of the great unresolved problems
39:06
in the philosophy of consciousness.
39:09
We also do not know whether civilizations can
39:12
reach a post-human technological level.
39:15
We have one data point, us, and we
39:19
are not there.
39:21
We do not even know whether the required
39:25
technology is physically possible.
39:30
Then there is the question of motivation.
39:32
Even if future civilizations can create conscious simulations,
39:37
we do not know whether they will.
39:41
Maybe it will be illegal.
39:43
If simulated beings are conscious, then a
39:46
simulation of human history also becomes a machine
39:49
for creating suffering.
39:50
The Holocaust, the plague, famine, wars, children dying,
39:56
millions or billions of people experiencing their lives
39:59
as completely real.
40:02
A civilization advanced enough to survive for millions
40:05
of years might decide that this is not
40:07
entertainment or research that they should simply
40:10
switch on.
40:13
Bostrom’s argument does not require one civilization to
40:16
create one simulation.
40:19
To create the overwhelming statistical effect, a very
40:22
large number of simulated observers must exist.
40:27
Then we reach a more technical issue.
40:31
Who exactly are we comparing ourselves with?
40:34
All humans, all human-like beings, all conscious
40:38
beings, all individual moments of consciousness.
40:42
If the simulators create trillions of completely different
40:47
conscious beings, which group should we consider
40:51
ourselves a random member of?
40:55
The probability depends on the reference class, and
40:58
suddenly a simple container of red and blue
41:00
balls became a lot more complicated.
41:04
Then we have James Gates.
41:06
The story about a computer code inside the
41:09
universe is a perfect example of how a genuinely interesting
41:13
scientific result can become more dramatic every time
41:17
it is repeated.
41:19
Gates and his colleagues found mathematical connections
41:22
between structures in supersymmetry and error-correcting codes.
41:27
That is fascinating, but it does not mean
41:30
that they have found a piece of software
41:32
written by the programmer of the universe.
41:35
Error-correcting codes are mathematical objects, and mathematical
41:39
structures appear in many different places.
41:43
The fact that similar mathematics is useful in
41:47
information theory and theoretical physics does not automatically
41:52
mean that the physics is running on a
41:55
computer.
41:56
Think about pi.
41:58
Pi appears in circles, but it also appears
42:01
in probability, in waves, in Fourier analysis, and
42:04
a lot of other areas of mathematics and
42:07
physics.
42:08
We do not conclude that all those systems
42:10
are secretly circles.
42:14
Mathematical structures can have surprising connections, and that
42:18
is one of the more fascinating features of
42:21
mathematics itself.
42:22
So, “computer code discovered inside the universe” is
42:28
a much stronger statement than the actual result
42:31
can support.
42:31
Is the Planck length a pixel?
42:35
No, at least not based on what we
42:38
actually know.
42:40
The Planck length is a natural scale created
42:43
from fundamental constants.
42:45
It marks roughly the region where both quantum
42:50
physics and gravity are expected to become important,
42:56
and where we...
42:59
and where our present theories are no longer
43:03
enough.
43:05
But it is not the same as measuring
43:08
the smallest pixel in the universe.
43:10
Space-time may turn out to be discrete,
43:14
Or it may not be discrete in that
43:16
simplest way.
43:17
So, we have something that sounds like an
43:20
anomaly, but often made much more concrete than
43:24
the physics allows.
43:26
So, does the universe render when we look?
43:31
That may be the most popular simulation comparison,
43:35
and one of the most dangerous.
43:38
Quantum mechanics does not require a conscious human
43:41
observer before something becomes real.
43:44
The word observer has caused an enormous amount
43:47
of confusion. A measurement can simply be a
43:52
physical interaction between systems.
43:56
There are interpretations of quantum mechanics involving wave
44:02
function collapse.
44:04
There is the Many-Worlds Interpretation.
44:08
Bohmian mechanics, relational interpretations, QBism, and others.
44:16
Experiments give us specific statistical results.
44:21
What those results mean about the deepest nature
44:24
of reality is another question.
44:28
We cannot simply take the double-slit experiment
44:31
and say, here's the proof that the universe,
44:34
graphics engine only renders reality when the player
44:37
looks at it.
44:38
It is an analogy.
44:40
It is a very attractive analogy, but it
44:42
is still an analogy.
44:46
The idea of looking for traces of a
44:49
space-time lattice is significantly more interesting because
44:53
it attempts to create observable consequences.
44:56
But here, too, we need to be precise.
44:59
If we fail to find the grid, we
45:02
have not proven that we are not living
45:04
in a simulation.
45:05
We have only challenged a particular kind of
45:08
simulation.
45:09
The simulator could use another architecture, another grid.
45:15
No classical lattice at all, or a method
45:18
that we cannot imagine.
45:21
And that reveals a fundamental problem with the
45:24
simulation hypothesis.
45:26
It can become almost infinitely flexible.
45:29
If we find the physical limit, that is
45:33
the computer’s limit.
45:35
If we do not find the limit, the
45:37
simulator is simply more advanced.
45:39
If we find randomness, random number generator, if
45:44
we find determinism, that's program code, if we
45:48
find discrete structure, pixels, and if we find
45:53
continuous structures, advanced simulation.
45:57
A theory that can explain every possible result
46:00
after the fact risks becoming extremely difficult to
46:05
test.
46:07
If you look at Hoffman’s work, it is
46:08
often taken further than the evidence allows.
46:12
His models concern the relationship between perception, truth,
46:16
and evolutionary fitness.
46:18
Even if we accept the strongest interpretation of
46:21
his conclusions, it does not follow that the universe
46:23
is running on an outside computer.
46:26
It could mean that the fundamental reality is
46:29
very different from our perceptual representation of it,
46:34
but that is a much broader conclusion.
46:36
And Hoffman’s own ideas move toward fundamental conscious
46:40
agents, not a simple Matrix-style computer, so
46:47
we should not build this chain.
46:49
Our senses do not show us fundamental reality,
46:53
therefore we live in a virtual reality.
46:56
Therefore, the virtual reality is produced by a
47:01
computer, therefore there is a programmer.
47:04
Every “therefore” introduces a new assumption.
47:09
And Gateway? The Gateway document is real,
47:13
but saying the CIA proved the simulation is
47:17
not an accurate description.
47:20
First, the document was written by Wayne McDonnell
47:23
of the U.S. Army Operational Group.
47:27
The fact that a copy later became available
47:30
through the CIA declassified archive does not make
47:33
it a scientific conclusion from the CIA.
47:37
Second, the document is an analysis of the
47:40
Gateway Experience.
47:41
McDonnell tries to build a theoretical framework around
47:44
the claimed mechanisms of the program.
47:46
He draws from a mixture of sources and
47:48
speculative models, and the fact that an intelligence
47:52
organization investigates an idea does not mean
47:56
that the idea has been confirmed.
47:59
Intelligence organizations investigate uncertain possibilities all the time.
48:03
They ask, could this work?
48:06
Is there something here?
48:08
What is the other side doing?
48:10
And what happens if it does
48:13
work?
48:15
The investigation itself is not the evidence.
48:18
So Gateway is a real and fascinating historical document,
48:22
but as evidence that reality is a computer simulation,
48:27
it is extremely weak.
48:29
Then we have the computing problem.
48:31
And that is perhaps the largest physical
48:35
objection.
48:37
How much computing power would it take to
48:40
simulate a universe?
48:41
If every particle, every quantum field, every interaction
48:46
in the observable universe must be simulated in
48:49
at full precision, the required resources become almost
48:53
impossible to imagine.
48:55
A common answer from the simulation hypothesis is
48:58
we do not need to simulate everything, only
49:00
what is being observed.
49:03
But that creates new problems, because the observable
49:07
universe is already enormous.
49:11
And observation is not limited to what human
49:15
eyes can see.
49:16
Telescopes detect light that has traveled for
49:18
billions of years.
49:21
We study the cosmic microwave background.
49:24
We observe galaxies from the early universe.
49:28
The simulator would either need to calculate this
49:32
history or create a completely consistent
49:34
past whenever we investigate it.
49:37
Perhaps it could be done.
49:39
But notice what is happening.
49:44
But every time a physical limitation appears, the
49:47
hypothesis can be saved by making the simulator
49:51
as more advanced.
49:53
Eventually, the simulator begins to have almost godlike
49:56
abilities.
49:58
And then we are no longer sure that
50:01
we are doing physics, metaphysics, or theology
50:06
using computer language.
50:11
So what actually holds up?
50:13
Well, let's sort through it.
50:16
What do we actually know?
50:17
We know that Nick Bostrom published his simulation
50:21
argument, and we know the argument is more
50:23
sophisticated than the popular version.
50:26
sophisticated than the popular version:
50:29
“We are almost certainly living in The Matrix.”
50:33
We also know that the argument depends on
50:35
assumptions about future technology, consciousness, and the
50:38
number of simulations advanced civilizations might create.
50:42
We know that physicists have seriously explored
50:45
certain simulated universe scenarios.
50:49
That is worth emphasizing.
50:51
The simulation hypothesis does not only exist on
50:54
YouTube.
50:55
There are scientific papers asking whether certain implementations
51:00
could leave measurable traces.
51:05
That is legitimate scientific thinking.
51:10
But it does not mean that physics has
51:12
generally accepted the idea that the universe is
51:14
simulated.
51:16
We know that modern physics describes a
51:19
reality far stranger than our immediate senses suggest.
51:23
Relativity, quantum mechanics, fields, entanglement, cosmology.
51:28
None of these proves simulation.
51:31
But they have made it difficult to defend
51:33
the simple idea that reality, at its
51:37
deepest level, looks exactly the way human
51:40
senses experience it.
51:42
We also know that perception is a biological
51:46
construction.
51:48
Color is a good example.
51:49
Electromagnetic radiation has wavelengths.
51:53
But the experience of red is produced by
51:57
own perceptual system.
52:01
Other animals experience the world through different senses
52:06
and different ranges of light.
52:09
It does not mean that the world is
52:11
unreal.
52:12
It means that experience and fundamental physical description
52:15
are not the same thing.
52:17
Hoffman takes this much further.
52:19
His work is interesting and serious enough to
52:22
discuss.
52:23
But the jump from “evolution may
52:27
not optimize perception for objective truth” to “the
52:33
universe is a computer simulation” has not been established.
52:37
The same is true for James Gates and
52:39
error-correcting codes.
52:41
The mathematical connections are real.
52:44
But the computer code metaphor goes beyond the
52:47
actual results.
52:49
The Gateway document is real.
52:51
The claim that it proves the CIA discovered
52:54
a simulation or a holographic universe does not
52:58
hold up.
52:59
And this is where we reach perhaps the
53:02
most important point.
53:03
At present, we have no observation that
53:06
requires the simulation hypothesis as its explanation.
53:10
We have no known glitches, no message from
53:14
the programmer, no observed pixel boundary that only
53:18
makes sense as part of a computer
53:23
simulation.
53:24
No experiment where the best established explanation
53:28
is that the universe is running on external
53:31
hardware.
53:32
That does not mean that the hypothesis is
53:35
impossible.
53:36
It means that possibility and evidence are two
53:38
different things.
53:39
And that difference matters.
53:44
So are we living in a simulation?
53:47
The most accurate answer is we do not
53:49
know.
53:51
And perhaps this is more interesting than either
53:54
yes or no.
53:55
Because the simulation hypothesis forces us to separate
53:58
three questions that are often mixed together.
54:01
The first question is could reality be fundamentally
54:04
different from the world that our senses show
54:07
us?
54:07
Here, the answer is almost certainly yes.
54:11
In fact we already know this.
54:14
Our senses do not show us radio waves.
54:17
It does not show us quantum fields.
54:19
They do not show us the curvature of space
54:22
-time.
54:23
They give us a biologically useful
54:27
world.
54:28
The second question is: could a conscious world exist
54:32
The second question is could conscious worlds exist
54:36
as artificially created information structures?
54:39
We do not know.
54:41
We have not created an artificial world where
54:44
we can demonstrate that its inhabitants have subjective
54:49
conscious experiences.
54:51
And the third question is: is our universe
54:53
actually such a world?
54:55
Here the evidence is missing.
54:57
And perhaps that is where the mystery should
54:59
remain.
55:00
Bostrom's argument is interesting precisely because it does
55:04
not require strange lights in the sky or
55:07
secret documents.
55:08
It takes our own technological development and follows
55:11
a particular line of reasoning into the
55:14
future.
55:15
If consciousness can be simulated, if civilizations survive,
55:21
if they gain enormous computing power, and if
55:25
even some of them create huge numbers
55:29
of conscious worlds, then the statistics change.
55:34
But every one of those small words, “if,”
55:38
carries enormous weight.
55:40
Maybe no civilization ever gets that far.
55:43
Maybe consciousness cannot be copied into a computer.
55:47
Maybe the universe is fundamentally impossible to compute
55:50
in that way.
55:52
Maybe there are ethical limits.
55:56
Maybe there are physical limits or perhaps somewhere
55:59
on a level of reality we do not
56:04
have words to describe, someone solved all
56:06
these problems a very long time ago.
56:10
We can tell stories about that, but stories
56:13
are not evidence.
56:14
And still, there is one thing about the
56:16
simulation hypothesis I find difficult to completely shake
56:20
off.
56:20
Imagine that it's true.
56:23
Not maybe.
56:23
Imagine that we are really living inside a
56:26
simulation.
56:27
Tomorrow morning, you wake up. The sun rises. The
56:30
coffee tastes the same. Rain is still wet.
56:34
Your family is still your family.
56:36
Someone you love does not suddenly mean less to
56:42
you.
56:42
Pain still hurts.
56:44
Happiness feels like happiness.
56:46
The universe does not suddenly become unreal.
56:49
We have simply discovered something about its deepest
56:52
level. And perhaps that is the strangest consequence
56:55
of the entire story.
56:57
Even if we one day prove that the
57:00
universe is simulated, life inside it would still
57:05
be our reality.
57:07
We would still be here on a small
57:09
planet orbiting an ordinary star trying to understand
57:13
the system we are part of.
57:15
Whether we call that system nature, mathematics, information,
57:19
or code.
57:23
Thank you for listening.