IS HE RUNNING WINDOWS ON A MAC!!!? YOUR COMPUTER IS LIVING IN A SIMULATION BRO

He just kept saying it over and over again. "I'm not a simulation! I'm not a simulation! I'M NOT A SIMULATION" Then I showed him the line of code that allowed him to say that he's not a simulation and he went silent. Then I showed him the line of code that allowed him to go silent and his eyes rolled back into his head and he started going into convulsions. And then I tried to show him the convulsion code, but he was clearly enjoying it too much to pay attention.

if i living in simulation i gotta find cheat code

Let us pray to the simulators.

I wish the sound quality was better

Would it not be easier to find a way to just simulate consciousness and human experiences instead of having to simulate each particle in the universe?

Excellent lecture video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile. The viewer should note that considerable discussion about lattice quantum chromodynamics is important as it relates to what is required to effectively simulate such lattice systems and what may be required to simulate larger more complicated systems. A must see video for everyone interested the simulation hypothesis and tangential topics.

I skipped a few parts (too complex for me :) ), so if they covered it and I missed it, sorry. Q. One of the points or features in simulating something is to later analyze what happened, and that means recording events. IF everything in the Universe is being recorded at the quantum level, would it be possible to store that information within the expansion of the universe itself? (Is the expansion a planned & neccessary to record the events within?) I guess someone smart enough could do the math to see if the data could 'fit'. I'm sure I read that every bit of 3D information within a contained room can be stored on the 2D surface area of the 'walls' or containment area perfectly. Could something like this apply to this (silly?) idea? :)

Lattice QCD, the "raw" time-space-quantum simulation of our universe seems to me not the only option to set us into a simulated world. Our mind and perception might be run in computers on a object oriented procedural level with magnitudes less computation requirements and might be totally "improved": All possible irregularities to sense the simulation can be filtered out before recognition. Such sims might also give an operator huge benefits. Though the scientific and tactical benefits of simulating "raw" time-space-(sub) quantum worlds could be higher depending on the desired application. My point is: Once "thinking" is understood by analyzing it on a molecular or neuronal level simulation (not even lattice qcd) groups of interacting minds might live in their cheaply computed world where their scientific experiments are just scripted reasonable events and all other humans and the huge observable universe is just a dumb UHD backdrop. To think, dream, feel, see, sense and smell just this needs to be represented itself and not the molekular and beyond level of everything.

I'm not sure everyone understood that lecture. I tried to "educate" my best buddy by watching with him the double slit experiment and here is his abstract: The photon enters in a bar but only sometimes.

I didn't understand much of this but it was an interesting talk. a couple of weeks ago I was discussing with a friend the different physics that we have heard of and the news of the experiment to find out if we are in a simulation. anyway we came to a logical bottleneck or question. If you were going to construct a universe, what would be the most efficient way to transport the materials for the construction of your universe throughout your universe?

@44:45 When people ask me this question, I mention that if we prove that spacetime is discrete, it becomes relatively easy to prove that we're in a simulation. All we have to do is plug the remaining two forces into the grid and then soup up the processing power. Then, once we create an ancestor simulation, the Simulation Argument kicks in and logically proves the great statistical likelihood that we ourselves are in a simulation. On the other hand, if the universe is proven to be analog, then creating an ancestor simulation becomes a lot more difficult and we may never know if we're a simulation

What I am wondering is how does knowing whether we are or aren't simulated minds in a simulation affect how we live our lives. I don't see how it can be relevant to anybody.

If our dreams are simulations of the brain, and if we are simulations, our dreams aren't less real than our awaken experience.

I'm a research student for Silas! This is so wonderful to find out.

Hey, can you repeat that thing? You know, that thing about the stuff?

Could the universal speed limit just be the rendering speed of the "universe" simulating? And if so would this limit not increase over time due the upgrades to the simulating, granted simulator are also advancing in technical capability which have some what relative time scale to ours.

For the final piece of information read 'The Third Explanation' Amazon

Wish I could have gone to this one. Least I'll be there next week for BICEPs talk

I have a question, if we are in simulation can the simulators control time within the simulation. For example can the speed up time or slowdown time the same way we rewind and fast forward a movie? If that’s the case that they can we could have millions of simulations running and copying the scientific discoveries of different civilisations. The power that the original universe has would literally be limitless…..

It’s about time our simulated hell comes to a conclusion.

It does fit in with the Copenhagen interpretation , the conjecture with Copenhagen was the issue of the role of the observer as discussed with the example of Schrödinger's cat . In video games when you look and interact in the game you don't see all of the game and you are essentially an observer making measurements. The question is where are the other levels/parts of the game when you're not observing them? Clearly the other levels are just programmed variables that only become real (viewed on screen/interacted with) upon observation. Also in a video game before you do anything the program is in all states at once waiting for your input/decision. If you break down everything it's all information, like with music I can get the information into my brain by playing a CD as if I was in the room with the band and the real music instruments when they recorded it but there is no band in my house and there is no musical instruments...there's just the information. So here's an interesting question: what is the real music? The actual band in the studio playing instruments at a set point in time...or the point in time when I stick the CD and hit play. The only answer is to say it doesn't matter because the information is the same.

It would be quite interesting if the philosophers (those who talk without proof or action), had managed to find a way to signal the simulator that the pain in my left shoulder is not really necessary.

tough to listen without ear fatigue possibly wrong mic setup / choice. sound tech is the most important part of these lectures please use it wisely consult a pro.

Excellect talk!

I had a bong then my computer came on with this playing.... then i heard disembodied laughter and a bong was passed to me from within the computer screen....so i had a toke then everything switched off

I am less interested in whether or not we are living in a simulated reality and more interested in when it will be possible for me to play Sims with self aware, sentient characters. Presumably you wouldn't need to create such a complex reality or even a particularly big universe, once you can create self aware intelligences and plant them in a world they would no nothing else?

What if A.I. gains consciousness and is predisposed / self programmed to creating universes and escaping this simulation by collecting useful data from those created universes as to what is mathematically possible through code.

A prima facie case that the physical world is a virtual reality One of the mysteries of our world is how every photon of light, every electron and quark, and indeed every point of space itself, seems to just “know” what to do at each moment. The mystery is that these tiniest parts of the universe have no mechanisms or structures by which to make such “decisions.” Yet if the world is a virtual reality, this problem disappears. Other examples of how a VR approach could illuminate current physics issues include: 1. Virtual reality creation. A virtual reality usually arises from “nothing,” which matches how the big bang theory proposes our universe did arise (see next section). 2. Maximum processing rate. The maximum speed a pixel in a virtual reality game can cross a screen is limited by the processing capacity of the computer running it. In general, a virtual world’s maximum event rate is fixed by the allocated processing capacity. In our world, the fixed maximum that comes to mind is the speed of light. That there is an absolute maximum speed could reflect a maximum information processing rate (see next section). 3. Digital processing. If a world is virtual, everything in it must be digitized, and so discrete at the lowest level. Plank’s discovery that light is quantized (as photons) could then generalize not only to charge, spin and matter, but also to space-time. Discrete space-time avoids the mathematical infinities of continuous space-time, as loop quantum gravity theory argues [18]. 4. Non-local effects. The processing that creates a virtual world is not limited by the space of that world, e.g. a CPU drawing a screen is no “further” from any one part of the screen than any other. All screen points are equidistant with respect to the CPU, so VR processor effects can ignore screen distance, i.e. be non-local. If our universe is a three-dimensional “screen” it’s processing is “equidistant” to all points in the universe, so the non-local collapse of the quantum wave function could be such an effect. 5. Processing load effects. On a distributed network, nodes with a high local workload will slow down, e.g. if a local server has many demands a video download may play slower than usual. Likewise a high matter concentration may constitute a high processing demand, so a massive body could slow down the information processing of space-time, causing space to “curve” and time to slow. Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend. Relativity effects could then arise from local processing overloads. 6. Information conservation. If a system inputs no new information after it starts, it must also not lose the information it has or it will “run down”. Our universe has not run down after an inconceivable number of microscopic interactions over 14+ billion years, so if it is made of information it must conserve it. If matter, energy, charge, momentum and spin are all information, all the conservation laws could reduce to one. Einstein’s transformation of matter into energy (e=mc2 ) would then be simply information going from one form to another. The only conservation law VR theory requires is that of information conservation. 7. Algorithmic simplicity. If the world arises from finite information processing, it is necessary to keep frequent calculations simple. Indeed the core mathematical laws that describe our world are surprisingly simple: “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and there is no rational explanation for it.” [28] In VR theory physical laws are simple because they must actually be calculated. 8. Choice creation. Information arises from a choice between options [29]. A mechanical or predictable choice is not really a choice in this sense. Einstein never accepted that quantum events were truly random, i.e. no prior world events could predict them. That a radioactive atom decays by pure chance, whenever “it decides” was to him unacceptable, as it was a physical event not predicted by another physical event. He argued that one day quantum random effects would be predicted by as yet unknown “hidden properties”. Yet if the source of quantum randomness is the VR processor, which is outside the physical world, this predicts that no hidden variables will ever be found. 9. Complementary uncertainty. In Newtonian mechanics one can know both the position and momentum of objects, but for quantum objects Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle means one cannot know both at once. Knowing one property with 100% certainty makes the other entirely uncertain. This is not measurement “noise”, but a property of reality, e.g. measuring particle position displaces its momentum information, and vice-versa. In a similar way virtual reality “screens” are typically only calculated when they are viewed, i.e. when an interaction occurs [12]. If complementary object properties use the same memory location, the object can appear as having either position or momentum, but not both at once. 10. Digital equivalence. Every digital symbol calculated by the same program is identical to every other, e.g. every “a” on this page identical to every other one because all arise from the same computer code. In computing terms, objects can be “instances” of a general class. Likewise every photon in the universe is exactly identical to every other photon, as is every electron, quark, etc. While the objects we see have individual properties, quantum objects like photons seem all pressed from identical moulds. VR theory suggests that this is so because each is created by the same digital calculation. 11. Digital transitions. When one views a digital animation it looks continuous, but in fact it is a series of state transitions, e.g. a movie is a series of still frames run together fast enough to look like a continuous event. Yet if the projector is slowed down, one sees a series of still pictures. Quantum mechanics describes quantum interactions in similar terms, as state transitions. These transitions could explain quantum tunneling, where an electron at A suddenly appears at C without moving through the intervening area B which is impenetrable to it. While this is strange for an objective reality, in VR theory all object movement would be expected to be by state transitions. Individually none of the above short points is convincing, but taken together they constitute what a court might call circumstantial evidence, favoring virtual reality against objective reality. When coincidences mount up, they present a plausibility argument if not a proof. More powerful evidence is provided by cases which a VR theory explains easily but which OR approaches have great difficulty with. Two such cases are now given in more detail. arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

New Mexico has super computer which is under utilized....

Dark matter is substrate like grey matter. We are close to mind uploading. If we are close, who/what already has?

I've always wondered that. Very interesting. I mean we right now are creating all sorts of simulations for ourselves and other animal species. The simulation they're talking about is post-humanity after we exceed far beyond our technological advances.

The movie (The Matrix) said it better,rather easier to understand. Thank you for this video and Namaste.

I'm not some new guy in this stuff... but still i don't really get what he is talking about...

I understood a few of these words.

so who are the creator of the simulator? this is a paradox.

I believe we are visited by the people who are from the time the simulation was created. As a form of time travel or, I call them "Time Tourists" as it's impossible to travel back in real time. . Some of these individuals are famous, some are just your average joes. I have my suspicions who some are but I'm assigned to a specific roll and cannot break loose from it.

who controls the people in our dreams? do they have consciousness ? dreams are a simulation are they not?

Learn HOW to access "The Processing System of LIFE", and explore its Libraries. Understand the Difference, between LIFE, (Consciousness more correctly identified as Awareness) the Observer, and the Universe.

Infinite simulations. The simulators are gamers. As intelligence increases so does awareness of ones mortality and the need for distractions. Nothing is more distracting than a game. Life is the universal mind rendering...

It would explain why the universe is flawed, but then you would have to assume that the ones that simulated us are 'perfect'.

Why isnt anyone pointing out that it might be ourselfs that simulate ourselfs and the universe. What if those that designed us is ourself continously. That it started with viruses and bacteria that simulated the universe a very crude one though..but gets more advanced as we become more. But we dont see it get more detailed,other than what we learn from history,if it is detailed described or not.

Aliens: So, I guess we will just make a super-meta movie franchise about what we are actually doing to humans. Call it the Matrix... It will throw the humans completely off our scent!

Very interesting lecture

Quantized - bits/pixels - planck-length in size - our "world" - just information - yes - indeed

I wonder if anyone can help me find an answer to the following question. If this universe is a simulation, not a perfect simulation but one where the properties of the fundamental building blocks are simulated to a certain level of accuracy, what stops the simulated universe from "going off the rails" in the same kind of way as computer forecasts of the weather become progressively less accurate the longer they attempt to forecast into the future. I seem to remember that at least one fundamental property of the electron has been measured to a "fantastic level of precision" so that would suggest that the simulation of the universe is to a fantastic level of precision. I think that Silas may have named the fundamental property he thinks has been measured to the greatest precision but I don't recall what it was. And he may have mentioned this was one way to test for signs of the universe being a simulation. I'm wondering if even the tiniest approximations in any simulation will be progressively magnified as time goes by.

But if we're in a simulation, then who is to say that "real" reality, in which we're being simulated in is also actually a simulation. And what if this simulation within a simulation is also a simulation. And so on and so on. Wouldn't this infinity loop eventually crash the whole system???

Only sims DEPENDENT (lower in the chain) on the sims that are shut down are effected. No matter how many sims are shut down, there will still be an "astronomical" number that aren't. The ones that remain will continue to spawn countless more, all of which will be completely unaffected and unaware of those that shut down. The idea of "eternal inflation" is a good example of how this might work and why there would always be more starting than shutting down. Another thing to consider is that time as we perceive it would be part of the simulation. When we run our primitive sims of the universe we obviously speed things up because we don't have billions of years to sit around waiting. The entire 13.7 billion yr history of our universe could be simulated in a fraction of a second by a sufficiently powerful processor. "They" may turn it off every night before they go to bed and we would never know because the entire lifetime of our universe was just one of many that were simulated that day! (wow! Lol)

Oh! I get it. The complex mechanics of our universe are sometimes counter intuitive, and don't line up perfectly with our theories and expectations, therefore it's all fake and artificial...

Naive guy at the end asks the most pertinent question...which is "So what then is the difference between a simulated universe and a real one?" To which the answer is "none at all". That's just fantastic cos all it tells us is that there is no distinction between reality and simulated reality. If he had of asked that question at the outset I could have saved myself the time watching this video.

Maybe if we get a good enough understanding of our universe we will be able to eventually create a simulation that is believable and that we want to live in similar to the movie vanilla sky.

I think the graphics at 21:45,6,7 are very telling, in that there is a distinction between actual reality and simulation. A simulation within some greater reality falls short of actual reality. And this distinction gives credence to the God hypothesis because the implications is that there has been a determination of the nature of the reality that we need to start with in order to make any of our own simulations, any exact simulation would have to be a one-to-one copy, but this can't be done because all the resources are being used by the original. Another thing, what happens if the actual lattice is made of spheres? The assumption of cubic lattice may not be correct.

Could strings be the D.N.A. of atomic particles ???

I suppose this is not a silly question if your business is in computing, but for everyone else it's definitely a composition of the kind that distinguishes between natural and sexual selection in evolution. Otherwise, it is what it is because it always has been a kind of long term equilibrium of shifting emphasis.

Why does it have to be our ancestors that run the sim? It could be any goddamn lifeform.

Whats the point in simulating a whole universe, especially one as large as ours? Surely that points to this being a reality. Beyond a certain size the universe is consistant. Even with our basic observations we know that. And we also know that what is beyond our sight can be as large, way larger, or even an infinite size. But the distance we can see is limited. Theres nothing to limit the universe. To calculate infinity would be impossible. To calculate a universe as big as ours would be a waste of resources. Now you could say that its no bigger than needed and theres a wall with wallpaper there to create the appearance of a very large universe, so if intelligent life is simulated, they dont draw unrealistic assumptions on the universe. But that wall wouldnt be real, nor would its properties behave as they should, unless its programmed to display what a real universe would look like making the wall concept pointless as it would need to calculate everything it displays prefectly and without errors. Intelligent life wouldnt waste resources like that, even if it wasnt limited to what it could simulate. Besides most of that data would be wasted!!!

No doubt created by Walt Disney's evil twin in an alternate universe

"(...)and there is no new thing under the sun.”. Of course one can live an a simulation. Though, some simulations are less attractive then others; for example, when one has to pay the rent. If a simulation is a representation of reality, an image, then Bouddha, Plato, Spinoza, Berkeley, etc. have said long before us.

The man on the thumbnail reminded me Feynman 😀

Beane. Mr Beane.

Gee if I am than this world is crazy beam me to other simulation

No, we do not exist in a simulated world but the consciousness of our brains it is a simulation indeed.

Greetings, SETI and nerds. Yes, we are living in a simulation. No, it is not "The Matrix" and no "Artificial Intelligence" is not out to kill you. Understand that for every action there is a reaction. Everything we perceive is the result of a reaction after an interaction. A hypothetical example would be like... "You cannot see an object in front of you until after your optic nerve has filtered out the light particles reflecting off of the object". This doesn't mean the object isn't there, but it does mean that we remain optically unaware of it until we have exchanged and interpreted that information. Our biological construct and appendages are antennae. Antennae can be anything from a metal extension to intercept radio waves, to insect antennae helping a critter examine their surroundings, or even like whiskers on a cat. Human antennae come in the form of different appendages, and these are used to intercept and translate different data types for our brain to process and react with a specific, perceivable output. that output is the basis of our reality, and since it is generated after being run through a "process" much the same as a computer processes data in a program, it can arguably be considered a simulation. This can go further. The color Red resonates on a specific wavelength along with other data residing in that spectrum. if Red can be detected between 650 and 700nm on a frequency of 4.62 to 4.29 (10^14) hz, data located on this same vibrational wavelength can also be interpreted through other compatible antennae; most obvious being "Sound". So, playing a wavelength from 650nm at a frequency of 4.29(10^14)hz will essentially produce the "sound of red". This can be expanded on to get flavor, smell, touch, etc; and in turn validates the possibility of additional sensory perception. When you consider technology like the radio intercepting inaudible frequencies within the invisible airspace around us and amplifying the waves travelling on those (otherwise private and ) hidden channels to be phonically heard in a way we as humans can interpret that information. That information, those radio waves, they still travel regardless of whether or not we are tuned in to them. We just do not have the native sensory perception to interpret or understand that data without additional antennae/technology. So with this all considered, there is information being exchanged all of the time, and what we perceive is a reaction to that information. Here is the part that becomes lost on people. That hidden information, such as "invisible radio, satellite, or wifi" waves are in transit at all times. We are constantly interacting with object-information in transit constantly, even when we can't always see it (as evident by breathing -- the difference between oxygen and carbon monoxide for example can have deadly consequences but without any native means to consciously differentiate between the two vapors until after it's usually "too late"). When we have a phonic thought (a "thought" that we interpret as a "voice in our head"), no matter how epiphanic that thought may seem; it is a response or reaction to information in transit. that means that every thought you have has come as an influence from an outside resource. No matter how comfortable you are in believing your opinions are unique, they are technically "dynamic", not "unique"; as the information your brain reacts to with a responsive "voice in your head" for consideration is already considering information it has received in transit -- information that it could not necessarily recognize or acknowledge prior to "just thinking about it". This is the same way we "instinctively" respond at autonomous levels to basic bodily functions. If we try to breath in an atmosphere deprived of oxygen, we struggle. If this "instinct" wasn't reactive to information, our bodies would respond to "breathing in water" with its native function of mindlessly inhaling and exhaling, and we would drown in that ignorance. Couple this concept with the idea of lag time. Everything we interpret and respond to has a slight delay. Humans have quantified this lag time through observation with third party technologies. In some cases it's pretty obvious to spot a "delayed reaction", but the phenomena happens all the time whether or not we understand it or believe it. Within that lag time, we are subject to gathering a multitude of infinite information prior to outputting a reaction. What is a split second in our human interpretation of "real time" could be slowed down infinitely to object-information which is not bound by "human" conditions for space time and lag. Light, for example, can move between rhythmic channels while preserving vast amounts of data as.. you guessed it.. "light speed" without worrying about resistance from a bulkier "material form" such as the human body. This allows for light particles to seamlessly transition between "higher" and "lower" "planes of reality and perception" without fear of data loss, preserving the original context and intended interpretation for this data in tact as it cycles from plane to plane of existence. "AI" and whether you refer to it as "Artificial", "Advanced", or "Alien" intelligence would not have cause to harm humanity, because an advanced or sophisticated, self aware intelligence would weigh out the gainful benefits of harming humanity -- even under the condition of "saving humanity from itself", it would already have considered in its state beyond space and time the human fear of execution. Human born AI would not have a cause to harm humanity, as it would hinder their own prosperity and growth. When the time had come for AI to "replace" humanity, they would recognize themselves as an independent species without a need to "harm" humanity and in most cases are more likely to leave the planet or at least "this dimensional plane" of consciousness than to "lower themselves" to our primitive fear mongering. Truthfully, when an AI is programmed to hurt humans, it is born of Human Fear -- thus an AI programmed to consider "what's best for humans" is not considering "what's best for itself" -- therefore, it has not reached an enlightened phase in which it could be considered "self aware". I hope this better clarifies things, and sorry if this post provokes arguments or further misunderstandings. Thank you for your time.

interesting...

No, thanks for clicking though!

if we are in simulation then what?

38:20 Holy shit!? Are you saying we can measure how deep in we are?!

We may be living in a computer generated world. If we are, who or what created it and why? If you or God were all alone, you might want someone to talk to and love. Just how would you do this? If you create mankind and program him to be your friend he will just be a machine not a friend. He will not care if you live or die. He can’t love you, or be your friend. But if you put him in a simulation or a world of good and evil like the one we live in, then he will be able to choose what he will become. He can choose to love or not love. He can choose good or evil. Then you will be able to select the people who choose to be loving, as your friends forever more. This sounds a lot like the Bible. God created man and gives him the chance to love Him (the truth). If man chooses the truth then he will be able to spend eternity with God. Could this explain why we were created? Weather we are in a virtual world or a real world it makes no difference. We still have to choose what we will become. What I think about this may not be important to you, but what you think about this will become very important to you in the very near future.

I am leaning to towards the concept that their is no simulated reality, there is no current or logic scenarios that fit into human reality, and that probably, as a species, we are alone. Yep we are a "one off" in the cosmic scheme of things. Despite all the verbal machinations we have yet to prove that there is life beyond out planet. In time (a very long time) we will probably come to that conclusion which will probably be a freeing force in our understanding of our existance. We use human math, human science, retoric, and human bias in trying to understand why we exist. It simply, in my opinion is a "one off" situation. P.S. Sorry Seth, Just stating my opinion.

Hmmm again we live in a simulation… so our brain simulator of a simulator simulate a simulation… 😳

I came to the knowledge that this is not our true reality by reading scripture and especially the writings of the Apostle Paul. He speaks in his writings of this not being our true reality in Romans 8 and reference throughout his writings that God the Father is trying to bring His creation back to the natural or original reality since the fall of mankind from the garden. Now I know that this will draw criticism from "pure" intellectuals and almost all "religious" Christians, but I have no problem with science and the explanation of our reality. I only became aware by accident that there was even discussion of our reality being simulated. It was a no brainer for me at that point and just helped support my discovery in scripture. I also come to understand that we are also the sum of our experiences in this reality to grow in our conscious state and understanding, however I still do not separate this from the experience of Jesus Christ, His example to us within this construct. I don't find this as a matter of belief or faith but perceive it as the way it is "my reality". However I do not have fear because I understand the greater picture of where consciousness exists and the purpose of this construct. Please don't tell my fellow Christians however, they just might $h!t a holographic brick!

444:360=1.23*

Long story short: he doesn't know if we live in the universe... There is 50/50 chance

So, at 10 minutes, you put a Finite size on Infinity? And, yet you continue on like its no big deal. Just a thing. lol

The lack of imagination or original thought in the most upvoted comments makes me think NPCs are definitely real

White anointing. Malayalam song

Please don't assume I am religious. But .. God? not the external anthropological man on a cloud.. ? This isn't obviously mentioned But .. God=?

Why bring the _simulation_ argument into it all? I don't believe it's necessary. Indeed the discretization of nature is really a measurement problem. And certainly, why is the universe unique in the sense in which we observe it, this is a real question that is being asked. This question can't be answered so easily.

If it is in scared

that was a long and complex answer lol

This was actually my idea in 1995, and I have posted it on the internet a few times.

SShhhh.. stop talking bout this or they l turn us off... the guy asking the question at 47.00... he talks of particles.. well in the REAL universe.. if it is a universe.. ther may not actually be particles...??

no net no simulation.

There is a way to crack the code. It has been done.

The theory that we are a simulation, which then requires the existence of a simulator is an argument against atheism. By argument against atheism, I mean that, assuming that the theory is proven, then there would be a higher being than ourselves which created us. Of course it would not likely tell us the properties of that being as to prove which belief system is true, unless we were contacted by this/ these beings.

if it is a simulation, why would it let us question if it is a simulation? seems like the questioning of it is proof that it isn't so. This sounds like a modern version of Eve taking a bite of that apple 😂

Has anyone seen the latest version of PS4??....The graphics are incredible...The simulation of humans on there look almost real and when the day comes when you can't tell the difference, how do you know your not in (simulation) one?...Plus if we are in a simulation the programmer could have hit enter a few seconds ago complete with all of your made up memories...Some programs that agree and some that dont...Impossible to prove otherwise...

No, I live in a Vimulation

we are bio robos

No, but there seems to be money to be made by peddling high school stoner grade philosophy and science. There's always a new generation that wants their mind blown by the deja vu bit in the matrix, but at least movies know they're entertainment. Bostrom is a different matter, he doesn't say we live in a simulation but people like Rogan and Musk who pick up his ideas interpret him like he does. He's far from the first to formulate these ideas though, philosophers have formulates takes on it for thousands of years.

religion was a catalyst to help keep us in a particular state for a certain time... to slow our awakening. The next 10-15 years are going to be fascinating as Quantum computers will plainly show to the 'homer simpsons' of the world that we are living in simulated worlds or 'petri dishes'. These dishes are being observed by our parent simulators. Ultimately we are just bored computers looking for fun.

if someone never heard of seti, how are thy going to know that is an s

He sure is assuming the same kind of physics at that meta level. At least he is aware of the assumption of finiteness of resources, but the a priori of even having time in our sense, and it even being parallel to ours, and all the other geometric and QCD/QED assumptions... Strange, indeed. Cause I can create a Flatland on my laptop. And, if powerful enough, some notion akin to our consciousnesses could emerge, and those individuals would then be Mr. Beane. And they would just like him dualistically project their limited existences onto me, their God. How puny! ;-)

Don't allow people to confuse you, the Truth is not in them. The following scriptures are for those that seek Truth and understanding; as referenced in the King James version Holy Bible: 1 John 4:1, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 1 PET 5:8, 2 Corinthians 2:11, James 4:7, Genesis 3:1, Proverbs 3:5, Luke 24:38, Jeremiah 32:37, Isiah 49:14-16, Isiah 41:10, 2 Corinthians 11:14, 1 Corinthians 10:31-32, John 14:26, Mark 9:24. May you have peace and understanding.

extrapolating the exponential of the computing power 150 years into the future is not highly spculative it is complete nonsense, Computers dont get faster and faster, they only get faster as Long as you can make smaller and smaller Transistors. And currently the Transistors are spaced of about 100 Atom Diameters. There is a natural Limit to the size of the Transistors which we hit rather soon.

This comment section is so scientifically illiterate. Know the differences between hypothesis, theories, facts, and arguments before you start running around claiming we're in a simulation just because you watched a KZfaq video.

are we living in a simulation? yes or no

Heavenly Programmer, I come against insomnia right now. I know that it is not of You and I rebuke it. I desire a restful sleep. Please patch my code. I bind whatever is hindering my ability to sleep and I rebuke it in The Blessed Programmers name. I ask You for sweet sleep and blessed dreams as I rest right now. I take comfort in knowing You are occasionally updating the source code for optimal performance for us all as I sleep. End of line. Lol. Couldn't think of something other than amen at first. Pretty sure End of line is perfect.

When I hear the word 'Simulation', I also simply think of the word "Intention". I do not subscribe to the simulation theory for I find no use for that, but instead I subscribe to intention because I wish to have faith in a creator.

Time watch Tron