December 13, 2019 • 41 mins
What is the philosophical argument about living in a computer simulation? What does the singularity have to do with it? How might we be able to tell if we’re in a computer simulation? Learn about the nature of perception with Lauren and Jonathan.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production of I Heart Radios
How Stuff Works. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff.
I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with
I Heart Radio and I love all things tech than Today,
we're going to examine a classic episode of tech Stuff.
(00:24):
It's a Friday, so it's time for another classic, and
today's topic is are we living in a computer simulation?
This is a philosophical question that has received a lot
of attention and back in Lauren Voge Obama and I
really thought it'd be a lot of fun to explore
that whole concept. So enjoy this classic episode do we
(00:47):
live in a computer simulation? And in fact, the reason
why we're even talking about this is a few years
ago a philosopher, and boy is that a surprise, no one.
A philosopher by the name of Nick Bostrom who works
at a little um yeah tiny, like in academic circles.
(01:10):
They have some swagger. It's the University of Oxford. Yeah, yeah,
as far as the boffins go at Swagger City, right anyway, Yeah,
he works at the University of Oxford and he's a
philosopher employed there. Who so his job is to sit
around and think about the nature of reality. And he
presented an interesting thought experiment. He said, do we live
(01:32):
in a computer simulation? Is everything that we experience and
everything that's around us actually just the product of some
sort of computer program in a universe larger than our own?
And we'll talk about you know. What led him into
this kind of line of thinking and his arguments presenting
(01:53):
the likelihood that we are actually in a computer simulation.
But before we begin in that, I thought it'd be
interesting to look back quite a way. Is actually because
this idea that reality as we understand it is not
not exactly new at all. We've been pondering for basically
as long as we could ponder things, whether or not
(02:15):
our our experience of reality is reality. Yeah, and and
part of that is understandable. I mean, we know for
a fact that reality consists of stuff that is beyond
our perception, right, Oh, sure, absolutely. Like I don't know
when the last time you looked into the infrared spectrum was,
but the last time for me was never because it's
outside my visual acuity. I can't see in the infrared spectrum,
(02:37):
all right, And there's lots of lots of things above
our scale of hearing, above and below our scale of hearing. Um,
if you talk to sharks, they can they can hear
different stuff, but my dogs totally different stuff that I
can hear. Yeah, and and even even before we had
as much scientific data about that as we do now,
you know, if we had done the research, we can
tell you the exact spectrums that we can see within
(02:58):
but outside of visual which is a pretty good word
for it. But um, but but yeah, you know it's
it's even long, long, long times before that people are
pondering these questions and all kinds of literature. Uh goes
into literature and philosophy right right all the back in
one one of the famous famous examples of this kind
of philosophy was proposed by a fellow named Renee Descartes,
(03:23):
about whom Monty Python had some rude things to sing.
If you know that your philosopher's song. But Descartes, um,
I think therefore I am uh fellow. He wrote something
called the Meditations on First Philosophy, and he presented an
very similar thought exercise to the one that Nick Bostrom mentioned. Now,
(03:44):
his was called the Evil Demon, or sometimes people refer
to it as the evil genius problem. And he said, well,
what if everything that I renee, I think therefore I
am Decartes experience is actually just an illusion that's generated
by an evil force. In his case, he was from
an evil demon. So there's this malevolent creature that is
(04:08):
capable of creating everything that Decard is experiencing. So while
he thinks he's walking around and being really smart and
chatting with other smart people and having a croissant um,
in reality, he's not. He's just he's just a consciousness
that's being manipulated by this evil demon and everything that's
(04:30):
happening to him is an illusion that's created by him.
And this is unfalsifiable, right. It means that that means
that there's no way that you can prove that it's wrong.
It's like if I say, there's a six ft invisible
bunny walking around behind me all the time, makes no
noise and has no scent, right, and you can't touch it.
You cannot touch. Yeah, that well, that there's no way
(04:53):
for me to prove that you're wrong. I will sit
here and I will think that you are crazy. Or
Donnie Darko, but that uh, you know, or Deborah Donka
don't darko, I don't know, I mean, or the character
in in Harvey there you go, yes, but but you know,
there's no way for me to prove that there's not
a six ft invisible, untouchable, unsensible, unhearable bunny behind you.
(05:17):
So that's that's called that. It's called unfalsifiable. That means
it is not scientific. Scientific principles premises these sort of things.
They are falsifiable, meaning that there should be a set
of criteria under which you would say this is not
true right now. It does not mean that what you're
(05:38):
saying isn't true. It just means it has to be possible,
that has to be within the realm of possible. In
order for something to be proved, it has to be
able to be disproved exactly. And so if it's unfalsifiable,
it's not scientific. Now I should also stress if it's
unfalsifiable and unscientific, that also does not mean it's not true.
It could be true. It could absolutely be true. String
(06:00):
is a great example of this. We call it a theory,
but but some people argue it's a philosophy, Well, it's
a it's yeah, it's not a mathematical theory, and I
get into arguments sometimes of people on Facebook about this
because the theory is the word that has many many meanings.
Mathematical meaning of it is is something that has been
proven is true, whereas has been exercised the whole scientific
(06:22):
theory versus I have a theory, which is really more
like I have an idea of why this is the
way it is. Scientific theory and that kind of theory
are two different things, but anyway, uh yeah, string theory
would say that the entire universe is made up of
these tiny, little vibrating strings. And we're talking like tiny,
as in tinier than sub atomic particles, tiny small, and
(06:43):
that the way they vibrate, that's what makes stuff what
it is. Well, mathematically this makes sense, but there is
no way we can uh we can observe this or
test this, so therefore it's unfalsifiable and unscientific using that
particular definition. Uh So, same sort of thing here with
Renee di Caart and his theory. And this is not again,
(07:05):
not the first time this idea has popped up, but
it's one of the really famous ones. And that's back
in So if we look at the modern version, you've
got Nick Bostrom talking about a computer simulation, and his
whole argument hinges on this idea of transhumanism or the singularity.
(07:27):
So we kind of have to talk about what the
singularity is so that we can finally get around to
this whole computer simulation problem, right, and and and also
talk about trans human because that that's basically a fancy
term for stuffy. Yeah, it's it's it's a it's a
fancy term for saying what happens when we reach a
(07:49):
point in in advances in science and medicine in biology
where we can transform ourselves to a point where we
are no longer strictly speed being human. Right, Like, we
have altered ourselves on some fundamental level, and we aren't
we we wouldn't be human as we recognize it today, right,
that our our technology has bonded to us in a way,
(08:12):
or that our science has bonded to us a way. Right,
we we've understood genetics enough so that we're all mutants
like in the X Men, or we have all become cyborgs,
or we have all transmitted our consciousness into computers and
there are no physical versions of us anymore. And these
are all different ways that we could in theory become
(08:33):
trans human. So it's a very generic term that spreads
across multiple possibilities. Right, there's no one trans human because really,
I mean, the thing is that we don't know because
we're not there yet. It hasn't happened yet, as it
turns out. I mean, there's a few of us who
are a little wacky, but but it doesn't mean some
of us are clearly better than others. I mean, okay,
I mean we're not we're not naming names, but we're
(08:57):
pretty awesome. But no, that's the area of trans humanism.
Singularity is sort of one of the pathways where we
could reach this sort of trans human future. And the
singularity is this idea that several futurists have proposed about
the fact that technology advances are continuing at a faster
(09:18):
and faster pace each each year, really exponentially exponentially. You've
got things like Moore's law, where, depending on how you're
defining it, essentially the computer power is doubling every two
years um, but other technological advances are are happening at
an even faster rate that we will eventually come to
a point where we are advancing continuously with no break
(09:40):
between the generation, right right, if you think of like
operating systems and how they come out, like you know
Windows seven and then Windows But then you think, all right, well,
then down the road it might be the every six months,
and then it might be every three months, and then
it might just be that every single day there's something
new that's being incorporated, or every second or every a second,
right cetera. So at that point, things are changing so
(10:03):
fast that you cannot even define the era you are
in because there's nothing like within within one moment. Uh
you have changed so much that it's it's pointless to
try and defind a series of moments. Right at this
point in our future, we would hit what is called
the singularity. And part of one of the defining features
(10:24):
of the singularity is it's impossible for us to say
what will happen once we hit that point, because by
its very nature, it's going to evolve so fast that
we cannot conceive of what I mean. It's it's kind
of pointless to talk about it too much. Doesn't stop me,
but it's pointless. It doesn't stop philosophers. Either doesn't stop me,
And there are many pointless discussions that you cannot stop
(10:45):
me from having This is one of them anyway, So
the singularity could happen in various ways. Again, biology, science, technology,
These are all the different avenues that that could lead
to the singularity or could be you know, yeah and uh.
And that forms the very crux of Bostrom's argument. Let's
(11:07):
take a quick break for a word from our sponsor,
and now back to the show. So Nick Bostrom's argument
uh is worded this way here. Here's from a paper
he wrote on the subject, a technologically mature post human
(11:30):
civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact,
the simulation argument shows that at least one of the
following propositions is true. One, the fraction of human level
civilizations that reach a post human stage is very close
to zero. To the fraction of post human civilizations that
(11:51):
are interested in running ancestor simulations is very close to
zero or three. The fraction of all people with our
kind of experiences they are living in a simulation is
very close to one. Now, what that essentially means is
that if we are able to reach a post human phase,
this trans human phase where we have at our fingertips
(12:14):
practically limitless resources because of things are being so magical
and rainbows are popping out of everything. That uh that
if that's the case, then we should be able to
create a computer simulation of the universe that is within
the realm of the simulation itself extremely realistic, and that
(12:37):
we could also create within this, uh, this universal simulation
stimulated intelligent beings, so that these these created beings would
have sentience, they have consciousness, They would they might be
very much like modern humans. Yes, they be self aware,
but they would exist within the context of this created universe,
(13:00):
and so they would only be able to see the
things that are within that universe. Anything outside of the
universe they would be incapable of perceiving. So within that universe,
it would seem like they were quote unquote the real people, right.
They were. They were the people who were there because
(13:20):
of whatever forces caused the universe to create be created
in the first place. Um, And that for these people
within the simulated universe, it might be completely impossible for
them to detect anyone outside of it, anyone being us
that we were the ones creating it. So his argument
is that if we in fact reached the stage, and
if we would use our technology to create simulations so
(13:42):
that we could see how civilizations develop and that we
would see how we do that interesting bits of the
universe work, because we're intrinsically curious, right, So his argument is,
if it's possible, we would do it, yes, And if
it's possible and we would do it, that means we,
the current people living in this universe, almost surely a
computer simulation. So if it can happen, and if we
(14:07):
are interested in ourselves, and we obviously are, then it's
almost a guarantee that we're in a computer simulation. And
the reason for that argument is that in order for
us to not be a computer simulation, we would have
to be the first ones, right, we would have to
be heading towards that timeline and just haven't gotten there yet, Mr. Fusion,
(14:30):
whereas in every other case, some other post human civilization
has already gotten there and made at least one level
of simulated universe, which means that one out of infinity
means we're the first, and then every other example is
we're number two or lower. So yeah, that's that's that's
(14:54):
kind of the crux of his argument, and it's really
again a philosophical argument it's not meant to say, right,
we're we're in a we're in a computer game, because
because somebody that it's set up. Yeah that you know,
if if you're saying that that ad infinitum percent of
the time, we're probably a computer simulation. That it's you're
(15:15):
you're placing the burden of proof on that point nine,
etceterascent of the population who might think you're wrong and that. So,
but it's really fair, it's an interesting it's an interesting question.
It's it's again unfalsifiable at right now. But but here's
the funny thing. Boston makes this the statement, but it's
(15:38):
purely from a philosophical point of view, right, It's not
from a physics point of view, it's not from a
science point of view. It's philosophy. That has not stopped
other people from looking at this from a scientific point
of view. And that, to me is another interesting aspect
of this argument is that usually you would look at
an argument like this and say, okay, well that's an
(15:58):
interesting philosophical question. Ultimately, there's nothing I can do about
that one way or the other, and then you go
about your mary a little way, right, But a bunch
of nice I'm I'm assuming um quantum scientists have gotten together.
Are you assuming they're nice? Are you assuming their quantum
signed assuming well, I'm assuming both. I'm going to go
ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt. There
(16:19):
have been have been doing some research into quantum chromodynamics,
which is which is a theory about one of the
four fundamental forces in our universe. So the four fundamental
forces are strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and gravity.
And that is in fact, in the order of how
(16:40):
powerful they are, right, gravity is the weakest, is the
one that we're having the most trouble incorporating into our
model of the universe. Uh. Strong nuclear force deals with
the force of you know, you know those nucleus is
things as the nuclei the exists inside atoms. You know
how they have like stuff that's stuck together, like protons
(17:00):
and neutrons. And we're not sure why because because hypothetically
two protons should should push each other each other. If
you've ever played with magnetics, we well, strong nuclear force
is the force that that's the name for the reason
why these things are stuck together so strong whether why
they're able to stick together, clearly it has to be
(17:21):
an incredibly strong force, an incredibly strong force that only
kicks in in incredibly short distances. We're talking on the
atomic scale. So the strong nuclear force is what quantum
chromo dynamics is all about studying. And one of the
ways that quantum chromo dynamics or q c D should
(17:43):
be way easier to say is to to look at
this as a part of well, it looks at reality
as four space time dimensions, so four dimensions. We mentioned
string theory earlier, So versions of strength theory require that
there are no fewer than eleven dimensions for strength theory
(18:04):
to work, which is basically beyond my comprehension entirely. I
I get X, y Z and time that I can
I can get a three dimensional object moving through time. Yeah,
that's cool. Beyond that it gets a little wonky. Yeah, yeah,
wibbly wobbly. I'm right there with you, and uh and yeah,
the same thing. And then again this this plays back
(18:25):
to that discussion we have at the very beginning where
we talked about, you know, we know the universe consists
of stuff that's beyond our perception, but you know, we
have to filter that through our brains and our brains
are acting as a middleman between our consciousness and reality.
So the things that we experience may very well be
(18:45):
in their fundamental nature extremely different from the way we
think of them because it's being filtered through because we
have to model them in a this this concept we
shouldn't have done. This philosophy makes me sad. I just
realized that my brain is what's making you sit there
and you think, like, think about it. If you have
(19:05):
a bad day, you're thinking, wait a minute. Part of
the reason I'm having a bad day is because my
brain is filtering things in a it's my fault, and
then I just it becomes this cirable loop of of
everything is terrible because of my brain, which is making
things terrible. A little glimpse into Jonathan Strickland, folks, that's
how I get just before I have to go to
c E S. I know this episode publishes after I
(19:25):
come back, but trust me, it's it's a terrible life.
Having to fly around the country and look at really
shiny technological objects. You're not helping this suspicious cycle going on.
Getting back to qc D. So part of part of
this is looking at reality as for spacetime dimensions. Uh,
(19:46):
and it's using computers that are really really powerful to
do this and creating something that's uh, well, it's it's
it's it's called a lattice gauge. Uh. It's last gage
theory actually. Uh. ATM is sort of the framework within
which q c D tries to explain the strong nuclear force.
(20:08):
And uh, this part of this means that we try
and simulate and then incredibly tiny simulated universe, right, right,
And this is on the this is on actually the
femto scale by saying that, right is correct, excellent, um,
And and a femtometer is one quadrillionth of a meter
nanometer for for references, one billionth of a meter. And
(20:30):
that's also very small. Yes, yeah, when you talk about
nanotechnology and that super small technology that is enormous compared
to the femto scale, we're talking really really really tiny. Well,
they build this sort of lattice structure to contain the
simulated universe, and within this simulated universe, they are examining
(20:51):
the elements that make up the strong nuclear force so
that we can understand what it is and how it
works better. Right, that's the whole purpose. One of the
big driving forces of the universe. We want to understand it.
But these these physicists said, hey, wait a minute. If
this is how we are simulating and entirely fake universe,
(21:12):
a very tiny universe, doesn't it stand to reason that
some other like if we are and if we became
hyper advanced, if if we went trans human, couldn't those
trans humans in fact use the same technology to simulate
an entire universe on a big scale, on a really
large scale niver scale, right, or or at least for us.
(21:35):
I mean, you could also argue that just to populate
a fimpto sized universe with with even smaller individual units
within that fimpto sized universe, the idea being that, well
you could you could create a stimulation that is a
true universe with inhabitants and intelligent inhabitants, and that if
(21:55):
in fact we are in a computer simulation, then perhaps
there's some way that we could text if this lattice
structure is around our own universe. Um. Yeah, this is
where it's getting to the point where it's hard for
me to actually explain because it's stretching both of our
grasps on quantum mechanics are are perhaps not as strong
(22:16):
as they could be, and cosmology for the matter. For
that matter, because we're talking about things like cosmic rays.
The physicists suggested that perhaps we could um observe cosmic
rays and and really study them in depth and see
how they behave within our universe and look for evidence
of a lattice structure, which would indicate that some other
(22:41):
larger universe had used the same techniques we used to
create the fimto universes we're making to look at the
strong nuclear force to make our own universe, and then
we'd say, hey, look there's evidence we are in a
computer simulation crap. There are there are some issues with this.
One is that, uh, it presumes that any post human
(23:02):
civilization would use the exact so uh, there's another assumption
that said post human society would allow us to be
able to find our own right that you know, they
wouldn't paint in a nice little backdrop that would prevent
us from seeing the scenes, like to put in a
patch or to reset us. Let's go back to bronze age, Pope,
(23:25):
folks control or delete um. There's also the argument that, well,
what if our universe is so large that it is
a bounded universe, because that's the other thing. A lattice
structure would also indicate that our universe does have finite
it's a finite universe. What if that finite universe is
still too big for us to ever be able to
(23:46):
see the edges, or what if the universe just is
finite anyway. Yeah, it could be that the universe is
finite anyway and has nothing to do with the lass structure.
And so there are a lot of a lot of
objections that people have brought up. But mainly what this
approach would allow us to do is if we saw
the last structure, we could maybe draw some conclusions. But
(24:06):
in any other case, like if we didn't see the
last structure, it doesn't answer any questions. All right, it
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Yeah, it doesn't mean
that we're not in a computer simulation. So this so
it's interesting, But again it's just sort of an extension
of this thought experiment where, uh, you know, we're kind
of getting round to the point that I'm most interested
(24:27):
in in this whole discussion that all right, let's let's
say that let's say that we are in a computer simulation,
whether we know it or not. It doesn't it doesn't matter.
We don't necessarily need to know that we are. But
let's just let's just assume assuming that we are that
we are. Does that matter on a day to day scale?
Would it matter if we were in a computer simulation
(24:49):
in some ways? Now, if we don't know, it doesn't
matter at all. I mean, you know, if we if yeah,
you know, if if we had absolute proof of it,
then that would be that would be huge, That would
be shattering. Yeah, that would that would probably cause wars. Yeah,
for for all kinds of philosophies and religions and and
just interpersonal I mean, I mean within my own head,
I would probably need to spend a few days just
(25:11):
just a drooling because talking about my normal weak this
is what I do. Alright, Fine, Okay, so now I
know something different between me and Lauren learn a new stuff?
Um No, I I agree that that. And if we
don't know, there was no difference because the rules that
(25:31):
we have created for ourselves, but based on our cultures
and our society, those haven't changed. Like like if I
found out somehow, like if if knowledge were given to
me personally, everyone who's alive, that yes, in fact, you
live in a computer simulation. After I had that moment
where I I upped my drooling capacity for my daily
(25:53):
allowance of drooling, I would sit there and think, well, ultimately,
this doesn't change anything. I mean, it's my life still
has meaning within the context of the world I live in.
We still need to go get lunch, we still we
still get married, we still die, and I still I
still laugh, I still cry. I still find that Mitchell
and Web look to be absolutely hilarious, and I would
(26:13):
really like it if Netflix streaming would bring it back
for me. I mean, you know, all these sort of
things would still be true. So I don't think that
ultimately it changes anything unless it were something where we
could definitively prove it, and then that would change major things,
like essentially a lot of people would have to answer
(26:35):
some very tough questions in regards to philosophy and religion particularly,
but other things as well. But those two insticularly some
very nice philosophy departments would be more or less out
of jobs. Yeah, well, you know, actually you'd step away
from being out of a job anyway. Come on, we're
talking about philosophy here. Snap. This is coming from a
(26:56):
literature major Okay, I did you see that. This is
off topic, But there was a list I think of
the most unemployable majors came out. Philosophy I think was
in the top three. Yeah, literature was in the top ten.
Was it was it? I was created writing? Do you
have any creative writing? I think they didn't even put
(27:19):
in there. It's like, are you Neil Gaiman? No? Um, hey,
I'm an editor. I'm working in my field, folks. That's true,
that's true. I'm I don't know what my field would be.
So I was a medieval literaguy. I guess I'd be
teaching medieval literature if I were in my field. But
it's funny that I went into technology podcasting instead. So anyway, ultimately,
(27:40):
I don't think it would really matter. There's no way
of knowing currently one way or the other. So from
that perspective, thought exercise right. Yeah, hey there it's Job
of twenty nineteen again. Time to take another quick break
to thank our sponsor. So, ultimately, uh, it may or
(28:05):
may not matter if we're in a computer simulation. But
the other question to ask is how feasible is it?
How would it be possible to actually create a universe
on this what would it take to create a universe
on this scale? Right? And I mean because simulating something
is actually very much more complicated than just doing it. Um.
For for example, UM, I was reading one article that
(28:27):
that sided a number where if you were to take
a hard drive and you wanted to create a simulation
of that entire hard drive, you would have to simulate
every single adom, minute, record, its position, it's it's time scale,
everything about it. That would be you know, and and
and every single atomant and hard drive is maybe intend
to the power of twenty four atoms a couple a
(28:48):
bunch um and but in order to simulate it, you
would have to about have about a hundred bits of
information at least on each of those atoms. Right. So,
so when you think about that, if the world is
or this universe is a computer simulation, and that means
the simulation has to take into account every single object
within that world, whether that object is part of something
(29:09):
else or or an individual object, its position, it's uh,
if it's moving, its relationship to every other object within
that universe, how that objects behavior you know, however you
wanted to find that affects other objects. It's it's are
you are you going down to the atomic scale? Are
you going to the sub atomic scale? How how deep
(29:30):
does the rabbit hole go? Right? Right? Because because the
other problem here is that as we the human beings
who live right here and now, whether it's a computer
simulation or not, get more advanced, we get to learn
more about our environment and we get to look even
deeper than we could before. So like, let's go back
to the Stone Age, no microscopes, nothing like anything that
was beyond our ability to actually see it did not
(29:51):
exist in our minds. And then we got more and
more advanced, and we were able to suddenly start seeing
things that are tinier and tinier. And then we get
to the point where we've got electron tunneling microscopes and
we can move individual atoms into place and we can
see things that are really far away. That would mean
that the simulation would have to take into account the
ability for us to see well beyond what we first right,
(30:14):
So that's kind of incredible to think about that way,
Like how much power would you have to have to
generate this? Is it something that would be added over
time so that like you know, someone's someone's checking in
every now and like, oh they can see atoms now,
all right, well we got to build the next level down, guys,
or or like fire up that extra server. We're gonna
(30:35):
need it toe exactly like you know, it's some place
in this other larger universes North Carolina, there's another server
farm being built. Yeah, I mean it's it's It blows
the mind. It becomes one of these things where you,
as you start to think about it, you're like, would
that even be possible? Now, from a futurists argument, they
might say that in the future will be able to
(30:56):
do things like harness the power of black holes to
do computing, in which case the limitations of computing suddenly
seem like a non problem. Sure, even with quantum computers,
which they are already experimenting with, we've gotten up to
a sixteen sixteen cubits was the last reliable one, but
we've had there been larger ones. The problem with, of course,
(31:17):
quantum computers, is that as soon as you really observe
the state therein it collapses, that decoheres, and you end
up with a classical computer that is severely underpowered to
any other normal classical computer. But there are people who
are working on that problem. So yeah, I mean that
it may be that reaching such a level of computing
(31:38):
power is not possible, And in fact, that was part
of Bostrom's point was he was not necessarily saying we
live in a computer simulation. He was saying, there's another
way of looking at this. We can look at this
is saying trans human or post human in the sense
that the futurists have defined. It is an impossibility that
we will never get to a point where we have
computing power so vast as to be able to simulate
(31:59):
an entire universe down to the tiniest detail and have
it populated with intelligent creatures, right or even beyond the
feasibility of that, the idea that probably we're going to
kill all of each other way way before that. Actually
that that was another point. One of his points is
saying that it's way more likely than any any sort
of civilization reaching post human or trans human uh status
(32:24):
would end up wiping itself out in some sort of
cataclysmic event, whether on purpose or by accident. So we
could have, Hey, we have reached this level of superiority.
Now we are going to force our ideological values upon
everybody else. And everybody else says no, you're not, and
then we all kill each other or we say, hey
was this button? Do zombie outbreak? Those are the only
(32:47):
two possibilities. That's a lie, but no that Sposton's point
is that that could also be a case. It's really
a depressing case. But you could say humankind could hit
extinction before we hit posting. More fun to think about
that other thing. But overall, zombie I'll break. I agree,
walking dead man right down the street from me, that's
(33:10):
just to land on normal traffic. That's true. That's true.
It's it's pretty much it's the office before we get
to the coffee machine. It is. It gets ugly folks
at walkers, a lot of walkers. But yeah, that's I mean,
that's a good point, is that it you know, we
could we humankind could go extinct. That's one downside. We
(33:32):
might not ever be able to reach that level of
computational achievement in order to to ever simulate a universe.
That's depending upon whom you ask, also a downside. Or
we just might never know. So yeah, sometimes it leads
us to to explore the question further. Really, yeah, and
we've we've seen that explored in multiple venues, not just philosophy,
(33:55):
not just science, but entertainment all over the place. Yeah,
I mean going back to a lot of Shakespeare stories
we're talking about really, like, like, what's the difference between
dreams and reality? Midsummer Night's Dream is kind of a
big one. We are such stuff as dreams are made on.
Thank you, Jonathan. Oh, brave new world to have such people,
and it tis new to the that's the tempest right there.
(34:20):
That's that's our that's our literature major. Yeah here, Yeah, well,
you know I used the degree once in a while,
but more perhaps more modern things. A few a few
of you have probably seen the Matrix. I know, kunk
fo I keep quote it. Let's just keep going. I
got it. I got this Vanilla sky. Oh no, I
(34:41):
haven't seen that. Yeah, I can't do that. The documentary
or the Spanish version effort. Let's so host do you
speak Spanish? There we go. That was my total recall. Inception. Um,
that's that's that's every other short. Not not inception at all.
(35:03):
The inception one would be that's inception love love. These movies,
by the way, I'm making a lot of fun, but no,
these are good points. I mean you do you do
see this theme come up over and over again. Total
recall what is real, what is being imagined? Is the
entire story actually only happening in quad? That was his
name rights mine? Uh? Or inception? Are you still within
(35:26):
a dream? Are you one level down in a dream?
Are you two levels down? At the very end of
the movie is the is the main character is dream right? Which?
And of course that brings into questions something else. This
this is a good argument that falls within the same
sort of thing about being able to tell versus not
being able to tell. Uh. This is big spoilers for
(35:48):
Inception here, obviously, but one of the one of the
things they set up in an inception is that one
way you can tell if you are in a dream
is you have a totem that is specific to you
and behaves a certain way in the real world, but
in dream space it does not behave that way. Why
who knows, But it's convenient physics. The main character has
(36:10):
a top, so if he spins the top and the
top stops spinning, he knows he's in the real world.
If he's a layer down into a dream world and
he spins the top, it just keeps spinning, and that's
how he can look at a moment and know if
he's in a dream or if he's awake. Uh. There's
a problem with this though. If the whole thing is
within a dream, there's nothing to stop the dream world
(36:33):
from saying at a certain level, this top behaves a
different way. So, in other words, even at the top
topples over, which into the movie gives you this kind
of idea, is it gonna sp But even at the
top word to topple over, that would not answer the
question of whether or not you're in a dream, because
it only depends upon if that level is real or not.
(36:55):
And if it's not real, if that's just another point
of the dream, then all it means is that the
behaviors of off in one level of the dream behaved
differently than the others. And and similarly, if if our
if our future trans human selves decided to make it
so that we cannot detect whether or not we are
in a dream, then yeah, we're kind of stuck. Yeah,
the same thing with the matrix. The whole idea of
(37:16):
creating a universe that is not ideal, because if we
created an ideal universe, humans would go, this can't be real.
My life stinks. There's no way my life is this awesome.
And uh, and then we have a universe filled with
Jonathan's Tripling's and nobody wants that. Nobody, nobody wants, not
(37:37):
even Jonathan's. And look, I'm enough to deal with already.
But yeah, I know there's there's tons of examples. There's
there's a lot in science fiction, obviously, obviously especially since
since William Gibson in the entire cyberpunk thing became a thing,
you know, and that's that's sort of our our entrance
into into how did I just make up a word
in French? I don't think that that's an actual thing.
(37:58):
Um Ever, ever since cyberpunk happened, we've been we've been
looking at technology in in this fearful way, which we
always kind of do in horror films. I think that
fiction is a really terrific way for us to work
out our anxieties because we can go, like, well, in
this scary world, all of this terrible things. I think
all of these terrible things will happen. However, we're going
(38:20):
to have some attractive people in pleather who are going
to take care of it. For us, and that's or
die and die in numerous with Yeah, like you said, yeah,
it's science fiction and horror, the two genres I think
of the most when I think about this kind of mentality,
because I also think of things like other movies. Here's
another spoiler. Guys, if you're a Josh Ween fan, this
(38:40):
is a spoiler, So spoiler for Jos Weeden fans you
can skip ahead. But Cabin in the Woods another example
of like what is real and what is what is artifice? Yes,
what has been simulated, So there you go, same sort
of thing. Um. I don't think that's a huge spoiler
because that's revealed early in the movie. But still, um,
at any rate, these are you know, we've explored this
(39:03):
idea and multiple forms of media, whether it's entertainment or
also a multiple uh disciplines entertainment, science, philosophy, and I
don't think it's gonna go away anytime soon because obviously
there's no way for us to answer this question, not
not unless we detect that last structure. And even then
you're like, well, well then who created us? That could
(39:24):
mean anything that could mean and also it could be
like inception. We might be levels down from reality. It
could be that marble in the Men in Black. Yeah, yeah, then, yeah, exactly, yes,
we could be we could be a moat of dust
upon the nose of a dog in another universe, which
in itself is a moat of dust upon the nose
(39:44):
a another dog, and another universe, which in itself is
a moat of dust upon Douglas Adams pencil as he
giggles maniacally and writes another book, because in that universe
he's stilled around. I like that verse. I do too.
I want to, I want to I want to go
to their But yeah, it's a it's a really interesting question. So, um,
and if you've heard about this whole thing, because it
(40:06):
came up in conversations towards the end of two thousand twelve,
which is kind of interesting because the first uh, the
publication of Bostrom's work was in the early two think so.
But in this case, it was because the physicists had said, hey,
there might be a way for us to find out
maybe possibly probably not, but it could happen. U And
(40:28):
even then, we're going to have to get to a
level of technological uh, advancement that is beyond what we
have now. Before we could even hope to detect these
cosmic rays. And that wraps up this classic episode of
tech Stuff. Hope you guys liked that one. If you
have a suggestion for a future episode, send me an email.
The addresses text stuff at how stuff works dot com,
(40:49):
drop me a line on Facebook or Twitter handle for
both of those is text Stuff h s W. You
can also go to visit our website that's tech Stuff
podcast dot com. You'll find an archive of every episode
ever published. You will also find a link to our
online store, So if you've been itching to get a
text stuff mug or I bought this T shirt for
(41:12):
a princely some shirt, then you can do that. Those
are both there, along with some other designs. Go check
that out. Every purchase you make goes to help the show.
We greatly appreciate it, and I will talk to you
again really soon. Hext Stuff is a production of I
Heart Radio's How Stuff Works. For more podcasts from my
(41:34):
heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production of I Heart Radios
How Stuff Works. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff.
I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with
I Heart Radio and I love all things tech than Today,
we're going to examine a classic episode of tech Stuff.
(00:24):
It's a Friday, so it's time for another classic, and
today's topic is are we living in a computer simulation?
This is a philosophical question that has received a lot
of attention and back in Lauren Voge Obama and I
really thought it'd be a lot of fun to explore
that whole concept. So enjoy this classic episode do we
(00:47):
live in a computer simulation? And in fact, the reason
why we're even talking about this is a few years
ago a philosopher, and boy is that a surprise, no one.
A philosopher by the name of Nick Bostrom who works
at a little um yeah tiny, like in academic circles.
(01:10):
They have some swagger. It's the University of Oxford. Yeah, yeah,
as far as the boffins go at Swagger City, right anyway, Yeah,
he works at the University of Oxford and he's a
philosopher employed there. Who so his job is to sit
around and think about the nature of reality. And he
presented an interesting thought experiment. He said, do we live
(01:32):
in a computer simulation? Is everything that we experience and
everything that's around us actually just the product of some
sort of computer program in a universe larger than our own?
And we'll talk about you know. What led him into
this kind of line of thinking and his arguments presenting
(01:53):
the likelihood that we are actually in a computer simulation.
But before we begin in that, I thought it'd be
interesting to look back quite a way. Is actually because
this idea that reality as we understand it is not
not exactly new at all. We've been pondering for basically
as long as we could ponder things, whether or not
(02:15):
our our experience of reality is reality. Yeah, and and
part of that is understandable. I mean, we know for
a fact that reality consists of stuff that is beyond
our perception, right, Oh, sure, absolutely. Like I don't know
when the last time you looked into the infrared spectrum was,
but the last time for me was never because it's
outside my visual acuity. I can't see in the infrared spectrum,
(02:37):
all right, And there's lots of lots of things above
our scale of hearing, above and below our scale of hearing. Um,
if you talk to sharks, they can they can hear
different stuff, but my dogs totally different stuff that I
can hear. Yeah, and and even even before we had
as much scientific data about that as we do now,
you know, if we had done the research, we can
tell you the exact spectrums that we can see within
(02:58):
but outside of visual which is a pretty good word
for it. But um, but but yeah, you know it's
it's even long, long, long times before that people are
pondering these questions and all kinds of literature. Uh goes
into literature and philosophy right right all the back in
one one of the famous famous examples of this kind
of philosophy was proposed by a fellow named Renee Descartes,
(03:23):
about whom Monty Python had some rude things to sing.
If you know that your philosopher's song. But Descartes, um,
I think therefore I am uh fellow. He wrote something
called the Meditations on First Philosophy, and he presented an
very similar thought exercise to the one that Nick Bostrom mentioned. Now,
(03:44):
his was called the Evil Demon, or sometimes people refer
to it as the evil genius problem. And he said, well,
what if everything that I renee, I think therefore I
am Decartes experience is actually just an illusion that's generated
by an evil force. In his case, he was from
an evil demon. So there's this malevolent creature that is
(04:08):
capable of creating everything that Decard is experiencing. So while
he thinks he's walking around and being really smart and
chatting with other smart people and having a croissant um,
in reality, he's not. He's just he's just a consciousness
that's being manipulated by this evil demon and everything that's
(04:30):
happening to him is an illusion that's created by him.
And this is unfalsifiable, right. It means that that means
that there's no way that you can prove that it's wrong.
It's like if I say, there's a six ft invisible
bunny walking around behind me all the time, makes no
noise and has no scent, right, and you can't touch it.
You cannot touch. Yeah, that well, that there's no way
(04:53):
for me to prove that you're wrong. I will sit
here and I will think that you are crazy. Or
Donnie Darko, but that uh, you know, or Deborah Donka
don't darko, I don't know, I mean, or the character
in in Harvey there you go, yes, but but you know,
there's no way for me to prove that there's not
a six ft invisible, untouchable, unsensible, unhearable bunny behind you.
(05:17):
So that's that's called that. It's called unfalsifiable. That means
it is not scientific. Scientific principles premises these sort of things.
They are falsifiable, meaning that there should be a set
of criteria under which you would say this is not
true right now. It does not mean that what you're
(05:38):
saying isn't true. It just means it has to be possible,
that has to be within the realm of possible. In
order for something to be proved, it has to be
able to be disproved exactly. And so if it's unfalsifiable,
it's not scientific. Now I should also stress if it's
unfalsifiable and unscientific, that also does not mean it's not true.
It could be true. It could absolutely be true. String
(06:00):
is a great example of this. We call it a theory,
but but some people argue it's a philosophy, Well, it's
a it's yeah, it's not a mathematical theory, and I
get into arguments sometimes of people on Facebook about this
because the theory is the word that has many many meanings.
Mathematical meaning of it is is something that has been
proven is true, whereas has been exercised the whole scientific
(06:22):
theory versus I have a theory, which is really more
like I have an idea of why this is the
way it is. Scientific theory and that kind of theory
are two different things, but anyway, uh yeah, string theory
would say that the entire universe is made up of
these tiny, little vibrating strings. And we're talking like tiny,
as in tinier than sub atomic particles, tiny small, and
(06:43):
that the way they vibrate, that's what makes stuff what
it is. Well, mathematically this makes sense, but there is
no way we can uh we can observe this or
test this, so therefore it's unfalsifiable and unscientific using that
particular definition. Uh So, same sort of thing here with
Renee di Caart and his theory. And this is not again,
(07:05):
not the first time this idea has popped up, but
it's one of the really famous ones. And that's back
in So if we look at the modern version, you've
got Nick Bostrom talking about a computer simulation, and his
whole argument hinges on this idea of transhumanism or the singularity.
(07:27):
So we kind of have to talk about what the
singularity is so that we can finally get around to
this whole computer simulation problem, right, and and and also
talk about trans human because that that's basically a fancy
term for stuffy. Yeah, it's it's it's a it's a
fancy term for saying what happens when we reach a
(07:49):
point in in advances in science and medicine in biology
where we can transform ourselves to a point where we
are no longer strictly speed being human. Right, Like, we
have altered ourselves on some fundamental level, and we aren't
we we wouldn't be human as we recognize it today, right,
that our our technology has bonded to us in a way,
(08:12):
or that our science has bonded to us a way. Right,
we we've understood genetics enough so that we're all mutants
like in the X Men, or we have all become cyborgs,
or we have all transmitted our consciousness into computers and
there are no physical versions of us anymore. And these
are all different ways that we could in theory become
(08:33):
trans human. So it's a very generic term that spreads
across multiple possibilities. Right, there's no one trans human because really,
I mean, the thing is that we don't know because
we're not there yet. It hasn't happened yet, as it
turns out. I mean, there's a few of us who
are a little wacky, but but it doesn't mean some
of us are clearly better than others. I mean, okay,
I mean we're not we're not naming names, but we're
(08:57):
pretty awesome. But no, that's the area of trans humanism.
Singularity is sort of one of the pathways where we
could reach this sort of trans human future. And the
singularity is this idea that several futurists have proposed about
the fact that technology advances are continuing at a faster
(09:18):
and faster pace each each year, really exponentially exponentially. You've
got things like Moore's law, where, depending on how you're
defining it, essentially the computer power is doubling every two
years um, but other technological advances are are happening at
an even faster rate that we will eventually come to
a point where we are advancing continuously with no break
(09:40):
between the generation, right right, if you think of like
operating systems and how they come out, like you know
Windows seven and then Windows But then you think, all right, well,
then down the road it might be the every six months,
and then it might be every three months, and then
it might just be that every single day there's something
new that's being incorporated, or every second or every a second,
right cetera. So at that point, things are changing so
(10:03):
fast that you cannot even define the era you are
in because there's nothing like within within one moment. Uh
you have changed so much that it's it's pointless to
try and defind a series of moments. Right at this
point in our future, we would hit what is called
the singularity. And part of one of the defining features
(10:24):
of the singularity is it's impossible for us to say
what will happen once we hit that point, because by
its very nature, it's going to evolve so fast that
we cannot conceive of what I mean. It's it's kind
of pointless to talk about it too much. Doesn't stop me,
but it's pointless. It doesn't stop philosophers. Either doesn't stop me,
And there are many pointless discussions that you cannot stop
(10:45):
me from having This is one of them anyway, So
the singularity could happen in various ways. Again, biology, science, technology,
These are all the different avenues that that could lead
to the singularity or could be you know, yeah and uh.
And that forms the very crux of Bostrom's argument. Let's
(11:07):
take a quick break for a word from our sponsor,
and now back to the show. So Nick Bostrom's argument
uh is worded this way here. Here's from a paper
he wrote on the subject, a technologically mature post human
(11:30):
civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact,
the simulation argument shows that at least one of the
following propositions is true. One, the fraction of human level
civilizations that reach a post human stage is very close
to zero. To the fraction of post human civilizations that
(11:51):
are interested in running ancestor simulations is very close to
zero or three. The fraction of all people with our
kind of experiences they are living in a simulation is
very close to one. Now, what that essentially means is
that if we are able to reach a post human phase,
this trans human phase where we have at our fingertips
(12:14):
practically limitless resources because of things are being so magical
and rainbows are popping out of everything. That uh that
if that's the case, then we should be able to
create a computer simulation of the universe that is within
the realm of the simulation itself extremely realistic, and that
(12:37):
we could also create within this, uh, this universal simulation
stimulated intelligent beings, so that these these created beings would
have sentience, they have consciousness, They would they might be
very much like modern humans. Yes, they be self aware,
but they would exist within the context of this created universe,
(13:00):
and so they would only be able to see the
things that are within that universe. Anything outside of the
universe they would be incapable of perceiving. So within that universe,
it would seem like they were quote unquote the real people, right.
They were. They were the people who were there because
(13:20):
of whatever forces caused the universe to create be created
in the first place. Um, And that for these people
within the simulated universe, it might be completely impossible for
them to detect anyone outside of it, anyone being us
that we were the ones creating it. So his argument
is that if we in fact reached the stage, and
if we would use our technology to create simulations so
(13:42):
that we could see how civilizations develop and that we
would see how we do that interesting bits of the
universe work, because we're intrinsically curious, right, So his argument is,
if it's possible, we would do it, yes, And if
it's possible and we would do it, that means we,
the current people living in this universe, almost surely a
computer simulation. So if it can happen, and if we
(14:07):
are interested in ourselves, and we obviously are, then it's
almost a guarantee that we're in a computer simulation. And
the reason for that argument is that in order for
us to not be a computer simulation, we would have
to be the first ones, right, we would have to
be heading towards that timeline and just haven't gotten there yet, Mr. Fusion,
(14:30):
whereas in every other case, some other post human civilization
has already gotten there and made at least one level
of simulated universe, which means that one out of infinity
means we're the first, and then every other example is
we're number two or lower. So yeah, that's that's that's
(14:54):
kind of the crux of his argument, and it's really
again a philosophical argument it's not meant to say, right,
we're we're in a we're in a computer game, because
because somebody that it's set up. Yeah that you know,
if if you're saying that that ad infinitum percent of
the time, we're probably a computer simulation. That it's you're
(15:15):
you're placing the burden of proof on that point nine,
etceterascent of the population who might think you're wrong and that. So,
but it's really fair, it's an interesting it's an interesting question.
It's it's again unfalsifiable at right now. But but here's
the funny thing. Boston makes this the statement, but it's
(15:38):
purely from a philosophical point of view, right, It's not
from a physics point of view, it's not from a
science point of view. It's philosophy. That has not stopped
other people from looking at this from a scientific point
of view. And that, to me is another interesting aspect
of this argument is that usually you would look at
an argument like this and say, okay, well that's an
(15:58):
interesting philosophical question. Ultimately, there's nothing I can do about
that one way or the other, and then you go
about your mary a little way, right, But a bunch
of nice I'm I'm assuming um quantum scientists have gotten together.
Are you assuming they're nice? Are you assuming their quantum
signed assuming well, I'm assuming both. I'm going to go
ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt. There
(16:19):
have been have been doing some research into quantum chromodynamics,
which is which is a theory about one of the
four fundamental forces in our universe. So the four fundamental
forces are strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, and gravity.
And that is in fact, in the order of how
(16:40):
powerful they are, right, gravity is the weakest, is the
one that we're having the most trouble incorporating into our
model of the universe. Uh. Strong nuclear force deals with
the force of you know, you know those nucleus is
things as the nuclei the exists inside atoms. You know
how they have like stuff that's stuck together, like protons
(17:00):
and neutrons. And we're not sure why because because hypothetically
two protons should should push each other each other. If
you've ever played with magnetics, we well, strong nuclear force
is the force that that's the name for the reason
why these things are stuck together so strong whether why
they're able to stick together, clearly it has to be
(17:21):
an incredibly strong force, an incredibly strong force that only
kicks in in incredibly short distances. We're talking on the
atomic scale. So the strong nuclear force is what quantum
chromo dynamics is all about studying. And one of the
ways that quantum chromo dynamics or q c D should
(17:43):
be way easier to say is to to look at
this as a part of well, it looks at reality
as four space time dimensions, so four dimensions. We mentioned
string theory earlier, So versions of strength theory require that
there are no fewer than eleven dimensions for strength theory
(18:04):
to work, which is basically beyond my comprehension entirely. I
I get X, y Z and time that I can
I can get a three dimensional object moving through time. Yeah,
that's cool. Beyond that it gets a little wonky. Yeah, yeah,
wibbly wobbly. I'm right there with you, and uh and yeah,
the same thing. And then again this this plays back
(18:25):
to that discussion we have at the very beginning where
we talked about, you know, we know the universe consists
of stuff that's beyond our perception, but you know, we
have to filter that through our brains and our brains
are acting as a middleman between our consciousness and reality.
So the things that we experience may very well be
(18:45):
in their fundamental nature extremely different from the way we
think of them because it's being filtered through because we
have to model them in a this this concept we
shouldn't have done. This philosophy makes me sad. I just
realized that my brain is what's making you sit there
and you think, like, think about it. If you have
(19:05):
a bad day, you're thinking, wait a minute. Part of
the reason I'm having a bad day is because my
brain is filtering things in a it's my fault, and
then I just it becomes this cirable loop of of
everything is terrible because of my brain, which is making
things terrible. A little glimpse into Jonathan Strickland, folks, that's
how I get just before I have to go to
c E S. I know this episode publishes after I
(19:25):
come back, but trust me, it's it's a terrible life.
Having to fly around the country and look at really
shiny technological objects. You're not helping this suspicious cycle going on.
Getting back to qc D. So part of part of
this is looking at reality as for spacetime dimensions. Uh,
(19:46):
and it's using computers that are really really powerful to
do this and creating something that's uh, well, it's it's
it's it's called a lattice gauge. Uh. It's last gage
theory actually. Uh. ATM is sort of the framework within
which q c D tries to explain the strong nuclear force.
(20:08):
And uh, this part of this means that we try
and simulate and then incredibly tiny simulated universe, right, right,
And this is on the this is on actually the
femto scale by saying that, right is correct, excellent, um,
And and a femtometer is one quadrillionth of a meter
nanometer for for references, one billionth of a meter. And
(20:30):
that's also very small. Yes, yeah, when you talk about
nanotechnology and that super small technology that is enormous compared
to the femto scale, we're talking really really really tiny. Well,
they build this sort of lattice structure to contain the
simulated universe, and within this simulated universe, they are examining
(20:51):
the elements that make up the strong nuclear force so
that we can understand what it is and how it
works better. Right, that's the whole purpose. One of the
big driving forces of the universe. We want to understand it.
But these these physicists said, hey, wait a minute. If
this is how we are simulating and entirely fake universe,
(21:12):
a very tiny universe, doesn't it stand to reason that
some other like if we are and if we became
hyper advanced, if if we went trans human, couldn't those
trans humans in fact use the same technology to simulate
an entire universe on a big scale, on a really
large scale niver scale, right, or or at least for us.
(21:35):
I mean, you could also argue that just to populate
a fimpto sized universe with with even smaller individual units
within that fimpto sized universe, the idea being that, well
you could you could create a stimulation that is a
true universe with inhabitants and intelligent inhabitants, and that if
(21:55):
in fact we are in a computer simulation, then perhaps
there's some way that we could text if this lattice
structure is around our own universe. Um. Yeah, this is
where it's getting to the point where it's hard for
me to actually explain because it's stretching both of our
grasps on quantum mechanics are are perhaps not as strong
(22:16):
as they could be, and cosmology for the matter. For
that matter, because we're talking about things like cosmic rays.
The physicists suggested that perhaps we could um observe cosmic
rays and and really study them in depth and see
how they behave within our universe and look for evidence
of a lattice structure, which would indicate that some other
(22:41):
larger universe had used the same techniques we used to
create the fimto universes we're making to look at the
strong nuclear force to make our own universe, and then
we'd say, hey, look there's evidence we are in a
computer simulation crap. There are there are some issues with this.
One is that, uh, it presumes that any post human
(23:02):
civilization would use the exact so uh, there's another assumption
that said post human society would allow us to be
able to find our own right that you know, they
wouldn't paint in a nice little backdrop that would prevent
us from seeing the scenes, like to put in a
patch or to reset us. Let's go back to bronze age, Pope,
(23:25):
folks control or delete um. There's also the argument that, well,
what if our universe is so large that it is
a bounded universe, because that's the other thing. A lattice
structure would also indicate that our universe does have finite
it's a finite universe. What if that finite universe is
still too big for us to ever be able to
(23:46):
see the edges, or what if the universe just is
finite anyway. Yeah, it could be that the universe is
finite anyway and has nothing to do with the lass structure.
And so there are a lot of a lot of
objections that people have brought up. But mainly what this
approach would allow us to do is if we saw
the last structure, we could maybe draw some conclusions. But
(24:06):
in any other case, like if we didn't see the
last structure, it doesn't answer any questions. All right, it
doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Yeah, it doesn't mean
that we're not in a computer simulation. So this so
it's interesting, But again it's just sort of an extension
of this thought experiment where, uh, you know, we're kind
of getting round to the point that I'm most interested
(24:27):
in in this whole discussion that all right, let's let's
say that let's say that we are in a computer simulation,
whether we know it or not. It doesn't it doesn't matter.
We don't necessarily need to know that we are. But
let's just let's just assume assuming that we are that
we are. Does that matter on a day to day scale?
Would it matter if we were in a computer simulation
(24:49):
in some ways? Now, if we don't know, it doesn't
matter at all. I mean, you know, if we if yeah,
you know, if if we had absolute proof of it,
then that would be that would be huge, That would
be shattering. Yeah, that would that would probably cause wars. Yeah,
for for all kinds of philosophies and religions and and
just interpersonal I mean, I mean within my own head,
I would probably need to spend a few days just
(25:11):
just a drooling because talking about my normal weak this
is what I do. Alright, Fine, Okay, so now I
know something different between me and Lauren learn a new stuff?
Um No, I I agree that that. And if we
don't know, there was no difference because the rules that
(25:31):
we have created for ourselves, but based on our cultures
and our society, those haven't changed. Like like if I
found out somehow, like if if knowledge were given to
me personally, everyone who's alive, that yes, in fact, you
live in a computer simulation. After I had that moment
where I I upped my drooling capacity for my daily
(25:53):
allowance of drooling, I would sit there and think, well, ultimately,
this doesn't change anything. I mean, it's my life still
has meaning within the context of the world I live in.
We still need to go get lunch, we still we
still get married, we still die, and I still I
still laugh, I still cry. I still find that Mitchell
and Web look to be absolutely hilarious, and I would
(26:13):
really like it if Netflix streaming would bring it back
for me. I mean, you know, all these sort of
things would still be true. So I don't think that
ultimately it changes anything unless it were something where we
could definitively prove it, and then that would change major things,
like essentially a lot of people would have to answer
(26:35):
some very tough questions in regards to philosophy and religion particularly,
but other things as well. But those two insticularly some
very nice philosophy departments would be more or less out
of jobs. Yeah, well, you know, actually you'd step away
from being out of a job anyway. Come on, we're
talking about philosophy here. Snap. This is coming from a
(26:56):
literature major Okay, I did you see that. This is
off topic, But there was a list I think of
the most unemployable majors came out. Philosophy I think was
in the top three. Yeah, literature was in the top ten.
Was it was it? I was created writing? Do you
have any creative writing? I think they didn't even put
(27:19):
in there. It's like, are you Neil Gaiman? No? Um, hey,
I'm an editor. I'm working in my field, folks. That's true,
that's true. I'm I don't know what my field would be.
So I was a medieval literaguy. I guess I'd be
teaching medieval literature if I were in my field. But
it's funny that I went into technology podcasting instead. So anyway, ultimately,
(27:40):
I don't think it would really matter. There's no way
of knowing currently one way or the other. So from
that perspective, thought exercise right. Yeah, hey there it's Job
of twenty nineteen again. Time to take another quick break
to thank our sponsor. So, ultimately, uh, it may or
(28:05):
may not matter if we're in a computer simulation. But
the other question to ask is how feasible is it?
How would it be possible to actually create a universe
on this what would it take to create a universe
on this scale? Right? And I mean because simulating something
is actually very much more complicated than just doing it. Um.
For for example, UM, I was reading one article that
(28:27):
that sided a number where if you were to take
a hard drive and you wanted to create a simulation
of that entire hard drive, you would have to simulate
every single adom, minute, record, its position, it's it's time scale,
everything about it. That would be you know, and and
and every single atomant and hard drive is maybe intend
to the power of twenty four atoms a couple a
(28:48):
bunch um and but in order to simulate it, you
would have to about have about a hundred bits of
information at least on each of those atoms. Right. So,
so when you think about that, if the world is
or this universe is a computer simulation, and that means
the simulation has to take into account every single object
within that world, whether that object is part of something
(29:09):
else or or an individual object, its position, it's uh,
if it's moving, its relationship to every other object within
that universe, how that objects behavior you know, however you
wanted to find that affects other objects. It's it's are
you are you going down to the atomic scale? Are
you going to the sub atomic scale? How how deep
(29:30):
does the rabbit hole go? Right? Right? Because because the
other problem here is that as we the human beings
who live right here and now, whether it's a computer
simulation or not, get more advanced, we get to learn
more about our environment and we get to look even
deeper than we could before. So like, let's go back
to the Stone Age, no microscopes, nothing like anything that
was beyond our ability to actually see it did not
(29:51):
exist in our minds. And then we got more and
more advanced, and we were able to suddenly start seeing
things that are tinier and tinier. And then we get
to the point where we've got electron tunneling microscopes and
we can move individual atoms into place and we can
see things that are really far away. That would mean
that the simulation would have to take into account the
ability for us to see well beyond what we first right,
(30:14):
So that's kind of incredible to think about that way,
Like how much power would you have to have to
generate this? Is it something that would be added over
time so that like you know, someone's someone's checking in
every now and like, oh they can see atoms now,
all right, well we got to build the next level down, guys,
or or like fire up that extra server. We're gonna
(30:35):
need it toe exactly like you know, it's some place
in this other larger universes North Carolina, there's another server
farm being built. Yeah, I mean it's it's It blows
the mind. It becomes one of these things where you,
as you start to think about it, you're like, would
that even be possible? Now, from a futurists argument, they
might say that in the future will be able to
(30:56):
do things like harness the power of black holes to
do computing, in which case the limitations of computing suddenly
seem like a non problem. Sure, even with quantum computers,
which they are already experimenting with, we've gotten up to
a sixteen sixteen cubits was the last reliable one, but
we've had there been larger ones. The problem with, of course,
(31:17):
quantum computers, is that as soon as you really observe
the state therein it collapses, that decoheres, and you end
up with a classical computer that is severely underpowered to
any other normal classical computer. But there are people who
are working on that problem. So yeah, I mean that
it may be that reaching such a level of computing
(31:38):
power is not possible, And in fact, that was part
of Bostrom's point was he was not necessarily saying we
live in a computer simulation. He was saying, there's another
way of looking at this. We can look at this
is saying trans human or post human in the sense
that the futurists have defined. It is an impossibility that
we will never get to a point where we have
computing power so vast as to be able to simulate
(31:59):
an entire universe down to the tiniest detail and have
it populated with intelligent creatures, right or even beyond the
feasibility of that, the idea that probably we're going to
kill all of each other way way before that. Actually
that that was another point. One of his points is
saying that it's way more likely than any any sort
of civilization reaching post human or trans human uh status
(32:24):
would end up wiping itself out in some sort of
cataclysmic event, whether on purpose or by accident. So we
could have, Hey, we have reached this level of superiority.
Now we are going to force our ideological values upon
everybody else. And everybody else says no, you're not, and
then we all kill each other or we say, hey
was this button? Do zombie outbreak? Those are the only
(32:47):
two possibilities. That's a lie, but no that Sposton's point
is that that could also be a case. It's really
a depressing case. But you could say humankind could hit
extinction before we hit posting. More fun to think about
that other thing. But overall, zombie I'll break. I agree,
walking dead man right down the street from me, that's
(33:10):
just to land on normal traffic. That's true. That's true.
It's it's pretty much it's the office before we get
to the coffee machine. It is. It gets ugly folks
at walkers, a lot of walkers. But yeah, that's I mean,
that's a good point, is that it you know, we
could we humankind could go extinct. That's one downside. We
(33:32):
might not ever be able to reach that level of
computational achievement in order to to ever simulate a universe.
That's depending upon whom you ask, also a downside. Or
we just might never know. So yeah, sometimes it leads
us to to explore the question further. Really, yeah, and
we've we've seen that explored in multiple venues, not just philosophy,
(33:55):
not just science, but entertainment all over the place. Yeah,
I mean going back to a lot of Shakespeare stories
we're talking about really, like, like, what's the difference between
dreams and reality? Midsummer Night's Dream is kind of a
big one. We are such stuff as dreams are made on.
Thank you, Jonathan. Oh, brave new world to have such people,
and it tis new to the that's the tempest right there.
(34:20):
That's that's our that's our literature major. Yeah here, Yeah, well,
you know I used the degree once in a while,
but more perhaps more modern things. A few a few
of you have probably seen the Matrix. I know, kunk
fo I keep quote it. Let's just keep going. I
got it. I got this Vanilla sky. Oh no, I
(34:41):
haven't seen that. Yeah, I can't do that. The documentary
or the Spanish version effort. Let's so host do you
speak Spanish? There we go. That was my total recall. Inception. Um,
that's that's that's every other short. Not not inception at all.
(35:03):
The inception one would be that's inception love love. These movies,
by the way, I'm making a lot of fun, but no,
these are good points. I mean you do you do
see this theme come up over and over again. Total
recall what is real, what is being imagined? Is the
entire story actually only happening in quad? That was his
name rights mine? Uh? Or inception? Are you still within
(35:26):
a dream? Are you one level down in a dream?
Are you two levels down? At the very end of
the movie is the is the main character is dream right? Which?
And of course that brings into questions something else. This
this is a good argument that falls within the same
sort of thing about being able to tell versus not
being able to tell. Uh. This is big spoilers for
(35:48):
Inception here, obviously, but one of the one of the
things they set up in an inception is that one
way you can tell if you are in a dream
is you have a totem that is specific to you
and behaves a certain way in the real world, but
in dream space it does not behave that way. Why
who knows, But it's convenient physics. The main character has
(36:10):
a top, so if he spins the top and the
top stops spinning, he knows he's in the real world.
If he's a layer down into a dream world and
he spins the top, it just keeps spinning, and that's
how he can look at a moment and know if
he's in a dream or if he's awake. Uh. There's
a problem with this though. If the whole thing is
within a dream, there's nothing to stop the dream world
(36:33):
from saying at a certain level, this top behaves a
different way. So, in other words, even at the top
topples over, which into the movie gives you this kind
of idea, is it gonna sp But even at the
top word to topple over, that would not answer the
question of whether or not you're in a dream, because
it only depends upon if that level is real or not.
(36:55):
And if it's not real, if that's just another point
of the dream, then all it means is that the
behaviors of off in one level of the dream behaved
differently than the others. And and similarly, if if our
if our future trans human selves decided to make it
so that we cannot detect whether or not we are
in a dream, then yeah, we're kind of stuck. Yeah,
the same thing with the matrix. The whole idea of
(37:16):
creating a universe that is not ideal, because if we
created an ideal universe, humans would go, this can't be real.
My life stinks. There's no way my life is this awesome.
And uh, and then we have a universe filled with
Jonathan's Tripling's and nobody wants that. Nobody, nobody wants, not
(37:37):
even Jonathan's. And look, I'm enough to deal with already.
But yeah, I know there's there's tons of examples. There's
there's a lot in science fiction, obviously, obviously especially since
since William Gibson in the entire cyberpunk thing became a thing,
you know, and that's that's sort of our our entrance
into into how did I just make up a word
in French? I don't think that that's an actual thing.
(37:58):
Um Ever, ever since cyberpunk happened, we've been we've been
looking at technology in in this fearful way, which we
always kind of do in horror films. I think that
fiction is a really terrific way for us to work
out our anxieties because we can go, like, well, in
this scary world, all of this terrible things. I think
all of these terrible things will happen. However, we're going
(38:20):
to have some attractive people in pleather who are going
to take care of it. For us, and that's or
die and die in numerous with Yeah, like you said, yeah,
it's science fiction and horror, the two genres I think
of the most when I think about this kind of mentality,
because I also think of things like other movies. Here's
another spoiler. Guys, if you're a Josh Ween fan, this
(38:40):
is a spoiler, So spoiler for Jos Weeden fans you
can skip ahead. But Cabin in the Woods another example
of like what is real and what is what is artifice? Yes,
what has been simulated, So there you go, same sort
of thing. Um. I don't think that's a huge spoiler
because that's revealed early in the movie. But still, um,
at any rate, these are you know, we've explored this
(39:03):
idea and multiple forms of media, whether it's entertainment or
also a multiple uh disciplines entertainment, science, philosophy, and I
don't think it's gonna go away anytime soon because obviously
there's no way for us to answer this question, not
not unless we detect that last structure. And even then
you're like, well, well then who created us? That could
(39:24):
mean anything that could mean and also it could be
like inception. We might be levels down from reality. It
could be that marble in the Men in Black. Yeah, yeah, then, yeah, exactly, yes,
we could be we could be a moat of dust
upon the nose of a dog in another universe, which
in itself is a moat of dust upon the nose
(39:44):
a another dog, and another universe, which in itself is
a moat of dust upon Douglas Adams pencil as he
giggles maniacally and writes another book, because in that universe
he's stilled around. I like that verse. I do too.
I want to, I want to I want to go
to their But yeah, it's a it's a really interesting question. So, um,
and if you've heard about this whole thing, because it
(40:06):
came up in conversations towards the end of two thousand twelve,
which is kind of interesting because the first uh, the
publication of Bostrom's work was in the early two think so.
But in this case, it was because the physicists had said, hey,
there might be a way for us to find out
maybe possibly probably not, but it could happen. U And
(40:28):
even then, we're going to have to get to a
level of technological uh, advancement that is beyond what we
have now. Before we could even hope to detect these
cosmic rays. And that wraps up this classic episode of
tech Stuff. Hope you guys liked that one. If you
have a suggestion for a future episode, send me an email.
The addresses text stuff at how stuff works dot com,
(40:49):
drop me a line on Facebook or Twitter handle for
both of those is text Stuff h s W. You
can also go to visit our website that's tech Stuff
podcast dot com. You'll find an archive of every episode
ever published. You will also find a link to our
online store, So if you've been itching to get a
text stuff mug or I bought this T shirt for
(41:12):
a princely some shirt, then you can do that. Those
are both there, along with some other designs. Go check
that out. Every purchase you make goes to help the show.
We greatly appreciate it, and I will talk to you
again really soon. Hext Stuff is a production of I
Heart Radio's How Stuff Works. For more podcasts from my
(41:34):
heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.